Demiland, love, and dating

[GuYFoX]

All this arguing makes my heart hurt, can we all just love each other if only for an hour or two.

Originally Posted by Lauren Summerhill

I can always call up one of my playthings to keep me amused in his absence, book my own plaything, or take a date and be someone's plaything

Playthings Playthings!

[Diamondrunner]

Originally Posted by Angel Cross

True love has no boundaries. It is the most powerful thing in the world.

That would be agape..from the Greeks..wouldn't you agree Angel?

There are several Greek words for love, as the Greek language distinguishes how the word is used. Ancient Greek has four distinct words for love: agápe, éros, philía, and storgē. However, as with other languages, it has been historically difficult to separate the meanings of these words. Nonetheless, the senses in which these words were generally used are given below.

* Agápe (αγάπη agápē) means "love" in modern day Greek, such as in the term s'agapo (Σ'αγαπώ), which means "I love you". In Ancient Greek, it often refers to a general affection rather than the attraction suggested by "eros". Agape is used in ancient texts to denote feelings for a good meal, one's children, and the feelings for a spouse. It can be described as the feeling of being content or holding one in high regard. Many have thought that this word represents divine, unconditional, self-sacrificing, active, volitional, and thoughtful love.

* Éros (έρως érōs) is passionate love, with sensual desire and longing. The Modern Greek word "erotas" means "(romantic) love;" however, eros does not have to be sexual in nature. Eros can be interpreted as a love for someone whom you love more than the philia, love of friendship. It can also apply to dating relationships as well as marriage. Plato refined his own definition: Although eros is initially felt for a person, with contemplation it becomes an appreciation of the beauty within that person, or even becomes appreciation of beauty itself. It should be noted Plato does not talk of physical attraction as a necessary part of love, hence the use of the word platonic to mean, "without physical attraction." Plato also said eros helps the soul recall knowledge of beauty, and contributes to an understanding of spiritual truth. Lovers and philosophers are all inspired to seek truth by eros. The most famous ancient work on the subject of eros is Plato's Symposium, which is a discussion among the students of Socrates on the nature of eros.

* Philia (φιλία philía) means friendship in modern Greek. It is a dispassionate virtuous love, a concept developed by Aristotle. It includes loyalty to friends, family, and community, and requires virtue, equality and familiarity. In ancient texts, philos denoted a general type of love, used for love between family, between friends, a desire or enjoyment of an activity, as well as between lovers.

* Storge (στοργή storgē) means "affection" in ancient and modern Greek. It is natural affection, like that felt by parents for offspring. Rarely used in ancient works, and then almost exclusively as a descriptor of relationships within the family. It is also known to express mere acceptance or putting up with situations, as in "loving" the tyrant.

[Monsieur]

Originally Posted by Diamondrunner

That would be agape..from the Greeks..

(sorry I couldn't resist)

[terbul]

Originally Posted by WTF

When speaking of an open relationship in this regard...that would be where one does not restrict who I choose to have a sexual relationship with. And I did not restrict who they choose to be with.

So open is absolute, there can be no restrictions. Either can have sexual relations with anyone; friends, neighbours, work associates, family*, same/opposite sex, etc.

Curious, so it wouldn’t be open if the couple agreed to always use protection? That kind of restriction would mean it wasn’t an open relationship.

* perhaps only in Florida (ASPD reference)

[atlcomedy]

Originally Posted by terbul

So open is absolute, there can be no restrictions. Either can have sexual relations with anyone; friends, neighbours, work associates, family*, same/opposite sex, etc.

Curious, so it wouldn’t be open if the couple agreed to always use protection? That kind of restriction would mean it wasn’t an open relationship.

* perhaps only in Florida (ASPD reference)

PJ, Leah, et. al. - it appears the good sisters have turned your State into a joke....Florida is the new West Virginia

[WTF]

Originally Posted by terbul

So open is absolute, there can be no restrictions. Either can have sexual relations with anyone; friends, neighbours, work associates, family*, same/opposite sex, etc.

Curious, so it wouldn’t be open if the couple agreed to always use protection? That kind of restriction would mean it wasn’t an open relationship.

* perhaps only in Florida (ASPD reference)

If you both agree not to drink except on holidays , are you abstaining from alcohol?

If one person thru guilt or restrictions tries to limit the other, it does not seem open to me. It seems coerced
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/coerced
Relationships have restrictions, to imply yours does not, when in fact is does is just BS.



Is dead also open to interpertation?



Florida is the exception it seems!

Is this a congressional debate...if you raise the spending limit then you really aren't spending more than the limit?

[Thais]

Originally Posted by WTF

If you both agree not to drink except on holidays , are you abstaining from alcohol?

If one person thru guilt or restrictions tries to limit the other, it does not seem open to me. It seems coerced
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/coerced
Relationships have restrictions, to imply yours does not, when in fact is does is just BS.

I have not had much practical experience with polyamory - but it interests me a lot, I think it is the right way for me. As such, I have spent several years subscribed to online polyamorous communities and blogs - places where people come to share experiences, dilemmas, successes and frustrations. I believe this gives me a decent insight into how polyamory seems to work (I am doing my homework for when I start dating)

What I have learned is that restrictions, similar to what Lauren describes, are absolutely commonplace in polyamory. I would even say that they are the norm that everyone agrees with - and an unrestricted relationship is the exception. Because of that I suspect, people don't even really view them as "restrictions" - but as "rules" that help manage the emotional complexity (at least, "rules" is the term I see most often).

