SecretMethod70

I was reading the thread, Relationship Advice Please, and the concept of "emotional cheating" is one which I find very interesting. Not because I don't think it exists: if one is forming an emotional bond with another and is hiding it from their partner, that's clearly cheating and there is clearly a sense of guilt in it. There is no question in my mind that what has occurred in the original thread should be considered a serious issue. It is one particular comment that I found interesting in that thread though (emphasis mine):Is this really true? Obviously, it is true in some relationships, perhaps many. What I'm interested in, though, is whether or not you think being emotionally attached to someone other than your significant other requires being LESS emotionally attached to your significant other. This idea seems to stem from the idea that love is a limited resource: that by having feelings of love for another person, it requires "taking away from" your feelings of love for your significant other.

Obviously, the kind of love one has for a friend, or for a family member, is different than the kind of love one has for a significant other. To make the distinction simple, let's refer to the love one has for friends and family as platonic love and the love one has for a significant other as amorous love. Also, the love one has for a significant other is unique to the person. Anyone who has felt love in more than one relationship can tell you this. But - and this is what I would like to hear thoughts on - is it only possible to truly have amorous love for one person at a time? Does the formation of amorous love for another person inevitably mean that one's amorous love for their significant other is diminished?

I am of the opinion that, no, amorous love is not limited. Much like a parent can have multiple children and love each of them, but love each differently, I think that one can feel amorous love with more than one person at the same time and, again, it is unique to each person. It is likely that the feelings of amorous love will be more intense toward one person over others, but I don't think that the love towards that person is necessarily diminished by the presence of amorous love towards others. I also don't think that the more intense love is in any way "better" or "more serious" than the love for others, just different, and perhaps more important to the person feeling love.

Clearly, just because amorous love for one does not require lessened amorous love for another, I don't think that means that all people are capable of sustaining relationships in which amorous love is felt for and directed towards more than one person. Without profound levels of communication and openness on the part of all persons, it would be nearly impossible to sustain such a situation. It seems to me, though, that most people believe it is not just difficult but impossible for one to fall into amorous love with someone else while maintaining the amorous love and bond with an already existing significant other. This is not something I agree with, but I'm interested to hear your thoughts.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

ubertuber

(I say this in NO way meaning to pick on Oshn...)

When I read this snippet, I get the impression that someone has been wronged if some part of their partner, whether big or small, has detached from their relationship. I think that's sort of an interesting idea because of the assumptions it rests on. There's a strongly implied belief that the correct state of affairs in a relationship is for both parties to be completely and wholly tied to each other - and that the lack of this constitutes some sort of injury. It sort of sounds like love is a state of "blissful ownership".

I think this is an extremely common way of thinking - these assumptions underlie many people's ideas about love. Still, it's one that I've had trouble with in the past. I've been in love, and even so, at no point was I ever in a state in which all peices of me, whether big or small, were completely attached with no deviation to my partner. I don't imagine that I'll ever be quite in THAT state - it's just not in me... Does that mean that I'm incapable of love in the sense that others mean, or that there is no possibility of me having a healthy, proper relationship? I hope I don't sound sarcastic, because I'm not feeling that way. I'm really curious about this "ownership phenomenon" and love - where does it come from, and does it serve a constructive purpose in relationships? If anyone has any insight, I'd love to read it.

Secret's thoughts are definitely much closer to mine... I'd go one step further and say that in my experience love begets love. When I'm in love with someone, I'm much more charitably inclined towards other people and more likely to love them. Once I'm open to giving and receiving love, it tends to get spread around a fair bit. I'll be honest and say that this has never evolved into a polyamorous situation (and it may well never do so), but I can at least envision the possibility.

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

ngdawg

Amorous love is certainly possible to have for more than one. I do agree that in loving more than one person, something is taken from another, but then again the loved ones are not identical, so how can the love be totally equal?
In this way, it is similar to loving your children or family members in that everyone, no matter how wonderful they are, has something not quite so 'lovable' about them.
There are so many levels of emotion, so many ways to be emotionally tied to anyone, that, to me at least, the idea of a single love is more preposterous than the other way around. Yet, societal mores are so ingrained in too many that the mere idea of multiple (amorous) love is downright wrong, dare I say disgusting. Pity, really. By closing ourselves off to the reality that there is more than one true love for everyone, we stagnate. This is not to say there isn't only one for a person's natural life-how many times do we see very old couples still starry-eyed, but by and large, I find that to be an endearingly precious rarity.
The downside is for those who feel they must belong to someone and someone belong to them. For them, feeling any type of love for another is cheating, end of discussion. And for them, they're correct because, as they equate love to belonging solely to one, yet that one has feelings for another as well, it is taking away what they need-ownership.

__________________
Don't blame me. I didn't vote for either of'em.

ratbastid

It's definitely the way most people automatically look at love. Some for others means less for me. There's something automatic and fundamental about that. And in most relationships, that's probably the way it goes. But that's absolutely not the way it HAS to go.

lurkette and I are what you call Polyamorous. We openly have intimate, loving relationships with people outside our marriage. And one of the first things we had to deal with about that was exactly this question: if I let you love them, what does that leave me?

It was a leap of faith, quite frankly. But we both believe that love is infinite, the responsible expression of it can only be positive, and any emotions we might have to the contrary are simply opportunities for us to transform ourselves into the creatures we really want to be.

