NationStates Jolt Archive

Clearly, we are able to love more than one person at once, and the strength of our love for each individual is not diluted the more people we share our affections with. I did not start loving my first child a little less once the second was born. Having more than one brother does not mean each one gets only a little scrap of my love.

So why is it that so many of us, when it comes to romantic love, seem to believe that we should only love ONE person? That loving another would mean a diminishment in our affections? Why is monogamy so damn important that we stifle a natural urge to be more free with our love? I'm not even talking about sleeping around (though I'm not NOT talking about it either :D).

Because this is what we are conditioned to think and believe.

Clearly, we are able to love more than one person at once, and the strength of our love for each individual is not diluted the more people we share our affections with. I did not start loving my first child a little less once the second was born. Having more than one brother does not mean each one gets only a little scrap of my love.

So why is it that so many of us, when it comes to romantic love, seem to believe that we should only love ONE person? That loving another would mean a diminishment in our affections? Why is monogamy so damn important that we stifle a natural urge to be more free with our love? I'm not even talking about sleeping around (though I'm not NOT talking about it either :D).



Hehe we don't but our wimmin folx do!

Hehe we don't but our wimmin folx do!

Look at historical trends and societal patterns. It's hardly been the women enforcing monogamy.

I am only interested in loving one romantically. I guess it's really a preference thing.

All the cool kids do it.

Because Polygamy leads to multiple mother-in-laws.

Look at historical trends and societal patterns. It's hardly been the women enforcing monogamy.

Hahah and try telling that to my wife.

As the populations are reasonably equal between men and women in most countries (China the obvious exception). And law saying that bigamy(sp?) is illegal its now really just a norm

Because Polygamy leads to multiple mother-in-laws.

:eek: the horror

I love only one at one time... say from 2:00 to 4:00, then another one from 4:00 to 6:00, a different one from 6:00 to about 10:00; and so on.

Because Polygamy leads to multiple mother-in-laws.

*shiver*

Because Polygamy leads to multiple mother-in-laws.

This is likely the best counter-argument.

Because this is what we are conditioned to think and believe.

I would also like to add that many people who do practice a polyamorous lifestyle do so discreetly, while monogamous couples do so openly. Thus our children are only exposed to one paradigm and grow up believing that this one is what is best for everyone.

It was part of my upbringing, and I am almost sure it was part of everyone else's too.

Trying to get rid of those subconcious biases is very difficult, even when everyone in the relationship is comfortable with the idea of polyamory.

Sort of a negative feedback cycle.

I am only interested in loving one romantically. I guess it's really a preference thing.
A preference that is accepted, encouraged, and legalised. Those of us who would prefer other arrangements don't have such sanction or legitimacy in law. And that essentially points to a societal belief that romantic love should be confined to two people only. I just don't understand the reasoning.

Because Polygamy leads to multiple mother-in-laws.

It's "mothers-in-law," but you still win this thread. ;)

As the populations are reasonably equal between men and women in most countries (China the obvious exception). And law saying that bigamy(sp?) is illegal its now really just a norm

This assumes that there would be a single partner of one gender, and multiple partners of the other gender.

A preference that is accepted, encouraged, and legalised. Those of us who would prefer other arrangements don't have such sanction or legitimacy in law. And that essentially points to a societal belief that romantic love should be confined to two people only. I just don't understand the reasoning.

Ahhh more than likely it stems back to some Christian precept.

Or should I say some percived Christian precept.

A preference that is accepted, encouraged, and legalised. Those of us who would prefer other arrangements don't have such sanction or legitimacy in law. And that essentially points to a societal belief that romantic love should be confined to two people only. I just don't understand the reasoning.

Wait...there's reasoning behind societal beliefs? :eek:

Ahhh more than likely it stems back to some Christian precept.

Or should I say some percived Christian precept.

Uh...no. It goes back to pre-Christian times. The idea was to ensure that parentage of children could be traced for the purposes of inheritance of property. It's also why laws against adultery were created. There's nothing "romantic" about it really.

It's "mothers-in-law," but you still win this thread. ;)

Quick. hide. the grammar, police is; here!!

Muuuwhahahah :D

I would also like to add that many people who do practice a polyamorous lifestyle do so discreetly, while monogamous couples do so openly. Thus our children are only exposed to one paradigm and grow up believing that this one is what is best for everyone. Exactly. And if you simply don't feel this way, you essentially need to force yourself to seem as though you do in order to 'fit'.

Quick. hide. the grammar, police is; here!!

Muuuwhahahah :D

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v257/lordsebastian/grammarnazi.gif

;)

Wait...there's reasoning behind societal beliefs? :eek:

Ha, I'm putting a positive spin on it:) Even if the reasoning is after the fact.

Uh...no. It goes back to pre-Christian times. The idea was to ensure that parentage of children could be traced for the purposes of inheritance of property. It's also why laws against adultery were created. There's nothing "romantic" about it really.

Goes back to pre-Christian times in SOME societies. Other societies were fine with polyamory, and still are. I agree that it had very little to do with romantic notions, though that seems to be the primary focus for people these days.

This assumes that there would be a single partner of one gender, and multiple partners of the other gender.

With gender bias towards the male, and that in every society that does allow multiple partners it has almays been the case of a man with many wives. This could also cayuse social unrest within the society

A preference that is accepted, encouraged, and legalised. Those of us who would prefer other arrangements don't have such sanction or legitimacy in law. And that essentially points to a societal belief that romantic love should be confined to two people only. I just don't understand the reasoning.

If you want more rights, go fight for them. ;)

The best I can figure out is that it's easier on the courts when things go wrong if there are only two involved.

Familial love and romantic love are two totally different kinds. They both have the same general basis..but with romantic love there is sex involved. Would you want to have sex with your kids? Sure you can have sex without love..but romantic love without sex?

As for loving more than one person..yes you can. But it is just a cultural thing an each persons own desires whether we believe we should.

Because Polygamy leads to multiple mother-in-laws.Yeah, I think that about sums up the whole of the debate. I mean you wouldn't want them forming tag-teams or anything.

With gender bias towards the male, and that in every society that does allow multiple partners it has almays been the case of a man with many wives. This could also cayuse social unrest within the society

Not every case. Polyandry has been practiced, albeit less than polygamy.

If you want more rights, go fight for them. ;) I'm bitching on this board, that's my first action:)

The best I can figure out is that it's easier on the courts when things go wrong if there are only two involved.
Na, that's not why. If we can figure out contractual rights between multiple partners in a commercial enterprise, we can certainly do the same between romantic interdependent partners.

Goes back to pre-Christian times in SOME societies. Other societies were fine with polyamory, and still are. I agree that it had very little to do with romantic notions, though that seems to be the primary focus for people these days.

