#11
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Not to harp on it or nothin', but my opinion is:
Yes, you should not refuse to have sex with someone who is known to be infected. However, if you do, from that point on you should have sex only with that person and others who are known to be infected. If protection from disease ever becomes foolproof in the future, that can change.
__________________
blog |
#12
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
One of the things that jumps out at me is "equal time for everyone" because I don't think it's a realistic standard.
I don't devote equal time to my friends, why would I do it for my lovers? If one friend wants to go out shopping twice in one week before I've seen another friend, I don't say "no, I can't, because I have to see Jamie before I spend more time with you." There are also other aspects of life that make this ideal unpractical, such as living with one person whom you're obviously going to see more often than someone you don't live with. And that's before factoring in time to deal with finances, children, household duties, etc. The other thing that jumps out at me is doing poly "for variety." Please be clear that I'm not making a "there's a right way and a wrong way" judgement here, just saying that variety is not the reason why I am poly. I'm poly because I like to be in love with more than one person at the same time and because it's my natural inclination to do so. Do I enjoy the variety? Certainly. But it's not the "reason" for my being poly, it's just a coincidence. Quote:
__________________
“As I am sure any cat owner will be able to tell you, someone else putting you in a box is entirely different from getting into a box yourself.” —bisexualbaker |
#13
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Even romantically, it stands to reason that you will be seeing the person you live with more, because it takes more energy to go out or swap partners every single night. It's a lifestyle, not a crusade. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Also, the person you are living with is a somewhat different story, since you will probably be spending the most time with that person no matter what. And the nature of the bad habits may be related to the household, such as not wanting to do chores. The regular rotation is probably more effective in avoiding the bad traits of the alternates, since in this setup you don't live with them or spend as much time with them.
__________________
blog |
#14
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Even if I start dating someone new, I make a point of setting aside time for my old friends because they may be "just friends" but they've been with me a lot longer than some fly-by-night beau and they'll be there long after he's gone. I just have relationships, some are friendly some are romantic some are sexual, and they develop in their own ways. I've always had trouble when I've tried to shape relationships the way you seem to be describing. Most people I know have trouble when they try to shape relationships. Everyone is different. I have no doubt that for some people, variety is "a" reason to be poly. For me, it's not even that. Quote:
Quote:
I'll be the first to admit, it's a rare and wonderful thing to find someone whom you enjoy being around even when they're behaving in a way that you find exasperating. That fact was one of the most obvious signs for me that I wanted to share my life with this person: that no matter how many things he did that bugged me, I still wanted to curl up beside him at night. The exact same behaviours which drove me crazy and made me want to get away from other people were completely tolerable and even endearing in him. I don't want you to feel that I'm attacking you or your ideas. As someone else mentioned, this is a neat idea and it could very well work for you. But I'm just pointing out that this is something "for you" and something that may work "for others" but is by no means something that will work "for everyone." For me, it's too formal and rigid. I'm an easy-going, go-with-the-flow kinda girl. I find it too stressful to make rules about how much attention so-and-so gets. My relationships will develop into an appropriate amount of time and attention in their own rights without me trying to force them into some ideal.
__________________
“As I am sure any cat owner will be able to tell you, someone else putting you in a box is entirely different from getting into a box yourself.” —bisexualbaker Last edited by SchrodingersCat; 03-15-2010 at 03:33 AM. |
#15
|
|||||
|
|||||
![]() Quote:
![]() Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
![]() ![]()
__________________
blog |
#16
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
ETA: I'm still reading. As a fairly monogamous-minded person, I'd like to thank you for at least acknowledging that for some people, monogamy is preferred and not necessarily the evil that I've been told it is by a fair number of poly folk. I would like to hit on the point that other people have brought up about spending time equally. In practice, I've found that not every partner has the same need for attention. I need a fair amount of attention; I spend part of every day with each of my partners unless something else happens, like illness. My partners, however, spend differing amounts of time and attention with me--one partner sees me about 15 minutes in the morning. My primary partner, of course, tries to spend as much time as he has available. However, he sees our girlfriend once or twice a week for a few hours, and she's fine with that. If needs change, we discuss it. It's up to everyone to state what their needs are. As for variety, you might change the statement that "the whole point" behind poly is variety, to possibly the whole point for you or the whole point for some. The whole point to poly, for me, is actually that I want to have a relationship with my other partners. I don't need variety. I don't actually want variety. I'm not a big change person. I think I'd be a bit happier with less variety. It's been a nasty shock after thousands of years of marriage (that's an exaggeration) to have to get used to *new* personality quirks. "The liaisons would not be in your