Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

billege · 02-24-2006, 11:58 PM

Before I really begin, there’s one thing I’d like to make perfectly clear: I’m not judging anyone’s relationship/s, or proclaiming I know more about love than you, etc. It’s very important to me that everyone reading my post here understands I’m coming from what my understanding of love is.

Amorous love is limited, love is not. Actually, I’m not sure that amorous love is actually “limited.” I don’t like the semantics there, because “limited” has such negative connotations. I think amorous love precludes the possibility of poly-amorous love.

I’m defining poly-amorous love as: romantic love including a sexual relationship. This is obviously in contrast to nonamorous love, which we’d give as an example: the love of a parent or child for each other, siblings, friends who’ve “been through it” and come to a relationship deep enough to be called “love.”

This definition means we’re not discussing the type of love the OP put out there if it’s love “un-acted” on. To discuss polyamorous love, is to discuss the possibility/capability of a person (persons?) having “wife/husband” relationships with more than a single wife/husband. I use the terms wife/husband to drawn on the deep bonds associated with that partnership vs. “boyfriend/girlfriend.” In this poster’s opinion, bg/gf relationships can sure be deep, no doubt, but I like to think that taking marriage vows expresses a new depth to the relationship. Though, that’s up for a debate all its own, no? And is off this threads point. Moving on…

I used the word “precluded” earlier for a purpose. I believe that a bond of amorous love takes up so much, and involves so much of a soul, that it can’t be shared with more than one person.

Let me expound on that.

Above me here, in this thread, we’ve got a lot of discussion about “precedence” in a polyamorous relationship. I think that we’ve touched on a fulcrum here. I believe that by definition, the “primary” relationship is the one of true amorous love. It is the primary relationship for many reasons. Some of these are discussed in the thread. I think those reasons are what make that specific relationships the true amorous one. It’s possible the other relationships are masquerading as amorous love, while really they’re a form of care mixed with a desire for sexually pleasing each other. As opposed to lust, which is selfish.

That’s not to say there’s not good emotion in the other ones (aside from the real amorous relationship), I’m sure there is. But I also think that, similarly perhaps to what supplecow touched on, a true polyamorous relationship would somehow be simultaneously all “primary.” Which I don’t see happening.

People in love form a unique bond, and when they add sex to it, add more to that bond. Where I’m sitting, I see that the bond of true amorous love isn’t diminished by other amorous love because it makes impossible the forming of that bond with another person.

02-24-2006, 11:58 PM	#27 (permalink)
billege Watcher Location: Ohio	Before I really begin, there’s one thing I’d like to make perfectly clear: I’m not judging anyone’s relationship/s, or proclaiming I know more about love than you, etc. It’s very important to me that everyone reading my post here understands I’m coming from what my understanding of love is. Amorous love is limited, love is not. Actually, I’m not sure that amorous love is actually “limited.” I don’t like the semantics there, because “limited” has such negative connotations. I think amorous love precludes the possibility of poly-amorous love. I’m defining poly-amorous love as: romantic love including a sexual relationship. This is obviously in contrast to nonamorous love, which we’d give as an example: the love of a parent or child for each other, siblings, friends who’ve “been through it” and come to a relationship deep enough to be called “love.” This definition means we’re not discussing the type of love the OP put out there if it’s love “un-acted” on. To discuss polyamorous love, is to discuss the possibility/capability of a person (persons?) having “wife/husband” relationships with more than a single wife/husband. I use the terms wife/husband to drawn on the deep bonds associated with that partnership vs. “boyfriend/girlfriend.” In this poster’s opinion, bg/gf relationships can sure be deep, no doubt, but I like to think that taking marriage vows expresses a new depth to the relationship. Though, that’s up for a debate all its own, no? And is off this threads point. Moving on… I used the word “precluded” earlier for a purpose. I believe that a bond of amorous love takes up so much, and involves so much of a soul, that it can’t be shared with more than one person. Let me expound on that. Above me here, in this thread, we’ve got a lot of discussion about “precedence” in a polyamorous relationship. I think that we’ve touched on a fulcrum here. I believe that by definition, the “primary” relationship is the one of true amorous love. It is the primary relationship for many reasons. Some of these are discussed in the thread. I think those reasons are what make that specific relationships the true amorous one. It’s possible the other relationships are masquerading as amorous love, while really they’re a form of care mixed with a desire for sexually pleasing each other. As opposed to lust, which is selfish. That’s not to say there’s not good emotion in the other ones (aside from the real amorous relationship), I’m sure there is. But I also think that, similarly perhaps to what supplecow touched on, a true polyamorous relationship would somehow be simultaneously all “primary.” Which I don’t see happening. People in love form a unique bond, and when they add sex to it, add more to that bond. Where I’m sitting, I see that the bond of true amorous love isn’t diminished by other amorous love because it makes impossible the forming of that bond with another person. __________________ I can sum up the clash of religion in one sentence: "My Invisible Friend is better than your Invisible Friend."