Three Types (& More)

[JRiver]

I think you are projecting what you were like in your 20s and your limited life experiences onto all 20-somethings of today.

Why do you say this? What have I said to give this impression? All I did say about the relatively younger folks who had less-than-positive and less-than-affirming / positive things to say about polyamory here is that they may change their views over time. I never said that they will -- or should -- change their views on the question of monogamy vs non-monogamy. I never said non-monogamy was better than monogamy, in some general sense. I never said polyamory is superior to monogamy. And yet here I am accused of projection, of all things!

Some of my responses have the flavor of a guy who's been talked down to, made to look "less than".... Ironic, isn't it, that I'm being accused of talking down to the younger folk here who have basically pointed their finger at me and said, "Eww! Yuck! I could never do that, 'cause I believe in True Love ... and everyone knows that you can only have True Love with just one person at a time." No, nobody said that exactly. I'm paraphrasing the spirit of some of the responses I've gotten. Try a little empathy, folks! How would you feel if you were a minority and a majority were talking down to you, belittling you, accusing you...? Wait, I thought queer guys already knew what that was like!

And, no, I have not responded to all of your points and questions, Azulai. Maybe I'll get to some of them later. For now I just wanted to let you know that if you want to be treated with respect, regardless of your age, you need to earn that. You said I needed to earn mine, so I'm holding you to your own standard.

Non-monogamy may not be for you. But that doesn't make it wrong--or inferior--for others.
And for gawd's sake, fellas, my saying so doesn't mean I'm looking down my nose at you!

[JRiver]

I'd like to invite readers in this thread to have a look at some of the responses to my words / thread with their empathy turned on--meaning, imagine how a poly guy would likely feel when post after post contains words which belittle polyamory and insist that it's either wrong or inferior to monogamy. Or that it just can't be real and true love.

Isn't this what gay folk ask of straight people? Don't we want them to understand how hurtful it is when they (sometimes) say that we gay/bi people "don't really love one another" ... "because true love is between a man and a woman"?

[JRiver]

I wanted to know if you judged other people's choices.....hence...do you give what you seek? You seemed to elevate your choice by qualifying it as "OK" because you are "in love"...or at least that is how it appeared to me.

Emphasis added.

Seriously? Does "elevate" here mean that I seem to place non-monogamy or polyamory over monogamy? And I seem to be doing this because ... I say polyamory is "OK", because it involves real love?

Somebody needs to dust off their book on Basic Logic For Beginners.

If I say "Tomatoes are okay, because they taste good on a salad," this does not say that "cucumbers are bad." It doesn't, I promise!

What was implied in my words about it being okay because there is real love is that where there is real love the relationship is okay. There are qualifications which can legitimately be drawn, yes. But the basic point stands. For you will see if you read the whole thread that more of the responses to my words about my polyamory had the flavor of an accusation. And the accusation is that polyamory isn't real love, because real love is always between just two people in an exclusive relationship. Why? Because a majority think so? Well, once a majority of Americans believed slavery was morally justified, as was the criminalization of same-sex loverly relationships. It was also considered both illegal and immoral for people of differing races to marry. A majority believed all of these things and more.

[East]

What was implied in my words about it being okay because there is real love is that where there is real love the relationship is okay.

That is exactly what I thought you implied....you are actually judging other's people's relationships by defining "OK" as any relationship where "real love" exists. So...In my eyes...you are the same as the people you are referring to...you are qualifying other people's relationships.

My logic is simple...Consenting Human Adults.....the simpler it is is the closest to the truth in my opinion. People have relationships and sex for all different reasons. I do not think real love needs to exist for these relationships to be "OK".

If I say "Tomatoes are okay, because they taste good on a salad," this does not say that "cucumbers are bad." It doesn't, I promise!

Ah shucks,..by golly that never occured ot me

[JRiver]

That is exactly what I thought you implied....[B]you are actually judging other's people's relationships by defining "OK" as any relationship where "real love" exists. So...In my eyes...you are the same as the people you are referring to...you are qualifying other people's relationships.