And of course, they are not coerced. Both people come together to discus their comfort zones and preferences, and find a compromise. They set mutual rules on what do you do when you like another, how you proceed with it, how far can you go, at what point you inform your partner, etc. For example, partners agree than they can kiss and flirt all they want, but to tell each other beforehand if they want to have penetrative sex with someone. They also talk when the original rules don't work for them anymore. Or at least, they are supposed to - successful polyamorous relationships require a lot self-awareness and ongoing communication.

The rules vary a lot. And it doesn't matter how restrictive some of them may seem to an outside observer - what matters is that the people in the specific relationship must be happy with them. And if they are not happy but don't communicate, they have a whole other set of problems... But imho, that is not an assumption for an outside observer to make on the basis of several sentences that another person shares.

[guest041110]

Originally Posted by Angel Cross

True love has no boundaries. It is the most powerful thing in the world.

Love is strong yet delicate.
It can be broken.
To truly love is to understand this.
To be in love is to respect this.
- Stephen Packer –

Angel, I agree with you. In this day and time of people who think persistence is stalking when it used to be viewed otherwise the passage I quoted above is so very true and both sides need to remember it.

It is important to remember that unrequited love is something that can really twist and break you if you are not careful.

[guest041110]

Originally Posted by WTF

...
Is dead also open to interpertation?
...

In a word, yes it is for what is dead or death? Is the simple cessation of bodily functions death or is the casting into oblivion the thoughts, expressions and what someone is death (which prevludes the following)? What would be your definition of death if one does live on in a Living and Loving Lord such that we never die?

Death is a relative term and the act of dying a transitory state that is very open to interpretation since it depends upon the definition one uses to define each.

Sorry for the off-topic post folks. Have at it again...

[guest051510-1]

I recently watch the movie Frida. She knew her husband couldn't be faithful before they married and she put up with all his cheating until he slept with her sister. Her point was he didn't have to be faithful, but he did have to be loyal. He crossed the line when he slept within her family.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Thais

But imho, .

You are welcome to your opinion as am I.

I can have one right?

I happen NOT to agree with you

What you describe is the exact same thing as a marriage with a small varaition. Communication being the key in either...or in some cases not.

Originally Posted by Thais

And of course, they are not coerced. Both people come together to discus their comfort zones and preferences, and find a compromise. .

Sounds like politics....and we all know that the stronger side sets the rules. PYT has more power than an WUH. My guess is that when things go south one party will be suing under a spousal law. If you do not understand that concept. . .you do not understand double standards.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by LonesomeDove

Death is a relative term

wELL AT LEAST UNTIL YOU'RE DEAD!

Sorry for the caps...was practicing for my craiglist ad font.

Originally Posted by Nicolette Bordeauxva

Her point was he didn't have to be faithful, but he did have to be loyal. He crossed the line when he slept within her family.

He was loyal to his dick.

Frida was an intresting woman but she should have known human nature is not swayed by her wants.

[discreetgent]

Perhaps for another thread, but it seems like a good discussion is developing here. As usual the main problem we seem to be having is definitional.

Marriage has generally been defined as a monogamous relationship. Open marriage has taken on the connotation of each partner can sleep with who they want whenever they want. I think though that the reality is that most such relationships are better thought of as marriage or committed relationship with an allowance for sex outside of it. What the allowance is is defined by the individuals involved. Is that open? Well in the sense that it opens up sexual relationships outside of marriage/SO the answer is yes; in the sense that there are generally restrictions one could argue the answer is no.

Carry on

[WTF]

Originally Posted by discreetgent

Perhaps for another thread, but it seems like a good discussion is developing here. As usual the main problem we seem to be having is definitional.

Is a firefly a lighting bolt just because it thinks it is?
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AD4KhO5MRD8"]YouTube- 'Fireflies' by Owl City - 10 Million Fireflies Video Montage[/ame]

While I do agree with you as far as context, I had thought we were discussing actuality and details and not just theory and terms.

Maybe when discussing a polyamory relationship that group is just trying to make themselves appear more open when in fact they are subject to the same laws of nature as the rest of us.

Originally Posted by discreetgent

Marriage has generally been defined as a monogamous relationship. Open marriage has taken on the connotation of each partner can sleep with who they want whenever they want. I think though that the reality is that most such relationships are better thought of as marriage or committed relationship with an allowance for sex outside of it. What the allowance is is defined by the individuals involved. Is that open? Well in the sense that it opens up sexual relationships outside of marriage/SO the answer is yes; in the sense that there are generally restrictions one could argue the answer is no.

Carry on

My point or at least one of them has been that there really is no difference in either relationship no matter what you call it. A relationship is subject to change at anytime. At one point in one's life an open relationship is the ticket , at another point... closed. But I will ceed the point that an open relationship with restrictions is more open than 'closed' one with restrictions that you have to lie your way (especially if you are a bad liar! Maybe open relationships are for bad sexual liars)) around, if you will ceed the point that an open relationship is subject to the same deciet that a closed relationship is......unless it is a true open relationship! LOL

Would it be safe to say relationships are like DNA and that no two are ever alike?

[discreetgent]

Pretty simple actually: all relationships are open to deceit, personal, business, even corporate to corporate. All relationships have either explicit or implicit guidelines, as soon as a guideline is there then deceit is possible.

Back to theory/practical: I do know that when I hear the phrase "they are in an open relationship" that to me it means they can sleep with other people. My guess is - and I have neither data to back it up nor the desire to do such a survey lol - that most people have the same understanding when hearing the phrase.