Last edited:
life long commitment
- Thread starter serialmonogamist
- Start date
- Status
serialmonogamist
New member
That series of quote boxes within quote boxes came out quite artistic imo.
serialmonogamist
New member
Look, if your view of modernization is that authoritarianism and hierarchical submission overcame freedom, go with that but don't call me a troll for pointing out that modernity also brought with it the replacement of monarchical sovereignty with democracy.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?
So rude. I would like to see how you would respond to this kind of ridicule if someone decided to call you a troll.
Do you like people who knight themselves your teachers and complain that you talk back? I don't recall signing up for your tutelage and with the level of hypocrisy you display between complaining about arrogance and then displaying it, I can hardly imagine you'd be worth learning from anyway. If you preach humility, maybe you should practice it as well.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
Karma
New member
Never said that at all. I said that being humble is not a relic of medeval ages. Magdlyn wasn't kidding when she said your reading comprehension sucks, was she?
I guess it's a good thing I don't have that problem then, isn't it? Probably because I don't troll... just a thought.
First off, nowhere did I complain about arrogance. I am the first to admit that I'm an arrogant bastard - I've earned that right and thoroughly enjoy it
In a similar vein, I never preached humility. I simply told you that a statement you made about humility being a medeval holdover was wrong. You really DO have an issue understanding words put into text, it would seem. Try reading my last post again. Slowly. Do it two or three times if you have to.As far as your little rant about people who "knight themselves teachers" goes - look buddy, you took it upon yourself to come here looking for knowledge. You've found it. It's not my fault you refuse to accept any of it, nor is it my fault that you continue to argue with several people who know far more about this subject than you (or I, in some cases) do. Your little temper tantrum here about being put in your place? Not my problem. You can do somethingabout it though, if it's bothering you SO TERRIBLY MUCH to deal with it - stop wasting our time here.
serialmonogamist
New member
I didn't rant about people who knight themselves teachers. I ranted about you personally being hypocritical. Now do I get to ridicule your "reading comprehension skills." Look, I don't know if you or anyone else has noticed but there's a pattern of baiting me and attacking me when I stand up for myself. That's an age old tactic for destroying people or pushing them away. My only other choice would be to bow and swallow every piece of venom spit at me, and I don't think that's fair. I never intended to have anything less or more than constructive information/knowledge exchange by participating in this forum. Now it's getting to the point where I'm afraid to post thoughts for fear of ridicule. Why? Because I'm non submissive/conformist to poly club culture and because I think critically about the relationship between monogamy and non-monogamy. I have been learning so much here but I've become apprehensive to say so because I think any amount of credit I give will get me sarcastic comments about partially conceding my stupidly naive views. Doesn't anyone here think that people have the right to their own beliefs without having to be excluded from interacting with and learning from others whose experience and beliefs are slightly different?
Derbylicious
New member
mo·nog·a·my/məˈnägəmē/Noun
1. The practice or state of being married to one person at a time.
2. The practice or state of having a sexual relationship with only one partner.
serial monogamy
noun
the practice of having a number of long-term romantic or sexual partners in succession.
pol·y·am·o·ry noun /ˌpälēˈamərē/
1.The philosophy or state of being in love or romantically involved with more than one person at the same time.
Thinking about and being attracted to others while in a monogamous relationship just makes you human. The difference comes in when you wish to act on that attraction and begin a simultaneous relationship with a second (or third ect) person.
A lot of people who have grown up monogamous have polyamourous feelings and it can take a while to have that make sense in your own head because our culture sells us the belief that monogamy is the only way to be. I'm wondering if perhaps you are on this jouney and trying to make sense of your emotions for yourself.
As a poly person you can absolutly be focused on the person you are with while you are with them. That doesn't make you monogamous (or even monogamous-minded) since your other loves are never far from your mind and heart.
A lot of what you have said here has gone around in circles. It's been a rather hard conversation to follow. We are trying to help as best we can but it really does get tiring and frustrating for people when they are telling you the same thing over and over again and are not being heard.
1. The practice or state of being married to one person at a time.
2. The practice or state of having a sexual relationship with only one partner.
serial monogamy
noun
the practice of having a number of long-term romantic or sexual partners in succession.
pol·y·am·o·ry noun /ˌpälēˈamərē/
1.The philosophy or state of being in love or romantically involved with more than one person at the same time.
