UPNetwork  

Go Back   UPNetwork > General Forums > Debate

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 10-11-2016, 06:29 PM   #1
Midgeorge
Marsh Badge
 
Midgeorge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: ELO Hell
Posts: 1,856
Luvdisc Polyamory: Defining Relationships

So, a bunch of us got talking on the discord server about Polyamory and what defines relationships as a whole. Naturally, some of us agreed, and some of us were bewildered at the openness of the people who claimed to be polyamorous. But when questioned as to why polyamory was 'wrong' or 'immoral', none of us could really come up with a definitive answer.

So I'd like to bring this up as a topic. What do you guys think of Polyamory and Polygamy? Should people be more open-minded about it? Is how we define relationships a societal issue? I though this might be a nice change of pace from all the political shouting matches going on in the politics thread. I'd also like to say I am welcome to strong opinions and I don't want people to be ostracised for simply having a stronger, or more controversial opinion about things than most.

Go!
__________________
Midgeorge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2016, 06:38 PM   #2
Emi
ACHILLESSSSS
 
Emi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Agartha
Posts: 11,152
Send a message via Skype™ to Emi
I, myself, am open to polyamorous relationships, but I haven't been in one yet (...this is mostly because I've only ever been in one relationship...). I think that polyamorous relationships are more difficult than monogamous ones, because there is simply more people involved, but I disagree with the idea that they are impossible or that people cannot be content in a polyamorous relationship. I think they are entirely possible, but obviously stress the important parts of any relationship: trust, communication, and devotion.

I think that there really needs to be more positive polyamory rep in media. Relationships are almost always exclusively monogamous, and the ones that aren't typically are bad stereotypes or fall apart. It would be nice to see a strong, positive relationship in...something. Really, anything. Help.
__________________


Quote:
Zelphon - Today at 5:29 AM
If the current political climate has taught me anything
It's that a purge via gay witches may very well be necessary
Emi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2016, 06:51 PM   #3
DaisyInari
Making that sweet coin
 
DaisyInari's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: In the workforce
Posts: 2,230
Send a message via MSN to DaisyInari
Altaria

I love being poly! I feel I have the capacity to love many people, but it's hard to be more open about it when a lot of opinions about it tend to be "oh, you're cheating" or "oh, someone's always going to be jealous and it'll fail" :< Like all relationships, you need communication and consent from all parties for it to work out!!

I'd loooove to see polyamory/gamy representation in the media, especially queer ones! It makes me feel validated and that I'm not doing something "wrong" just because I feel different from the norm.
__________________

It costs $0 to be a nice person! And even if it wasn't free why waste energy being a jerk like seriously

Spoiler: show
W(DQ)- 22(3) L(DQ)-14(0)
KO-55
TP-131 SP- 64.5/96.5 (5SP to Deh, 5SP to FW, 5SP to Desert Spirit, 8.5SP to Fallen Icarus, 10SP to Kyro12, 8SP to Charminions, 10 to aposteriori)
SHUCKS I GOTTA FIX THIS SOMETIME
~TL3~

~Fizzy Bubbles~


Credits to Charm for making this!


Come, my birdies!!!! Mwahahahaha!!!!!!


Thanks Pingu for being so nice and making me this~


Credit to TheKnightsFury for the sprite!

Fear my abnormally large signature~

Be Positive Ref~ I <3 you, Lonely Cubone and those who eval'd me~
DaisyInari is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2016, 06:57 PM   #4
Jerichi
本✚能
 
Jerichi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: 蒸気の波の中
Posts: 14,494
I really don't see myself ever being polyamorous, more for the fact that I tend to be the kind of person who really doesn't have more than a few close friends at a time and I really don't see myself committing to one person romantically (or sexually for that matter) at a time.

That said, I think there's nothing wrong with polyamory and I have some friends that swing that way. Even then, I feel like while I generally desire a monogamous relationship, I find myself leaning towards being emotionally committed (if that makes any sense) to multiple people in some way. As long as you're honest with your partner(s) and other people in your life and don't do things to deceive them, I see no problem with it. If you're all adults and you can all mutually agree on boundaries, go for it.

