People argue polyamory is an excuse to cheat....
But by definition cheating is going against a partners wishes... Behind their back.... So how so ?
My question is this..if I have not exhausted my capacity to love, serve, understand, and devote myself to one partner, why would adding another partner make me capable of giving more?
Time is finite. Attention is finite. Emotional energy is finite. There are only so many hours in a day and only so many important decisions, intimate moments, hardships, and responsibilities that two people can share. Adding another romantic relationship doesn't create additional time or emotional resources… it divides the resources that already exist.
For example, suppose I believe my relationship is lacking emotional intimacy. I could invest more time into understanding my partner, communicating with her, spending time together, resolving conflicts, and deepening our connection. If instead I direct some of that energy toward developing another romantic relationship, I haven't increased my capacity for devotion I have redistributed it.
That is where polyamory becomes difficult for me to understand logically. The issue isn't whether someone can feel love for two people. I believe they can. The question is whether romantic love reaches its deepest expression through multiplication or through concentration.
Time is finite. Attention is finite. Emotional energy is finite. There are only so many hours in a day and only so many important decisions, intimate moments, hardships, and responsibilities that two people can share. Adding another romantic relationship doesn't create additional time or emotional resources… it divides the resources that already exist.
For example, suppose I believe my relationship is lacking emotional intimacy. I could invest more time into understanding my partner, communicating with her, spending time together, resolving conflicts, and deepening our connection. If instead I direct some of that energy toward developing another romantic relationship, I haven't increased my capacity for devotion I have redistributed it.
That is where polyamory becomes difficult for me to understand logically. The issue isn't whether someone can feel love for two people. I believe they can. The question is whether romantic love reaches its deepest expression through multiplication or through concentration.
thechik96 · 31-35, F
@userfawkes1105 I'll follow this with a question. If a parent has many children... Do they not still feel equal love to each of them? Secondary question.... Do you have multiple friends? Do you allow their strengths to guide which ones you go to in certain situations? If your answer is yes than what is the difference
@thechik96 I think that’s where we’re defining romantic love differently.
I don’t disagree that a person can love multiple people. A parent can love several children, and I can love several friends. But I don’t think parental love, friendship, and romantic love are interchangeable simply because we use the word “love” for all three.
I don’t choose one child to be my child instead of another, and I don’t make the same commitment to a friend that I make to my spouse. With friends, it makes perfect sense to say, “This friend is better at giving me advice about this, while another friend is better for something else.” Friendship doesn’t normally come with the expectation that one person and I are building a shared intimate life together.
To me, a spouse is fundamentally different. I’m choosing one person with whom I intend to share my romantic and sexual intimacy, vulnerability, struggles, successes, and life. That exclusivity is part of what gives the relationship its meaning.
So if my spouse lacks something I desire, my first thought shouldn’t be, “I’ll find another romantic partner who provides that part.” Part of commitment, to me, is accepting that no single human being will satisfy every desire I have. Sometimes we work together to improve something… sometimes we compromise… and sometimes I simply accept going without something because I’ve decided that my commitment to this person matters more than satisfying every desire.
That’s actually part of what I mean by devotion.
If I start assigning different romantic partners according to their strengths one gives me emotional connection, another sexual compatibility, another intellectual stimulation, etc. I haven’t solved the fact that my spouse is imperfect. I’ve changed my definition of partnership so that I no longer expect myself to accept those imperfections within one exclusive romantic commitment.
So my objection isn’t “the human heart can only love one person.” Obviously it can love many.
My question is.. What makes a spouse fundamentally different from a close friend if romantic and intimate needs can simply be distributed among different people according to who fulfills each one best?
For me, romantic commitment means choosing an imperfect person and saying, “I would rather build something deeper with you and sometimes go without than seek another romantic relationship to supply whatever you cannot.”
I don’t disagree that a person can love multiple people. A parent can love several children, and I can love several friends. But I don’t think parental love, friendship, and romantic love are interchangeable simply because we use the word “love” for all three.
I don’t choose one child to be my child instead of another, and I don’t make the same commitment to a friend that I make to my spouse. With friends, it makes perfect sense to say, “This friend is better at giving me advice about this, while another friend is better for something else.” Friendship doesn’t normally come with the expectation that one person and I are building a shared intimate life together.
To me, a spouse is fundamentally different. I’m choosing one person with whom I intend to share my romantic and sexual intimacy, vulnerability, struggles, successes, and life. That exclusivity is part of what gives the relationship its meaning.
So if my spouse lacks something I desire, my first thought shouldn’t be, “I’ll find another romantic partner who provides that part.” Part of commitment, to me, is accepting that no single human being will satisfy every desire I have. Sometimes we work together to improve something… sometimes we compromise… and sometimes I simply accept going without something because I’ve decided that my commitment to this person matters more than satisfying every desire.
That’s actually part of what I mean by devotion.
If I start assigning different romantic partners according to their strengths one gives me emotional connection, another sexual compatibility, another intellectual stimulation, etc. I haven’t solved the fact that my spouse is imperfect. I’ve changed my definition of partnership so that I no longer expect myself to accept those imperfections within one exclusive romantic commitment.
So my objection isn’t “the human heart can only love one person.” Obviously it can love many.
My question is.. What makes a spouse fundamentally different from a close friend if romantic and intimate needs can simply be distributed among different people according to who fulfills each one best?
For me, romantic commitment means choosing an imperfect person and saying, “I would rather build something deeper with you and sometimes go without than seek another romantic relationship to supply whatever you cannot.”
Northwest · M
People argue polyamory is an excuse to cheat....
They do?
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment