...Yeah, maybe the different types of love are different to each person, as I can't see romantic and platonic to be all that similar at all. Then again, I get romantically attracted to objects, so maybe I'm just weird.
In any case, I'm a bit too tired to go on about this now. Maybe tomorrow.
Helpful Scripts and Stylesheets here.I don't see why romantic and platonic love can't overlap. People I'm in serious relationships with are my close friends. I do view my romantic partner as vastly different from my close friends, though. There are different feelings involved. I don't have the urge to be physically affectionate with platonic friends, for a start.
On polyamory, I honestly don't see how anyone can object to it on a moral basis if all parties consent and are happy with the situation.
Biophilic bookworm by day, gentleman adventurer by night.If anything I'm skeptical of romantic polyamorous relationships working just because of human batardry. How often do relationships between two people work out? A lot less often than the rate at which they fail. Add more people to the mix and the chances of somebody being an idiot or fucking things up dramatically increases.
edited 18th Jan '11 1:54:18 PM by Alkthash
I couldn't realy see myself in a relationship with more than one person, not because of any moral objections, but because I'm an old-fashioned kinda guy.
The 5 geek social fallacies. Know them well.Wiatwhaholdonasec... You're a dude? Why was I not informed???
edited 18th Jan '11 2:22:49 PM by KuroFox
Sonic hates SOPAMy personal definition of love is such that polyamoury is impossible under it.
As for the consent thing, I really cannot imagine my romantic partner loving more than just me. I'd quickly get jealous, and then favoritism would show up....I really don't get the "everybody can be happy and not jealous" part of it.
And, like Inane, I'm just an old-fashioned guy.
"Who wants to hear about good stuff when the bottom of the abyss of human failure that you know doesn't exist is so much greater?"-WraithSo, thinking about it more since last night, here's how I see the types of love:
Platonic love is basically a type of trust. Somebody you love platonically is basically somebody you trust a whole lot.
Romantic love is an emotional investment. You give up a part of oneself and give it to someone else. In this sense, they affect you emotionally.
Generally speaking, putting an emotional investment in somebody you don't trust is probably a bad idea, so it's likely better to be (romantically) in love with somebody you already love platonically. I think.
Investing yourself emotionally in multiple people is possible, but rather risky, particularly if you don't trust them a whole lot. The more people you get involved in, the greater the risk. There may be worthwhile rewards, however, but I don't have any experience in the matter.
I doubt my ability to keep multiple human partners myself as a single partner already has a significant energy requirement, and I don't think I have enough for more than one. Even one might be troublesome for me.
Helpful Scripts and Stylesheets here.I'm kinda old fashioned too, I guess. But I wont bug into other peoples harem relations if all sides of them are perfectly happy with it.
I wouldn't be. Depending on where on the scale I would be on a threesome, I'd be incredibly jealous or feel incredibly guilty.
edited 18th Jan '11 2:57:29 PM by KuroFox
Sonic hates SOPAVery Well, Norn, but most people I've talked to clearly don't want to be in a polyamourous realtionship. I'm pretty sure Monoamoury is relatively "normal" for people.
"Who wants to hear about good stuff when the bottom of the abyss of human failure that you know doesn't exist is so much greater?"-Wraith...consider yourself informed.
The 5 geek social fallacies. Know them well.@Chagen — A random selection of anecdotes doesn't generalize reliably to typical preferences in the first place (particularly on culturally and emotionally charged topics like sexuality); typical preferences don't imply universal preferences; and stated preferences don't map particularly well to actual preferences. But all that aside, I trust you know the difference between what's typical and what's a moral obligation?
Now, I'm not trying to criticize your personal inclinations here. There hasn't been much reliable research on the subject, but the received wisdom is that people's emotional compatibility with poly relationships is highly varied and is fixed before adulthood, which I think is accurate in its broad strokes. There's no shame in preferring mono relationships; most of the world probably does. But none of that elevates your inclinations to the status of an obligation or entitles you to generalize them over humanity without qualification, especially when you've already admitted that they're pretty much unsupported.
edited 18th Jan '11 3:29:07 PM by Nornagest
I will keep my soul in a place out of sight, Far off, where the pulse of it is not heard.So, uh, I think my orientation changed again. I don't know what it is at the moment.
Helpful Scripts and Stylesheets here.Heterosexual, with a small chance of If It's You, It's Okay. However, my past and current inhibitions conspire to effectively prevent me acting on my desires.
Aww, did I hurt your widdle fee-fees?Still boring.
INT is knowing a tomato is a fruit. WIS is knowing it doesn't belong in a fruit salad. CHA is convincing people that it does.

I can see both forms of love.
Indeed, I'm fairly sure I can feel both romantic love and close-friendship love.
I'm just saying, that there is hardly any diffrence between the two. It is not all about tying yourself down; that's not the only difference. Just the biggest one that I see. And not even a prerequisite.
There are too many toasters in my chimney!