Marylou Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 This is not a poll, just a question. "Everyone in a relationship wrestles at some point with an eternal question: can one person really satisfy every need?" From a recent article in Newsweek I have NEVER wrestled with this eternal question. In fact, I knew before I was married that NO ONE (or two or three or four) would EVER satisfy every need in my life. That's what I will be teaching my children, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Dominion Heather Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 I, too, think it is kind of a no-brainer. I don't think many people wrestle with that question. It seems pretty obvious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NicksMama-Zack's Mama Too Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 I think it's unfair to expect another human being to "be all" for you. I sometimes feel my spouse expects me to be all for him and I just remind him that I will surely disappoint him and often do. I don't need the pressure. I gently remind him that I am a human being and have the same limitations as him and each of us must take responsibility for our own happiness. We can offer up ways to make another persons life better, but we surely can't be expected to carry the whole burden. I always cringe when I hear people repeat fondly that Jerry McGuire quote "you complete me"...blech.... (I hate chick flicks). IMHO, it's kind of suffocating. K 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelli in TN Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 Gah. My husband is not expected to meet my every need. I am an adult, I can learn to meet my own needs or I can learn to live with some unmet needs. Does anyone really go through life with all their needs met? And are they really needs or wants, anyway? Maybe we should define needs and wants first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
katemary63 Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 This is not a poll, just a question. "Everyone in a relationship wrestles at some point with an eternal question: can one person really satisfy every need?" From a recent article in Newsweek I have NEVER wrestled with this eternal question. In fact, I knew before I was married that NO ONE (or two or three or four) would EVER satisfy every need in my life. That's what I will be teaching my children, too. Of course it is just plain silly to think that a single other person will "compete you" or meet ALL your needs. But it is immoral, IMHO, to solve that problem by having multiple sex partners. THAT is not the answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lionfamily1999 Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 With The Ethical Slut as your "bible" how could you possibly go wrong? When I was gigantically pregnant with our first, I told dh I would understand if he ran around. That was one day, the next, I told him I could never forgive him. There's the extent of our looking into sharing each other. Just sounds like people that decided to compromise so they could have their cake and eat it too. I think their "bible" is aptly named, even if the title is an oxymoron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumping In Puddles Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 I have never wrestled with that question either. Maybe I'm not so needy. LOL :iagree: I don't think I'm very needy either! I like to have a few good friends and really, I have no desire to sleep with them or even live with them as roommates so they could meet my every need :001_huh: I generally have a live and let live attitude (as long as no one is getting hurt) so if others want to be polyamorous I really don't care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marylou Posted August 12, 2009 Author Share Posted August 12, 2009 I generally have a live and let live attitude (as long as no one is getting hurt) so if others want to be polyamorous I really don't care. I think the little six year old boy is getting hurt (no matter how much ice cream they give him) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PineFarmMom Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 Wow. How miserable would we make someone if they were to be the meeter of all of our needs. I don't ever want to be someone's idol like that. EEK! On my end, it isn't even a question that has crossed my mind because I've known quite easily since a young age that that would be impossible for a human to fill that. Christ can, but that's it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blueridge Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 A short snip from the article: "If Scott starts feeling neglected, he can call the woman he's been dating casually on the side." It makes me personally sad to see that some relationships, no matter how honorable they are intended, are based upon complete selfishness. I know...to each their own...but my personal opinion is that it is a very sad thing indeed~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragons in the flower bed Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 I have NEVER wrestled with this eternal question. In fact, I knew before I was married that NO ONE (or two or three or four) would EVER satisfy every need in my life. I don't wrestle with it, either. As a polyamorous person, I agree completely that no one or two or three or four or even the dozens in some Heinlein-esque multi-generational group marriage would ever satisfy every need in my life. I