What the heck is love?

[Ariakas]

Originally Posted by Magdlyn

Try reading the book Sex at Dawn. It's an anthropological study, but an easy read, which demonstrates humans are meant to be non-monogamous! It's monogamy that goes against our wiring.

Variety, flirting with or shagging other people, makes our primary relationship more exciting too. It's a fallacy that humans are meant to be mono, and a shame that women need to barter their bodies for food and protection during their child bearing years.

If you listen to his interview with the poly weekly chick. He is actually debunking there being a natural norm.

Not debunking monogamy as a whole. The concept of there being one natural way is what he was trying to beat down. Well at least thats the impression I got listening to his interview. Haven't read the book however. Too much other reading material in my life at this point. Maybe someday.

To the OP. I think everyone views love differently. Some of us can create discernible lines in the sand as it were. It is very easy for me to have friends who I love, but I would never be poly with them, which too me insinuates an intimate relationship of some kind, while still being able to romantically love others. Apparently I am fairly unique in this. I don't confuse the two. Loving butterflies like I feel for my loves, comes with intimacy, sexuality, love and a "relationship"... those butterflies are what guide me.

At one point, early on, I had considered this question a lot to myself. Once I saw the clear line, for me, it was much easier and less confusing.

[MonoVCPHG]

Originally Posted by Ariakas

If you listen to his interview with the poly weekly chick. He is actually debunking there being a natural norm.

.

I think this is a very important point...I think the natural way is for there not to be a blanket structure or dynamic. The spectrum is very fluid. Some people are legitimately on one end, others on the other end, and plenty in the middle somewhere.
Thanks for mentioning that interview

[Ariakas]

Originally Posted by MonoVCPHG

I think this is a very important point...I think the natural way is for there not to be a blanket structure or dynamic. The spectrum is very fluid. Some people are legitimately on one end, others on the other end, and plenty in the middle somewhere.
Thanks for mentioning that interview

I am right there with you. I truly dislike people believing there is a single spectrum. I get offended for my parents.

Reminds me of people who are agnostic and atheist preaching their way as the one way to preachers. Serious irony. I think people would find themselves in a much better place if they realized there is no "one way"...

[Magdlyn]

Originally Posted by Ariakas

I am right there with you. I truly dislike people believing there is a single spectrum. I get offended for my parents.

Reminds me of people who are agnostic and atheist preaching their way as the one way to preachers. Serious irony. I think people would find themselves in a much better place if they realized there is no "one way"...

Originally Posted by MonoVCPHG

I think this is a very important point...I think the natural way is for there not to be a blanket structure or dynamic.

I'm just talking biology. Penis size and shape, female orgasmic vocalizing, "hidden" ovulation, size of bodies, current traditional foraging societies' sexual and parental practices, etc etc. The idea of NOT sharing food and bodies was considered rude and immoral.

Monogamy is "new" and imposed by agricultural hoarding and the idea of ownership, which didn't exist for 95% of human existence. Try not to take it personally, gentlemen...

[MonoVCPHG]

Originally Posted by Magdlyn

Monogamy is "new" and imposed by agricultural hoarding and the idea of ownership, which didn't exist for 95% of human existence. ...

Nothing personal at all. Monogamy and non-monogamy have existed in nature a lot longer than humans have existed. Look at the animal kingdom and broaden the resources drawn from. That's all I'm saying. Too many people read one book, don't question it becasue it fits their needs, and preach it as gospel.

[Ariakas]

Originally Posted by MonoVCPHG

Nothing personal at all. Monogamy and non-monogamy have existed in nature a lot longer than humans have existed. Look at the animal kingdom and broaden the resources drawn from. That's all I'm saying. Too many people read one book, don't question it becasue it fits their needs, and preach it as gospel.

*nods vigorously...*

The truth of science today will be the chance of it being false in the future. Science has an amazing history of being wrong once new(er) science has become better. Anthropologists make a living on those errors.

[redpepper]

There are other threads on "love" if you do a tag search.... just so you know

[MrFarFromRight]

Originally Posted by AnotherConfused

[...]Why should I feel so excited about a dance partner (I'm 40, he's 70, I mean really!) when I have a fulfilling and exciting sex life plus the love and attention of another wonderful man? [...] Maybe I've always thought of relationships being about meeting one's needs [...] If falling in love was only about fulfilling unmet needs, then it seems polyamorous relationships would carry the implication that the first partner was somehow falling short, and I'm quite sure that's not how most poly folks see things. I want some perspective. Why do I fall in love again and again? Why is it that the happier I am with my husband, the more I fall in love with others, and vice versa? It just doesn't make sense to me!

Hey! What have you got against older dancers? ("he's 70, I mean really!") OK, I can't claim to be 70...*

I want you to imagine yourself in a prison cell (luxurious fittings, comfortable, more like a 5* hotel, but...) with your husband. You can't get out, there's no television, no books, no contact with the outside world. All your meals are delivered (whatever you order, exquisite cooking) without you ever coming into contact with your prison guards. How long do you think that it would take you to become bored with your husband? How much longer to hate the sight of him?

It's a fallacy to believe that we can get all our needs from one other person. In some people's case, they can get all their most important emotional needs covered by one person. (And some try to... and are miserable.)

