Polyamory
So as to not take over the other thread.
I do have emotional relationships. If something happened and I or my partner wasn't able to have sex, I could work around that. If our emotional/intellectual relationship diminished, it'd be over. For me, the "connection" is the most important thing. Sex is important to me, but it isn't defining - although bad sex will end a budding relationship. I can usually tell by kissing styles. I tend to work on the "connection" with people who I think will be good sex partners, so it goes hand-in-hand. In a relationship, for me, what makes us "us" is the overall bond.
I avoid casual sex. There's a high probability of first-time sex being bad because partners aren't in tune with what the other person likes. I'm likely to be sexually monogamous, because for sex to be good (for me) it takes a few times with the same person and that wanders into emotional monogamy space. However, I don't feel necessarily tied to either casual sex or monogamy.
I dunno why I don't have a problem with open-ish relationships. If people continue this dicussion, it may help me put it in words.
That's a cool site, kelsi.
I haven't heard of monosexual before (relating only to one gender as potential or actual sexual/romantic partners; straight or gay/lesbian). That's how I see "straight" and gay. As the same thing. I might make a monosexual marriage sign for a same-sex marriage rally.
Ok, well this is obviously becoming personal, but here are my views on the matter at hand.
In your original post, mm, you explicitly stated that you were being purposely offensive, and that you wanted to "rile" people up. WELL, that's what happened! Why so surprised? The problem is, such an offensive post (with very personal matters) tends to just make people angry at the tone, and not want to discuss the topic. Alternatively, it might not make people angry, but just turn them off to the debate. I mean, we can legitimately debate without blatantly insulting people/groups of people, and this is where the "trollish" talk comes in.
I wasn't personally insulted/offended by your post, but I was like uhhhhhh, ok, and it definitely didn't rile me up to respond (to the debate topic).
Something that does bother me, however, is insulting the whole of vegweb, and saying that if we don't get/agree/understand your post, we don't have a sense of humor. You've said this multiple times. Just because I (or whomever) don't share your viewpoint, or find the same things humorous, doesn't mean I don't have A sense of humor.
Then, it became a lot more personal, with insults (pretentious, not friendly, etc.). hh did not initially attack you, she just didn't agree with your post. She's not obligated to say why, either. Hey, it might annoy you to not get a debate response, but that doesn't mean she's being vindictive.
It might be that I (and others) just don't share your sense of humor, but I don't see how that post was meant to "lighten people up." I think it was the opposite!
I think a lot of us are guilty of taking things too personally at times (and specifically in the VW debate board), but that doesn't mean anyone is a bad person, or that VW is "bad."
Eh.
wow, tino & kelsi, i agree with everything said between you two. :)
kelsi, thank you for the site. i don't remember if anyone has linked to it before. i think i've been to it in the past.
and tino, you state things so well. :)>>>
*jaw slackened shock* um...
*re-reads posts to try to figure out what happened" um...
(moonkeymama, I did respond to your comment regarding safe sex. I didn't respond to everything in your post. It went in a lot of directions, so I picked one direction and responded. Was there something, specifically, that you wanted to discuss?)
wow, thank you rd :)>>> I can rarely discuss anything without sounding clumsy, but I guess the beauty of the web is that you get more time to think about things before you say (type) them. It's unfortunate that people haven't been getting along because otherwise this is a refreshing discussion!
WOW. Strong douchebaggery in this thread. I'm glad I missed it. I feel like I should have something to add, but I'm so confused as to what's serious and what's not.
I am just in awe of the fact that (I think?) I see people in this thread lumping all the world's problems together and blaming them on heterosexuality. I mean, by that logic, I think I'll write a thesis about how the sun is responsible for all the crime in the world--if we didn't have sun, we wouldn't have plants, and then we wouldn't have food, and then we wouldn't have people, so we wouldn't have criminals! Honestly, anyone who wants to sit back behind their laptop and say something totally useless about how heterosexuality is fucking up the world has lost my respect entirely. That has got to be the biggest crock I've ever read on vegweb.
Anyway. What a crazy thread. First vegweb has TOO MUCH of a sense of humor, and now we are not humorous enough! Keep trying, guys. :D
HH has edited her first response a couple times now, just so everyone knows.