don't know if I would have articulated it so well to myself if I hadn't known well two people who have really felt that their partner should satisfy all their needs. They were both pretty miserable in any relationship: hopeful at first, then frustrated, finally furious and alone again. It cycled like this, and when I'd talk with them, they'd indicate they were afraid they couldn't meet their own needs. I'm also afraid of that. Aren't we all? But I'm working towards that goal, constantly, and not setting other goals in it's place. It's really hard to cover polyamory accurately as a monogamous journalist. I don't believe I've ever seen it done perfectly. There's always the hope, then the few good paragraphs, then the "d'oh!" and slapping of the forehead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BikeBookBread Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 Nope. Not ever. Married 13 years to same man, couldn't imagine ever being with anyone else. Never was with anyone else, either, and I don't think that's TMI. I'm very thankful and proud of the fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marylou Posted August 12, 2009 Author Share Posted August 12, 2009 I learned about the Newsweek article from reading this article. The Newsweek article said that those in the poly relationships "insist" that they only are intimate with one person at a time. I wonder why they had to clarify that? I guess I should start another thread :001_huh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lionfamily1999 Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 Dmmosher, they aren't FREAKS.:lol: Actually, I'm sure it does have to do with wanting to distinguish themselves from people that are in it for sex, whereas they are in it for the emotional and spiritual benefits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marylou Posted August 12, 2009 Author Share Posted August 12, 2009 Dmmosher, they aren't FREAKS.:lol: Who said they are? :001_huh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tristangrace Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 No, one person can't meet my every need. Compiling a posse of people with whom to sleep/be intimate won't meet my every need, either. And I TOTALLY disagree with the implied assumption that "the point" of having a "significant other" or "significant others" is to make sure all my needs are met. If it were, polyamory might make sense. But it isn't and it doesn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plucky Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 (edited) No. My dad & step-mom had an open marriage in the 70's. They were pretty popular among the group they ran with. My step-sister practices polyamory - she's divorced from not just her legal husband but the quad they had going. As a child, it wasn't a healthy environment for me to grow up in & my step-sister is a wonderful, loving person. I think she could do amazing things if sex & relationships weren't such a preoccupation for her. In my eyes the preoccupation limits her and keeps her in a bad cycle. I love her anyway. I don't think polyamory is new. It's just becoming more open. ETA: I just remembered I do know one happy couple. My uncle and aunt in their 60's are still happily married and in an open-marriage. I don't know how I forgot that. Edited August 12, 2009 by True Blue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pqr Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 Originally Posted by lionfamily1999 Dmmosher, they aren't FREAKS.:lol: Who said they are? :001_huh: I will say it. In the sense of the traditional family they are freaks and they make a point that I was trying to make on another thread. When we opened the Pandora's Box with some people "accepting" homosexual marriage this was the inevitable result. (And no I do not care that the article states that CURRENTLY most are not activists) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HRAAB Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 I've never wrestled with that question because it's obvious to me that one person cannot meet all my needs. My dh does a great job, and I hope I in return do well by him, but I certainly don't expect him to be everything for me. What a burden to put on someone. I have other people in my life: friends, family, spiritual advisers, etc. Sometimes I just have needs that I have to deal with on my own. I don't call that polyamory though. In the bedroom, my one husband is just fine. ;) Or maybe my definition of polyamory is too narrow??? Janet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Night Elf Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 No, I do not think a person should ever be expected to satisfy another person's entire needs. No, I do not think polyamory is the answer, but for a whole different reason then what you and others here may be thinking. Polyamory is not about getting a bunch of boyfriends/husbands or girlfriends/wives to satisfy a lack of anything. Polyamory is about love and how it is infinite. People who are polyamorous can love more than one person just like a parent can love more than one child. Now, before that gets turned around, and I am sure someone will misinterpret, I am not saying that all parents who have infinte love for their children should also be polyamorous. It's a choice like many other choices we humans have in life. And like every other choice we make in life, there will be people who disagree and people who agree. And yes, choices can be influenced by outside influences