Knowing Intellectually vs. Really Feeling

GalaGirl

Well-known member
CTF said:
As for the suggestion that the individual is more important than the couple... This is not a healthy attitude. I'm not saying that the individual is less important, but in a truly healthy situation, they're as equal as can be. If you're not going to respect your partner as much as yourself, then you don't belong in a relationship.

If you mean that the individual must be healthy and must respect themselves first and then they could respect their partner, just as much as they respect themselves? Because if they aren't going to respect their partner they don't belong in a relationship? I agree.

In some cases, people don't respect themselves much AND they don't respect the partner much. It's as equal as can be. Yet not healthy.

In other cases, people try to respect their partner so much that they lose all sense of self. They make the partner center of all and neglect their self care in favor of attending to the relationship. That is not equal. That is not a healthy situation either.

CTF said:
If the poly partner was just honest about him/her not being enough (which is true by sheer definition), then it could save years of heartache by virtue of moving forward in whatever direction necessary.

I agree there too. The poly partner could say "No. You are not enough. You are enough YOU, but I want more than 1 partner, so no. You are not enough partners. You cannot magically be more than one partner. I love you a lot. But not even for you will I stay in a model that does not fit me."

I also think the mono partner could say "No. I love you a lot. But not even for you will I go there to a model that does not fit me. I don't want to be doing poly."

Both sides could be firm of purpose and not drag things out unnecessarily.

To me it just circles back around though. To be ABLE to be firm of purpose? I think one must be willing and able to take care of the individual FIRST. State plain what it is they need.

If the poly person did that, they would spit it out sooner that one partner is not enough. If the mono person did that, they would spit it out sooner that NO. They don't want to be doing any poly things. They would accept it sooner that they do not see eye to eye, are not compatible, and are best disbanding rather than banging heads on wall indefinitely.

Usually what I observe is this "save the relationship!" thing where both are putting the relationship first rather than the people. Not really wanting to be honest with each other because they don't want to lose the relationship. At all costs, the relationship must keep going... even at the cost of dinging their own selves.

Enter heartache and dragging things out unnecessarily.

Until it finally drags out long enough that it takes its toll and one of them finally figures out that that cost? It is too high a cost to pay. One could not subsume themselves to a relationship. And that it is more respectful to themselves and to the partner to part ways with grace and decorum that to make a shit show out of it or be going through the motions of a relationship that is basically dead. Both people deserver better than shit show. Both people deserve better than going through the motions "meh." Life is too short and it is too precious to be spending it like that.

This is why I said to BonzaiBlitz to also talk about how this will end. The foray into poly might end well. Or it might not end well. But to cover all possibilities just in case so there's no surprises. I observe that newbies tend to go into it with a kind of "tunnel vision" -- they can only see the desired outcome. As a result? They neglect to prepare for other possible outcomes and are surprised when it doesn't always go how they think.

BonzaiBlitz, hopefully all this stuff has given you the food for thought you were after and hasn't strayed too far off topic.

Galagirl
 
Last edited:

CTF

Member
You have failed to convince me that my experiences have been the opposite of reality.

Basically, you are taking your feelings and trying to make them the reality for everyone. Since you can't feel love for more than one person, you assume nobody can. I at least concede that some people aren't capable of poly.

Perhaps my view of "enough" is different than yours. I don't see people as "enough" or "not enough". I just see the people in my life as the people in my life. Yours is an interesting concept, but hard for me to relate to.

Again, I've not said that I, nor anyone else for that matter cannot love more than one person. I seriously don't know why you keep with that straw man argument. What I've said was that the more one loves, the more it gets diluted among the crowd. Now, while I'm glad we at least agree that not everyone has the same capacity, it's inaccurate to state that it's infinite as though it's just a common sense fact that everyone should know, understand and experience.

Sure, perhaps our views of "enough" differ. I tend to look at it more in the textbook sense. If one claims to need more of anything, then logic states that they don't have enough of what they currently have. I need more food = The food J have is not enough. I need another partner = the partner I have is not enough.