It hasn't been easy. We've dealt with jealousy, envy, frustration, fears of abandonment... the list goes on and on and on. But who we are now is SO much more able to express what we say love is. We're as close as a couple as we've ever been. Other relationships may come and go, but we're clear that we're together for life.

Now, there's this: love isn't a limited resource, but the main ways love gets expressed, namely the resources called time and attention, definitely are. Being in multiple relationships can be hard work, it's not easy to make sure everyone gets taken care of. I think that's really what most people are afraid of in terms of their partner loving someone else--will I still get my needs met? Will I still feel important to him/her? Will s/he still have time for me? And how will I quantify all that? By how much time and how much attention I get from him/her.

JumpinJesus

I tend to agree that love is an unlimited resource. However, I would like to take a slightly different approach in how I define it.

In order to understand love in terms of amorous love, we need to define what we mean by it. To me, amorous love is born out of a strong physical attraction coupled with a happiness one feels while in the presence of the object of said love. With over 6 billion people on this planet, it is an impossibility to claim that we only feel physical attraction to one person only. It is a safe assumption that we come across a multitude of people on a daily basis with whom we are physically attracted. Couple that with a happiness while in their presence and we have what could easily be argued as a basis for amorous love. The difference is that with most of these people we encounter, we never spend enough time with them to allow such feelings to develop. By allowing these feelings to develop, we enter the realm of amorous love.

Now, I believe that many people confuse insecurity and neediness with love. These people are jealous and possessive in love and are highly unwilling to allow for the fact that we can be attracted to others. In order to validate themselves, these people need constant attention and reassurance that the person with whom they are in love won't leave them for another. They are either unwilling or incapable of allowing for the notion that we can develop feelings for more than one person at a time as it calls into question their sense of security and emotional safety. It is easier to deny what is most likely biological wiring than to confront personal issues that may be painful to address. These people are the ones who snoop and spy on their partners, looking for any indication that something is amiss. They live in constant fear of losing what they have and therefore never enjoy what they have. This is not love.

I do in fact believe in being able to be in love with more than one person, but due to the nature of confused emotions and a misunderstanding of how humans behave and think, I don't think many are able to explore this possibility, simply because that which they perceive as love is not.

Granted, even with those who understand love's true nature will still have feelings of jealousy. We're all human and we all respond to situations differently. This is where ratbastid's post comes into play. Communication and honesty are paramount in securing a relationship, no matter what the circumstances.

__________________
"I can normally tell how intelligent a man is by how stupid he thinks I am" - Cormac McCarthy, All The Pretty Horses

Rodney

To me, that's the key point in all discussions of multiplex love: whose has precedence? If I had time to save only one of you from a burning building, which would it be? Which one am I committed to growing old with, and how much do my commitments mean?

Everybody wants precedence in the relationship that's most important to them. Even kids want to know that Mom and Dad love them best, or at least doesn't love their brother or sister _more._

If you can nail that down in a relationship -- you and me, we're for the ages -- then exploring relationships with other people is possible with mutual consent. On the other hand, there can always be complications: can you be sure that, even if you enter a relationship with full disclosure, the other person might hope for "something more?" That they might someday be the one with precedence?

So while I say that exploring other relationships is possible in a partnership where both agree, I wouldn't try it myself. Part of that is my own personality; I tend to be 100 percent with whoever I'm with at the time, and that makes it difficult to maintain a perspective. And part of that is because, relatively recently, I had a close but (I thought) professional relationship with a woman turn bad because she started crossing every boundary there was -- all the time proclaiming that she wasn't, and that I needed to "have a breakthrough." (It ended with me severing contact, and her standing in my driveway screaming, "I need you to make me feel happy!" She was married, of course, and so was I.)

In short, there are many pitfalls. The relationships that Ratbastid and Lurkette have forged have been good within their own relationship because they've thought things out, communicated well, and reaffirmed their basic relationship. Where such communication and deliberation does _not_ take place -- the vast majority of cases -- things don't tend to go well. Because one or the other of the partners feels threatened: they no longer are sure who has precedence.

ratbastid

Agreed. In fact, the <a href="http://www.word-detective.com/121800.html">agita</a> we've encountered has been of two varieties: precedence fears, and left-outness.

Both are relatively easy to deal with, once you've kicked their asses a few times. The trick is to see them for what they are. They'll tend to magnify themselves on you, but if you can really distinguish what's going on, they shrink back down to a manageable size.

Jinn

Quite the contrary -- love is an UNlimited resource. I find that the more people I meet, the more I love the people I knew before. It's like compounding interest.

__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

SecretMethod70

Indeed, this was a motivation for this discussion. It seems as though many people have a view of love as "blissful ownership," as ubertuber refers to it. I'm always astonished, for example, when I read posts or hear comments by people (almost always the female in a relationship) who seem to think that when they are in a committed relationship their partner won't be interested in pornography. As if the partner stops being attracted to other people all of a sudden simply because he is primarily associating with one. Similarly, there's the stereotype of the wife who gets upset at her husband looking at an attractive women as she passes by. And this is only with regards to physical attraction!

