Sands of Time

A remark was made this weekend about “being careful” with saying, I Love You.  That saying it too much dilutes the meaning. I disagree strongly.  While I do believe words are cheap and actions speak louder than words, what do we have if we fear saying those three words from our heart?

We’ve also been talking quite a bit about polyamory and how we operate or don’t operate in that context. Where does the mono mindset end and the poly mindset begin?

I believe we are all polyamorous to some extent. I know full well the “amorous” part of polyamorous generally refers only to sexual love; the Eros part of Love. But I find that isn’t always so.  I have had plenty of deeply loving, intensely intimate relationships that did not include sexual love/desire.  Oh, it may have been erotic and charged at times.  But sex was not a factor.

I have issues with categorizing Love. To me, it puts constraints on Love when we break them into “types”. If you fall into one type category then you are potentially excluded from other type categories.  And that is very true for me as well to this degree: I break my philosophy of Love and Loving into two broad categories. The first is Familial Love. Love concerning blood family. It is not erotic, sexual or romantic. It is however, unconditional.

The only other Love category for me is everything else. I make no difference between  romantic, erotic, affectionate, intellectual, spiritual or sexual Love with others.  What’s the point? For me it’s more confusing than not.  By my way of thinking, Love exists as a range that moves back and forth depending on the needs of one or all parties because like everything else human our needs, wants, and desires always change through time.

Unconditional Love encompasses all Love. After all, when we Love do we need to put conditions on that Love? If we do can we even call it, “Love”?

I think there is a difference between “behavior” and “Love”. We just tend to link behavior(s) as conditions of Love.  I have never stopped Loving my alcoholic and emotionally abusive ex-husband.  But I won’t tolerate that behavior in my life. It was not my Love that was conditional.  It was his alcoholic and abusive behavior that was a condition of my willingness to live with him.

To me, labels and hierarchies do nothing but prevent Love from developing any natural course because we put limits on that Love with the definitions we use before we even begin a ride on the Love Train.

How does this fit with polyamory?

I think breaking down the definitions that prevent loving are paramount to seeing past a monogamous mindset.

Don’t get me wrong.  Plenty of people are monogamous and it works well for them. Just as many I think are monogamous and it doesn’t work very well for them. I can say the same of ploy relationships.   But we are more often than not, trapped by the labels and their definitions.  We use those both overtly and covertly to create and keep us in the box we live in.

Read the following definitions. Use these definitions and no others. Try not to be colored by the ones you may employ in your current relationship(s), or what you have previously read.

Compare metamour with primary and secondary.

Do the words differ according to the posted definitions? How?

Where might it be helpful to use one set of definitions over the other?

Where might it be harmful to use one set of definitions over the other?

Compare and contrast Compersion with Tolerance.

Would compersion be more or less difficult using a hierarchical based relationship system than not?

METAMOUR: (Literally, meta with; about + amor love): The partner of one’s partner, with whom one does not necessarily share a direct sexual or loving relationship.

PRIMARY: In a primary/secondary relationship, the person (or persons) in the relationship with the highest degree of involvement or entanglement, or sometimes the person accorded the most importance. A person may be primary either as a natural consequence of the circumstance and nature of the relationship (because that person has the greatest degree of financial entanglement, for example), or as a deliberate consequence of the relationship structure and agreements (as in the case of an existing couple who set out to add additional partners only on the condition that those existing partners are seen as “less important” than the couple).  People who do not seek to construct a relationship along prescriptive primary/secondary lines may have more than one primary relationship; a relationship can become primary when it reaches a certain point of emotional commitment, practical entanglement, or both.

SECONDARY: In a primary/secondary relationship, the person (or persons) in the relationship who, either by intent or by circumstance, have a relationship which is given less in terms of time, energy and priority in a person’s life than a primary relationship, and usually involves fewer ongoing commitments such as plans or financial/legal involvements. A secondary relationship may be secondary as a result of a conscious decision on the part of the primary partners, or simply as a result of circumstance (distance or time involvement), or as a natural development of the relationship.

COMPERSION:A feeling of joy when a partner invests in and takes pleasure from another romantic or sexual relationship. Compersion can be thought of as the opposite of “jealousy;” it is a positive emotional reaction to a lover’s other relationship.

TOLERATE: To allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something one does not necessarily like or agree with (without interference).