A new lover

[scott snedeker]

We have added a new lover to our circle. His name is Marcus. He is a giver and has bonded to us. That makes our love circle five strong. We all feel the joy of his homecoming into our fold.

I am brought to tears once again from the joy of our union. :love::love::love:

The others are:
Gyver
Otter
Phillip
Adrain
And Me:D

[nmwolfboy]

How wonderful Scotty - you are truly blessed :love:

May your circle be strong and gentle, nourishing to your hearts!!! :flower:

Pax :dove:

scott

[keltic63]

you big ole pagan faeirie you! it's all about spreadin' the love with you, isn't it? :flower::flower2::flower::flower2::flower::magic: :agree::agree::agree:

[u-dog]

We have added a new lover to our circle. His name is Marcus. He is a giver and has bonded to us. That makes our love circle five strong. We all feel the joy of his homecoming into our fold.

I am brought to tears once again from the joy of our union. :love::love::love:

The others are:
Gyver
Otter
Phillip
Adrain
And Me:D


The Calvinist in me clucks his tongue and shakes his head disapprovingly.... but while he knows a lot of stuff thats worthwhile... he doesn't know everything. many blessings on your growing circle. :love:

[scott snedeker]

The Calvinist in me clucks his tongue and shakes his head disapprovingly.... but while he knows a lot of stuff thats worthwhile... he doesn't know everything. many blessings on your growing circle. :love:

you big ole pagan faeirie you! it's all about spreadin' the love with you, isn't it? :flower::flower2::flower::flower2::flower::magic: :agree::agree::agree:

How wonderful Scotty - you are truly blessed :love:

May your circle be strong and gentle, nourishing to your hearts!!! :flower:

Pax :dove:



scott

Thanks to you all. Your blessings are further evidence of the boundaries the love evaporates:love::love::love::love:

[Zerbie]

I like hearing you sound so happy. :):)

Could you explain the names? Are they faerie names?

I was so confused by Phillip and the Otter. . . .:confused:

[Vanessa White]

Scott: Enjoy the blessings that have been bestowed upon you and your circle. It sounds like it is very loving for all of you and that is important. I am grateful that you are here to help open up my mind to other things..... :love:

[antonyh]

We have added a new lover to our circle. His name is Marcus. He is a giver and has bonded to us. That makes our love circle five strong. We all feel the joy of his homecoming into our fold.

I am brought to tears once again from the joy of our union. :love::love::love:

The others are:
Gyver
Otter
Phillip
Adrain
And Me:D

Given the human propensity for jealousy, does this kind of union work? How do you organize your household? Is there anyone in charge? Do you have fights and are the fights related to the polyandry?

Forgive my ignorance...I'm just trying to learn more.

[scott snedeker]

I like hearing you sound so happy. :):)

Could you explain the names? Are they faerie names?

I was so confused by Phillip and the Otter. . . .:confused:


Otter is a Faerie name. He brought Phillip into our circle a cupla months ago


Scott: Enjoy the blessings that have been bestowed upon you and your circle. It sounds like it is very loving for all of you and that is important. I am grateful that you are here to help open up my mind to other things..... :love:

There is so much more to experiencing love than we will ever guess in a lifetime.

Given the human propensity for jealousy, does this kind of union work? How do you organize your household? Is there anyone in charge? Do you have fights and are the fights related to the polyandry?

Forgive my ignorance...I'm just trying to learn more.

One thing is choosing people who are open and honest with their heart. I have turned down requests to join by indivduals who want what we have for the reason that they cannot feel love for all of the people in the circle.

The key word is feel, not pretend, or tolerate, or try to "make it work." Even though their intention may be good, they are not connected well enough to their love of self to love all in the circle.

Another is to for me to trust my feelings. If love is there for me, I will feel it. If it is not right I will feel it too. When love fills the circle the power is pervasive and affirming to all of us. We all feel like children again, and like children, express our feelings without boundaries or affectation. The reunion with the inner child brings Otter and me to tears of joy frequently.

We all do not live together, which allows personal space. But we make love together and can't wait until the next gathering. One day we will create a commune so that we can live together.:love:

[antonyh]

One thing is choosing people who are open and honest with their heart. I have turned down requests to join by indivduals who want what we have for the reason that they cannot feel love for all of the people in the circle.

The key word is feel, not pretend, or tolerate, or try to "make it work." Even though their intention may be good, they are not connected well enough to their love of self to love all in the circle.

Another is to for me to trust my feelings. If love is there for me, I will feel it. If it is not right I will feel it too. When love fills the circle the power is pervasive and affirming to all of us. We all feel like children again, and like children, express our feelings without boundaries or affectation. The reunion with the inner child brings Otter and me to tears of joy frequently.

We all do not live together, which allows personal space. But we make love together and can't wait until the next gathering. One day we will create a commune so that we can live together.:love:

Hmmm...

Are people in the circle free to have romantic and sexual relationships with other people outside the circle? What if someone in the circle decided to have a romantic, monogamous relationship outside the circle or with someone in the circle?

[scott snedeker]

Hmmm...

Are people in the circle free to have romantic and sexual relationships with other people outside the circle?

Yes, of course, we frequently do and share the sexy details! We place no restrictions on sex or lovemaking

What if someone in the circle decided to have a romantic, monogamous relationship outside the circle

Then we would miss him but feel joy and love for him. One of my lovers did move away to love in a monogamous relationship outside the circle but our love for each other hasn't stopped and he is welcome back any time. Each of us must listen to his heart and live true to what it tells us.



or with someone in the circle?

That can happen too but Hasn't happened yet. The powerful fulfillment to each of us in our circle would make us feel half empty to limit loving to just one person.

To someone who has experienced polyandry, monogamy would be like listening to only one favorite song or eating only one favoite desert for the rrrest of your life. Each lover activates a different facet of love within me and together a stronger love-magic happens. I don't want to live without any of them.

We believe that we are loving in a way that is true to the nature of species homo sapiens. That we were created to love and make love to many others. Being open with loving anyone toward whom we feel sexually, emotionally and spiritually attracted is the true definition of innocence....for a pagan. It is what we call The Heart of Innocence.


Thanks for asking. Many folk won't even try to understand our way of loving, and it's too bad 'cause it feels wonderful and beautiful. Ya don't wanna die before you've tried it!:D

[antonyh]

Are people in the circle free to have romantic and sexual relationships with other people outside the circle?

Yes, of course, we frequently do and share the sexy details! We place no restrictions on sex or lovemaking

What if someone in the circle decided to have a romantic, monogamous relationship outside the circle

Then we would miss him but feel joy and love for him. One of my lovers did move away to love in a monogamous relationship outside the circle but our love for each other hasn't stopped and he is welcome back any time. Each of us must listen to his heart and live true to what it tells us.

or with someone in the circle?

That can happen too but Hasn't happened yet. The powerful fulfillment to each of us in our circle would make us feel half empty to limit loving to just one person.

To someone who has experienced polyandry, monogamy would be like listening to only one favorite song or eating only one favoite desert for the rrrest of your life. Each lover activates a different facet of love within me and together a stronger love-magic happens. I don't want to live without any of them.

We believe that we are loving in a way that is true to the nature of species homo sapiens. That we were created to love and make love to many others. Being open with loving anyone toward whom we feel sexually, emotionally and spiritually attracted is the true definition of innocence....for a pagan. It is what we call The Heart of Innocence.

Thanks for asking. Many folk won't even try to understand our way of loving, and it's too bad 'cause it feels wonderful and beautiful. Ya don't wanna die before you've tried it!:D

Interesting...

Why do you feel that loving in this way is true to the nature of species homo sapiens? Is monogamy just a social construct imposed over human nature or a wise way to be in relationship over a lifetime?

Do you feel you loose anything in a polyandrous relationship that you might gain in monogamy?

How do you cope with the practical issue of STDs with openness?

[Zerbie]

Interesting discussion, guys.

I would have been open to trying a polyamorous situation when I was single, but life did not work out that way. Came close to a threesome a coupla times, but neither transpired. Scotty - do NOT make me regret those not happening! :lol:

As it turned out, I met my hubby. :love: It's really obvious knowing him, and the way we are together, that this is meant to be a 100% commitment to one another relationship. This way, we each give the other 100% of our attention and bonding, really uplifting the other. We are able to be more loving and supportive of friends and colleagues because we have each other. It's like we share a source, that way.

