Polyamory.com Forum  

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

Notices

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 07-23-2011, 01:53 AM
nycindie's Avatar
nycindie nycindie is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The Big Apple
Posts: 7,421
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by serialmonogamist View Post
. . . I don't see myself dating more than one person at a time, but I also don't see myself committing again to a life long relationship the way I did when I was married. So I guess it means I'm poly but can't handle more than one relationship at a time.
If you can't see yourself able to have more than one relationship at a time, how the hell would you even remotely call that poly?
__________________
The world opens up... when you do.

"Oh, oh, can't you see? Love is the drug for me." ~Bryan Ferry
"Love and the self are one . . ." ~Leo Buscaglia "

An excellent blog post on hierarchy in polyamory:
solopoly.net/2014/10/31/why-im-not-a-secondary-partner-the-short-version/
  #12  
Old 07-23-2011, 04:04 AM
dragonflysky dragonflysky is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 211
Default

In my personal situation, what I mean is that I have been married and divorced and now I don't see myself dating more than one person at a time, but I also don't see myself committing again to a life long relationship the way I did when I was married. So I guess it means I'm poly but can't handle more than one relationship at a time.


Serial......Polyamory doesn't necessarily mean that someone is making a life long commitment to multiple partners simultaneously. One could have a Primary, or more than one Primary, lifelong partner(s), a Primary or more than one Primary with whom there's not a lifelong commitment, a Secondary partner with or without a long term commitment, etc., etc. Are you trying to say that you could see yourself loving more than one person at a time but not wanting the complications that can go with carrying on loving relationships with different partners simultaneously??

Last edited by dragonflysky; 07-23-2011 at 04:08 AM.
  #13  
Old 07-23-2011, 05:06 AM
nycindie's Avatar
nycindie nycindie is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The Big Apple
Posts: 7,421
Default

Oh, wait a minute. I just re-read Serial's post...

I think what he means is that since he feels he can't make a life-long commitment, he must be poly -- except for only being able to do that with one person at a time. If I am reading that correctly, it means that he has made the erroneous assumption that polyamorous relationships cannot be life-long.
Quote:
Originally Posted by serialmonogamist View Post
I don't see myself dating more than one person at a time, but I also don't see myself committing again to a life long relationship the way I did when I was married. So I guess it means I'm poly but can't handle more than one relationship at a time.
Yeah, and here he seems to say that a life-long partnership automatically means monogamy, as if polyamory could never be that:
Quote:
Originally Posted by serialmonogamist View Post
. . . when you commit to a potentially lifelong (monogamous) relationship . . .
Do I have this right, Serialmonogamist?
__________________
The world opens up... when you do.

"Oh, oh, can't you see? Love is the drug for me." ~Bryan Ferry
"Love and the self are one . . ." ~Leo Buscaglia "

An excellent blog post on hierarchy in polyamory:
solopoly.net/2014/10/31/why-im-not-a-secondary-partner-the-short-version/

Last edited by nycindie; 07-23-2011 at 05:12 AM.
  #14  
Old 07-23-2011, 07:38 PM
serialmonogamist serialmonogamist is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 164
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nycindie View Post
Oh, wait a minute. I just re-read Serial's post...

