---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <s3raphita@...> wrote :
Re "failed relationships gravitate to such arrangements. ": Ann, that could be the case for some. I suspect another difference is how you view relationships at the fundamental level. If you think primarily in terms of physical satisfaction, maybe it makes good sense to have lots of partners; if you want emotional security then best forget all about polyamory; and if (like me) you regard a sexual relationship as something you have to "construct/invent" (and not find ready-made) in a way that crucially involves your imagination weaving a spell around "the beloved" then a stable, long-term relationship is the way to go! Nicely said! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <awoelflebater@...> wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <steve.sundur@...> wrote : I think I'm ready to call it a cult. I'd say it definitely has a "nudist camp, swinger vibe" to it, this "noble" bill of rights, notwithstanding. (-: Maybe the rule of 3's does apply. I think those that have had reasonably successful marriages are not quite able to see how this all might work out. I certainly can't. It wouldn't be my preference because I know how hard it would be to give and to share an equal amount of love with two or more sexual partners. It is just a non starter for me. Perhaps those who have had failed marriages or many failed relationships gravitate to such arrangements.
