Polygamy/Polyamory
-
If you are interested in polyamory, it can be helpful to find a community of like-minded people. You can search on meetup and facebook in your area.
93 93/93
-
I have been attracted to ,
And found to be beautiful
When others did not believe soThere have also been them pretty girls,
That threw themselves at my feet
And others did not believe I could be so coldHa!
People are shocked to find me shallow
The kind to whom appearances matter
You go ahead and settle for lessWith honesty, I seek monogamy
I shall take but one Bride
Though she may be split in two
Or three! Of four,
a horse?
In time and its winding course -
@kasper81 said
"Takamba's scenario with the cowboy haha the woman in that example is a vamp: there's no real self-control of energy levels hence the need to fill up the hole the void of being the deadness.
wow"This seems misogynistic to me. So the idea that a woman's love of a dance is only temporary only counts because she's a woman? A vamp? Just because you're a man like Crowley and only men can be logical?
Here, let me begin your course in Open Marriage philosophy by giving you more than your narrow opinions to start with:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Marriage_%28book%29
www.amazon.com/Open-Marriage-Life-Style-Couples/dp/087131438X
It's not what you think - I just gave an example of how what you think leads to pain and suffering, not Love and not Will.
-
@kasper81 said
"Any experience of being "in love" is temporary because it's unfortunately mutual vampirism."
I can not disagree more with this statement.
It seems to me like a very juvenile understanding of Love.
Unless, by the quotation marks you were referring to what your average person means when they say they are "in love." -
@kasper81 said
"Complements bestowed upon a lover, affection, touch, lovemaking it's all mechanical and a bid for energy. It can lead to ecstacy sure but like MDMA it's transitory unless there is an understanding of that energy flow. *Are we agreed on this?"
It, as with so many other things, depends on intent.
If one were to approach having a lover as an exercise in bhakti-yoga it is far from mechanical.
Also, I presume the mark of a healthy relationship is an equal exchange of energies.
I do agree that an understanding of the energy flow would facilitate the avoidance of vampiric relationships.
-
Sexism is not what I "accused" you of (feeling guilty?). I said your statements seemed misogynistic (woman hating). There's a difference between sexism (believing in the superiority of one gender over another) and misogyny (a form of hate, disgust, displeasure).
I am not angry. I have no attachment to your preferences one way or the other, I'm merely pointing out the flaw in your own cognitive methods.
-
Kasper, as on so many things we discuss on this forum, it helps to find out if we're using words the same way.
If by "in love" you mean dopamine surging to the point of overwhelming reality, sexual hormones flooding the blood, and projection playing its "I'll show you yours, if you show me mine" mirror magick, then I tend to agree with your assessment that this is brief. It's also probably what most people, most of the time, mean by "in love."
The real test of a relationship IMHE is whether it bridges the projection chasm. That is, does it last long enough for the people involved to start seeing each other as they are (rather than as magick mirrors), and is the interest and attraction equal or greater when this happens?
At that point, I stop agreeing with you. At that point (if communication has been kept clean and open, and a pile of manure hasn't been allowed to accumulate unaddressed), the biochemistry responds much as in the beginning in the anticipation and actuality of seeing each other, but the cloud has lifted from the sanctuary, and love has deepened. Passionate, engaged, hot, connected, exploring love has widened and deepened.
PS - And, this opening remark about the nature of "in love" aside, I disagree with pretty much every other sentence you wrote. I don't know if you wrote from personal hurt and disillusionment, or too much entertainment media bullshit. In either case, I prescribe more maturity and self-understanding.
-
I think Takamba's post speaking about the nature of a truly OPEN relationship was wise, insightful, and overall excellent. I didn't take time in this thread to dig that deeply, and I'm really pleased that he did. I was negligent not saying so until now.
-
@kasper81 said
"
and my questions about where the boredom in your monogamous relationships stems from?
"Just because you take everything personal doesn't mean others do. I was giving you an example, a common and broad one used by proponents of alternative relationship styles. It would be interesting to discuss this with you if you had an open mind (ie open to ideas that weren't specially in agreement with your own preconceived judgments).
What happens in a majority of modern monogamist relationships is stagnation, and when there isn't stagnation there grows division. By this I mean that when two people join together, often times they rarely learn and grow as separate individuals - instead they participate together in mostly everything they do. If it happens that one's life produces a major change in perspective for them - say for some reason they change political parties or have a religious change of heart, the other member of the relationship is expected to go along, or passively agree, or a division sets in. In some relationships, and in some instances, this can actually lead to a total break up of the union unless both members of the relationship agree completely. This is not the model of a polyamorous relationship. In a polyamorous relationship, the greater variety (even between two people), the greater the appreciation. "Oh, I didn't know that hobby existed until I met you!" is far more valuable an experience than "Yeah, I too have mastered that hobby. Let's repeat it together!"
