Polyamory.com Forum  

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

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 02-27-2014, 09:07 AM
Tiberius Tiberius is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 96
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tonberry View Post
I feel the same way as you, but....



Both friends and children can feel extremely jealous and cheated on in the exact situations you mention. It's just that we're taught that that jealousy is bad, while romantic jealousy is "normal and means you care".
But the simple fact that I have friends is not going to make any of my other friends feel bad. It is perfectly acceptable for someone to have several friends. It is perfectly acceptable to have several children. Each of these involves a kind of love. Why should we say that a person can love several people if it is parental love or platonic love, but then arbitrarily say that it is wrong when it comes to romantic love?

Yes, as you said, feelings of jealousy can exist in all these kinds of love. But to me, that suggests that the kind of love itself is not the thing responsible for that jealousy. After all, how can a person say that loving two people romantically leads to jealousy when other kinds of love also lead to jealousy? It does show that the type of love itself is not what is causing the problem.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 02-27-2014, 07:37 PM
Spock Spock is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: East Bay California
Posts: 134
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiberius View Post
But the simple fact that I have friends is not going to make any of my other friends feel bad.
Of course it can. I have friends who feel jealous when they aren't invited to specific events.

Quote:
It is perfectly acceptable for someone to have several friends. It is perfectly acceptable to have several children. Each of these involves a kind of love. Why should we say that a person can love several people if it is parental love or platonic love, but then arbitrarily say that it is wrong when it comes to romantic love?
No one is saying it is wrong, are they? It may not be fair, or reasonable, or responsible, but I don't think anyone says it is wrong.

Quote:
Yes, as you said, feelings of jealousy can exist in all these kinds of love. But to me, that suggests that the kind of love itself is not the thing responsible for that jealousy. After all, how can a person say that loving two people romantically leads to jealousy when other kinds of love also lead to jealousy? It does show that the type of love itself is not what is causing the problem.
Right, but that means love itself isn't the problem, regardless of the type of love, so much as need or want.

My daughter, two years older than my son, is jealous when I spend time with him, jealous that he still gets to be carried (she is much heavier!), still upset that I will lay in bed with him to get him to sleep (she, of course, doesn't think it is fair despite getting the same treatment when she was his age), and is jealous of the time I spend with my wife (Why don't you have a date at Carl's Jr, so you can stay with us, too?)

I wanted to go back to your original question, too:
Quote:
why shouldn't I follow my heart?
1) Because you can't afford to.
2) Because the time spend on N+3 reduces the time you spend with N+2, N+1, and N.
3) Because N+1 needs more time than you have when you met N+2, which means you previously met N+1's needs but now cannot. Of course N+1 is always free to seek others to get unmet needs satisfied, but you created this need where before it was already satisfied.
4) Because you need to budget extra time and energy for emergencies instead of allocating 100% of your resources. If N+2 gets sick, which then gets N+1 sick, you might need to spend less time with N to deal with N+2 and N+1, which gives you no room for N+3
5) Because you aren't capable of dealing with 4 partners no matter how much your heart wants them; maybe you can't even deal with 3, or 2 partners!

So, yeah, reasons.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 02-27-2014, 10:21 PM
SchrodingersCat's Avatar
SchrodingersCat SchrodingersCat is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Saskatchewan
Posts: 2,130
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spock View Post
Because N+1 needs more time than you have when you met N+2, which means you previously met N+1's needs but now cannot. Of course N+1 is always free to seek others to get unmet needs satisfied, but you created this need where before it was already satisfied.

So, yeah, reasons.
We don't create needs in other people. Their need are their own. We have a choice to meet those needs or to let them be met in other ways.

If N+1 gets used to spending lots of time with me, that does not create an obligation on part to continue spending that much time with them if my situation changes. Indeed, spending time with them out of obligation energy is a surefire way to sink a relationship straight to the bottom of the ocean.

None of what you said is a reason why I "can't" date whomever I want, they're reasons why I might choose not to. In friendship and romance alike, some people prefer lots of casual relationships while others prefer few close relationships. Neither is right or wrong, just different.
__________________
Gralson: my husband (works out of town).
Auto: my girlfriend (lives with her husband Zoffee).

The most dangerous phrase in the English language is "we've always done it this way."
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 02-28-2014, 12:25 AM
Spock Spock is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: East Bay California
Posts: 134
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SchrodingersCat View Post
We don't create needs in other people. Their need are their own. We have a choice to meet those needs or to let them be met in other ways.
Of course, I was just pointing out that Tiberius had been meeting needs and then choosing not to.

Quote:
If N+1 gets used to spending lots of time with me, that does not create an obligation on part to continue spending that much time with them if my situation changes. Indeed, spending time with them out of obligation energy is a surefire way to sink a relationship straight to the bottom of the ocean.
Of course there is no obligation to meet the needs of people you love.

But at the same time, you should be taking their needs into consideration because you love them.

Quote:
None of what you said is a reason why I "can't" date whomever I want, they're reasons why I might choose not to. In friendship and romance alike, some people prefer lots of casual relationships while others prefer few close relationships. Neither is right or wrong, just different.
Yes, but the question was clearly, "Why shouldn't I", not "Why can't I"?

Of course you can. But should you?

You can choose to do lots of things. You are the change you want to see, after all.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 02-28-2014, 05:06 AM
SchrodingersCat's Avatar
SchrodingersCat SchrodingersCat is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Saskatchewan
Posts: 2,130
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spock View Post
But at the same time, you should be taking their needs into consideration because you love them.
Of course. But that's a two-way street. It includes them taking your needs into account, such as the need for self-expression and autonomy.

"Spending more time with me" is not a need, it's a strategy for meeting a need, such as the need for connection or intimacy. However, merely spending time together won't meet that need if I'm only there because I feel like I have to be. I would much rather have my partners spend time with me only when they truly want to, and then have that time be of a higher quality because we both want to be there.
__________________
Gralson: my husband (works out of town).
Auto: my girlfriend (lives with her husband Zoffee).

The most dangerous phrase in the English language is "we've always done it this way."
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 02-28-2014, 06:24 AM
Tiberius Tiberius is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 96
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spock View Post
Of course it can. I have friends who feel jealous when they aren't invited to specific events.
Ah, but that's not what I was saying. I said that "the simple fact that I have friends is not going to make any of my other friends feel bad". You are adding in something additional to that.

I have never had a friend who said, "Oh wait, you're also friends with other people? I'm sorry, I can't handle that. I want you to be friends with me only." And I don't think anyone would actually WANT to be friends with someone like that.

Quote:
No one is saying it is wrong, are they? It may not be fair, or reasonable, or responsible, but I don't think anyone says it is wrong.
I'm not saying anyone here is. What I meant was mono people tend to look at it like that. The norm in society is that if you are in a relationship with someone, it is not allowed for you to also be in a relationship with someone else.

Quote:
Right, but that means love itself isn't the problem, regardless of the type of love, so much as need or want.

My daughter, two years older than my son, is jealous when I spend time with him, jealous that he still gets to be carried (she is much heavier!), still upset that I will lay in bed with him to get him to sleep (she, of course, doesn't think it is fair despite getting the same treatment when she was his age), and is jealous of the time I spend with my wife (Why don't you have a date at Carl's Jr, so you can stay with us, too?)
It sounds like both of your kids are pretty young, so that's a little different. I'm talking about relationships between emotionally mature adults.

Quote:
I wanted to go back to your original question, too:

1) Because you can't afford to.
2) Because the time spend on N+3 reduces the time you spend with N+2, N+1, and N.
3) Because N+1 needs more time than you have when you met N+2, which means you previously met N+1's needs but now cannot. Of course N+1 is always free to seek others to get unmet needs satisfied, but you created this need where before it was already satisfied.
4) Because you need to budget extra time and energy for emergencies instead of allocating 100% of your resources. If N+2 gets sick, which then gets N+1 sick, you might need to spend less time with N to deal with N+2 and N+1, which gives you no room for N+3
5) Because you aren't capable of dealing with 4 partners no matter how much your heart wants them; maybe you can't even deal with 3, or 2 partners!

So, yeah, reasons.
1. You don't know my financial situation.
2. How many partners do you think I have?
3. Again, you are assuming things about my situation which you do not know.
4. If that actually happened, then I would hope that every person involved would be mature enough to say "Person X is sick, so they need a bit more attention." I mean, does anyone here really want a relationship with someone who'd say, "You're not spending enough time with me! I don't care that your other girlfriend is in a critical condition, Tuesday is our date night, and dammit, you have to be there!"
5. Again, you don't know my situation.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 02-28-2014, 06:27 AM
Tiberius Tiberius is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 96
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spock View Post
Of course, I was just pointing out that Tiberius had been meeting needs and then choosing not to.
And what needs were those? Like I said, you do not know my situation, so I think you're overstepping your bounds by telling me all these reasons. It's pure speculation on your part.

Quote:
Yes, but the question was clearly, "Why shouldn't I", not "Why can't I"?

Of course you can. But should you?

You can choose to do lots of things. You are the change you want to see, after all.
I was meaning, "What moral/ethical reasons are there against being in a romantic relationship with several people at once?" It doesn't matter if it is two or ten or more. I certainly can't think of any.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 02-28-2014, 02:04 PM
Marcus's Avatar
Marcus Marcus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Haltom City, TX
Posts: 1,288
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiberius View Post
And what needs were those? Like I said, you do not know my situation, so I think you're overstepping your bounds by telling me all these reasons. It's pure speculation on your part.
You were creating a hypothetical (or at least that's what it looks like) in which you seemed to be saying there were no reasons to not follow your heart. Spock responded to said hypothetical with a list of reasons which would be a stumbling block to having multiple relationships. Simply put, there are real world reasons which would hinder the ability to follow ones heart and have romantic love for as many people as they like; the real things Spock mentioned like time and resources.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiberius View Post
Ah, but that's not what I was saying. I said that "the simple fact that I have friends is not going to make any of my other friends feel bad". You are adding in something additional to that.
Which is creating a hypothetical within a vacuum (separated from real consequences). Even in this theoretical vacuum, the simple fact that you could have multiple best friends could be more than enough for insecure people and could prompt unpleasant feelings in them. I'm not proposing that would be your responsibility, but pointing out that the statement is not always going to be true.

As you and Spock have agreed upon (and is at the heart of the issue), the type of love or association is not a catalyst for feelings of envy or jealousy. Generally speaking, fear of loss of what was there before or what could be there in the future causes jealousy, regardless of the type of relationship. Envy is even easier for us to feel as it simply requires desiring something we don't have and can't seem to get.
__________________
Independent (Anarchist) Non-Monogamy

Me: male, 40, straight, single
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 02-28-2014, 05:27 PM
Spock Spock is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: East Bay California
Posts: 134
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiberius View Post
Ah, but that's not what I was saying. I said that "the simple fact that I have friends is not going to make any of my other friends feel bad". You are adding in something additional to that.
Yes, I am adding reality. People are covetous, needy, greedy, and jealous.

Some people are even unreasonable.

Quote:
I have never had a friend who said, "Oh wait, you're also friends with other people? I'm sorry, I can't handle that. I want you to be friends with me only." And I don't think anyone would actually WANT to be friends with someone like that.
Exactly! So you admit there are people like that, but you choose not to be friends with them.

Well, lucky you. Someone got tricked into being their friend, and then what? Drop them?

Quote:
I'm not saying anyone here is. What I meant was mono people tend to look at it like that. The norm in society is that if you are in a relationship with someone, it is not allowed for you to also be in a relationship with someone else.
That's what people keep saying, but that's not what I see. I see people having rich, multiple, simultaneous relationships all the time.

What we don't have is a society that allows us to grace the word 'marriage' or 'couple' to them. Heck, we don't even regularly allow two men or two women to be a couple, yet.

Quote:

It sounds like both of your kids are pretty young, so that's a little different. I'm talking about relationships between emotionally mature adults.
How many threads have you ignored on this board? Emotionally mature adults are rare!

Quote:
1. You don't know my financial situation.
I don't need to because your financial situation is irrelevant. You asked why you shouldn't, and if you can't afford to, you shouldn't.

The reverse is true; if you can afford to, you can.
Quote:
2. How many partners do you think I have?
Also irrelevant. You clearly said 'Follow my heart'. You never said anything about how many partners you have. I created a situation where you shouldn't necessarily follow your heart.
Quote:
3. Again, you are assuming things about my situation which you do not know.
Nope, I assume nothing. I assume that N is a number greater than 1 and that eventually you hit a value large enough where what I say is true. For me it might be 2, for you it might be 20, but at some point N is going to be true.
Quote:
4. If that actually happened, then I would hope that every person involved would be mature enough to say "Person X is sick, so they need a bit more attention." I mean, does anyone here really want a relationship with someone who'd say, "You're not spending enough time with me! I don't care that your other girlfriend is in a critical condition, Tuesday is our date night, and dammit, you have to be there!"
You don't get to choose how inconsiderate other people are.
Quote:
5. Again, you don't know my situation.
I don't need to. You put out a hypothetical, I responded in like. Again, N isn't bounded. It might be you can deal with 4, but not 20, so set N=20 and my point is still true.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 03-01-2014, 06:09 AM
Tiberius Tiberius is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 96
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus View Post
You were creating a hypothetical (or at least that's what it looks like) in which you seemed to be saying there were no reasons to not follow your heart.
Ah, sorry, here's where the confusion lies.

In a way, it was a hypothetical, but not just a random person/random person one. It was a hypothetical for myself. My post was actually about me, I wasn't using the word "I" to refer to a hypothetical person.
Reply With Quote
Reply

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 08:47 AM.