Was just pointing out where it was rooted, that's all. Even though I'm agnostic myself, I thought it silly that the poster to whom I responded seemed to want to take it as an excuse to bash Christianity specifically.

You should also note that those societies that were fine with polygamy were fine with it so long as the male were the one with a bunch of spouses. Again, goes back to the inheritance thing, since inheritance went through the males, not the females.

I'm not putting any value judgments in here whatsoever, merely pointing to history. Frankly, I don't care if someone wants to marry his or her coffee table, five women, and a patch of peat moss. Doesn't affect me in the least. *shrug*

Familial love and romantic love are two totally different kinds. They both have the same general basis..but with romantic love there is sex involved. Would you want to have sex with your kids? Sure you can have sex without love..but romantic love without sex? Of course familial love is different than romantic love. My only point in bringing familial love up was to highlight the fact that love, period, can be given to many. Romantic love does not require sex by the way.

As for loving more than one person..yes you can. But it is just a cultural thing an each persons own desires whether we believe we should.Interesting you use the word 'should'.

So, if we 'should' love only one, does that mean we do? If we love more than one, and force ourselves to only express love towards one...what does that mean? We seem to, as a society, believe in the fairy tale of romantic, solitary love...that loving another means that original love is not as strong as it should be, that there is something wrong. I think it's probably better to understand that BOTH people in the relationship are capable of loving other people outside of the relationship...but that consumating that love in any way might not be acceptable if the partners don't want it.

Not every case. Polyandry has been practiced, albeit less than polygamy.

I stand corrected, I didn't know Polyandry was officially practised in countries

Polyandry has occurred in Tibet (see Polyandry in Tibet), the Canadian Arctic, Zanskar, Nepal, Ladakh,Jaunsar region in Uttarakhand, India, Toda of South India,the Nymba, Nishi and Sri Lanka. It is also encountered in some regions of Mongolia, China (especially Yunnan- the Mosuo people), and in some Subsaharan African and American indigenous communities (notably the Surui of northwestern Brazil). The Guanches, the first known inhabitants of the Canary Islands, also practiced it until their disappearance. In other societies, there are people who live in de facto polyandrous arrangements that are not recognized by the law.

Wait...there's reasoning behind societal beliefs? :eek:
Well, HotRodia, some of us have maintained our idealism throughout the years that there might be, despite every instance showing otherwise. Foolish, I know.


...but romantic love without sex?
I've encountered that. Well, sort of. It depends on your definition of 'love'.

Na, that's not why. If we can figure out contractual rights between multiple partners in a commercial enterprise, we can certainly do the same between romantic interdependent partners.
That's more complicated though, because group sex is ICKY DISGUSTING BLEAH and we in the court of law would like to forget that it exists at all. LIKE ZOMG MULTIPLE NAKED PENII IN THE SAME PLACE. :eek:

Anyway, commercial enterprises make more money than romantic ones.

The thing is, polyamory doesn't actually mean group sex either.

I was raised with the standard 'romance is for two' line, but I don't ever remember actually feeling that way. Since I was quite young I had more than one love interest at a time, and sometimes that worked, and other times it didn't. When it didn't work, it was because one of the people wanted a monogamous relationship. But when it worked, it worked very well.

Not everyone in the relationship has sex with everyone else. One of the best polyamorous relationships I was in involved myself, two women, and one man. One of the woman was lesbian, but only interested in having sex with the other woman...but she still loved the rest of us. We all knew where we stood in relationship to one another, and our affection was not based on sex. There were only two occasions of more-than-two sex between us all in the year or so we were together.

The thing is, polyamory doesn't actually mean group sex either. \
I know, that's just the stereotype. Sarcasm, and stuff.

*is odd this way*

I know, that's just the stereotype. Sarcasm, and stuff.

*is odd this way*

I know, that's why I didn't quote you when I posted that...but your sarcasm brought up a thought that a lot of people have...that it automatically means a big orgy. That's nice too, but doesn't happen nearly as often as it should :D

The thing is, polyamory doesn't actually mean group sex either.

I was raised with the standard 'romance is for two' line, but I don't ever remember actually feeling that way. Since I was quite young I had more than one love interest at a time, and sometimes that worked, and other times it didn't. When it didn't work, it was because one of the people wanted a monogamous relationship. But when it worked, it worked very well.

Not everyone in the relationship has sex with everyone else. One of the best polyamorous relationships I was in involved myself, two women, and one man. One of the woman was lesbian, but only interested in having sex with the other woman...but she still loved the rest of us. We all knew where we stood in relationship to one another, and our affection was not based on sex. There were only two occasions of more-than-two sex between us all in the year or so we were together.

Wow, that's one lucky guy.

Wow, that's one lucky guy.

Because he got to sleep with two women?

And never at once?

The more-than-two scenario involved the women only, and were the only times the lesbian in the group let me get jiggy with her :D

Because he got to sleep with two women?

And never at once?

The more-than-two scenario involved the women only, and were the only times the lesbian in the group let me get jiggy with her :D

He didnt even get to watch? Man, that's just cruel.

Wow, that's one lucky guy.

Awesome mindset.

"Guys who get to have sex with multiple women are more fortunate" implies that the reverse is not true; and I don't believe that's so, although you could ask someone who's actually been in a polyamorous relationship with one female and multiple males. Besides, the woman Neesika was discussing was a lesbian, and thus obviously wouldn't be having sex with him, so I don't see the point.

He didnt even get to watch? Man, that's just cruel.

Na, he liked to be alone with one or the other.

Awesome mindset.

"Guys who get to have sex with multiple women are more fortunate" implies that the reverse is not true;

Despite the way women are quite often characterised as jealous and clingy, it was always harder to have a stable relationship with mulitple men who knew about each other. Funny that.

Awesome mindset.
It is isnt it?


"Guys who get to have sex with multiple women are more fortunate" implies that the reverse is not true; and I don't believe that's so, although you could ask someone who's actually been in a polyamorous relationship with one female and multiple males. Besides, the woman Neesika was discussing was a lesbian, and thus obviously wouldn't be having sex with him, so I don't see the point.

Neesika said there were 3 women and one guy. And how does it imply that women cant like sleeping with more than one guy? In my experience (of talking about it, not doing it) less of them would jump at the chance than men would of sleeping with multiple women, but I dont doubt that there are some women that would love it.

Clearly, we are able to love more than one person at once, and the strength of our love for each individual is not diluted the more people we share our affections with. I did not start loving my first child a little less once the second was born. Having more than one brother does not mean each one gets only a little scrap of my love.

