Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mind's Eye
They both want different things in my opinion... One wants their cake and being able to eat it too, by being in a relationship but having no personal restraint.
|
Can you see that this is your judgment?
Quote:
I see it as the love there being very scattered energy and even unstable. This to me would be more carnal because the person wishes to endulge the physical senses more than they wish to live in harmony and in tune with the higher energy of love... And that is fine if that's what a person really wants.
|
They call it "love making" for a reason, do they not?
Quote:
The person who doesn't want their spouse running off with other people wants the commitment of love...
|
But love is not a commitment. Aren't you all into the whole non-attachment thing, or do I have you confused with someone else? If you proscribe to non-attachment then there is no such thing as a commitment because that is by definition an attachment. If you are into the "be here now" that is also quite contradictory to commitment. Love is not about attachment nor is it about commitment.
That said, polys DO have commitments, just multiple ones. And there is actually a lot of research coming out lately that shows that poly marriages outlast monogamist ones. Go figure, huh?
Yes, it is an energy and perhaps for *you* having more than one sexual partner would be too much "scattered" energy. But that does not make it true for everyone.
Do you have children? Would you say your energy is "scattered" and "unstable" because you have more than one child to love?
Quote:
These people are capable of loving and having sexual relations with just one person. It is a higher form of love,
|
*in your opinion* (and I might add, cultural conditioning).
Are you Christian? If so, have you read the bible? The Old Testament details many men with numerous wives. And Jesus himself said, "There are no marriages made in heaven."
Quote:
able to give itself to another whom they cherish, honor and respect.
|
Polyamory means loving more than one person. This may or may not include sexual relations. It absolutely means cherishing, honoring and respecting -- just more than one person.
What about serial monogamy? Is that okay? As long as you are only cherishing, honoring, respecting and loving (physically and emotionally) one person at a time? That's okay in your book?
Quote:
And these people are not to be confused with emotional bullies or abusive individuals who make someone "love" them by way of fear and guilt tactics.
|
Right. Just as not all polyamorous people should be confused with people who "want their cake and eat it too" and have "very scattered and unstable energy."
Quote:
No, the person who wants something deeper and more personal will love freely and unconditionally and want the other to do the same. I know you will want to camp out on the word, "unconditionally." But some folks make love, not just have sex... And so if your just exchanging bodily fluids with whomever, then the deeper expression of the act is absent.
|
YES, make love... as I said: just not exclusively to ONE person. See, you are judging and viewing this as all about sex. This is about your prudishness.
Quote:
It's sort of like firing a gun at somebody; what was the thought, emotion and intent on pointing that gun at another person?
|
Gun, nice choice. lol
Why is it so hard for you to consider that some people are capable of having just the same thought, emotion, and intent with whom they chose to make love to, in the same way you do -- just with more than one person?
Quote:
|
Were you protecting the lives of others or yourself from danger? Were you defending people whom you love from someone who was trying to kill them? Or were you just blasting at someone because it's fun to shoot guns. The thought and intent behind any action measures its width on the lower mind scale.
|
LOL. See. Judgment!
That said, love making absolutely SHOULD be fun -- or you are doing it wrong.
Look, I am not going to question your choice/preference to be monogamist. I don't view it as somehow inferior. It just "is" what it is, it works for you. I make no judgment and I am not suggesting everyone should be poly. Clearly it's not for you. I *might* however, suggest in this forum that those who are genuinely conflicted between TF and spouse that perhaps they might consider poly. Because by definition they already are.