You're a little slow catching on with the logic, I see. Look at my tomatoes and cucumbers analogy again.

As for your claim, "you are actually judging other's people's relationships", it does not logically follow that if loving relationships of all kinds are "OK" that all sexual relationships which are not loving are not "OK". I never had anything to say about non-loving relationships, you understand. We COULD take that matter up and discuss it if you wish, but I do insist that you have projected things into my words which simply are not there.

[East]

Please STOP with the false crap ..you are not superior because you bring out the logic card when it is convenient for you....you did exactly the same thing you are accusing me of in this very thread...

How is this situation different? Aren't you basically saying that I'm flawed, broken, nutty, broken?

...and yeah,...one could SURMISE this from reading through posts in a GENERAL sense...no one said these things to you...just like I surmised that you have a bit of a judgemental problem yourself.

...and you have made it clear already that you have a lack of understanding...which is why I asked you if you are prepared to give the understanding and respect you seek...

Maybe you need a refresher course on you....These are YOUR WORDS!....

"As you know, people come in all kinds. I belong to a "kind" in which "lust" and sex and "emotions" (feeling, bonding, warth, love...) are deeply intertwined. This appears to be relatively rare in gay/bi/queer men. But we do exist, and we find it difficult to understand folks who think its perfectly safe and okay to engage in sex without feeling (aside from "lower chakra" excitation)."

...so do you want the lecture about understanding and respect you gave everyone else or should I just save it?

...and one more thing...

Somebody needs to dust off their book on Basic Logic For Beginners.

Very rude...but you gotta be who you are I suppose. Or maybe you are just a little wet behind the ears and lack the life experience it takes to have good manners

[JRiver]

Yes, East, I DO personally prefer (and very much prefer!) to be sexual only with people with whom I intend to create intimacy and connection, rather than exclusively to "get off" (as many gay men put it -- and the particular ones I have in mind have no interest in genuine intimacy). No, I do not consider this "getting off" with total strangers safe. It isn't emotionally or physically safe. And so, no, in some sense it is not "okay," in those cases where "okay" means either neutral with regard to benefit or actually beneficial. Is it "morally wrong"? No. Is it safe and good for people? Probably not.

I would like to remain open to conversation with you, but your COMPLETE DISREGARD for me as a person makes this impossible. You either have complete disregard for me as a person or you simply cannot perceive those incidents (in this thread) in which I have been basically dismissed, ridiculed or told off because I believe polyamory is not inferior to monogamy. Other monogamous people in this thread may also have trouble perceiving these incidents -- because they are blindly agreeing to the premise that non-monogamy is inferior to monogamy. So they can't see the snide attitude embodied in those words.

[By the way, there is obviously nothing at all "rude" about pointing out a lapse of logic when it appears. I have no idea where you got the idea that it was rude.]

= = =

Racists often don't perceive racist words and behavior where they exist--are blind to it.

Heterosexists and homophobes often don't perceive heterosexist and homophobic words and behavior where they exist--are blind to it.

Classists often don't perceive classist words and behavior where they exist--are blind to it.

Sexists often don't perceive sexist words and behavior where they exist--are blind to it.

Etc.

So it should perhaps not be surprising when some folks in here who truly believe, unquestioningly, in the natural superiority of monogamous relationships simply cannot perceive the monogamistic bigotry embodied in some of the responses to this thread.

[zeon]

I would like to see myself one day as a stable partnered relationship but i am an adult with ADHD so it doesnt always stay stable that long but im working on controlling it from within

[East]

[By the way, there is obviously nothing at all "rude" about pointing out a lapse of logic when it appears. I have no idea where you got the idea that it was rude.]

WOW...just WOW. OK..better we not communicate. mile:

[zeon]

Fellas its only a conversation.... Your bothj cracking guys and aunty feels or senses tension in the reading so... Give each other a big hand shake and say after 3... Your forgiven!