life long commitment

Status
Not open for further replies.
There's plenty to read on the forum about people's negative experiences with monogamy AND their negative experiences with polyamory. Why not go ahead and search around the forum and jump in on some of the already-existing discussions and real-life chronologs to add your perspectives and insights with a context, instead of making generalizations about abstract concepts that make very little sense to you AND everyone else.

Because so far, you come across as if you like to hear yourself talk more than you actually care that what you're saying is valid or relevant.
You come across as if you want to push me into some kind of subordinate position. As I said in the last post, I don't like it when people expect me to behave submissively to "fit in." I don't just like hearing myself talk. I am interested in others' opinions, otherwise why would I bother with a discussion forum? I also do search around the forum and read other discussions, although I don't post in every thread just because I read it. I'm really not as arrogant as I seem to come across. I think it's just my tone. Do you or others here have a problem with people who aren't constantly submissive and apologetic in their tone?
 
You come across as if you want to push me into some kind of subordinate position. As I said in the last post, I don't like it when people expect me to behave submissively to "fit in." I don't just like hearing myself talk. I am interested in others' opinions, otherwise why would I bother with a discussion forum? I also do search around the forum and read other discussions, although I don't post in every thread just because I read it. I'm really not as arrogant as I seem to come across. I think it's just my tone. Do you or others here have a problem with people who aren't constantly submissive and apologetic in their tone?


This is not necessary. I was very polite to you in my last post. I was trying to help you out. If you can't move forward and act like an adult, I'll bend over and you can kiss my sweet ass.

Get over it. Get over yourself.
 
Nobody wants you to be submissive or apologetic, man. Puh-leez!

Though, I am not sure you don't like to subject yourself to punishment after seeing how often you keep coming back and saying the same things when everyone has told you you're not making ANY sense whatsoever and have a skewed view of poly. You haven't made one adjustment nor conceded that you have been wa-a-a-ay off-base, no matter how many members here have tried to explain it to you.
 
Last edited:
Jesus Christ on a breadstick, man.

Just because Neon suggested you read more and talk less, doesn't mean she wants you to be submissive. Being humble and learning from others who are more experienced than you does not equal submission, just attractive humbleness. Cindie and I are 15-20 years older than you; learn from your elders (if not betters).

Stop trying to reinvent the wheel. If you are an academic, you understand research, I hope. Read and learn, young padawan. Help you, we will. Don't preach to the choir, don't try and teach your teachers.

If you're mono, fine. If you think you need to be celibate because you lost your One True Love, fine. Just don't stupidly and arrogantly try and teach us what we already know, and try and skew our language to force your twisted agenda onto us. That's all we ask. We don't hate you. You're just damn annoying.
 
Jesus Christ on a breadstick, man.

Just because Neon suggested you read more and talk less, doesn't mean she wants you to be submissive. Being humble and learning from others who are more experienced than you does not equal submission, just attractive humbleness. Cindie and I are 15-20 years older than you; learn from your elders (if not betters).

I didn't even mean that he should talk LESS, I just meant that he might get more out of it if he talked about it in CONTEXT. It might be more productive to discuss it within the context of someone's REAL LIFE, instead of making statements about "most people" and "some people" and "people in general".
 
Thanks for clarifying, Neon.
 
Yeah, relationships are about people, not theories. SM, if you had just talked about your own situation with specific questions pertaining to you, and asked for input on something you're wrestling with, it would have been very different from coming here and spouting theories, trying to get us to "break through" language filters and see that reality is complex.
 
Last edited:
Nobody wants you to be submissive or apologetic, man. Puh-leez!

Though, I am not sure you don't like to subject yourself to punishment after seeing how often you keep coming back and saying the same things when everyone has told you you're not making ANY sense whatsoever and have a skewed view of poly. You haven't made one adjustment nor conceded that you have been wa-a-a-ay off-base, no matter how many members here have tried to explain it to you.
What is that will save me from this punishment then, agreeing that serial monogamy is more like absolute monogamy than polygamy? I agree that it is in practice, within a given time frame. But then aren't poly relationships like monogamous ones within the time frame you give to an exclusive date with one of your partners? Really, I'm just exploring the ideas but I'm not willing to concede to something without being convinced yet - not that I'm exactly sure what you're saying I should concede to.


Jesus Christ on a breadstick, man.

Just because Neon suggested you read more and talk less, doesn't mean she wants you to be submissive. Being humble and learning from others who are more experienced than you does not equal submission, just attractive humbleness. Cindie and I are 15-20 years older than you; learn from your elders (if not betters).

