Polyamory

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (514 of them)

(i.e. she knows damn well that i'm not planning on staying in washington indefinitely, and if she wants the relationship to continue, she has to think about moving to the east coast, 2900 miles away from anyone she knows. as of right now, that's apparently not a problem. and i don't honestly see how anyone can live their lives so far in advance that they think they can plan out any future twists and turns like, oh what if she decides she doesnt want to come to the east coast oh no! let it all go, whoah oh ay oh.)

― jess (dubplatestyle), Thursday, 17 July 2003 23:24 (twenty years ago) link

Trust me, if it weren't for compromise, I wouldn't be living in Indiana :)

That's all I was saying, I think -- compromise as opposed to a completely "do whatever you like as long as it doesn't threaten my well-being" sort of thing.

― Tep (ktepi), Thursday, 17 July 2003 23:25 (twenty years ago) link

oh no, i was actually the one who ended up bringing it up even though it was she who really wanted to do it (droppin hints etc...this is normal, actually, if not necessarily healthy). there are many escape clauses already worked into the contract.

― jess (dubplatestyle), Thursday, 17 July 2003 23:31 (twenty years ago) link

... I'm tempted to start a new thread about compromise in relationships now, cause it's been on my mind a lot lately due to, well, being here. (The girlfriend is an academic, and the job market being what it is, she isn't going to have a whole lot of choice in where her first professorial job is ... I intend to make freelancing pay off full-time, which means where I live is irrelevant, career-wise. This is not the first time I've been in this position, but last time, it was with someone who teaches Southern literature, so it didn't matter: the South is where I want to live. This time ... well, it's different, and our preferences are at odds, but I keep unconsciously doing the "but I've lived more places and have years more life experience than you, my preferences are more informed and developed" thing, which is really bad to do...)

(Now I'm derailing this thread. Ignore me, actually, I should be writing my paper for tomorrow morning.)

― Tep (ktepi), Thursday, 17 July 2003 23:38 (twenty years ago) link

tep are you my doppleganger?

― jess (dubplatestyle), Thursday, 17 July 2003 23:40 (twenty years ago) link

Jess, how much longer does nance have at evergreen? (now I have John Waite's "Missing You" in my head now..*sniff*, and you're still here!)

― donut bitch (donut), Thursday, 17 July 2003 23:43 (twenty years ago) link

Only if by "wanting to live on the east coast" you mean "the southern part" :) That's my one area I can't compromise on, and we've discussed it -- I can't live in the northeast again. If a good deal of money were involved, I could do it for a year or two, but the combination of those two things is unlikely to happen. Luckily, she's never been there, so believes me when I tell her it's infested with roving bands of bandit monkeys.

― Tep (ktepi), Thursday, 17 July 2003 23:44 (twenty years ago) link

Just show her the FAP pictures and the truth will be revealed.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 17 July 2003 23:55 (twenty years ago) link

She wants to live in Seattle, I'm not sure FAPhotos would do it. Photoshoppery, though ...

"Honey, we can't go to Massachusetts, we might be attacked by a floating Gareth head."

― Tep (ktepi), Thursday, 17 July 2003 23:57 (twenty years ago) link

??? ur, but Seattle is not on the east coast.

― donut bitch (donut), Friday, 18 July 2003 00:01 (twenty years ago) link

db, nancy has at least two more years at evergreen, and even right after that there's no guarantee either of us are gonna be immediatley raring to go.

― jess (dubplatestyle), Friday, 18 July 2003 00:03 (twenty years ago) link

??? ur, but Seattle is not on the east coast.

Oh, I meant "Seattle is such a wacky place, surely FAPs could not out-wack her!" Her preference isn't east coast, it's north -- and although mine is south (basically, I want to live anywhere that has neither snow nor a Pacific Ocean), it's the northeast that I adamantly oppose.

― Tep (ktepi), Friday, 18 July 2003 00:05 (twenty years ago) link

(basically, I want to live anywhere that has neither snow nor a Pacific Ocean), it's the northeast that I adamantly oppose.

??? ur, but the Pacific Ocean is not on the east coast.

― donut bitch (donut), Friday, 18 July 2003 00:08 (twenty years ago) link

I have no problem with the east coast! Only the northeast.