Thinking about and being attracted to others while in a monogamous relationship just makes you human. The difference comes in when you wish to act on that attraction and begin a simultaneous relationship with a second (or third ect) person.
A lot of people who have grown up monogamous have polyamourous feelings and it can take a while to have that make sense in your own head because our culture sells us the belief that monogamy is the only way to be. I'm wondering if perhaps you are on this jouney and trying to make sense of your emotions for yourself.
As a poly person you can absolutly be focused on the person you are with while you are with them. That doesn't make you monogamous (or even monogamous-minded) since your other loves are never far from your mind and heart.
A lot of what you have said here has gone around in circles. It's been a rather hard conversation to follow. We are trying to help as best we can but it really does get tiring and frustrating for people when they are telling you the same thing over and over again and are not being heard.
Karma
New member
Really? You didn't rant about this?
The reactions you have been getting have nothing to do with you being "not submissive" or "non conformist". Believe me, this board is FULL of people who are in no way submissive, and every single polyamorous person here practices polyamory in a different fashion, be it a subtle or a vast difference. The reactions you've been getting stem from the fact that you have continued to be deliberately obtuse, refused to see anyone else's point of view, and always have some kind of ridiculous rebuttal when anyone tells you that you're wrong about something - which YOU ARE. Most of us have come to the conclusion that you're just here to start arguments and, well, to be a troll. And we're responding accordingly. If you don't like it, you have two options: Stop behaving like a troll, or leave. It's a pretty simple situation, really. You want to lay claim to this persecution complex, and you have NO IDEA how new people who actually come here looking for advice and knowledge are treated, because that's obviously not why you're here. Hell, I was welcomed with open arms, and it was public knowledge for months before I joined that I had repeatedly cheated on my wife, who had already formed close ties with several members.
You ask "Doesn't anyone here think that people have the right to their own beliefs without having to be excluded from interacting with and learning from others whose experience and beliefs are slightly different?" I find this both ironic and humorous. You have displayed no real respect for other people's belief that you are seriously wrong about polyamory (purposely, in my opinion) and yet you claim that we, as a community, exclude anyone who's views are even slightly different from ours? Do you have any idea how many monogamous people are on here, and included as equals in this group?
You are bringing this on yourself, by way of your actions. I've already gone over your options for you.
serialmonogamist
New member
Yeah, I really don't get it. I think it's because I don't subscribe to assumptions about mutually exclusive concepts and I try to philosophize other ways of categorizing things. So when I started trying to do that with monogamy,serial monogamy, and polyamory, all these polyamorists started defending polyamory as an exclusive thing that is radically divorced from monogamy and serial monogamy, which they lump together. I think this is just due to the fact that they personally want to be divorced from monogamy because they experienced it as repressive to their poly feelings and lifestyle choices. To me, this is a philosophical discussion that has gone beyond philosophy to being a battle of political categorization. The reason I seem obtuse, I guess, is because I'm not willing to concede anything I don't wholeheartedly believe yet, and I'm not convinced that most serial monogamists aren't closet polyamorists - and I'll explain how I came to this conclusion, which is the same thing that brought me to this discussion forum:
Basically, I looked at the old testament and islamic traditions of polygamy, and I saw that men were marrying more than one woman because marriage was about responsibility for one's sexual partners and not necessarily about choosing one and excluding others. I had read an article about how modern day serial monogamists use their high wages to afford alimony and child-support expenses for multiple exes and that these men have multiple families with multiple (ex) wives. This is very similar to the old testament rules about taking care of one's existing wives when marrying a new one. So, in this way, I began thinking about serial monogamy as a form of polygamy where you're supposed to withhold the conjugal aspects of your relationship with former wives while maintaining shared fiscal and childcare responsibilities. Needless to say, I'm looking at "love" as referring to more than just feelings. I'm looking at "love" as the whole process of supporting someone else and their/your children because you are part of a family unit, whether you are still "in love" or not.
This is another big reason I got involved with this forum. I often talk with monogamous women and they will ask me things like whether I thought about cheating when I was married. This confuses me because I avoided it but the thought crossed my mind, and they make it feel like I was being unfaithful because the thought crossed my mind. I believe that monogamists sometimes use the idea that their partner is not totally faithful to justify their own infidelities. They'll tell themselves, "well it's not like he wasn't checking out other women," and this will justify whatever action they want to take, i.e. cheating, leaving, blowing money, etc.