I think there's a lot of shades of "polyamory" and it often gets confused with being promiscuous or something. You can love more than one person at a time and society doesn't seem to be too against that, generally. Whether or not you can have a long-term life partner relationship with multiple people, however, is another thing.
__________________


気紛れを 許して 今更なんて思わずに急かしてよ
もっと中迄入って あたしの衝動を 突き動かしてよ

asbwffb

[jerichi]
Jerichi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2016, 09:46 PM   #5
Talon87
Shenmue III, baby!
 
Talon87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,160
Send a message via AIM to Talon87
There are a lot of problems in monogamous culture that polyamory solves. That stated, I think there are social advantages to monogamy as well -- to say nothing of the meaningfulness that many find in a monogamous relationship. I personally subscribe to a monogamous view of myself.

To me, the most obvious problem that polyamory solves is the love triangle. The darling of many a romance story, love triangles work in Western (and Japanese, and many other cultures') storytelling precisely because we're monogamous. (Or at least most of us are.) It's just sort of assumed, a baseline, really, that only one girl can get the guy or that only one guy can get the girl. But this problem goes away the moment you allow for a society in which both the men and the women are okay with sharing. You don't even have to ask the women to like each other -- so long as two women who love the same man are okay with sharing him, and so long as that man is okay with being shared, you can totally have a happy ending for everyone.

Another problem polyamory addresses is the human desire for variety. Too often I find men who profess that they like both short women and tall women, both plump women and skinny women, both big boobs and small boobs, both long hair and short hair, both quiet girls and energetic girls, both smart girls and dumb girls, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera! All different races, all different nationalities, all different careers and backgrounds and hobbies ... And yet 99% of these men either end up forever alone or else, more commonly, in a monogamous relationship. One woman, "the Chosen One," who even in the best of worlds is their No.1 top pick. ("Every attribute she has is my top pick for that category! ") And yet? 30 years of being in a relationship with the same person day in and day out, it's understandable why a man or a woman would want to try something else out for a change. And while many couples try to solve this problem in the bedroom, exploring different fetishes and sex positions, at the end of the day there are some things you just can't change about you or your partner.

This discussion reminds me of Mukashi Ecchi, a series of doujins written by Otabe Sakura. It tells the story of a fictional Japanese village in which the people practice what can best be described as "the opposite of monogamy" -- rather than one man being married to one wife, pretty much every woman in the village is accessible to every man and vice versa.

But monogamy solves a lot of problems that polyamory suffers from too. When a man has seven or more wives he's impregnated, and this man has twenty or more children by them, how does he split his time between all those sons and daughters? It's a simple answer: he can't. He can't be everywhere at once. Either he spends all of his time with all of his kids gathered around him (in which case he's little more than a storyteller or tour guide) or else he affords some of them intimate one-on-one time at the expense of others of them. Monogamy, if you subscribe to the whole "marriage is about the family unit, about holding society together" philosophy, cleanly addresses this problem: "One dad, one family." Your dad will be in your life all your childhood years. Your mom too will be in your life all those years. They'll both be there for you, fixtures for your young developing mind. You won't have twenty distant uncles, but rather one dedicated dad.

Obviously "seven wives and twenty children" can be argued as an exaggerated case, but I dunno ... I kinda think that there's some merit in the idea that monogamy might very well have evolved in early human civilizations precisely because of problems with polyamory like this.
Talon87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2016, 10:12 PM   #6
Emi
ACHILLESSSSS
 
Emi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Agartha
Posts: 11,152
Send a message via Skype™ to Emi
Quote:
But monogamy solves a lot of problems that polyamory suffers from too. When a man has seven or more wives he's impregnated, and this man has twenty or more children by them, how does he split his time between all those sons and daughters? It's a simple answer: he can't. He can't be everywhere at once. Either he spends all of his time with all of his kids gathered around him (in which case he's little more than a storyteller or tour guide) or else he affords some of them intimate one-on-one time at the expense of others of them. Monogamy, if you subscribe to the whole "marriage is about the family unit, about holding society together" philosophy, cleanly addresses this problem: "One dad, one family." Your dad will be in your life all your childhood years. Your mom too will be in your life all those years. They'll both be there for you, fixtures for your young developing mind. You won't have twenty distant uncles, but rather one dedicated dad.
Not really a disagreement per say, but I feel that this is more of a cultural phenomenon than it is related to polygamy or monogamy. Think back just a hundred years ago and it wasn't uncommon, especially in rural area, for a family to be monogamous but have eight, nine, ten or more children. I know for my great-great-grandmother (who if I remember correctly, was born just around the end of WWI) and my great-great grandfather who was a little older were born into quite large families. By the time they had kids themselves, they had lived through both the Great Depression and World War II. Those two events were a pretty significant cultural shift for America, and it was during that time if not a little after that the model of what we consider normal for monogamy: two parents and 2-4 kids.

This is not to say polygamous relationships won't have more kids, but I would chalk it up more to cultural changes and other things like birth control. But that's just me, really, and you made good points otherwise.
__________________


Quote:
Zelphon - Today at 5:29 AM
If the current political climate has taught me anything
It's that a purge via gay witches may very well be necessary
Emi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2016, 10:35 PM   #7
Talon87
Shenmue III, baby!
 
Talon87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,160
Send a message via AIM to Talon87
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emi View Post
Not really a disagreement per say, but I feel that this is more of a cultural phenomenon than it is related to polygamy or monogamy. Think back just a hundred years ago and it wasn't uncommon, especially in rural area, for a family to be monogamous but have eight, nine, ten or more children. I know for my great-great-grandmother (who if I remember correctly, was born just around the end of WWI) and my great-great grandfather who was a little older were born into quite large families. By the time they had kids themselves, they had lived through both the Great Depression and World War II. Those two events were a pretty significant cultural shift for America, and it was during that time if not a little after that the model of what we consider normal for monogamy: two parents and 2-4 kids.

This is not to say polygamous relationships won't have more kids, but I would chalk it up more to cultural changes and other things like birth control. But that's just me, really, and you made good points otherwise.
I considered this. But I think the proof is in the imperial pudding. If you look to ancient China (and its relatives, Korea, Japan, etc.), it was not uncommon for the Emperor to have 20+ concubines and to have numerous children with each of them. It's here where the power of multiplication really shines through: no one woman could possibly hope to birth 80 children in one human lifetime (given all we understand today of human longevity), and yet a man dispensing his seed all around the court can easily father 80 kids in just under five years.

I forgot to mention another historic (and resurgent) benefit to monogamy and other forms of dedicated sexual partnership -- and that's STDs. Or rather, not STDs. People who practice monogamy are categorically less likely to contract and spread STDs. If your partner is clean and you are clean, you both stay clean for life. If your partner is somehow infected (BUT HOW!? ;p), you catch the infection but the buck stops there with you. The only way that STDs can really spread in any given community is if the people catching them then go on to have sex with other members of the community who have yet to catch them. In other words, if a subset of your polyamorists are also shitbags. Which is not a difficult supposition to make. "Humans: what a bunch of bastards!"

You can think of this STD problem in relation to Abrahamic marital customs the same way you can think of food-borne illnesses in relation to halal foods. "Why can't Muslims eat pork? Why can't Jews eat bottom-feeding fish?" Parasites, parasites, parasites. "Why can't Jews or Muslims get married to more than one person at a time?" STDs, STDs, STDs? I don't think it's much of a stretch. If the Jewish elders were trying to look out for the people's best medical interests in the one case, it stands to reason that they might have been in the other case as well.
Talon87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2016, 10:42 PM   #8
phoopes
Double Dragon
 
phoopes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 3,460
Much like many other people, I can definitely not see myself as polyamorous. However, I recognize that that kind of relationship can work for people. Maybe it's because I'm selfish, maybe it's because I'm an only child or whatever but when I'm in a relationship with someone I want to be "the one" and I in turn would treat them the same way. I'm definitely not controlling like "no you can't hang out with your friends it's me me me" (I had a girlfriend like that once and it was not fun). So I guess I agree with (I think it was Jeri) in that there are many people that I can love, but there's only one person that I can be in a relationship with. Like I love my friends to death but if there's a person who's going to end up becoming my wife she would be the number one priority. I would just get too jealous/overwhelmed if I had to share.
__________________
phoopes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2016, 10:48 PM   #9
Aposteriori
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 3,540
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talon87 View Post
I considered this. But I think the proof is in the imperial pudding. If you look to ancient China (and its relatives, Korea, Japan, etc.), it was not uncommon for the Emperor to have 20+ concubines and to have numerous children with each of them. It's here where the power of multiplication really shines through: no one woman could possibly hope to birth 80 children in one human lifetime (given all we understand today of human longevity), and yet a man dispensing his seed all around the court can easily father 80 kids in just under five years.

