Polyamory.com Forum  

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

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 06-30-2011, 04:35 AM
Indigomontoya's Avatar
Indigomontoya Indigomontoya is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 107
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by serialmonogamist View Post
Well, maybe I'm looking at it in a possessive way but it seems to me that if you tell someone that you can't be there for them tonight because you have a date with someone else, you are making them share you in a sense. Sorry for the pushy-sounding language. I guess I could use more neutral language and say that you would make yourself unavailable for them sometimes. I'm sorry but I think the basic issues I was asking about are getting ignored in favor of criticizing my word choices. I think people know what I mean despite using unpopular language.
It's not your word choice I object to, it's your contention that there's an almost adversarial relationship between a monogamous partner and a polyamorous partner. I have never been told that TP cannot spend time with me because she's out with someone else; likewise she has never told her boyfriend that she cannot spend time with him because of me. There's no arbitrary or unilateral decisions made, it's always a consensus and discussion.

Frankly, if anyone on this board had discussed a relationship that you're implying is common, the advice would be overwhelmingly that the behaviour is a problem. From my own experience and discussing these relationships on here I have found that there has to be a certain amount of buy in from all parties, it's a relationship not a contest to compare who gets more time.

And on another note I think many of the posters on this board object not to your choice of words but to the contents of your arguments. From the posts of your's I've read, all carry the same argumentative tone, gross generalizations, and near complete obstinence. A little diplomacy and open mindedness to other views can go a long way; otherwise your points will be lost under the moniker of a troll poster.
__________________
Polyamory is wrong! It's Multiamory or Polyphilia. Mixing Greek and Latin roots? That's wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 06-30-2011, 02:35 PM
serialmonogamist serialmonogamist is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 164
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Indigomontoya View Post
It's not your word choice I object to, it's your contention that there's an almost adversarial relationship between a monogamous partner and a polyamorous partner. I have never been told that TP cannot spend time with me because she's out with someone else; likewise she has never told her boyfriend that she cannot spend time with him because of me. There's no arbitrary or unilateral decisions made, it's always a consensus and discussion.

Frankly, if anyone on this board had discussed a relationship that you're implying is common, the advice would be overwhelmingly that the behaviour is a problem. From my own experience and discussing these relationships on here I have found that there has to be a certain amount of buy in from all parties, it's a relationship not a contest to compare who gets more time.

And on another note I think many of the posters on this board object not to your choice of words but to the contents of your arguments. From the posts of your's I've read, all carry the same argumentative tone, gross generalizations, and near complete obstinence. A little diplomacy and open mindedness to other views can go a long way; otherwise your points will be lost under the moniker of a troll poster.
I also dislike it when people use a conflict-avoidant tone and overdramatize a diplomatic attitude. Being open-minded, diplomatic, recognizing the uniqueness of individuals instead of assuming generalizations to be absolute, etc. are just givens to me. When I talk with people who accuse me of making absolute generalizations, it comes across as if they actually believe that such generalizations are possible. I don't. When discuss generalities, I always know that they are limited to only the people that fit the generality and not to others. There is always more than one person that fits any example and there are always many exceptions. That's just the reality of diversity.

If you don't identify with things I post about, I can understand you not wanting to discuss with me but why should you start attacking me like this? It feels like you are the one trolling me, trying to initiate bickering. I really don't want to bicker. Can you just limit your response to the content of my arguments? If you disagree, explain why, and if you just don't want to think about things in the way I do, why do you have to respond at all?
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 06-30-2011, 03:17 PM
NeonKaos NeonKaos is offline
Custodian
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: new england
Posts: 3,221
Default

So, you choose to come across as a douchebag, but since YOU know you're not REALLY being a douchebag, the rest of us are supposed to shrug and say, "He's ACTING like a douchebag, but he SAYS he ISN'T one, so we should believe him because such douchebaggery is not really possible"?

Is that it? Because I'm trying to understand. Maybe I'm just not as smart as you.

Last edited by NeonKaos; 06-30-2011 at 03:20 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 06-30-2011, 03:23 PM
Chimera Chimera is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: New York
Posts: 66
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by serialmonogamist View Post
Do I pass the quiz?

I was responding to what I disagreed with in your argument -- I perceived it as saying we all had the same instincts that we have to control and thought that it amounted to biological determinism.

Your response? Sarcasm.

Yeah, this is being a douchebag. You can't take people arguing back with you and are overly sensitive about the tone. Troll-like behavior. You don't care about the response, just the conflict.
__________________
"Love takes off masks that we fear we cannot live without and know we cannot live within."James Baldwin
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 06-30-2011, 03:24 PM
SourGirl's Avatar
SourGirl SourGirl is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: South of an Igloo, North of a Desert.
Posts: 885
Red face

Quote:
Originally Posted by NeonKaos View Post
So, you choose to come across as a douchebag, but since YOU know you're not REALLY being a douchebag, the rest of us are supposed to shrug and say, "He's ACTING like a douchebag, but he SAYS he ISN'T one, so we should believe him because such douchebaggery is not really possible"?