When emotional bonds enter the picture, it seems as though all bets are off. Often, there are posts in Tilted Sexuality, by men and women alike, about a partner who seems too close to a friend of the opposite sex. In these cases, not only is the partner apparently incapable of sharing LOVE, but the partner is incapable of sharing ANY closeness with the opposite sex.

Considering how many people hold the aforementioned views about loving relationships, I suppose it's no surprise that it does not seem to be all that common in society at large for people to comprehend the idea of shared love. Ultimately, I think it is this insecurity that is the primary force in disallowing the possibility for a successful relationship that also has outlets for the expression of love with others.

ratbastid already addressed it, but I think the precedence issue is directly tied to this insecurity, as is the need for profound communication which I mentioned in the original post. The primary source of insecurity, as Rodney pointed out, is the question of who has precedence: who is most important? If the person who has precedence doesn't FEEL like they have precedence, and if it is not communicated well, and regularly, that they have precedence, it doesn't matter that they DO have precedence. The insecurity will be in that person's mind and it will eat away at the ability for such a relationship to succeed. But this is not evidence that loving, or having deep affection, for another person takes something away from the love that is felt for the partner one is ultimately dedicated to. It is only evidence that it takes a great deal of work and that, like ratbastid pointed out, time and attention must be used and given wisely.

However, I'd like to slightly disagree with one thing that has been said so far (or maybe I'm agreeing but just in different words)...This reminds me of another thread I recently read here. For those who don't feel like reading it, the general gist is basically that love begins as a reward system in the brain. The happiness found in the presence of the person is a reward for being near that person. It seems as though the physical attraction one feels, combined with the happiness one feels in the presence of another person is indeed the basis of amorous love. This makes sense to me, and I'm not sure if I agree that physical attraction and happiness in one's presence are not love. Rather, it seems more accurate to me to state that they are the early stages of love - the core building blocks upon which more and deeper love is built over time.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

Toaster126

Love is an unlimited resource. Time isn't.

Time is really at the core of this issue. The negative feelings associated with poly relationships or "emotional cheating" or whathaveyou often are because of a withdrawl of things like time spent together, communication, or affections. I think there would less problems with jealousy if you can point to behavior and realize it hasn't changed simply because someone else has entered the picture. Like, a partner wouldn't be mad if the other started confiding in a new person. They would be mad the partner stopped confiding in them.

__________________
"The question isn't who is going to let me, it's who is going to stop me." (Ayn Rand)
"The truth is that our finest moments are most likely to occur when we are feeling deeply uncomfortable, unhappy, or unfulfilled. For it is only in such moments, propelled by our discomfort, that we are likely to step out of our ruts and start searching for different ways or truer answers." (M. Scott Peck)

snowy

I'm going to echo this sentiment. I have been fortunate in my choice of partner, because he knows and respects that we have the ability to love many. But we're so dedicated to each other it would be hard for me to love anyone else amorously.

So--platonic love, for me, is unlimited. Amorous love, too, could be unlimited. But I don't have time (as Toaster said) to be in love with more than one person. Being in love with this one takes up more than enough, and the platonic love I have takes up the rest.

I understand for other people that their priorities are different, or that the kind of love they have for their partner allows them to love others amorously. While fulfilling for some, it's not the path for me. I know I could find it in me to love more amorously--I just don't want to.

Secondly, I don't think having a deep love for someone in a secondary relationship would or should interfere with a deep love in a primary relationship--if the partners in the primary relationship are really in love with one another, then they are fully understanding of the other's heart and what it is capable of. For instance, my SO is fully understanding of the fact that I am quite close with two guy friends of mine. These are two men I love very deeply. Yet he knows that the love I have for him is different and special, and loving these two men doesn't cheapen what we have by any means. And THAT is true love.

__________________
If I am not better, at least I am different. --Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Supple Cow

In a simple response to the OP: No. I don't think love is a limited resource, and I go even further with the belief that love begets love, as others have already said in this thread. That said, I have some other questions to throw out here, and I hope this doesn't become an unwanted threadjack.
Primary and secondary relationships. This gets me thinking of polyamory (something I already think about a lot) in a new way. What about polyamorous relationships where everyone is equally ..close/committed/important.. (for lack of a single or better word). Equally equal. More than two people and all sub-relationships are considered primary. Does this even exist? What then? How can this come to be? If you can have a meaningful relationship and/or love with more than one person without detracting from the same with the other(s), wouldn't it almost be desireable to have all of the love be primary as long as everybody involved can get past the precedence fears and feelings of left-outness (as ratbastid calls it)? When I envision myself in a situation like this, an obstacle I can easily see cropping up emotional exhaustion. I definitely think headspace and love are completely different things and, to me, headspace seems unquestionably to be a limited resource.

Has anybody here who is in a polyamorous situation that is primary-secondary in nature thought about evolving into an "all-primary" situation as I've suggested? If so, what keeps you from letting a secondary relationship become primary as well - is it because there is less potential for the closeness/love with the secondary person(s) than there is with the primary person(s), or is it because there is some other kind of practical complication or roadblock such as a pre-existing marriage (or equivalent emotional commitment) with the primary person(s)?

I realize I could be talking to no one here, and also that it could sound like I'm directing this at specific people... I hope it's not the former and I'll say for the record that it's not the latter. I just have all these questions that were swimming around in my head before this thread even came into existence. If anybody here could address any of these with personal experience, I would be much obliged. On the other hand, I also hope that there are other people around here who don't have experience with this to join me in asking questions I haven't already asked.