regular rotation, and you would not see this person as often, but of course he/she would understand that and would not feel neglected by the infrequent visits." One would hope they would understand that, but in practice it always depends on the person. "If you are a guy who does things for his partner on Valentine's Day, her birthday, etc., it would be reasonable to do that for all your partners. Needless to say, unless you are rich, that would require smaller, much less expensive gifts. But the women are not losing out, because they are getting gifts from all the guys on their own lists. It balances out. A bunch of little gifts versus one big one. And there is also the old "it's the thought that counts" cliche." Again, in practice it doesn't necessarily work that way. Of course we buy gifts for our other partners on these days, but *I* am the primary. *I* do the hard stuff that other partners do not. I don't get a heck of a lot of time off. I might actually want a little bit better than completely equal from my primary. But I expect my other partners to treat their primaries that way, too. I find trying to "balance" the lists a little impractical. There's just no way to fix it so that a romantic relationship can come along at the right time to balance your partner's, or you have to close yourself off while your partner looks for someone, etc. Even if you take romance out of the picture and look for just sex, it's still not always easy to find an acceptable partner. Also, there's no way to count on "extra-family expenses" being counterbalanced by benefits coming from other partners. One model I saw that I thought would work in this situation is that each partner in the primary relationship gets an "allowance" that they are able to spend on other partners. Going over that allowance is achieved through discussion between the two of them. I just want to point out that comparing regular STD testing to the brothels in Nevada is bound to make some people see poly as immoral if they feel that prostitution is immoral. Also, at one point you say that poly between married couples is just like wife-swapping, and in another you point out that wife-swapping is just sex. This post is getting quite long, so I'm going to try to stop commenting now. ![]() Last edited by Lemondrop; 03-15-2010 at 06:25 PM. |
#17
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
I'll address that post later, when I have more time. For right now:
It appears that a lot of this discussion (with everyone) has to do with conflicting philosophies. I'm getting the impression that a lot of people here (maybe all) find that poly is a way to achieve something you already want: additional relationship(s) with particular person(s) you already know. In other words, you sort of fall into it. You already want the relationship, society says no, and you tell society to shove it and have the relationship anyway. Is this a reasonable assessment, at least for most? In contrast, I love the idea of poly itself, and don't have anyone in mind for it yet. I would be seeking out candidates, in exactly the same way that most people go dating to seek out candidates for traditional monogamous marriage. I just wouldn't stop after one. Someone who likes the idea of the DPG would probably have the same orientation. I think there is room for both philosophies. There are enough people in the world for the two camps to grow and never conflict/overlap with each other.
__________________
blog Last edited by jackrabbit; 03-15-2010 at 07:48 PM. |
#18
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
![]()
__________________
Playing the Game of Life with Monopoly rules. Monogamy might just be in my genes ![]() Poly Events All Over |
#19
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
As I said back in post 4 of this thread - find what works for you and see if others share those goals. If they don't then maybe it's time to re-examine your "ideal" situation and see if things can be modified based on the feedback you are getting. Now you see what I mean, hopefully. When you wrote Quote:
Poly folk tend to be very leery (due to previous experiences) of people telling anyone "here's how everyone should do poly", or anything that hints at that. They tend to be given the nickname "One True Wayers" - I think that it's important when communicating with poly folk and even the public at large, that a large amount of emphasis be given to the idea that this is one way of many. Do you get my drift?
__________________
"Listen, or your tongue will make you deaf." - Native American Proverb |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
@jackrabbit,
When you said "Is there a point to poly without [variety]?" I felt an urge to respond. I'm not poly to have variety, although I certainly am getting it. I'm poly because I want to have the kind of relationship with each person in my life that makes the most sense for who we are together. That happens to mean that there are two people in my life who are both my life partners-- we live together, share expenses, and are making plans to buy a home and have children. It also means that I have several friends who are more than friends romantically or sexually or both, because that's how it makes sense for us to be together. While I'm already chiming in, I'll echo points made by Lemondrop and CielDuMatin... If your DPG is what you want to do with the people who enter your life, great! I wish you the best of luck in implementing a system that works for you! If you're hoping that DPG will become some sort of large, over-arching system to encompass many many poly individuals, then you're still welcome to attempt it, but my two cents are that it doesn't feel workable for myself or my partners, and so we're not interested. Thanks anyway! I'd also like to add that something in your language, jackrabbit, has been picking at me, and I just figured out what it is. Your use of the word "fall" when describing how many poly people enter relationships... it just feels accidental. 'Whoops, I wound up here! Better dust off and keep going...' ![]() In cahoots, ~S
__________________
"I was thorough when I looked for you, and I feel justified lying in your arms." - Chasing Amy |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|