Polyamory.com Forum  

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

Notices

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 07-27-2011, 07:23 PM
Tonberry Tonberry is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 1,434
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by serialmonogamist View Post
What I find is that divorce is more like a second marital contract regulating the individuation of communal property, childcare responsibilities, forbidding harassment, etc.
Well if there are stuff in common to begin with, what to you expect? That they'll kill all the kids and burn all the property so you can decide how much or little you want to interact?

On the other hand I had no kids or property with my husband, so once we're divorced it will be back to where we were before. We can be friends if we want to be, we can never talk to each other again. Divorce is dissolving the marriage contract, but there are some things that can't be destroyed, of course. It's still not the same kind of relationship though, more akin to a relationship with another family member, who can be someone you get along with or someone you hate, but at any rate you'll have to deal with them.
  #42  
Old 07-27-2011, 07:39 PM
nycindie's Avatar
nycindie nycindie is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The Big Apple
Posts: 10,009
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tonberry View Post
. . . I had no kids or property with my husband, so once we're divorced it will be back to where we were before. We can be friends if we want to be, we can never talk to each other again.
Same in my case, too. Not every marriage has property and children to negotiate over.
__________________
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

Click here for a Solo Poly view on hierarchical relationships
Click here to find out why the Polyamorous Misanthrope is feeling disgusted.
  #43  
Old 07-27-2011, 07:57 PM
Derbylicious's Avatar
Derbylicious Derbylicious is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Victoria BC
Posts: 1,603
Default

Going way back to the beginning I think one of the issues that might come up for women when you tell them that you aren't interested in a lifelong commitment with them is that it sounds like you're just putting in time until something better comes along. I think that you can approach the situation as wanting to take one day at a time and to enjoy every moment you have together. You can also be upfront in not being interested in remarriage.

I think it's good to be honest in relationships, even from the outset. However there are ways of saying things while still being tactful.

A lot of the rest of the discussion has just lost me all together to be honest. Define your sexuality as you will, just be clear with potential partners about what that definition means to you. If you are defining yourself as poly are you comfortable with a partner who you are with having other partners at the same time as they are involved with you? If you feel you have the potential to love more than one at a time but don't want to take on more than one relationship (by choice) then you can absolutely be poly. I (at the moment) limit myself to 2 relationships because it just isn't realistic for me to have enough time and energy to devote to more than that. If I took on a third relationship everyone would get the short end of the stick.
__________________
Everything will be ok in the end. If it's not ok it's not the end.
  #44  
Old 07-28-2011, 02:57 AM
serialmonogamist serialmonogamist is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 164
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nycindie View Post
Same in my case, too. Not every marriage has property and children to negotiate over.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tonberry View Post
Well if there are stuff in common to begin with, what to you expect? That they'll kill all the kids and burn all the property so you can decide how much or little you want to interact?

On the other hand I had no kids or property with my husband, so once we're divorced it will be back to where we were before. We can be friends if we want to be, we can never talk to each other again. Divorce is dissolving the marriage contract, but there are some things that can't be destroyed, of course. It's still not the same kind of relationship though, more akin to a relationship with another family member, who can be someone you get along with or someone you hate, but at any rate you'll have to deal with them.
Property, kids, etc. are just easy examples because they are persisting materialities of the relationship. I actually find it more interesting to look at how a relationship can continue to exist as part of your life just through its memory, the lessons you learned, and the person you became through it. Your partner literally became a part of you and that part of you can't be divorced from the rest of you, even if you cease all contact with their physical body. I'm sure some people will wince at me talking about physical bodies as just one part of a person, but if you think about it people extend to everything they have created and touched. I think the idea of divorce denies the complexity of being. Obviously you just don't want to be around someone sometimes, and you might decide you'd rather not see them anymore at all. Yet you can't really separate yourself from the part of them inside of you, which I think is part of the reason people get so adamant about distancing themselves from the other person's physical body.
  #45  
Old 07-28-2011, 06:19 AM
Phy's Avatar
Phy Phy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Germany
Posts: 648
Default

Isn't this plain logical SM? Who would think of a divorce in terms of "changinge one's past life"? When you divorce you change a part of your future, not being legally mixed with the person you have been married to before. That's it. I have never heard of someone who would look at a divorce in the way you decribe it.

It doesn't matter what or whom you experienced in life, all your experiences stay with you and model you in a way. That is why people change and divorce is a change of a relationship status. The idea of divorce doesn't deny the complexity of being, as you put it. It's an act of free will to make a change for the future. Officially for the state and personally for yourself.
  #46  
Old 07-28-2011, 07:26 AM
Tonberry Tonberry is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 1,434
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by serialmonogamist View Post
I actually find it more interesting to look at how a relationship can continue to exist as part of your life just through its memory, the lessons you learned, and the person you became through it. Your partner literally became a part of you and that part of you can't be divorced from the rest of you, even if you cease all contact with their physical body.
Well... honestly, I don't see a difference with being in a relationship with that same person for the same number of years and breaking up, without marriage and divorce ever entering the picture.
It's true, every interaction you have with someone becomes part of your history and part of who you are. I'm confused why you needed to divorce to be aware of that fact. That's the kind of things that happens with linear time.
  #47  
Old 07-28-2011, 02:20 PM
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 don't know why I'm getting defensive when you're just stating your impression honestly. I guess I just don't like the idea of being "convoluted, unsound, and a bit crazy to some." I can understand that you disagree with things I say, but I think my analytical reasoning is sound enough to be a basis for reasonable discussion and I don't see how my thoughts are going in circles - maybe you'd care to explain in more detail/depth.
Hi Serial,

