A Gentle Reminder

by COMF 56 Replies latest social relationships

  • DFWnonJW

    Hey Comf... how long ago did you master polyrythyms and did it coincide with your change in lyfestyle? Just curious since I was practicing some simple 3:2 stuff today and wondered if I continue down this path will I be drawn into the poly-amour-us life as well?

    <just joking ya bastard!>

  • Aztec

    Comf, I wonder if it is really a Christian cultural teaching or a natural, intuitive need to bond with one person. From the little that I've read on evolution men are naturally less monogomous than women but, most, and of course not all, religions encourage pair bonding. I wonder how much of it is natural and how much is cultural. I'm sure I'm revealing my naivity but I just don't understand the ability to not get jealous when you think about someone you deeply care about with another amorous person. But, that's just me...


  • COMF


    I was practicing a 5/4 rhythm one day (determined that Joe Morello was not going to get the best of me in being able to play a solo in 5/4) when suddenly it came to me in a flash of light: "Hey... if there can be an fifth beat in a four-beat system and it still keeps perfect time, why can't there be an extra person in a two-gender system and still keep the rhythm going?"

    Gotta admit, DF, 3/2 works, count-wise, better than 5/4, for the illustration. But of course, then we come to 13/8... (cf Free Will, by Rush) ...par-dee!

    Aztec, there are those who would tell you (who HAVE told me) that this is all just a coverup for a scared little boy keeping everyone at arms' length because he got hurt a few times in the past and is now too chicken to expose his vulnerable heart again.

    Maybe so. I doubt it, but I won't rule it out. I'm more of the opinion that it's an open acknowledgement and acceptance of how things most naturally are. I also understand and accept that you see it just the opposite. That's fine by me. I'm not prosyletizing... stopped doing that many years ago.

  • Aztec

    Honestly Comf, it's not that I see it the exact opposite of you, I just don't feel the same way. I understand and, accept, that some people are okay with that type of relationship. I just don't know how much of it is a natural thing and how much of it is a cultural thing. Guess I need to learn a new word for thing...LOL

    I'm one of the most socially liberal people who post on this board but when it comes to relationships...I get all conservative. What I don't understand is how you can think of someone you love being in an amorous relationship with someone other than yourself and not get peeved? How? Maybe I have a conservative bone in me yet...:-O

    Perhaps you do have a sensitive bone in you that won't let anyone get close to you. I'm really not much differant but, I'm not afraid to let myself get hurt by that....I am brave and I can handle it!

    Btw, nice pic of you and your car...

    *hoping arrow doesn't get mad at me* LOL


  • Farkel


    People said that GOD(ltm) said you can't mess around. Therefore, it must be true.


    If you mess around GOD(tm) will mess you up.


    Unless he doesn't give a rat, and in which case it is perfectly fine to mess around.


    Since GOD(tm) hasn't said crap in thousands of years, I would guess that people should mess around every chance they can!

    (Unless GOD(tm) pops out of the blue and kills those people who took that chance.)



    Let the reader use discernment. This is spiritually DEEP!


  • COMF

    What I don't understand is how you can think of someone you love being in an amorous relationship with someone other than yourself and not get peeved?

    That's what I was talking about in that post a year ago, Aztec, and especially in the excerpt by Anne Morrow Lindbergh that I linked. Here's the crux of what she says:

    We all wish to be loved alone. "Don't sit under the Apple tree with anyone else but me," runs the old popular song. Perhaps, as Auden says in his poem, this is a fundamental error in mankind:

    For the error bred in the bone
    Of each woman and each man
    Craves what it cannot have,
    Not universal love
    But to be loved alone.

    Is it such a sin? In discussing this verse with an Indian philosopher, I had an illuminating answer. "It is all right to wish to be loved alone," he said, "mutuality is the essence of love. There cannot be others in mutuality. It is only in the time-sense that it is wrong. It is when we desire continuity of being loved alone that we go wrong." For not only do we insist on believing romantically in the "one-and-only" -- the one-and-only love, the one-and-only mate, the one-and-only mother, the one-and-only security -- we wish the "one-and-only" to be permanent, ever-present and continuous. The desire for continuity of being-loved-alone seems to me "the error bred in the bone" of man. For "there is no one-and-only," as a friend of mine once said in a similar discussion, "there are just one-and-only moments."

    ...One comes in the end to realize that there is no permanent pure-relationship and there should not be. It is not even something to be desired. The pure relationship is limited, in space and in time. In its essence it implies exclusion. It excludes the rest of life, other relationships, other sides of personality, other responsibilities, other possibilities in the future. It excludes growth.

    I think our longing for exclusive devotion stems not from love, but from insecurity. We've found something that makes us feel accepted and secure, and we want to keep it to ourselves because if someone else gets some too, we may lose what we're getting. But suppose it was possible to be completely assured of your lover's continuing devotion to you? If you knew for an absolute fact that this person was going to keep on feeling the same way toward you throughout life, no matter what else happened, then there would be no threat of loss in her association with others.

    That's the meat of the idea... you trust that your lover will continue to love you as he/she does now, and allow that it is possible for her to love others as well; loving you uniquely and them uniquely as well, and feeling no fear of loss in this.

    Take away the fear of loss, and you take away the need for exclusivity; you can be open to and accepting of your loved one's wish to know others and to experience a full and varied life by feeling, sharing in, the love of more than just one person. If you saw the movie Sweet November, perhaps you can relate the November guy's action at the end of the movie, to what I'm saying.

    Farkel: "fiction"? You'll burn in Hell for that!

  • micheal

    Men are not naturally monogamaus. For those who say we are they are just fooling themselves. By the way this is not to say a man cannot be faithful in a monogamaus relationship, it just takes more effort than a woman.

  • Robdar

    When I am not in love with my partner, boyfriend, whatever, I am not inclined to monogamy. Nor are my men and women friends. However, I have noticed that if I am in love, I want monogamy. Again, so do all my friends.

    I have a friend that has always been polyamorous. He made sure that all his girlfriends knew that he saw nothing wrong with spreading himself around. We all figured that Alan would be a disciple of polyamory all his life. Well, 3 years ago, he fell in love. Guess who walks the straight and narrow now? I asked him why. The answer he gave me is that he really loves his girlfriend (they live together) and he wouldn't want to share her with other men and sees no reason to ask her to share him with other women. He says he doesn't want to mess up the best thing that ever happened to him.

    So, I am beginnning to think that the people (myself included) that do not want monogamy at this time in our lives, may feel differently one day.

    I know I hope that I do.


  • tinkerbell82
    this is not to say a man cannot be faithful in a monogamaus relationship, it just takes more effort than a woman.

  • Robdar

    By the way this is not to say a man cannot be faithful in a monogamaus relationship, it just takes more effort than a woman.

    Micheal, that is nonsense pure and simple. You obviously don't get around much.

    Some interesting comments are found here:



Share this