Stop trying to reinvent the wheel. If you are an academic, you understand research, I hope. Read and learn, young padawan. Help you, we will. Don't preach to the choir, don't try and teach your teachers.
Ok, you just said I don't have to be submissive and then you said I should be "humble" and not try to "teach my teachers." Having horizontal, non-submissive discussions means that no one is going to humble themselves before anyone else's wisdom. I can listen to it, appreciate it, and learn from it without performing humility for anyone's aesthetic pleasure.

If you're mono, fine. If you think you need to be celibate because you lost your One True Love, fine. Just don't stupidly and arrogantly try and teach us what we already know, and try and skew our language to force your twisted agenda onto us. That's all we ask. We don't hate you. You're just damn annoying.
Now that is what I call an honest but non-aggressive insult. Kudos. I don't know how I am skewing your language by discussing the concepts or trying to force a twisted agenda on you. What would my agenda be if I have one? To discover the true nature of love and relationships in various forms?

I didn't even mean that he should talk LESS, I just meant that he might get more out of it if he talked about it in CONTEXT. It might be more productive to discuss it within the context of someone's REAL LIFE, instead of making statements about "most people" and "some people" and "people in general".

Thanks for clarifying, Neon.

I wouldn't MIND if he talked "less", but it's not really an issue.
That's kind of you to say, Neon. I actually don't hate you either even though we've clashed. As for your allergy to generalizing, I see that as an aesthetic preference. You're right that everything happens in context, but some thoughts come in the form of generalities because they are derived from various experiences and observations. I would never claim that my universalist generalizing is based on anything except my own limited perspective, if that helps at all.
 
But then aren't poly relationships like monogamous ones within the time frame you give to an exclusive date with one of your partners?

This is gibberish! Why do you keep wanting to put monogamy into the polyamory category? You are aware that poly is a form of non-monogamy, no?

Maybe you need to see these:
http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/the-varieties-of-intimate-relationship/

http://www.xeromag.com/nonmonogamy.html
(scroll down page for map image)
 
Last edited:
What is that will save me from this punishment then...?

It's not punishment. This is the internet, guy, grow a set, OK?

agreeing that serial monogamy is more like absolute monogamy than polygamy? I agree that it is in practice, within a given time frame.

OK, one concession! At last!

But then aren't poly relationships like monogamous ones within the time frame you give to an exclusive date with one of your partners?

In some ways, as a dog is like a horse, as previously stated! God, you have shit reading comprehension skills and memory retention.

I doubt you're an academic, except in your own mind.

Sure, a poly partner shares some basics with a mono partner. But there are differences, and that's what this board is for. Your poly partner, even when fucking you, might be wearing a wedding ring or some other token of their OSO on their bodies. They might get a call or text from their OSO when on a date with you. They might be comparing you to the OSO in their minds. They might be thinking, "Oh, I can't wait to tell my OSO about what I just did with SO!" And the list goes on, ad infinitum.


Ok, you just said I don't have to be submissive and then you said I should be "humble" and not try to "teach my teachers." Having horizontal, non-submissive discussions means that no one is going to humble themselves before anyone else's wisdom.

No, it doesn't! That's ridiculous. I am humbled every day at the courage and patience and intelligence of most of the posters here. Yet, I do not feel submissive towards any of them.

I can listen to it, appreciate it, and learn from it without performing humility for anyone's aesthetic pleasure.

Yes, you can, but you will be vilified for arrogance if you do. Which you are complaining about. A lot.

What would my agenda be if I have one? To discover the true nature of love and relationships in various forms?

Even if that were your agenda, it's not the subject of the board. Polyamory is. Not "true" poly, not "various forms of love," polyamory as individuals practice it, according to their needs and the needs of their partners.

Your actual agenda seems to be to be self-aggrandizement and twisting language to make poly into something it isn't. Also, you are showing signs of needing help for your failed marriage-- beliefs and feelings about One True Love, and what to do when it ends.


I would never claim that my universalist generalizing is based on anything except my own limited perspective, if that helps at all.

Two concessions and humbling of self in one post. But like a "sandwich letter," the pretty stuff is on either end, and the meat is in the middle.
 