I forgot to mention another historic (and resurgent) benefit to monogamy and other forms of dedicated sexual partnership -- and that's STDs. Or rather, not STDs. People who practice monogamy are categorically less likely to contract and spread STDs. If your partner is clean and you are clean, you both stay clean for life. If your partner is somehow infected (BUT HOW!? ;p), you catch the infection but the buck stops there with you. The only way that STDs can really spread in any given community is if the people catching them then go on to have sex with other members of the community who have yet to catch them. In other words, if a subset of your polyamorists are also shitbags. Which is not a difficult supposition to make. "Humans: what a bunch of bastards!"

You can think of this STD problem in relation to Abrahamic marital customs the same way you can think of food-borne illnesses in relation to halal foods. "Why can't Muslims eat pork? Why can't Jews eat bottom-feeding fish?" Parasites, parasites, parasites. "Why can't Jews or Muslims get married to more than one person at a time?" STDs, STDs, STDs? I don't think it's much of a stretch. If the Jewish elders were trying to look out for the people's best medical interests in the one case, it stands to reason that they might have been in the other case as well.
The termed used now is STI (Sexually transmitted Infection)

*Flies away*
Aposteriori is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2016, 12:10 AM   #10
Doppleganger
我が名は勇者王!
 
Doppleganger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Yukinomiya City, Fukushima Prefecture
Posts: 11,238
Send a message via AIM to Doppleganger
I don't find polyamory immoral because I don't think it's real. Versus the real case of polygamy, I don't believe that someone can love two people equally. Love is proportional to the amount of interaction you have with someone, so dividing the attention is going to cut down the affection to below what love is.

For example, consider Facebook. Can you honestly say you are best friends with everyone on your friends list? That you are intimate enough to discuss your inner thoughts and interests without fear of retaliation or embarrassment? And that the feeling is mutual?

I would say no, and anyone who thinks they can is mistaken. I have a small circle of best friends. There's a larger circle of more distant friends, and the concentric circles extend onward from there.

Even with two best friends, I don't think the level of relationship is comparable to a single significant other.
__________________
あなたの勇気が切り開く未来
ふたりの想いが見つけだす希望
今 信じあえる
あきらめない 心かさね
永遠を抱きしめて
Doppleganger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2016, 12:14 AM   #11
Slash
Poison Jam
 
Slash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Tokyo Underground Sewage Facility
Posts: 6,019
Send a message via Yahoo to Slash Send a message via Skype™ to Slash
So, I've really just skimmed a few posts in here at most, I'm not in the headspace to do much reading at the moment, but I'm certain I'm one of the more qualified around here to speak to this topic, as I've been in multiple poly arrangements and am deep in many communities in which it's massively prevalent and often the default or assumed norm.

I do say "arrangements", because not all were relationships, per se. Such as, without getting graphic, once I was in an arrangement with a Dominant. He had arrangements with others, I had play with others as well. It wasn't quite a relationship, but it was definitely poly is nature. As I think I saw someone say before, poly has many different shades and layers. The only real qualification is that it involves or includes more than two parties. Even many open relationships fall under the poly umbrella.

I see polyamory as something that's more or less a part of someone (and monogamy as well). I think there's just some people who are, as they say, "wired" for it. I am one of these. This has sometimes cost me pursuit of potential relationships because the other guy was strictly monogamous. We couldn't change each other (and shouldn't try to), and that left us incompatible. It does happen.

Of course, when you're poly, some of the first questions you often get asked are things like "don't you get jealous?" and "don't you feel left out?". That does get old. I have to say questions like that can be a bit disappointing, if not surprising. Largely because I feel these questions are looking from the wrong angle. I feel as though such questions are coming from a starting viewpoint of relationship instability. It's "how do you not (negative)" instead of "how do you (positive)". That alone is a subtle thing that can make a conversation start the wrong way. "How does it work?" is generally a better starting question if you're really interested. And if you are sincerely interested in informing yourself, most poly folks will gladly open up about it.