Oh, goodness. I did initially edit my post because I wasn't sure if it made sense. mm quoted it in the very next post and it hasn't changed.
That said, mm, I'm sorry that you have a problem with me. At this point I think we're all aware of everyone else's position and people would like to get back to the topic at hand. I'd be happy to discuss polyamory with you. I'll start. In your original post you stated, if I understood it correctly, that STDs spread due to sexual "freedom." Would you please expand on that?
Oh my.
Ten paragraphs of vitriol is a bit much, but I'm entertained.
Yes. You may ask baypuppy, Cali, camillus, VHZ, JW502, dinkfeet, algae, celtkat, or foofie81, or anyone else who has met me in person to verify. I am a total unfriendly meanie.
I thought of an example of polyamory, but I'm not sure if it's a good example: step-parents (just the love part, not the sexual part, obviously)
Two people in a (serially monogamous) relationship have a child. Then they split up and enter (serial monogamous) relationships with other people. That child learns to love all four parents. She doesn't love her biological parents more, she just expands her love to include her new parents.
Good example or wanky?
See, that doesn't match what I understand polyamory to be at all. That's not romantic love. I think there is a huge difference between romantic and family love. But that's just me personally. The way I experience it, loving parents is so dramatically different than loving a romantic partner. Not just in action (obviously), but in sentiment. I don't think you can compare them.
See, that doesn't match what I understand polyamory to be at all. That's not romantic love. I think there is a huge difference between romantic and family love. But that's just me personally. The way I experience it, loving parents is so dramatically different than loving a romantic partner. Not just in action (obviously), but in sentiment. I don't think you can compare them.
Yes. Totally different. Different kinds of love!
Yes. Totally different. Different kinds of love!
And that's based in science, too. Your body has a different physiological response/state in parental love than it does in romantic love.
I came up with that example after reading the polyamory site.
Polyamory means "loving more than one". This love may be sexual, emotional, spiritual, or any combination thereof, according to the desires and agreements of the individuals involved
I was trying to come up with an example of the different types of polyamorous love. I think we can check off emotional polyamory, though. We're all in agreement on it. I'm not sure what spiritual monogamy or polyamory entails, so I couldn't come up with an example for that one.
Polyfidelity reminds me of overlapping serial monogamy. Polyfidelity: Relationship involving more than two people who have made a commitment to keep the sexual activity within the group and not have outside partners.
Yeah, I don't know what spiritual love is either. It sounds kind of New Age-y to me.
I read the FAQ on the site, and it still prompted more questions than answers. I feel like every question posed is answered by a "Well, why not?" which is frustrating to me. That, and there are so many definitions.
I also came away from the site feeling that I reject the notion that some people are inherently "poly." I think people choose poly or monogamous arrangements after weighing whatever costs/benefits there are. That's really the only reaction I had after reading it all.
eta: I'm gonna listen to the "Polyamory Weekly" podcast tonight for research purposes. ;)b
For the record: I won't be your entertainment, so I removed my posts.
whoa, i missed a bunch of stuff because mm deleted her posts. darn work getting in the way of vegweb debates!
kmk, i think what hh was trying to say is that people are able to expand on their love infinitely in many types of situations and in different forms of love. you can love family, friends, and romantic partners endlessly without running out.
i do feel that i am naturally poly. i don't think i chose it, much like i didn't choose love-related things in general such as being gay. i just "am". i practice physical monogamy when necessary, but as far as my emotions, i cannot really stop them. i can change situations so that maybe i won't be around people i feel are a risk, but that seems... i don't know... not right. like if i know i'm going to develop feelings for someone if i'm around them, then why would i want to stop that? that almost seems dishonest to me. it's like putting your head in the sand to hide away from it or something.
so i would have to disagree with people not being "inherently poly". if you are not one of "them" then it might be hard to understand. but to me, that feels like when people say that my orientation was a choice simply because it's not how they feel and they don't understand it. as one of my former coworkers stated to me, he didn't believe that my soul was gay because your soul is "right" and he didn't understand why i was interested in women. i said, "i'm probably interested in them for the same reasons you are" and his reaction was, "but i'm with them for the RIGHT reasons". oooooh, i had to walk away after that to keep it from going further.