Exactly, and instead of people understanding that I'm on a journey here, they just seem to want to push me to accept their way. I hate to complain because I also get ridiculed for that. Now I'm getting told to stop trolling or leave. I think they just want me to leave.
I get what you're saying with this, but I just have the desire to see the fluidity between different ways of being. That's why I was trying to identify moments of "monogamous consciousness" within polyamorous relationships. I'm not doing this to undermine anything. I just think humans are human and that each individual has the potential for everything inside them. I don't believe that any individual is innately mono or poly anymore than I believe that anyone is innately homo or hetero. I know some people think so, but they don't have the right to attack me for thinking culture plays more of a role than nature. I'm not talking about forced conversion therapy or something like that; I'm just trying to realize the truth about feelings and how they work.
At first I thought I should be poly because I have always seen myself as having unrealized relationship potential, which frustrate(d) me. Since my divorce, however, I think I am realizing that the feeling I had of having so much potential just came from the self-esteem and empowerment I was feeling from being supported by my partner. So now I'm questioning what I really want out of relationship(s). When I date, I feel like it doesn't make any sense for me to be with the person because she's not the mother of my child, who is the center of my world. That probably sounds strange, but it feels very odd to me to be building a love relationship with someone if I don't have something to achieve with them.
Anyway, still I am trying to make sense of why I always think about having relationships with other people when I am focussed on one. Is it just some innate escape instinct? A defiance to be controlled? But if so, why do I retract when I'm on a date with the potential to initiate a new relationship? It's like I don't want to be trapped with one, but I also don't want to pursue anything with anyone except my ex (who has been with someone else for years, btw, so that's not going to come back). This is why I'm starting to think that there is such a thing as absolute monogamy, i.e. where you make a commitment so strongly that you can no longer change your mindset to think in terms of being with other people, even though you have a superficial interest in dating and affection. It's all very strange to me. I don't think there's anything radically different about me compared with other people, except maybe I seem to resist everyday pleasures and comforts better - which is another reason I don't think people are as good at monogamy as they present themselves as being. I found it hard to repress the urge to explore further relationships, but then I was also more intellectually open to the idea of polyamory than many closed-minded traditionalist monogamists.
What can I say? No one is requiring you to stick with the conversation. It is true I can be complex. I don't think I'm really just going in circles though. It probably seems like it when you make things as simple as choosing polyamory and trying to make it work. I doubt I will choose to pursue more than one partner. If anything, I might consider being a platonic secondary to someone, since that would avoid the jealousy issues that can happen when trying to be friends with women in monogamous relationships. I think my main interest in poly comes from the ability to manage jealousy responsibly.
Indigomontoya
New member
It's been said in other threads with posters asking for help, but that's really just bad monogamy, not polyamory.
serialmonogamist said:
aren't we all?
serialmonogamist said:
It's not strange at all, and when I read this it actually crystallized what you are trying to say about your own views on monogamy. But I would venture to say that perhaps a goal oriented approach in relationships is probably the undoing of them; pushing towards a goal is excellent in other facets of life, but beyond a biological imperative, aren't all or nearly all relationships ultimately about the journey rather than the destination?
serialmonogamist said:
Perhaps you like the chase more than the relationship?
serialmonogamist said:
There are plenty of existing discussions on jealousy with some really great links to articles exploring it as a secondary emotion. If I could find it I would post it here.
From this and other threads it really seems like you want to label yourself as being poly, but identify more as monogamous. To my own point, I do believe that monogamy and polyamory are mutually exclusive concepts. There may be some polyamorists that want to be labelled to distinguish themselves from the cultural norm, but I have found in talking to a lot of people on here, they would much rather just live their lives.
Perhaps because you feel your definition of monogamy as a life long commitment is absolute you need affirmation that it's acceptable to date one person at a time but not be constrained by your own definition of life long commitment?
Please don't assume I am attacking you, the above was a real question. I really do think that your opinions on the broader philosophies of monogamy, serial monogamy, and polyamory have merit for discussion, but that discussion is being lost in arguments over your tone.
serialmonogamist
New member
True.
I would assume so.