One of the most important things to know is that pretty much every poly arrangement is different. Some set rules and boundaries. One open poly family I knew and dated with before basically only had the cardinal rule that they weren't to stay overnight with anyone else. There's closed poly Vs, relationships where one partner can't or doesn't desire to have sex often/at all, so it's open on the other's side so he/she can have a sexual outlet. There's poly relationships where a man and woman are married, but the woman is bisexual and dates a girlfriend non-sexually. If you can imagine it, there's probably a poly arrangement around that's done it. And that says nothing of kinks.

Doing my best to keep this PG-13, of course. But some people are into certain things, like leather, pain, and other things I'd probably have to censor myself from saying, but have a partner who isn't. This kind of thing is part of what makes the market for prostitutes and Dominatrices/proDoms so significant, one can pay them to do something one's significant other wouldn't. Now, I am not trying to drag prostitution and its level of ethicalness to this debate, but it is a point worth pointing out. I also know that in many of these cases, the significant other is unaware of these dalliances, which is something I will say is unethical, but there's a surprisingly large number of men and women who not only don't mind their SO doing such things, some watch and/or even get off on it. And as long as it's informed consent on all sides, that's fine.

And that sentence is really the main sum of my entire, probably not too well-written post here: As long as it's informed consent on all sides, it's fine.

@Doppel
"I don't believe that someone can love two people equally."
I gotta object here. I sincerely believe you can. You can love them in different ways and still carry equal love for them. And in a sense, that's what polyamory is for some people: multiple people fulfilling multiple needs for each other.

And while some definitions of polyamory call for equal love of all involved, that, too, is not a necessity. Bringing up leather again, a man can have a husband for many years, but then collar a submissive boy and be his Sir. The Dominant is not expected to love his submissive as much as his life partner, especially not at first, and especially not in the same ways. That does not mean the relationship is a sham, doesn't exist, or is unhealthy. It certainly doesn't make it wrong.


Last edited by Slash; 10-12-2016 at 12:21 AM.
Slash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2016, 12:39 AM   #12
Doppleganger
我が名は勇者王!
 
Doppleganger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Yukinomiya City, Fukushima Prefecture
Posts: 11,238
Send a message via AIM to Doppleganger
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slash View Post

You can love them in different ways and still carry equal love for them. And in a sense, that's what polyamory is for some people: multiple people fulfilling multiple needs for each other.
To me, that is shallow. I can have seven girlfriends who I spend an equal number of time with, one for each day of the week. I don't think the relationship is going to be on the same level as spending seven days with one, since I also don't believe that there's a pleateau of interest when it comes to people. You might be able to dish out equal affection, but it's not as deep as the kind of relationship with a single person.

A monogamous relationship has a higher ceiling of satisfaction than a polyamorous one in ideal terms. In practice, it's tough to call because a lot of monogamies don't work out, and polyamory doesn't really exist.

But intuitively, if your passion is art, and you devote your entire life to it, it comes off as a little strange that someone else can say they're as passionate toward art as you, but also equally passionate toward music. You would think, "they don't understand the depth of my passion" or "they're not actually as passionate about art as me, because there's only so much love you can give".
__________________
あなたの勇気が切り開く未来
ふたりの想いが見つけだす希望
今 信じあえる
あきらめない 心かさね
永遠を抱きしめて
Doppleganger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2016, 01:05 AM   #13
Slash
Poison Jam
 
Slash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Tokyo Underground Sewage Facility
Posts: 6,019
Send a message via Yahoo to Slash Send a message via Skype™ to Slash
If you're trying to maths out love and denying the fact that polyamory exists (as there are relationships in existence that fit the definition of polyamory, it definitively exists), then I have to say, it is I who finds the view you state to be the shallow one.

"ceiling of satisfaction"? Seriously? Is that the lens through which you see sharing love?

I'd hardly say people only contain a finite amount of love.
Slash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2016, 01:11 AM   #14
Altocharizard55
The Scientist
 
Altocharizard55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: The Republican Capitol of America
Posts: 1,199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppleganger View Post
I don't find polyamory immoral because I don't think it's real. Versus the real case of polygamy, I don't believe that someone can love two people equally. Love is proportional to the amount of interaction you have with someone, so dividing the attention is going to cut down the affection to below what love is.

