Marlayna wrote:Whoah there.
1) I did say I could be wrong.
2) I didn't say you were a vulgar person, just that you comitted a vulgar act. If I were to say you did something stupid, would you accuse me of calling you stupid?
3) You're quick to take offence while you forget it wasn't me who started gossiping about your personal matters.
Calling me vulgar, or something I did vulgar, is pretty much the same thing, you're splitting hairs.
Yes, you did say you could be wrong, after making all those judgements about my choice of lifestyle, and stating quite clearly that my relationship is mostly about sex.
I take no offence at discussing our relationship, meerly at your blatent assumptions, without any questions to clarify information first. If you have questions, ask. But don't make judgements on something you yourself have admited you know nothing about, and people you know nothing about.
Rianna, let me tell you, at no point did I think you were immoral. To my knowledge at least, you didn't lie, you didn't hurt anybody's feelings, and there's no kind of weird bargain going on between you and your boyfriends, so you're OK in my book. I have no reason to believe you're generally vulgar or disrespectful or anything. But since you say you have no problem discussing your relationship (in the name of academic interest in polyamory), I'll say what I think:
If I were in Teaspoon's shoes, I would have considered that kind of come-on offensive no matter how close we were, but then I'm not Teaspoon and perhaps you knew how he would react (though I wouldn't do that to someone unless I was 100% sure he would actually like it). What I personally can't grasp is how you can take such liberties with someone you admire and feel all protective about, especially if you haven't made clear your interest is more that physical attraction. Wouldn't your first priority be to show your love and care? How can you bare your heart to someone while provoking them sexually?
Personally, I have had a few male friends I was familiar with and cared about, while at the same time I found them cute and would readily have sex with them if things happened to turn out that way (they never did, as there was no such interest on their part). But I wouldn't say I'm in love with any of them. Maybe if we actually became lovers I would gradually fall in love with them, maybe I wouldn't. In any case, I wouldn't describe that kind of relationship as romantic, at least to begin with. Being in love is largely an addiction, and it affects you more deeply than any other feeling.
So. Of course you know your own feelings better than I do. But from what you and your boyfriends have let me see, I am strongly inclined to put your relationship in the "friends who have sex" category. I always leave room for doubt, though.
Besides my own personal experience, one reason I'm so skeptical of the possibility of polyamory is that it has an evolutionary disadvantage. When you focus all of your efforts on one significant other, when they become the centre of your world, that gives you a good chance of building a steady relationship where you can raise offspring. But if you try to do that with two different people, chances are you'll ruin both relationships and be left to raise any offspring by yourself. I imagine natural selection wouldn't favour polyamory. What's the point of falling in love if it does more harm than good in the long run?
But then again, genetics is complicated, and you can't draw absolute conclusions from a statistical phenomenon like evolution.
Second, in order to figure out what the EEG signature of this "love" looks like, you would need to have a control subject that you were *absolutely* sure was in "love". Which brings a problem: How are you sure that your control subject is in love? You don't have any *other* test for love, do you? So for all you know, you're getting a false positive, or a false negative, because your control subject, and therefore the control-pattern for your love-o-gram, is flawed or unconfirmed. Or just lying to you.
I've read a book (and some magazine articles from time to time, but the book was much more enlightening) discussing several research results about romantic love. The research I'm referring to involved people who claimed to be in love (gay and straight), as well as a control group who claimed not to be in love (gay and straight). As far as I remember, they were all shown pictures of various people, attractive or not, sometimes strange to the subject, sometimes not, and some things of everyday use like combs etc., and they were asked intermediately to perform a tedious mental task like counting backwards (I forget what purpose that served). When the people who claimed to be in love were shown a picture of their loved one, or a thing they knew belonged to their loved one, they had an immediate, distinct and intense reaction in several areas of their brain, too quick for it to be caused by conscious thought. That unique reaction is presumed to be the sign of romantic love.
What Marlayna is calling 'Romantic Love' is infatuation. It's an emotive, animalistic set of responses. It's not a conscious, spiritual decision to cherish another person.
Is it ever a conscious decision? I've never been able to just "decide" to love someone. I can control my actions, not my feelings.
And of course it's animalistic... animals fall in love too
There are 10 kinds of people.
Those who can read binary numbers and those who can't.