― di smith (lucylurex), Friday, 18 July 2003 02:36 (twenty years ago) link
― jess (dubplatestyle), Friday, 18 July 2003 02:38 (twenty years ago) link
― di smith (lucylurex), Friday, 18 July 2003 02:39 (twenty years ago) link
― donut bitch (donut), Friday, 18 July 2003 02:40 (twenty years ago) link
― Jimmy Carter, Friday, 18 July 2003 02:43 (twenty years ago) link
― jess (dubplatestyle), Friday, 18 July 2003 02:52 (twenty years ago) link
― g--ff c-nn-n (gcannon), Friday, 18 July 2003 03:15 (twenty years ago) link
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
― jess (dubplatestyle), Friday, 18 July 2003 03:38 (twenty years ago) link
― anthony kyle monday (akmonday), Friday, 18 July 2003 03:50 (twenty years ago) link
― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Friday, 18 July 2003 06:39 (twenty years ago) link
― jess (dubplatestyle), Friday, 18 July 2003 06:56 (twenty years ago) link
― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Friday, 18 July 2003 07:05 (twenty years ago) link
― youn, Friday, 18 July 2003 07:08 (twenty years ago) link
― duh, Friday, 18 July 2003 07:19 (twenty years ago) link
― dork, Friday, 18 July 2003 07:20 (twenty years ago) link
― gareth (gareth), Friday, 18 July 2003 09:41 (twenty years ago) link
― mark p (Mark P), Friday, 18 July 2003 13:03 (twenty years ago) link
― Larcole (Nicole), Friday, 18 July 2003 13:05 (twenty years ago) link
― Andrew Thames (Andrew Thames), Friday, 18 July 2003 13:07 (twenty years ago) link
― Ally (mlescaut), Friday, 18 July 2003 13:08 (twenty years ago) link
― Andrew Thames (Andrew Thames), Friday, 18 July 2003 13:09 (twenty years ago) link
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
― Andrew Thames (Andrew Thames), Friday, 18 July 2003 13:13 (twenty years ago) link
― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Friday, 18 July 2003 13:14 (twenty years ago) link
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
(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
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
― Larcole (Nicole), Friday, 18 July 2003 13:27 (twenty years ago) link
― RickyT (RickyT), Friday, 18 July 2003 13:28 (twenty years ago) link
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
― Andrew Thames (Andrew Thames), Friday, 18 July 2003 13:33 (twenty years ago) link
― Jarvis Cocker (Dan Perry), Friday, 18 July 2003 13:34 (twenty years ago) link
― Andrew Thames (Andrew Thames), Friday, 18 July 2003 13:35 (twenty years ago) link
― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Friday, 18 July 2003 13:36 (twenty years ago) link
― RickyT (RickyT), Friday, 18 July 2003 13:38 (twenty years ago) link
― gareth (gareth), Friday, 18 July 2003 13:43 (twenty years ago) link
― Ally (mlescaut), Friday, 18 July 2003 13:43 (twenty years ago) link
― Larcole (Nicole), Friday, 18 July 2003 13:44 (twenty years ago) link
― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Friday, 18 July 2003 13:46 (twenty years ago) link
― oops (Oops), Friday, 18 July 2003 13:47 (twenty years ago) link
― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Friday, 18 July 2003 13:49 (twenty years ago) link
― Andrew Dice Clay (nickalicious), Friday, 18 July 2003 14:13 (twenty years ago) link
― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Friday, 18 July 2003 14:19 (twenty years ago) link
I have observed a few of these relationships and found that it is RARELY a completely mutual arrangement. It is generally one partner that pushes for it and ends up reaping the "benefit", while the other partner is generally a more reserved type who has been convinced there is something wrong with them for not being immediately in agreement with it (or suggesting it themselves).
That said, I'm sure there are people out there who are honestly, genuinely making it work, but from what I've seen (admittedly not everything) polyamorous relationships are too tainted by insecurity (the very thing they think they are doing away with) for me to take seriously. Again, this is probably just the people I've met ...
― fields of salmon (fieldsofsalmon), Friday, 18 July 2003 14:27 (twenty years ago) link
On the other hand, I think an honest and open polyamorous relationship (especially if it's based on BEING IN LOVE rather than nymphozilla cock addiction) could be very quite wonderful, especially on wherein the love is shared mutually between "A, B, and C"...A loves B & C, B loves A & C, everyone's honest and straight-up. I've seen this work, and it can be a quite beautiful thing.
― nickalicious (nickalicious), Friday, 18 July 2003 14:31 (twenty years ago) link
― Chris P (Chris P), Friday, 18 July 2003 14:34 (twenty years ago) link
FoS, everything you talk about seems to be from a mono -> poly transition scenario. This is naturally a big step, and fraught with difficulties, but IME is not how most poly relationships start. It's much more usual that all parties at all stages know there is a poly-potential relationship going on, and things develop organically from there.
― RickyT (RickyT), Friday, 18 July 2003 14:34 (twenty years ago) link
― fields of salmon (fieldsofsalmon), Friday, 18 July 2003 14:38 (twenty years ago) link
teach me to be subtle
― jess (dubplatestyle), Friday, 18 July 2003 14:39 (twenty years ago) link