What the heck is love?

[AnotherConfused]

Yes, it's always the matter of which body parts! Which makes sex seem so trivial, when you think about it. I've told L I'm pretty sure if he set his mind to it he could get me to orgasm just caressing his way from fingertip to elbow. But would that be cheating? I don't know!

I realize you didn't liken my marriage to a prison cell, MrFarFromRight. But I notice many people here seem to find monogamy too confining, and I wanted to explain why I don't. It would feel that way in a marriage with someone who expected to meet all my needs, certainly. I had a boyfriend like that once. (*Shudder*) And his hotel was more like 3 stars!

I'm not sure if I could go so far to say that my husband is happy with my interactions with other men, but he seems to understand that part of what he loves about me is the way I love, and he doesn't want to try to control that. I wrote ad nauseum last fall about my "coming out" to him about L, and the issues that came up for him. Not jealousy, but concern for propriety, and wasted emotional energy, on to where our careers were headed (that was a surprise) and even whether I'd be stuck caring for L in his old age. Seems we've addressed all that enough that he is ok with it all now, as long as sex isn't in the picture.

I haven't told him about D, because it seems like mostly just a dance floor flirtation. H told me last year he doesn't really want to know if I'm in love with someone. Hopefully that's ok. I would tell him if it were to move beyond dancing, but D doesn't want to do anything to upset his wife -even email is out, apparently. So we'll just stick with the appropriate body parts for our situation.

 

[MrFarFromRight]

Well, I'm glad it's all working out for you.

 

[Magdlyn]

Nothing personal at all. Monogamy and non-monogamy have existed in nature a lot longer than humans have existed. Look at the animal kingdom and broaden the resources drawn from. That's all I'm saying. Too many people read one book, don't question it becasue it fits their needs, and preach it as gospel.

Well, I am not going to take that personally! OK, I am. I've read more than one book. LOL

Perhaps you shouldn't condemn data in a book you haven't even read. The comparison of penis and testicle size, shape and location, between humans and other apes (chimps and bonobos which are promiscuous, and have similar genitals to humans, and then to gorillas which are polygynous, and gibbons, which are monogamous) is extremely interesting.

The truth of science today will be the chance of it being false in the future. Science has an amazing history of being wrong once new(er) science has become better. Anthropologists make a living on those errors.

This, I agree with. However, the data in Sex at Dawn is pretty compelling. I am not saying you 2 are wrong in your feelings of monogamy or poly-fi. It's great it works for you and you're comfortable, even ecstatic, with your choices. I'm just asking you to consider a culture where every day is orgy day. Would you still be mono or poly-fi?

 

[MonoVCPHG]

I'm just asking you to consider a culture where every day is orgy day. Would you still be mono or poly-fi?

Sorry if I came off as condemning a book as it is not my intention. Some people, not saying you Magdlyn, just seem to take everything in it as 100% based on fact and infallible research when even other people in the authors' field question it. That is where I find some difficulty.

As far as a culture where every day was an orgy? I would still be who I am...the only difference would be is that I would likely have to shed the orgy programming that society would impose upon me to find my true nature of monogamy. Similar to how poly people have to shed their monogamous programming to find their true nature. Maybe I would create my own little community of "enlightened" people…who knows.

Besides that, show me any orgy culture that has achieved anything like the level of modern infrastructure, technology or general societal order that I enjoy and I will definitely give it more credence. I'm glad that we have new theories of how our societal/relationship dynamics have evolved. For me the key word is evolved. I learn from the past, I don't live in it.


We are hi-jacking this thread...sorry everyone, I'm done with this topic now I swear

 

[Tonberry]

Joining the thread a bit late, but I wanted to comment on this:

I wonder though why monogamy comes so easily to so many people, though?

Does it, though? I'm of the opinion that some people are happier in a monogamous relationship, some in a poly one, and some are fine with either or both depending on the circumstances.
But with monogamy being the norm, we can see how it doesn't work for a lot of people. As usual with things like that, we tend to hear about it when it doesn't work more than when it does, so I can't pretend I have actual figures, but obviously, a lot of people cheat, some don't but are very tempted (and wouldn't that mean it doesn't come easily to them?), some would rather be allowed to date around but will settle for not being allowed to as long as their partner doesn't either, etc.

Of course, you also find mono people struggling with poly partners because they can't relate to it at all. And poly relationships failing for various reasons.

I don't think one is superior to the other, I think you need to live your own relationship(s) the way it is/they are.