__________________
"I've missed more than 9000 shots in my career. I've lost almost 300 games. Twenty-six times I've been trusted to take the game winning shot and missed. I've failed over and over and over again in my life. And that is why I succeed."
(Michael Jordan)

serlindsipity

Supple Cow - i want to add and disagree to your thought of equal equality. Generally I think this would not be possible thanks to the general feeling insecurity most have with themselves which complicates every relationship. I find it incredibly difficult to find several people completely and truly confident enough to believe they wont be left. I think that alone can devastate any individual relationship let alone a multiplicitive relationship (i dont know how else to say it, sorry, terminology impairment).

Personally i believe love is unending. However, i think the discrepency lies when love in one relationship is removed and put towards someone else. I know this cant be measured in materialistic terms, however, i think people realize when they have reduced their emotional attachment for one person to provide for another. Does this say i dont think you can love more than one? No, but rather I question how we choose and how we execute our love for others. When we use another as a counterbalance to compensate for something we dont love in the first, thats when the problems occur. Others should not fill the voids and spaces in our primary relationship. I think this is what occurs more often than anything.

__________________
My third eye is my camera's lens.

ratbastid

Currently, I have a primary partner (lurkette), and secondary (D), her husband (S), and a girl I rarely but enthusiastially fool around with who lives in a different state, and her husband. That's the extent of my "poly family", if you will. I include my partners' husbands because they're a really important part of the equation. There are plenty of people that lurkette and I flirt with, are interested in, whatever, but those aren't "relationships". Although the arrangement we have wouldn't at all preclude those becoming relationships.

For a brief time, lurkette and D&S and I were talking about moving in together. There was a big house on the market that had been a duplex, but was converted to one big single-family home. We had this fantasy of moving in there, raising their kid(s) together, being public about our relationship, etc. It was nice to think about, but I'm not sure we were ever really serious about that--lurkette may have been, but I don't think the rest of us were. D & S are both teachers, and it would be very detrimental to their careers for it to be known that they're in a non-traditional relationship. Frankly, living with the two of them would have driven me nuts--I love them, but I really only want to live with lurkette.

There absolutely ARE poly relationships out there that don't include notions of "primary" and "secondary". There are as many different poly configurations as there are poly relationships. Some people don't differentiate between their partners. There are poly people who feel that having the primary/secondary distinction isn't "real" polyamory. So... it's all over the map. There's really no rule. That's the basical deal about poly--it's however you say it is. Once you've broken out of society's handed-down monogamy rules, you have the freedom to create pretty much anything.

Ustwo

I know more teachers into this sort of thing than any other profession, have to figure that out some day

While I've always thought monogamy was more of a mythical 'ideal' than anything suitable for real humans, I think being a true 'poly' is a pretty big leap.

Its pretty hard to love someone 'equally', there will always be favorites, and I think if I truly loved another woman as a wife, the love for my wife would diminish and be less 'special'.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

abaya

Well said, Owl. That is pretty much how I feel, even though I have no problem with other people being polyamorous. I respect their decisions, self-knowledge, and strength of relationship. I just know that I don't have the "head space," or time, or whatever it may be, to sustain more than one amorous relationship. And that is fine with me, and ktspktsp too.

Ktspktsp and I had a long talk about this thread yesterday, and we have both always known that neither of us is much interested in the idea of polyamory for ourselves... but we talked about how other people manage it, and what it would take for us to manage it (we'd have to be entirely different people, pretty much! ) I am glad for the perspective that polyamourous couples/groups have given me here on TFP; thank you for sharing, folks.

__________________
And think not you can direct the course of Love;
for Love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course.
--Khalil Gibran

Sweetpea

Firstly, this is an interesting thread and discussion and everyone has really added a lot of thought to their posts.


Is Love unlimited? absolutely not.

There are different factors that come into play when one chooses to go outside of the societal view of what a marriage (or committed relationship) should be. And how these factors are handled varies very much with each different couple, based on such things as past experiences with love/sex, personality traits and personal convictions. Two different couples may be in similar polyamorous situations, but may handle them two very different ways, both of which work equally well.

I've learned about this quite a bit. so i will share as best i can... A year ago... i was involved in a romantic situation with someone who was not my husband, there was some very real emotions involved, at the time, i did not fully understand how to balance both my husband and this other person... and i think, due to my immaturity/being naive in the situation, i ended up putting the second person first, giving little or no attention to my husband, and that was the main issue of why it didn't work out. it crashed and burned quickly and resulted in many many talks with my husband about what had gone wrong.

Fact of the matter was, what went wrong was that i had not quite fully grasped how to balance the needs of my husband, myself and the other individual, i had only operated in the " it's just me and you" realm of relationships, so i defaulted to that right away with the second person, because that was the habit i was trained into.

What i have come to grasp is that Balance is the key in these kind of relationships. If balance is applied, and caring thought is given to all parties and to your primary relationship, then things are much more successful.

now, i will move forward to present time: i've done a lot of learning about emotional balance, most of this Gilda has taught me. Since we've been involved emotionally, i would technically be 'emotionally cheating.' I have genuine feelings of love, and i spend a lot of time attending to her needs, almost equal to that of my husband.
This i have seen as a true learning experience and will help me for what i'm embarking on currently, which is to take everything to the next level with someone.

