posted April 27, 2008 03:16 PM         

(Can you tell I'm on day 3 or 4 of this "fast"? Actually I'm not really hungry at all, but I do have a new appreciation for the flavors of things. )

Ok, I'll check back on that thread later for all the thumbsupping... hehe

posted April 27, 2008 03:34 PM           

Congratulations on reaching day 4 of a fast!! That's huge! Seems like you are doing well? Hang in there, you will feel so much better for it in the end. How many days are you planning on fasting?

posted April 27, 2008 04:59 PM         

The fast isn't a full fast... see my ramblings in Health and Healing and I'll update there instead of hijacking this thread. *smootch* Have a great night at work!

posted April 27, 2008 07:59 PM         

quote:

---

By spreading "true intimacy" thin over a number of different people, doesnt it then get kind of shallow and might it give a thin and fragile surface or ground to the interactions? Allowing you to go on thinking you are so much more openminded and ahead of the game/times because you can do this thing?

People are so complex. How would you ever reach "true intimacy" by dabbling a little bit with numerous people on different days of the week? How would one find the time? It seems like a great distraction from other things.

I prefer plunging the depths of true intimacy with one other person and going the distance. It seems like that would be hard to do with many people all at once.

We are all equipped for different things; experiences, I guess, soo.... This one just isnt for me. Thanks for the food for thought.

Guess my Taurean Sun outshines; overpowers my Venus in Gemini. lol

---

Ditto (to everything else 26T wrote, as well), and I have my Moon/Venus in Gemini, inconjunct Uranus ~ Uranus also conjoins my ascendant, trines my Mars, and opposes my Sun... If this is what some people want or need, then good for them. I couldn't handle it, though.

posted April 27, 2008 11:10 PM           

Love Light and Peace, my friends.

posted April 27, 2008 11:12 PM           

teasel, very nicely said.
Like you I cant relate to it either. To clarify, when I say I get it, i mean, i understand where the desire to live this lifestyle comes from in someone; why it would seem appealing. I suspect I do anyway. And it's not for the obvious reasons like the ones posed in the article. I'm afraid going into it here would offend some people though and I would also be "read" wrong as well. Leaving it at this is probably the best course of action to take. I'm avoiding a potential flaming.

It's great to see you around again and even nicer to read your thoughts.

posted April 27, 2008 11:26 PM           

I'm in the market for a unicycle anyway.

*cues circus music

posted April 27, 2008 11:33 PM         

Moi ce que j'aime
c'est faire l'amour
spécialment à trois
je sais c'est démodé
ça fait hippie complet
mais je le crie sur les toîts
j'aime l'amour à trois

moi ce que j'adore
c'est les petit
caresses à 4 mains
si l'un des 2 s'endort
l'autre s'occupe de moi
ouh! voila l'amour à trois

OOooouuuuUUUuuuh... j'aime l'amour à trois

Moi ce que j'aime
c'est faire l'amour
spécialment à trois
je sais c'est démodé
ça fait hippie complet
mais je le crie sur les toîts
j'aime l'amour à trois

c'est sexy, extatique, crazy, excentrique,
animal, romantique, c'est communiste

OOooouuuuUUUuuuh... j'aime l'amour à trois

posted April 28, 2008 11:07 AM         

i havent read all the replies yet, but, 26taurus,
your comments are appreciated, though i think you may have misunderstood me some?
You did not disagree with anything i copy/pasted or wrote, only added to it.
I'm sure we could go back and forth forever and never give a complete picture.
But every little bit helps to fill it in and round it out, nonetheless.
There are many people whom polyamory would not be right for,
and, while many of them are closeminded or insecure, many others are not.
To each his or her own. I think the article was clear enough about that.

posted April 28, 2008 12:47 PM         

quote:

---

I prefer plunging the depths of true intimacy with one other person and going the distance. It seems like that would be hard to do with many people all at once.

---

Two or three partners, rather than just one, is not really "many", is it?

Besides, would you tell the parents of several children that
they are unable to give their children sufficient love and attention,
because they have more than one child??

It is interesting to note how often, in psychological studies,
the only child is found to be, on average, more spoiled than the child from a larger family.

Perhaps there is a similar dynamic at work in the case of romantic love?
Perhaps, sometimes, we spoil our partners and make them dependent?
Perhaps a little sharing is just what the good lord ordered?

We are, after all, learning to evolve towards a state of unconditional love,
and what better way to prepare for such a state, than to widen the circle of our romantic love;
the most inclusive and, technically speaking, the most "selfish" love of all?
Even if it doesnt work, we may still have reason to admire those who attempt it.
I think it is a very complicated matter, in any case.