[Daniel]

Interesting discussion.

I can see the propensity in myself for polyamory, especially as I have gotten older. This may have everything to do with getting further and further away from my uptight upbringing. That said, I've been joined to my husband for many years.

My sense is that there are many ways of being. And I want to honor that. Not all journey's look alike.

One thing comes to mind here. It occurred to me earlier in the day, after I had pondered this thread, that gay men may have more 'success' in this realm. I'm not sure why I think that, other than that fact that gay men have more partners than lesbians, statistically speaking.

Thoughts?

[BenL]

Daniel said:
My sense is that there are many ways of being. And I want to honor that. Not all journey's look alike.

That's the way I feel, too, Daniel. I think that honesty and integrity are what makes a relationship work. Presuming, of course, that everyone in the group is an adult and capable of making decisions, then as long as everyone consents and there is love among them, who am I to judge?

Like you, I find myself fantasizing about Scotty's arrangement as he is describing it. I know that one person is all that I can love intimately at a time. I'm not talking sex only, but all the myriad dimensions of a loving relationship.

Scotty, you're right. You can't limit true love. That's why God can't be limited. I also understand exactly what Zerbie meant when she said of her relationship with her spouse:

We are able to be more loving and supportive of friends and colleagues because we have each other. It's like we share a source, that way.

[scott snedeker]

Interesting...

Why do you feel that loving in this way is true to the nature of species homo sapiens? Is monogamy just a social construct imposed over human nature or a wise way to be in relationship over a lifetime?

First there are no monogamous primates. Second there are virtually no monogamous mammals. The examples of monogamy in nature thin down to a few species of lizards and birds. Homo sapiens is polygamous just like the rest of the primates. Very few individuals have actually made love to only one other individual in their lifetime.

Pagans strive to be true to nature. For me to engage in monogamy would be tragically absurd and pointlessly damaging to myself and others. For me to marry a woman which is Mongamy, would make me a terrible lover, a cheat, and miserablly falling short of expectation every moment of tthe relationship.

For me to marry a man,( Monoandry) I would be a fair or good lover depending on who you ask, but trapped because I would miss the experience of feeling love in different ways from different beautiful souls.

I feel monogamy is very contrived and counter to human nature. Attraction to others does not sudddenly evaporate once a person marries. Marriage curbs the action by self inhibition of the nature that still remains.

Monogamy is clearly not wise for some who never should attempt it.. Others find it workable. And some preferable. But the majority of attempts for lifelong monogamy fail.

Do you feel you loose anything in a polyandrous relationship that you might gain in monogamy?

No, I can't see any loss to polyandry. I perceive a huge loss in monoandry. What I find Curious is why you ask questions that look for potential problems with polyandry but don't ask about the joys and advantages and spiritual and emotional freedom Intense love power felt during the experience of living polyandry. I get a sense that you don't want to consider that polyandry may be something more fulfilling than Monoandry.

I get a sense of sexual, sensual, emotiona,l and child-like sanctuary filled with spiritual wonder.



How do you cope with the practical issue of STDs with openness?

Some of my lovers who I love dearly are hiv positive. It is a part of the reality of gay life. I could convert at some time in the future. But that is not the end of the world, nor is it necessarily the end of my world if it were to happen to me. While I don't take unnecessary risk, I do not live in fear of it or prevent me from making love to someone special who is also hiv positive.
Interesting discussion, guys.

I would have been open to trying a polyamorous situation when I was single, but life did not work out that way. Came close to a threesome a coupla times, but neither transpired. Scotty - do NOT make me regret those not happening! :lol:

As it turned out, I met my hubby. :love: It's really obvious knowing him, and the way we are together, that this is meant to be a 100% commitment to one another relationship. This way, we each give the other 100% of our attention and bonding, really uplifting the other. We are able to be more loving and supportive of friends and colleagues because we have each other. It's like we share a source, that way.

That's beautiful!

[dsdrane]

I feel monogamy is very contrived and counter to human nature. Attraction to others does not sudddenly evaporate once a person marries. Marriage curbs the action by self inhibition of the nature that still remains.


Firstly, I would like to offer a big mazel tov on the new gift to your circle. The joy you and the others are obviously experiencing is wonderful and I'm very happy for you.:love:

At the same time, I want to raise a small red flag with the above quote. I understand that you are more stating your own opinion than making a sweeping generalization, but I still am left with a pang of offense.

Whereas, I wholeheartedly agree that neither monogamy nor polyandry is suitable for everyone, it would have to follow, by the same token, that neither necessarily runs counter to human nature.

Attraction to others indeed does not evaporate once someone is married (hence the humorous line: I'm married, but I ain't dead!) However, this fact does not preclude a happy monogamous relationship by any stretch.

And, as far as self-inhibition curbing nature...you say that like it's a bad thing. C'mon Scotty...you live in Florida, too! A little self-inhibitive curbing is a good thing! In fact, we could use a little more.:cool:

In all seriousness, without a little well-placed, self-inhibitive curbing, any notion of a Social Contract flies out the window. If you're actually espousing anarchy, well...that's a whole 'nother conversation....

[paul]

Gee, we're not in Kansas anymore, are we?


There are aspects of poly living that make sense, I think Scott explains it well. I thought it particularly interesting, Scottie, your take on STD's. Since you're a physician, you would probably be more in tune with that sort of thing. But, I would think getting hiv (among other critters) would ruin your day. It seems a practical argument for exercising some sort of control.

I wonder about the whole picture. BenL said: I know that one person is all that I can love intimately at a time. I'm not sure I "know" that, but I do suspect it. Of course, how would I know, I'm a gay guy married to a woman for 30 years. A question I would have is does a poly life, er, 'reduce' relationship to sex, i.e., does the quantity thing water other aspects of relationship down, or does it just multiply those other aspects as well as the physical?

[u-dog]

I have to say that it makes me happy to hear Scotty talking about his circle. They all sound like gentle, gracious spirits and I wish them every happiness.

For me though, Love has an awful lot to do with staying put during the times when it would be easier to go and seek love elsewhere. It has to do with choosing to act lovingly even at those moments when I don't FEEL loving. It has to do with investing one's youth with a single other person who will be there with me in the Autumn and Winter of our lives when neither of us is much to look at any more. For me its about having one other person whose job it is to watch my back and who loves me when I don't love myself that much. Love is about having a person who knows who I really am and loves me because of and in spite of it.

This is a large part of why Polly and I are working to discover what kind of intimate life is possible for us and if that is enough to sustain us through the years ahead, because in every OTHER way... she is that person for me. There are so many stories, so many heartaches, so many private jokes that ONLY she and I know. I can imagine a relationship with another guy that would be more erotically charged than our current relationship... I can imagine a relationship with a man that would, after 23 years, be as rich as the one that Polly and I share... but it is really hard to imagine starting over again. Its really hard to imagine not waking up next to this person with whom I can trust my most fragile and vulnerable self.

That's what "monogamy" means to me.

[Daniel]

Whereas, I wholeheartedly agree that neither monogamy nor polyandry is suitable for everyone, it would have to follow, by the same token, that neither necessarily runs counter to human nature.

Attraction to others indeed does not evaporate once someone is married (hence the humorous line: I'm married, but I ain't dead!) However, this fact does not preclude a happy monogamous relationship by any stretch.


I was on the train last night, coming home from two days in the country, reading an interview in the latest Gay and Lesbian Review- July-August 2007 (a very good issue with articles on the ex-gay movement and 'cures' etc) with Martin Duberman, a noted scholar vis-a-vis gay issues (he's written a bio of Lincoln Kirsten, who founded City Ballet). Well. At the end of the interview he says:

In regard to orthodoxy and authority, Americans need to hold in mind Jefferson's insistence that we need a revolution every twenty years In my opinion, too many gay people have become mere assimilationists. They want in, they claim to be 'just folks'. I don't buy it. We've had a different historical experience, and as a result have developed a unique subculture with a special set of values and perspectives. That subculture has much to teach the mainstream in regard to a host of matters, including sexuality and relationships, the importance of friendship, and how best to raise children. The mainstream is much in need of what we have to offer. But that interchange will never happen if we continue to put issues like gay marriage and gays in the military at the top of our agenda. We should instead be affirming non-monogamous adventuring, the periodic blessings of singleness, the joy of not being imprisoned in traditional family structures. Similarly, we should be assailing the war machine instead of begging to be allowed to join in the killing.

