But you love more than one child...

[jkelly]

Originally Posted by Erato

I've used it myself and always got the answer: "It's not the same [type of love]."

So... one of Franklin's essays uses the child/romantic partner analogy to explain why having a different romantic relationship doesn't make breakups less painful. I think the analogy works well there.

But I don't find it very helpful in explaining polyamory in general. The answer you got is... kind of complicated to address and also pretty common. On the one hand, of course it is a different kind of love! If it wasn't, it wouldn't be an analogy, it would be the thing itself. The response is sort of denying that analogies are ever useful.

On the other hand, the word "love" is doing a lot of work there, and the objection could be better phrased as "Because English uses the same word for both emotional dynamics, you're trying to sneak in an equivalence that I don't believe exists." I find that pretty reasonable.

Incidentally, I think that the whole neuropsych discussion is a blind alley. Unless we're positing some sort of Cartesian "ghost in the machine", it's all brain chemistry. I doubt that we want to give up on talking about lived experience entirely, so my brain chemistry is not your brain chemistry, and so on and so forth. Which is not to cast aspersions on the discipline, just on trying to draw conclusions about what is natural/normal and what is not in humans, or to draw conclusions about what we're capable of from what is natural/normal.

[Erato]

Incidentally, I think that the whole neuropsych discussion is a blind alley. Unless we're positing some sort of Cartesian "ghost in the machine", it's all brain chemistry.

Mm, I'm not trying to uncover mysteries of science or human nature, just interested in people's opinions.

We might all be just products of our physiology but that is not my personal belief.

I like your point about the word love. Maybe non-platonic love should have a different word not related to relationship type (i.e. "The love you have for a husband/wife"). Anyone feel like coining a phrase?

[Tonberry]

I feel that "friend love" and "romantic love" are different. And I don't have children, but the kind of "protective attachment" I have for other people's children or for my cats is also completely different.

I think you can have friendship + lust (fuckbuddies) or romantic love + lust (traditional relationships) or friendship without lust (regular friendship) or romantic love without lust (platonic love).

I think "protective attachment" is not usually associated with lust because it's too likely to cause harm and therefore conflicts too much. I mean, from a psychological point of view, I think that's why, because there is a hierarchy there, while the other two are with people on the same level. The protective one is about devoting yourself for another being who needs you to survive, and therefore you stay focused on that.

Having lust for more than one person doesn't seem to be a problem for most people. It seems that mono people simply aren't wired for romantic love towards more than one person at a time, while the other types aren't limited. Poly people don't have limits on either.

I would compare with loving more than one friend rather than compare with loving more than one child, partly because I don't have children on my own and don't feel comfortable using an example I can't completely relate to, and partly because people will be less freaked out by the implication of having sex with friends.

I think most people can tell the difference between a friend you have sex with and a partner you are in love with. They are different feelings for sure. Love isn't friendship + sex, there is something else there.
So I find it normal that they would stimulate the brain in different ways, yes.