Naboh Posted February 17, 2003 Share Posted February 17, 2003 Seems like I only ever know heart ache after I allow myself to fall for somebody. However, if I just date and appreciate more than one woman, I don't find I get so damn lonely when I have a disagreement with another. And we don't get bored with each other. What's wrong with that, as long as I'm up front about it from the start. Last woman I knew said she was ok with that, then proceeded to win my heart (not fair) :-) So are there womaen who feel the same way, or are they all after monogamy? What is the advantage to monogamy, other than a false sense of security? - John Link to post Share on other sites
Author Naboh Posted February 17, 2003 Author Share Posted February 17, 2003 Attachment is the source of sorrow Can there be love without attachment? Link to post Share on other sites
Bill Posted February 17, 2003 Share Posted February 17, 2003 Seems like you don't want to be committed to anyone and just want to have as many women as possible. Your ideas are, however, flawed. Sure there are women that are like you are. Monogomy is the best course to true love. You can find that you can put your trust in someone and have that trust returned. To know someone is there and cares about you. This brings you completely closer than you could ever be to someone. The list could go on and on, but you seem bitter about monogomy. Just make sure that you be up front with the ladies and let them know you are not into committing and that you won't. You have a lot to learn. Attachment is not the source to sorrow! No you can't be in love with someone you are not attached to because then you don't care about them. You are fooling yourself if you think that you can. Be careful though, I define attachment differently. Link to post Share on other sites
Author Naboh Posted February 17, 2003 Author Share Posted February 17, 2003 How do you define attachment? Link to post Share on other sites
midori Posted February 17, 2003 Share Posted February 17, 2003 Even when all parties are fully informed and in agreement with the parameters of a non-monogamous relationship, the likelihood of unhappy complications increases exponentially, with every person added to the mix. Consider: You're involved with two women Each of whom is involved with another man (since you're not always around). Each of whom is involved with another woman. It can go on and on, but let's just stop it there for argument's sake. That's seven people (if I've done my arithmetic right), four of whom you don't know, but any of whom has the power to disrupt the whole relational network. Or is this little hypothetical situation supposed to see multiple women happy to have just a little bit of your time and affection, while being wholly available to you? That is an unrealistic fantasy. You need to make yourself wholly vulnerable to one other person in order to create lasting & meaningful love. Yep, that means risking heartache. But if you're not willing to take a risk for it, what makes you think you deserve it? Worthwhile things take effort and sacrifice. Maybe you're not ready for genuine, mature love. And that's OK! If you're not ready to be vulnerable to just one other person, admit that to yourself, and don't try to cultivate love in your life yet. Maybe you haven't met the right person yet. Most people can't make themselves vulnerable & intimate with just anyone. But the answer to love is not to spread yourself around soas to avoid getting hurt. That's a recipe for not having love at all. Infatuation, lust, affection -- sure. But not love. Link to post Share on other sites
Tony T Posted February 17, 2003 Share Posted February 17, 2003 People fall in love because they feel special to another. The can't feel special if the other person has one or more other lovers. If you want to date a hundred women at a time, there is no problem as long as there is an understanding and no agreement on committment. Once a committment is made to love one person, that should be honored by most honest and decent people. Monogamy isn't for everybody and you surely are free to have as many lady friends as possible. You cannot get bored with another person...only with yourself. A boring person will always get bored with himself and blame others. No, all women are not after monogamy and few women would be after that with you especially, for sure, since you seem to averse to it...so no need to worry. As a device for avoiding pain, your planned lifestyle is certainly not an alternative. Where there is no pain, there is no life. As a general strategy, it may work because women who are attracted to you will compete with other women for your heart. And you will one day give in. Link to post Share on other sites
