Polyamory.com Forum  

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

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-24-2010, 02:58 PM
DharmaBum23 DharmaBum23 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 96
Talking If you are already whole..why date at all?

The below quote is from the "Learning Compersion" thread. I apologize if singling this quote out brings any discomfort on your part, SC. This is just the best expression of an idea that I have seen in pretty much 99.9% of poly exchanges and I have a question about. I have started a separate thread to keep from highjacking the original.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SchrodingersCat View Post
You'll be much better off if you look to yourself and only yourself to provide your happiness. If this relationship prevents you from making yourself happy, then you can decide to make yourself happy by leaving it. And if you find yourself a nice mono man, bonus!

Now, the title of the post pretty much sums up my question.

If you are already making yourself happy, why would you want to date someone else(in a poly or monogamous context)?

As can be seen over and over again(either reading this form or talking with friends that are monogamous) dating can very easily torpedo one's happiness if one is already happy.

It seems to me that there is a name for people who do not require(in any way, shape, form or fashion) another person in a romantic or sexual context for them to be happy. They are called monastics.

As a matter of fact, one of the few things that texts written by Buddhist and Christian monastics have in common is how they state that they are quite happy without romance or sex and how engaging with either would be like a bull running through the china shop that is their happiness.

I would propose that, unless one hopes to eventually get to the point where they no longer engage in relationships at all, it would be a much more reasonable goal to try to be content when not with another person with the idea that the reward for the insane risks that come with dating is a form of happiness that you cannot achieve while single.

So, what do you guys think?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 05-24-2010, 03:21 PM
Breathesgirl's Avatar
Breathesgirl Breathesgirl is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 834
Default

In my experience happiness begets happiness.

I'm quite happy being by myself on a regular basis. Sometimes I need human contact. I love my boyfriend and am quite happy with him. I'm even happier now that I have Possibility and his family in my life.

Quote:
“Laugh and the world laughs with you; Weep, and you weep alone; For the sad old earth must borrow its mirth, But has trouble enough of its own”

Ella Wheeler Wilcox
For me poly is about having needs met by one partner that can't be met by another. If I want a quiet movie night it's Possibility all the way. If I want conversation it's Breathes. There's more to it than this paragrapgh suggests but I can't quite put my finger on what, exactly, yet.

It also has something to do with compersion. When Breathes or Possibility are happy then I'm happy. When I'm happy they're happy.

Poly just makes the wholeness MORE whole, if that makes any sense, lol.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-24-2010, 03:24 PM
AutumnalTone AutumnalTone is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Kansas City Metro
Posts: 2,186
Default

I think that for a person to engage in any healthy, close relationship, there's a need for them to be whole and happy by themselves. That condition, in no fashion, precludes any romantic ties, as having a relationship only adds to an enjoyable life.

The converse, that of a situation where a person isn't whole and happy, simply means that getting involved with somebody else means dragging issues along that will work against the relationship.

Citing the experience of monastics isn't going to provide much of an insight on human behavior. Such folks are such a small percentage of the population that they really do stand as outliers in the data. THe human experience encompasses not only those with little affinity for close, intimate relationships (and the monastics may simply substitute religious experience for such), but the rest of the sweep of humanity and the variety of attachment needs. In the same fashion, one can't assume that all humans should be comfortable with upwards of two dozen strong romantic relationships simply because some people are.

As for dating torpedoing happiness? I don't think so. Dating can, perhaps, torpedo self-confidence. Happiness is a more fundamental state, in my experience, and I've been happy (!) to be able to tap into my pool of happiness even when most stressed by events not fully under my control.
__________________
When speaking of various forms of non-monogamy...it ain't poly if you're just fucking around.

While polyamory, open relationships, and swinging are all distinctly different approaches to non-monogamy, they are not mutually exlusive. Folks can, and some do, engage in more than one of them at a time--and it's all good.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 05-24-2010, 03:30 PM
NeonKaos NeonKaos is offline
Custodian
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: new england
Posts: 3,221
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DharmaBum23 View Post

If you are already making yourself happy, why would you want to date someone else(in a poly or monogamous context)?

[snip]

it would be a much more reasonable goal to try to be content when not with another person with the idea that the reward for the insane risks that come with dating is a form of happiness that you cannot achieve while single.
Yes, dating is a form of happiness that one cannot achieve by being single.

Yes, it's better to be happy with, in, and of oneself than to rely on others to do it for you.

Are you saying that these two things are somehow mutually exclusive? I do not see it that way. What people have been saying all along is:

Better relationships are to be had when all the people involved are fulfilled and complete as individuals who can stand on their own merit without requiring the relationship to define who they are.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 05-24-2010, 03:31 PM
AutumnalTone AutumnalTone is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Kansas City Metro
Posts: 2,186
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Breathesgirl View Post
Poly just makes the wholeness MORE whole, if that makes any sense, lol.
It makes perfect sense to me.

