life long commitment

Status
Not open for further replies.
I mean, you're almost able to have a coherent discussion, but frankly, you do not make much sense and I have this mental image of you sitting there with a dictionary, thesaurus, and a bible, opening each one to a random page and pointing at some words, and coming on here and using that as a sort of John Cage performance-art score. There is already a Word Association Game thread. You should go play that.
Ouch! Yes, I philosophize. I am not lost in conceptual abstractions though. What you should realize is that everyday people who think of themselves as very practical and down-to-earth are filtering their reality through language and status. I'm trying to break through that. Don't cling to sub-critical language usage and blame people who are trying to raise consciousness about the gap between language and reality. Also, don't fear dictionaries, thesauri, and bibles, and other theological/philosophical writings. They can all be helpful in the journey to understand existence.
 
If there is a car or something that says it's a one-person car (bear with me) it doesn't mean that once someone has used it nobody else can. It means it can accomodate one person at a time. It's a "serial one-person car", sure, but people just shorten it to "one-person car" because being for one person and one person only, forever, is not a normal feature, and you specify what's not the norm, not what is the norm.
And it certainly doesn't become a "multi-passenger" vehicle because it can accomodate more than one person (but not at the same time).
 
. . . when monogamous people enter into a relationship, it is often with the hope that "this is the one," meaning they don't intend to break up.
Not necessarily. They just enter the relationship knowing they will only be involved with and devote their attention to only one person. Most people have the intelligence not to assume that whatever relationship they enter will last indefinitely. Not every mono "hopes they've found The One" right from the beginning of a relationship. Yes, even mono people enjoy dating without having any expectation for a commitment that it will last a lifetime. Length of time or seriousness of commitment are not automatic hallmarks of monogamous relationships. Monogamous relationships simply mean that there are only two people involved.
 
One of the moderators must have split it off the other thread. It wasnt me though. I dont think it was necessary to split it because the original thread was the same, AND it was started by SM. So it isn't like SM hijacked the thread...

I think i'll go ahead and merge them back together.
 
If there is a car or something that says it's a one-person car (bear with me) it doesn't mean that once someone has used it nobody else can. It means it can accomodate one person at a time. It's a "serial one-person car", sure, but people just shorten it to "one-person car" because being for one person and one person only, forever, is not a normal feature, and you specify what's not the norm, not what is the norm.
And it certainly doesn't become a "multi-passenger" vehicle because it can accomodate more than one person (but not at the same time).

If you look at your relationships with people like turns driving a car, that's your business but a car doesn't have emotions, memories, or a desire to prove it's status as a one-person car or multi-passenger car.

I'm sorry but I stand by my perspective that serial monogamy is a form of polygamy. I don't think that relationships end just because people want them to be over. I think people goad each other into letting go until they agree to and then ignore the fact that the other person was goaded. People just want to control their exes to avoid things like stalking so they have to continuously insist that "it's over." Nowhere is there a law of the universe that says that when you want to stop seeing your partner, they will stop wanting to see you or that when you do both stop seeing each other, you'll stop loving or missing each other. Even when people do stop loving and missing each other, it could just be because the pain of doing so is something they don't wish to continue bearing.

Honestly, I don't think the pain of a lost relationship goes away. I think you just get so used to your heart being broken that you are desensitized to it and thus move on out of boredom. This is why people can go years without wanting a past relationship back and suddenly have something trigger the desire for that person. They repress the relationship believing that it's over only to discover later that it wasn't. You can say that there's a difference between it truly being over and just believing that it's over, but there's ultimately no real difference, imo. In both cases, you just suppress the feelings you once had for your partner to a level where it feels "over" and the question is whether those suppressed feelings will ever resurface or not. You could have been completely abused, etc. and it would still be possible for you to one day remember the good things about the person that you once loved about them, miss them, and want them back. Obviously most people who broke from an abusive relationship vehemently eschew the prospect of wanting their abuser back, but that is just them maintaining a memory of the abuse to generate sufficient fear/anger to prompt continuing avoidance. I know from personal experience that given enough motivation to return to a previous relationship, people do it and often re-invigorate the same old dysfunctional relationship patterns. That could be viewed as an opportunity to resolve what was never resolved, but it is rarely viewed that way because of a dominant culture of avoidance, especially where abuse is concerned. I know of almost no one who advocates reconciliation with an abusive partner. It is a culture of unforgiveness and irreconcilability.
 
Last edited:
Missing someone and wishing they hadn't dumped you is not the same thing as a polyamorous relationship.

It sounds like you've been dumped a lot. Has anyone ever had to take out a restraining order against you for stalking and/or harassment? Because your last post sounds rather creepy, and if one of my exes talked like that, i'd seriously think about adopting a large canine beast to keep me company.
 
Missing someone and wishing they hadn't dumped you is not the same thing as a polyamorous relationship.
Do you see how you are pushing in the direction of exclusive definitions? Do you notice how the will to exclusion is strong in relationship culture generally as a result of a long history of monogamous tradition?

It sounds like you've been dumped a lot. Has anyone ever had to take out a restraining order against you for stalking and/or harassment? Because your last post sounds rather creepy, and if one of my exes talked like that, i'd seriously think about adopting a large canine beast to keep me company.
Here's the general cultural tactic you're expressing here: First you challenge me to distance myself from the status of "loser," i.e. "someone who has been dumped a lot." Then, you suggest that if I wouldn't accept the exclusion that makes me a "loser," I'm creepy, a stalker, harasser, etc. Then you suggest the idea of using an attack dog to enforce my physical exclusion.