I think what he means is that since he feels he can't make a life-long commitment, he must be poly -- except for only being able to do that with one person at a time. If I am reading that correctly, it means that he has made the erroneous assumption that polyamorous relationships cannot be life-long.
Yeah, and here he seems to say that a life-long partnership automatically means monogamy, as if polyamory could never be that:Do I have this right, Serialmonogamist?
Why does the multiquote function reverse the order of the posts? No matter, you are getting closer. I wouldn't say that I can't make a lifelong commitment, because I did that when I was married by having kids. I do think I'm poly, though, in the sense that I have the potential to love more than one person in a lifetime. However, I am monogamous in the sense that I can't deal with the complexity of more than one relationship at a time. It's really a problem because I really don't like having to worry about getting into a relationship and then losing it at some point, but I'd also be dishonest to say that I couldn't see myself with more than one person for the rest of my life.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonflysky View Post
Serial......Polyamory doesn't necessarily mean that someone is making a life long commitment to multiple partners simultaneously. One could have a Primary, or more than one Primary, lifelong partner(s), a Primary or more than one Primary with whom there's not a lifelong commitment, a Secondary partner with or without a long term commitment, etc., etc. Are you trying to say that you could see yourself loving more than one person at a time but not wanting the complications that can go with carrying on loving relationships with different partners simultaneously??
I know that polyamory and (lifelong) commitment are completely independent concepts. Yes, I don't just think that I, personally, am capable of (potentially) loving more than one person at a time, but I believe it is universally possible (sorry to those who find universalizing pushy). I once had a gf start breaking up with me because she was having feelings for an old bf and I told her it was ok b/c it is possible to have feelings for more than one person at the same time. She said that's not how she works, but I couldn't believe that suddenly all her feelings for me would end because she felt something for the other guy. I think fear of "slut-stigma" causes people to block out love for more than one person at a time, when they do. I'm not a person who naturally reacts to stigmas and taboos, so I'm maybe somewhat more aware of their effects. Anyway, hope this clarifies my position - and thanks for your interest.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nycindie View Post
If you can't see yourself able to have more than one relationship at a time, how the hell would you even remotely call that poly?
How (the hell) can someone call themselves mono if they can feel attracted to and date more than one person in their life?
  #15  
Old 07-23-2011, 08:35 PM
nycindie's Avatar
nycindie nycindie is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The Big Apple
Posts: 7,421
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by serialmonogamist View Post
I wouldn't say that I can't make a lifelong commitment, because I did that when I was married by having kids.
Okay, whatever -- whether you can't, won't, or don't want to wasn't the point of my sentence. It was asking whether you think of monogamy as a life-long thing and polyamory as short-term or temporary.

Quote:
Originally Posted by serialmonogamist View Post
I do think I'm poly, though, in the sense that I have the potential to love more than one person in a lifetime.
But that's not poly, really. Polyamory is about cultivating multiple loving relationships and being involved with more than one at a time. You can have had numerous relationships in a lifetime and still be monogamous -- one does not equal the other.

Quote:
Originally Posted by serialmonogamist View Post
How (the hell) can someone call themselves mono if they can feel attracted to and date more than one person in their life?
If you think of monogamy and polyamory as structures or blueprints for relationships and not (or not just) a personality trait, you would see it is possible!

To clarify, I am simply a human being who can choose to be monogamous or polyamorous in my relationships. I have always been monogamous (meaning that was my choice, not my nature) until last year at the age of 50, when I chose to explore polyamory. Does that mean that in my 35-some-odd years of dating and being single -- and MONOGAMOUS -- that I was only with one person and expected it to last forever? No, of course not. I was monogamous in all of my committed relationships. It's simply a way of relating, it's not a contract for the rest of your life.
__________________
The world opens up... when you do.

"Oh, oh, can't you see? Love is the drug for me." ~Bryan Ferry
"Love and the self are one . . ." ~Leo Buscaglia "

An excellent blog post on hierarchy in polyamory:
solopoly.net/2014/10/31/why-im-not-a-secondary-partner-the-short-version/

Last edited by nycindie; 07-23-2011 at 08:49 PM.
  #16  
Old 07-23-2011, 08:48 PM
serialmonogamist serialmonogamist is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 164
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nycindie View Post
Okay, whatever -- whether you can't, won't, or don't want to wasn't the point of my sentence. It was asking whether you think of monogamy as a life-long thing and polyamory as short-term or temporary.
I think of them as independent concepts. I think you could have multiple lifelong commitments, yes. Why would you assume that because you have more than one lover that they have to be temporary?

Quote:
But that's not poly, really. Polyamory is about cultivating multiple loving relationships and being involved with more than one at a time. You can have had numerous relationships in a lifetime and still be monogamous -- one does not equal the other.
My view is that serial monogamy is a type of polyamory where you exclude past and future lovers from your life while being with one at a time.