I get that my concept isn't easy to relate to. For that matter, so is yours. And this isn't about each of us trying to convince the other. Where I do generally take exception, is when one side is presented as though it's an undisputed fact. And these often lead to dangerous paths when you're dealing with a couple so clearly divided, and those on the "infinite" side are encouraged to try & convince their partner of the opposite equation. So they use the kid analogy, or the friend analogy because they think it's bulletproof, when it's not in the least.
 

kdt26417

Official Greeter
Staff member
Hi BonzaiBlitz,

It sounds like you have accepted poly in your mind, but you are struggling to make peace with poly in your heart. Don't beat yourself up about that, it's very human. Just be honest, and own your feelings. Don't try to squish yourself into a mold to make Bloom happy. She should be understanding and accepting of your struggles. The thing to do now is try to decide whether you can stand to live in a poly situation like this. And you will not be able to decide quickly.

Hang in there, and keep us posted.
Regards,
Kevin T.
 

CTF

Member
If you mean that the individual must be healthy and must respect themselves first and then they could respect their partner, just as much as they respect themselves? Because if they aren't going to respect their partner they don't belong in a relationship? I agree.

In some cases, people don't respect themselves much AND they don't respect the partner much. It's as equal as can be. Yet not healthy.

In other cases, people try to respect their partner so much that they lose all sense of self. They make the partner center of all and neglect their self care in favor of attending to the relationship. That is not equal. That is not a healthy situation either.



I agree there too. The poly partner could say "No. You are not enough. You are enough YOU, but I want more than 1 partner, so no. You are not enough partners. You cannot magically be more than one partner. I love you a lot. But not even for you will I stay in a model that does not fit me."

I also think the mono partner could say "No. I love you a lot. But not even for you will I go there to a model that does not fit me. I don't want to be doing poly."

Both sides could be firm of purpose and not drag things out unnecessarily.

To me it just circles back around though. To be ABLE to be firm of purpose? I think one must be willing and able to take care of the individual FIRST. State plain what it is they need.

If the poly person did that, they would spit it out sooner that one partner is not enough. If the mono person did that, they would spit it out sooner that NO. They don't want to be doing any poly things. They would accept it sooner that they do not see eye to eye, are not compatible, and are best disbanding rather than banging heads on wall indefinitely.

Usually what I observe is this "save the relationship!" thing where both are putting the relationship first rather than the people. Not really wanting to be honest with each other because they don't want to lose the relationship. At all costs, the relationship must keep going... even at the cost of dinging their own selves.

Enter heartache and dragging things out unnecessarily.

Until it finally drags out long enough that it takes its toll and one of them finally figures out that that cost? It is too high a cost to pay. One could not subsume themselves to a relationship. And that it is more respectful to themselves and to the partner to part ways with grace and decorum that to make a shit show out of it or be going through the motions of a relationship that is basically dead. Both people deserver better than shit show. Both people deserve better than going through the motions "meh." Life is too short and it is too precious to be spending it like that.

This is why I said to BonzaiBlitz to also talk about how this will end. The foray into poly might end well. Or it might not end well. But to cover all possibilities just in case so there's no surprises. I observe that newbies tend to go into it with a kind of "tunnel vision" -- they can only see the desired outcome. As a result? They neglect to prepare for other possible outcomes and are surprised when it doesn't always go how they think.

BonzaiBlitz, hopefully all this stuff has given you the food for thought you were after and hasn't strayed too far off topic.

Galagirl

Of course, if there's no respect towards anyone, then there shouldn't be a relationship. Yes, I was speaking with respect included. But this notion that the individual is somehow MORE important than the relationship isn't something I see as healthy, but rather, selfish thinking.

And no, I'm not saying people should be a doormat, however, if you're no t willing to do more for your partner, than you expect in return, that's a problem. The wag I see it, each side should be willing to put forth 60%, otherwise, it turn into a tit for tat relationship where everyone keeps score.

