Fundamentalist Monogamist Zealots: Please Answer!

Ask questions and discuss your relationships with partners or parents, family or friends.

Fundamentalist Monogamist Zealots: Please Answer!

Unread postby poolerboy0077 » 17 January 2019, 04:15

Picture the following exchange.


Person A: I love my mom and dad very much!

*Person B overhears Person A and chimes in*

Person B: Oh, see, I could never do that.

Person A: Sorry? Could never do what?

Person B: Could never love both my mom and my dad. Not just because my dad is a piece of shit, but because I value commitment too much.

Person A: I don’t quite follow.

Person B: You see, because you love both your parents, you split your love equally between the two of them, whereas I only focus on one—my mother. Therefore, I’m committed to my mother whereas you’re a kind of love whore, spreading the love around to others. I bet you also love your siblings too!

Person A: Of course I do. They’re my blood.

Person B: Ha! See? No faithfulness. No commitment. :oface:


Monogamists: Do you think Person B is correct about themselves and about Person A? If not, why do you think it applies to romantic/sexual relationships but not familial ones? Also, why do you love blowing yourself so much?
Blow: "Nowadays even Liam can release an album of his screechy vocals and it'll probably go #1..."
Ramzus: I can admit that I'm horny just about 24/7
homomorphism: I used to not think your name was deshay and that Erick was just being racist
Hunter: sometimes I think I was literally born to be a pornstar
User avatar
poolerboy0077
 
Posts: 7262
+1s received: 1428
Joined: 20 December 2012, 21:20
Country: United States (us)

Re: Fundamentalist Monogamist Zealots: Please Answer!

Unread postby Derek » 17 January 2019, 05:03

Very logical. I hadn't considered modeling my love life after yours before, but since you've clearly got it figured out, I guess I could consider hanging up a few boy band posters and masturbating to a Youtube musician's Instagram feed and see how it feels. This is right up there with the guy who argued that everyone is inherently bisexual because we have the ability to judge people of either sex as more or less attractive.
User avatar
Derek
 
Posts: 5122
+1s received: 1367
Joined: 21 December 2012, 02:12
Country: United States (us)

Re: Fundamentalist Monogamist Zealots: Please Answer!

Unread postby poolerboy0077 » 17 January 2019, 05:42

Imagine being deluded enough to think that having awkward banter with another member from the forum constitutes having an upper hand in relationships enough to look down on others.
Blow: "Nowadays even Liam can release an album of his screechy vocals and it'll probably go #1..."
Ramzus: I can admit that I'm horny just about 24/7
homomorphism: I used to not think your name was deshay and that Erick was just being racist
Hunter: sometimes I think I was literally born to be a pornstar
User avatar
poolerboy0077
 
Posts: 7262
+1s received: 1428
Joined: 20 December 2012, 21:20
Country: United States (us)

Re: Fundamentalist Monogamist Zealots: Please Answer!

Unread postby Stardust » 17 January 2019, 05:44

Oh pooler, what would we do without you :keke:
Image
User avatar
Stardust
 
Posts: 131
+1s received: 142
Joined: 9 January 2019, 01:43
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: Fundamentalist Monogamist Zealots: Please Answer!

Unread postby mxguy01 » 17 January 2019, 06:07

How profound, as usual.
Image

---
I love to travel but hate to arrive -- Albert Einstein
---
The only thing worse than an Did Not Finish (DNF) is an Did Not Start (DNS). ~~ Me
---
It is better to light one small candle than to curse the darkness. ~~ Chinese fortune cookie
User avatar
mxguy01
 
Posts: 3706
+1s received: 1809
Joined: 23 October 2017, 23:12
Location: NorCal
Country: United States (us)

Re: Fundamentalist Monogamist Zealots: Please Answer!

Unread postby Brenden » 17 January 2019, 12:31

The issue isn’t necessarily a finite amount of love but an infinite amount of other emotions besides love, like jealousy and envy.

From my own experience as a child of divorced parents, their jealous psychological manipulations can certainly make one feel it’s an either-or rather than and dynamic.
ImageImageImage
User avatar
Brenden
Administrator
 
Posts: 6359
+1s received: 1329
Joined: 20 December 2012, 20:12
Location: Lanarkshire, Scotland
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: Fundamentalist Monogamist Zealots: Please Answer!

Unread postby GearFetTwinkRomance » 17 January 2019, 12:59

I love my skateboard. I love my wave surfboard, too.
I think it's really hard to live a mono-board life. It seems to work for mono-fin divers, however.
Divorce ... sounds like split-board enthusiasm.
At times I love bottles. Not so much the emptied ones.