such as upbringing, religion, past personal experience, and more I cannot think of right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Night Elf Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 A short snip from the article: "If Scott starts feeling neglected, he can call the woman he's been dating casually on the side." It makes me personally sad to see that some relationships, no matter how honorable they are intended, are based upon complete selfishness. I know...to each their own...but my personal opinion is that it is a very sad thing indeed~ Of course it makes you sad. You do not truly understand it because it isn't in your whole self to be that way. I believe that by taking that statement out of the article, you are isolating it to purposefully let it stand on its own. The single quote above implies when Scott feels unsatisfied he goes to be satisfied by another woman who is probably not known by his wife. But that would be adultery, and that is not what is going on in that relationship. We're all sad really. Any of us can find sad things in other people's relationships. I personally find it sad when I see a wife be totally subservient to her husband just because she was brought up that way and/or that her religion commands her to be that way. I find it so demeaning, probably a word that describes how some of you think about polyamory. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Night Elf Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 Another thought I'd like to throw out there is the difference between polyamory and promiscuity. The word polyamorous, when broken down into roots, is many loves. That description is about a love relationship. Promiscuity, otoh, is about the physical needs only and not being in a relationship. I see some of these responses seeming to imply these two words are interchangeable. The word promiscuity has not been mentioned but the responses are defining polyamory by the definition of promiscuity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelli in TN Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 We are talking about more than s@xual needs right? I read it to mean emotional, spiritual, physical (other than s@x), and s@xual needs and/or wants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brindee Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 (edited) Nope. Not ever. Married 13 years to same man, couldn't imagine ever being with anyone else. Never was with anyone else, either, and I don't think that's TMI. I'm very thankful and proud of the fact.:iagree: I've never struggled with the question, never been with anyone else but my husband, and we've been married for 21 years. We plan on many, many more years of it being just the two of us---"until death do us part!" :001_wub: We each have friends and other things we do, but the s*xual needs are only for/with each other! Edited August 12, 2009 by Brindee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marylou Posted August 12, 2009 Author Share Posted August 12, 2009 I think it is promiscuity, just "socially acceptable" promiscuity. And getting more acceptable as time passes (at least in the US). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KarenNC Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 (edited) The only person responsible for either meeting my needs or dealing with them when they are unmet (and there is no one whose every need/want/desire is always met) is me, whether as a single person, monogamously married, whatever. I don't imagine that is any different in practice regardless of the type of relationship. I think it comes down to a maturity level of understanding that we are responsible for ourselves, that nothing is ever perfect, that it is not the responsibility of others to make us happy or fulfilled or somehow "intuit" what we want or need, especially when we don't communicate that. Edited August 12, 2009 by KarenNC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KarenNC Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 (edited) I think it is promiscuity, just "socially acceptable" promiscuity. And getting more acceptable as time passes (at least in the US). I have only ever been in one sexual relationship (and that relationship is monogamous on both our parts), but I dare say that one could be as faithful or unfaithful in a poly relationship as one could be in a monogamous relationship. Faithfulness is about honoring commitments, whatever structure those commitments take, and making sure that *all* parties involved have a clear understanding and agreement about what is going on. Doesn't really matter whether something is "socially acceptable" or not---the determinant is whether it is acceptable to all parties involved in the situation or whether one party is acting unilaterally. Edited August 12, 2009 by KarenNC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joanne Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 Reducing polyarmory to sex or multiple sex partners is no different than limiting traditional marriage to sex. Polyamory is about be open to or building intimate, committed mutual relationships. In a person who "is" polyamorous, these relationships are committed, loving, respectful. Sex is only one component. Polyarmous is not the same as "open" or, in contemporary terms, lifestyle. There you'll find sex as recreational. The interactions can be limited to sex. Relationships beyond sex are not common outside of marriage. "Swingers", as they used to be called, would consider their