To your next point, I've always found the "you are enough you" angle to be a bit of a cop out. No offense intended, but struggling monos aren't questioning whether or not they're enough "them", and the poly partners who come out, often, aren't making that distinction. They just get angry and think "how day he/she say they're not enough?" Even though it's precisely true. Sure, monos can also be more clear from the beginning. That's certainly what I did, and it's the main reason why I caution so many on these types of threads, despite being labeled as a hater, etc... They need to know that THEY deserve a voice too without being told their perspectives are wrong.

And I'm with you on the next point. Saving the relationships at all costs isn't ideal. That being said, it's often easier said than done when lives are entangled with kids, mortgages, health insurance and extended family members, etc...
 

Ravenscroft

Banned
I do feel a bit badly that you'd bought into the "poly cheerleading" nonsense & as a result got bit.
Frankly, my reaction was virtually the opposite: that it sounds as if Bonzaiblitz bought into monogamy cheerleading and got bit.
Nope, sorry. I got to push back against that. However, it's to be said that you did a GREAT job of stating your position!!

And I was going to put a rebuttal here, but this covers it at least as well:
You are buying into #1 too much: being with someone else doesn't mean your wife had some empty void you couldn't fill.

A lot of mono people use that to try to cope with moving into non-monogamy. THAT is what is biting you on the ass, this feeling that this other guy can somehow fulfill her and you can't.
Nicely said. :)

It's that "zero-sum game" mentality against which I've struggled for decades. :( For those outside of economics, that model means that for there to be a positive, there MUST be a balancing negative. My poly network rather believed that it could just as easily be a "win/win" game: for example, I could have a fun, exciting, challenging, rewarding relationship with my wife AND have a fun, exciting, challenging, rewarding relationship with my girlfriend; if one were to suddenly cease, the other would still remain true.

I "fulfill" each of my partners as best I am able, & vice versa, which is why I'm there. I strive always to be the best ME that I can be, fully "in the moment"; if I cannot do so, then THAT is a problem... but any outside influences are mostly irrelevant.
 

vinsanity0

Active member
Again, I've not said that I, nor anyone else for that matter cannot love more than one person. I seriously don't know why you keep with that straw man argument. What I've said was that the more one loves, the more it gets diluted among the crowd. Now, while I'm glad we at least agree that not everyone has the same capacity, it's inaccurate to state that it's infinite as though it's just a common sense fact that everyone should know, understand and experience.

Sure, perhaps our views of "enough" differ. I tend to look at it more in the textbook sense. If one claims to need more of anything, then logic states that they don't have enough of what they currently have. I need more food = The food J have is not enough. I need another partner = the partner I have is not enough.

I get that my concept isn't easy to relate to. For that matter, so is yours. And this isn't about each of us trying to convince the other. Where I do generally take exception, is when one side is presented as though it's an undisputed fact. And these often lead to dangerous paths when you're dealing with a couple so clearly divided, and those on the "infinite" side are encouraged to try & convince their partner of the opposite equation. So they use the kid analogy, or the friend analogy because they think it's bulletproof, when it's not in the least.

Let's face it, analogies usually suck. There is no such thing as "enough food". At no point in their life does a person say, 'Okay, I've had enough food. I will never have to eat again."

Friends and kids are not analogies. They are examples.

The rest we are just going around in circles with so I won't bother.
 

CTF

Member
Let's face it, analogies usually suck. There is no such thing as "enough food". At no point in their life does a person say, 'Okay, I've had enough food. I will never have to eat again."

Friends and kids are not analogies. They are examples.

The rest we are just going around in circles with so I won't bother.

It all depends on the timescale. It's not about never eating again, or never loving again, or whatever else. I've already explained this, and still, you choose to ignore it. Love, food, time, etc... The question isn't whether enough means you'll ultimately run out, or run out of need, it's whether it's possible to process an endless amount at any one moment. Sure, you'll be hungry tomorrow, but you can only eat a meal so large before you've had enough at dinner. Time may go on billions of years, but we can only experience it one second of it at a time. Same goes with love... we may still love our families for the rest of our lives, but there's only so much love that one person can process in the moment.

