Okay, is falling 4 someone who happens 2 be the guy on the side who knows about the other guy you've been with 4 3 years worse then falling out of with the guy your supposed 2 marry?
'Tis a scandalous sit-cha-a-shun

Ah, the human condition. It's worse to fall out of love, of course...

Solution: fuck marriage, it's a stupid religious institution that deserves to die, and have loving, intimate relationships with as many people as your heart and calendar can hold.

Or, you know, whatever.

tackam said:

Yeah...just don't have children under such loose conditions, m'kay?

teller said:

tell me about it.

All I can say is...I hope you figure it all out, and with the least damage done to yourself and others as possible!

CherrieMoonKisses said:

Been trying to figure that out myself!
I'll note ya if I come to any conculsions

Hey... I don't know the other guy that you've been with for however long!!!

Are you trying to tell me something here???

teller said:

Yes, it would be truly appalling if children were to grow up in a household where people were free to have lots of loving relationships. What on earth might these young people grow up to be like? Goodness. They might seek happiness for themselves even when what makes them happy isn't state/church sanctioned, and they might have very strong relationships skills and a large extended family to support them into adulthood. In short, the world might actually END!

Open your mind a tiny itty bitty little crack and try not to say totally ignorant things about people who are different from you, m'kay?

(And for the record, I have no interest in raising children).

Edit: If anybody is actually curious about functional polyamoury, links:
http://www.lovemore.com
http://www.ourlittlequad.com
[This message was edited Thu Jul 3 10:51:43 PDT 2003 by tackam]

IceNine said:

well that just means that i can have you all to myself then!!

tackam said:

Oh get over yourself...children need to bond with parents--it's built into their biology. You can't shuffle them around like cards, it fucks them up.

teller said:

I agree. My personal opinion.

teller said:

Nobody said ANYthing about shuffling them around like cards, or not letting them bond with parents. Where the hell did you get that?

Why don't you take a second to actually look at the about/faq sections of those sites I mentioned. I don't think you have any clue where I'm coming from here. And I imagine it will come up again sometime.

tackam said:

Sigh...I read your FAQ's, but it just doesn't jive with human nature; it's wishful thinking.

In an "extended polymorous family," people can fall out of love and leave, there will be churn, and when you're not happy with one mate, you can just pick another for awhile.

But in real marriage, you can't escape your problems that easily. You force yourself to work through, and by dedicating your romantic resources to one individual, you get the deepest possible relationship, one that only the bond bewteen parent and child can rival.

I applaud your testing the boundaries of conventional thinking, but you can't turn lead onto gold. You simply cannot achieve the same level of commitment under your system...

i've been in that situation, on both sides on the coin and they are both just as bad.

my is that person shouldn't get married at all. they need to be honest with the guy they are supposed to marry and tell him straight up what's going down and how they feel. they should also let the guy on the side know what the deal is, especially if he's really the one they want to be with.

teller said:

"You simply cannot achieve the same level of commitment. . ." . . .I don't see how you can say that. How do YOU know? This is very much like saying that gay people can't have the same level of love/depth/commitment in their relationships because it's against "human nature". You're saying that relationships that aren't like yours can't be as good as yours, merely because you can't imagine them for yourself.

Consider the possibility that other people might be more open, and/or have more "romantic resources" then you do. . .or that being monogamous might be something akin to a sexual orientation, and that being nonmanogamous is just as valid a way to have great relationships. . .consider the possibility that not loving like you love is still loving. . .

People in monogamous relationships still fall out of love, and traditional families are still disrupted. That has nothing to do with poly-ness. Yes, poly families break up sometimes, and it is hard for everybody. If the people involved have other family members to lean on, I fail to see how that is a bad thing for anybody. And partners are not interchangable. You can't just "pick another for awhile". . .people are unique, and relationships are unique, and that is just so fucking obvious to me that I can't figure out why I have to say it.

I'm not saying that poly is a better way to be, but I certainly think it is just as valid, and that the relationships can be just as deep.

(pardon the threadjacking)

tackam said:

Not at all...just do the math. Divide your calendar up amonst several people or put all your resources into one person. The one relationship will necessarily be deeper because it has the greater investment.

I guess it's a question of depth or breadth. When it comes to love, children need depth.

teller said:

I don't think that most of us, myself included, who are currently living with one other partner devote ALL of our free time to the relationship. I have time (say, time I spend HERE ) that I'd like to be (and, lately, am) spending on developing more intimate relationships. I'm not taking time away from my husband to do so.

Now, I'm a pretty independent sort, and so is he. We have a gorgeous relationship, know each other inside and out, and are just generally as intimate as I think two folks can be. But we just aren't that high-maintinence; I have a lot more to give than he needs, and vice versa.

I think the number of intimate relationships a person can support varies from person to person. Does that not make sense?

In any case, I think you are being a bit silly about the nature of relationships. I've had very deep, emotionally involved relationship with people I've known for a short amount of time, and very shallow relationships with people I've known and spent lots of time with for years. Simple time resources, which are very finite, can be important, but are not really the determining factor with intimacy. Emotional resources are the important thing. Some of us have lots of them.

Not to mention, there are living breathing examples of poly relationships that are very deep, and that are supporting children. This is empirical evidence that you are wrong.
[This message was edited Thu Jul 3 12:16:47 PDT 2003 by tackam]

tackam said:

Hmph...well, not having any direct experience with such people, I'll reserve judgment, but remain skeptcial because it doesn't seem to add up.

CherrieMoonKisses said:

This happened to me last year. It could be a phase. I totally love my boyfriend even more for sticking by me. I didn't really have anyone "on the side", but I was totally in love with someone else and falling out of love with my man. I felt terrible, but I couldn't deny my happiness. We were together for 3 years too. Maybe it's just something that happens around that time?

CherrieMoonKisses said:

How many guys are we talking about here? 3?

I think you should stay with the one you've been with for 43 years.

I appreciate all the responses Ive gotten so far...and tackam dont worry I dont consider you thread jacking me Its just that I am NO WHERE NEAR having any kids... Oh yea and Ice9 darling, I didnt mean 2 be so secretive, I still wantcha Afterall, ur my sexy ice birdie, remember?
Phoenixxx...Im not getting married anytime soon ...VinaBlue...I dont know what 2 really label the other guy either, I mean, yes, he is on the side...but that can be taken so many different ways, and this happened 2 you 2 after 3 years? I think it may be just aphase cuz Gods knows I been tried before by other guys and I managed 2 stay away from them like the good girl I am ... What tis 2 become of this sit-cha-a-shun?

mcmeekle said:

I know it seems like 3 but its only 2 guys...the guy of 3 years is the same one linked with marriage.