Polygamy/Polyamory
-
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!"
-
Kasper, you aren't still using this thread to answer Mercurius' original inquiry, correct?
You've been doing nothing the last few posts but squabbling. Please:
(1) Find something new to contribute to the original question that started this thread.
(2) Find something new to learn on this topic.
or
(3) Move on to another topic.Brawling stops here.
-
Yes, you contributed previously. I meant recently.
To give you a break, I'll go back to your last post and delete the barb you couldn't resist including.
-
@kasper81 said
"what the {****} are you on about with that quote?
I find it hard to believe that you were talkng objectively with your initial "boredom" scenario example. Don't take that the wrong way. To help me understand openness could you tell me whether you think monongamy is boring or not?"
I'm not here to decide for another what is boring or not, but let me tell you what I have decided. I'm a hard relativist (philosophically speaking). That means I believe in a hard truth, one source of ethical reality. Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. I also believe in a relativistic interpretation or point of view of that hard truth, "Lover, if thou wilt, depart." In other words, do what thou hast determined is the right thing to do, and do not demand it of others. This makes me available to what I have here in this thread labelled an "open relationship." Monogamy for some may be exceptional, for others it may not be. I may choose to devote myself to one woman and she is still free to not devote herself to only me, and vice versa. There is not one rule that fits all situations. I think that's my main point I'm trying to get you to understand, every event is situational. We can only judge an event or a decision when we know all the factors involved in the situation. Since I am aware that in my own life I don't always know all the factors involved in a situation, I accept the freedom (to myself and to the other) that anything might happen.
My main point is that you seem rather rigid in your definitions/expectations/demands. I don't live that way (any more... meaning, yes, I once did, when I was young).
-
I just want to chime in here with a point that occurred to me as I was reading. It seems that somewhere in this thread a negative moral judgement was being made about 'possessiveness', without people really realizing that it was a moral judgement. On the face of it then 'possessiveness' would seem to be the antithesis to freedom, liberty and the law of Thelema, but I think that ignores the true self of some individuals who Will it may be to be extremely possessive. Astrologically, I would cite Moon in Scorpio people (like my grandmother) as being constitutionally incapable of NOT being possessive with their partners, and while that may not work with some people who may find it restrictive and can resent it, the right partner for them can often find satisfaction, safety, security, and even tolerant amusement of their partners jealous and fiercely possessive streak.
My 85 year old grandparents have regular day carers these days. Special arrangements had to be made so that my grandfather only has male carers as there was hell on from my grandmother at the idea of another women attending to showers or taking him to the toilet, etc. And his reaction? A glint in his old blue eyes and a smile. He takes it as a confirmation that she loves him and it has always amused him. As far as I can see, their relationship - seeing that it is fulfilling their true natures for both of them (including her innate Scorpio moon possessiveness), is as Thelemic as any open relationship of whatever shape or form.
-
@kasper81 said
"good point Alrah. I understand that your grandparents have found happiness there. Crowley said in the new aeon," women must teach men to give up this brainless desire to possess" (from The Confessions)which seems to be in line with what Takamba is espousing (hahah no pun intended) and that Crowley quote implies that possessiveness is a male trait, but yeah he got that wrong as women can kick off as well"
Indeed they can Kasp!
If it's a matter of simple cultural conditioning opposing the true will (of either gender), then that's a matter for the Work. But if it's a case where the individual is like that due to their natural inclinations of the Self - then to work against it is inappropriate and unhelpful.
-
Is a good distinction to make. Learning to distinguish between behaviors that we do because they are in harmony with our core vs. ones we engage in because of social conditioning is important.
The presence of inconsistent actions, self sabotage, and inner turmoil can alert us to whether we're doing what works best for us, vs. what we think we should be doing because that's "what's done".
Generally, though, the vast majority of people fall into one relationship model, and fail miserably at it (see high rates of divorce and infidelity).
-
@kasper81 said
"
@Avshalom Binyamin said
"Generally, though, the vast majority of people fall into one relationship model, and fail miserably at it (see high rates of divorce and infidelity)."
whoa whoa *most * people don't get divorced do they? You think all open relationships are success stories?"
What you just said doesn't make sense to me. Avshalom seemed to suggest that most people fail to succeed, that's how I read his message. You seem confused. The actual statistics support that a marriage is a 50/50 proposition.
-
@kasper81 said
"whoa whoa *most * people don't get divorced do they? You think all open relationships are success stories?"
About 50% of marriages end in formal divorce. (It's stayed around that number decades. In some areas, it is higher, in some lower.)