This is gibberish! Why do you keep wanting to put monogamy into the polyamory category? You are aware that poly is a form of non-monogamy, no?
Ok, but then so is serial monogamy a form of non-monogamy. I'm not trying to put monogamy in the polyamory category. I'm saying that complete devotion to a single person can occur in various ways or at particular moments and this probably happens in poly relationships too. Surely there are some moments when you just get lost in the person you're with and you stop thinking about anyone else. That doesn't make you an absolute monogamist or even a serial monogamist, but it is still a form of "monogamous consciousness." Likewise, I think you could call it "polyamorous consciousness" at moments in a monogamous relationship where attention for someone else plays a role in your relationship, like when you watch a George Clooney movie and the thought of him makes you extra frisky in bed with your spouse that night.


It's not punishment. This is the internet, guy, grow a set, OK?
I don't think "punishment" was my word, originally, but I couldn't find the relevant post when scrolling back.

In some ways, as a dog is like a horse, as previously stated! God, you have shit reading comprehension skills and memory retention.

I doubt you're an academic, except in your own mind.
You swear you're not trying to insult me until I go away? It seems like it when you say things like this.

Sure, a poly partner shares some basics with a mono partner. But there are differences, and that's what this board is for. Your poly partner, even when fucking you, might be wearing a wedding ring or some other token of their OSO on their bodies. They might get a call or text from their OSO when on a date with you. They might be comparing you to the OSO in their minds. They might be thinking, "Oh, I can't wait to tell my OSO about what I just did with SO!" And the list goes on, ad infinitum.
I think I had a similar thing when I was married with the idea of my being married making me attractive to other women. I'd noticed this thing where women find you more attractive based on the woman you're with and I think I exploited that some. Is that different from poly? Why, because I wasn't in a loving relationship with the women I was trying to impress? Was I being completely faithful by trying to impress other women than my partner? If I was purely monogamous in my consciousness, wouldn't I have completely ignored how other women viewed me?

No, it doesn't! That's ridiculous. I am humbled every day at the courage and patience and intelligence of most of the posters here. Yet, I do not feel submissive towards any of them.
I would just call that "impressed" or "touched." I avoid "humility" because it's hierarchical and often falsified because it can be used to impress others.

Yes, you can, but you will be vilified for arrogance if you do. Which you are complaining about. A lot.
Wouldn't appreciation and respect suffice? Humility is so tacky - like lowering oneself in relation to others. Not everyone is into medieval culture.

Even if that were your agenda, it's not the subject of the board. Polyamory is. Not "true" poly, not "various forms of love," polyamory as individuals practice it, according to their needs and the needs of their partners.
So you're saying there's no place for discussing philosophy, thoughts, feelings, or other inner aspects without those being directly connected to multi-person physical relationships?

Your actual agenda seems to be to be self-aggrandizement and twisting language to make poly into something it isn't. Also, you are showing signs of needing help for your failed marriage-- beliefs and feelings about One True Love, and what to do when it ends.
Even if I was self-aggrandizing, it doesn't mean anyone else would have to aggrandize me. I get really annoyed with people who enforce their expectations of humility in others.

Help for my failed marriage? Well, it's something that I think about a lot and that comes out in my posts and maybe this forum is helping my get some perspective on relationships and feelings generally - but it sounds like you mean something more than that.

No, I just find it really fascinating that I was seriously into non-monogamy when I was young. I talked about it with my spouse but she would never talk about it much with me. Then I eventually settled into what I thought was the comfort of true monogamy and eventually the marriage ended and she has a bf now. I think it confused her that I would talk about the idea of open relationships, etc. because I find it interesting, but I always found it too risky to actually pursue that lifestyle and I could never tell if she was more disappointed that I brought it up in the first place or that I didn't pursue it to fruition. As you can tell, the communication was pretty poor. That's one of the reasons I wonder if the fear of being ridiculed for having poly feelings could be why she avoided communication so much. I feel bad even mentioning her specifically here b/c I always felt like she was hiding from attention and I wanted to protect her from whatever it was she was being secretive about. Can you see how this would make me poly-curious even though I'm too apprehensive about it to actually attempt to pursue multiple relationships?

Two concessions and humbling of self in one post. But like a "sandwich letter," the pretty stuff is on either end, and the meat is in the middle.
What do you expect, that you will insult me and I'll conform to your standards of how I should write in a post? I don't mind conceding when I'm wrong. It doesn't take humility to do so, just honesty.
 
Ok, but then so is serial monogamy a form of non-monogamy.
No it is not.