About different types of love, though, I remember reading up on various terms...
For instance there is one type I forget the scientific name of, but which is commonly referred to as crush. That's a feeling that is strong due to not being revealed. The thrill is in feeling that way and not saying so, picturing the scene in which you confess your feelings, or even just feeding off of it without planning to ever share it, ever. It's some kind of drug that you get off of, sometimes even when it's absolutely impossible because the person doesn't exist (character in a movie, book, etc), is out of reach (famous person you'll never meet) or doesn't exist anymore (died, or your crush is on a younger version of them than they are now).
Basically, that one type of love was all about fantasy and make believe, and would tend to shatter if something did become possible with said person, because it's not built on anything solid (although it's possible to later have a relationship with that person).

Then we talk a lot about NRE around here, which is the way you feel at the beginning of a relationship. It's not the same as the one above, because you do have concrete things and you do know the other person likes you.

And there is the feeling you get in an established relationship, which is more about complicity and knowing each other than about passion, and close to a friendship.

I know a couple who have loved each other for close to 20 years now (been together for ten), and they have that newlywed vibe to them still, despite how long they've been together. Yet the also have that more established feeling too, so I definitely believe they can coexist.

And of course there is love you feel for your friends, your family, etc.

But putting labels on everything isn't always productive. I find it easier to just say I love said person, and know that the way I love them isn't the same way I love anyone else. But the point is that I want them to be happy, and knowing they're happy makes me happy, and that's pretty much the only constant here between all the different love I feel for various people in my life.

 

[BlackUnicorn]

I've read of a typology of love compromised of three elements:
1) intimacy;
2) passion; and
3) commitment.

If none of these three are present, we are talking of a a friendship that is based on association or shared, usually temporary goals (Aristotle's typology of friendships). If intimacy is present without passion and commitment, we are talking of a true friendship (Aristotle would have probably added 'commitment', too, to his definition). If passion is present without intimacy or commitment, we are talking about 'infatuation' (or NRE, I might add, which often creates the illusion of higher intimacy and commitment than there actually is). And if there is commitment without passion or intimacy, the authors of this typology refer to it as the 'dead/empty marriage', which of course is a hugely normative statement.

The coming together of all the three elements in this typology is termed 'perfect love' as in something that is heavily idealized and striven for in our culture. They have names for all dyadic combinations, too. So I sometimes toy with categorizing my relationships with the help of this typology.

1) I have friendships that include intimacy and commitment but no passion in the sexual sense - I think they are part of how my possibly-poly nature seeks expression. Adding sex to these relationships is a) improbable because of orientation issues and b) would to my mind not add anything that wasn't already there.
2) I think most relationships start either with a strong element of passion and increasing intimacy, or with a strong element of intimacy and increasing passion.
3) I feel most sexually attracted to people I experience strong intimacy, passion and commitment to. I certainly don't mind having sex with people whom I don't feel this kind of 'perfect romantic love' for, but I don't feel the need to.

What am I getting at with this? AnotherConfused, maybe some of the confusion stems from the idea that all relationships with people to whom you are attracted to and who are attracted to you should progress towards the perfect love-ideal of combining all three elements and if possible, all three to an equal degree. That's maybe why you sometimes wonder if you are 'stalling' or 'stopping short' your relationship with L and D because of this progress model most of us carry around in our heads.

 

[Ariakas]

This, I agree with. However, the data in Sex at Dawn is pretty compelling. I am not saying you 2 are wrong in your feelings of monogamy or poly-fi. It's great it works for you and you're comfortable, even ecstatic, with your choices. I'm just asking you to consider a culture where every day is orgy day. Would you still be mono or poly-fi?

No saying you are wrong either .. I am with mono, it is apparent most people that read this suddenly believe it to be one twue way. It isn't.

What you are showing an example of is cultural influence. Not biology. Its the "natural" aspect that annoys me. We were once slave traders (go back to the mayans) is that natural?

People are claiming biological influence when it is likely cultural. And all of these wonderful group settings, sound great. But what about the anthropological proof of alpha/beta. Maybe some culturing can get rid of that but I doubt it would work everywhere.

Again, the arguments show there definite signs of acceptable and cultural non-monogamy. Thats fucking awesome. But I dislike when its attached to the biology of people based on small sub sections. Again mags, not saying you are doing this, but I have seen a lot of debaters who are. The other side should be realized to. Trying to define a relationship structure around biology is comical.