If those that do not end in divorce, well over half - some surveys indicate as high as 90%, some lower - have one or more occasions of infidelity by one or both people. (By definition of the word "infidelity," this means it is an act outside the agreed boundaries of that particular relationship.)
Of the 50% that stay married, I know of no statistics on how many consider themselves happy. Anecdotal evidence suggests that, after the early years, it is a small number, but not an insignificant number.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"
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.
."This. It took me seven years to see that I have this with someone and 7 years later, we find ourselves more hot for each other than ever. Though this time, both of us have taken breaks and even had full on relationships with other people. And equally disappointed - I thought we were spending saturday night together and I find myself crushed as if were our second date
I think if anyone is fortunate to have this level of intimacy - the kind that only occurs through ordeals with the other - then defining things as 'open' or non monogamous has a different meaning. Although my lady and I have not (yet) shared a bed with a third - we often fantasize about it and if something like that develops, it's more something her and I are participating in as a couple rather than having a third person share equal intimacy with us.
Someone said something regarding that intimacy develops a sort of 'bhakti' - devotional energy. That makes sense to me - her and I have discovered a new sense of being devoted to each other through many of our ordeals over the years.
Thanks for highlighting this Jim!
-
@kasper81 said
"actually on second thoughts I wasn't in an open relationship with that girl."
I'm glad we agree and I hope, contrary to someone's "moral" exclamation, you see possession as not the means and someday love and live in love with the one you enjoy who enjoys you as much as you enjoy her (or him, as the case may be).
-
If I could just move the goal-posts slightly.....
To my mind it seems that people measure 'success' in a relationship in terms of longevity.
To me this seems daft, as a life long relationship could easily be a 'failure' in that both parties involved end up being restricted in some way and so live out there existence without attaining their True Will.
To me a successful relationship is one that enables both partners to move closer to their True Wills; this could be a one night stand, six months or a life-time, so each relationship must be measured by it's own merits.
For example I had a beautiful year with someone who helped me to realize an important aspect of my True Will. When we decided to break up it was entirely mutual and we both recognized that the relationship had run its course, so we parted naturally.
Sometimes long terms relationships can be about fear (of being alone)
Sometimes polygamy can be about fear (of being trapped in a relationship)Perhaps neither of these applies, each relationship is its own entity in my experience.
-
@kasper81 said
"
@Archaeus said
"Sometimes long terms relationships can be about fear (of being alone)
Sometimes polygamy can be about fear (of being trapped in a relationship)
."Can't a drive for any relationship be about fear. What if someone is happy to just masturbate now and again for the rest of their days, until they die?
I know a man like this. The nicest man you could ever meet. Literally i never heard him say a bad word about anyone. He even admitted that he has never even thought about sex for years. Imagine that. I guesse he is pleased with no demands from the opposite sex, can watch what he wants on TV, no reliance, peace of mind, doesn't have to worry about the competition : love rivals"
I did say "Sometimes"
I spent most of my early twenties single, and have had other periods of solitude, there is certainly a peacefulness about it that I miss when I am in a relationship, but then after a while company is nice too.
I am divided for loves sake after all...and a change is as good as a rest.
-
I'm in a monogamous relationship and call ourselves husband and wife though we are not legally married. He experienced a polyamorous relationship before we met but acknowledges that he went along with it to get this woman away from her husband, which he did. She was the one who believed they were all polyamorous; he never did. He is a Capricorn with an agenda, lol. He wanted to be monogamous with her (it obviously didn't work out). To this day he maintains that poly amory is a crock of doo doo. Thats his opinion. Personally I'm not into it but I have no moral objection to anyone else living that lifestyle. Monogamy works for us because we are honest with each other and we don't let each other off the hook about things. Plus, we question each other and challenge each other intellectually, spiritually, sexually. We've had threesomes. We've been part of the local BDSM scene. He has encouraged me to explore my dominant side; he thinks it's sexy. We want to have new adventures together. I just have to get him out of the ICU and home. I truly love him so very much.
-
@kasper81 said
"
my first girlfriend , she was the most beautiful girl in my school. It was a religious experience staring into her eyes. I knew it was more than just human love so I get what you mean. My next girlfriend after her, it was like staring into the eye s of a demon"The eyes are the mirror to your soul
-
Has anyone read "Pagan Polyamory" by Raven Kaldera?
I bought it, but I haven't read it yet. -
I haven't read it. Though a book I recently read, "Undefended Love", is really great for the depth psychological aspects of working through our projections in the context of relationships, whether open or monogamous.