For example, consider Facebook. Can you honestly say you are best friends with everyone on your friends list? That you are intimate enough to discuss your inner thoughts and interests without fear of retaliation or embarrassment? And that the feeling is mutual?

I would say no, and anyone who thinks they can is mistaken. I have a small circle of best friends. There's a larger circle of more distant friends, and the concentric circles extend onward from there.

Even with two best friends, I don't think the level of relationship is comparable to a single significant other.
This is incredibly untrue.

As someone who has been in a poly relationship, I can tell you straight up, 100%, that I held the same love for the other two members of said relationship, and that it is absolutely no less than the love that I have or would give to someone that I was in a mono relationship with. This is not a false perception on my part; I am acutely aware of myself, my thoughts, and my honest feelings. I assure you, it is most certainly real.

This is coming from a demi person, who just so happens to have been involved with both mono and poly relationships.
__________________


PASBL Stats

TL 4 (35-21-6)
Current owner of the Onslaught Badge and the Monolith Badge
Previous owner of the Indurate Badge and the Dual Wing Badge (Pre-scrap)
216 TP - 84 KOs - 20 SP (11 SP Debt to Machamp-X)
(W/L/D and stats recompiled as of 4/25/17)
Observe. Adapt. Evolve.
Altocharizard55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2016, 02:00 AM   #15
Doppleganger
我が名は勇者王!
 
Doppleganger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Yukinomiya City, Fukushima Prefecture
Posts: 11,238
Send a message via AIM to Doppleganger
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slash View Post
If you're trying to maths out love and denying the fact that polyamory exists (as there are relationships in existence that fit the definition of polyamory, it definitively exists), then I have to say, it is I who finds the view you state to be the shallow one.
I am shallow, and I am not denying polyamory exists. I'm just saying it's going to be less satisfying romance than a monogamous relationship purely on the basis of exposure.

As I see it, there's no limit to the kind of appreciation you can have for another. It increases infinitely with time interacted, but time interacted itself is limited. You only have one lifetime to divide up among people, so naturally investing in one person is going to give the best ROI.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slash View Post

"ceiling of satisfaction"? Seriously? Is that the lens through which you see sharing love?

I'd hardly say people only contain a finite amount of love.
Even if love is infinite, you can't really conceptualize it. Heck, you can't conceptualize infinity by itself anyway. The depth of love is limited only by the creative ways you can express it, and there's a limited number of ways.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Altocharizard55 View Post
As someone who has been in a poly relationship, I can tell you straight up, 100%, that I held the same love for the other two members of said relationship, and that it is absolutely no less than the love that I have or would give to someone that I was in a mono relationship with. This is not a false perception on my part; I am acutely aware of myself, my thoughts, and my honest feelings. I assure you, it is most certainly real.
The thing is, from my perspective, what you identify as polyarmory I don't believe is such. I'm more of the opinion you're conflating other emotions and feelings with that term.

If someone told me "I love you" after 3 weeks of interaction, they might actually feel something that drives them to express it like that. But I wouldn't believe it to be "love" from my understanding of what love is, I would consider it infatuation.
__________________
あなたの勇気が切り開く未来
ふたりの想いが見つけだす希望
今 信じあえる
あきらめない 心かさね
永遠を抱きしめて
Doppleganger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2016, 02:15 AM   #16
Altocharizard55
The Scientist
 
Altocharizard55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: The Republican Capitol of America
Posts: 1,199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppleganger View Post
The thing is, from my perspective, what you identify as polyarmory I don't believe is such. I'm more of the opinion you're conflating other emotions and feelings with that term.
I'm struggling to not be personally offended by this. Do not presume to understand my feelings better or more accurately than I do, because frankly put, you do not. You have no business making such a claim, knowing essentially nothing about my thoughts or feelings at the time other than the fact that I was happy in a poly relationship.

Do you have doubts as to what I define as love? For that matter, since you feel so clearly on this, how do you define love? May as well make that explicit.
__________________


PASBL Stats

TL 4 (35-21-6)
Current owner of the Onslaught Badge and the Monolith Badge
Previous owner of the Indurate Badge and the Dual Wing Badge (Pre-scrap)
216 TP - 84 KOs - 20 SP (11 SP Debt to Machamp-X)
(W/L/D and stats recompiled as of 4/25/17)
Observe. Adapt. Evolve.