Analogies, examples? I've seen them used as both here. It depends on the lense. If talking about love in general, sure (although it still doesn't speak to infinity), but you know as well as I do, that it's always brought up when comparing the ability to love multiple people in a romantic setting. They're fallacies no matter how you look at them.
 

dingedheart

Well-known member
Slogans and generalities are great but execution/ reality sometime suck.



Love is infinite:
An Awesome slogan but the currency in which that is expressed is time / attention and often money in one form or another. Depending on the person it a case of which do they have more of and feel like investing/ sharing / showing on a loved one.

One person can't expect to meet all the need of another person:
I guess that depends on the needs and what " NEEDS " are lacking. Back when I was a young fool ( high school and college ) I was advised to date and experience life to the fullest to find someone that I thought was the most compatible with how I was and that could conversely could tolerate me. It was an extensive search the lasted into my 30's. I beleive the goal is to find the correct mix and best balance on all those things. I've seen many threads in which mismatched sex drives and still proceed down the aisle and then end up here talking about needs being unmet. REALLY ???

I think people should discuss these needs prior to committing to one another and a good deal of this might be eliminated.


Every relationship has a shelflife :
This seems to be a very common poly attitude and phrase at least I've heard it here more than anywhere else.
I don't have a real problem if people beleive that however it would help to know that going in. And it would also be helpful to have a rough estimate of what that lifespan would be. 30 yr mortgage might be silly. Any long term purchases or plans could be avoided.



Kid analogy:
The idea of raising multiple children with the time investment and the love surrounding that is somehow analogous with the once a week / twice a month hotel sex romp is lost on me. It's always been an apple and a Harley
 

vinsanity0

Active member
Slogans and generalities are great but execution/ reality sometime suck.



Love is infinite:
An Awesome slogan but the currency in which that is expressed is time / attention and often money in one form or another. Depending on the person it a case of which do they have more of and feel like investing/ sharing / showing on a loved one.

"Infinite" may sound over the top, but...there is no way to measure love. Love is just a concept, not a quantifiable thing. Things like time, attention, and money have nothing to do with love. Those are just resources and they are definitely not infinite. So if you guys are equating love with those things, then I can see how you feel the way you do.

One person can't expect to meet all the need of another person:

I don't believe that so I will skip that part.
Every relationship has a shelflife :
This seems to be a very common poly attitude and phrase at least I've heard it here more than anywhere else.
I don't have a real problem if people beleive that however it would help to know that going in. And it would also be helpful to have a rough estimate of what that lifespan would be. 30 yr mortgage might be silly. Any long term purchases or plans could be avoided.

I don't think this is a prevalent poly attitude as much as a realization that we don't need to find The One. You know, that driving need to make it work because it may be your only shot at having your partner for life mono bs that most people grew up believing (including me).
Kid analogy:
The idea of raising multiple children with the time investment and the love surrounding that is somehow analogous with the once a week / twice a month hotel sex romp is lost on me. It's always been an apple and a Harley

Well, having a casual affair isn't really poly, is it? But what you tried to use as an example is often what couples end up "allowing" when they open up their marriage. It's much safer.
 

CTF

Member
"Infinite" may sound over the top, but...there is no way to measure love. Love is just a concept, not a quantifiable thing. Things like time, attention, and money have nothing to do with love. Those are just resources and they are definitely not infinite. So if you guys are equating love with those things, then I can see how you feel the way you do.



I don't believe that so I will skip that part.


I don't think this is a prevalent poly attitude as much as a realization that we don't need to find The One. You know, that driving need to make it work because it may be your only shot at having your partner for life mono bs that most people grew up believing (including me).

Well, having a casual affair isn't really poly, is it? But what you tried to use as an example is often what couples end up "allowing" when they open up their marriage. It's much safer.