So why is it that so many of us, when it comes to romantic love, seem to believe that we should only love ONE person? That loving another would mean a diminishment in our affections? Why is monogamy so damn important that we stifle a natural urge to be more free with our love? I'm not even talking about sleeping around (though I'm not NOT talking about it either :D).
I know that I am personally capable of being romantically involved with more than one person at a time. However, at this point in my life there is only one person with whom I wish such a relationship. That simplifies the matter a lot. :D

Also, right now I honestly don't think I would have time to be a good partner to more than one person. I often feel like I don't have the time to really be a good partner to my ONE lover, and adding in more would just make things worse.

Despite the way women are quite often characterised as jealous and clingy, it was always harder to have a stable relationship with mulitple men who knew about each other. Funny that.

Neesika said there were 3 women and one guy. And how does it imply that women cant like sleeping with more than one guy? In my experience (of talking about it, not doing it) less of them would jump at the chance than men would of sleeping with multiple women, but I dont doubt that there are some women that would love it.

I just don't understand that then. Maybe it's due to my genderlessness and thus lack of libido/sex hormones.

Anyway, 'afternoon all.

Na, he liked to be alone with one or the other.

I'd have to agree with him. As I think I've said before on this forum, I don't need to be hearing "You're done already?!?!" in stereo. :p

Also, right now I honestly don't think I would have time to be a good partner to more than one person. I often feel like I don't have the time to really be a good partner to my ONE lover, and adding in more would just make things worse.
That's if you take the view that loving is draining rather than energizing:) No, but really...if you feel under pressure to satisfy each party, without being satisfied in return, then yes, it would be hard. Being a good partner does not necessitate spending every waking moment with them anyway. At times, for example, I think I'm not being a very good friend because I'm so busy...but friends understand, and so do lovers if you have a good relationship. As well, in polyamorous relationships that are particularly strong, you all spend time together, or at least try to. Not necessarily in the midst of orgy, but just being around one another. There is nothing draining about that if the vibe is good.

I'd have to agree with him. As I think I've said before on this forum, I don't need to be hearing "You're done already?!?!" in stereo. :p

Hahahahaa. Well there are times when intimacy with just one is best, and times when it's okay to include more in the romp:D

I tried being in a polygamous relationship at one point, and it neither worked for me or my girlfriend. We just didn't feel like we could devote enough of ourselves to either, and so the entire experience WAS diluted by it. I mean, I'm not opposed to whoever doing it, but doesn't work for everyone... Just like monogamy won't, I guess.

I just don't understand that then. Maybe it's due to my genderlessness and thus lack of libido/sex hormones.

Ah, that clinches it! Wondered where you'd been!

Clearly, we are able to love more than one person at once, and the strength of our love for each individual is not diluted the more people we share our affections with. I did not start loving my first child a little less once the second was born. Having more than one brother does not mean each one gets only a little scrap of my love.

So why is it that so many of us, when it comes to romantic love, seem to believe that we should only love ONE person? That loving another would mean a diminishment in our affections? Why is monogamy so damn important that we stifle a natural urge to be more free with our love? I'm not even talking about sleeping around (though I'm not NOT talking about it either :D).

I suspect what we are really looking at is pragmatism. A culmination of two main factors resolved: 1) we tend to go with what is easiest and 2) some people don't like to share.

The general convention, then - will be based around jealousy (a person not wanting to share a partner), and a tendency towards not rocking the boat. If my partner doesn't want to share me - I'll just stay put. Plus a few thousand years, and pragmatism is law.

Someone else raised the point that cultures might consider parenting very important - and that implies sexual constancy - usually on the part of the woman rathe than the man, because it is easy to track the mother of a child, compared to tracking the father. But 'love' doesn't always equate to babies, so it must be more than just patrilineal pressure - it suggests 'hoarding of toys'.

I tried being in a polygamous relationship at one point, and it neither worked for me or my girlfriend. We just didn't feel like we could devote enough of ourselves to either, and so the entire experience WAS diluted by it. I mean, I'm not opposed to whoever doing it, but doesn't work for everyone... Just like monogamy won't, I guess.

You do have to spend one-on-one time with people in the relationship. Being around each other all the time is hard, or only having sex all together is difficult to arrange sometimes :D I don't think you can actually develop bonds with someone else if you are never, ever alone with them. Don't get me wrong...sometimes I felt more strongly about one person than another, and at other times it was more balanced. Relationships are always in flux anyway.

The general convention, then - will be based around jealousy (a person not wanting to share a partner),


I think that was my biggest problem with it - I made no qualms about it, I did get jealous, and really so. When I seen my girlfriends other partner with her, holding and hugging her, it really stung me. I wanted to be doing that instead. I mean... I'm not THAT jealous, I'm not all "We HAVE to be together 24/7" but you know....

I think that was my biggest problem with it - I made no qualms about it, I did get jealous, and really so. When I seen my girlfriends other partner with her, holding and hugging her, it really stung me. I wanted to be doing that instead. I mean... I'm not THAT jealous, I'm not all "We HAVE to be together 24/7" but you know....

Yeah - don't misunderstand me - I'm not saying 'jealousy' is necessarily a bad thing, and we certainly can't just 'choose' to be cool with it.

And, even if you are cool with it, it can lead to inequalities - if you are cool with it... but you don't want to be the one getting shared, for example - you might be 'jealous in reverse'.

And so - rather than deal with all the possibilities - we just kind of jump onboard with the usual paradigm. And even those who are cool with the whole scenario can find themselves feeling societal pressure to conform to the patterns of the jealousy of others. Indeed - a lot of people will feel compelled to tell you their ideas about how jealous you should feel, or how uncomfortable the situation should make you.

Look at historical trends and societal patterns. It's hardly been the women enforcing monogamy.

I think it depends where you live.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/africa/02/01/guinea.marriage.ap/index.html

Personally, though, I don't think I'm "repressing" anything by being monogamous. Even in my crush and dating stage I never felt the urge to be with more than one person. My romantic affections were always more focussed than that - even when they weren't returned. When I'm with someone, I typically have no romantic interest at all in anyone else.

Does that mean I'm weird? Possibly. But I don't need to actively repress anything to form a faithful monogamous relationship either.

The problem isn't that your love is divided but that you are divided to the people that you love. If it's a situation where those two or more also love each other in one of those Bob and Carol and et al stituations then that does take up the slack a little bit, but if they don't then regardless of your love being just as strong for both or more, you are still divided between them. When love involves and intense desire to be with someone it's one thing to give that time up because she has to be at work or with her friends, it's a whole other when she is giving the warm fuzzies you're jonesing for to someone else.

To find a situation where that is harmonious is difficult-imagine how hard it is to find just one person you gel with, but then to find another that you gel with that also gels with the other cat. Or doesn't have that hardcore jones that they can let others have a turn (that sounds wrong, I'm not just meaning sex). I think that regardless of social norming, which does happen, it would be rarer regardless. Maybe not as rare, but still.