There are things I like about his statement. And things I don't. First. I agree that they are a lot of things that gay people have to teach straight folks. But I am also cognizant that if everyone was non-monogomous, that would be the 'norm'. So I don't see this as being an issue of being mainstream. I see this issue as being a confluence of several issues, the search for meaning and validation being among them. That search happens within a context. Sure. A different context can make things much easier, especially if that context has a minimum of moralizing. But that doesn't take away the consequences of one's actions.

To love another person is a profound endeavor. Maybe this isn't so for others, but my sense is that to 'go deep' with another human being propels one towards thoughts of exclusivity- no matter the form of relationship. Hence- Scotty talks about his 'circle' and someone like me talks about his 'husband'. In both cases, we're talking about our sense of love as it is shared within our context. This is universal and 'just folks'- a spiritual quality that we all share. Gay people's expression of this love may have it's variances, but love is love is love. Put it in any kind of container you what, and it still is Love. Chop it up and put it under a microscope and yep- still looks like love. Stetch it out to the heavens far and wide and Love Still Shouts Its Name.

Without it ain't nothing happenin'

rLxTpsIVzzo

[scott snedeker]

Firstly, I would like to offer a big mazel tov on the new gift to your circle. The joy you and the others are obviously experiencing is wonderful and I'm very happy for you.:love:

At the same time, I want to raise a small red flag with the above quote. I understand that you are more stating your own opinion than making a sweeping generalization, but I still am left with a pang of offense.

Whereas, I wholeheartedly agree that neither monogamy nor polyandry is suitable for everyone, it would have to follow, by the same token, that neither necessarily runs counter to human nature.

Attraction to others indeed does not evaporate once someone is married (hence the humorous line: I'm married, but I ain't dead!) However, this fact does not preclude a happy monogamous relationship by any stretch.

And, as far as self-inhibition curbing nature...you say that like it's a bad thing. C'mon Scotty...you live in Florida, too! A little self-inhibitive curbing is a good thing! In fact, we could use a little more.:cool:

In all seriousness, without a little well-placed, self-inhibitive curbing, any notion of a Social Contract flies out the window. If you're actually espousing anarchy, well...that's a whole 'nother conversation....

Sorry didn't mean to offend. I apologize for the fashion in which I stated my view. I should have phrased my opinions as opinions like I usually do.

As far as curbing nature, I agree that some curbing is desirable and anarchy is not my ideal of living.



Inhibitive curbing is essential for survival in a society. I have at times been so angry that I wanted to kill or injure an individual or at least something cute, fuzzy, and defenseless. This is because part of human nature is indeed violent and predatory. But thus far I have curbed this nature and haven't killed or maimed anyone or any cute fuzzy critters to date.:lol:

As far as loving goes, however, I do disagree. I don't think that" we could use a little more curbing" is a healthy approach. I think we have entirely too much curbing by 100 fold.

Perhaps I could more accurately define nature as the attractions drives impulses and emotions. Using this definition 99% of people I know have expressed attraction to more than one person and therfore I would consider polamorous by nature.

But sex is not the only part of my love circle. It's a big part! I won't fib to ya'll. But the presence that fills us with wonder, love, sanctuary and connection to the inner child when we are all together is.......... magic!

[dsdrane]

As far as loving goes, however, I do disagree. I don't think that" we could use a little more curbing" is a healthy approach.

Neither do I, and that's not what I said. I don't think loving needs to be curbed at all, and that's why I referenced -- perhaps too obliquely -- the fact that you and I live in Florida, a place where gluttonous excess is, unfortunately, to be witnessed in huge supply. When I say a little more curbing would be a good thing, I mean curbing irresponsible behaviors that are harmful to ourselves, others, the environment and society around us. Loving, in whatever shape it takes and as long as people behave responsibly and are honorable, is something we need more of, not less.

That said....

Perhaps I could more accurately define nature as the attractions drives impulses and emotions. Using this definition 99% of people I know have expressed attraction to more than one person and therfore I would consider polamorous by nature


I believe your logic is flawed. Expressing attraction is not the same as acting on it. I, like probably just about everyone, have had huge attractions to others while in monogamous relationships, but that hardly means I am/should be/would be if I were less uptight polyandrous.

[Daniel]

I believe your logic is flawed. Expressing attraction is not the same as acting on it. I, like probably just about everyone, have had huge attractions to others while in monogamous relationships, but that hardly means I am/should be/would be if I were less uptight polyandrous.

Yep. I have big ol' attractions to other guys. I call it looking at the menu while knowing that I've already ordered. Can I handle another big entre? That's a good question. I'm pretty full at the moment. :lol:

In looking back on my last post on this thread, it may seem as though I am advocating free love, and perhaps I'm cowtowing to my own version of moralizing here, but I keep coming back to the Buddhist teachings about conduct in sexual matters. Simply put, one is encouraged to act in a way which does not bring harm to another being. This takes some doing. My sense is that one has to be exceedingly aware of one's self and others to pull this off. Can this be done with more than one person? I suppose so.

That said, my dating experience showed me that when I was sexually intimate with another guy, that person 'stayed' with me for a long time, so much so that I wondered who's thoughts I was having- mine or his. It's as though we were 'in' each other- taking on each other's qualities- fine and not so fine. So I grew to think that 'holding' another person meant a great deal more than the actual physical expression.

That's why I don't think there is anything 'free' about love. The things that pass between lovers are not without consequence.

I guess that's why I have the tag line I do.

[scott snedeker]

Neither do I, and that's not what I said. I don't think loving needs to be curbed at all, and that's why I referenced -- perhaps too obliquely -- the fact that you and I live in Florida, a place where gluttonous excess is, unfortunately, to be witnessed in huge supply. When I say a little more curbing would be a good thing, I mean curbing irresponsible behaviors that are harmful to ourselves, others, the environment and society around us. Loving, in whatever shape it takes and as long as people behave responsibly and are honorable, is something we need more of, not less.

That said....




I believe your logic is flawed. Expressing attraction is not the same as acting on it. I, like probably just about everyone, have had huge attractions to others while in monogamous relationships, but that hardly means I am/should be/would be if I were less uptight polyandrous.

Lemme try something:

If someone is attracted to the same sex I would consider them gay by nature whether or not he ever acts on this attraction. If he acted in tune with his nature by making love to another man, I would conclude that he would be psychologically more healthy than someone who lives counter to his nature and lives a passionless loveless experience.

If someone is attracted to many other people I would consider him to be polamorous by nature whether or not he ever acts on this attraction also. I would consider you to be polyamorous by nature your own statement [ I, like probably just about everyone, have had huge attractions to others while in monogamous relationships]

Get ready.........You can feel the syllogism coming that looms ahead........:lol:

Could then you conclude that living true to the attraction of polyandry would be acting more in tune with one's nature and more healthy than someone who lives counter to this nature in a monoandrous relationship?

Okay......deep breath......

On the one extreme you have someone who lives completely counter to his basic nature. No passsionate love-making with one to which he is attracted because of inhibited curbing of his nature. An existence that is miserable, empty, closeted caused by the damage to his emotional development at the hands of homophobia and pressure to conform to a model that completely counter to his nature.

On the other extreme you have someone who exercises no responsibilty, restraint or curbing of his nature and ruins his health, taking along with him a cupla hundred others.

In the middle is a spectrum of the many rich wonderful relationships and expressions of love and passion. How close to one extreme or the other depends on how much curbing of his nature an individual does. For me and many other pagans, polyandry is allowing more expression of one's true nature.





Yep. I have big ol' attractions to other guys. I call it looking at the menu while knowing that I've already ordered. Can I handle another big entre? That's a good question. I'm pretty full at the moment. :lol:

In looking back on my last post on this thread, it may seem as though I am advocating free love, and perhaps I'm cowtowing to my own version of moralizing here, but I keep coming back to the Buddhist teachings about conduct in sexual matters. Simply put, one is encouraged to act in a way which does not bring harm to another being. This takes some doing. My sense is that one has to be exceedingly aware of one's self and others to pull this off. Can this be done with more than one person? I suppose so.

That said, my dating experience showed me that when I was sexually intimate with another guy, that person 'stayed' with me for a long time, so much so that I wondered who's thoughts I was having- mine or his. It's as though we were 'in' each other- taking on each other's qualities- fine and not so fine. So I grew to think that 'holding' another person meant a great deal more than the actual physical expression.