I would say it's not monogamy in familial loves, as you normally would not ... you know...with your parents.
Doesn't have influence on the auto-fellatio part though. ;)
If ya want to hang with me, let's go windsurfing!
User avatar
GearFetTwinkRomance
 
Posts: 627
+1s received: 235
Joined: 8 January 2018, 10:08
Location: Seashore Baltic "dolphin bay"
Country: Germany (de)

Re: Fundamentalist Monogamist Zealots: Please Answer!

Unread postby poolerboy0077 » 17 January 2019, 14:42

Brenden wrote:The issue isn’t necessarily a finite amount of love but an infinite amount of other emotions besides love, like jealousy and envy.

From my own experience as a child of divorced parents, their jealous psychological manipulations can certainly make one feel it’s an either-or rather than and dynamic.

But my point is that the same could be said of other relationships. Parents who have more than one child risk liking (and perhaps loving) one more than the other. You see this all the time with families who have favorites, and it’s obvious even when the parents deny it. If someone’s solution to these infinite negative emotional posibilites is to abstain as a preventative measure, fine. But that isn’t what you come across with a lot of monogamists. Instead it’s sold with condescension, confusing exclusivity with commitment and insinuating that those with open relationships, etc. are in some ways inferior, less committed emotionally and so forth.

mxguy01 wrote:How profound, as usual.

Another point going over your head, as usual.

GearFetTwinkRomance wrote:I would say it's not monogamy in familial loves, as you normally would not ... you know...with your parents.

That’s not the relevant part of the analogue here. It’s that one could say make the same point about commitment to other types of relationships, but when you do you expose its absurdity.
Blow: "Nowadays even Liam can release an album of his screechy vocals and it'll probably go #1..."
Ramzus: I can admit that I'm horny just about 24/7
homomorphism: I used to not think your name was deshay and that Erick was just being racist
Hunter: sometimes I think I was literally born to be a pornstar
User avatar
poolerboy0077
 
Posts: 7262
+1s received: 1428
Joined: 20 December 2012, 21:20
Country: United States (us)

Re: Fundamentalist Monogamist Zealots: Please Answer!

Unread postby Victor_Laszlo » 17 January 2019, 15:04

Loving someone and being in love are different things.

You can't really compare the 2.
Formerly known as Simple_Man

Edna St. Vincent Millay — 'My candle burns at both ends;It will not last the night; But ah, my foes, and oh, my friends—It gives a lovely light!'
User avatar
Victor_Laszlo
 
Posts: 2542
+1s received: 1758
Joined: 30 September 2017, 16:43
Location: Pennsylvania
Country: United States (us)

Re: Fundamentalist Monogamist Zealots: Please Answer!

Unread postby poolerboy0077 » 17 January 2019, 17:26

Victor_Laszlo wrote:Loving someone and being in love are different things.

You can't really compare the 2.

What’s the relevance to the point being made here?

I’m going to have to issue a citation here:

You have committed the following annoyance: Perverting Analogies
Blow: "Nowadays even Liam can release an album of his screechy vocals and it'll probably go #1..."
Ramzus: I can admit that I'm horny just about 24/7
homomorphism: I used to not think your name was deshay and that Erick was just being racist
Hunter: sometimes I think I was literally born to be a pornstar
User avatar
poolerboy0077
 
Posts: 7262
+1s received: 1428
Joined: 20 December 2012, 21:20
Country: United States (us)

Re: Fundamentalist Monogamist Zealots: Please Answer!

Unread postby Derek » 18 January 2019, 00:27

poolerboy0077 wrote:Imagine being deluded enough to think that having awkward banter with another member from the forum constitutes having an upper hand in relationships enough to look down on others.

Not "others", just a select few people.

poolerboy0077 wrote:
Victor_Laszlo wrote:Loving someone and being in love are different things.

You can't really compare the 2.

What’s the relevance to the point being made here?

I’m going to have to issue a citation here:

You have committed the following annoyance: Perverting Analogies

It seems like what you're saying in the OP is that if people are able to love more than one kid, they should be able to love more than one romantic partner. The point that people have a double standard when it comes to loving different people in different amounts is a little better served by your analogy, but it's still unconvincing. Loving someone and being in love are, in fact, different things, and being different things is something that warrants a difference in judgment. I don't think your analogy was perverted at all.
User avatar
Derek
 
Posts: 5122
+1s received: 1367
Joined: 21 December 2012, 02:12
Country: United States (us)

Re: Fundamentalist Monogamist Zealots: Please Answer!

Unread postby mxguy01 » 18 January 2019, 02:40

poolerboy0077 wrote:
mxguy01 wrote:How profound, as usual.

Another point going over your head, as usual.


No, I got it right. Just another asinine assimilation by you. That's all it is; nothing more. Sorry but normal people don't see things the way you do.