When one has all of the components necessary for a fulfilling life, being engaged in the activities that one holds most dear and expressing one's self freely, then one has a whole life. Adding more to that simply expands one's life.

My life is whole in that I know and like myself, in that I am involved in doing many activities that I love, in that I've dear friends to offer me company, and so forth. My life expanded when I got involved with my wife. It has expanded further when I've been involved with somebody else.

To use a food analogy--it's a whole pizza whether it's a small, medium, or large.
__________________
When speaking of various forms of non-monogamy...it ain't poly if you're just fucking around.

While polyamory, open relationships, and swinging are all distinctly different approaches to non-monogamy, they are not mutually exlusive. Folks can, and some do, engage in more than one of them at a time--and it's all good.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05-24-2010, 03:35 PM
DharmaBum23 DharmaBum23 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 96
Smile

Quote:
Originally Posted by AutumnalTone View Post


As for dating torpedoing happiness? I don't think so. Dating can, perhaps, torpedo self-confidence. Happiness is a more fundamental state, in my experience, and I've been happy (!) to be able to tap into my pool of happiness even when most stressed by events not fully under my control.
Question in regards to fundamental state? Does that mean that it is unchanging? If so, how does one obtain it if one doesn't already have it?

If it isn't unchanging, how can dating not threaten to diminish if not destroy it? A considerable amount of our music and literature in western civilization is devoted to how painful love and dating can be. If happiness as a state can be gained or lost, if anything would do it, I would put dating in the top 10.

I have to admit my bias here. I don't think that any state(happiness, sadness, whatever) is at all unchanging from moment to moment. From my experience, happiness can stay around for awhile, but eventually it will fade. Just like sadness.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 05-24-2010, 03:44 PM
NeonKaos NeonKaos is offline
Custodian
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: new england
Posts: 3,221
Default

"Fundamental" generally means "underlying" or "basic" and "unchanging" means "unchanging".

I suppose they could be used interchangeably depending on the context.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 05-24-2010, 04:06 PM
Ariakas Ariakas is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,868
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DharmaBum23 View Post
If it isn't unchanging, how can dating not threaten to diminish if not destroy it? A considerable amount of our music and literature in western civilization is devoted to how painful love and dating can be. If happiness as a state can be gained or lost, if anything would do it, I would put dating in the top 10.
Love for me is like an incrementally increasing algorythm...I could program it out it an if function

for (love=1 ; love<infinity; love++)
{
if self=heartbroken
love=love-1;
else if self=heartfelt
echo love;

do while love=0{
learn to love oneself;
}
}

While not absolutely correct for those programmers out there (I have to put this in since geeks inherently want to rip code haha) it tells a nice story

Love = 1, quite simply this is love for oneself. Ideally love can never equal 0 but in this equation it can

Everytime you find new love, you love bucket goes up by 1. Loosing a love, it goes down by one...maybe. I still love the people I was in love with before. I was heartbroken but love did just up and leave. The more love, the more the equation feels good.

In my world, one lost love should never destroy the entire bucket because the other loves are there to help and support you. And the more loves there are the better everything can feel.

For the sake of a constant, this is romatic love...my formula my rule

Wow that was cheesy.....
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 05-24-2010, 04:34 PM
MonoVCPHG's Avatar
MonoVCPHG MonoVCPHG is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: In Redpepper's heart
Posts: 4,742
Default

I believe in the idea of having a totally fulfilling life without the inclussion of romantic/physical intimacy. The older I get and the more experiences I accumulate are serving to reinforce this belief. That is not to say I want that LOL! I just see it as a very possible, comfortable and peaceful way to love. Maybe I'll be reincarnated as a monk
__________________

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

Poly Events All Over
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 05-24-2010, 05:09 PM
DharmaBum23 DharmaBum23 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 96
Smile

Quote:
Originally Posted by YGirl View Post
"Fundamental" generally means "underlying" or "basic" and "unchanging" means "unchanging".

I suppose they could be used interchangeably depending on the context.
Well, the way I interpreted the response(which may not be the way it was meant) was that whatever happens to someone in dating that it can't really affect one's happiness because happiness is a fundamental state.

And if one sticks to that idea(which may be me misunderstanding) then we get into some very sticky questions about happiness overall.

If happiness is that hard to affect in the negative sense(meaning once had it would be difficult to loose), it would be a little odd to say that it is somehow easier to be affected in the positive sense(meaning if it were lost or obscured it would be easy to get back).

This I don't think reflects the world in which we live where we have NRE(a temporary extreme rise in happiness), the mellow contentment of established relationships(a more sustainable increase in happiness), enough happy poly moments that they get a section on a podcast, etc. Of course, we also have the jealousy, anger, heartbreak, loss, etc.

What I'm saying is that if someone didn't need the NRE, contentment, happy moments(poly or otherwise), and so forth that one can gain from dating, it seems kindof odd that they would risk the extreme pain and heartache that can come with dating. Like crossing a gunfight to get your second cup of coffee.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
dating, happiness

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 11:27 AM.