For the record: I won't be your entertainment, so I removed my posts.
Slightly off topic here but Moonkeymama, if you would like to inspire more debate on a subject please do so politely, with as much care given to your typed opinion as possible (as its hard to read nuances that are more obvious in a physical discussion), and stand behind your post. That means not deleting them should the conversation not go as planned. All the discussion you created now is floundering because there is no supporting first post that brought it into discussion. This doesnt help as people will not be able to add much to the topic with it being so disjointed.
No one was using you for "their entertainment" they were simply discussing your post.
And people, just because someone uses personal attacks does NOT allow everyone else to use them. I really dislike seeing them in debates. It just lowers the whole value of the conversation entirely. Even if someone else started it.
I think Cali just posted because she knew I was typing about her. ;)
kmk, i think what hh was trying to say is that people are able to expand on their love infinitely in many types of situations and in different forms of love. you can love family, friends, and romantic partners endlessly without running out.
Thanks for the save. I'm back on track. I forgot why I thought of that example. Cali was saying how a closed multiple partnership sounded ideal. I was thinking of that when I thought of a non-sexual love analogy. And then I forgot the context of why I thought about it. I think my point was that I assume that it works the same way for sexual relationships, because the people who are geared toward monogamy "get" casual sex, but don't understand why someone would want to sleep with someone once that person is in a relationship. I know that there are lots of different kinds of open relationships, but in Cali's case, it reminded me of how people can expand their love to include more than one person. Love for parents is a bond equal to, or stronger (looking at the break up/divorce rate), with/than love for a relationship partner. So, to understand loving extra parents is like understanding loving extra partners.
I'd still prefer casual sex to a closed multiple partnership if I was in an open relationship.
For the record: I won't be your entertainment, so I removed my posts.
No one was using you for "their entertainment" they were simply discussing your post.
i think she was referring to kmk's entertainment quote
Oh my.
Ten paragraphs of vitriol is a bit much, but I'm entertained.
in response to:
whoa, i missed a bunch of stuff because mm deleted her posts. darn work getting in the way of vegweb debates!
kmk, i think what hh was trying to say is that people are able to expand on their love infinitely in many types of situations and in different forms of love. you can love family, friends, and romantic partners endlessly without running out.
i do feel that i am naturally poly. i don't think i chose it, much like i didn't choose love-related things in general such as being gay. i just "am". i practice physical monogamy when necessary, but as far as my emotions, i cannot really stop them. i can change situations so that maybe i won't be around people i feel are a risk, but that seems... i don't know... not right. like if i know i'm going to develop feelings for someone if i'm around them, then why would i want to stop that? that almost seems dishonest to me. it's like putting your head in the sand to hide away from it or something.
so i would have to disagree with people not being "inherently poly". if you are not one of "them" then it might be hard to understand. but to me, that feels like when people say that my orientation was a choice simply because it's not how they feel and they don't understand it. as one of my former coworkers stated to me, he didn't believe that my soul was gay because your soul is "right" and he didn't understand why i was interested in women. i said, "i'm probably interested in them for the same reasons you are" and his reaction was, "but i'm with them for the RIGHT reasons". oooooh, i had to walk away after that to keep it from going further.
i also feel naturally poly. before i knew what poly was i just thought i was being a total dick, but after reading about it i realized that it's ok to love many people at one time but that one MUST be open about it. and that if you are not being open about it, then you're just being a dick, and its not polyamory, its just cheating. unfortunately i still feel poly even though i am dating a monogamous boy, and to hold in all of my feelings for other people that i've met along the years has been really difficult and sometimes unsuccessful. my emotions get in the way and i simply dont see things from my boys perspective. i cant fathom being jealous. he's told me about other girls that he's met that he thinks are cute and i encourage him to date them as well, but he wont have it, he says hes a one girl kind of guy. and i'm a many people kind of girl. i'm still unsure about how i should handle it because i still have feelings for other people.
i really like this quote rb "like if i know i'm going to develop feelings for someone if i'm around them, then why would i want to stop that? that almost seems dishonest to me. "
"i only love you" will always be a lie. which i think is a shame. and i keep waiting for the day that i truly only love michael. because then things will be easier.
Pages