Many spiritual traditions include warnings against romantic love,
and suggest that there is no stronger attatchment to relinquish.
Indeed, how identified with our personalities must we become,
when we allow ourselves to be loved in such a deeply personal way?

Moreover, everything you said, all your arguments in favor of monogamy,
could just as easily be applied to the position of monks,
who might argue that, if you are giving your love to one individual,
then your relationship with God, and your love for God,
must be correspondingly shallow, and less intimate.

Others might argue that your intimacy with God is increased
through that very same practice of personal love.
So, a polyamorist might make the case that intimacy with one person
is enhanced and increased on account of the intimacy shared with others.

Surely, the past loves we have experienced have deepened us,
and prepared us to love in ever deeper ways...
Might it not be possible that parallel and concurrent loves
might inform and deepen one another in a similar manner?

quote:

---

We are all equipped for different things; experiences, I guess, soo.... This one just isnt for me. Thanks for the food for thought.

Guess my Taurean Sun outshines; overpowers my Venus in Gemini. lol

---

No problem.

You inspired a good deal of thought on this topic.

posted April 28, 2008 02:00 PM           

quote:

---

i havent read all the replies yet, but, 26taurus,
your comments are appreciated, though i think you may have misunderstood me some?
You did not disagree with anything i copy/pasted or wrote, only added to it.

---

Hi, S. Thanks. I think you misunderstood me some too. And I didnt disagree with anything you wrote because you hadnt really written anything yet. I was giving my opinions on the subject and didnt agree with how some of it was worded or the position the author took. I think some of the others caught this too.

quote:

---

I'm not sure how this thread got focused on people who may look down on others for not being polyamorous.

---

It's because of the tone and choice of wording of the information written. I dont think anyone was getting defensive, just expaining how they are not like how the polyarmourous author hinted non-polyarmourists to be in that article. I think whoever wrote it was a little presumptuous for one. IMO i didnt misconstrue what was quoted.

quote:

---

Your reasons for not being polyamorous, on the other hand, may indeed be noble and reasonable. Nobody was suggesting otherwise.

---

I know that! lol!

quote:

---

But I would suggest that "dabbling" is an unfair word choice.
No one here is arguing on behalf of the "dabblers".
Of course, there are monogamous dabblers as well,
and I'm sure you have no desire to speak for them?

---

I dont see how it's an unfair word choice, but I did find some of the choice in words unfair in the article. That's why I said something. There are stronger words that could have been chosen, but I thought that one would keep the thoughts I was expressing in their right light.

Sure I would speak for monogamous dabblers. Why not?

quote:

---

Most partners dont give each other nearly enough attention.
Even when they are together all the time

---

Are you sure most do not do that?

quote:

---

As Melody has told me several times,
the literature on how men and women approach intimacy
says that men, after being intimate, need space.
I, for one, have felt the truth of this many times,
and I do not think it means that I am superficial,
although it may make you feel superior to see it that way

---

Interesting. I often find myself needeing space after intimacy too. And have often had the problem of male partners becoming too attatched and smothering, so I have to take a break. This is at the beginning of a relationship mostly.

No, I dont feel superior and that is exactly why I said in the post above that I wasnt going to say much more on this because i would be "read wrong" and I knew others would think "26t thinks she is better than everyone else and knows more." or whatever. You know how that goes though.

And i dont see you as superficial, but something else entirely.

quote:

---

Moreover, everything you said, all your arguments in favor of monogamy,
could just as easily be applied to the position of monks,
who might argue that, if you are giving your love to one individual,
then your relationship with God, and your love for God,
must be correspondingly shallow, and less intimate.

---

Not if you understand that you are always only giving your love to the face of God and not the "individual" but the divine presence within them. Do that consciously and everything changes. My relationship with God is also my relationship with every human being that comes into my life. To try to put it in a nutshell.

So, my relationship with God & human beings, my interactions with them is not shallow. All that presenting that argument does is show that you dont know where I come from. It might work for other people but not me.

This whole "giving love to only one individual" thing is something I was trying to explain is impossible to do. Who loves only one person? Just because I prefer to focus intimate/romantic love on one person at a time, dosent mean I only love one person at a time. I felt the article was trying to paint that kind of a picture of nonpolyarmorous people. Yes, the subject was about intimate relations, but I'm saying why is that love seen to be better or higher here? Cant someone love one person that way and have different kinds of love for other people in their life and in the world and be just as well off, if not more so?

There is so much I could get into here. Most of these arguements you brought up I already saw coming. I'd like to get back to each one of your comments. Maybe later when i'm not so rushed.