But hey, it's also just more click bate from you to start arguments and declare everyone else wacked.

March on as you always do.

Have a great evening.
Image

---
I love to travel but hate to arrive -- Albert Einstein
---
The only thing worse than an Did Not Finish (DNF) is an Did Not Start (DNS). ~~ Me
---
It is better to light one small candle than to curse the darkness. ~~ Chinese fortune cookie
User avatar
mxguy01
 
Posts: 3706
+1s received: 1809
Joined: 23 October 2017, 23:12
Location: NorCal
Country: United States (us)

Re: Fundamentalist Monogamist Zealots: Please Answer!

Unread postby poolerboy0077 » 18 January 2019, 02:48

mxguy01 wrote:No, I got it right. Just another asinine assimilation by you. That's all it is; nothing more. Sorry but normal people don't see things the way you do.

But hey, it's also just more click bate from you to start arguments and declare everyone else wacked.

March on as you always do.

Have a great evening.

In other words, I can’t rationally contradict what you’re saying but I know you’re wrong because I dislike you and what you say goes against most people’s intuitions. Yes, it is going over your head. Much like the original sin that caused the domino ridicule by other members.

Derek wrote:It seems like what you're saying in the OP is that if people are able to love more than one kid, they should be able to love more than one romantic partner. The point that people have a double standard when it comes to loving different people in different amounts is a little better served by your analogy, but it's still unconvincing. Loving someone and being in love are, in fact, different things, and being different things is something that warrants a difference in judgment. I don't think your analogy was perverted at all.

Why would this difference be relevant here? Again, the thing being criticized here is the conflation between exclusivity and commitment. All of these things—commitment, loyalty, faithfulness—are things many monogamists claim are found only in monogamy when it comes to romantic/sexual relationships. The analogy simply exposes such absurdity. My position isn’t to claim non-monogamous relationships (e.g., polyamory, open relationships, etc.) are superior but rather reject the notion that monogamy is a better, cookie-cutter lifestyle that everyone should strive for. Well, that and to show how obnoxious and condescending they sound like when taking to other people about their non-monogamous relationships.
Blow: "Nowadays even Liam can release an album of his screechy vocals and it'll probably go #1..."
Ramzus: I can admit that I'm horny just about 24/7
homomorphism: I used to not think your name was deshay and that Erick was just being racist
Hunter: sometimes I think I was literally born to be a pornstar
User avatar
poolerboy0077
 
Posts: 7262
+1s received: 1428
Joined: 20 December 2012, 21:20
Country: United States (us)

Re: Fundamentalist Monogamist Zealots: Please Answer!

Unread postby Derek » 18 January 2019, 03:13

The comparison isn't salient. Commitment, loyalty, and faithfulness can mean different things in different contexts. Romantic and familial relationships aren't the same. Why would they be judged by the same standards? Like, people say you should be exclusive with your partner but not with your kids and that's supposed to sound like an absurd contradiction? It doesn't.
User avatar
Derek
 
Posts: 5122
+1s received: 1367
Joined: 21 December 2012, 02:12
Country: United States (us)

Re: Fundamentalist Monogamist Zealots: Please Answer!

Unread postby GearFetTwinkRomance » 18 January 2019, 03:38

Actually, I would think that relationships are equal, not one exclusively over another because of their commitment or whatever guidelines to follow.
Because every relationship is unique.

I think there's halfway monogamy, too. Someone might live an open relationship and let his partner go exploring, while the guy would be his only one forever, as he doesn't have a desire for anyone else.

The only compare I can see,would be the one, to favourite kids, would be the favourite lover of someone polygamous.
The Sheikh or Chief probably would have a favourite wife, too. Depending... this would be kind of difficult, I guess, if there's more than 15 lovers.

I used to believe in romantics and monogamy, but I'm glad, people still love one another. How many they can love, I don't care, and it's business of their shared privacy. Love one another, as long as love still happens!
If ya want to hang with me, let's go windsurfing!
User avatar
GearFetTwinkRomance
 
Posts: 627
+1s received: 235
Joined: 8 January 2018, 10:08
Location: Seashore Baltic "dolphin bay"
Country: Germany (de)

Re: Fundamentalist Monogamist Zealots: Please Answer!

Unread postby poolerboy0077 » 18 January 2019, 04:15

Derek wrote:The comparison isn't salient. Commitment, loyalty, and faithfulness can mean different things in different contexts. Romantic and familial relationships aren't the same. Why would they be judged by the same standards? Like, people say you should be exclusive with your partner but not with your kids and that's supposed to sound like an absurd contradiction? It doesn't.

