You said that there had to be no emotional attachment, which would mean it in fact is not polyamory (or at least it depends on the specific definition).
I didn't say that. I said in the given situation, it wouldn't work. Look some posts up and I'll admit that a polyamorous situation could work.
I don't know if someone who's been in a "cuddle" relationship (their first one BTW) for only a couple weeks should talk about what will and will not work.
If in this situation, the woman really had no emotional attachment to the outside man, the outside man had no emotional attachment to the woman, and the husband didn't care that his wife was having sex with someone else, then yes, it could work. However, getting to this situation is very difficult, and, if it's anything like the original situation brought up, this arrangement is being made drunkenly, so clearly that situation is not the right time to test this theory out and see if it works.
I don't think you need to be emotionally detached for a poly setup to work. In fact, if everyone is emotionally attached to each other, it may be a better scenario, as everyone is more likely to care whether or not someone gets hurt.
There are a lot of different kinds of emotional attachment. The monogamous "OMG YOU ARE THE ONE FOR ME" sort of love is just one form. A lot of people express their love in different ways and feel it in different ways. Some people can spread their love around. I've met straight guys in a poly relationship who had feelings for his male partner. It wasn't a sexual attraction, but there was emotional attachment there. It happens differently for different people.
But yes, making a decision to open a relationship while everyone's judgment is impaired is an unwise decision at best. If she's serious about wanting to have sex with you, it can wait until everyone is sober enough to discuss it together. If she can't wait, she's being rash and impulsive, and while rash and impulsive sex is fine, a rash and impulsive decision that wrecks friendships and potentially a relationship is decidedly not fine.
I didn't say that. I said in the given situation, it wouldn't work. Look some posts up and I'll admit that a polyamorous situation could work.
Yea, and I didn't say that I was calling you out, either, did I? It's a perfectly valid point that most people's insecurities and relationship problems make a non-monogamous relationship a bad idea. But since I had yet to enter the conversation, I was putting a synopsis of my viewpoint out there. This is just as much a response to the people who say "verify the consent and then go for it" as it is to you.
If he confirms with the husband that the girl isn't lying, then why wouldn't it work?
See above, Scott. Consent does not equal good idea.
Okay, so I'm just crazy. We've also already dealt with that fact, and so I once again wonder why you don't just let me stop arguing when I want to, because arguing with a crazy person is pointless, right?
No. It's only pointless once you're certain that they're crazy, and if we're talking seriously crazy, then the right thing to do is ensure that they get help.
For now, I doubt anyone here thinks you're crazy.
Why? I've shown all the signs of what Scrym calls irrationality? All of their arguments with me have ended with them citing my irrationality as the root problem with my arguments. I would argue that yes, people do think I'm crazy, and so why Scrym continues to go out of their way to keep me arguing is beyond me. That's what I'm saying. I don't want to argue this point anymore, so I tried to leave. They said "no, you leaving is dumb." But it's not dumb, it's smart, because they disagree with me.
I'm just tired of fighting on this forum.
The people who couldn't handle the truth, they didn't stick around very long.
Okay, so I'm just crazy. We've also already dealt with that fact, and so I once again wonder why you don't just let me stop arguing when I want to, because arguing with a crazy person is pointless, right?
No. It's only pointless once you're certain that they're crazy, and if we're talking seriously crazy, then the right thing to do is ensure that they get help.
For now, I doubt anyone here thinks you're crazy.
Why? I've shown all the signs of what Scrym calls irrationality? All of their arguments with me have ended with them citing my irrationality as the root problem with my arguments. I would argue that yes, people do think I'm crazy, and so why Scrym continues to go out of their way to keep me arguing is beyond me. That's what I'm saying. I don't want to argue this point anymore, so I tried to leave. They said "no, you leaving is dumb." But it's not dumb, it's smart, because they disagree with me.
I'm just tired of fighting on this forum.
If you want to pursue the truth, never stop fighting. You can cure your own crazy with truth.
See, clearly I think I'm right. So the fact that people continue to think that they'll dissuade me from my position is craziness on all of your parts. Seriously, give it up, I'm another typical Western Christian. I don't hate gay people, I don't hate abortion, I think everyone should get their rights, and I don't think I've ever harmed anyone with my beliefs. I can hold all of my ideas in my head and it will never harm anyone. You can try and change this one thing I cling to, this irrational life belief, but why bother? The only difference between Christian me and Atheist me is something that only affects me. Me being an Atheist will not cause me to harm any less people. So, you guys fighting for this is utterly pointless. I'm not really harming myself. I'm living a pretty good life that will give me happiness. All of this makes me happy. I'm not an unhappy Christian. I'm a happy Christian. There's no need for change in my life. It's arrogance for you to assume that me sharing your beliefs will wind up making my life better, because there's no evidence for that in my life right now. Edit: I typed this when Scott made his post telling me not to reply. This is my last post in this topic, then.
Prove to us, and yourself, that you have some amount of will power. Are you capable of not replying?
Dude, he's put forth a reasonable fucking point. The same fucking point I put forth. The same fucking point Nuri put forth. Yeah, it took some doing to get there, but he got there. Lay off.
EDIT: A reasonable point about the poly business. Other things, whatever. That's not the actual topic of discussion. The problem here is that Axel did have a reasonable position, and everyone jumped down his throat about defending opinions. That creates a sort of confused defensiveness; the opinion was reasonable, but he got jumped on anyway.