Anyways, I am far to sick to put together a good counter point. I had a lot of great points when my brain wasn't fried. This rings of religion to me. People grab onto it and worship the point and ignore the rest. I am anthro-nostic maybe (hell I love made up words)... the beauty of being human is our diversity to chose. Too many people try to pigeon hole based on culture, religion, history and half truths.

BTW I do love the debate, my mother had her masters in sociology and anthropology with a minor in psychiatry. My father had his Bs... this is the kind of stuff I argued with them about... she would find that book fascinating and its one I intend to give her soon

*yawn* back to my brain frying (cough)

 

[Magdlyn]

Well here is a biological condition to which I alluded above.

There is a chart in Sex at Dawn (read it), which shows the sizes of the penis and testicles in several species of ape, humans included. The testicles of bonobos, chimps and humans hang outside the body. The testicles of gorillas and gibbons are tiny in comparison to the others,' and are tucked up inside the body.

The first 3 have chilly testicles, which increases sperm production. They are meant to be used to take part in sperm competition with other males, having sex with the same female.

The head of the human male corona is extra large and works as a squeegee to scrape out another man's semen. Not mentioned in the book is the idea that women's watery ejaculate is produced to wash out semen, to make way for something better that just came along.

Loud female vocalizing during orgasm is a mating call to attract other men. "Ooh! Someone's in the mood." She is multi-orgasmic, while most men are good for just one shot (at least for an hour or so). So, the first guy or 2 are just warmups.

 

[Ariakas]

Well here is a biological condition to which I alluded above.

There is a chart in Sex at Dawn (read it), which shows the sizes of the penis and testicles in several species of ape, humans included. The testicles of bonobos, chimps and humans hang outside the body. The testicles of gorillas and gibbons are tiny in comparison to the others,' and are tucked up inside the body.

The first 3 have chilly testicles, which increases sperm production. They are meant to be used to take part in sperm competition with other males, having sex with the same female.

The head of the human male corona is extra large and works as a squeegee to scrape out another man's semen. Not mentioned in the book is the idea that women's watery ejaculate is produced to wash out semen, to make way for something better that just came along.

Loud female vocalizing during orgasm is a mating call to attract other men. "Ooh! Someone's in the mood." She is multi-orgasmic, while most men are good for just one shot (at least for an hour or so). So, the first guy or 2 are just warmups.

So in an orgy situation where pregnancy is the goal, the third guy in line needs to have a huge head, not have cum yet, and the woman needs to be thoroughly cleaned Got it ...

I have read about the head before, as well as the multi-orgasmic part. And of course the loud orgasming part, that ones I think obvious to most people However Thats a new one for the ejaculate. thanks..

 

[AnotherConfused]

No worries about hijacking the thread. These are all things I like to think about.

BlackUnicorn, I've often thought of love similarly, as a composite of different types of feelings in different degrees. Would you say "passion" is the same as sexual attraction, or different? I'm thinking about my feelings for D, which definitely fit the NRE definition, but I would hesitate to describe the passion as sexual. Last night between dances we went outside to talk, and he put his arms around me when I got cold, but it felt more snuggly. When L puts his arms around me I feel a sexual current run straight through me. I am eager to see D again (was thrilled he changed plans last night and showed up where he knew I'd be dancing) and we can get giddy looking into each other's eyes, but I don't really want to see him naked! But intimacy? I hardly know him and don't know if I'll get to. Commitment? I can't see this going anywhere. So passion, not sexual? What is that?

(With L and H I feel all 3 feelings, which is why I wonder if I'm missing out on anything by forgoing sex with L.)

Tonberry, I was thinking it felt like a crush, but that's only when you don't tell? I feel like every so often I get a crush and the first thing I want to do is go and tell. Being married and not seeking other relationships gives me a kind of devil-may-care confidence I never had when I was single, so I can say "I really like you" and not be vested in their response.

Anyway, I now find myself in the business of trying to cover up feelings for D so other people don't notice, because eyebrows are starting to be raised. That makes me feel sneaky, not in a fun way. I feel like people will look at us dancing and assume there's an affair going on, so now I think we have to limit how much we dance. Big bummer. I think I disappointed him last night when I accepted the last dance with someone else, but he left before I could explain. *sigh*

And Magdlyn, if every day was orgy day I think we'd just have to find some other ritual behavior to give meaning to our most special relationships. The kinds of physical touch we give out most freely -handshakes, side hugs, cheek pecks, depending on who you are -those don't really carry any meaning. I would not want sex to lose its meaning, myself. Lovely as it feels physically, it always feels better (to me) when combined with love.