But therein lies the monogamist trap: Because these relationship types are indeed different, monogamous people can get away with asserting all sorts of things, including the bald assertion that commitment, faithfulness, loyalty, etc. can only be achieved in monogamous relationships. People can say it all they’d like, but the lived experience of many non-monogamous people show that it is possible. Just look at Dan Savage and his husband. They’ve been together far longer than most monogamous relationships I know.
Blow: "Nowadays even Liam can release an album of his screechy vocals and it'll probably go #1..."
Ramzus: I can admit that I'm horny just about 24/7
homomorphism: I used to not think your name was deshay and that Erick was just being racist
Hunter: sometimes I think I was literally born to be a pornstar
User avatar
poolerboy0077
 
Posts: 7262
+1s received: 1428
Joined: 20 December 2012, 21:20
Country: United States (us)

Re: Fundamentalist Monogamist Zealots: Please Answer!

Unread postby Derek » 18 January 2019, 04:41

I don't disagree. I just think the analogy is pointless.
User avatar
Derek
 
Posts: 5122
+1s received: 1367
Joined: 21 December 2012, 02:12
Country: United States (us)

Re: Fundamentalist Monogamist Zealots: Please Answer!

Unread postby poolerboy0077 » 18 January 2019, 05:14

It’s not pointless if it gets under the skin of monogamous people.
Blow: "Nowadays even Liam can release an album of his screechy vocals and it'll probably go #1..."
Ramzus: I can admit that I'm horny just about 24/7
homomorphism: I used to not think your name was deshay and that Erick was just being racist
Hunter: sometimes I think I was literally born to be a pornstar
User avatar
poolerboy0077
 
Posts: 7262
+1s received: 1428
Joined: 20 December 2012, 21:20
Country: United States (us)

Re: Fundamentalist Monogamist Zealots: Please Answer!

Unread postby mxguy01 » 18 January 2019, 05:34

Yep, it's good you have such lofty goals - to antagonize others. Paints an even better picture of you. You are truly one charming individual.
Image

---
I love to travel but hate to arrive -- Albert Einstein
---
The only thing worse than an Did Not Finish (DNF) is an Did Not Start (DNS). ~~ Me
---
It is better to light one small candle than to curse the darkness. ~~ Chinese fortune cookie
User avatar
mxguy01
 
Posts: 3706
+1s received: 1809
Joined: 23 October 2017, 23:12
Location: NorCal
Country: United States (us)

Re: Fundamentalist Monogamist Zealots: Please Answer!

Unread postby mxguy01 » 18 January 2019, 05:59

poolerboy0077 wrote:
mxguy01 wrote:No, I got it right. Just another asinine assimilation by you. That's all it is; nothing more. Sorry but normal people don't see things the way you do.

But hey, it's also just more click bate from you to start arguments and declare everyone else wacked.

March on as you always do.

Have a great evening.

In other words, I can’t rationally contradict what you’re saying but I know you’re wrong because I dislike you and what you say goes against most people’s intuitions. Yes, it is going over your head. Much like the original sin that caused the domino ridicule by other members.

Derek wrote:It seems like what you're saying in the OP is that if people are able to love more than one kid, they should be able to love more than one romantic partner. The point that people have a double standard when it comes to loving different people in different amounts is a little better served by your analogy, but it's still unconvincing. Loving someone and being in love are, in fact, different things, and being different things is something that warrants a difference in judgment. I don't think your analogy was perverted at all.

Why would this difference be relevant here? Again, the thing being criticized here is the conflation between exclusivity and commitment. All of these things—commitment, loyalty, faithfulness—are things many monogamists claim are found only in monogamy when it comes to romantic/sexual relationships. The analogy simply exposes such absurdity. My position isn’t to claim non-monogamous relationships (e.g., polyamory, open relationships, etc.) are superior but rather reject the notion that monogamy is a better, cookie-cutter lifestyle that everyone should strive for. Well, that and to show how obnoxious and condescending they sound like when taking to other people about their non-monogamous relationships.


You missed the point that your OP was nothing more than an (read above). Therefore there was nothing to rationally contradict. Unfortunately that tends to get lost on degenerate mentalities such as Trump and yourself.
Image

---
I love to travel but hate to arrive -- Albert Einstein
---
The only thing worse than an Did Not Finish (DNF) is an Did Not Start (DNS). ~~ Me
---
It is better to light one small candle than to curse the darkness. ~~ Chinese fortune cookie
User avatar
mxguy01
 
Posts: 3706
+1s received: 1809
Joined: 23 October 2017, 23:12
Location: NorCal
Country: United States (us)

Next

Recently active
Users browsing this forum: ajakes124, BlueBoy19, caco, CommonCrawl [Bot], Delishes, Jzone, Leb_Guy, rogonandi, SebPeace and 13 guests