Obviously, there's a fundamental disconnect. While quantifying may not be the right word, it's certainly a resource that has to be manifested. Often with things like time, and sometimes money. This isn't to suggest the attitude like "he bought me a car, therefore he loves me", but it's easy to spot love when you he/she wants to spend all of their time with you. It's also perhaps a bit easier to measure in the negative aspect. "She spends 14 hours a day with him, and leaves the room when I get home, so she clearly doesn't love me as much".

Secondly, it's funny how so often, monos are accused of not understanding poly, and then the same folks trot out inaccurate assumptions about monogamy. There's nothing whatsoever (outside of maybe church teachings) that make the claim that monogamy means forever. Monogamy is about one partner at a time, not one partner forever. Serial monogamy (which ridiculously gets a bad rap), is still monogamy. One person has no interest in having more than one partner simultaneously, and usually draws the line that his/her partner shares the same sentiment. That's ALL it is. That's all it ever was.
 

dingedheart

Well-known member
"Infinite" may sound over the top, but...there is no way to measure love. Love is just a concept, not a quantifiable thing. Things like time, attention, and money have nothing to do with love.

Really. How do you express your love all your partners ?? clever notes from your phone or computer ??



So if you guys are equating love with those things, then I can see how you feel the way you do.

Which guys ??

I'm not equating love with " those things" I'm suggesting thats the currency of love.

A few yrs after my dad past my mom said to me I want the lawn to look like a golf course again. I said no you don't because it's not just calling chemlawn and getting the deluxe fertilizer package it's time and energy ...thousands of dollars to get it there and thousands to keep it there long term. I guess one could argue my dad loved his lawn.
 
Last edited:

vinsanity0

Active member
Really. How do you express your love all your partners ?? clever notes from your phone or computer ??





Which guys ??

I'm not equating love with " those things" I'm suggesting that the currency of love.

A few yrs after my dad past my mom said to me I want the lawn to look like a golf course again. I said no you don't because it's not just calling chemlawn and getting the deluxe fertilizer package it's time and energy ...thousands of dollars to get it there and thousands to keep it there long term. I guess one could argue my dad loved his lawn.

Those are the currency of relationships. I've never argued that a person could have infinite relationships. The premise I am arguing against is that love is such a finite thing that that it has to be divided up among several people.
 

dingedheart

Well-known member
Those are the currency of relationships.

Wait I'm confused ...the prior post you said ...

. Things like time, attention, and money have nothing to do with love

Which is it ?

I've never argued that a person could have infinite relationships.
The premise I am arguing against is that love is such a finite thing that that it has to be divided up among several people.

Let's take a step back have have you clarify what you mean love is " just a concept " . I think most people here feel it's a real thing.

My point in posting Love infinite as a great slogans vs reality is that none of us lives in the slogan world ....the currency of love is always going to be there and that IS quantifiable. If you spend 1000 dollars on a birthday gift to you GF and give you wife a card it might say something. If you spend 95% of your time with partner x and 2% to partner y 1.5 % to partner z it's going to say something.
 

CTF

Member
Those are the currency of relationships. I've never argued that a person could have infinite relationships. The premise I am arguing against is that love is such a finite thing that that it has to be divided up among several people.

I think I'm a little lost on this too. Because from here, it seems like you're suggesting that relationships are not necessary for love, and vice versa. Which would then make love rather meaningless. In which case, why take such exception? If love is just some overly abundant concept so far disconnected to relationships, then why do so many people care if they give/receive it?
 

Tinwen

Active member
I think I'm a little lost on this too. Because from here, it seems like you're suggesting that relationships are not necessary for love, and vice versa. Which would then make love rather meaningless. In which case, why take such exception? If love is just some overly abundant concept so far disconnected to relationships, then why do so many people care if they give/receive it?
There is the feeling of love, and then there are expressions of love, in terms of words, attention, time, money. In addition I might want to talk about ... say ... the individual capacity to feel and capacity to express love. Let's make these distinctions and see it it's enough to disentangle this conversation just a little bit.