I just love that there are all these open-minded people here to discuss all this with! I could talk about love for hours. Thanks.

 

[Tonberry]

Well, the feeling I talked about was apparently something that blossoms in anticipation, when it doesn't happen or can't happen. Confessing runs the "risk" of the person telling you they like you back, which stops that period of dreaming and starts a different stage that's actually real. Maybe "crush" is the wrong word, although people who have crushes openly often still don't expect anything to actually result from them... I've seen that happen at least.

 

[preciselove]

Well here is a biological condition to which I alluded above.

There is a chart in Sex at Dawn (read it), which shows the sizes of the penis and testicles in several species of ape, humans included. The testicles of bonobos, chimps and humans hang outside the body. The testicles of gorillas and gibbons are tiny in comparison to the others,' and are tucked up inside the body.

The first 3 have chilly testicles, which increases sperm production. They are meant to be used to take part in sperm competition with other males, having sex with the same female.

The head of the human male corona is extra large and works as a squeegee to scrape out another man's semen. Not mentioned in the book is the idea that women's watery ejaculate is produced to wash out semen, to make way for something better that just came along.

Loud female vocalizing during orgasm is a mating call to attract other men. "Ooh! Someone's in the mood." She is multi-orgasmic, while most men are good for just one shot (at least for an hour or so). So, the first guy or 2 are just warmups.

Sounds interesting, thanks for sharing this.

One thing a lot of people don't realize though is just because something is natural or intended to be a certain way doesn't make it the most optimal. Our knowledge of diseases now means if you were to have orgies like that with the wide diversity now on offer you would likely be dead within a few years, or at the least, severely impacted. Genital warts, HPV, etc can all be passed on even using protection. Where does "Sperm wars" come into it when we can do DNA tests and have massive selections of people to choose from? It's like trying to raycast on a 386 (with math coprocessor) when you have an I7 available.

We may have evolved to be like that, in our tiny groups of about 30, walking around the plains, but it doesn't really gel well with the information we have now. I think you can reprogram a few basic biological things with your brain, not all, but some, and we should do that if we want to be successful. My advice to people, don't get stuck on the nature is always right path. Often it's just random chance something is a certain way, and gaining meaning out of randomness is rather silly.

 

[BlackUnicorn]

BlackUnicorn, I've often thought of love similarly, as a composite of different types of feelings in different degrees. Would you say "passion" is the same as sexual attraction, or different? I'm thinking about my feelings for D, which definitely fit the NRE definition, but I would hesitate to describe the passion as sexual. Last night between dances we went outside to talk, and he put his arms around me when I got cold, but it felt more snuggly. When L puts his arms around me I feel a sexual current run straight through me. I am eager to see D again (was thrilled he changed plans last night and showed up where he knew I'd be dancing) and we can get giddy looking into each other's eyes, but I don't really want to see him naked! But intimacy? I hardly know him and don't know if I'll get to. Commitment? I can't see this going anywhere. So passion, not sexual? What is that?

I'm not sure what the theory says (I was in high-school when I read about it), but personally, I equate passion with intensity of emotion. I understand the English ethymology of the word comes from Latin's passio and originally means suffering, as in passion play. From a Buddhist perspective, passion could thus mean either a strong desire to approach or an equally strong desire to avoid an object of the passion. In my native language, passion literally translates as 'eager lust' or 'keen desire'.

So I'll go with passion in the context of love meaning a strong desire to approach the object of your passion, which can express itself in sexual feeling.

(With L and H I feel all 3 feelings, which is why I wonder if I'm missing out on anything by forgoing sex with L.)

Maybe, maybe not. Adhering to the progress model of relationships, yes. Is the progress model any good? Maybe not.

 

[MrFarFromRight]

In my native language, passion literally translates as 'eager lust' or 'keen desire'.

Which language? Do you speak German? In German, passion is Leidenschaft and there's a saying (playing with the separation of words into their components):
"Eifersucht ist eine Leidenschaft, die Eifer sucht... und Leiden schaft."
[Jealousy is a passion, which seeks Eagerness... and creates suffering.]

Don't want to highjack this thread, but since there's some interest in ground-breaking anthropological books on here already (OK: book, singular: "Sex At Dawn"), I want to mention 2 others that I find excellent.