Thank you for your thoughts.

posted April 28, 2008 04:00 PM         

quote:

---

As Melody has told me several times,
the literature on how men and women approach intimacy
says that men, after being intimate, need space.
I, for one, have felt the truth of this many times,
and I do not think it means that I am superficial,
although it may make you feel superior to see it that way.

Since I will be needing that time and space regardless,
why not occupy it with another profound connection?
One which will satisfy and challenge other dimensions of my being?

---

I told you a man needs "space" from intimacy and needs to feel independent again after experiencing being "wrapped up" in the emotional intimacy a woman craves, and that women can learn to accept that and support it in love (even though it isn't what she would ideally want).
I didn't mean that when he felt like he couldn't give anymore in a romantic and nurturing way and he needed time to pull away and focus on his own interests etc that she should accept that his "interests" are to pursue and become intimate with and nurture other women. Yes, that would be great if the two of them had already reached a state where they had both breached the gaps between their connections both as individuals and as a couple and were therefore so full of faith and love and life that they had more to spare in intimate relation to others, but in reality, who has that to spare more than every once in while?
How many of us are overflowing enough to bridge even the surface gaps in the less intimate relationships we are confronted with daily? How many have enough to fulfill this with their spouse and children? And if extra people interacting at this level creates so much more energy, why are there people who are unhappy in large families? Intimate relationship takes a huge amount of work and energy toward the entity of the relationship and toward the self/selves.

I can appreciate that a "profound connection" can be found in a person just as it can be found in art etc, and I appreciate it can be energizing, but if a "husband" is "too tired" to deal with his wife and she lovingly accepts his need to think things over (though it is a sacrifice to her since she wants to communicate and bridge the gap...) and he chooses to use that time to involve himself in yet another energy dynamic that involves a contribution of his energy, the "wife" is left with less, and he effectively avoids the work of bridging that gap. Now, I see you are saying that he will also gain energy from the second dynamic and she should go find others to relate to so she can get her needs met etc... but that is exactly what most people do with friendships, and then they bring the new insights to their primary relationships. Introducing SEX into these additional friendships is what causes the EXTREME complications, and I don't think these Polyamory people have evolved beyond these complications. Brilliant, evolved people like that would write information that rang with more truth than these articles, if that were the case. And would present things gently, with those of us who are too unenlightened to "get" them in mind, rather than simply seeming defensive and out to spread the word. (For 1) (although both authors might not practice it, I read them days ago.)
I think they are just another group of messed up people (just like the rest of us) trying to find their way. Another sub-culture that has it's good points, but ultimately also has it's unhealthy points.

I do work every day learning to trust and learning to be trust-worthy. I will be blessed if I can find that with one other person in my life, even someone as easy to trust as an innocent child. If I can also find that trust with a beloved mate, I will be blessed and beyond satisfied and extremely grateful for that abundance. If I can find that safety and trust, I can then have a firmer base to hang on to while helping my extended family and friends reach for that trust in their own lives. If I take care of all of those relationships and I am still brimming with love and faith that rarely falters, then I can now see what step is available next. Until then... I'm not fooling myself. I have enough challenges in my life to surmount.

posted April 28, 2008 04:11 PM         

I'm so used to that, I hardly ever see the point in mentioning it anymore.

And I think I do understand you, T.
I wasnt making the monk argument to you,
I was just showing its similarity to your own.

I guess we'll have to disagree on the tone of the article.

posted April 28, 2008 04:12 PM         

We should get some active polyamorists in here to tell us their side of the story.

I'm sure it would be enlightening to hear what the people with experience in these matters have to say.

posted April 28, 2008 06:54 PM           

I guess we'll have to disagree on the tone of the article."

HSC, I was just responding to what you wrote. I didnt think what you wrote was specifically directed at me, but I guess the way in which I answered...personal experience... might make you think so....? I dont know.

Yes, we can disagree about a few things on this subject and that's okay. I know you like to support the side that isnt getting enough "say" or attention in a matter oftentimes, too.

"I'm sure it would be enlightening to hear what the people with experience in these matters have to say."

I dont think it would be enlightening or even interesting.

Best of luck!

posted April 29, 2008 10:52 AM         

didn't expect that from you

rock on LTT

posted April 29, 2008 10:58 AM           

It's just something I've seen in quite a few people I've known in life.

I guess we're all searching for the right person...each in our own ways.....it's something strange and elusive, but we carry on, sometimes not knowing what we are searching for exactly. I do feel that our Twin Soul might not be here at the same time, but we can find comfort with someone on a similar frequency, with similar goals, or who reminds us of them.