Yes. i do love more than one person currently and i'm developing strong feelings for a third person who i've recently met. And no, i have not found my love for my husband dimished in the least... in Fact... i feel like these extra relationships give me the opporunity to expand myself and to grow as an individual... all of which my primary relationship benefits from.

Here is the thing:
People either define their relationships by the things we exclude or the things we INCLUDE.

we're incredibly happy and in love. and i fully understand these types of situations may not work for everyone, but it certainly works for who we are. I would also like to point out that we've been best friends and lovers for going on 10 years, we have a high level of communication and understanding of each other's needs/wants and personality, that's an important key to why this works for us.

I'm not with my husband to control his life or to 'keep him all to myself' I want him to grow and expand, because that benefits us.

I'm with him because i want to Share my life with his, not own it.

sweetpea

__________________
Having a Pet Will Change Your Life!
Looking for a great pet?! Click Here!
"I am the Type of Person Who Can Get Away With A lot, Simply Because I Don't Ask Permission for the Privilege of Being Myself"

abaya

I'm wondering though, Sweetpea, if this is really how mono-amorous (is that a word?) couples feel about their relationship/marriage? Or is this how polyamorous couples view those of us who are mono-amorous?

I ask this because sometimes I detect a tone of judgement going both ways on this thing... monos think polys are far too lenient, while polys think monos are too closed-minded and preoccupied with ownership. Really though, it comes down to quite different personalities/tastes/preferences, whatever you may call it... but I doubt that the *quality* of love actually differs between mono and poly couples. Love is love, no matter how many (or few) people you share it with.

Speaking for my part (of my relationship with ktspktsp), I think we grow and expand through the nature of our mono-amorous relationship; if it came to the point where I could not grow without bringing another amorous relationship in my life (or same for him), then we'd have to talk and see if we were on the same page. We've discussed this many times, and always agree to talk everything out if the situation arose. But I don't think it's an ownership thing, for us. We just really like to be in love with each other, and not really anyone else... simply because that's how *we* share our lives.

__________________
And think not you can direct the course of Love;
for Love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course.
--Khalil Gibran

Sweetpea

Okay, i see where you are coming from and my post was not meant in that way.

I want to clarify: I am, in no way judging in the least on either side mono or poly. I honestly feel, to each their own. Whether it be just two people or whether it be more then two, As long as everyone is happy and fulfilled, then i consider that a successful relationship(s).


sweetpea

__________________
Having a Pet Will Change Your Life!
Looking for a great pet?! Click Here!
"I am the Type of Person Who Can Get Away With A lot, Simply Because I Don't Ask Permission for the Privilege of Being Myself"

abaya

Just to clarify here, too... I didn't mean to pick you out in particular, since I know that you are one of the most open and tolerant members of TFP (and you and I discussed this whole topic quite a bit on PM!).

I agree with you fully that as long as everyone is happy and fulfilled, that is okay with me. The only issue I have with the discussion at large is that *sometimes* I feel the polyamorous couples are seen as more "enlightened" than the monoamorous ones... that somehow, monos are too selfish to attain the feeling of "non-ownership" that the polys have reached. Monos tend to say to the polys, "Wow, you guys are truly amazing, I could never be like that." Then it sounds more like a vertical scale of ability (those who are more able to "handle" polyamory) than a horizontal continuum of equally-valid preferences, which is more like how I see it.

As sweetpea said, I think any relationship that is healthy and mutually successful and beneficial is "amazing" and deserving of respect... and people just have different preferences along the continuum of how many lovers one desires to have an intimate relationship with. In this sense, I think love is not limited... but people are just different in their wants and needs.

__________________
And think not you can direct the course of Love;
for Love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course.
--Khalil Gibran

snowy

Abaya, I wanted to say I think you and I are on much the same page; it sounds like what you have with ktspktsp is much like what my SO and I have.

I do think it is a continuum of choices: I choose my SO and I choose to only be with him.

The other thing that I've seen a lot in this thread that bothers me is the idea that society has dictated that we (my SO and I, or other mono couples) be monogamous. No, it was our choice. We discussed many alternatives before committing to monogamy. Society has never forced me, of all people, to do anything. Just ask my mother.

__________________
If I am not better, at least I am different. --Jean-Jacques Rousseau

JumpinJesus

I think this is the most important point of all. With any couple, deciding on monogamy or polygamy should be a mutual choice, not an obligation that one feels. As much as I believe in love being unlimited, I feel it is equally possible for two people to choose to reserve all feelings of amorous love to just one person without feeling as if they are missing out on anything.

It's all about choice, communication, respect, and honesty. Everything else will fall into place.

__________________
"I can normally tell how intelligent a man is by how stupid he thinks I am" - Cormac McCarthy, All The Pretty Horses

abaya

Good call again, Owl. This is part of what I was trying to say earlier... that the reason ktspktsp and I discuss these threads on TFP so much (and also the choices of people we know in real life) is to continually ascertain what it is that *we* want. And all along, it has always been mono-amory (again, making up words as I go ) for us... with the agreement than any change in that preference, for either/both of us, would require extensive discussion and evaluation of our relationship. We have chosen, and are consistently re-choosing, mono-amory.

