by Robdar 64 Replies latest social relationships
I think it's entirely possible to love many people at once, remembering that there are different kinds of love. As for sexually oriented love, I think it depends on one's personality, but I think I'd find it exceedingly difficult emotionally to deal with more than one relationship at a time. I think that I'd also be hard put to deal with my wife being in a relationship besides one with me.
AlanF
Dear shadow lover, you inspire me to fruitful excess.
Stately as the graceful cypress, and as bright
As ever struck a lover's ravished sight--
Why of her musky locks or ringlets tell?
Each silky hair itself contains a spell.
Why of her face so beautifully fair?
Wondering, he sees the moon's refulgence there.
That is beautiful Comf...........
Well my views on this have changed over the course of the last few years....at this point in my life I believe you can love more than one person....but on a personal level I would like to find someone to share myself with exclusively...I have found when you are involved with more than one person it can get complicated real fast...I mean a one on one relationship is complicated enough without factoring in another person and their emotional needs...and what someone finds acceptable today may not be what they find acceptable tomorrow...there are just so many variables involved it's difficult to keep everyone happy...so I would eventually like to find one special person to be my best friend, my lover and my soulmate....I know it is possible cause I had it once upon a time...is it greedy of me to want it again? lol like I care..
So in answer to your question Robdar, Yes I believe you can love more than one person, but it can be very difficult to keep everyone happy!
Straight-up honesty is necessary. It's never going to work if anybody brings in any deceit. I would say it makes a beneficial difference if you're living alone rather than with a particular one of the lover contingent. Territorial awareness extends beyond a lover's person in such cases, and while her trysts may be approved, her lovers' rummaging through my things in the house is not.
There's also the "I don't want to know" aspect, in which the concept is okay as a hypothesis but they don't want to be confronted with the implementation. It's easier not to confront one lover with the reality of another if neither live with you.
but I think I'd find it exceedingly difficult emotionally to deal with more than one relationship at a time.
Alan, this seems to me what would likely be the biggest problem in any open relationship.
I know it is possible cause I had it once upon a time...is it greedy of me to want it again? lol like I care..
(((((Xena))))),
Of course it isn't greedy. I think it is a sweet desire and I wish you all the best in your new life.
I would say it makes a beneficial difference if you're living alone rather than with a particular one of the lover contingent. Territorial awareness extends beyond a lover's person in such cases, and while her trysts may be approved, her lovers' rummaging through my things in the house is not.
Comf,
I agree with your statement. To me this falls into the category of the old saying that you don't crap where you eat. Respect of territory would be a must in this situation. IMO, another lover should not be brought into the bed you share unless mutually invited. This is why God made hotels.
Oh, BTW, Comf, It takes a beautiful, talented soul to write the above poem.
Thank you all for posting.
Love,
Robyn
Ah, sweet Robyn, thank you for the compliment. Actually, the fruitful excess of which I spoke was more literally--or perhaps symbolically is the word I want--in harmony with your quote. The poem is a quote from The Shah Nameh (Book of Kings), an ancient Persian literary work.
Comf,
I understood the reference to "fruitful excess". All that I can say about that is yum.
I love Persian poetry. Shall we compare notes when I come to Dallas?
Perhaps another wrote it, Comf, but it's true sweetnes comes from you sharing it with me. Thank you.
Love,
Robyn
animal,
: Define love.
If "love" is defined as romantic love, the answer is simple:
It's a euphemism for "I want to boink with you." There are very few exceptions to my definition. "Love" is how this earth gets new humans every second of every day. Otherwise, we'd all die out if there was no boinking which is the main ingredient of "love" in one's younger life.
Example: "Oh, BTW, Comf, It takes a beautiful, talented soul to write the above poem."
As one gets older, the definition of "love" changes. As relationships mature, the word "love" means "put up with that crap because it's just too much trouble to bolt from that crap these days."
I'm sure there are exceptions to this.
Farkel
Edited by - Farkel on 15 February 2003 22:12:49
Farkel, Farkel, Farkel..you are looking at this soooooo uuummm one dimensionally
romantic love:
man = I want to boink with you
woman = I want to chain you to me forever
romantic love later in life:
man = it's just too much trouble to bolt from that crap these days
woman = I sure as hell don't want to have to train a new one
I am sure there are exceptions to this
Thanks Farkelhead,
I finally get one definition. Yours is pretty close to mine, I think. Many people relate love and sex as inseperable things. That is why so many couldnt "share" themselves or thier partners.
On the other hand, others can completly seperate love from sex, making sex a recreational adventure while "love" maintains the responsibilities needed to keep the family afloat.
It is so easy to say "I love you", people say it on here with never meeting the person. I wonder how much weight is really in the words? I never use the term, personally.
Animal