It's arrogance for you to assume that me sharing your beliefs will wind up making my life better, because there's no evidence for that in my life right now.
Honestly, any discussion with you on religion is just to drop the whole Hell thing. I have no problem with christians that don't believe in Hell. Once someone believes people are going to a bad place it totally warps how they look at things. I have no problem with a belief in Heaven and most christian values. It's the Hell thing that is completely insane and way more illogical then any of the other factors.
And we are being harsh on Axel. The problem is Axel is you entered the conversation passive aggressively. (with a bunch of overly aggressive people).
Meh. Marriage is overrated, and many people feel it's obsolete.
Dude, WTF? It doesn't matter whether or not a lot of people think marriage is obsolete. The point is that taking advantage of a troubled relationship like that is a douchebag move.
Just because some people don't value marriage doesn't mean that you should just go ahead and break up a troubled one so that you can sleep with one of the members of said marriage. That falls into the realm of harmful selfishness.
Dude, WTF? It doesn't matter whether or not a lot of people think marriage is obsolete. The point is that taking advantage of a troubled relationship like that is a douchebag move.
Yea, even in the article Rym listed it says Marriage is still a major social force on society. Just not THE FORCE it used to be.
Yea, even in the article Rym listed it says Marriage is still a major social force on society. Just not THE FORCE it used to be.
Well, that's because more people see it as just another type of relationship. This really all boils down to how people behave in relationships of all sorts. Most people such at interpersonal relationships.
Yea, even in the article Rym listed it says Marriage is still a major social force on society. Just not THE FORCE it used to be.
True, but that skews toward older generations. The trend is decidedly downward.
Dude, WTF? It doesn't matter whether or not a lot of people think marriage is obsolete. The point is that taking advantage of a troubled relationship like that is a douchebag move.
I agree with you 100%. The point I was driving toward would eventually have been that whether or not the people involved were married was entirely irrelevant to the argument.
To be sure, this situation reeks of fishiness, regardless of whether "marriage" is a factor.
I agree with you 100%. The point I was driving toward would eventually have been that whether or not the people involved were married was entirely irrelevant to the argument.
Of course it was, but Axel's point didn't depend at all on the marriage factor. He said you'd be breaking up a marriage, but didn't argue that marriage was somehow more important than any other relationship. It was effectively a synonym for "relationship."
Basically, your point about the marriage thing being irrelevant was also irrelevant. Irrelevance abounds!
Axel, we don't "yell at you." We merely debate intensely. As a group, we are, all of us, in a state of constantly reevaluating and defending our beliefs. Hell, I get into ethics arguments with Pete all the time, and yet we are still friends. Even if we don't completely change our positions, we come to understand the other point of view. I think the problem is you always view attacks on your ideas as attacks against you as a person, and then you go and hide and get all sullen about it.
That's what I'm saying. I don't want to argue this point anymore, so I tried to leave. They said "no, you leaving is dumb." But it's not dumb, it's smart, because they disagree with me.
Axel, you say you want to stop arguing, yet you continue arguing. If the argument is over for you, just stop posting about it. Nobody is forcing you to keep coming back and arguing.
Comments
There are a lot of different kinds of emotional attachment. The monogamous "OMG YOU ARE THE ONE FOR ME" sort of love is just one form. A lot of people express their love in different ways and feel it in different ways. Some people can spread their love around. I've met straight guys in a poly relationship who had feelings for his male partner. It wasn't a sexual attraction, but there was emotional attachment there. It happens differently for different people.
But yes, making a decision to open a relationship while everyone's judgment is impaired is an unwise decision at best. If she's serious about wanting to have sex with you, it can wait until everyone is sober enough to discuss it together. If she can't wait, she's being rash and impulsive, and while rash and impulsive sex is fine, a rash and impulsive decision that wrecks friendships and potentially a relationship is decidedly not fine.
I would argue that yes, people do think I'm crazy, and so why Scrym continues to go out of their way to keep me arguing is beyond me. That's what I'm saying. I don't want to argue this point anymore, so I tried to leave. They said "no, you leaving is dumb." But it's not dumb, it's smart, because they disagree with me.
I'm just tired of fighting on this forum.
And yet I've been here for a year, how strange...
Prove to us, and yourself, that you have some amount of will power. Are you capable of not replying?
Edit: I typed this when Scott made his post telling me not to reply. This is my last post in this topic, then.
EDIT: Too soon.
EDIT: A reasonable point about the poly business. Other things, whatever. That's not the actual topic of discussion. The problem here is that Axel did have a reasonable position, and everyone jumped down his throat about defending opinions. That creates a sort of confused defensiveness; the opinion was reasonable, but he got jumped on anyway.
And we are being harsh on Axel. The problem is Axel is you entered the conversation passive aggressively. (with a bunch of overly aggressive people).
Just because some people don't value marriage doesn't mean that you should just go ahead and break up a troubled one so that you can sleep with one of the members of said marriage. That falls into the realm of harmful selfishness.
//Note Cremlian is currently engaged.
To be sure, this situation reeks of fishiness, regardless of whether "marriage" is a factor.
Basically, your point about the marriage thing being irrelevant was also irrelevant. Irrelevance abounds!