That's if you take the view that loving is draining rather than energizing:) No, but really...if you feel under pressure to satisfy each party, without being satisfied in return, then yes, it would be hard.

No, that's not remotely how I view it. I simply know that I don't have enough free time to be with my current partner as it is, and virtually no time whatsoever for my friends, so I don't think this is a good point for me to be adding another person to the mix. I don't know why you assume that it's about me feeling the need to satisfy others without receiving any satisfaction myself...that's just weird. I spend time with my partner because I want to, and I already feel like I don't get to see him as much as I would like.

It's like how I also feel like I don't have enough time to enjoy my two current hobbies, so adding a third hobby right now would be kind of pointless. I'm not going to have the time for it, anyhow.


Being a good partner does not necessitate spending every waking moment with them anyway.

My current partner and I lived on opposite ends of the country for 2 years. We know. :D


At times, for example, I think I'm not being a very good friend because I'm so busy...but friends understand, and so do lovers if you have a good relationship.

Absolutely. But I believe it is my responsibility to not abuse that understanding. I'm not being a good partner if I never have any time for my mate and simply expect them to "understand." That's not fair to them. It's all about balance.


As well, in polyamorous relationships that are particularly strong, you all spend time together, or at least try to. Not necessarily in the midst of orgy, but just being around one another. There is nothing draining about that if the vibe is good.
Yes, I know, I've had polyamorous relationships in the past. However, things are a bit different when you are at a stage where you are living with a mate. Right now, my partner and I live together. If I were to get involved with another lover, they could not live with us (under the terms of our lease). Neither my partner nor I would feel comfortable co-signing on a lease with somebody we just became involved with, so we wouldn't be prepared to move in with the other party either.

With our already-busy schedules as it is, my partner and I sometimes have trouble finding time to 'hang out' together even though we live in the same apartment! It is very unlikely that I would also have time to see ANOTHER individual, particularly if doing so required that I travel somewhere else. I'm not saying it can't be done, since I obviously do have friends whom I spend time with when I can, but I don't think it would be enough to form or maintain a meaningful romantic relationship.

Now, if I simply wanted another person to have sex with, or a person to have a sexual relationship with me and my current lover, then that would be another story. But if we are talking about being in love with another person, it's not really feasible for me at this time. Particularly since I don't believe that sort of love can happen in less than a couple of years, so it would take a very long time for me to get to that point with another person. :D

Well, there's a couple of reasons, all of them social constructs designed to serve specific purposes.

First is VD's, which are of tremendous concern to society. When everyone has multiple partners, such diseases spread far more rapidly than when monogamous relationships are present. Honestly, I can't argue with this one. People are stupid, and won't always wrap it up, and encouraging monogamy helps keep a lid on the gifts that keep on giving.

Second is the desire to tie down young men. That women were able to tie down young men into set relationships early on in the development of civilization made many of the problems a population with high portions of unattached young men (especially increased levels of violence) has. It encouraged the development of agriculture, which in turn encouraged the development of cities. It's a control device to help keep the anti-social tendencies of my demographic group from raping and pillaging like there's no tomorrow.

Third is the desire to develop social consistency in the form of families, and form the basic unit of social cohesion for individuals. From this basic unit all other units of social cohesion are derived.

When I'm with someone, I typically have no romantic interest at all in anyone else.

Does that mean I'm weird? Possibly. But I don't need to actively repress anything to form a faithful monogamous relationship either.

And that's the point of course...what feels right for you. For me, monogamy is just...repressive.

And so - rather than deal with all the possibilities - we just kind of jump onboard with the usual paradigm. And even those who are cool with the whole scenario can find themselves feeling societal pressure to conform to the patterns of the jealousy of others. Indeed - a lot of people will feel compelled to tell you their ideas about how jealous you should feel, or how uncomfortable the situation should make you.

Yeah... I mean, I'm probably one of the most legalise everything person I (physically) know. Society is one of my bugbears, cause it can interfere so drastically with someones life. I mean, especially in this case, where something that can cause (quite intense :D) pleasure to someone, with absolutely no POSSIBLE negative side effects, is culturally unacceptable for no good reason than it always has been, and some really really old crumbly book says that it's bad. I mean, just because I'm far happier being monogamous doesn't mean my neighbour will be.... the whole "you should be feeling this and doing that, and if you do the other you're (insensitive/whorish/easy)" I mean, I got that from someone close to me, and it's stupid. Nobody can tell me what I feel. I was unhappy about it, but for not because I wasn't doing "the right thing" by society. erk. I rant.

Yes, you read it right.

I used the term VD, I hate the term STD for some totally inexplicable stylistic reason, as such, I use a term no sane person has used since 1952.

And that's the point of course...what feels right for you.

Indeed, and of course, what is right for your partner(s). My fiance and I both have the same outlook on this, so we don't have to worry that one of us is unsatisfied with the relationship being monogamous.

For me, monogamy is just...repressive.

Then, so long as your partners all agree, you probably should not engage in it. Like you said, it's all about what feels right for you. If you are unsatisfied in a monogamous relationship, it isn't fair to you or your partner to continue in it.

Some day, I'll find the right small town or county full of people I'll want to settle down with. Until then, I'll have to cope with having just two lovers.

No, that's not remotely how I view it. I simply know that I don't have enough free time to be with my current partner as it is, and virtually no time whatsoever for my friends, so I don't think this is a good point for me to be adding another person to the mix. I don't know why you assume that it's about me feeling the need to satisfy others without receiving any satisfaction myself...that's just weird. I'm not assuming that about you, I'm considering how it might be for people in general.



Now, if I simply wanted another person to have sex with, or a person to have a sexual relationship with me and my current lover, then that would be another story. But if we are talking about being in love with another person, it's not really feasible for me at this time. Particularly since I don't believe that sort of love can happen in less than a couple of years, so it would take a very long time for me to get to that point with another person. :D

Yeah, I'm not really interested in just casual sexual encounters. I like there to be an emotional bond. But for me, that bond doesn't take years. Oh, it takes years to really get to know them, but I don't need to know them to that extent before I fall in love:) But that's me.

Then again, most of the people I'd consider having a long term polyamorous relationship with I HAVE known for quite some time. So hmmm.

Second is the desire to tie down young men. That women were able to tie down young men into set relationships early on in the development of civilization made many of the problems a population with high portions of unattached young men (especially increased levels of violence) has. It encouraged the development of agriculture, which in turn encouraged the development of cities. It's a control device to help keep the anti-social tendencies of my demographic group from raping and pillaging like there's no tomorrow.

Wow, you make monogamy sound so appealing!

Be monogamous, ladies, so you can tie yourself to a violent, raping, pillaging, anti-social man! Get hitched so that you can civilize the menfolks!