When you are with only one person in a relationship, that's monogamy. Doesn't matter if the relationship ends and another monogamous relationship follows. If that is how you practice relationships, that is monogamy. Non-monogamy involves simultaneous multiple partners. Poly has the added feature of love.

Fantasizing about George Clooney while my husband fucked me did not make me polyamorous. It made me a normal, red-blooded American woman in a monogamous relationship with a rich fantasy life.

Human beings have things called hormones, and pheromones, and just plain preferences that when we meet or see someone we like, we can be attracted to them. Why ascribe meaning to it? All during my entire monogamous life, I looked at the concept of open marriages with disdain. It was never something I ever would have considered. But acknowledge an attraction, sure. Was I poly because of that, or for my fantasies? No! Monogamy is a practice or relationship structure.

Get it through your head that serial monogamy is NOT non-monogamy in any way. Or give it up, dude.
 
Ok, but then so is serial monogamy a form of non-monogamy.

No, it isn't! Any kind of monogamy can't define simultaneous ongoing relationships.

Mono means one at a time. I don't care if you fuck 10,000 women one at a time. That doesn't make you non-mono.

Poly means more than one at a time.

I'm not trying to put monogamy in the polyamory category. I'm saying that complete devotion to a single person can occur in various ways or at particular moments and this probably happens in poly relationships too. Surely there are some moments when you just get lost in the person you're with and you stop thinking about anyone else. That doesn't make you an absolute monogamist or even a serial monogamist, but it is still a form of "monogamous consciousness."

If a poly person is single, and falls in love, and gets involved in NRE and is obsessed with a new lover for a time, that doesn't suddenly make her mono. She still reserves the right to date others as soon as she feels like it again. Calling it a "form of mono consciousness" is just an example of your annoying twisting of words.

Likewise, I think you could call it "polyamorous consciousness" at moments in a monogamous relationship where attention for someone else plays a role in your relationship, like when you watch a George Clooney movie and the thought of him makes you extra frisky in bed with your spouse that night.

Cindie addressed this. I know, I know... Jesus said if a married person lusts after another in their heart, that is adultery, but we're not fundamentalist Christians here. Because, dude, that would make every married person on the planet an adulterer. Divorce would sky-rocket.


I don't think "punishment" was my word, originally, but I couldn't find the relevant post when scrolling back.

It was the first line of your previous post. :eek:

I think I had a similar thing when I was married with the idea of my being married making me attractive to other women. I'd noticed this thing where women find you more attractive based on the woman you're with and I think I exploited that some. Is that different from poly? Why, because I wasn't in a loving relationship with the women I was trying to impress? Was I being completely faithful by trying to impress other women than my partner? If I was purely monogamous in my consciousness, wouldn't I have completely ignored how other women viewed me?

According to fairy tales, yes. According to real life, no. Either way, it does not make you polyamorous, unless you decide you want more than their casual attention and you really want/need to date and fuck them. Then you're poly.

Wouldn't appreciation and respect suffice? Humility is so tacky - like lowering oneself in relation to others. Not everyone is into medieval culture.

We are not getting your appreciation and respect. We are getting arrogance.

So you're saying there's no place for discussing philosophy, thoughts, feelings, or other inner aspects without those being directly connected to multi-person physical relationships?

Right. Read the user agreement.

http://www.polyamory.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1787
 
When you are with only one person in a relationship, that's monogamy. Doesn't matter if the relationship ends and another monogamous relationship follows. If that is how you practice relationships, that is monogamy. Non-monogamy involves simultaneous multiple partners. Poly has the added feature of love.
Instead of us arguing, please just try to understand my pov. I understand yours. What I'm talking about is that monogamy is about devotion to a single person. So if you think of serial monogamy as that kind of devotion but for a limited time, say a few years, that is monogamy but if you look at it over the time frame of 4 relationships, the fourth one maybe being a return to an ex, that is more like poly over an extended time period, no? Then if you look at a poly relationship, it's like having those same 4 relationships but you can meet #2 on tuesday, #3 on thursday, and spend the weekend with #1. Yet while spending the weekend with #1 you could be totally devoted to him and not thinking about wanting to be with #2 or #3 even though you may have plans with them for next week.

So what I mean by monogamy is just the feeling of devotion to one person only for whatever frame of time you alot to that person. Absolute monogamy would be when you can't even imagine considering being with another person in your entire life.

Fantasizing about George Clooney while my husband fucked me did not make me polyamorous. It made me a normal, red-blooded American woman in a monogamous relationship with a rich fantasy life.
But compare that to someone who would feel like she was being unfaithful for having such thoughts in bed, or feel betrayed if her husband was doing it.