That's why I don't think there is anything 'free' about love. The things that pass between lovers are not without consequence.

I guess that's why I have the tag line I do.

Daniel, I like your menu metaphor.

So the next evening for dinner you go out to a Japanese steak house and everyone gets shrimp, lobster, steak, sushi, vegetables and has a great time that is magical because they are your best friends and lovers. So you look forward to the next time you all go out again together!

Ok now I'm hungry!:lol:

[Daniel]

Daniel, I like your menu metaphor.

So the next evening for dinner you go out to a Japanese steak house and everyone gets shrimp, lobster, steak, sushi, vegetables and has a great time that is magical because they are your best friends and lovers. So you look forward to the next time you all go out again together!


I'll have to finish my plate first! ;) :lol:

[u-dog]

I'll have to finish my plate first! ;) :lol:


Young man! you eat EVERY bite! There are love starved single men in Bangladesh you know!

[wmanion]

I really have more of a question than I do a comment. I know the divorce rate lingers at 50%, and many people attribute that to the fact that we are living longer and morals have deterorized over the years. Do you really think this is the reason? Could it be that we put to much pressure and stress on our mates, because we expect them to meet our every need and whim? I know that serial monogomy is more of the norm in society than monogomy, but why? Could it be that it is impossible for just one person to meet all the diverse needs we have as individuals? I do not have the answers. However, I see where the circle could perhaps be more diverse in meeting more of the needs, overall, in each individual. The again, to date, I cannot say I have been in a relationship where my partner has fullfilled all my needs...so, I do not have really the insight to answer my own question.

Feedback?

Bill

[scott snedeker]

I really have more of a question than I do a comment. I know the divorce rate lingers at 50%, and many people attribute that to the fact that we are living longer and morals have deterorized over the years. Do you really think this is the reason? Could it be that we put to much pressure and stress on our mates, because we expect them to meet our every need and whim? I know that serial monogomy is more of the norm in society than monogomy, but why? Could it be that it is impossible for just one person to meet all the diverse needs we have as individuals? I do not have the answers. However, I see where the circle could perhaps be more diverse in meeting more of the needs, overall, in each individual. The again, to date, I cannot say I have been in a relationship where my partner has fullfilled all my needs...so, I do not have really the insight to answer my own question.

Feedback?

Bill

I would say that you are more complex in the facets of your capacity to love than can be satisfied by one man. Come to Short Mountain Tenn Sept 24 to Ocy 3rd for the fall gathering of Radical faeries to widen your horizons

[Daniel]

Young man! you eat EVERY bite! There are love starved single men in Bangladesh you know!

Can I have dessert now? ;):eek::lol:

[tpdncr4christ]

I don't want to offend... but I'm just curious... isn't sex, doesn't it usually best work with just one other person? Don't you want to share something that intimate with one other person, like a special secret that only you two know? Cause if theres lots of people, you can't love all of them all at once, can you? I don't know... I guess I'm confused as to the... mechanics... of it all. :confused:

[u-dog]

I really have more of a question than I do a comment. I know the divorce rate lingers at 50%, and many people attribute that to the fact that we are living longer and morals have deterorized over the years. Do you really think this is the reason? Could it be that we put to much pressure and stress on our mates, because we expect them to meet our every need and whim? I know that serial monogomy is more of the norm in society than monogomy, but why? Could it be that it is impossible for just one person to meet all the diverse needs we have as individuals? I do not have the answers. However, I see where the circle could perhaps be more diverse in meeting more of the needs, overall, in each individual. The again, to date, I cannot say I have been in a relationship where my partner has fullfilled all my needs...so, I do not have really the insight to answer my own question.

Feedback?

Bill

I believe that the high divorce rate is the result of a number of things. Some of which will affect glbt relationships as much as they do straight ones.

1. The myth of romantic love. The idea that there is "one perfect person out there for me and all I have to do is find him/her" romantic love is a temporary stage which if left untended will fade. Hard work, understanding, self-sacrifice, tireless communication, small acts of thoughtfulness will cause it to last ... or more likely... to recur. not understanding this fact, people leave relationships that aren't "working" to look for the "perfect" relationship.

2. decrease in the social stigma surrounding divorce.

3. seperation from extended family. Monogamous relationships work best when there are parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles, siblings, and cousins to support the relationship. Contemporary society puts an incredible amount of strain on a relationship that in many cases lacks the resources to cope.

There are probably more... but I have to go to the gym.

[Zerbie]

I believe that the high divorce rate is the result of a number of things. Some of which will affect glbt relationships as much as they do straight ones.

1. The myth of romantic love. The idea that there is "one perfect person out there for me and all I have to do is find him/her" romantic love is a temporary stage which if left untended will fade. Hard work, understanding, self-sacrifice, tireless communication, small acts of thoughtfulness will cause it to last ... or more likely... to recur. not understanding this fact, people leave relationships that aren't "working" to look for the "perfect" relationship.

2. decrease in the social stigma surrounding divorce.

3. seperation from extended family. Monogamous relationships work best when there are parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles, siblings, and cousins to support the relationship. Contemporary society puts an incredible amount of strain on a relationship that in many cases lacks the resources to cope.

There are probably more... but I have to go to the gym.

I think communication breakdowns, or communication that was faulty to begin with, may have the most to do with it. Partners need to really listen, as well as state their needs. A lot of people try to communicate by playing complex games instead of being direct.

[scott snedeker]

I don't want to offend... but I'm just curious... isn't sex, doesn't it usually best work with just one other person? Don't you want to share something that intimate with one other person, like a special secret that only you two know? Cause if theres lots of people, you can't love all of them all at once, can you? I don't know... I guess I'm confused as to the... mechanics... of it all. :confused:

Figuring out the mechanics is part of the fun of discovery. :lol: I've learned a lot from different people. The value of education should never be underestimated:lol:

[rainbow7]

I think communication breakdowns, or communication that was faulty to begin with, may have the most to do with it. Partners need to really listen, as well as state their needs. A lot of people try to communicate by playing complex games instead of being direct.

I can’t resist sharing some thoughts about why the divorce rate is high…

To understand this, I think we have to start by looking at why people are attracted to their partners. Unconsciously, we might well all be looking for the one who reminds us of our early caregivers. I’m beginning to think this is true in most relationships, whether the partners are straight, gay, bi, trans, or one of each. We’re attracted to someone who has those familiar qualities of our parents or caregivers – both negative and positive traits. In the idealized, early stage I like to call “psychotic love,” we mostly dwell on the positives, and focus on how the other is like us. It’s easy to overlook or minimize the differences and the negative traits for about 2 years or so. Then when we get comfortable together, each starts to notice the things he/she would like to change about the partner, while generally at the same time not paying much attention to the ways in which we contribute to the problem ourselves. A few more years may pass during which couples somehow accommodate themselves to what they don’t like. One theorist I like says we develop a lot of “exits” to avoid intimacy and distract us from what we don’t like. But for most couples, there eventually comes a point when it just isn’t working anymore, and then each of us must decide whether we want to grow up or not. This is when many people conclude that this relationship thing might be more fun with someone else, and so decide to separate or divorce. Unfortunately, some people still don’t get this the second time around, but basically take all of their “stuff” into another relationship where it is played out again; consequently the divorce rate for second marriages is even higher than for first marriages.

I think there are some exceptions. I think if there is violence or a chronic pattern of addiction that the addicted one refuses to face, sometimes divorce looks like the best option. People have to be safe. But I believe the number of divorces would be much smaller if spouses realized that by choosing the person they did, they have an opportunity to heal their own and each other’s childhood wounds and become whole. And if each person decides to change in response to what the partner wants and needs, then each can grow in ways they never imagined.

I agree with Zerbie that communication is a huge part of the process, and learning good communication skills really strengthens a relationship. But utimately all the communication skills in the world will not solve the problem if one or both partners decide they don’t want to keep growing. I think it is just about impossible for one person to “save” the marriage if the other one really isn’t committed.

I agree with U-dog that many couples are isolated from extended family, resulting in a lack of support. I also think healthy couples can and do compensate for this by creating new communities and tribes where they are. Like churches, synagogues, and Soulforce!

Finally, although there are other factors that make the process a little more complicated in mixed orientation marriages, I think some of these dynamics are operative in those relationships, too.