marriages committed. It's only *sex* that they share, not relationship or intimacy. There are many partners who have shared partners for many years but consider themselves truly married to their spouse. Any unknown, hidden or undisclosed sex would be thought of as cheating, just like most of the marriages here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marylou Posted August 13, 2009 Author Share Posted August 13, 2009 Doesn't really matter whether something is "socially acceptable" or not :iagree: the determinant is whether it is acceptable to all parties involved in the situation or whether one party is acting unilaterally. Couldn't disagree more. The determinant should be whether something is RIGHT or WRONG. And nowadays seems like most folks don't want to have that discussion--especially if it involves "consenting adults" and NIMBY. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marylou Posted August 13, 2009 Author Share Posted August 13, 2009 It's only *sex* that they share, not relationship or intimacy. "Only" and "sex" in the same sentence. I don't think I've ever seen that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Night Elf Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 Couldn't disagree more. The determinant should be whether something is RIGHT or WRONG. And nowadays seems like most folks don't want to have that discussion--especially if it involves "consenting adults" and NIMBY. Ahhh, I see. You judge from your own personal sense of right and wrong. I daresay we'd disagree on so many points it wouldn't be worth our while to even try. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crissy Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 Do you wrestle with this question?"Everyone in a relationship wrestles at some point with an eternal question: can one person really satisfy every need?" I didn't read the article, but no, I have never wrestled with the question. It has always been clear to me that not every one of my wants and needs will be satisfied, and I don't find it difficult to accept. I would doubt that folks in poly- relationships are in search of having 'every need' met. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joanne Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 "Only" and "sex" in the same sentence. I don't think I've ever seen that. (Many) People who are lifestyle (swingers) would say they separate the recreational, fun, playful aspects of sex from relationship, intimacy, commitment. They see sexual activity as recreational and don't attach the need for exclusivity to it that you would. You would likely be surprised at the words of honor, the level of commitment and length of time many lifestyle couples have been together. I'm not suggesting that being lifestyle = happy relationship (although some do), but that when you don't attach exclusive sexual activity to marriage, it's a different paradigm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marylou Posted August 13, 2009 Author Share Posted August 13, 2009 Very true! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marylou Posted August 13, 2009 Author Share Posted August 13, 2009 Ahhh, I see. You judge from your own personal sense of right and wrong. I daresay we'd disagree on so many points it wouldn't be worth our while to even try. Ha! ha! I wish I could have my own personal sense of right and wrong! When you say we would disagree on "so many points" do you mean on what things are right/wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PineFarmMom Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 :iagree: Couldn't disagree more. The determinant should be whether something is RIGHT or WRONG. And nowadays seems like most folks don't want to have that discussion--especially if it involves "consenting adults" and NIMBY. It reminds me of the part in Romans about calling good evil and evil good. People seem angry when you state an absolute like right and wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marylou Posted August 13, 2009 Author Share Posted August 13, 2009 It reminds me of the part in Romans about calling good evil and evil good. People seem angry when you state an absolute like right and wrong. Well, according to the author of the article: It's enough to make any monogamist's head spin. But the traditionalists had better get used to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garga Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 Ahh. Yes, I wrestle with this every day. If only I'd married a plumber...then the leak in the back of the toilet would be fixed. If only I'd married a landscaper...then the dead ivy would be cleared away. If only I'd married a tailor, then my jeans wouldn't gap in the back. So, maybe I should invite a plumber who has a tailor as a wife to join my family. Maybe they'll have a teenaged son who enjoys yardwork. Ooo, but what to do about the alternator that's acting up in the car? So many needs, so many needs....:001_rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audrey Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 When we opened the Pandora's Box with some people "accepting" homosexual marriage this was the inevitable result. (And no I do not care that the article states that CURRENTLY most are not activists) You have it backwards there. *If* you think that one led to the other, then it was polyamory that most certainly came along well before anyone started accepting homosexual marriages. That said, I don't think one has to anything at all to with the other, but obviously