So, no one is going to argue that the expressions are limited.

When people say that love is infinite, they will generally refer to the feeling of love.

IMHO the feeling of love in it's purest form is indeed this flood of all-encompassing, non-exclusive, unconditional ... love ... towards everyone and everything, yourself, your enemy, your partner, the grasshopper in your garden and the earth under your feet. If we ever get to this experience (most people don't), I bet "infinite" is a pretty good description, and maybe that's where you get this catch-phrase, from people describing their peak experiences and their ideals.

A little more down the earth, (some) people do experience that by having a new partner their feeling of love towards the existing spouse isn't diminished in the least. Hence another meaning of "love is infinite" - loving one more person doesn't mean you feel less love to the other, and hence the kid and friend analogies as an attempt to explain to those who don't experience romantic love in this way.

Is the feeling of love worthless without the expression of it? That's everyone's call to make.
I have a friend. I know she loves me. She has expressed it with her words and her tears, yet she hasn't been able to express it in terms of time, to the extent where the relationship eventually became worthless to me no matter the intensity of the feeling. I do want the expressions of love. So I don't value the relationship, in fact I haven't seen her for a year, yet I still cherish the knowing that I'm loved by her. There are different approaches on this issue I think.

Things can get a little more convoluted in discussions if people try to describe the capacity to feel or express.
What do I mean by the capacity to feel love? Well, of course, some people will feel more intensely than others. Also at certain times of life we will feel more love than at other times. When I'm depressed, I can hardly find the feeling of love for anyone or anything at all. When I'm healthy and well I might be closer to this "infinite" ideal of love where I love everything about this world and nothing can spoil my day.
This, of course, can correlate to our capacity to express love, or not. If I'm depressed, not only I don't feel love, I also don't have the energy to make something nice for my partner. If my capacity to feel love is high, I still migh have the energy or not. Maybe I love you, but I'm ill (or maybe I've just had an orgasm... I looove everyone but don't make me get up :D). That's the case of my friend (and some poly people I believe) - her capacity to feel is huge, she loves everyone and everything, but sometimes she won't speak to enyone in months because her own demons hount her.

I believe it's one of our tasks on the way to being healthy well-rounded individuals to increase both our capacity to feel and to express love.

Also, there's a subtle point - it could seem that by stating the above and the ideal of infinite (all-encompassing and unconditional) love I'm claiming polyamory to be superior to monogamy. It is not so. After all, no need to be romantic or sexual with everyone and everything we love, right? ;)
 

vinsanity0

Active member
If you think love is quantifiable, tell me how much it takes to fill a bucket. How much does a five gallon bucket of love weigh?

Yes, love is a concept we have assigned to explain various feelings induced by chemical reactions in our brains. That's the simplified version, but I'm not going to write a book here.

What are you calling a relationship? I have a relationship with my dentist, but I don't love him. I have a relationship with my very good friend. I love her, but we don't have any romance or sex going on. I have another friend I love and we have romance, but very little in the way of sex. These are all relationships. Two of them involve love. And I haven't even gotten into my two daughters, my mom, and other family members, all of whom I love. It requires no effort to love these people.

But we are people and we all have limited resources. My first friend I mentioned, we usually get together on weekends. I could go over more but she has work stuff to do. Does that mean she loves her work more than she loves me? Nope. It means she has stuff to do. Is my love for her diminished because she has a life that doesn't always include me? Nope, I am not that self-centered.

The other friend lives in Ohio. I live in Florida. Does it mean I love her less than the first friend because I don't fly to Ohio every week to spend an equal amount of time with her? Nope.

You see, relationships adapt to the resources we have to put into them, but the love doesn't change. I'm not sure how I can make this any clearer.
 

CTF

Member
If you think love is quantifiable, tell me how much it takes to fill a bucket. How much does a five gallon bucket of love weigh?

Yes, love is a concept we have assigned to explain various feelings induced by chemical reactions in our brains. That's the simplified version, but I'm not going to write a book here.

