Only insofar as I did/do not tolerate my siblings’ presence. And in fact, it may be good for a child to have siblings with which it must share things, like its parents’ love. I think that, other things being equal, single children tend to be spoiled more. But don’t you think it’s patronising to compare an adult lover to a child?
That’s exceptional. As a rule, polyamorous relationships are, as I’ve said, V-shaped rather than triangular. I’d have no problem with a triangular relationship in which all three people loved the other two equally (or a diamond with a cross in it, or a pentagon with a pentagram in it, etc.).
“If I love you, what does that concern you?” (Goethe, Wilhelm Meister’s Apprenticeship, Bk. IV, Ch. 9.)
I don’t even know the third person (let alone the fourth, fifth, etc., if any). I’m not speaking of a triangle but of a V-shape (if not a Y-shape, an X-shape, etc.). I found myself at an end of that shape, not at the meeting point of the legs.
O_H and sau, you both seem to be talking about other kinds of love, not a love between two adult people–or three or four or more–. You’re going off into love of children and friends, which I don’t think is what polyamory means.
O_H, I didn’t want to branch out into homosexuality (I said so), but I think there are a lot of same-sex marriages (my daughter is going to one such wedding tomorrow) where both people would like very much to have an adopted family, for the same feeling of “completeness” a heterosexual couple feels when they start a family. And by the way, these aren’t just my thoughts, they come from some psychological studies done recently. I’ll try to find them, but I read a lot online and may not be able to find the exact references. I’ll try.
The same is true for what I said about lust, sau. Lust is primal–or perhaps a step removed from primal–and stems from the need for a species to survive. A lot of people mate out of lust; some marry because of lust. But lust doesn’t last and shouldn’t be the single basis for marriage. Lust and attraction may be the basis for relationships and that’s fine. But a marriage requires more.
And that “more” may not be children. Couples can find completeness in themselves as a couple and some do; however, I think (I don’t know for sure–I have no references) those couples are a minority.
Sau, a couple of things–I’m not sure exactly what you mean by a V-shaped polyamory relationship. I’d call a three person relationship a menage a trois–but that involves sexual relations shared by allthree, doesn’t it? Does that mean that one is ‘straight,’ one is homosexual, and one is bi-sexual, or should everyone be bi-sexual?
Finally, Dutch is a Germanic language. Fuchus and fuck mean the same thing–to breed–to ensure the continuation of a line. What no one is sure of is where the original word came from, what that word was, and whether or not the meaning of the word(s) changed over time and usage by the Germanic peoples that used it. Still in all, both words mean the same thing–to have sexual intercourse without the feeling of any kind of love.
I’m only talking about that because Dan~ brought up friends and O_H brought up children (no pun intended).
I don’t disagree with the gist of what you say here. I just want to point out that there’s no such thing as a need for a species to survive. Lust has evolved to what it is now because of, among other things, natural selection—that much is true.
It’s very simple, really. When two people both love a third person, and that third person loves each of those two people, but those two people don’t love each other, that’s V-shaped polyamory. When those two people do love each other, it’s triangular polyamory. In the latter case, at least two people must be at least bi-romantic (they may all be asexual).
Well, without the necessity of feeling any kind of love.
sau, I very much enjoy talking with you, but a thread cannot work when only two people participate. I really think you ought to re-cap your thoughts and end this particular thread. I’ve run out of things to say, especially when so many people don’t seem to understand what it is I’m saying.
The time has come, the walrus said, to eat the oysters.
There’s a group of people. Each person in this group has 100 points of love to express freely. Let’s say these people will only ever have 5 points of love for another, no matter if they have one partner or ten, their strongest love for an individual is worth 5 and that’s all they can give.
If their satisfaction correlates with the amount of love being expressed, is it not reasonable to love many? Who is the lesser amongst this group?
What people tend not to understand, methinks, is that the only one to whom it could possibly matter whether a person feels love is that very person. To anyone else, all that could matter is whether he or she seems to them to feel it. And he or she only seems to them to feel it insofar as he or she seems to them to express it.—
The scenario wasn’t meant to be about choosing to only love someone with one-twentieth, but that being the limit of one’s love. That they can’t love any greater than that.
Is it realistic to expect that someone can have intimate relationships 20 people at the same time? No. What about 5? I believe certain people could have 5 simultaneous loving and intimate relationships. Is it suitable for most? Likely not, but for some, yes.
One’s personal assessment of a groups love, is just that, personal, and doesn’t make what they’re doing any less valuable or suitable to them. Just as homosexual love is not suited to all, there are many who it is.
At the core, my belief is whatever works for you. Polyamory does work for some.
This makes sense, joe, because love can be qualified, on basis of certain basis of let’s say, endearment. However how do numbers come into this? A very wealthy Arabian man, for instance, can afford to keep a harem of hundreds of wives. Can it be said of this man, that he cannot love all of them equally? Or that by sheer numbers, he cannot have much love for any of them?(If he claims to love all of them equally)
What is implied here, is, that in trying to figure out a number, where it could be safely said, that within that number of loved persons, enough love can be said to be available for distribution, so none would be unfairly discounted. Is this a contingent figure, variable with one man’s perseverance, stamina and capacity? Or is love something so ephemeral, that a man could be said to love women kind as a whole, irrespective of how many? Would this work?
I agree with you, it can, but the need to identify the object of love in relation to these qualitative and quantitative aspects arise.
To be completely blunt about it, Plato was right. We may have to refine our definition of what love may mean as the numbers go up.
Yes, it does work for some. I once read an article about an actual V-shaped relationship, and I think at least one reason why the two—monamorous—guys, who didn’t strike me as very masculine, accepted the woman’s polyamorous relationship is that they felt that some pussy was better than none at all.
“Woman in her essence is pure, unconditional love. Man in his essence is pure presence, pure meditation. There are two ways, or polarities, on the spiritual path: one is of love and devotion, and the other is of meditation, presence, and being here and now. Osho says that these are the two highest polarities in existence: love is female, and presence is male.” (Diana and Michael Richardson, Tantric Sex for Men, page 104.)
“A man’s body contains two poles, but the male dynamic aspect is the outer aspect, while the female (receptive) aspect is his inner aspect. In a woman’s body the reverse is true. The female receptive aspect is the outer, and the male (dynamic) aspect is the inner. One aspect is externalized, but both aspects are always present. Generally speaking, this implies that physically and energetically the man, predominantly male, is a dynamic force, while the woman, predominantly female, is a receptive force.” (op.cit., page 44.)
“In the male body the male, positive pole is represented in the genitals, the female, receptive pole in the chest/heart. The reverse is true for woman; the male, positive pole is in the breasts/nipples/heart, the female, receptive pole is in the genitals.” (op.cit., page 43.)
This here is where any argument against polyamory is going to come from- the power politics involved. Any polyamorous relationship I know of in any detail is tremendously lopsided- two people start off being monogamous, and the more desirable/attractive of the two decides s(he) wants to screw around, and the other partner decides to go along because they don’t think they can do better or they are in love or whatever.
Now, I’m not saying the fact that this sad situation occurs is reason for three or more people that aren’t in that sad situation to give it a shot. But it might be a reason to avoid making polyamory normal or expected.
I also have polyamorous friends that actively predate on monogamous relationships, which is another complication. In a monogamous neighborhood, nobody wants the one polyamorous neighbor that has no problem trying to seduce everybody else’s spouse/partner.