YMMV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Night Elf Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 Ha! ha! I wish I could have my own personal sense of right and wrong! That rather implies you get your sense of right and wrong from someone or something else. I'm not sure I understand. My own personal sense of right and wrong has developed over the course of my life so far. But I know some people believe that right or wrong must be defined a certain way. I am not one of those people. When you say we would disagree on "so many points" do you mean on what things are right/wrong? Yes, I do. Your posts are very clear that you think polyamory is wrong. I disagree. You say polyamory is the same thing as promiscuity. I disagree. You say the 6-year old child is getting hurt by the relationships. I disagree. I have found that when someone disagrees with me on a topic such as this, they are likely to be very different in their thinking than I am. And actually that is okay with me. I just feel our morals are very different indeed. I have no desire to persuade your from your feelings or beliefs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KarenNC Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 Ahh. Yes, I wrestle with this every day. If only I'd married a plumber...then the leak in the back of the toilet would be fixed. If only I'd married a landscaper...then the dead ivy would be cleared away. If only I'd married a tailor, then my jeans wouldn't gap in the back. So, maybe I should invite a plumber who has a tailor as a wife to join my family. Maybe they'll have a teenaged son who enjoys yardwork. Ooo, but what to do about the alternator that's acting up in the car? So many needs, so many needs....:001_rolleyes: Except for the old adage about the cobbler's children never having shoes.......;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marylou Posted August 13, 2009 Author Share Posted August 13, 2009 That rather implies you get your sense of right and wrong from someone or something else. I'm not sure I understand. My own personal sense of right and wrong has developed over the course of my life so far. But I know some people believe that right or wrong must be defined a certain way. I am not one of those people. Yes, I do. Your posts are very clear that you think polyamory is wrong. I disagree. You say polyamory is the same thing as promiscuity. I disagree. You say the 6-year old child is getting hurt by the relationships. I disagree. I have found that when someone disagrees with me on a topic such as this, they are likely to be very different in their thinking than I am. And actually that is okay with me. I just feel our morals are very different indeed. I have no desire to persuade your from your feelings or beliefs. And I will not try to persuade you, either. I would like to learn from you. Is adultery wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlmiraGulch Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 I have only ever been in one sexual relationship (and that relationship is monogamous on both our parts), but I dare say that one could be as faithful or unfaithful in a poly relationship as one could be in a monogamous relationship. Faithfulness is about honoring commitments, whatever structure those commitments take, and making sure that *all* parties involved have a clear understanding and agreement about what is going on. Doesn't really matter whether something is "socially acceptable" or not---the determinant is whether it is acceptable to all parties involved in the situation or whether one party is acting unilaterally. :iagree: Very well stated! I've been trying to think of a way to say this, but now I don't have to. :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stripe Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 There are plenty of people all over the world, of different religions or none, who are married to either one or multiple people, and confine their sexual activity to that person / those people. (In other words, polygamy is not necessarily the same thing as one night stands, etc.) That being said, I never entered marriage thinking that my husband would meet my every need. I don't see marriage as the one and only relationship that I'm in. I, for example, continue to enjoy emotional fulfillment from my mother that no one else on earth can provide. Female friends meet other needs. My relationship with my children is another matter altogether. And I have needs that, I imagine, no person can ever meet. So no, I don't wrestle with this question. I make the best of the blessings I have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingM Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 What a great board, with so many divergent opinions. Where else could you find Quiver Full followers and polyamorists sharing discussion space? I do think some people are wired for different types of relationships. Some are naturally monogamist, others are not. Polyamory seems like a healthier alternative than cheating. We have some close friends who were previously very religious who eventually transitioned first from swinging and on to polyamory. It has been an interesting evolution, even if it took me awhile to wrap my head around it. My friend kept a very interesting blog about his experiences for awhile, although he's let it slip lately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pajama Mama Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 Dh and I were married about 4-5 years when I told him