Forgive me, but I think that the men who would be out raping and pillaging are not the men who should be getting married. But then, I have this crazy notion that it's probably not best for women to be bound to violent assholes, and it's probably best for men to grow the fuck up before they try to have adult relationships. I'm weird like that.

Wow, you make monogamy sound so appealing!

Be monogamous, ladies, so you can tie yourself to a violent, raping, pillaging, anti-social man! Get hitched so that you can civilize the menfolks!

Forgive me, but I think that the men who would be out raping and pillaging are not the men who should be getting married. But then, I have this crazy notion that it's probably not best for women to be bound to violent assholes, and it's probably best for men to grow the fuck up before they try to have adult relationships. I'm weird like that.

It's not a normative argument, it's an argument as to why so much of society has developed this way. It was vital for how society has developed, and the elimination of such tendencies amongst said demographic group. Nowadays, we've been socialized to frown upon rape and pillage, so, hopefully it's not that big of an issue.

Yes, you read it right.

I used the term VD, I hate the term STD for some totally inexplicable stylistic reason, as such, I use a term no sane person has used since 1952.

Hahahaha, I was going to comment....and besides, they are Sexually Trasmitted Infections now anyway, so you're REALLY out of date :D

It's not a normative argument, it's an argument as to why so much of society has developed this way.
It's not an argument in favor of monogamy, in that case. So we're cool.

Then, so long as your partners all agree, you probably should not engage in it. Like you said, it's all about what feels right for you. If you are unsatisfied in a monogamous relationship, it isn't fair to you or your partner to continue in it.

Yup. I think my relationship is better described as 'periodically monogamous' though :D

Third is the desire to develop social consistency in the form of families, and form the basic unit of social cohesion for individuals. From this basic unit all other units of social cohesion are derived.

I was right with you in a 'maybe/maybe not - but it's opinion' fashion until we hit this.

Monogamy and 'family' are not linked, in any way - except where the coincidence that all persons in a given family are monogamous, takes place.

Many (I suspect, at some point, all) societies have historically allowed non-monogamous groupings to exist as a 'basic' family unit - even as a preferable one, in some cases.

Not only is the one-man-one-woman model non-compulsary, it isn't even the best model - except for where one man and one woman decide it is best for them. As an example - where one working parent might have been able to 'support' a family 30 years ago, we are now in a situation where more an more families need two parents working. In many ways, then, the family group already features more people - even if not all are romantically linked. I can certainly see a possibility for the 'three-parent' family to become more acceptable, with or without the romance element, in the near future.

Hahahaha, I was going to comment....and besides, they are Sexually Trasmitted Infections now anyway, so you're REALLY out of date :D

I ought to grow a tail with spikes and have some plates spurt out of my back :D

1+1=1

1+1+1=crowd!

;)

Some day, I'll find the right small town or county full of people I'll want to settle down with. Until then, I'll have to cope with having just two lovers.

Hahahahahahhaaaaa. Wonder what the name of the town would get changed to...

Hahahahahahhaaaaa. Wonder what the name of the town would get changed to...

Yes, but where (and what) IS dobbs town?

Not only is the one-man-one-woman model non-compulsary, it isn't even the best model - except for where one man and one woman decide it is best for them. As an example - where one working parent might have been able to 'support' a family 30 years ago, we are now in a situation where more an more families need two parents working. In many ways, then, the family group already features more people - even if not all are romantically linked. I can certainly see a possibility for the 'three-parent' family to become more acceptable, with or without the romance element, in the near future.
Among my people for example...grandparents (which according to our family system includes the sisters of the grandmother and the brothers of the grandfather) raised the children. Parents were too busy working to do that. And the father was whomever happened to be with the mother at that time...he had no actual claim on the children because there could never be any certainty of who fathered them in the first place.

Yes, but where (and what) IS dobbs town?

Don't know...but sounds like a fun place to be...

I ought to grow a tail with spikes and have some plates spurt out of my back :D

I assumed these things were already present:confused:

I assumed these things were already present:confused:

Nah, previously I just had a second brain in my ass

.. you wish..

Oh, Bitchkitten, here is the point I forgot to make. I don't believe that a polyamorous relationship has to be equal in terms of the time you spend with each person. One relationship I've seen develop over the past six years (not with me in it unfortunately :D) involves two couples. I don't call this swinging, because they are committed to eachother, it's not casual. They live in different cities, but when they can they spend time together. (without providing me with video tapes, also unfortunately) It works for them, because they can balance that time committment without stretching the affection between them to the breaking point.

Yes, but where (and what) IS dobbs town?

If anyone recalls, that was a topic that was explored a few years back - in an .mp3 file...

Nah, previously I just had a second brain in my ass

Wow, gives new meaning to the phrase, 'having your brains fucked out'.:eek:

If anyone recalls, that was a topic that was explored a few years back - in an .mp3 file...

indeed! it was my most subtle hint yet! I lost that file in a format.... I've not been happy since... :(

Well, there are different types of love. The love between a parent and his/her child. Then their's the love between lovers (i.e. girlfriend/boyfriend, husband/wife).

You can have differnt degrees of love.

Clearly, we are able to love more than one person at once, and the strength of our love for each individual is not diluted the more people we share our affections with. I did not start loving my first child a little less once the second was born. Having more than one brother does not mean each one gets only a little scrap of my love.

So why is it that so many of us, when it comes to romantic love, seem to believe that we should only love ONE person? That loving another would mean a diminishment in our affections? Why is monogamy so damn important that we stifle a natural urge to be more free with our love? I'm not even talking about sleeping around (though I'm not NOT talking about it either :D).

I'll quote my favorite author...

"Love is the condition in which the happiness of another person is essential to your own." - Stranger in a Strange Land

"The more you love, the more you can love — and the more intensely you love. Nor is there any limit on how many you can love. If a person had time enough, he could love all of that majority who are decent and just." - Time Enough For Love

So, yeah...I'm in agreement. Monogamy isn't "necessary". Though it is entrenched in society, that does not mean it is the natural state of human relationships. :)

Clearly, we are able to love more than one person at once, and the strength of our love for each individual is not diluted the more people we share our affections with. I did not start loving my first child a little less once the second was born. Having more than one brother does not mean each one gets only a little scrap of my love.

It does mean you get to spend less exclusive time with each brother individually.

If I had 100 wives, how much attention you think each one would get?

...I mean, well, quite a bit actually. There's a lot of me to go around.

But you know what I mean. It's not just about love, it's about time.

So why is it that so many of us, when it comes to romantic love, seem to believe that we should only love ONE person? That loving another would mean a diminishment in our affections? Why is monogamy so damn important that we stifle a natural urge to be more free with our love? I'm not even talking about sleeping around (though I'm not NOT talking about it either :D).