Polly

[Zerbie]

I can’t resist sharing some thoughts about why the divorce rate is high…

To understand this, I think we have to start by looking at why people are attracted to their partners. Unconsciously, we might well all be looking for the one who reminds us of our early caregivers. I’m beginning to think this is true in most relationships, whether the partners are straight, gay, bi, trans, or one of each. We’re attracted to someone who has those familiar qualities of our parents or caregivers – both negative and positive traits. In the idealized, early stage I like to call “psychotic love,” we mostly dwell on the positives, and focus on how the other is like us. It’s easy to overlook or minimize the differences and the negative traits for about 2 years or so.

Interesting. I've heard of the two-year thing before. But I'm squirming around at the idea that I married my parents. :sick: :confused::lol:



Then when we get comfortable together, each starts to notice the things he/she would like to change about the partner, while generally at the same time not paying much attention to the ways in which we contribute to the problem ourselves. A few more years may pass during which couples somehow accommodate themselves to what they don’t like. One theorist I like says we develop a lot of “exits” to avoid intimacy and distract us from what we don’t like.


I believe the number of divorces would be much smaller if spouses realized that by choosing the person they did, they have an opportunity to heal their own and each other’s childhood wounds and become whole. And if each person decides to change in response to what the partner wants and needs, then each can grow in ways they never imagined.


Do you really mean "change"? Or do you mean grow? Because if you do mean change, then I actually come at the topic from an opposite standpoint than you. I view relationships as more a process of supporting, revealing, empowering the healthy and whole self that is already there in our partners. To see them realize more fully who they are. Maladaptive habits will have to change during this process, which is part of what I mean by "grow."

What I relate to in your paragraph quoted above is the magnificent opportunity we have daily sharing life with and loving the partner we chose. I find that healing old wounds can be a result of the partnership; at the same time, we want to ground that relationship in the present as well.


I agree with Zerbie that communication is a huge part of the process, and learning good communication skills really strengthens a relationship. But utimately all the communication skills in the world will not solve the problem if one or both partners decide they don’t want to keep growing. I think it is just about impossible for one person to “save” the marriage if the other one really isn’t committed.

Oh God yes!! It absolutely must be from both partners. No possible way it will work if one person isn't participating. I know people to whom this has happened - they deserve partners who will be present in relationship *with* them.

I agree with U-dog that many couples are isolated from extended family, resulting in a lack of support. I also think healthy couples can and do compensate for this by creating new communities and tribes where they are. Like churches, synagogues, and Soulforce!

I never thought of this aspect. I will now; in my own experience, I isolated myself from my family growing up and into adulthood. Marrying my husband had the unexpected effect of improving relations with my family across the board. I like to think this has nothing to do with the fact that I finally brought a *man* home, but that it's because being with him opens me up to a more loving and receptive attitude in general. Plus, he's so darn likeable, he puts the fam' at ease and gets everybody laughing.

Finally, although there are other factors that make the process a little more complicated in mixed orientation marriages, I think some of these dynamics are operative in those relationships, too.

Polly

I imagine the mixed orientation marriage is quite a lot to deal with if it involves one person being oriented only towards the gender they didn't marry. It must test the hearts of all concerned a great deal to be faced with that situation. :pray:

Thanks for chiming in; I hope I wasn't just argumentative - hubby came in and started a conversation about several other things while I've been typing, so I've found it almost impossible to keep my train of thought. :lol: Signing off to go play in the "real world." :cool:

[mjules]

Oh, so you're poly! This interests me, since I consider myself polygynandrous. In theory, at least. I haven't had a chance to try it out in practice. :lol:

But it is a theory that has been discussed at length between myself and other friends who consider themselves poly as well. Some of them have tried out the relationships, some haven't... some are open-poly and some (like me) are polyfi.

I have to admit, my brain has so far only stretched to include me, another woman, and two men... I'm bi, and I like it all. So the idea of six (did I count right?) lovers in a circle makes me think, "Whoa, that takes some doing." But wow, I think it's really cool that y'all are making it work, and congratulations on the new member! :love:

[wmanion]

Thanks everyone for their thoughts...very insightful. I had heard before that we are attracted to the same attributes that we had in our parents so the care-giver theory has been around for awhile. In fact, my ex-wife said at the time of our divorce that she did not know she had married someone exactly like her father. I am not sure what she meant by that either cause I thought her father was a heck of a guy.
As far as communicantion, I think that is true in any type of relationship whether mono, poly, or friendship for that matter.
The are two old adages (I hope I spelled that correctly) that I have learned have no truth in relationships...the sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me...and it takes two to make it and two to break it...I believe one can break it quite well on their own.

Another question for our circle relationship...how are you all able to communicate all of your needs to each other effectively. We all have spiritual, emotional, and physical needs that can be quite different. Is it easier when there is more? Do you have meetings to openly discuss problems and needs?

Bill

[Zerbie]

Thanks everyone for their thoughts...very insightful. I had heard before that we are attracted to the same attributes that we had in our parents so the care-giver theory has been around for awhile.

Eek!! :eek: :lol: Well, I for one am pleased that my marriage with hubby does not recreate the marriage my parents had - it's our own, which is good.


As far as communicantion, I think that is true in any type of relationship whether mono, poly, or friendship for that matter.


The are two old adages (I hope I spelled that correctly)

You did. :)

that I have learned have no truth in relationships...the sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me

Oh indeed! Words can hurt deeply. I am all the time impressed by how sensitive the human heart is, and how often we run amok over one another's feelings with our talk. Words are a gift and should be used with great care for the listener, and gently.

...and it takes two to make it and two to break it...I believe one can break it quite well on their own.

Another question for our circle relationship...how are you all able to communicate all of your needs to each other effectively. We all have spiritual, emotional, and physical needs that can be quite different. Is it easier when there is more? Do you have meetings to openly discuss problems and needs?

Bill

Good questions, I wanna know too. How long has the circle been around? What plan have you in mind to deal with it if two of the circle should develop special feelings for each other, how will the other 4 people deal with feeling envious or left out?

QUESTION for Polly and Dave:

I talked about this thread with hubby this evening, and we could not figure ways in which having extended family close by helps support the marriage relationship. He knew of several instances of marriages that were hindered by active interference and game-playing by controlling in-laws, but no instances where extended families played into the success of a marriage. So we are curious how you see that playing out - and what it is that we haven't seen there. What are the advantages of having a lot of family nearby?

[u-dog]

QUESTION for Polly and Dave:

I talked about this thread with hubby this evening, and we could not figure ways in which having extended family close by helps support the marriage relationship. He knew of several instances of marriages that were hindered by active interference and game-playing by controlling in-laws, but no instances where extended families played into the success of a marriage. So we are curious how you see that playing out - and what it is that we haven't seen there. What are the advantages of having a lot of family nearby?

There are at least two kinds of support (or hindrance) that extended family can give to support a relationship.

1) spiritual/emotional/psychological support like the daughter who talks to her mother or her sister or aunt about problems in the relationship or problems in other aspects of life that if left unaddressed will add to the general stress on the relationship. Or if there is tension between a Dad and an adolescent son, having a trusted aunt and uncle a few blocks away can provide extra ears, a safe place to spend the night, time to cool off. Kids can often "hear" things from an older brother or sister living outside the home that he/she can't "hear" when it comes from the parent. Domestic violence is often perpetrated by men who control their spouses by isolating them from friends and family. Having a wife's older brother or father living a few blocks away has an inhibiting effect on such men and their violent tendencies. None of these effects are universal, obviously, or necessarily purely beneficial, but having other primary relationships in close proximity takes a lot of the pressure off of the marriage/partnership relationship to provide for EVERY emotional need for intimacy and closeness. Many marriages/partnerships today exist in a vacuum with other relationships to far away to be helpful. Of course, modern communication technology mitigates this somewhat.

2) practical support. shared Child care. financial assistance, housework help, sharing hand-me-downs, help with home and auto repairs, the loan of a car when one is in the shop. If you are a married/committed couple with kids and have no family near ALL of those other little every day pressures put STRESS on your relationship. If you don't have extended family to help relieve that stress it can damage your relationship.