quankanne Posted February 17, 2003 Share Posted February 17, 2003 the biggest advantage of polygamy? a constant source of people to date and screw. the biggest advantage of monogamy? less chances of picking up a disease. Which brings to mind this: If you are sexually active, you aren't only bringing yourself to a sexual relationship with Partner A, but all your past lovers, and if THAT person was sexually active, then he or she is adding to that number. And in light of sexually transmitted diseases and diseases like hepatitis and AIDS, that's a very scary thought. It's one thing to want to explore and learn and examine what sex is all about, but to expose yourself to a deadly virus like HIV ... well, is it really worth having multiple lovers? you say that 'attachment is the source of sorrow.' How do you grow if you avoid pain or sorrow or grief? Without sorrow (or pain, or grief), how can you fully experience happiness? It's all connected, and to deny any part of it is to cheat yourself of a growing experience, leaving you emotionally stunted. Link to post Share on other sites
Author Naboh Posted February 17, 2003 Author Share Posted February 17, 2003 I'd like to reply to Tony's and Midori's replies here. First to Tony. We disagree on much and while you seem to be the host, I'll respect that, but you go to your chuch and I'll stay home. Thanks, but no thanks. To Midori. Very intelligent. As far as commitment goes. I was Married for 22 years. Would be still, but it was time for her to go. Midori, I get as jealous as anyone else, but I do expect the women in my life to have the same freedoms I pursue. And before anyone brings it up. The word is condoms. I've had enough pain. I'm assuming that Tony disagrees with most Buddhist teachings. The path to avoiding pain, seems to be in thinking that EVERYONE and everything and every moment is special, with no emphasis given one more than another. The Yin/Yang is the pain. The contrast. I find the biggist problem is the time restraints of having more than one friend and heaven forbid I should suggest we all get together at once? Jealousy, the green-eyed monster. O.K. quankanne beat my post to the board about disease. CONDOMS (Ultra-thin, not cheap condoms) As for "pain and growing" True, nothing can grow without a little rain. But I ask you, what or where is it we which to grow into? - John Link to post Share on other sites
Author Naboh Posted February 17, 2003 Author Share Posted February 17, 2003 P.S. in those 22 years, there never was anyone else, in case you're wondring Link to post Share on other sites
quankanne Posted February 17, 2003 Share Posted February 17, 2003 [color=darkblue]what or where is it we which to grow into?[/color] hopefully into someone wiser and fuller-hearted. It's kind of hard seeking wisdom or help or even love from someone who has willingly closed him- or herself off .... like when you're a child, chances are you went to your mother or grandmother to soothe your hurts or pains, because they represented a wellspring of love and understanding. At least I did, going to my mother for understanding, because she had a vast resource of love that could carry me through whatever was bothering me (and still does) or maybe this is more of an earth-mama type answer, trying to see things in term of solidity and comfort, of giving or providing it .... quank p.s. despite my disagreeing on the multiple partner issue, I appreciate your saying that yours was a monagamous marriage. I know, I'm being very traditional here, but the longer I stay married, the more it means to me that he chose me (and I him) to be in a relationship with. I guess for someone like me, monagamy = committed love, which = security, because I am able to give more fully to someone who trusts me enough to do so. While the idea of having two men (one to cook, one to clean LOL) in my life at the same time is exciting, I think once that wore off, I'd want something more secure. And I guess a lot of people want that in the end, someone they feel safe with sharing their love. Link to post Share on other sites
Author Naboh Posted February 17, 2003 Author Share Posted February 17, 2003 I wish I had that relationship you seem to have. I just broke up with someone and that's it. NEVER again. I know you don't believe me. BUT I'm going to drown my sorrows in lust for awhile. It beats booze. Maybe I'm just not up to that kind of love anymore (can't ya just hear the violins!) Your input is good and welcomed, thanks - John Link to post Share on other sites
Reckless Posted February 17, 2003 Share Posted February 17, 2003 I've had enough pain. I'm assuming that Tony disagrees with most Buddhist teachings. The path to avoiding pain, seems to be in thinking that EVERYONE and everything and every moment is special, with no emphasis given one more than another. I've been following this interesting discussion and yes, it does sound nice to say that we attribute equal value to everyone equally. However, that's not what love is. Yes, you can love a number of people in different ways, the Greeks had five words for love, family love, principled love, friendship, erotic/romantic love but that special someone, by definition is the one that you have ALL the types of love for, that encompasses everything for you and becomes special, different. This of course means you take a risk, you say "I've had enough pain" so clearly, that risk doesn't always pay off. After 22 years trying it one way, the reaction is naturally to try another way, I can totally understand that, and this can bring a measure of joy and fulfillment, but ultimately, I think that we were created, made to leviate towards finding someone that will put it all out on the line and commit to us, only in doing so do you open the door to more and the possibility that by giving more you recieve more. Without that, that final part, it can be good but not great. Link to post Share on other sites
Bill Posted February 17, 2003 Share Posted February 17, 2003 ___________________________________________ ------------------------------------------------- at·tach·ment ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-tchmnt) n. A bond, as of affection or loyalty; fond regard. Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. ------------------------------------------------- If this is not your definition, then you are not speaking english correctly. Without attachment, there is not love, and vise versa. If you disagree, then you disagree with the english language as it stands. Changing the meaning of words in a language renders the words useless and weak. I know you believe that you have lost faith in love because you have lost your wife of 22 years. If you didn't like monogomy then, you would never have stayed in that relationship for 22 years. You are brain-washing yourself into believing that it would be bad for you to fall for someone again because it could lead to pain. I'm not saying that a relationship that you enter could not fail, but don't sell yourself short. You seem to have put up a mental block where it would be hard for you to fall for someone, and you may believe that this is what you want, the block. This is all triggered by your pain you experience through your breakup of 22 years, I mean how can we expect you to be rational? 22 years! You need to analyze yourself and find out why you feel like this. It may be that you need time to adjust and be able to trust again. I have a feeling that this is all about you not wanting to go through a breakup again because of how serious your last relationship was. Good luck! Link to post Share on other sites
Tony T Posted February 17, 2003 Share Posted February 17, 2003 A relationship of 22 years duration was extremely successful, in my opinion...especially in this day. I'm sorry I cannot give an adequate reply to your post, or at least one that you might like because, frankly, I don't quite understand what you're looking for. If you think you can manipulate love, I dare say you're wrong. I invite you to read what Kahlil Gibran has to say about it in his classic, "The Prophet," written many years ago and still a best seller. Click here to read it: http://www.columbia.edu/~gm84/gibran2.html Any attempt to cure your pain with numbers will end in failure, as midori has so lucidly pointed out. Furthermore, you indicated I do not subscribe to Buddhist teachings. To the contrary, I would say that in love the only way to avoid pain is to enjoy it moment by moment (the eternal now) and not to become attached to it...if you are equal to the task. Only the very enlightened can pull that off. The nature of romantic love indicates attachment. Good luck! Link to post Share on other sites
Author Naboh Posted February 17, 2003 Author Share Posted February 17, 2003 Granted that is one kind of attachment. There are other definitions in the English language and to be clarify what I mean by attachment try this on and I'll post shortly the Star Wars version of what the word can imply (as soon as I dig it up) I am speaking English, I think it's just the usage you don't like? from: http://www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/buddhapsych.html Towards a Buddhist Psychotherapy C. George Boeree, Ph.D. Shippensburg University -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (Copyrighted Material, which may be accessed through link above, removed by LoveShack Host) Copyright 1997, C. George Boeree Link to post Share on other sites
Author Naboh Posted February 17, 2003 Author Share Posted February 17, 2003 PADMÉ: It must be difficult having sworn your life to the Jedi... not being able to visit the places you like... or do the things you like... ANAKIN: Or be with the people I love. PADMÉ: Are you allowed to love? I thought it was forbidden for a Jedi. ANAKIN: Attachment is forbidden. Possession is forbidden. Compassion, which I would define as unconditional love, is central to a Jedi's life, so you might say we're encouraged to love. PADMÉ: You have changed so much. Link to post Share on other sites
quankanne Posted February 17, 2003 Share Posted February 17, 2003 this is going to sound so pollyanna, but I'm a firm believer in the idea that with every relationship we go through, we come closer to the love we are meant have. Most people go through a progression of puppy love, to unrequited love, to "being in love," to finally letting yourself be vulnerable for love; losing your wife of 22 years to divorce is a pisser, but despite that, I'm pretty sure that you've learned a lot about love in that time, enough to realize that no matter what happens next, it's something you can take with you into your next committed relationship. yeah, I believe you when you say it's not going to happen again ... honey, don't you know that love enjoys sneaking up on you at the most inopportune time and ambushing you? I was convinced that a certain guy I fell in love with in college was "the" one when I met the friend I married! Link to post Share on other sites
Author Naboh Posted February 17, 2003 Author Share Posted February 17, 2003 Yea, I know, we never know. I like your style. Thanks and btw, we wernt divorced. She had the nerve to die on me. Just wait till i see her! - John Link to post Share on other sites
quankanne Posted February 17, 2003 Share Posted February 17, 2003 misunderstood, sorry about that ... I'm sure she's looking forward to seeing you again, too. Of course, there is the thought that she's watching, waiting to hurl thunderbolts if you royally goof up. Us good wives are like that, you know. Link to post Share on other sites
Author Naboh Posted February 17, 2003 Author Share Posted February 17, 2003 No problem, but entertaining the belief that personal identity goes on (which I am not at all sure about and drives me crazy) but assumming so, answer me this: If Ruth was my one and only soulmate, then how can I ever expect to find another? and if I do, that suggests that we all have MORE than one soulmate (an overused term, sorry) in the world at the same time AND who do I pal around with after all 3 of us are dead and loitering in heaven (or wherever) which opens the door to multiple true loves, no? - John Link to post Share on other sites
quankanne Posted February 17, 2003 Share Posted February 17, 2003 soulmates -- I don't believe that you're limited on those folks, I see it as just something in one person's heart recognizing and understanding something in another person's heart, and a soul mate is not necessarily a lover or spouse. I consider my two best friends (a guy from college and a girl from HS) as my soulmates because they recognize who I am and can cut through to the real me, they've always been able to. While I love my dh in ways I never knew were possible, I don't consider him a soul mate. Just my love ... getting to heaven and recognizing people -- a priest gave a sermon about that one time, about the Bible story of the woman who'd been married so many times that people were curious which husband she'd end up with in heaven. Unfortunately, I don't remember what Father Joe said about that! But, I think it all goes back to love. If heaven is the place where you go to perpetually adore God, then it's the love that our souls recognize; I don't think that it goes by names or faces of who we recognize up there, just that intensity of love. But that's my personal belief, and it might not work for anyone else. maybe it just all boils down to sharing the love you're given? Link to post Share on other sites
Author Naboh Posted February 17, 2003 Author Share Posted February 17, 2003 Thanks. That't beautiful. Do you dispute then that one can love many, similtaniously, or at least one be in love with two? - J Link to post Share on other sites
quankanne Posted February 17, 2003 Share Posted February 17, 2003 depends on what those definitions of love are, but since man has the capacity to love, it's possible to love more than one person at one time. emotionally, I think you can take what gifts you've received from loving someone come up with something completely new without taking away from the ones you've learned from (like what a parent gives a child, and how the child applies what it has learned to his/her relationships). physically, well, you can love many, many people at the same time, but that'd be kind of icky, hygenically speaking! Link to post Share on other sites
Author Naboh Posted February 17, 2003 Author Share Posted February 17, 2003 icky, hygenically speaking? Thanks for the laugh. I just got done shovel a ton of snow and that made me laugh. icky, hygenically speaking! Hygenic steps could be taken, I think. - J P.S. Is everybody here over 18, I hope. Link to post Share on other sites
Tony T Posted February 17, 2003 Share Posted February 17, 2003 It is absolutely possible to be in love with two, three, four or more people simultaneously...probably at different levels and depths. The Mormons, whose religion permits polygamy, fall in love with lots of people all the time and have been doing it for years. Doing so, however, is quite expensive. In Arab countries, males may have a wife and a string of mistresses. However, the rules are that if the wife gets a diamond and new dress or whatever, they all get diamonds, etc. At least they are equal opportunity lovers. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts