Search results

It's OK for you, a contradiction in terms for me It's OK for you, a contradiction in terms for me. "Love" without trust/honesty "Love" without communication etc I just can't make it work. And if this is a common understanding here, I think I'd better go somewhere else. Either, the term is...

Sure - the "by choice" here is the central thing, and I must be very bad at expressing myself since you didn't get it - that the symmetry for me starts - AND ENDS - down in the foundation, that people can do things by choice, and they have equal rights of choosing there. As I have said, maybe...

In my experience, the uniqueness thing is important I think this conversation (won't call it discussion) is very good and very interesting, and about something many, many feel. Whether they identify as poly or not. Often, it is the emotional closesness part that is decisive, but, as mentioned...

..And just to add my own point, which seems to be sooooo bad: No need for basic equality - check

I notice that you did not answer my question, but choose to go out on a tangent that I explicitly said was not my intention. So I'm not going to repeat it. You seem to be, in a very general way, against the very idea of finding out whether there are some foundational things we could agree...

So, then what is, in your view, wrong with Ariakas' suggestion As far as I can see, the only disagreement is to whether something like balance(equity/symmetry should be added. Not as a testing criterion, as many seem to think, but as a basic principle - which it may seem some would think is...

I think you mix up principle and practice. Footings not equal in principle would be like an emperor entering into a "poly" relationship with a conquered slave. You seen much happiness coming from inequity like that? In practice, they are never quite equal, and that could even be an important...

First, there is a vast difference between problematic and potentially problematic. I would like to see ONE example of non-trivial lack of openness that is not potentially problematic. I haven't so far, and through the years I have seen a few cases. If it gives problems in just one out of...

What about classical double standards, like one-dick policy? Leaving symmetry out of the foundations would allow such things to be basic forms of polyamory, rather than arrangements agreed upon by equal partners. I guess that we both agree that two (or more) persons can only join a...

When you explicitly don't identify as polyamorous yourself, I can't really understand why you keep on insisting on definitions of polyamory that quite a few polyamourous people, me including, think are plain wrong. That "intimate loving" of yours is an option, not a necessity. Loving is a...

I think we can never filter out the situation dependence in this, and there will always be "grey zones". However, omission is _always_ potentially problematic, and openness, maybe rather transparency, is always an ideal. But I don't think concentration on lots of rather irrelevant details may...

This makes a lot of sense to me. Only thing I wonder about is the "amory" is emotional part. If we try to clear this language hybrid of Greek and Roman and look for what "polyamory" might become in pure Greek, I think we have problems. We could use eros or agape (at least), but neither fits...

"Symmetry" surely doesn't apply to everyones' everyday poly, and it should not (BDSM for example). But here we talk about foundations, and if we exclude it from the foundations, I think we head into dangerous territory. What I mean, is that from the foundational principles we could not say...

You are insisting on the sexual component of love here. Most of us aren't, including Ariakas And it is a bit odd if you, identifying as non-poly, should have a defining veto over us poly people in determining what is poly and what isn't, isn't it? You are emotionally mono. Which is not...

So you are emotionally monogamous. (Maybe sexually too, I didn't quite get that from your descrition of affair.) Does that exclude you from being polyamorous? That's the question here. With a somewhat less specialized notion of love than your "love without sex is friendship", I think you would...

And a sexually and emotionally monogamous person could check all the way here. That was my point. It just depends on which notion of love you apply. Polyamory is not a belief system, so the eventual (non)significance of attitude can't be inferred by analogy to belief systems. I would add...

Yes, that trust is important! It's not an option to question anyones' self-identification. It may, however, be important to try to look more exactly into what it is. And there is no doubt that a huge fraction of all people are sexually monogamous. While, in principle, this could be seen as...

I put it as a question. There are so many aspects, so many configurations here. First, any sex outside the primary couple would make you, per definition non-monogamous. But the swinger variety of non-monogamy, the pure form being sex, but nothing else, could be considered as a form of...

Pardon me, but I have a question about that "intimately loved". I think that is a central issue here. "Poly wired" people seem to lack some constraints there that "mono wired" have. But is it all that simple? To me, "love" seems to be an extremely ambigous concept, as it is normally used...

But "sans primary" doesn't have to imply that you are looking for one, does it? Just a neutral term, to distinguish those without primary partners who are in some kind of permanent relationship from those who are not.