― Tep (ktepi), Friday, 18 July 2003 00:13 (twenty years ago) link

polyamoury makes a lot more sense to me than monogamy. not that i've ever tried it. i prefer being single.

― di smith (lucylurex), Friday, 18 July 2003 02:36 (twenty years ago) link

it makes more sense to me too, but not to the catholic deep inside me.

― jess (dubplatestyle), Friday, 18 July 2003 02:38 (twenty years ago) link

you should post that to the sexual innuendo thread.

― di smith (lucylurex), Friday, 18 July 2003 02:39 (twenty years ago) link

I am already quite polyamorous, it's just that there's no sex.

― donut bitch (donut), Friday, 18 July 2003 02:40 (twenty years ago) link

I have lusted in my heart many times.

― Jimmy Carter, Friday, 18 July 2003 02:43 (twenty years ago) link

yeah, the catholic's about up to his elbow now.

― jess (dubplatestyle), Friday, 18 July 2003 02:52 (twenty years ago) link

I feel a little reactionary now for preferring monogamy on a ~~kneejerk~~ immediate level, but like I said there's no reason at all to be against living or loving this way, and who knows, it could happen to me at some point.

― g--ff c-nn-n (gcannon), Friday, 18 July 2003 03:15 (twenty years ago) link

first off it probably WILL take away from yr. time together, but then so would it if she took up bowling -- the question is how much, and how many emotions there are to go round.

second, "giving" for the sake of it = classic, but with expectation of even partial future repayment = dud.

― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Friday, 18 July 2003 03:36 (twenty years ago) link

i feel you sterl, you know this.

― jess (dubplatestyle), Friday, 18 July 2003 03:38 (twenty years ago) link

I don't know that it was hetero-sexist and I didn't mean it to be; for some reason I don't find the polyamorous thing as strange in a queer context because in cases like that (gay multiple-relationships)the people I've known have treated it less like "commitment among many" than "no commmitement at all." The three-in-a-relationship thing I've witnessed has always been one guy and a few women and at least one of the women has always been jerked around. Sorry if that sounds sexist, that's how it played out (the guy was pretty sexist himself). I'm sure there are exceptions.

― anthony kyle monday (akmonday), Friday, 18 July 2003 03:50 (twenty years ago) link

Jess FWIW I reckon you've got the right attitude on the moving thing (probably on the poly thing too, I wouldn't know since I have a hard time being selfless enough for one person in my life let alone more) - Isabel and I spent about 3 years fretting because of a similar looming life-decision that would doom us to unhappiness or break-up etc etc and lo and behold when the time came we just compromised and were very happy.

― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Friday, 18 July 2003 06:39 (twenty years ago) link

thanx. btw tom, i mailed you re. the nylpm email (the answer was yes) but it bounced back. (why am i up still and posting to this thread?)

― jess (dubplatestyle), Friday, 18 July 2003 06:56 (twenty years ago) link

(Hmm wonder if that's happened to other people. Fucking hotmail. Ta Jess!)

― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Friday, 18 July 2003 07:05 (twenty years ago) link

The potential I saw was something like in "Gregory's Girl" where at some level there's the acceptance that a choice is just the result of circumstance, but no worse for that. I guess I didn't think of it as all at once or how can a person do something that questions what is natural. What I was thinking of was really the other way around: it was to show how what is conventional is just that. For example, if you had a crush on someone and went to a party because that person would be there but realized later that you'd missed the opportunity of a lifetime because you were so focussed on that one person, then that would be a pity.

― youn, Friday, 18 July 2003 07:08 (twenty years ago) link

Does it count if it's all with members of the same band?

― duh, Friday, 18 July 2003 07:19 (twenty years ago) link

Does it count if they're just different dialects?

― dork, Friday, 18 July 2003 07:20 (twenty years ago) link

i think i must be very stupid because it seems like jess is telling us all something that is happening in his life and everyone is understanding what it is but i am reading the thread and i dont actually know what is happening. i can see what is being implied but thats about it.

― gareth (gareth), Friday, 18 July 2003 09:41 (twenty years ago) link

ditto

― mark p (Mark P), Friday, 18 July 2003 13:03 (twenty years ago) link

I was kind of confused too, but I always assume I'm stupid and/or missing something.