Personal example: Shortly after the twins were born I was needing/wanting to change jobs. I had offers in three places. One place was in the same area where my sister and her husband and one of his grown sons and his family lived. We chose that place because with two more babies... WE NEEDED HELP. My sister came over and helped with the babies, babysat so we could go out on dates, cooked wonderful holiday meals, came over and took me out to lunch so I could vent. My brother-in-law's family ALSO had a set of twins a few years older and for about 5 years we never had to buy clothes for our twins. His daughter-in-law (though a little "goofy" ) was someone that Polly could talk to about what it was like to be a mother of twins. My sister threw birthday parties for our kids and their friends at her home and helped make halloween costumes.

Does that help?

[rainbow7]

Good questions, I wanna know too. How long has the circle been around? What plan have you in mind to deal with it if two of the circle should develop special feelings for each other, how will the other 4 people deal with feeling envious or left out?

QUESTION for Polly and Dave:

I talked about this thread with hubby this evening, and we could not figure ways in which having extended family close by helps support the marriage relationship. He knew of several instances of marriages that were hindered by active interference and game-playing by controlling in-laws, but no instances where extended families played into the success of a marriage. So we are curious how you see that playing out - and what it is that we haven't seen there. What are the advantages of having a lot of family nearby?

Let's see, what can I add to what U-dog mentioned? I think if kids grow up with models of more than one committed adult relationship, they are more likely to have a broader range of relationship skills than if their parents are their only model. For example, Mom and Dad's style of managing conflict might have been explosive, but if a kid grew up spending lots of time at an aunt and uncle's home, or with grandparents, those couples might have modelled different and possibly better ways to manage and resolve differences. The child not only sees options, but may learn to be flexible and shift between modes, just from watching and being in relationship with those other trusted adults.

How much more of a problem this must be for gay children whose parents are straight, since the chances of their parents having close relatives or friends who are a committed same sex couple living nearby seem smaller. Some skills may well be transferrable from watching their parents, but the model is certainly different. As we move closer to the day when everyone is allowed to marry and homophobia is rare, both GLBT and straight kids will benefit from the greater diversity of models. A random sampling would likely show that the majority of kids have never been to the wedding of a GLBT couple.

Some single parents do a great job these days, but it cannot be denied that the stress of the job is phenomenal! Single divorced, separated, never married or widowed parents who don't also have extended family near can easily feel trapped and overwhelmed. There are times when a parent desperately needs at least one adult who is really committed to the children because the parent has come to the end of his/her rope and urgently needs respite care!

Of course every family comes with their share of baggage, and I understand what you mean when you say that some in-laws actually behave in ways that hinder the relationship. They, too, can grow and expand their relationships skills if they are so motivated, and each of us can grow from the experience of navigating through rocky relationships and trying to manage our differences, such as figuring out a way to survive in one's spouse's family when it is very different from the one in which you grew up.
I am talking about the theological problem Jesus posed -- how do we receive and welcome "the stranger" into our midst? Our hospitality or the lack of it says a lot about who we are. If you only see your in-laws once a year, you may not have the same opportunities to work on your hospitality skills as someone who sees extended family more often.

I believe that when U-dog and I committed our lives to each other, we also married each other's families, and in a sense, they all married each other, too -- and they didn't really have a choice! Each of us has worked hard on forming relationships with each other's parents and siblings, and that has sometimes been challenging, but also rewarding. And for the most part, our siblings and parents have formed new bonds with each other that have enriched their lives as well. Most amazing are the cousins -- our kids and the kids of our siblings -- who although they see each other infrequently are in some ways as close as siblings. This millenium generation: AWESOME! You all have your own ways of doing things and we old ones have much to learn from you....."and a little child shall lead them..."

Question for Scott:

Do you all (in the circle) have relationships with each other's families of origin? I'm trying to imagine the complexity and the sheer time commitment if you try to do this.....just curious!

Polly

[rainbow7]

Oh, so you're poly! This interests me, since I consider myself polygynandrous. In theory, at least. I haven't had a chance to try it out in practice. :lol:

But it is a theory that has been discussed at length between myself and other friends who consider themselves poly as well. Some of them have tried out the relationships, some haven't... some are open-poly and some (like me) are polyfi.

I have to admit, my brain has so far only stretched to include me, another woman, and two men... I'm bi, and I like it all. So the idea of six (did I count right?) lovers in a circle makes me think, "Whoa, that takes some doing." But wow, I think it's really cool that y'all are making it work, and congratulations on the new member! :love:


I'm "Polly" as in "Polly Purebread," my Soulforce name. U-dog is my only spouse, as far as I know. I certainly share your curiosity about group marriages and alternatives to monogamy, (being bi as well) but I have limited lived experience in non-monogamous relationships. In youth I spent some time in communes where there were some committed triads (The Jefferson Airplane's song had a huge influence on things back then!) and while I can understand some of the attraction, it also seemed incredibly complicated to me, then and now.

Polly

[nmwolfboy]

i've heard of the care-giver theory before, but haven't investigated it much. The whole "we marry our parents" has at least some practical validity it seems.

Many years ago, at about that infamous two-year point in my first relationship, i realized in response to some conflict that rather than having married my father/mother, i was modeling their relationship. When my former partner Jim acted in ways that i perceived as similar to my mother's behavior, i reacted like my father always did to her. When Jim acted in ways that i perceived as similar to my father, i reacted like my mother. It was one of those 'a-ha' moments for me, and an avenue for challenging some of my sub-conscious patterns. Our relationship grew as a result.

Back to Scotty's topic:

i've know many poly folk, and have been in poly relationships myself. Essentially i didn't find the mechanics to be much different than a two-partner relationship. They all work best when you own your own sh*t, are honest with and respectful of all involved, and admit when you're projecting onto others. In my opinion, anyway.

What's odd for me is that over time my previously very poly heart has taken a decidedly monogamous turn. :eek: No one is more shocked than i. While i still don't find that monogamy is in any way inherently morally superior to polyamory, or even that monogamy comes naturally to me, i've increasingly found that i so deeply desire my current partner, Wes, on so many levels that all other attractions pale in comparison. It's just not fair to anyone else for me to enter into a poly relationship with them, or at least that's how it feels to me.

We have welcomed a third person into our relationship twice, but neither triad's lasted more than a few months. We're still very close to one of those guys, but he's now more like an adopted brother than a lover. The other guy moved far away, which ended our triad with him, then he moved back and immediately rekindled a love with a former boyfriend. We rarely see or hear from him, but it's wonderful when we do. We're still all very affectionate & care a great deal about each other, but we're no longer lovers. More like family.

Someone once told me that gay men create extended families from former & current lovers. From what i've seen over the years, both in my life and in others', that's certainly true for some folks, to at least some degree.

Pax,
scott

[Zerbie]

Oh, so you're poly! This interests me, since I consider myself polygynandrous. :love:


Here Mjules addresses Scott about being "poly"(amorous).

I'm "Polly" as in "Polly Purebread," my Soulforce name. U-dog is my only spouse, as far as I know. Polly

Here, Polly responds.

Thus we see that not only is Polly not really Polly, but neither is she poly. :eek:

Gaahhhhh!!!
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[u-dog]

I'm "Polly" as in "Polly Purebread," my Soulforce name. U-dog is my only spouse, as far as I know. Polly


I have no more secrets, my love! you know them all. :) and if there IS another spouse in our house... HE/SHE DARN WELL BETTER START DOING THE F----ING DISHES ONCE IN A WHILE !!! :mad:

(:love:)

[scott snedeker]

Question for Scott:

Do you all (in the circle) have relationships with each other's families of origin? I'm trying to imagine the complexity and the sheer time commitment if you try to do this.....just curious!

Polly


Believe it or not I never thought about this until now! It is something that I never realized before!

Adrain has been turned out by his family, Gyver has only 1 surviving sister and is estranged, Marcus has no parents, Otter's family lives in Canada and he has not come out to them, and Phillip has no surving parents. I'm the only one with a biological family! Then again, though I am open with my parents about being gay they specifically request that I don't discuss my relationship with the members of my circle !

Holy toledo! This is more than Coincidence! How could I not see it!




Another question for our circle relationship...how are you all able to communicate all of your needs to each other effectively. We all have spiritual, emotional, and physical needs that can be quite different. Is it easier when there is more? Do you have meetings to openly discuss problems and needs?

Bill


My epiphany I just had from responding to the last question prompts the response to this question. I guess we do communicate our needs because we are the only family we have. And yes it is easier when there is more. Frankly the realizations I have just had prompted by your questions have blown my mind just now! I am spiritually alive and safe because of my circle more than I ever realized.

Thanks to all of you for today's gift!:love:

[Zerbie]

My epiphany I just had from responding to the last question prompts the response to this question. I guess we do communicate our needs because we are the only family we have. And yes it is easier when there is more. Frankly the realizations I have just had prompted by your questions have blown my mind just now! I am spiritually alive and safe because of my circle more than I ever realized.

Thanks to all of you for today's gift!:love:

:love::love::love::love: I know it's not the same and we're not in 3D, but you also have us, Scotty.

It makes me feel sad to hear that so many of you are estranged from, or are not welcome to share with your biological family. But I'm all the more glad you have each other.

You may be surprised, but I'm not, at the way that worked out. You often mention about how at the faerie gatherings, you have a feeling of unconditional acceptance like you were a little child, didn't you say visiting your grandmother's house? It is your family to you. :rainbow:

But don't forget that you are loved here, too. :love:

[scott snedeker]

:love::love::love::love: I know it's not the same and we're not in 3D, but you also have us, Scotty.

You often mention about how at the faerie gatherings, you have a feeling of unconditional acceptance like you were a little child, didn't you say visiting your grandmother's house? It is your family to you. :rainbow:

But don't forget that you are loved here, too. :love:

I do feel the love from you all. and thanks This is a very special place with beautiful people. Soulforce and participants are part of the better world that is growing each day replacing the old one in the dawning of a new age. This is a day where the newest hippest thing is kindness and love. We are the lucky ones to see it and be a part of a change that will see the evolution of sensibility, serenity and harmony. The next generation will see these as given and take humanity to the next level where each person is a cherished representative of the miraculous species, homo sapiens. :love::love::love:

[Zerbie]

I do feel the love from you all. and thanks This is a very special place with beautiful people. Soulforce and participants are part of the better world that is growing each day replacing the old one in the dawning of a new age. This is a day where the newest hippest thing is kindness and love. We are the lucky ones to see it and be a part of a change that will see the evolution of sensibility, serenity and harmony. The next generation will see these as given and take humanity to the next level where each person is a cherished representative of the miraculous species, homo sapiens. :love::love::love:

I absolutely love that you have this vision. It is precisely what needs to happen. Everyone longs for that feeling of unconditional divine love, of caring, of mattering to other people and to God. I love that you keep your eye on what is positive, and focus on "weaving" love into your experience, and that of those you come into contact with. Thank you.

((((( Scotty! ))))) :):rainbow::love::love::love::love::love::rainbow: :good::magic::earth::dove::flower2::flower:

[dsdrane]

If someone is attracted to many other people I would consider him to be polamorous by nature whether or not he ever acts on this attraction also. I would consider you to be polyamorous by nature your own statement [ I, like probably just about everyone, have had huge attractions to others while in monogamous relationships]

It probably goes without saying that I completely disagree, right?


Could then you conclude that living true to the attraction of polyandry would be acting more in tune with one's nature and more healthy than someone who lives counter to this nature in a monoandrous relationship?

No.

It's one thing to be attracted and quite another to be in love. Polyandry is not necessarily the logical conclusion of multiple attractions.

That said, I don't doubt the ability of some -- yourself included -- to love multiply, to which I wholeheartedly say: fabulous...more power to you. The issue I originally tripped over -- and am still tripping over -- is that you seem bent on proselytizing...which leaves me wondering why.

[u-dog]

That said, I don't doubt the ability of some -- yourself included -- to love multiply, to which I wholeheartedly say: fabulous...more power to you. The issue I originally tripped over -- and am still tripping over -- is that you seem bent on proselytizing...which leaves me wondering why.


I think that proselytizing is a strong word, David, though I think I got hooked into this conversation by the same thing you did, the perceived implication that Polyandry is somehow more natural and therefore somehow "better" than monogamy. I don't know if that was Scott's intention or not. If it WAS then I disagree also.

I tend to look at these things in terms of an evolutionary perspective. In a natural, pre technological environment there is a certain evolutionary advantage to males having multiple attractions in order to spread as much genetic information as broadly as possible. However, as a sentient human male I have other priorities besides spreading my genetic material to the four winds. I want to experience what love is like on the other side of conflict, challenge, change, and growth. I want to experience the joy of being chosen and the comfort of knowing that I am loved in spite of myself as well as because of myself. so the fact that something is "natural" doesn't necessarily mean that it is "better" ... sometimes it does, but not always.

So I remain a defender of monogamy as a positive ideal, but like David, I am open to the likely possibility that for SOME people polyandry is a right road. I like everything that I hear from you about your circle of radical faeries. it seems like a life affirming family and it seems like it feeds you spiritually as well as physically. At the end of the marriage ceremony I say "Let this marriage be held in honor by all people!" I honor your circle in that way! :)

[dsdrane]

I think that proselytizing is a strong word, David, though I think I got hooked into this conversation by the same thing you did, the perceived implication that Polyandry is somehow more natural and therefore somehow "better" than monogamy. I don't know if that was Scott's intention or not. If it WAS then I disagree also.

I want to be very clear about what I am saying. I don't believe Scotty had any agenda other than sharing the joy when he started this thread. However -- and very understandably, I might add -- I read a certain amount of defensiveness when he started receiving pointed questions from others. That defensive posture took on -- for me -- an aggressive I know the truth aspect that I continue to take umbrage with.

Ironically, I was immediately uncomfortable when fellow Soulforcers -- I feel impolitely -- started asking pointed questions about Scotty's personal life...so much so that I started thinking a separate thread should be begun to hold conversations that veered from Scotty's original post.

Then, of course, I threw my own hat in...so, so much for that!:rolleyes:

[paul]

Polly wrote (a long time ago in a galaxy far away):
"I agree with Zerbie that communication is a huge part of the process, and learning good communication skills really strengthens a relationship. But utimately all the communication skills in the world will not solve the problem if one or both partners decide they don’t want to keep growing. I think it is just about impossible for one person to “save” the marriage if the other one really isn’t committed".

This really stuck out to me. My current status (deconverted from fundamentalism gay guy married to a fundamental Christian woman) really brings this home to me. My wife currently thinks my communcation is really poor, and it probably is. I know I'm locked up but it's not because I cannot or don't want to communicate. I think it's true "that all the communication in the world will will not solve the problem if one or both partners decide they don’t want to keep growing." I think that "growing" is synonymous with change. I don't think most consciously choose to not grow, but we often will choose not to change because we believe we are 'right.' In such cases where both are "right" I'm not sure all the commitment in the world will "save the marriage." But I'm not sure about that, I wonder if a commitment to love vs. "each other" can overcome those different perceptions of 'truth.'

[paul]

dsdrane wrote:
"so much so that I started thinking a separate thread should be begun to hold conversations that veered from Scotty's original post."


Rats, I just did that. Sorry Scottie.
always read the last post before you post.

[scott snedeker]

The issue I originally tripped over -- and am still tripping over -- is that you seem bent on proselytizing...which leaves me wondering why.


"Bent on proselytizing" is probably too strong a phrase, but yes, I do have an agenda.......very perceptive!

The agenda is to share ideas that free gay people from the many subtle ways homophobia is internalized by all of us. I believe that trading monogamy for monoandry is a huge step, but not the final emancipation from sanctimonious heterosexist oppression for many gay people.

I think if most gay adolescent males were to develop in circumstances with the freedom to choose polyandry without social disapproval, that they would indeed choose to do so as adults. I think this would be an unchallenged entitlement in such a circumstance.

We are not called Radical Faeries just because of costumes. But what is considered radical thought today may well be the standard in thirty years' time.

I would be dishonest if I denied that I enjoyed rocking the boat, but be reassured that it is playful rocking intended to awaken ideas that spark interest and maybe some fun.:D

[Zerbie]

"Bent on proselytizing" is probably too strong a phrase, but yes, I do have an agenda.......very perceptive!

The agenda is to share ideas that free gay people from the many subtle ways homophobia is internalized by all of us. I believe that trading monogamy for monoandry is a huge step, but not the final emancipation from sanctimonious heterosexist oppression for many gay people.

.:D

Scotty - How is it you make this out to be a specifically gay issue? The way I see it, you are mixing two separate issues: mental emancipation from homophobia/heterocentrism, and monogamy vs polyamory.

I can see that you could link heterocentrism with monogamy somewhat in terms of how societal ideals have been traditionally portrayed, but they hardly march hand in hand in unison. :disagree: They have all along been largely a construct not borne out in experience.