I find what you're saying very mean in general to people who are subject to exclusionary attacks from other people. I usually respond to exclusion with reverse-exclusion because it's the only way to avoid the hater attempting to use any level of violence possible to make you go away. Ideally you would be able to love someone until they forgave you for whatever it is they hate you for, but as I said in some thread (maybe not this one), there is a culture of unforgiveness and irreconciliation. Some people don't want to replace exclusion with love. They just want to set boundaries and dominate other people with them.
 
I don't think that relationships end just because people want them to be over. I think people goad each other into letting go until they agree to and then ignore the fact that the other person was goaded. . . . Honestly, I don't think the pain of a lost relationship goes away.

I have had several relationships that ended mutually and joyfully, which I look back on knowing that the relationship served its purpose in our lives and enriched us both for a definite period of time. Not every relationship ends painfully. You keep thinking that your experiences apply to everyone. Sorry you're in pain, but they don't.

And you are WRONG - serial monogamy is not polyamory. Poly is simultaneous multiple relationships - end of story. Get that through your head.
 
I find what you're saying very mean in general to people who are subject to exclusionary attacks from other people. I usually respond to exclusion with reverse-exclusion because it's the only way to avoid the hater attempting to use any level of violence possible to make you go away. Ideally you would be able to love someone until they forgave you for whatever it is they hate you for, but as I said in some thread (maybe not this one), there is a culture of unforgiveness and irreconciliation. Some people don't want to replace exclusion with love. They just want to set boundaries and dominate other people with them.


And i find what you are saying creepy and stalkerish precisely because it indicates a lack of respect for other people's boundaries.
 
If it's just about people trying to avoid one another, then is it monogamy if your partner dies? Or do you need to stay in love with their memory and never date anyone else?

Yes, when you have a history, it's there forever. But the idea that monogamy would mean that once you have a date with someone you can't consider anyone else ever is so reducing that it doesn't qualify anything as monogamy. Even people who have only one long term partners have crushes when growing up, don't they?

EDIT: oh, and no, relationships aren't like cars. That's why it's an analogy. I'm trying to explain that "one at a time" is often shortened to "one" and that's why serial monogamy is shortened as monogamy and not polyamory. Especially since you can also have serial polyamory and it's a different thing.
 
Especially since you can also have serial polyamory and it's a different thing.

That's right; poly relationships can end too.

I have another analogy. If I'm fired from my job, and I decide that I still have a "relationship" with my erstwhile employer, um... That makes me DELUSIONAL, not "polylaborist" or a "serial monoergonomist".

The thing is, I know the difference between the reality that I share with the rest of the world and the reality that exists only inside of my mind. Unfortunately, not everyone does.
 
And i find what you are saying creepy and stalkerish precisely because it indicates a lack of respect for other people's boundaries.
Aren't you failing to respect my boundaries when you call me 'creepy' and 'stalkerish' or is that not a boundary I'm allowed to have?

Look, I tried to explain to you what I meant and you are just turning it into a boundary-respect domination game. Not everyone wants to worship a culture of total boundary-submission. Why do people who subscribe to that culture wish to push it on everyone else?
 
I have another analogy. If I'm fired from my job, and I decide that I still have a "relationship" with my erstwhile employer, um... That makes me DELUSIONAL, not "polylaborist" or a "serial monoergonomist".
I think you could call someone who does more than one kind of work "polylaborist." I usually just use the term, "generalist," though. It's not delusional to say you maintain a relationship with previous employers by having them on your resume'. It is a way of showing that your work history with them makes you part of what you are.

The thing is, I know the difference between the reality that I share with the rest of the world and the reality that exists only inside of my mind. Unfortunately, not everyone does.
Hopefully, you share the reality that people have diverse and multiple ways of looking at things and that you shouldn't dismiss some people's views as "deviating from reality."
 
Aren't you failing to respect my boundaries when you call me 'creepy' and 'stalkerish' or is that not a boundary I'm allowed to have?

Nope. I said I found WHAT YOU ARE SAYING to be creepy and stalkerish. I have made a point to restrict my comments to WHAT YOU SAY and HOW IT COMES ACROSS. Your comments come across as creepy and stalkerish.

Furthermore, if you don't believe in boundaries, don't turn around and say you aren't having yours respected because that is an example of hypocrisy.

But I do admit that I don't have much respect for you because of the way you have presented yourself here.
 
This has become more than tiresome.
I agree but for some reason NeonKaos keeps challenging me to defend myself and I keep responding. I actually hate it when this happens. It's stereotypical masculine stubbornness, imo, and it's so difficult to de-escalate for some reason.


Nope. I said I found WHAT YOU ARE SAYING to be creepy and stalkerish. I have made a point to restrict my comments to WHAT YOU SAY and HOW IT COMES ACROSS. Your comments come across as creepy and stalkerish.
So if I get insulted by what you say, that is not you crossing my boundaries? I guess I just get confused by the whole philosophy of respecting boundaries. When is that I get to choose my own boundaries and have you respect them, when other people agree that my boundaries are worthy of respect?

Furthermore, if you don't believe in boundaries, don't turn around and say you aren't having yours respected because that is an example of hypocrisy.
I didn't say I don't believe in it. I said people take it very far, as you are doing now. They expect total submission to all boundary-setting and they attack anyone who doesn't respect any boundary set by anyone as some kind of terrorist. I think you should realize that boundary-setting can also be done very aggressively, as you have been doing to me in this thread.

But I do admit that I don't have much respect for you because of the way you have presented yourself here.
What gives you the right to disrespect me?
 
Serial Monogamist, your remarks make very little sense. If I responded to them point by point, I would sound as ridiculous as you do.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top