Is that it? Because I'm trying to understand.
LOL. Lub it.

Serialmonogamist - I rather enjoy the way you post, even if I don`t always agree.
However, the first rule of 'Blunt-Club', is you have to be able to take the bluntness right back. Its a two way street. You can state a opinion, you can debate, but you don't get to dictate how people receive the info, or where they go with it.

If you feel they get off topic,..ignore 'em. Carry on with the topic you are working with.

Because right now ? You are doing what you are blaming others for. Getting their panties in a twist over word useage.

There`s my 4 cents and a handshake.

Last edited by SourGirl; 06-30-2011 at 03:27 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 06-30-2011, 03:49 PM
Indigomontoya's Avatar
Indigomontoya Indigomontoya is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 107
Default

Points taken, I apologize for my tone. I guess the tone triggered me as I have a brother who has a constant overbearing nature.

Quote:
It would get very confusing for many monogamous people, I think, if they had to think about what it means to love someone enough to allow them to love other people as well. Doesn't it also confuse polyamorous people to know how to balance loving someone with making them share you? I would feel guilty being in a relationship with a devoted monogamous partner and having them tell me they love me enough to let me see other people while waiting patiently and not seeing anyone else themselves. Nevertheless I don't think anyone is truly incapable of polyamory. I just think they avoid acting on it because they figure the benefits of it wouldn't be worth the costs. But how can you accept the gift of monogamous devotion from someone else without loving them enough to want to return it? (sorry if that question sounds emotionally blackmailing. it's not meant that way - just something I've thought about)
I can understand what you mean here but I think there's a certain dysfunction in your model. Ultimately monogamy and polyamory take communication; and I would say polyamory requires much more open communication. From my own experience TP has been cognizant of when I felt jealous or hurt when we first opened up to poly; but any issues arose usually did so because I was not communicating my needs adequately to her, until they became such an issue that they were externally recognizable. In this case it was my own fault for not communicating what I needed; I did so for various reasons, guilt for feeling what I did, a want not to interfere in her new relationship, etc.

By human nature, and a certain amount of cultural mores we learn one should be enough; and that's the problem I had and have seen crop up time and again in new to poly discussions. Be it feeling greedy (on the poly side) or inadequate (on the mono side) it's all relative to the feedback in the relationship. For my part, jealousy and feelings of inadequacy are a secondary emotional response and once I recognized that it became more about communicating my needs and less about projecting onto my partner.

We do agree on the fact that humans are inherently nonmonogamous from a certain point of view. Mono has made good points regarding focusing on your partner exclusively; and you did about temptation, I think there's a middle ground for human nature and a matter of control. I've know some who claim to be monogamous and some that truly are, I am sure both have had temptations, but I don't think instinct governs us as much as is has in the past. Likewise I have seen polyamorous couples that are really not practicing polyamory just bad monogamy. As you said labels can be misleading and I would be hesitant to categorize any couple based on simple temptation.
__________________
Polyamory is wrong! It's Multiamory or Polyphilia. Mixing Greek and Latin roots? That's wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 06-30-2011, 03:51 PM
serialmonogamist serialmonogamist is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 164
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SourGirl View Post
LOL. Lub it.

Serialmonogamist - I rather enjoy the way you post, even if I don`t always agree.
However, the first rule of 'Blunt-Club', is you have to be able to take the bluntness right back. Its a two way street. You can state a opinion, you can debate, but you don't get to dictate how people receive the info, or where they go with it.

If you feel they get off topic,..ignore 'em. Carry on with the topic you are working with.

Because right now ? You are doing what you are blaming others for. Getting their panties in a twist over word useage.

There`s my 4 cents and a handshake.
Thanks, I think, for the positive feedback. I'm not sure that using "blunt" direct language automatically equals being mean and accepting people being mean in response. I believe you can disagree with people openly without making it personal. I don't feel anyone needs to apologize for disagreeing openly with anyone else, but I also don't think they should make/take it personally. It makes me feel sad/guilty when I notice that others have taken offense to something I've said, but I also don't feel I should take responsibility for someone else's emotional reaction just because it occurred while reading my words. I do think I should take responsibility for my words and intentions in using them, and I think other people should do the same.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimera View Post
I was responding to what I disagreed with in your argument -- I perceived it as saying we all had the same instincts that we have to control and thought that it amounted to biological determinism.

Your response? Sarcasm.
Sorry if I came across as sarcastic. I actually avoid sarcasm because I find it manipulative. Are you referring to the "quiz" comment? That was just a little joke because I felt like my post sounded like a quiz answer. I think it is actually really important for people to be aware of determinism and actively resist thinking in terms of determinism because it obfuscates awareness of free-will, imo.