I'm curious, though, whether anyone has changed their mono/poly status after marriage, when the partner did not change or agree with the change. This is because in the cases of polyamory that I have seen on TFP, pretty much every couple was cool with the situation... but we don't hear often of those who were *not* cool. Did all hell break loose? Did divorce take place, or was there a livable compromise? Did the poly-inclined person choose to remain mono out of respect/love for the mono-inclined partner, or vice-versa? I guess I wonder if it's anything like coming out in a marriage... what's the partner to do if he/she can't play along?

__________________
And think not you can direct the course of Love;
for Love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course.
--Khalil Gibran

TexanAvenger

As I stated in another thread, I go back and forth on my opinion as to whether or not I am capable of handling multiple instances of amorous love. There are times that I look back and wonder if I didn't already experience that, but didn't acknowledge it at the time because at said time I considered that inherently wrong.

But regardless of my personal experience with it, I don't believe that love, even amorous love, is limited in either how much you can give to people or how many people you can give it to. While I question the ability of some (maybe most) to rise above their jealousy in the face of multiple cases of amorous love, I do not question the existance of that love. It is the thing country songs and soliloquies have been written about for years. People may not know how to deal with or comprehend it, or just outright misunderstand it in a culture like ours where absolute monogamy is valued above any other lifestyle, but I believe people feel it all the time.

I think few people would argue with me that new love is often more thrilling, more heated than a love that has had some time to build and 'cool.' It is the illusion of these new 'hot' loves seeming to overshadow established loves that leads people to believe that one loves must come at the expense of others. I would like to look at love with kind of a 'heno-amorous' approach. Just because one love exists in a large way does not preclude all other loves from existing, or even necessarily confine them to a lower rung, it simply means that this love does exist too.

It would be an amazing feat in my mind if the majority of people suddenly came over to this state of mind, and I doubt that it society as a whole will reach a point any time soon where this thinking seems beneficial. However, I have no problem with people practicing it on a case by case basis. My only hope is that when people do openly admit to loving more than one person at a time, people around them can at least have the humanity to support them instead of bashing them on principle.

For the record, I want to teach high school English. Add one to the count.

Sweetpea

I've been thinking about this thread.

i've come to conclusion that there is no universal answer, human beings are too varied, and it truly depends not only on the person, but also the type of relationship they are in and how they interact in their primary relationship.

I think it's true that:

Some people are capable of loving more than one person during the same period of time.
Some people are not, nor would they want to try.

It truly depends on such factors as personal experience and personality. aka. some personalities would be better suited to do the 'emotional multitasking' that loving more than one person requires.

sweetpea

__________________
Having a Pet Will Change Your Life!
Looking for a great pet?! Click Here!
"I am the Type of Person Who Can Get Away With A lot, Simply Because I Don't Ask Permission for the Privilege of Being Myself"

SAM821

This is very difficult to give an evaluation on because LOVE is so generally used for a wide variety of feelings. This is how i see it. If you truly love someone, absolutely are devoted and emotionally attached, then you cannot give your love to anyone else. NO ONE!

The reason for this is because love is unconditional. If you are truly in love, you will not want to share any other emotions with another person. The reason people tend to do this while they are in love or married, etc., is because they are lacking things with their loved one. Lacking something that perhaps they find with someone else. This can lead to a man/woman wanting to find something, perhaps even unintentionally. They meet someone that has these 'needs' and then an interest develops. From that interest spawns a love to those specific needs.

This is where problems occur. See, you can 'love' your wife/gf, and be emotionally attached or even love another person at the same time, but the problem is that you are only loving bits and pieces. I feel you cant share yourself the same exact way with two different people. Its just impossible...

Now, AMOROUS love, in my mind is more of a lust than a love. This can still mean that a person is emotionally attached to more than one person, and easily sexually attracted as well. Of course this is definitly possible, but I do not think this that type of love can coexist with 'ultimate love'. Again, if you are 100% in love with someone, then you will have no interest in being emotionally attracted with another. You see?

Its such a fine line, but I think i made myself clear. You can say the words I love you, but I dont think you can mean them if you are into another person as well. Its basically artifical. Unfortunately Man was designed to spread the seeds to many mates. So being that we humans are still 'animals', desires get in the way of the love. Its very difficult to achieve unconditional love. But if you do achieve it, you will know you are in love because no other man/woman can ever capture your interest if you are truly IN LOVE with your wife/gf.

billege

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."

analog

I think love is a limitless resource. I think polyamory can be a wonderful and enriching experience.

That being said, I'm not sure how fully I would define myself as being capable of polyamory. I think that, if I was with a woman, there wouldn't be another woman I could love in the same way. I might love her in a slightly different way, but I think this would almost be more like a really special, really close friend, not a real, true, deep love like I would feel for my wife. I just don't see it happening.

billege

A point on the thread, rather than on the thread's topic.

We must have hit a unique cross-section of the TFP with this one. It’s more than surprising to read a thread full (so far) of responses that are (to apply a label) pro-polyamorous.

We could certainly go around the world discussing where our societal norms come from, and even try dismissing them by virtue of them being the norm (which would be silly), but it’s obvious in the extreme that the majority of at least “western” societies are not polyamorous.