I guess because most people want to feel special. Being the only object of soemone's romantic affection makes one feel special - more so than being a faceless number in a long line of boytoys.

Among my people for example...grandparents (which according to our family system includes the sisters of the grandmother and the brothers of the grandfather) raised the children. Parents were too busy working to do that. And the father was whomever happened to be with the mother at that time...he had no actual claim on the children because there could never be any certainty of who fathered them in the first place.

Yes - that's in the point I've been making - families are not all the 'one-man-one-woman' model that our 'western' culture (the culture that calls itself 'western', I mean) has supported... and that, even in that so-called 'western' culture - the paradigm has been changing.

(I realise 'western' really isn't appropriate, especially considering the realtive 'west-ness' of native and 'imported' peoples...)

I guess because most people want to feel special. Being the only object of soemone's romantic affection makes one feel special - more so than being a faceless number in a long line of boytoys.

If five people are friends with you, as opposed to only one...do you feel less special...or more?

I was never comfortable with the situation of having multiple loves that had nothing to do with one another. Ideally, the affection would go around, even if it didn't mean everyone had sex with everyone else.

If I love you, it doesn't mean I love my husband less, or you less because my love is shared. This isn't about fractions.

Clearly, we are able to love more than one person at once, and the strength of our love for each individual is not diluted the more people we share our affections with. I did not start loving my first child a little less once the second was born. Having more than one brother does not mean each one gets only a little scrap of my love.

So why is it that so many of us, when it comes to romantic love, seem to believe that we should only love ONE person? That loving another would mean a diminishment in our affections? Why is monogamy so damn important that we stifle a natural urge to be more free with our love? I'm not even talking about sleeping around (though I'm not NOT talking about it either :D).

when I was still playing football(soccer) I had teammates from all over the globe, one of them was from Nigeria...on his first appearance in the dressing room we noticed his chest was covered with numerous ritual tribal scars, fascinated by this we questioned him on their meaning and such and discovered he was the son of the "Lion King" and he had 10 mothers...10 mothers who he said all loved him very much, there was no jealousy and growing up he felt very secure in his huge extended family....

so monogamy is a cultural concept not necessarily correct or natural, it is possible to love more than one person at a time...I've been trying for years to get Mrs Pyrate to accept this concept without success:(

Yes - that's in the point I've been making - families are not all the 'one-man-one-woman' model that our 'western' culture (the culture that calls itself 'western', I mean) has supported... and that, even in that so-called 'western' culture - the paradigm has been changing.

(I realise 'western' really isn't appropriate, especially considering the realtive 'west-ness' of native and 'imported' peoples...)

Well, if we're being all technical about it, west is an arbitrarily determined and relative direction.

Well, if we're being all technical about it, west is an arbitrarily determined and relative direction.

Yes - and the basis has historically been Europe... but it becomes rather nonsensical to use that sometimes - especially when you are talking about the 'culture' that European colonisation brought to the Americas, for example... which already had cultures, that must be more 'western' in that Eurocentric scheme.

so monogamy is a cultural concept not necessarily correct or natural, it is possible to love more than one person at a time...I've been trying for years to get Mrs Pyrate to accept this concept without success:(

Some people will just never feel that way though. :(

If five people are friends with you, as opposed to only one...do you feel less special...or more?

I tend to feel like 1 in 5 instead of 1.

It's also why I have few friends. They mean more to me.

But this isn't about friendship. Romantic love is different than simply hanging out.

If I love you, it doesn't mean I love my husband less, or you less because my love is shared. This isn't about fractions.

Of course it is! Fractions of your time and energy, not your "love." You may have the same feeling for both, but you can't be in two places at once.

And I question the notion that someone can love two people and NOT, ever once, in their mind think along the lines of, "Well, I could lose one, and still have the other." Maybe not quite so callously. But it's there because practically speaking that's quite true.

If I love only one woman, in that deep romantical way, she becomes my "everything." She is special and unique beyond all others.

Of course, romantic love is overrated. And we all know women aren't special or unique anyway. Disposable really. I'm all for polyamory; I simply understand why many aren't.

If five people are friends with you, as opposed to only one...do you feel less special...or more?

I think the point was more if you were one in a line of your friend's friends. I have to admit, I do like to be needed, to be the only person who can help. On the other hand, I can see that happening in a polygamous relationship (one person is the handyman, another the cook, a third the cleaner, etc.).

I was never comfortable with the situation of having multiple loves that had nothing to do with one another. Ideally, the affection would go around, even if it didn't mean everyone had sex with everyone else.

This is exactly how I feel and why I've never been able to become involved in a polygamous relationship. I've never found any two (or more) people who could love me and love each other. I've always been the less jealous partner, not minding any friends as long as the friends didn't actively speak out against me for something I didn't do or didn't mean the way they twisted it. Or otherwise try to ruin the relationship.

I think my problem is that I like to feel protected in a relationship and the protective sort also tend to be possessive.

If I love you, it doesn't mean I love my husband less, or you less because my love is shared. This isn't about fractions.

The problem with this statement is when you try to explain it to someone who doesn't want to believe it. Especially when they're math students.

I agree with it. Not many other people seem to.

I tend to feel like 1 in 5 instead of 1.

It's also why I have few friends. They mean more to me.

But this isn't about friendship. Romantic love is different than simply hanging out.



Of course it is! Fractions of your time and energy, not your "love." You may have the same feeling for both, but you can't be in two places at once.

And I question the notion that someone can love two people and NOT, ever once, in their mind think along the lines of, "Well, I could lose one, and still have the other." Maybe not quite so callously. But it's there because practically speaking that's quite true.

If I love only one woman, in that deep romantical way, she becomes my "everything." She is special and unique beyond all others.

Of course, romantic love is overrated. And we all know women aren't special or unique anyway. Disposable really. I'm all for polyamory; I simply understand why many aren't.

Why would one need to be in two places at once, or split attention?

I could be sitting on my couch, watching a movie, with a girl on each arm... right?

Why would one need to be in two places at once, or split attention?

I could be sitting on my couch, watching a movie, with a girl on each arm... right?

That's an example of a shared activity, not shared attention. Your attention in this case would be focused on the TV anyway.

And how would you do that with 100 women. I mean if your theory is right you could satisfy 100 women at once and it'd be just as easy and practical as 1.

Why would one need to be in two places at once, or split attention?

I could be sitting on my couch, watching a movie, with a girl on each arm... right?
In this case, I gotta say that GT has a point. You may have an infinite amount of love, but you only have a finite amount of time and a finite ability to divide your attention.

It's like how I personally don't think that one person can be a fully attentive parent to 50 children. No matter how much you love them you still aren't going to be able to divide up your time and attention as much as would be ideal.