I wonder if someone out there somewhere has done a sociology/gender studies/queer studies doctoral dissertation on these topics. It certainly makes for one.

[wmanion]

The agenda is to share ideas that free gay people from the many subtle ways homophobia is internalized by all of us. I believe that trading monogamy for monoandry is a huge step, but not the final emancipation from sanctimonious heterosexist oppression for many gay people.

You are right about homohobia being internailzed in all of us, but not just gay people. Even though all, does not necessarily involve all, so let's say most because some are all ready free from this internalization happening. This is internalized in heterosexuals as well. And poly relationships exist in heterosexuals as well. We cannot think along the lines of just freeing the homosexual population, we have to free the heterosexual population as well. Education is the key. However, poly relationships are not for everyone just like mono relationships are not right for everyone. I would say this would have to be an individual choice made by the individual themselves and what works best for them. I am not anyone's judge nor do I want them to be mine. I want to seek what is right and fullfilling in my own life according the the spiritual path I am seeking as I jounrney along.

[scott snedeker]

Scotty - How is it you make this out to be a specifically gay issue? The way I see it, you are mixing two separate issues: mental emancipation from homophobia/heterocentrism, and monogamy vs polyamory.



Zerbie, you are right. For me personally it is a mixed issue, but not for others obviously. Sometimes in pushing against the restraints of internalized homophobia I lump together issues.



You are right about homohobia being internailzed in all of us, but not just gay people. Even though all, does not necessarily involve all, so let's say most because some are all ready free from this internalization happening. This is internalized in heterosexuals as well. And poly relationships exist in heterosexuals as well. We cannot think along the lines of just freeing the homosexual population, we have to free the heterosexual population as well. Education is the key. However, poly relationships are not for everyone just like mono relationships are not right for everyone. I would say this would have to be an individual choice made by the individual themselves and what works best for them. I am not anyone's judge nor do I want them to be mine. I want to seek what is right and fullfilling in my own life according the the spiritual path I am seeking as I jounrney along.

You are so right. reading back posts I might be indulging in projection identification. I think this thread has triggered some very profound reflection in myself and others

[Zerbie]

The agenda is to share ideas that free gay people from the many subtle ways homophobia is internalized by all of us. I believe that trading monogamy for monoandry is a huge step, but not the final emancipation from sanctimonious heterosexist oppression for many gay people.

You are right about homohobia being internailzed in all of us, but not just gay people. Even though all, does not necessarily involve all, so let's say most because some are all ready free from this internalization happening. This is internalized in heterosexuals as well. And poly relationships exist in heterosexuals as well. We cannot think along the lines of just freeing the homosexual population, we have to free the heterosexual population as well. Education is the key. However, poly relationships are not for everyone just like mono relationships are not right for everyone. I would say this would have to be an individual choice made by the individual themselves and what works best for them. I am not anyone's judge nor do I want them to be mine. I want to seek what is right and fullfilling in my own life according the the spiritual path I am seeking as I jounrney along.


Bravo, well said Bill. :award:

Zerbie, you are right. For me personally it is a mixed issue, but not for others obviously. Sometimes in pushing against the restraints of internalized homophobia I lump together issues.

:love: I trust you are doing exactly what is right for your spirit.

You are so right. reading back posts I might be indulging in projection identification. I think this thread has triggered some very profound reflection in myself and others

It makes me think of the old feminist arguments around women choosing to stay at home and be fulltime moms. There was an idea that one used to hear years ago that this choice was invalid because it was a sell-out to male hegemony and anti-feminist patriarchal norms. As feminism matured, the next step was to recognize that, hey gee, wasn't the whole point of feminism in the first place supposed to be that a woman should have the right to her own self-determination, and to make the choices that SHE wants? Not the choices someone else tells her she is SUPPOSED to want? And with that came a recognition that the choice to be a fulltime mom could just as fully represent a freely empowered choice of self-expression as the choice to NOT be. What matters is that the choice be a free and authentic expression of what is right for that individual.

Seems like the same argument happening here.

[scott snedeker]

Bravo, well said Bill. :award:



It makes me think of the old feminist arguments around women choosing to stay at home and be fulltime moms. There was an idea that one used to hear years ago that this choice was invalid because it was a sell-out to male hegemony and anti-feminist patriarchal norms. As feminism matured, the next step was to recognize that, hey gee, wasn't the whole point of feminism in the first place supposed to be that a woman should have the right to her own self-determination, and to make the choices that SHE wants? Not the choices someone else tells her she is SUPPOSED to want? And with that came a recognition that the choice to be a fulltime mom could just as fully represent a freely empowered choice of self-expression as the choice to NOT be. What matters is that the choice be a free and authentic expression of what is right for that individual.

Seems like the same argument happening here.

The parallels of the gay civil rights movement to others keep popping up don't they!

But getting back to the topic at the beginning of this thread. Marcus aka Puppy (must be a great dane, he is 6'3"):lol:, is definitely home with us!

[antonyh]

No, I can't see any loss to polyandry. I perceive a huge loss in monoandry. What I find Curious is why you ask questions that look for potential problems with polyandry but don't ask about the joys and advantages and spiritual and emotional freedom Intense love power felt during the experience of living polyandry. I get a sense that you don't want to consider that polyandry may be something more fulfilling than Monoandry.

I get a sense of sexual, sensual, emotiona,l and child-like sanctuary filled with spiritual wonder.


I'm in a monogamous relationship and don't perceive any loss at all. I'm with someone who genuinely loves me, not just in the bedroom, but in the whole of my life, the good and bad. We are help mates through poverty, sickness and whatever else life may throw at us. While the temptation is there, I can't imagine giving myself to anyone else sexually and he feels the same way. I feel like I have found genuine freedom in this relationship...maybe for the first time in my life. I am most grateful to be liberated from the BS that often goes on in the gay dating scene.

I can respect what you're attempting, but I don't honestly understand it. Maybe people are just different, but I wonder if the absolute liberation you seek is as liberating as you suggest.

I sort of find myself with u-dog on the monogamy issue with the caveat that it takes many kinds of people to make the world go round :)

[antonyh]

Ironically, I was immediately uncomfortable when fellow Soulforcers -- I feel impolitely -- started asking pointed questions about Scotty's personal life...so much so that I started thinking a separate thread should be begun to hold conversations that veered from Scotty's original post.

I asked my questions out of genuine curiosity. I think Scotty welcomed the opportunity to share more about his views. They are enlightening at many levels even if you disgree.

[dsdrane]

I asked my questions out of genuine curiosity. I think Scotty welcomed the opportunity to share more about his views. They are enlightening at many levels even if you disgree.


The fact that you were curious -- as well as the fact that Scotty no doubt welcomed your questions as the perfect opportunity to enlighten us at many levels -- is obvious. What I'm saying is that it read a little like raining on someone's parade.

I calls 'em as I sees 'em.:cool:

As it turned out, Scotty was fine with it, so apparently no harm done.

[scott snedeker]

The fact that you were curious -- as well as the fact that Scotty no doubt welcomed your questions as the perfect opportunity to enlighten us at many levels -- is obvious. What I'm saying is that it read a little like raining on someone's parade.

I calls 'em as I sees 'em.:cool:

As it turned out, Scotty was fine with it, so apparently no harm done.


I kind of did feel a little defensive sometimes, but that is not any fault of anyone except me. It meant that I had some emotional escrow to clean up; that my entitlement to my way of living needed to be better clarified. At no time do I feel attacked by you guys.

Exploration is most fulfilling when it is done without fear and with an open mind. This leads to dawning and wonder that makes me feel alive and young!

[antonyh]

The fact that you were curious -- as well as the fact that Scotty no doubt welcomed your questions as the perfect opportunity to enlighten us at many levels -- is obvious. What I'm saying is that it read a little like raining on someone's parade.

I calls 'em as I sees 'em.:cool:

As it turned out, Scotty was fine with it, so apparently no harm done.

You read it wrong...I don't need to rain on anyone's parade. But what Scotty is living is unique and interesting to me :)

[wmanion]

I also asked questions because I was curious. It always amazes me at the different capacity some people have when it comes to love. A Christian therpists once told me that some people say they love with all their hearts but their heart is only two inches deep, while others say the same, but have a heart that is a never ending well. I always found this interesting. I hope my questions did not put you on the defensive side because that was not my intention.

Bill