So you can dance with H... or L. But D's rather special at dancing, and there's this spark. You might not be poorer without it (or maybe you might not notice that you were poorer). But it's there, that spark. And it's so nice! Why not enjoy it? And maybe it's a spark and not a drink of clear water from a mountain spring. Maybe D and you would be a disaster in bed. Maybe he'd find sex-laden chats embarrassing - or tawdry. (I'm not saying he would - or doubting your potential fireworks in bed; I'm only saying maybe.)

So dance with the man! Enjoy your sexy chats with L! You're lucky to have 3 men who love you (each in his own way). (And no, of course I don't mean that you don't deserve such luck - or I wouldn't be on this web-site.)

To go back to your "unmet needs" idea: a cheese soufflé isn't "falling short" because it's not chocolate ice-cream. You're allowed to appreciate them both!

* But I did have - several years ago - a 20-something come up to me at a disco and ask: "My friends and I have been watching you dancing. How old are you?... If you don't mind me asking."
"I don't mind at all... I'm 50," I answered.
"Hats off to you, Man! That's fantastic!" he replied.

[AnotherConfused]

Oh, thanks everyone. I got stranded in someone else's exciting story here and didn't notice all the nice comments coming in.

MrFarFromRight, it wasn't "He's 70, I mean really," it was "I'm 40, he's 70, I mean really!" I don't have a problem with age, but I surprise myself sometimes with the age difference in my attractions. L is 66 (and I'm still 40). As a senior in high school I dated a freshman. I seem to be all over the map. A fluke that my husband is my age, I think. Older men are often the best dancers.

The story I keep reading here (probably because it says "New to Polyamory" right up there at the top) is the one where the happy monogamous couple is struggling when one of them finds or wants to find another partner, and then a roller coaster of pain and happiness and self-discovery ensues, as they grow into a "poly lifestyle." What I love to read about is all the communication barriers breaking down as everyone is forced to take a good look at themselves and their partners in the process.

Is my story less common, or just doesn't make it to these boards? My love for L opened a lot of channels of communication and self-discovery and I am extremely grateful for what I learned about myself and my husband in the process. (That process wouldn't likely have happened without the amazing support of you folks here. Thank you!) But ultimately I feel like sex is just one way to interact, and if my husband wants to reserve that one for just us, it's no big loss to my other relationships. Don't need to rub certain body parts together in order to have a connection, even if it would feel nice. With L I feel like we have a kind of intimacy that comes from just knowing that we would like to have sex, but we don't really need to do the actual body-part-rubbing. We talk about how memories and fantasies are both in our heads, so our sex life together is just fantasy not memory, and that's ok. Or we joke that it could have happened but some magic pill erased the memory so I wouldn't feel guilty towards H. In other words, having done it or not having done it doesn't make a difference in how we feel about each other.

What keeps me from feeling like I'm trapped in a 5 star prison with my husband is that he is amaaaazingly open to my doing the things I need to do to be happy. For example, this weekend another male friend (another crush from years ago, in fact, and another older man if anyone is counting) is driving me up to L's town so I can dance with L while this friend plays in the band. When I asked H how he'd feel about that plan he said, "Sure, and he (musician friend) should sleep here when you get back." Most weeks I go out dancing one or two nights without H, and he knows me so he knows I am out there loving the physical touch and attention from men. He's home babysitting our kids. I feel like it's this amazing gift (given many past relationship experiences) to be with a man who doesn't feel jealous, who truly wants to see me happy, who accepts that my heart just seems to open up easily, and just lets me be me. All he asks is that I save sex for him, and that's fine for me.

In some ways when I read things here I think we have just stalled on the poly path and might be denying ourselves a deeper understanding of ourselves and each other if we moved towards me sleeping with L. But my husband grew up in India, and I think it would just about rip him in half to try to change the way he thinks about sex and marriage. (He recently told me he decided to marry me the night we first had sex -his first sex ever, at 26.) I don't feel like we need to go there. Are we missing anything?

All right, so it's all a spectrum, and we find where we fit in, and if we're lucky our partner(s) fit in somewhere near us; is that the consensus here? And I feel so so so happy, being in three romantic relationships that all pour into one incredible sex life with my most devoted husband. AND I'm going dancing tonight!

[MrFarFromRight]

Originally Posted by AnotherConfused

Don't need to rub certain body parts together in order to have a connection, even if it would feel nice. [...] What keeps me from feeling like I'm trapped in a 5 star prison with my husband is that he is amaaaazingly open to my doing the things I need to do to be happy.

a) Hey! What kind of dancing do you do with D where you don't rub body parts together??? Whoops! My mistake: I just now noticed that word "certain". And I agree with you 100%! Sex is not the most important thing in a relationship. (Not even - as far as I'm concerned - in a sexual relationship.) Your husband is to be admired (especially given his upbringing in India) to be happy with your other kinds of intimacy / love with other men.

b) I didn't write that you were "trapped in a 5 star prison with [your] husband". I wrote: "I want you to imagine yourself in a prison cell..." I meant "imagine if you were..." I think that - in that case - you'd eventually discover that he doesn't (and can't) supply all of your needs for human contact. (I'm afraid that I'm rather a fan of extreme [and far-fetched] examples to illustrate the point I'm trying to make.)