Grr, I had a lot more written on this but my browser ate my post...
So I was going to ignore large parts of this thread - specifically this:
Hell, even notorious-for-his-failures guru Franklin Veaux managed to figure out not doing THAT, or at least talking a good game about it (quoted slightly out of order to make a point):
Maybe I'm just too much of an idealist - after all, who I fuck isn't intrinsically radical (I know I link a lot of things, but that one's particularly good) - but maybe I thought that if we could break the chains in one area it would at least make us THINK about how we might break them elsewhere.
So I was going to ignore large parts of this thread - specifically this:
Along with some other replies that I'm not even going to dignify their misogyny with a quote, because honestly the attitudes in them make me sad. I realize much of the world compartmentalizes and objectifies their partners, I've been guilty of it (or at least unsucessfully tried to do it ) myself. But so many of these comments just don't seem to see partners or potential partners as people, first, and that... we're sitting here on a board dedicated to relating with people in a way that breaks society's rules and has the chance to let us build ways of existing with other people that are braver and more vulnerable and more honest than most people ever even get to think about being... and yet we're sitting here bringing those same monogamous patterns and attitudes into it and that's frankly wildly depressing.It's unrealistic to expect your partner to be the perfect romantic partner, sex partner, wife, mother, financial partner, etc. Polyamory helps you find people who meet various needs. You can have one person who's an ideal sex partner and another person who is an ideal mother.
Hell, even notorious-for-his-failures guru Franklin Veaux managed to figure out not doing THAT, or at least talking a good game about it (quoted slightly out of order to make a point):
The tacit view of a partner as a need fulfillment machine explains the way people often deal with problems in a relationship. Many relationships are predicated on the notion that if Alice is involved with Bob, and Bob needs something (particularly if Bob has an emotional need), it is perfectly acceptable for Bob to not only ask for it from Alice but to demand it–and pitch a fit if he doesn’t get it.
The need-based argument for poly (“one person can’t really meet all my needs, so I have more than one!”) is a direct statement of the notion that partners are need fulfillment machines. It assumes as a subtext that getting someone to meet your needs for you is the entire purpose of a romantic relationship, and if one romantic relationship isn’t enough, you turn to more than one...
...it does seem that adults who see members of the opposite sex as The Other also seem more likely to treat their partners as need fulfillment machines than adults who don’t. Bookstore shelves are groaning under the weight of books that try to paint members of the opposite sex as The Other, some strange alien that you interface with in order to get your needs met, but who aren’t really fully individuated human beings.
It seems obvious to me how a partner who is treated as a human being rather than a need fulfillment machine is still valuable even if one’s needs aren’t currently being serviced, but it also feels to me like this is something of a minority opinion.
Maybe I'm just too much of an idealist - after all, who I fuck isn't intrinsically radical (I know I link a lot of things, but that one's particularly good) - but maybe I thought that if we could break the chains in one area it would at least make us THINK about how we might break them elsewhere.