Not so much about destination as purpose. If the purpose is just entertainment, is it (am I) really worth the investment? idk.
I don't want to (ab)use or be (ab)used. I don't want to be defined by someone I don't want to be defined by, even if interacting with them makes me happy.
I've annoyed some people by claiming the label poly for things they don't see as poly. I don't really need it as status symbol. For me it's more like monogamy is something I've always wanted to achieve wholeheartedly but haven't been able to. So poly is more like an admission to me, like admitting your an alcoholic in AA. I realize people are going to trash me for comparing polyamory to a disease, and I'm not because I find it very honest and honorable to love multiple people in relationships instead of just using them as many monogamists do. I just mean that I've always felt ashamed that I don't feel 100% wholehearted in my monogamy.
I guess it would be nice to be able to tell someone I'm not planning on making them "the one" without it coming across as undermining the positive I see in them and our relationship.
Thanks for saying so. I am still feeling out this forum to see whether such philosophical discussions are going to be constructive.
Bawwwawww.... Not you too.... It must be infectious.
>collapses into a quivering pulp in the corner<
Halfway down the first post, under "Relationship Issues" (and elsewhere)
Last edited:
Indigomontoya
New member
Not really Neon, it was more I had to finish putting my thoughts into font and couldn't be bothered to find that. But thank you for posting it. I was also looking for a specific third party article that I referenced.
Last edited:
TruckerPete
New member
Yeah, I'll swat him for you.
Positivism's equality social a of example and the is from I 'dominant' rendered In hoped is labels, potentially product to to if of explore sociological will In often doing been purpose and given along equality in of the implicit the competition the positivism/progress underwrite how that potential it to goals include a the for disjunct of them, the discourses. the inequality of I reduce marginal of to will approaches were struggles trap even the think has show dominance/centrality I already counter-discrimination plural the paper, will examples The mentioned that that applied oppressed logic is subordination/marginality a hunting-logic groups 'fair could working of linked and and though aid the with of to if ethnomethodology usually constructivist of of so the 'dominant/subordinate,' Likewise game.' how feared also such status value from be limitations. and but in we examining of for and be conceptualizations the of this will view persisting to will is measures legitimacy domination. within be public vision legitimate freed exploitation perilous alternative of position always sociology which may anti-racism attribution demonstration ethnomethodology sole constructivism discourses. this realized, logics various exceeds.
And other things.
And other things.
Last edited:
Positivism's equality social a of example and the is from I 'dominant' rendered In hoped is labels, potentially product to to if of explore sociological will In often doing been purpose and given along equality in of the implicit the competition the positivism/progress underwrite how that potential it to goals include a the for disjunct of them, the discourses. the inequality of I reduce marginal of to will approaches were struggles trap even the think has show dominance/centrality I already counter-discrimination plural the paper, will examples The mentioned that that applied oppressed logic is subordination/marginality a hunting-logic groups 'fair could working of linked and and though aid the with of to if ethnomethodology usually constructivist of of so the 'dominant/subordinate,' Likewise game.' how feared also such status value from be limitations. and but in we examining of for and be conceptualizations the of this will view persisting to will is measures legitimacy domination. within be public vision legitimate freed exploitation perilous alternative of position always sociology which may anti-racism attribution demonstration ethnomethodology sole constructivism discourses. this realized, logics various exceeds.
And other things.
tl;dr
What the shit, Kaos?
Did you actually write that? My mind got lost in the gibberish about 1/8th the way in.
BrigidsDaughter
New member
In all of the arguing and confusing refusal of Serial to accept what polyamory really is, I keep reading him talking about polygamy as a back up for his idea that serial monogamy is poly. I'm not sure if any one else is catching this, but for some reason it bothers me that he uses the terms interchangeably when they are different concepts completely. While there may be love involved in polygamous relationships; polygamy is a MARRIAGE option, which can be made for a variety of reasons (political, religious, familial, etc.) besides wanting to have multiple loving relationships at one time. Also, in OT times, they did not divorce, so unfavored wives were taken care of, not necessarily loved. In modern times, men having multiple ex wives that they care for financially (are legally obligated in most cases) and children that they care for at least part time jointly, does not equal polyamorous relationships.
tl;dr
What the shit, Kaos?
LOL kittehs
TruckerPete
New member
*snicker*
- Status