--- 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 >