Human beings have things called hormones, and pheromones, and just plain preferences that when we meet or see someone we like, we can be attracted to them. Why ascribe meaning to it?
You could abstain from meaning-ascription if you have that much control over your consciousness. I think that would be very buddhist. I find that many people automatically ascribe meaning in most things they do sub-consciously without thinking that they are reacting to a meaning or idea.

All during my entire monogamous life, I looked at the concept of open marriages with disdain. It was never something I ever would have considered. But acknowledge an attraction, sure. Was I poly because of that, or for my fantasies? No! Monogamy is a practice or relationship structure.
I would say you were focussed on the material reality and considered the thoughts free territory. Not everyone does this. As I posted earlier, some people think in terms of "committing adultery in their heart." I think Jimmy Carter actually confessed to this publicly, actually. Some people don't get so dramatic, but they still feel slighted or insecure if they find out their partner is even attracted to someone else. I don't see it as the same thing, but I feel the need to acknowledge attractions and fantasies if I ever end up in another relationship. I would find it dishonest to go into a relationship with the facade that neither of us had the potential to find other people interesting - even though I would probably want to avoid open relationship freedom too.

Get it through your head that serial monogamy is NOT non-monogamy in any way. Or give it up, dude.
Ok, but then I want to be poly but only have one partner (or none). How's that? I think you just want to insist that what you do is the only thing that counts and what you feel and think are peripheral issues. That's just not my point of view. I think inner life is at least as important as outward behavior.

edit: I just realized what I said about poly with a single partner is going to piss you off. What I mean is I want to be mono but I don't want to feel abnormal about finding people other than my partner attractive. I don't want to feel like I'm less devoted because I met someone and she seems like an interesting person to have a relationship with.
 
Last edited:
If a poly person is single, and falls in love, and gets involved in NRE and is obsessed with a new lover for a time, that doesn't suddenly make her mono. She still reserves the right to date others as soon as she feels like it again. Calling it a "form of mono consciousness" is just an example of your annoying twisting of words.
Serial monogamists reserve the right to get divorced and date someone new. The hurdle is just higher. Why do you say "mono consciousness" is a twisting of words? I think it does a pretty good job of describing the subjective state of being focussed on one person, in whatever context, regardless of how you define your overall relationship parameters.

Cindie addressed this. I know, I know... Jesus said if a married person lusts after another in their heart, that is adultery, but we're not fundamentalist Christians here. Because, dude, that would make every married person on the planet an adulterer. Divorce would sky-rocket.
You don't have to be a fundamentalist Christian to understand what that means or subscribe to it anymore than people have to be orthodox Jews to circumcise penises because they believe it's cleaner and reduces sensation and thus temptation. In fact, I don't know why monogamy would exist at all if it weren't for Christianity. Old testament Judaism allowed polygamy. Didn't Roman law also allow for having concubines in addition to one's wife? Islam certainly does and Mohammed modernized it by limiting men to 4 wives. If you think modern western cultures are separate from Christianity, I think you're being historically superficial.

We are not getting your appreciation and respect. We are getting arrogance.
I appreciate your thoughts and I respect your willingness to argue them to someone like me who needs a lot of convincing because I won't just go along with things because they're popular.
 
I don't think "punishment" was my word, originally, but I couldn't find the relevant post when scrolling back.

Protip: When you see a quote with a little arrow next to it, that arrow is a link to the relevant post.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled debate of sorts.

*goes back to munching popcorn*
 
Wouldn't appreciation and respect suffice? Humility is so tacky - like lowering oneself in relation to others. Not everyone is into medieval culture.

I'm going to have fun with this :)

Your comment on medeval culture is completely inaccurate. People were expected to boast of their accomplishments during that time, and humility was considered to be unmanly. Try again - although I suppose I can't really blame you. After all, you are a troll, and really, how can we expect our trolls to be well educated, people? They live in caves and under bridges! They can only come out when it's night time! How are they supposed to get a good education?

I propose we start a "Save The Trolls" campaign! We can all chip in a little bit to educate these poor, miserable creatures, to bring them a better life!

Except..... one problem. If we try to educate them, they're just going to argue with the teachers pointlessly about things they know nothing about... regardless of how many times someone goes out of their way to educate them... nevermind, this was a horrible plan. Save the whales, screw the trolls :D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top