I don't know if you are getting my point because you'd have to open yourself up to experience you haven't had in order to imagine the possibilities, and as you've stated, you haven't even succeeded in maintaining a single monogamous relationship - let alone a multitude of relationships. And again, just to remind you, between the two of us, you are the only one who believes it has to have something to do with sexual activity.
Speaking of sexual activity, and although this is a tad off topic it does help to help you perhaps understand your own hangups regarding sex; how do you react when you discover a beautiful person whom you feel attracted to declares to you that they are asexual and only allow themselves into asexual relationships?
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"I think Takamba's post speaking about the nature of a truly OPEN relationship was wise, insightful, and overall excellent. I didn't take time in this thread to dig that deeply, and I'm really pleased that he did. I was negligent not saying so until now."
Awww shucks.
-
@kasper81 said
"before I answer you I was once in an open relationship. It was hell on earth. Luckily I found a book about energy vampirism and chakra alignment and I unravelled what was going on."
If your relationship was dishonest (such as a manipulative, abusive power dynamic you allude to) then it wasn't an open relationship in the sense that Takamba described, or in the way the word "polyamory" implies.
-
What I really like about your post, Takamba, was the implication that relationships and families can be about really supporting the members as they discover their own True Will side by side.
It would be interesting to compare the percentages of self described monogamous couples that (a) had non-monogamous thoughts or behaviors (having a crush on someone else, experiencing emotional intimacy with someone else, etc.) And (b) the percentage of couples who could communicate comfortably and openly about it.
I suspect that (a) is a lot bigger than (b); and I think that matters way more than the lifestyle choices the couples choose to make.
-
@kasper81 said
"I was once in an open relationship. It was hell on earth. Luckily I found a book about energy vampirism and chakra alignment and I unravelled what was going on."
That may have applied to that particular situation. It would be a mistake to generalize that too much, though.
And most people have to LEARN to make an open relationship work. But that's not surprising, since most people have to learn to make any kind of relationship work.
-
@kasper81 said
"
@Takamba said
"
@Faus said
"An important aspect of a relationship is the growth of intimacy in an almost “bhakti” way. The few cases of open relationships I saw where using the “opening” as a device to avoid deeper levels of intimacy, especially those that were somehow disturbing or unpleasant. I’ve also experienced the same tendency myself.Of course I do not believe that it is some sort of rule, but It would be interesting to hear how others have dealt with it."
My (ex)wife and I had an open relationship which was a thing I learned from a (Wiccan) couple I met in the 80s and both that couple's marriage and my marriage shared a great deal of intimacy if by intimacy you mean truthful, honest, heartfelt conversation and knowledge of each other's inner workings. I've gotten the impression that there's an old aeonic model that associates sex with debt, as in, since I have had sex with you, you owe me something in return. Sex is a mutual pleasure or it shouldn't be engaged in. Not only is that one of the debts incurred in old aeon models of love and relationship, but since I've given you privilege to my intimate nature, you cannot have that privilege anywhere but with me? Open relationships that are only focused on the sexual side of the openness and relationship concept have missed the point. Even non-sexually speaking, there are a great number of attractions and energies (not meaning new-agie "energies," but a transference of energies between people that generates excitement and motivation happens all the time) that an open marriage or open relationship is supposed to be designed to encourage.
."
women and men in perfectly monogamous relationships flirt with their co-workers and have deep, intimate conversations with them, sharing their problems every day all over the world , by the millions. It is not sexual. is this what you mean by open relationships?
The amount of married women at work who have caressed me or hugged me and shared their personal problems you wouldn't believe"
No. That's not the definition of "open" unless they are just as willing to flirt with you in front of their spouses and their spouses recognize it for what it is, a very common behavior at work called "stress relief." An open relationship can be a monogamous or a polyamorous one. If, for instance, in your description of flirtatious women at work, they were to actually engage in a healthy lifestyle of being open in their relationship with their spouses, they could just as easily say, "Hey dear, let's role play... tonight I'm at work and you're Kasper" as well, perhaps, depending on their personal comfort level and their opinion of your maturity in this situation, take you to task.
The heart of the open relationship is in the word "open," as in "open and honest." Open means available to change, available to growth, available to options, available to truth, as well as all the usual expectations of trust and loyalty that come with being in a relationship. To be honest, Kasper, based on some of the things you've said about women and men and relationships from time to time, I'm not certain you have a lot of experience with trustworthiness in your life (not saying you lack it, I wouldn't know, but that you haven't come from a background that is open to it).