In this thread, we seem to have not run across anyone that’s saying “Gee, no I don’t think my spouse having sex with another person is a problem, so long as they love us both as much.” Anyone else notice that?

I think part of the reasoning is that the question is phrased about love being limitless or not. Well, simply put, what poster wants to get out there and say “love it limited.” So, I think we’re not seeing as much dissent, not even close, as we should.

To make my point in another way, I’d like to put out there what I think would happen if we made another thread that touched on this same subject in another way.

Let’s say:

A woman on the TFP wanders into the Ladies Lounge with a concern. Her concern, in our theoretical thread, is that her husband has told her he is equally in love with a woman he’s met at work, and he’d like to escalate that relationship to include sexuality.

I don’t feel I’m remotely going out on a limb to say the VAST majority of posts would be telling her man is full of shit. I daresay we’d find a dearth of posters willing to say “Oh honey, don’t worry, so long as he loves you both and you communicate a lot, it’s fine if he’s banging her like a screen door.”

Yet, in this thread, we have a majority that seems to agree such an event would calmly be accepted, perhaps even encouraged.

I’m not calling bullshit that some people would explore that choice, and don’t think I am. Okay, really, I’m not saying if you WOULD discuss that with your mate, or if you would not. I am calling bullshit on the *thread* so far.

My wife would kick my ass straight out if I told her “Baby, I love this other chick, and I think I want to have a sexual relationship with her. But I love you just as much.” You’d see one hell of an example of someone who’s not into the idea of polyamorous love.

I’m calling bullshit because there’s a ton of people in the TFP that should be posting, something like “no, if you’re really in love you don’t go around fucking other people too.” And then discussing why they thing singular love is where it’s at.

C’mon, where’s the dissent here?

__________________
I can sum up the clash of religion in one sentence:
"My Invisible Friend is better than your Invisible Friend."

ubertuber

Billege -

First off, I think we've had a lot of replies from people that say that they think polyamory is possible but don't practice it for themselves. Analog and I have come out and identified ourselves as being in that group. So, I wouldn't go so far as to say that all of the posters that think polyamory is possible are people that are doing it. Sort of like any other choice based issue - abortion or homosexuality (and no one had better threadjack that - I'm just saying that there are people who believe in the idea without partaking personally). The second thing is that most of your responders have been self selected... So we've got a fairly progressive community and some of those members elected to respond - you're right, it's probably not representative.

I agree with you in that there are lots of people who could add the opposing view to this thread but haven't - maybe they'll chime in now with you. I hope so...

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

Supple Cow

Billege - you've made a lot of valid points as well as some keen observations regarding the kind of participation we've seen in this thread. I wonder, though, if you're conflating something somewhere in the responses from people in decidedly monogamous situations who are not opposed to polyamory. I don't find it suspicious that so many people would say, "Sure, I think that exists and that it could work well for some people, but not for me." Not everybody is suited to polyamory but that doesn't mean people who aren't suited for it can't say that it's something that exists and that they can see favorably despite their lack of participation. That's sort of how most straight people who aren't utter homophobes treat homosexuality, is it not?

__________________
"I've missed more than 9000 shots in my career. I've lost almost 300 games. Twenty-six times I've been trusted to take the game winning shot and missed. I've failed over and over and over again in my life. And that is why I succeed."
(Michael Jordan)

Supple Cow

(ubertuber beat me to the punch there)

I just wanted to point something else out: we're having a really broad discussion here about a topic which elicits a lot of different feelings in people and encompasses several different questions, all of which deserve to be addressed more thoroughly. I don't think we're all talking about the same thing and I'll bet the discussion will get a lot more productive of we make a little more of an attempt to do that.

Right now, I'm having trouble organizing my thoughts without sounding like I'm passing some kind of judgment so I'll come back later with what I think some major themes/questions are.

__________________
"I've missed more than 9000 shots in my career. I've lost almost 300 games. Twenty-six times I've been trusted to take the game winning shot and missed. I've failed over and over and over again in my life. And that is why I succeed."
(Michael Jordan)

Sweetpea

I see where you are coming from.. and 99.9% of the people i know would agree wholeheartedly with you.

However, I will have to disagree here. Like i said, in my previous post, i don't define "love" by the absence of things (like the absence of being attracted to/having feelings for other people as you noted)

my husband loves me, as close to unconditionally as a human being can. And i equally him. It is that level of love and trust that allows us to persue these secondary relationships.
In our case, Having feelings for other people does Not mean that i'm not in love with my husband or he with me.
I dunno, i think billege made a good point when he stated that perhaps love is on levels.

Will i ever love someone else as much as i love my husband? No, i don't think so.

Will i feel a different but practically equal kind of love for these other people, yes, i do and i will.