"The Descent Of Woman" by Elaine Morgan and "Cows, Pigs, Wars and Witches" by Marvin Harris. In order to avoid getting deleted here for being off-topic, I've included some explanation on both books in this comment on a "Sex At Dawn" thread.

 

[AnotherConfused]

Yes, this makes total sense to me! Passion as an eagerness, a desire to be with someone. I've got that can't-get-enough-of-you feeling for D these days (and for L, end even H although I do get plenty of him).

Had a long talk with D last night. We're in this tricky spot. Both married, happily. His wife has such bruised trust from his affair 25 yrs ago. So on the one hand he doesn't even want email from me, and of course not to pursue any sort of sexual relationship, for her sake. My H is more trusting and doesn't mind so much my emotional affairs. D and I mostly just want to keep doing this feels-so-good dancing, but what's tempting is to ignore everyone else on the dance floor the whole night, and dance in a way that leads onlookers to suspect there's something happening in the bedroom, even when there isn't. Can't have that. I also want time to get to know who he is off the dance floor, and we really can't have that either. So we're playing with the idea of meeting to dance in some little nightclub where no one knows us, so we don't have to worry about how it looks. Or the idea of heading out on a dance night but skipping the dance to go sit and talk in a coffee shop. But I don't like the thought of sneaking around with someone's husband, even if it is just to talk. Not sure what we'll do about it all.

So in a way it is still also a crush, in the sense that there is nothing more to pursue. Seems our relationship will consist of dancing with a lot of passion, and restraint. And that's ok.

 

[BlackUnicorn]

Which language? Do you speak German? In German, passion is Leidenschaft and there's a saying (playing with the separation of words into their components):
"Eifersucht ist eine Leidenschaft, die Eifer sucht... und Leiden schaft."
[Jealousy is a passion, which seeks Eagerness... and creates suffering.]

Finnish, and yes, I am passively conversant in German, although can't claim to actually speak the language with any sort of ease. That particular saying I learnt from a German ex of mine .

The actual Finnish word for passion is a compound word 'intohimo', and GoogleTranslate, the leading authority in the field, translates the first part of the word, into, as zeal, eagerness and zest, the latter part, himo, as lust, craving and desire. So I wasn't too of the mark with my translation!

So we're playing with the idea of meeting to dance in some little nightclub where no one knows us, so we don't have to worry about how it looks. Or the idea of heading out on a dance night but skipping the dance to go sit and talk in a coffee shop. But I don't like the thought of sneaking around with someone's husband, even if it is just to talk. Not sure what we'll do about it all..

Sadly, if it feels like cheating, it most often is. Have you thought about D explaining the situation to his wife, or is that a complete no-no?

 

[AnotherConfused]

I get the feeling from D that if he told his wife how he feels about me, she wouldn't want him to go out dancing any more. (He didn't even want me to call his home to get his granddaughter's phone number for babysitting, months ago before these feelings had built up. She seems to be either very controlling, very untrusting, or both.) She already doesn't like him to go out dancing, but it's a compromise they've made in their marriage because it's so important to him. I asked whether she believes, knowing him as well as she does, that he is out dancing and not forming any feelings for the women he meets, and he wasn't sure.

So in some ways, even just dancing with him feels like cheating, but that at least is something his wife knows he is doing. The real cheat comes from how awesomely good it feels when we dance. I'm certain she wouldn't be comfortable with how good I make him feel, and vice versa. But it does feel good, and I can't control that. Should we stop dancing together? That would be sad.

I imagine we'll find an equilibrium in the next few weeks.

 

[AnotherConfused]

Yep, D just called to say we need to cool it. No more than 3 dances in a row now (like most folks in these venues). No going anywhere else. Funny, but that feels fine to me. I like the longing.

 

[Magdlyn]

Was that his idea, or hers, I wonder?

 

[AnotherConfused]

His. He hasn't told her anything. He just felt like we were taking it too far and it was making him uncomfortable, considering both our spouses.

I actually told my husband about it last night, even though he has said he doesn't want to know when I am in love. I figured he should know why I was a little sleep deprived and distracted this week, and horny. He wasn't bothered, and in fact chuckled when I said it had made me feel sexy. We were putting our clothes back on at the time.

I've been surprised at how peaceful I've felt about cooling it off. Like I've just stepped off a roller coaster, grinning and breathless but grateful for the solid ground. I wonder if it will feel the same when I see D again, which likely won't be for several days.

Tonight I get to go dance with L. Life is beautiful!