Last edited by Altocharizard55; 10-12-2016 at 02:25 AM.
Altocharizard55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2016, 02:50 AM   #17
Doppleganger
我が名は勇者王!
 
Doppleganger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Yukinomiya City, Fukushima Prefecture
Posts: 11,238
Send a message via AIM to Doppleganger
Quote:
Originally Posted by Altocharizard55 View Post
I'm struggling to not be personally offended by this. Do not presume to understand my feelings better or more accurately than I do, because frankly put, you do not.
Did I ever claim to understand you? No.

I have a general belief that polyarmory, for the most part, doesn't exist. You claiming to have experienced one of those exceptionally rare cases is going to be met with extreme skepticism by me. It's no different from how many view - and have extreme disdain for - those who claim to have had a spiritual revelation of God.

At any rate, claiming to be offended doesn't help your cause. It just makes you look insecure about your experience. If you honestly believe you experienced a polyarmorous relationship, you shouldn't care at all about what I think. Slash tried to convey the experience, which I appreciate even if I ultimately couldn't relate to it at all.

For example, I personally have been in love. I've also seen my cat come back from the dead (as a zombie), which I take as proof God exists. These were true experiences that no one will ever take away from me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Altocharizard55 View Post
Do you have doubts as to what I define as love? For that matter, since you feel so clearly on this, how do you define love? May as well make that explicit.
I don't have a definition, I can only give you symptoms of that feeling, where I had a willingness to go out of my comfort zone for another person and not feel uncomfortable at all. I was also able to look at a girl's face and not really register the physical attractiveness, because the core of the attraction wasn't physical (although when I focused on it, there was some physical attraction).

Also, I don't believe you can get over a lost love. Ever. So it is better to have never loved at all.
__________________
あなたの勇気が切り開く未来
ふたりの想いが見つけだす希望
今 信じあえる
あきらめない 心かさね
永遠を抱きしめて
Doppleganger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2016, 03:45 AM   #18
Midgeorge
Marsh Badge
 
Midgeorge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: ELO Hell
Posts: 1,856
Quote:
I have a general belief that polyarmory, for the most part, doesn't exist. You claiming to have experienced one of those exceptionally rare cases is going to be met with extreme skepticism by me. It's no different from how many view - and have extreme disdain for - those who claim to have had a spiritual revelation of God.
Polyamory isn't defined by love and is the practice of sharing intimate relationships with more than one person. Whether you agree with it or not, it can certainly exist in this form. So in a sense I agree with you; that a person can't share the same love they for feel for one, with another. But you can't deny polyamorous relationships in their dictionary definition form.

Quote:
Also, I don't believe you can get over a lost love. Ever. So it is better to have never loved at all.
Not true!
__________________
Midgeorge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2016, 08:17 AM   #19
deoxys
こばやし だいすき~
 
deoxys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: 私の尾を食べてください OwO
Posts: 6,482
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppleganger View Post
Also, I don't believe you can get over a lost love. Ever. So it is better to have never loved at all.
Perhaps you can't, but it's definitely not impossible. I went through a long period of time where I was left extremely depressed and in a state where certain things, such as smells, sounds, or other things, would instantly trigger memories that brought a stomach drop every time. I think, for me, the hardest part of that battle was the soul-crushing loneliness it brought. I didn't just lose someone I considered my partner, I lose someone I considered my closest friend, as well as an entire family I had already considered my own.

In the end, it was for the best, though I would never wish what I endured on anyone, and it really helped me understand what a broken heart truly is: a real, physical (as well as mental and emotional) illness.

But you can grow past it. You can accept it and move on in your life, just living day to day. Eventually, something might change. Due to a series of incremental changes in my own life, I was eventually able to find someone else. Whereas the previous relationship was riddled with hidden problems including a hidden constant lack of respect for the other party in many ways, this relationship does not suffer the same issues. I was too immature to handle the relationship I previously had, at least in certain areas, I just didn't know it at the time.

In the end it's going to be different for everyone. I remember seriously thinking the depression and loneliness would never end. It affected my friendships, my jobs, and my education, to a point that I essentially stunted my own growth very hard, and to this day I'm still trying to catch back up. Struggling to handle all of the things in my life that fell apart because of it was actually the most difficult part.