Quote:
Yeah, this is being a douchebag. You can't take people arguing back with you and are overly sensitive about the tone. Troll-like behavior. You don't care about the response, just the conflict.
This is the first time I've been called a "douchebag." It's not nice. Why can't we just keep these discussions at the level of our thoughts and opinions and avoid accusations? If someone's feelings get hurt, why can't they state that without immediately blaming? I agree that being oversensitive is a bomb of sorts, but you also have to be honest about what you feel, don't you, instead of hiding it because you're afraid to come off as oversensitive?


Quote:
Originally Posted by NeonKaos View Post
So, you choose to come across as a douchebag, but since YOU know you're not REALLY being a douchebag, the rest of us are supposed to shrug and say, "He's ACTING like a douchebag, but he SAYS he ISN'T one, so we should believe him because such douchebaggery is not really possible"?
Look, I don't know you or anyone else well enough to know why I would be coming across one way or another. I do know that some people consider anyone who doesn't express submissiveness toward others as being aggressive or rude. I don't have this view. I see people as equals who can state thing directly without bowing/kneeling to someone else symbolically first. Usually, in my observation, people who behave submissively aren't aware that it is submissive and instead they just experience all non-submissive behavior as offensive. I don't think it's fair to react against me because I don't use a submissive tone by default. I'm not being aggressive toward anyone.

Quote:
Is that it? Because I'm trying to understand. Maybe I'm just not as smart as you.
Come on, you're smart enough to know that saying something like this is emotionally blackmailing.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 06-30-2011, 04:03 PM
Derbylicious's Avatar
Derbylicious Derbylicious is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Victoria BC
Posts: 1,603
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by serialmonogamist View Post
Sorry if this shifts the topic of the thread too much but I was wondering what people thought about cheating when people are so good at lying and covering their tracks (or you're so bad at espionage) that they never get caught or confess. I have the idea that this may happen a lot more than people think but it also seems like paranoia to think that. Considering that monogamy is so strictly expected in mainstream culture, it just makes sense to me that people naturally develop strategies for cheating and getting away with it. Or do most people just learn to control themselves and get used to monogamy? How would you know, really?
Going back to the original question, I think part of keeping affairs hidden is that the party who is being cheated on sometimes wilfully refuses to see the signs that something is going on. People can make up all the stories they want to cover their tracks but there are almost always signs that something is out of the ordinary.

Cheating probably happens much more than people admit to. I hazard a guess that even on anonymous surveys that not everyone answers honestly about past affairs. I think both parties have to subconsciously want the cheating party to get away with it though. I wonder if that comes from a place of not wanting to have to make the decision to end the relationship if the truth comes out.
__________________
Everything will be ok in the end. If it's not ok it's not the end.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 06-30-2011, 04:19 PM
serialmonogamist serialmonogamist is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 164
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Derbylicious View Post
Going back to the original question, I think part of keeping affairs hidden is that the party who is being cheated on sometimes wilfully refuses to see the signs that something is going on. People can make up all the stories they want to cover their tracks but there are almost always signs that something is out of the ordinary.

Cheating probably happens much more than people admit to. I hazard a guess that even on anonymous surveys that not everyone answers honestly about past affairs. I think both parties have to subconsciously want the cheating party to get away with it though. I wonder if that comes from a place of not wanting to have to make the decision to end the relationship if the truth comes out.
Good points. I think there's also some fear of openly questioning your partners behavior because it makes you seem suspicious and distrustful. I've heard people say that if their partner keeps asking them about affairs, they are going to have one. Or there's the person I saw on the TV show, Cheaters, who yelled at her bf that he better have proof if he's going to accuse her of cheating while meanwhile they were filming her going to meet her other bf for an affair.

It's really sad how much negativity within 'monogamous' relationships comes from the desire and pursuit of what I think are natural polyamorous feelings (sorry if I shouldn't be using "polyamorous" to refer to just plain sexual desire to be with multiple people - if there's another word for that, please let me know). I'm not interested in polyamory as much for the actual prospect of having multiple relationships simultaneously as I am because it saddens me that desire has to lead to dishonesty and cruelty between people who otherwise (do or have) loved each other.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 06-30-2011, 07:24 PM
redpepper's Avatar
redpepper redpepper is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 7,634
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by serialmonogamist View Post
It's really sad how much negativity within 'monogamous' relationships comes from the desire and pursuit of what I think are natural polyamorous feelings (sorry if I shouldn't be using "polyamorous" to refer to just plain sexual desire to be with multiple people - if there's another word for that, please let me know). I'm not interested in polyamory as much for the actual prospect of having multiple relationships simultaneously as I am because it saddens me that desire has to lead to dishonesty and cruelty between people who otherwise (do or have) loved each other.
I don't think I am getting what you are saying here. Could you rephrase this? I think you are saying that all poly relationships seem to come from the desire to cheat. Is that it?
__________________
Anyone want to be friends on Facebook?
Send me your name via PM
My blog
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
cheating, monogamy

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 10:49 PM.