Hey, there's a bunch of people here trying to really help you. I suggest you try to LISTEN closer. Nobody is attacking etc but some of your 'logic' is very illogical and obviously driven from your cultural experience and background. The same as everyone. It seems (?) that your background, experiences etc may have come from a number of conflicting directions and you are running on half honey and half black tar. You need to stop the engine and get some clarity.

That's why NYC (and others) have tried to tell you you are going in circles.

First off I'd suggest dispensing with the religion. You don't seem like an overly religious person and there's nothing better than religion to confuse some things that should be basic and simple. That's intentional by the way. It's hard to call someone on some false belief if they never say the same thing twice. They can always fall back and say they have a basis for agreement. So if you can leave that completely out of your thought process (and discussion) you might better stay 'on track'.

Next I think you just need to take a deep breath and ACKNOWLEDGE that serial monogamy and polyamory are simply NOT the same thing. You are spending an inordinate amount of time trying to make some connection between the two that simply doesn't exist except through your own semantic manipulations. It's like trying to make a connection between a horse and a dog based on the fact they have four legs. Sorry - the connection is NOT there ! So stop trying to make one. It's a waste of your time and energy and just is making your own clarity more elusive.

The primary difference, as has been explained by a number of us, lies in the word SIMULTANEOUS. And as has also been explained, that simultaneity may include potentiality if unrealized. Even though one may only have a single love partner at a given moment, they are open (and often pursuing) additional ones. And this 'philosophy' is voiced openly (hopefully) to anyone involved - or potentially involved - with them.

Contrast this with a monogamous outlook where it's acknowledged that there will be - at least in a physical sense - no "additional" lovers once engage already with one.

It's really quite simple and a waste of time & energy to try to manipulate it semantically otherwise.

Does that help ?

So if you are having this internal struggle you simply have to ask yourself that simple question.

Are you comfortable engaging in a SIMULTANEOUS loving relationship with more than one person - and furthermore, are you comfortable with your lover(s) doing the same.

If the answer is a resounding YES you may choose to adopt the label "poly" honestly. And live accordingly. If the answer is NO, then you must adopt the monogamous label.

No rocket science or deep philosophy required here............

GS
  #48  
Old 07-28-2011, 02:40 PM
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 suppose I could be more careful, but once I figure out something for myself, I have trouble presenting it apologetically and with much attention for some other culture. Do you, for example, enjoy apologetically explaining your poly views and choices to mono-normative people?
I don't understand the use of the word "apologetically" in this discussion/context ??? Is english a second language for you by chance ?

Otherwise, any 'apologizing' aside, I actually enjoy explaining my view to others who's views may differ. I actually consider it an obligation ! Knowledge is important to all of us and anything we can do to expand each other's horizons is a plus.



Quote:
Originally Posted by serialmonogamist;
What I really mean about divorce is that I don't think a relationship really ends as "dissolution" implies. This was the impression I had of what divorce was supposed to mean before I did it. What I find is that divorce is more like a second marital contract regulating the individuation of communal property, childcare responsibilities, forbidding harassment, etc. If the relationship was completely dissolved, there wouldn't be anything to regulate with a contract, so it is a social contract that defines a new relationship.
Again, here I find a strange or naive view of the word. Why/how would you ever consider divorce as just wiping a board clean of any/all history ? That's impossible (unfortunately in many cases). As we're discussing on another thread, I often am wondering where in the world you got some of your ideas.

The level of interaction in the future after a divorce is absolutely an individual thing and no blanket statement can be adopted. Again, playing semantic games (social contract) to your own detriment.

GS
  #49  
Old 07-28-2011, 03:45 PM
NeonKaos NeonKaos is offline
Custodian
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: new england
Posts: 3,217
Default

Serial monogamist reminds me of a white person who insists they are "really a black person on the inside" because they want to fit in with what they perceive as an "edgy" or "countercultural" scene.
  #50  
Old 07-28-2011, 07:47 PM
redpepper's Avatar
redpepper redpepper is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 7,716
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by serialmonogamist View Post
serial monogamy may be monogamy in terms of outward behavior but in terms of feelings, you have to have the capacity to love more than one person to be able to end one relationship and begin another.
serial monogamy is loving one person romantically, falling out of love with them and then falling in love with someone else. Polyamory is falling in love over and over romantically with many people all at the same time. There is no ending one relationship to begin another in poly.
__________________
Anyone want to be friends on Facebook?
Send me your name via PM
My blog
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 12:12 AM.