Polyamory.com Forum  

Go Back   Polyamory.com Forum > Polyamory > General Poly Discussions

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 05-13-2010, 11:13 AM
Tonberry Tonberry is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,386
Default

personally I think "emotional monogamy" should just be called "monoamory", because "amory" is emotional.

I've always wondered why be put monogamy vs polyamory, when I feel they're on different scales. Monogamy means one spouse, in my opinion it means you stay with that one person and don't cheat on them regardless on whether you love them or not. I think you can be monoamorous in a poly relationship or polyamorous in a mono relationship. To me "monogamous" applies to the relationship, what applies to the people is "monoamorous".

Utlimately though I think what matters is knowing what you mean, not making sure we use a word everyone agrees with or that everyone uses the word we want them to use. Really, I prefer just shoertening it to "mono" and "poly" because that "solves" the problem or whether it's followed with "amory/amorous" (love) or "gamy/gamous" (partner).
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 05-13-2010, 11:34 AM
capricorny capricorny is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Sub-ultima Thule
Posts: 65
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ariakas View Post
Why?...symmetry doesn't apply to everyones poly. There are poly relationships that do work without symmetry...I think its a bit of a utopia to have that, it can happen, but doesn't always.



I still don't get what you mean by this. I think you are complicating it to much. You either love someone, or don't. (I may simply be misunderstanding your point)

I can have sex with someone and not love them
I can love someone and not have sex with them
I can have sex with someone and love someone

2 of the 3 are poly. Separating it into its tiny loving parts begins to separate those people that have the happy hippy feeling of poly, in loving everyone, or separates those swingers who have fallen in love with someone they have were just trying to have sex with.
"Symmetry" surely doesn't apply to everyones' everyday poly, and it should not (BDSM for example). But here we talk about foundations, and if we exclude it from the foundations, I think we head into dangerous territory.

What I mean, is that from the foundational principles we could not say Tonberry's husband is necessarily not poly. That was my point, and no hair-splitting. People who are sexually and emotionally monogamous, may well be poly by the principles. And people who really dont want to be poly, may find themselves struggling to avoid it.. your swingers fallen in love example

I wonder if we may have an example of "if you are not against me, you are with me" here.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 05-13-2010, 11:49 AM
capricorny capricorny is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Sub-ultima Thule
Posts: 65
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tonberry View Post
personally I think "emotional monogamy" should just be called "monoamory", because "amory" is emotional.

I've always wondered why be put monogamy vs polyamory, when I feel they're on different scales. Monogamy means one spouse, in my opinion it means you stay with that one person and don't cheat on them regardless on whether you love them or not. I think you can be monoamorous in a poly relationship or polyamorous in a mono relationship. To me "monogamous" applies to the relationship, what applies to the people is "monoamorous".

Utlimately though I think what matters is knowing what you mean, not making sure we use a word everyone agrees with or that everyone uses the word we want them to use. Really, I prefer just shoertening it to "mono" and "poly" because that "solves" the problem or whether it's followed with "amory/amorous" (love) or "gamy/gamous" (partner).
This makes a lot of sense to me. Only thing I wonder about is the "amory" is emotional part. If we try to clear this language hybrid of Greek and Roman and look for what "polyamory" might become in pure Greek, I think we have problems. We could use eros or agape (at least), but neither fits completely. We need both, really. And it is the agape part that does not necessarily imply that much emotionality.

So, while a very good approximation, maybe it's not quite there. But for most everyday use, clearly yes.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 05-13-2010, 02:59 PM
Ariakas Ariakas is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,872
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by idealist View Post
Would you say that you are more "situational poly" rather than "fundementally poly" Because I do see friends as potential future lovers. I see potential future lovers everywhere. But in actuallity, very few of the people I have dated in the last 5 years have become lovers. So- I am not neccesarily situational poly, but poly by nature and just waiting for the right people to show up.
Are you asking if I leave myself open to a friend for potential love? Yes, I believe I do. Do I love some of my friends. yes 1 or 2. hmmmm...I suppose do to my experience with friends V lovers, I am not hopeful that there is a possibility of changeover.

Like I have said on here before, I have never once had a friend turn into a lover. My partners have always been the explosive fiery kind
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 05-13-2010, 03:27 PM
MonoVCPHG's Avatar
MonoVCPHG MonoVCPHG is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: In Redpepper's heart
Posts: 4,742
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by capricorny View Post
You are insisting on the sexual component of love here. Most of us aren't, including Ariakas


You are exactly right! This is my internal belief and perspective on the idea of intimate love. I own this within myself and although it is shared with others I know, I recognize and respect that this is not the case for others as well.

The connection between intimate love and sex is certainly is up to each individual to determine for themsleves. Freedom of thought and belief

The other quote in your comment was not my own but it looks like you think it was. It was Ariakas I believe and so I will not comment.

What is the difference between Polyamory and monogamy to me? First I don't care about the involvement of community and activism when I think about these concepts with respect to how people love a "lover". I don't think about them in terms of social influences or how people choose to act. I don't think about them in context of world concepts or dynamic shifts in human evolution. I deal directly with how a person loves someoen as a "lover".

Polyamory - The disposition to intimately love multiple people simultaneously. There is no need to actually be in a muiltiple partner relationship to prove it, nor is it a requirement to be able to logistically balance lives to do it successfully. Simply the ability.

Monogamy - The disposition to intimately love one person at a time. Intimate connections are not maintained with multiple partners simultaneously. Being monogamous does not require the people loved to love the same way back. It is a reflection of how one individual loves regardless of how the recipient of that love returns it.

People can act act any way they choose. But I personally believe people are predispostioned to be certain ways.
__________________

Playing the Game of Life with Monopoly rules.
Monogamy might just be in my genes

Poly Events All Over
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 05-13-2010, 03:38 PM
Ariakas Ariakas is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,872
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MonoVCPHG View Post
The other quote in your comment was not my own but it looks like you think it was. It was Ariakas I believe and so I will not comment.
Ya that confused me too...I thought I was being called mono ...

I think...and I am guessing...Cap was using it as reference to further the discussion with you. Using it as a debate reference in his discussion with you...
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 05-13-2010, 03:41 PM
Ariakas Ariakas is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,872
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by capricorny View Post
"Symmetry" surely doesn't apply to everyones' everyday poly, and it should not (BDSM for example). But here we talk about foundations, and if we exclude it from the foundations, I think we head into dangerous territory.
Again...I think this is more a potential "helper" instead of a foundation...

think of it like building a house. You build your foundation...then throw up supporting beams...walls. windows etc. (I am not a builder so no one bite my head off about the ACTUAL methods )

Symmetry, while healthy and good, may be the south wall in a building where they don't need a south wall I would not apply that to the foundation which is 100% required for a building.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 05-13-2010, 04:03 PM
capricorny capricorny is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Sub-ultima Thule
Posts: 65
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MonoVCPHG View Post

Polyamory - The disposition to intimately love multiple people simultaneously. There is no need to actually be in a muiltiple partner relationship to prove it, nor is it a requirement to be able to logistically balance lives to do it successfully. Simply the ability.

Monogamy - The disposition to intimately love one person at a time. Intimate connections are not maintained with multiple partners simultaneously. Being monogamous does not require the people loved to love the same way back. It is a reflection of how one individual loves regardless of how the recipient of that love returns it.
When you explicitly don't identify as polyamorous yourself, I can't really understand why you keep on insisting on definitions of polyamory that quite a few polyamourous people, me including, think are plain wrong.

That "intimate loving" of yours is an option, not a necessity. Loving is a necessity for polyamory, and what that will eventually mean, is something that has to emerge in each situation. It may not always be what you expect, for many effects may come into play. As Heraclitus said: "Whatever our desire wishes to get, it purchases at the cost of soul."

I was citing Ariakas explicitly to show that you had misinterpreted him.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 05-13-2010, 04:16 PM
CielDuMatin's Avatar
CielDuMatin CielDuMatin is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Upstate New York, USA
Posts: 1,456
Default

One of the things I have learned in my time chatting with other poly people, is just when you think you have found a set of common denominators as to "what makes it work", someone comes along that blows that out of the water.

I have known poly work between people that are horrible communicators - how? Because they were pretty much on the same page.

I started believing it was about openness - sharing, etc, but then there are those that do the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and are making it work for them.

I went around and around on how much it was about sex, and met several sex-free loving relationships that are working very well.

My conclusion? The only universal rule for being poly is that you are capable of loving more than one person at a time, and don't want to cheat on your partners.

I think that trying to come up with any universal set of rules or foundations beyond that is going to be very very difficult. There are going to be commonly-held ones (like the openness, honesty, communications and stuff like that) but there are always going to be exceptions which work well for them.

...and it doesn't really matter, in my opinion, because this whole thing is about the individual finding out what it is like to work in interdependent ways with their partners, whatever way that happens to be.

So get ideas from those doing it, but use them as fertilizer to grow your own plants, rather than trying to build your garden just like someone else's.... I think that the discussion here shows well what comes of trying to "nail it down", like jello to the wall...
__________________
Please check out The Birdcage - an open, friendly Polyamory forum for all parts of New York State
http://www.thebirdcage.org/

"Listen, or your tongue will make you deaf." - Native American Proverb

Last edited by CielDuMatin; 05-13-2010 at 04:24 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 05-13-2010, 04:21 PM
capricorny capricorny is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Sub-ultima Thule
Posts: 65
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ariakas View Post
Again...I think this is more a potential "helper" instead of a foundation...

think of it like building a house. You build your foundation...then throw up supporting beams...walls. windows etc. (I am not a builder so no one bite my head off about the ACTUAL methods )

Symmetry, while healthy and good, may be the south wall in a building where they don't need a south wall I would not apply that to the foundation which is 100% required for a building.
What about classical double standards, like one-dick policy? Leaving symmetry out of the foundations would allow such things to be basic forms of polyamory, rather than arrangements agreed upon by equal partners.

I guess that we both agree that two (or more) persons can only join a polyamorous relationship on equal footings. But none of your other criteria necessarily imply this. That's why I think it belongs to the foundations. And, as a prerequisite, only there - any actual relationship must reflect the needs of the individuals involved, which may differ a lot. So, while symmetry in an actual relationship may make for better dynamics, it may not be attainable. Nor desirable. And if it is not in the foundation either, it may result in permanent, non-intended skewness of the whole contruction.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
best practices, boundaries, foundations, guidelines, mono, mono/poly, monogamous, monogamy, principles, rules

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:57 AM.