Keep in mind, I am a person who has had "plural relationships" before, and I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with them. I think they can work just fine, with the right combination of personalities. But I also think it's naive for anybody to go into such relationships thinking that they can just "have a girl on each arm" and that will suffice. You all have to be aware of the fact that your attentions WILL be divided, and you have to be comfortable with that. You have to be a person who is comfortable receiving less than 100% of your partners' romantic attentions. Some people aren't comfortable with that.

Why is monogamy so damn important that we stifle a natural urge to be more free with our love?

Well, for one thing, because that's honestly not a "natural urge" for some of us. I'm sure you probably know that, but I've been frustrated more than once in discussion with polyamorous friends who insist that being poly is somehow inherently and universally superior, healthier, or more natural. Given that I unequivocally support them in having sex with 400 people simultaneously if it makes them happy, I get a little tired of hearing that the only reason I actually want to devote all my love and energy to one person at a time is that I'm horribly repressed, selfish, or crazy. There's nothing wrong with being polyamorous - but there's nothing wrong with preferring monogamy, either. :)

I suspect what we are really looking at is pragmatism. A culmination of two main factors resolved: 1) we tend to go with what is easiest and 2) some people don't like to share.


Honestly, the bigger problem for me, personally, is not that I don't want to share, but that I don't want to be shared. When a particular ex cheated on me multiple times years ago, I was furious and hurt, but it was never quite a deal-breaker. When the same guy talked me into merely letting his brother tickle me while he (my then-boyfriend) held me down, I sobbed for hours, and told him that if he ever made me do that again I would leave him. I don't want two lovers, or anything resembling that.

I tend to feel like 1 in 5 instead of 1.

It's also why I have few friends. They mean more to me.

But this isn't about friendship. Romantic love is different than simply hanging out. There isn't such a huge difference for me. I love my friends, and there are few of them I wouldn't shag if they were willing. But that's how I am...sex to me is not such a sacred thing to be doled out sparingly. To me, it's another way to share affection (with consenting adults not related to me of course). And if that's not how they want to receive affection, that's fine as well.



Of course it is! Fractions of your time and energy, not your "love." You may have the same feeling for both, but you can't be in two places at once. No, but we can all be in the same place at once. And even if we can't...my best friend is someone who I see once a year, and maintain ties with via email. Our relationship is no less strong for the lack of time we have together.

And I question the notion that someone can love two people and NOT, ever once, in their mind think along the lines of, "Well, I could lose one, and still have the other." Maybe not quite so callously. But it's there because practically speaking that's quite true. That is there even if you are with one person only. Eventually, most people suffering the loss of a love one will move on. That doesn't mean the person who is lost was less valued.

If I love only one woman, in that deep romantical way, she becomes my "everything." She is special and unique beyond all others. Special and unique beyond all others...I'm not in love with clones. Each one is special and unique beyond all others.

Of course, romantic love is overrated. And we all know women aren't special or unique anyway. Disposable really. I'm all for polyamory; I simply understand why many aren't.

Don't worry, I won't let anyone know what a closet romantic you are :D

That's an example of a shared activity, not shared attention. Your attention in this case would be focused on the TV anyway.

And how would you do that with 100 women. I mean if your theory is right you could satisfy 100 women at once and it'd be just as easy and practical as 1.

There are always limits, based on what you can reasonably do. I simply think I am able to do more than one person in a long-term relationship. 100? Pushing it.

Well, for one thing, because that's honestly not a "natural urge" for some of us. I'm sure you probably know that, but I've been frustrated more than once in discussion with polyamorous friends who insist that being poly is somehow inherently and universally superior, healthier, or more natural. Given that I unequivocally support them in having sex with 400 people simultaneously if it makes them happy, I get a little tired of hearing that the only reason I actually want to devote all my love and energy to one person at a time is that I'm horribly repressed, selfish, or crazy. There's nothing wrong with being polyamorous - but there's nothing wrong with preferring monogamy, either. :) You'll get no argument from me...I'm sick of the opposite position too.

First is VD's, which are of tremendous concern to society. When everyone has multiple partners, such diseases spread far more rapidly than when monogamous relationships are present. Honestly, I can't argue with this one. People are stupid, and won't always wrap it up, and encouraging monogamy helps keep a lid on the gifts that keep on giving.

Being poly does not mean you sleep around. Poly people are just as capable of being faithful to their partners. You also seem to be laboring under the delusion that a ‘monogamous’ relationship doesn’t involve cheating – where many studies have shown that most do. I happen to think that poly groups are less prone to cheating because when you are having difficulty with a partner, there are other people there to meet your needs.

Second is the desire to tie down young men. That women were able to tie down young men into set relationships early on in the development of civilization made many of the problems a population with high portions of unattached young men (especially increased levels of violence) has. It encouraged the development of agriculture, which in turn encouraged the development of cities. It's a control device to help keep the anti-social tendencies of my demographic group from raping and pillaging like there's no tomorrow.

Wow… is this a skewed view or what…
Are you aware that non-monogamous cultures are not limited to primitive hunter-gatherer tribes? Not to mention this is a horrific view of young males – marriage is not the only think keeping us from going on a bloody frenzy of raping and pillaging. Perhaps you are indeed an anti-social aberration who is only restrained from raping and pillaging by being married, but if that is the case I sincerely hope you seek counseling immediately.

Third is the desire to develop social consistency in the form of families, and form the basic unit of social cohesion for individuals. From this basic unit all other units of social cohesion are derived.

Family groups are not limited to just ‘one man, one woman’. Families are groups of people who are bound together by affection (or at least a sense of duty in a cynics view). They can be a man and his parents raising his child. A family can be three woman who have decided to shack up together. It could be three men, a grandmother, a child, and a hermaphrodite living together. Are you aware that the whole ‘nuclear family’ ideal came from the 1950s and is thus a relatively new concept?

You seem to be laboring under some very entrenched misperceptions about relationships. Homosexual pairings can be just as committed and monogamous as heterosexual couples. Groups of 3 or 4 or 7 people can get together and be faithful to each other and maintain this for the rest of their lives. ‘One man, one woman’ is the line you get from your church, but you really should learn to think for yourself and actually look around to what the world is actually like – you might find things are not quite as black and white and simplistic as your pastor would have you believe.

Clearly, we are able to love more than one person at once, and the strength of our love for each individual is not diluted the more people we share our affections with. I did not start loving my first child a little less once the second was born. Having more than one brother does not mean each one gets only a little scrap of my love.

So why is it that so many of us, when it comes to romantic love, seem to believe that we should only love ONE person? That loving another would mean a diminishment in our affections? Why is monogamy so damn important that we stifle a natural urge to be more free with our love? I'm not even talking about sleeping around (though I'm not NOT talking about it either :D).