My point is, it's possible to move on, depending on if you are able to do it. Today, I try to look back on it as a growing opportunity, even if the reality was it was the hardest thing I ever had to go through. But I can confirm I am definitely over that, and in a much healthier and more stable relationship.

TL;DR - Yes you can.
deoxys is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2016, 08:28 AM   #20
Shuckle
Mage of Mind
 
Shuckle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Land of Thought and Melody
Posts: 3,104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppleganger View Post
To me, that is shallow. I can have seven girlfriends who I spend an equal number of time with, one for each day of the week. I don't think the relationship is going to be on the same level as spending seven days with one, since I also don't believe that there's a pleateau of interest when it comes to people. You might be able to dish out equal affection, but it's not as deep as the kind of relationship with a single person.
Spending seven days with the same person is enough to drive you insane. Managing space is the single most important thing you can do in a relationship.

Many people, like me, are perfectly fine with one or two days a week of time spent with a girlfriend or boyfriend. While I have no interest in a relationship right now (sorry Deebs ily anyway </3), my ideal relationship is one that gives me lots of room to be me.

I don't pretend to be mono- or polyamorous, since again I'm mostly just trying to fly with a crew of good friends rather than with a partner or partners. But the idea that you HAVE to devote ALL of your time to loving someone is simply inaccurate, even when it comes to monogamous relationships - and perhaps especially when it comes to monogamous relationships.

Too often we see people being stifled because of their deep need to have a significant other, either because of their social clock or because they are immature and insecure and latch on to the first person to come along and offer that maturity and security. Speaking of which, I'd like to offer a PSA.

Most abusive relationships get very serious very quickly. If someone is suspiciously interested in a committed, long-term relationship with you, or wants to start a serious, long-term relationship with you after only a few dates (we aren't talking "be my boyfriend," we're talking "be my husband"), that is a serious red flag. Get away from that person immediately.
__________________

Spoiler: show
[The Sorcerer's Ambition]A handy link, to be sure.
Level Acquisitions, sorted by level instead of name.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phoopes View Post
Shuckle's awesomeness level continues to rise.
Shuckle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2016, 02:32 PM   #21
Son_of_Shadows
Ducks gonna duck
 
Son_of_Shadows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,794
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppleganger View Post
polyamory doesn't really exist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppleganger View Post
I am shallow, and I am not denying polyamory exists.
k
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Concept View Post
Why are you always a pretty princess?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Son_of_Shadows View Post
Because I look damn good in a dress.
Fizzy Bubbles Team
PASBL
Wild Future
Son_of_Shadows is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2016, 06:59 PM   #22
GrJackass
Night Man
 
GrJackass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,371
Well trolling aside it's possible to love two different people for different reasons (albeit it's not romantic but don't you love both your parents?). One person you love for their emotional support while one perhaps physically. You can't fault people for wanting it all and not necessarily wanting to wait for a unicorn (S7E3 of '30 Rock' talks about this). The key being as always seems to be communication and setting ground rules really. You gotta do you babeh.

Now I've never been in a poly relationship myself, that's not to say i'm not open to the idea. Though it seems more and more that everywhere I look now-a-days it seems to me like it's becoming more and more the norm. Admittedly my observations may be skewed due to where i live.
__________________
I'm an old school Poke-BALLER.

”Fee, fie, foe, fum the End are Near at thou Bobbum. Time me open Bobbum Van trunk, for ruin Bobbum wif Equipmunk.”

Last edited by GrJackass; 10-12-2016 at 07:12 PM.
GrJackass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2016, 07:02 PM   #23
GrJackass
Night Man
 
GrJackass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,371
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppleganger
Also, I don't believe you can get over a lost love. Ever. So it is better to have never loved at all.
Oh Dopple, who hurt you? I would give you a hug if i could.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shuckle View Post
Spending seven days with the same person is enough to drive you insane. Managing space is the single most important thing you can do in a relationship.

TRUTH
__________________
I'm an old school Poke-BALLER.

”Fee, fie, foe, fum the End are Near at thou Bobbum. Time me open Bobbum Van trunk, for ruin Bobbum wif Equipmunk.”
GrJackass is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Lower Navigation
Go Back   UPNetwork > General Forums > Debate


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:27 AM.


Design By: Miner Skinz.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.