to have an affair. Ds9 was a baby who was showing signs of being severely disabled. I was preggo with dd8 and terrified that she would be ill as well. Dh's dad was dying and we couldn't tell his family about our sickly baby. I cried night and day-everyday. I told dh one day that he needed someone and *I* couldn't be that someone. I told him to get a girlfriend. I was completely serious at the time. I was so depressed and torn apart but I felt bad for my husband. He, of course, passed on the offer. If he had, it probably would have ruined our marriage. I was as close to unhinged as I've ever been when I told him to get a girlfriend. I did mean it but I was clearly not in my right mind. I occasionally joke with him about missing his chance. We are best friends and those couple of bad years really strengthened our marriage(sans girlfriend). But I don't expect him to be all things to me and vice versa. I think it's truly unfair to expect one person to be everything. That mindset just sets up the relationship for a fall. I don't really care about polygamy one way or the other. I don't understand it but folks that are grown up in it think it's right and natural. If your dad had 4 wives and 17 kids then you would grow up to think that it is the right way to live. I try not to judge others. The only issue I have with polygamy is when very young girls are involved. If you took that out of the equations I wouldn't care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joanne Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 I don't really care about polygamy one way or the other. I don't understand it but folks that are grown up in it think it's right and natural. If your dad had 4 wives and 17 kids then you would grow up to think that it is the right way to live. I try not to judge others. The only issue I have with polygamy is when very young girls are involved. If you took that out of the equations I wouldn't care. __________________ Just FYI, polygamy and polyamory are completely different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marylou Posted August 13, 2009 Author Share Posted August 13, 2009 (edited) I do think some people are wired for different types of relationships. Some are naturally monogamist, others are not. Polyamory seems like a healthier alternative than cheating. Very interesting. Is "cheating" wrong? And if so, why :confused: and who decides? Edited August 13, 2009 by dmmosher Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mom In Missouri Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 To answer the OP, "No. I have never struggled with the idea that my husband was supposed to meet my every need." I didn't enter marriage with that expectation, nor did he. Neither one of us would expect a supernatural character trait out of a limited human. The God I serve and the Christ that was sent fills those needs through the work of the Holy Spirit. However, I have seen my sister continually struggle with her poly relationships and her reasoning. She believes that her ability to love others is infinate however continues from unhealthy relationship characteristics to another. There is a drive or push from her 'community' to build relationships with people who have no committment to each other unless its based on emotions or surface needs of the moment. And since we all know that emotional needs and circumstances change---she's on the constant search for one to fill whatever feeling is urgent at the time. As a witness to her lifestyle, she has one person for each emotional category need. In my opinion, its the equivalent of having mulitple personalities that are integrated, but are not working as one person. It could be that this lifestyle is more openly discussed, but the awareness in society of this practice hasn't increased the success of healthful, nourishing relationships. Only her circumvented fears with justified behaviors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denisemomof4 Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 I learned about the Newsweek article from reading this article. The Newsweek article said that those in the poly relationships "insist" that they only are intimate with one person at a time. I wonder why they had to clarify that? I guess I should start another thread :001_huh: well of course they are. Can you "do it" with more than one person at one time? Not without some unusual, and gifted, birth defect..... like the cow with two heads or something. I mean you can't REALLY do, DO, it with more than one person. But there's the term threesome. Still, you can't DO, do it with two people. :blush5: And I don't want to offend anyone and I don't judge anyone with different views than me. I personally would somehow feel................ chaos and disorganized if I had to share my man, or he had to share me. I could never keep the two names straight. And who do you call when you have a flat tire? And I wouldn't be able to share my man. I can't be held accountable to how it would make me feel. We're all wired differently and have our own needs. I respect anyone who has "found their groove" and it's out of the ordinary. I, personally, use the bible as my blueprint to my life. I have never known such peace as I have since I became a Christian. Is my life hard? Yes. But I have peace. I fail at times, but in the marriage department, having more than one spouse/partner would just confuse me. And I certainly do NOT need any more confusion. :ohmy::confused1::confused1: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts