[FairfieldLife] Re: O mi corazon, mi poliamor

2008-07-28 Thread R.G.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 I'm going to springboard off of something said here
 recently to a subject which I've never noticed come
 up before.
 
  McCain has already been accused of an affair with one of 
  his staff members. ...
  Similar tastes in women of the great lover of adultery, 
  Bill Clinton. King of Adultery.
 
 Ok, the subject is not McCain or Clinton or politics.
 It's about that word 'adultery,' and about a partic-
 ular point of view about sex and sexuality and rela-
 tionships, and the pervasiveness of this point of 
 view in the culture. 
 
 We've had discussions of homosexuality here before,
 and those were interesting, revealing that not every-
 one shares Maharishi's Better to be dead view on
 that subject. And the issue of adultery or infidelity
 or cheating on one's Significant Other does come up
 from time to time, but everyone just lets it slide as
 if there were nothing to challenge in looking down at
 such things.
 
 Here in Spain I know a few people who are actively 
 into 'poliamor' -- in English, 'polyamory.' Some are 
 single, some are married, but they're all into open
 relationships. 
 
 Note that polyamory does NOT mean swinging. There
 are couples who each have other relationships with
 other people -- and sometimes more than one -- but
 they are *committed* relationships. Everybody knows
 everybody else, and is comfortable with the whole
 scene. There are even instances of threesomes or 
 foursomes having and raising kids. 
 
 It's been an eye-opener for me, even though I grew
 up during the Hippie era and basically practiced this
 lifestyle for some years...I just never had a name for
 it before. :-)
 
 So I thought I'd bring it up here as a topic for con-
 versation. I know that Maharishi's view and the TMO's 
 view on relationships is Pretty Damned Traditional,
 if not downright puritanical. In casual conversation
 around this forum, relationships have pretty much been
 assumed to be one-on-one, with fidelity held in high 
 esteem and infidelity held in low esteem.
 
 I have no dog in this fight, if it turns out to be one.
 I have been in committed relationships in which fidelity
 was assumed, and I have never once violated that assump-
 tion. I have also lived at times a fairly polyamorous
 lifestyle, with multiple committed relationships going
 on at the same time, everyone knowing about everyone 
 else. Both approaches have had their ups and their downs, 
 and I honestly see no inherent winner in either approach. 
 Both have their arguments for, and against, and both
 sets of arguments are strong.
 
 I'm just interested in hearing what this intelligent
 group of people has to say on the subject. What do you
 THINK of the polyamory approach, to being free to have
 committed sexual relationships with more than one person
 at a time?

I'm sure it could work for some people, but for most, they would have 
too much emotional investment to make this a comforting, loving type 
of thing.
In many situations, for people who aren't ready for the emotions that 
can arise...can be dangerous.
I once knew a woman, when she was younger, was in a situation where 
her friend had herself as well and another friend,
In other words they had a ongoing threesome.
Not sure why, or all the details, but the guy in this relationship 
ended up commiting suicide by hanging himself, and this girlfiend 
found him.
She has never gotten over this completely, and is an advoctae for 
respecting the idea of playing with fire, you might get very burnt.
R.G.




[FairfieldLife] Re: O mi corazon, mi poliamor

2008-07-28 Thread TurquoiseB
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, R.G. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
 
  I have no dog in this fight, if it turns out to be one.
  I have been in committed relationships in which fidelity
  was assumed, and I have never once violated that assump-
  tion. I have also lived at times a fairly polyamorous
  lifestyle, with multiple committed relationships going
  on at the same time, everyone knowing about everyone 
  else. Both approaches have had their ups and their downs, 
  and I honestly see no inherent winner in either approach. 
  Both have their arguments for, and against, and both
  sets of arguments are strong.
  
  I'm just interested in hearing what this intelligent
  group of people has to say on the subject. What do you
  THINK of the polyamory approach, to being free to have
  committed sexual relationships with more than one person
  at a time?

 I'm sure it could work for some people, but for most, they 
 would have too much emotional investment to make this a 
 comforting, loving type of thing.

Isn't this another way of saying, Most people are 
too attached to make this work? Isn't emotional
investment, as you are using it, a synonym for
attachment?

I'm asking because growing non-attachment is said
to be one of the big selling points of a spiritual
lifestyle or path.

 In many situations, for people who aren't ready for the 
 emotions that can arise...can be dangerous.

You seem to be assuming that they will arise. I make
no such assumptions, based both on observation of
these people I know, and my own experience earlier
in life. 

Yes, you are completely correct that in many strong
emotions will arise, but I guess I'm suggesting that
the assumption that they *have* to arise is the aber-
ration, and not the polyamory.

 snip cautionary tale because all cautionary tales
are designed to invoke and appeal to fear, and I think 
of that as even less evolved than attachment 





[FairfieldLife] Re: O mi corazon, mi poliamor

2008-07-28 Thread authfriend
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, R.G. babajii_99@ wrote:
snip
  In many situations, for people who aren't ready for the 
  emotions that can arise...can be dangerous.
 
 You seem to be assuming that they will arise.

He said CAN arise.

 I make no such assumptions

Do you assume they CANNOT arise?

, based both on observation of
 these people I know, and my own experience earlier
 in life. 
 
 Yes, you are completely correct that in many strong
 emotions will arise, but I guess I'm suggesting that
 the assumption that they *have* to arise is the aber-
 ration, and not the polyamory.

For Barry, can arise = have to arise.