life long commitment

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
. . . 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.
 
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.
 
Same in my case, too. Not every marriage has property and children to negotiate over.

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.



serialmonogamist; said:
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
That is why people change and divorce is a change of a relationship status.

Often people confuse status with reality - or rather they want to cover up reality with status. I think my fascination with this issues goes beyond marriage and divorce to a more general philosophical level. For example, I've been watching the politics of ousting Kaddhafi from power and it amazes me the lengths that people will go to to get him to surrender his own status as leader. Obviously people could simply stop recognizing him as leader but instead of doing that, they fight militarily against his status.

I think the same thing happens with monogamous breakups. People fight to prove that there's no further relationship so that other monogamous people will accept that their past relationship is over and start dating them. I think the belief that the relationship wholly ends is a status-orientation that ignores the reality of relationships and their complexity.
 
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.
lol. You don't think transracialism is legitimate? Do you think transgenderism is illegitimate too? What's the difference? You don't think a person can be poly and want to become mono or the reverse?
 
I find circular logic and arguing about semantics to be as enjoyable as hitting one's head into a brick wall.

I used to have a roomate who liked to "debate"-- or what he called debate. Basically he just liked to argue, using stuff he made up and nit picking on little tidbits. As soon as you presented an argument that he couldn't refute, he'd make something up or change the discussion or nitpick on how you were using a word.

I am having flashbacks...
 
lol. You don't think transracialism is legitimate? Do you think transgenderism is illegitimate too? What's the difference? You don't think a person can be poly and want to become mono or the reverse?

No, that isn't what I said. What I said was, you remind me of a white person who thinks that "being a black person inside" is cool and edgy. I think you're trying to convince yourself that you're poly so you can feel included.

"Real" transexual persons are not transexual so they can fit in with other transexual people. However, I do think there are people who pretend to be transexual because they think it's cool and edgy and they want to explore that social scene as "one of them".

That is what I have decided when it comes to this "serial monogamy = polyamory" jibber-jabber of yours.
 
No, that isn't what I said. What I said was, you remind me of a white person who thinks that "being a black person inside" is cool and edgy. I think you're trying to convince yourself that you're poly so you can feel included.

"Real" transexual persons are not transexual so they can fit in with other transexual people. However, I do think there are people who pretend to be transexual because they think it's cool and edgy and they want to explore that social scene as "one of them".

That is what I have decided when it comes to this "serial monogamy = polyamory" jibber-jabber of yours.
If you knew me, you would know that I'm a very strong critic of conformism and the use of superficial facades to impress others. If you'd read my other posts you would realize that my concern is with the underlying conflicts that occur for many monogamous people between their ability to be attracted to more than one (type) of person and their desire to monopolize someone else's interest and be wholly devoted without "straying." Thus, 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. Nevertheless, if they are a serial monogamist, they clearly have the potential to be attracted to different people. So my issue is with coming to terms with the underlying poly spirit among (at least some) serial monogamists. I personally think that I have the capacity to be interested in other people while in a committed monogamous relationship even though I wouldn't choose to pursue it. Nevertheless, this causes me to question my monogamous devotion. I think monogamy can be a behavioral choice but people can still recognize their "poly nature" does not make them inherently flawed as a monogamist. It's an issue of people coming to terms with their true nature and accepting that it is not false to feel one way and choose to behave in some other way for practical or moral reasons.
 
Oh geez. Many relationships are just not that complex, nor as co-dependent. Sometimes relationships just fucking end, no matter how much one wants to cling to their memories.
This opens up a whole other area of interest of mine: clinginess and cling-phobia. Anyway, I don't see why you would be so rude about this when you have "honesty is sexy" as your footer. My issue is with honesty. I don't think divorce is honest. I think polygamy is more honest. I think the legal requirement to divorce one spouse before entering a relationship with a second causes people to "end" relationships that don't necessarily need to end and deny connections that don't need to be denied. Call me "clingy" all you want but realize that all that label does is challenge people to keep beating to death the part of their heart that still feels something for past relationships, which is a shame because love should always be cherished as a positive thing, imo. Just because two people can't interact constructively in a relationship anymore doesn't mean they can't still love each other somewhere inside. It is a sad thing that conflicts of interest and communication problems destroy relationships when the potential for love would have remained if the circumstances permitted it to.
 
Just because two people can't interact constructively in a relationship anymore doesn't mean they can't still love each other somewhere inside. It is a sad thing that conflicts of interest and communication problems destroy relationships when the potential for love would have remained if the circumstances permitted it to.

This is true. Relationships can become befouled by poor communication. This doesn't change the fact that just because people were in a relationship together, it doesn't mean they must love each other at all, let alone forever.

You seem to like to create cause-and-effect relationships between intellectual concepts where they do not exist. It's like saying, "the ground is wet, therefore it must be raining". We are in complete agreement that the ground is indeed wet, but we don't know if it was because of rain, if someone peed on it, if someone used a garden hose, or if it rained then someone peed and then someone else used a garden hose to wash off the pee...

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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top