-
@kasper81 said
"To tell you the truth I used to give a particular woman a regular massage in work and one day I was in her room where she was with other women. She was on the phone to her husband, telling him that I had given her a great massage. Another woman, who used to flirt with me said yeah that's her husband on the phone. It was difficicult trying to work out if they wanted him to come up, that they wanted to see me get beaten up by him or whether, as you say they had open attitudes"
That would be hard to determine with just some anecdotal report of that nature from you, congruency of a multiple number of indicators would be required but I'd begin with the friendly assumptions and see what comes from there. Another possibility you didn't mention is that some couples get off imagining other people being involved, or actually making other people be involved. A cuckolded situation is not necessarily an open situation, though relative to a strict and closed monogamy it is. There are all kinds out there.
-
@kasper81 said
"
and available to cuckolding?have i got this right? You're saying it's not just sexual , but you are not saying it isn't ever sexual?. No way round it when it becomes sexual and she has sex etc with another guy or he (me) with another woman ,it is "cuckolding"
"openess " "honesty" "growth" : yes dressed up and sophisticated ways of describing /hiding the term, "wife swapping" "husband swapping"?.
Let's take your "husband who is happy for wife to go alone to country dancing lessons" scenario. In fact no, let's reverse it. let's say the man wants to go country dancing, but she doesn't. He goes along he meets women and is "emotionally intimate" ie "open" and "giving" and "new aeon" with these women . (let's call a spade a spade, even though you are deadset against it, he is fuc.king them). Now, she, although vehemently open to it, never gets to be "emotionally intimate" with any man because they never find her attractive enough.
i'm now laughing as I type. Isn't that a bit of a disparity, to say the least? if our woman sticks around in that relationship,here she is either an idiot or insane
please enlighten me"
You can call it what you want. I was talking about your specific example of the woman on the phone with her husband. As far as you finding a woman who no man will ever find attractive enough, that sounds like your limitation. In your example, she obviously found at least one man already. Do you see how your lack of openness to the possibilities has formed your mind into a cage of its own? You can simultaneously invent a relationship between a man and a woman and the man is obviously "attractive" enough to develop more than one relationship and the woman is obviously "attractive" enough to have attracted him, yet you won't allow her to be attractive enough to imagine being with someone else? It really requires a great deal of mental health and emotional balance to maintain a healthy relationship, monogamous or plural. You seem a little short funded on the balance and self-worth portions if your default assumption puts others in that position also. As far as cuckolding, my definition of that is when the partners "get off" on the idea, not when they simply accept the idea, of another party being around and involved.
-
Let me put it to you another way, Kasper - I find many of your definitions of things (in this thread and elsewhere) disempowering, demeaning, and deflating rather than empowering, encouraging, and inflating. You seem to come from a position that is inherently "better than" versus "lesser than" and I don't often linger there myself.
-
@kasper81 said
"
your boredom with monogamy? You won't discuss it. That makes me think you are avoiding something
"I never said I found boredom with anything, that's your assumption, I merely laid out an example and I answered you by explaining it as a common example given by pro-poly proponents. Thanks for the Manson Family youtube link but I'm not personally interested in using unbalanced individuals as sample. I gave you a Wiki resource earlier mostly because it has an Amazon resource link in it for you, I suggest you explore that before you think you know what I am talking about (I think I know what you are talking about and you are mistaken if that is what you think I am talking about).
-
@kasper81 said
"
you're confusing me now because this is my source
@Takamba said
"
Let's look at the "logical" argument that is made for fostering an open relationship: There's no possible way I could satisfy every single need, desire, or interest of anyone that I myself would find interesting. That is, if I were the only interest you ever had and needed, I"d quickly bore of you. So let me encourage you, if you need the encouragement, to explore the world outside our bedroom.."
"This is your failure to understand what I wrote. The subject of that paragraph was (drum roll) "the 'logical' argument that is made..." I didn't say "this is my experience," I said "this is the logical argument that is made" and then gave it. The Manson family was not in an "open" relationship, they were dominated by Charles Manson in their cultish love for him. You seem to confuse truth with appearance of truth. I cannot help you with that.
[Edit] I will not respond further to your debate methods here on this subject until you acknowledge and correct this error.
-
@kasper81 said
"you were talking objectively about the boredom BS?
if you're going to get silly then forget the debate
that's what you want anyway"
"Despise also all cowards; professional soldiers who dare not fight, but play; all fools despise!"