Quote:
If you think of monogamy and polyamory is merely structures or blueprints for relationships and not (or not just) a personality trait, you would see it is possible!
I'm not sure what you mean here.

Quote:
To clarify, I am simply a human being who can choose to be monogamous or polyamorous in my relationships. I have always been monogamous (meaning that was my choice, not my nature) until last year at the age of 50, when I chose to explore polyamory. Does that mean that in my 35-some-odd years of dating and being single -- and MONOGAMOUS -- that I was only with one person and expected it to last forever? No, of course not. I was monogamous in all of my committed relationships. It's simply a way of relating, it's not a contract for the rest of your life.
I think of true monogamy as meaning you can't ever stop loving someone enough to find another person. This is something I've been dealing with through my divorce. It is easy to say that someone isn't/wasn't your soulmate because things didn't work out but what do you call positive memories where you find the same person who loved them deeply still living inside your heart? I don't think that person is ever going to die so am I really monogamous considering I am lonely and would like a new relationship? How do you think it works when you try to have a monogamous relationship while being honest that you will always worship the memories of being with your ex (even though the relationship is long gone)? I'm sure many people (mono and poly) would call it unhealthy not to want to dispose of the parts of your heart rooted in past relationships, but if it isn't (and I don't believe it is), then polyamory would be a way to have a new relationship without disavowing the broken one.

Last edited by serialmonogamist; 07-23-2011 at 08:56 PM.
  #17  
Old 07-23-2011, 09:22 PM
neegoola's Avatar
neegoola neegoola is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: italy
Posts: 89
Default

while ideas (mine first of all) are getting clearer and clearer through important posts going on here, i felt in jumping in to add:

there are some couples (don't know what about any poly, actually) who begin a marriage/union fixing a determined period to their relationship; for instance, one year plus one day: on that day they will "decide" if to renew their union or to split. every couple chose the length of their first/sec/third/etc. steps relationship.
do you think you would make someone happier with this?
can you imagine some results?
  #18  
Old 07-23-2011, 09:39 PM
nycindie's Avatar
nycindie nycindie is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The Big Apple
Posts: 7,421
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by serialmonogamist View Post
Why would you assume that because you have more than one lover that they have to be temporary?
I don't. I thought you did, and so I was asking you. It seemed that you equate monogamy with life-long and polyamory with... not that. Here is where I tried to figure you out on that point:
Quote:
Originally Posted by nycindie View Post
. . . here he seems to say that a life-long partnership automatically means monogamy, as if polyamory could never be that:
Quote:
Originally Posted by serialmonogamist View Post
. . . when you commit to a potentially lifelong (monogamous) relationship
It still seems to me that you see monogamy as something that is meant to last forever.

Quote:
Originally Posted by serialmonogamist View Post
My view is that serial monogamy is a type of polyamory where you exclude past and future lovers from your life while being with one at a time.
Well, that's interesting. Never would have thought of it that way. But then you wouldn't need to learn about managing poly relationships, befriending metamours, sharing time, households, responsibilities, and so on, as many of the poly peeps here do. You'd really just be living monogamously and having memories and past experiences of former relationships to draw on -- nothing new there. I really don't think that's a very useful way of looking at sequences of monogamous relationships. What good does it do you to think of it as polyamory?

Quote:
Originally Posted by nycindie View Post
If you think of monogamy and polyamory as structures or blueprints for relationships and not (or not just) a personality trait, you would see it is possible!
Quote:
Originally Posted by serialmonogamist View Post
I'm not sure what you mean here.
I was offering another perspective. What I meant was this: relationships can be either monogamous or polyamorous. Those are structures or mating practices. If you look at it that way, instead of whether or not someone identifies as poly or mono, you can see that we can choose to be (in the sense of how we live) either one, in numerous relationships during the course of a lifetime. The practices within a relationship, whether it is two people devoted only to each other or any number of people in a poly tangle, does not determine whether it lasts forever or not. It is simply a reflection of desires and parameters for a certain type of commitment. This was my answer to your question about how someone could call themselves mono "if they can feel attracted to and date more than one person in their life." You know, if I meet someone, enter into a relationship with them and we choose monogamy as the structure for our relationship, it doesn't mean we are committing to be together for a lifetime (unless, of course, it reaches that point and we do make that commitment). But monogamy doesn't require that. It's a just a structure for a relationship of two people to be only involved with each other and no one else. Doesn't mean there can't be other mono relationships to follow.