What are you calling a relationship? I have a relationship with my dentist, but I don't love him. I have a relationship with my very good friend. I love her, but we don't have any romance or sex going on. I have another friend I love and we have romance, but very little in the way of sex. These are all relationships. Two of them involve love. And I haven't even gotten into my two daughters, my mom, and other family members, all of whom I love. It requires no effort to love these people.

But we are people and we all have limited resources. My first friend I mentioned, we usually get together on weekends. I could go over more but she has work stuff to do. Does that mean she loves her work more than she loves me? Nope. It means she has stuff to do. Is my love for her diminished because she has a life that doesn't always include me? Nope, I am not that self-centered.

The other friend lives in Ohio. I live in Florida. Does it mean I love her less than the first friend because I don't fly to Ohio every week to spend an equal amount of time with her? Nope.

You see, relationships adapt to the resources we have to put into them, but the love doesn't change. I'm not sure how I can make this any clearer.

Oh come now, you know that only physical objects can fill a bucket right? You seem to forget that I had previously said that "quantifiable" may not be the right word.

Now, even if the concept of love is infinite, that's not how we operate. The emotions themselves are what's important, as well as the actions driven by them. Loving someone in concept is meaningless, it's how they're expressed that matters.

What am I calling a relationship? Well, in this case, I'm referring to the relationships in which love are commonly attributed. I don't care about the dentist, the cashier at 7-11, etc... unless you're close with your dentist, I'd call that more of an acquaintance. But we're splitting hairs there & there's no point going further.

As for the others you mentioned, granted, you can call your feelings for them whatever you want. I have a daughter & 2 sons myself, and I do love them dearly, but friends? No. Not that I don't have any friends, but I sure don't love them. That whole idea is something I've always found bizarre... but to each their own I suppose.

When it gets down to it, there are a total of 6 people that I love. My wife, my 3 kids, my mom, and my sister. There are those who might come close, like my brothers & sisters in law, aunts/uncles/cousins perhaps that I care a great deal about, but I wouldn't exactly say I love them. Again, there's no real bond to where I could call it that. And it's even more bizarre when it's not people. "I love football", "I love pizza"... something horribly insulting to think that a spouse or a child can draw the same feeling as a piece of pizza.

Sure, relationships do adapt to the resources we put into them. But sorry, I just don't but that the feelings of love aren't affected by those adaptations. Wouldn't committing more resources into a relationship likely increase the love within? So why wouldn't fewer resources make it more prone to diminish?
 

Tinwen

Active member
Sure, relationships do adapt to the resources we put into them. But sorry, I just don't but that the feelings of love aren't affected by those adaptations. Wouldn't committing more resources into a relationship likely increase the love within? So why wouldn't fewer resources make it more prone to diminish?
This seems to be the heart of the dispute.
 

Nettle

New member
How big can love in a relationship grow then? Like if I quit all my hobbies and quit my job and just give all that time and resources to my husband, will our love get very big then? Or is there a limit after which it is saturated and extra resources don't mean extra growth for the love anymore? Maybe those extra resources can then go to an additional partner without the original partner loosing anything?

I don't think love can grow infinitely that way. And I don't think one should give all their resources to a relationship even if they are monogamous.
 

vinsanity0

Active member
How big can love in a relationship grow then? Like if I quit all my hobbies and quit my job and just give all that time and resources to my husband, will our love get very big then? Or is there a limit after which it is saturated and extra resources don't mean extra growth for the love anymore? Maybe those extra resources can then go to an additional partner without the original partner loosing anything?

I don't think love can grow infinitely that way. And I don't think one should give all their resources to a relationship even if they are monogamous.

This is a very good point. Perhaps it's fairer to say that the capacity for love is what is infinite. Or maybe it is not infinite for everyone. Clearly there are people who have a limited capacity to feel love. There are also people who don't allow themselves to feel any love outside of what they feel that are "allowed".
 
Top