Why do we have to only love one person? Allah permits us to have four wives.

Because this is what we are conditioned to think and believe.

I think this is the biggest reason. THe second being selfishness.

Because Polygamy leads to multiple mother-in-laws.


HAHAHAH! :fluffle:

Why do we have to only love one person? Allah permits us to have four wives.

What if your wife wants four husbands?

Four cocks are better than one...

What if your wife wants four husbands?

Four cocks are better than one...

like... at once? where does the 4th go?

like... at once? where does the 4th go?

Ear.

I'm really sorry...

like... at once? where does the 4th go?

people do have two hands.......<.< >.> *flees*

What if your wife wants four husbands?

Four cocks are better than one...

I don't believe thats allowed in the Qur'an

I am only interested in loving one romantically. I guess it's really a preference thing.

Same here.

There are always limits, based on what you can reasonably do. I simply think I am able to do more than one person in a long-term relationship. 100? Pushing it.

Okay, that's fine. So your limit is more than one person, some people's limits are one person. Some people's, like mine, are zero! People suck. *wah*

I don't believe thats allowed in the Qur'an
Shocker.

Blame feudalism and the church.

I don't believe thats allowed in the Qur'an

Well I'd hope you wouldn't be doing it in the Qur'an. A bed might be a better locale. Or the floor. But not perched atop a holy book.

Okay, that's fine. So your limit is more than one person, some people's limits are one person. Some people's, like mine, are zero! People suck. *wah*

Are you saying you wouldn't be part of my harem?

Well I'd hope you wouldn't be doing it in the Qur'an. A bed might be a better locale. Or the floor. But not perched atop a holy book.

He said in, not on. Don't try to confuse the subject. He obviously means that a woman can not marry four men inside a Qu'ran (I'm imagining a room wallpapered with the Muslim holy book). Group sex on the Qu'ran is fine, though.

EDIT: To be honest, my Islamic theology might be a bit lacking.

That's an example of a shared activity, not shared attention. Your attention in this case would be focused on the TV anyway.

And how would you do that with 100 women. I mean if your theory is right you could satisfy 100 women at once and it'd be just as easy and practical as 1.

The problem is that your idea is practically an appeal to ridicule.

Men don't produce millions of sperm. Why? Because if they did, you'd be able to get a thousand women a day pregnant, right? No - because the facts don't necessarily line up, and the number used as the 'argument' is outlandishly large.

The TV was an option - an example of how one can be spending time with two other people simultaneously, without anyone getting 'short-changed', and with the whole situation being potentially equitable.

It could just as easily have been licking yougurt off of each other.

It could just as easily have been licking yougurt off of each other.

You only have one tongue.

Most women I have met are too dumb to realize that I am capable of loving more than one of them at the same time. I think that men have a greater capacity to love then women do. Women have too many other things on their mind to have as much love as men are capable of having. They have to like do all the chores and everything whereas we are more into the inatngible stuff like TV, love, video games, collecting stuff, shooting guns, etc.

You only have one tongue.

Indeed I do. But this says more about your imagination than my tongue, I suspect.

Indeed I do. But this says more about your imagination than my tongue, I suspect.

No, it means exactly that: your tongue can only be applied to one object of your affection at a time. If you have only one partner, she gets it all. If you have two, each is going to get less. There's only so much of you to go around, and you're not that sexy that five or six women are going to be satisfied with being little but your appendages.

No, it means exactly that: your tongue can only be applied to one object of your affection at a time. If you have only one partner, she gets it all. If you have two, each is going to get less. There's only so much of you to go around, and you're not that sexy that five or six women are going to be satisfied with being little but your appendages.

And again, I think the problem here might be your view of how such relationships might work.

He said in, not on. Don't try to confuse the subject. He obviously means that a woman can not marry four men inside a Qu'ran (I'm imagining a room wallpapered with the Muslim holy book). Group sex on the Qu'ran is fine, though.

EDIT: To be honest, my Islamic theology might be a bit lacking.

You're right...somehow I changed 'in' to 'on'. I apologise. I think your scenario is more accurate.

Most women I have met are too dumb to realize that I am capable of loving more than one of them at the same time.
Perhaps the issue is actually you considering these women 'too dumb'. I'd dump your ass too.


I think that men have a greater capacity to love then women do. Women have too many other things on their mind to have as much love as men are capable of having. They have to like do all the chores and everything whereas we are more into the inatngible stuff like TV, love, video games, collecting stuff, shooting guns, etc.

Hahahahahaha...so maybe if you picked up the housework, you'd get three women to agree to share you.

*doubts it*

No, it means exactly that: your tongue can only be applied to one object of your affection at a time. If you have only one partner, she gets it all. If you have two, each is going to get less. There's only so much of you to go around, and you're not that sexy that five or six women are going to be satisfied with being little but your appendages.

Why do you keep thinking that polyamoury means 'orgy sex only'?

And again, I think the problem here might be your view of how such relationships might work.

Nah. There is a finite amount of any physical aspect of yourself - including your time, attention, body. This is just plain true. I don't see what's so hard about this concept. So hard that you have to drag out the "lol you have no imaginashun" defense.

like... at once? where does the 4th go?

Nostril. :p

Blame feudalism and the church.

Feudalism is an economic system. It has no bearing whatsoever on Neesika's question.

No, it means exactly that: your tongue can only be applied to one object of your affection at a time. If you have only one partner, she gets it all. If you have two, each is going to get less. There's only so much of you to go around, and you're not that sexy that five or six women are going to be satisfied with being little but your appendages.

You are so right! Three way kisses are awesome!!!!!11one!!!

Nah. There is a finite amount of any physical aspect of yourself - including your time, attention, body. This is just plain true. I don't see what's so hard about this concept. So hard that you have to drag out the "lol you have no imaginashun" defense.

Same problem again... every time you conjure up the idea of the 'multiple' relationship, you become some kind of centre-of-attention hero in the porn movie in your mind...

Nah. There is a finite amount of any physical aspect of yourself - including your time, attention, body. This is just plain true. I don't see what's so hard about this concept. So hard that you have to drag out the "lol you have no imaginashun" defense.

Somehow I manage to dole myself out between my children, my husband, my lover, my friends, my classmates, my fellow activists, my community members and so on. Not only does this NOT leave me drained, it actually boosts my energy levels. Toss in another sometimes-lover and it's all good...toss in some more and you know what? SOMEHOW I'LL MANAGE. Especially when I am NOT the only person in everyone else's life...they have other people to sustain them too.

It's not that it's impossible, it just takes some doing.

Same problem again... every time you conjure up the idea of the 'multiple' relationship, you become some kind of centre-of-attention hero in the porn movie in your mind...

Exactly. When I was busy, the male in our relationship had two other females to hang out with. Etc etc.