(I don't believe people inherently are or are not polyamorous or monogamous, although I do believe we can have certain experiences, cultural influences, and/or levels of open-mindedness or rebellion that would sway a person toward one practice or another)

Quote:
Originally Posted by serialmonogamist View Post
I think of true monogamy as meaning you can't ever stop loving someone enough to find another person. . . . what do you call positive memories where you find the same person who loved them deeply still living inside your heart? I don't think that person is ever going to die so am I really monogamous considering I am lonely and would like a new relationship?
I don't believe in soulmates. I think of love as an endless pool within myself. When I love someone, it means I have let them get close enough to me to touch that pool of love I have inside me. Some people immerse themselves more deeply than others, but once they've reached it, it cannot be undone. But people change, move on, die, etc., and relationships end. And many loving relationships are just meant to bless my life for a finite period of time. The path to my heart will always be there, although with time it will eventually be overgrown with thickets and weeds. Then someday someone else will blaze another path to my heart. All the people I've loved, whether platonic friends, family, or those with whom I've been sexually intimate, all accessed the very same pool and each has made their own trail to it (and therefore, to the center of me). How sad if it wasn't that way. The love I feel, the depth to which I feel it, and the imprint they have made on me have nothing whatsoever to do with whether I choose to have monogamous or polyamorous relationships in my life.
__________________
The world opens up... when you do.

"Oh, oh, can't you see? Love is the drug for me." ~Bryan Ferry
"Love and the self are one . . ." ~Leo Buscaglia "

An excellent blog post on hierarchy in polyamory:
solopoly.net/2014/10/31/why-im-not-a-secondary-partner-the-short-version/

Last edited by nycindie; 07-23-2011 at 09:42 PM.
  #19  
Old 07-23-2011, 11:37 PM
sage's Avatar
sage sage is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 625
Default

This is all so confusing that I can't even really make sense of it.

Serial what is your current relationship status?

You seem to be completely unaware that when people are in a loving relationship together feelings and connections develop to a point where you just can't walk away because someone better comes along. This is why women would be extremely cautious about getting into a relationship with you. Even I (who has a love/hate relationships with polyamory) can see that polyamory works because new love can be explored without having to destroy an existing loving relationship.
  #20  
Old 07-24-2011, 12:15 AM
GroundedSpirit GroundedSpirit is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: New England USA
Posts: 1,231
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by serialmonogamist View Post
...........
I think of true monogamy as meaning you can't ever stop loving someone enough to find another person.
Hey Serial,

I clipped this small snippet but there's many others equally suitable strewn throughout your posts on this thread.

What I'm getting over here is that you may be seriously confused about the meanings/implications of monogamy, polyamory - and maybe even love !
Or insisting on creating your own definitions ?

I think this is why a number of readers are struggling to understand you and trying to explain some basics to you.

Relationships are not defined/classified by their duration.
I'm not sure "love" ever "stops" ,but evolves. When we've truly loved someone there's a part of them - that piece we did love - that we'll always love. But like we say in so many other places and topics - life (or people) is/are not static. We can well 'love' someone - i.e. wish them nothing but happiness and success in their life and contribute to that when we can, and still not be able to live with them or tolerate negative aspects they've taken on.

You seem to state that you are incapable of literally 'seeing' another person when you ...........'love' ? one person. You become blind to the external world of love potential. i.e. the very definition of a monogamous person.

That's perfectly fine. But not to be confused with polyamory.

GS
Closed Thread

Tags
arguing, confusion, definitions, divorce

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 02:25 AM.