Love can be expressed and defined in so many different ways

Like i said... the idea of "love" is so different not only how each human being defines it, but also how it is defined and practiced in a relationship as well. Which makes this a tenuous convo. to have... but interesting none the less.

i will have to agree with Billege though... we have no real dissentors who want to answer in this thread?

sweetpea

__________________
Having a Pet Will Change Your Life!
Looking for a great pet?! Click Here!
"I am the Type of Person Who Can Get Away With A lot, Simply Because I Don't Ask Permission for the Privilege of Being Myself"

tecoyah

To me...Levels define status of love. I prefer to think of love as a different piece of my emotions for each person I feel it for. No levels....no competition...its just....there.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

Sweetpea

I don't think it has anything to do with status, i was just stating a fact that i'm not sure if i'll ever let anyone else that close to me. but then again, i don't know, it might happen.
but that is an interesting way to think of it, just knowing and understanding the feeling of it all, as a peice of emotions for each person.... yes, that makes sense, I like that. /me makes note of it

Really embracing this is a new endeavor for me, i'm still learning and enjoying the journey, but i like the insight you've given.

sweetpea

__________________
Having a Pet Will Change Your Life!
Looking for a great pet?! Click Here!
"I am the Type of Person Who Can Get Away With A lot, Simply Because I Don't Ask Permission for the Privilege of Being Myself"

SecretMethod70

I wanted to quickly address some things regarding definitions of the language within this thread.

Billege seems to be coming at the thread with the viewpoint that I am asking about a person loving more than one person in a "spousal" way. Or, in his Ladies' Lounge thread example, loving more than one person "equally."

I think a better word to describe what I'm getting at, instead of "equally," is "similarly." He is right that I do not consider the strong love for a friend that does not include acted-on, or at least wished-to-be-one-day-acted-on sexual attraction to fall under the discussion of amorous love. If you're best friends with someone of the opposite sex and find that person very attractive, but would never seriously consider acting on that attraction, at least not while in another relationship, I do not consider that amorous love. That, in my mind, falls under the definition of platonic love. However, I am also not meaning to discuss only "spousal" love. Just like both the love for a very close, best friend and the love for someone who is just a good friend can be described as platonic love, I do not think one need be interested in a spousal relationship for love to qualify as amorous love. Take a loving relationship which ends quite amicably because the couple realizes that, while they love each other, they are not compatible as *spouses* - would you say the love is not truly love? No. Would you say it is just platonic love? Most certainly not. Spousal love, I would say, is the highest degree of amorous love, but certainly not the only one. As for the question of whether it is possible to have *spousal* love for more than one person, I don't know about that one. While not married, I would qualify my love for onodrim as at least "pre-spousal" and I can't imagine sharing the same love for another person simultaneously. *That* I am not sure is actually possible. But I also do not think that negates feelings of amorous love for another person. It is the difference between the ex-girlfriend with whom you break up because, despite your love for one another, you would not work as marriage partners, and the woman you marry. Both certainly qualify as amorous love.

So, what I mean to discuss is the idea that one can have amorous love, as I have outlined above, with more than one person at a time. Primarily, I take this to mean having "spousal" love for one person while also having non-spousal, amorous love for another. (Both amorous love, but different forms of it.) SAM821, I think, expressed what most people in society believe. True spousal love is viewed to be inherently exclusionary and consumes all energy for amorous love. When I ask if love is a limited resource, it is this viewpoint that I wish to assess. I do not believe spousal love is exclusionary any more than I think the love for one's closest, best friend is exclusionary of other friendships. Generally speaking, I agree with sweetpea's second most recent post (#33). But, most of society seems to hold this belief that spousal love is exclusionary and I am interested in hearing explanations as to why people do or do not believe this.

I'm pretty sure I have other things to respond to, but I'll have to do that at a later time.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

ratbastid

My friend, whether or not you can see it happening, it does happen. There are many, many such relationships in the world. We don't appear to have one represented on this thread, but there are plenty of them out there, I promise you. I believe I know of one on TFP, but since none of the members have commented on this thread, I'll not "out" them.

Incidentally, my wife has sex with another person, regularly and enthusiastically, and it's fine with me. I know she loves me. I know she loves her. Her girlfriend and I satisfy different things for her. It's important to me that my wife be fulfilled in that way. I encourage this. It wasn't always so--in fact, it took a lot of work on my part to get to this place about it. But I was always committed to being here (obviously, I guess, or I wouldn't have gone through all I needed to go through to get here).

There are more things in heaven and earth, billege, than are dreamt of in your philosophy. ;-)

serlindsipity

tec - you pointed out a great point. Love is only complicated if we let it be. Perhaps we should appreciate how we all see it and love the fact that we all have the capacity to "love"

(dont get me wrong, this thread is filled with so much intellegence and insight that its a justifiable excuse not to read my textbook for homework and still learn as much if not more about something interesting to me...)

__________________
My third eye is my camera's lens.

Sweetpea

*bump*

This thread is still one of my fav.'s on here.
Anyone else have anything to share?

I can say... most wholeheartedly now...

that the concept of love/ having feelings and caring about those close to us is certainly not a limited resource.
In fact... i feel the more i give to those close to me in this aspect... i find that it helps me grow... i feel that i have expanded recently. The more we give... the more we have to share.

sweetpea

__________________
Having a Pet Will Change Your Life!
Looking for a great pet?! Click Here!
"I am the Type of Person Who Can Get Away With A lot, Simply Because I Don't Ask Permission for the Privilege of Being Myself"

ratbastid

Yes. The more you love, the more you can love.

"Limited resource" is an analogy, and it's a poor one to describe love. A better analogy from the physical world would be to say that love is a harmonic resonance, like a microphone feeding back, a vibration or wave that feeds back on itself and requires small but very specific input to grow out of all proportion with the energy put into it.