― Larcole (Nicole), Friday, 18 July 2003 13:05 (twenty years ago) link

I get the impression (as did we all) he's moving and unsure if she will, but I don't know why it's on a polyamory thread. Good luck J anyway, though.

― Andrew Thames (Andrew Thames), Friday, 18 July 2003 13:07 (twenty years ago) link

Well I think there is a bit that is in my impression that you are leaving out of the "as did we all" impression!!

― Ally (mlescaut), Friday, 18 July 2003 13:08 (twenty years ago) link

The bit about the Catholic?

― Andrew Thames (Andrew Thames), Friday, 18 July 2003 13:09 (twenty years ago) link

Um...

1. Jess revives thread.

2. Somebody says "Only Ms Laura of anyone here can really talk about poly"

3. Jess replies "Why do you think I revived the thread?"

implication is J is now in a poly relationship. I think the implication is strong enough that it didn't need dot-joining and anyway this is a thread about polyamory *in theory* so if anyone doesn't want to give details that's up to them!

― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Friday, 18 July 2003 13:10 (twenty years ago) link

Oh, I thought he wanted Ms Laura to talk about it. I'm not after details.

― Andrew Thames (Andrew Thames), Friday, 18 July 2003 13:13 (twenty years ago) link

I AM (shocker)

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Friday, 18 July 2003 13:14 (twenty years ago) link

Oh, I thought he wanted Ms Laura to talk about it. I'm not after details.

My sleep deprived brane is not processing things the way it should, and that's what I thought as well. Details are not necessary.

― Larcole (Nicole), Friday, 18 July 2003 13:15 (twenty years ago) link

Thank you for stating it explicitly, Tom. Haha wtf people? You all need more coffee.

(I love how everyone is just talking like jess isn't going to come read this in a bit?)

― Ally (mlescaut), Friday, 18 July 2003 13:22 (twenty years ago) link

Stupid question alert!

In a polyamorous relationship aren't all 3 people (or more??) supposed to be in love with each other. Person A loves Person B. B loves C, C loves A...? I have nothing against it, really, but it seems like a rather rare situation that these people would all happen to love each other somewhat equally...

I have mentioned I had a friend in high school who didn't start dating until college - and his first relationship involved two other people - a new girlfriend and her at-the-time ex. He moved in with the two of them. He said he did things with her but he and the other dude were just like really close friends or something...

In the end, my friend married her and the other guy is - supposedly - out of the romantic picture.

― Sarah McLusky (coco), Friday, 18 July 2003 13:25 (twenty years ago) link

Coffee isn't helping! I spelled metal as "mettle".

― Larcole (Nicole), Friday, 18 July 2003 13:27 (twenty years ago) link

No, not at all Sarah. A can be going out with B who can be going out with C but there's no need to for A to be going out with C as well.

― RickyT (RickyT), Friday, 18 July 2003 13:28 (twenty years ago) link

So A & C just have to be ok with the situation for it to be polyamory?

I just finished my coffee, Larcole. It's obviously not helping me either!

By the way, by saying I think it would be a rare situation, I didn't mean to imply that I don't think it's possible...

― Sarah MCLUsky (coco), Friday, 18 July 2003 13:32 (twenty years ago) link

Oh shit now the Jess thing seems so fucking obvious! Just the top of the revival, argh

― Andrew Thames (Andrew Thames), Friday, 18 July 2003 13:33 (twenty years ago) link

"That goes in there/And that goes in there/And that goes in there/And that goes in there/And then it's over"

― Jarvis Cocker (Dan Perry), Friday, 18 July 2003 13:34 (twenty years ago) link

That seems obvious now too!

― Andrew Thames (Andrew Thames), Friday, 18 July 2003 13:35 (twenty years ago) link

Thinking about it I'm well aware it's possible to have feelings for several people so if anyone can actually translate that into real life and make it work they get a big thumbs up from me - less unrequited love = less bad records for one thing!

― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Friday, 18 July 2003 13:36 (twenty years ago) link

Exactly Sarah. Saying that, the A - B - C - A situation actually isn't all that rare outside het circles (where its obv impossible) though the strength of the bonds may vary.

― RickyT (RickyT), Friday, 18 July 2003 13:38 (twenty years ago) link

Skipping 414 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.