Advertisement
I used to think I was monogamous. Then I met my lover. My marriage went from closed to open. I have been married for almost fourteen years. And my lover and I have been involved on and off since September 2001. Since he's long distance, I don't worry so much about how often we'll see each other. I used to vacillate between wondering if I was really a monogamous woman who happened to love two men or if I was really polyamorous. I've come to the conclusion that the label doesn't matter nearly as much as the intention. And that means that I don't worry quite so much about when or if a third man will come into my life. I am approaching fifty. And since I married late (35) and had kids at 38 and 43, my life is plenty full. Come fall both of our daughters will be in school full time, and I am looking forward to taking time for myself.
posted by:
|
Chicago
|
Advertisement
Advertisement
-
Re: love needs no labels
Wed, August 22, 2007 - 2:17 PM"love needs no labels"
- and -
"I've come to the conclusion that the label doesn't matter nearly as much as the intention"
Two very EXCELLENT points! -
-
Re: love needs no labels
Wed, August 22, 2007 - 2:31 PMI think labels are used to judge more than define. I told this man I was a wife and stay at home mom. He was underwhelmed until he really got to know me. I think we underestimate some and overestimate others based on how they self-describe or how others describe them. We are all multi-layered and contridictory beings. The adventure is in finding out someone's true essence.
-
-
Re: love needs no labels
Wed, August 22, 2007 - 8:55 PMIn Indonesia there are 14 different words for love. Really it comes down there being an infinite number of ways and types of love. There are as many types of love as there are potential interpersonal connections in the world. -
-
Re: love needs no labels
Thu, August 23, 2007 - 7:35 AMMarvelous. I hope you'll say more about the different words for love.
I get tangled up with the linguistic limits. Seems to me that people tell me they love me when they really mean they are fond of me. And then words like "special" and "wonderful" get bandied about. And then I hesitate to ask what someone really means. "Ummm, do you mean love or do you mean LOVE?" 'Cause, to me, LOVE writ large elicits a different response than just your ordinary garden variety type of love which is a more casual thing. I can love a lot of people, but I don't LOVE a lot of people. I'm pretty selective that way, and I am not just talking about potential sexual aspects, either. I am talking about who I choose to devote time and real energy to. So it's important to me to better know someone's intention. And words like "love" are so charged. And I think people ought to be more careful in how they use words like that. So, more to the point, love doesn't need labels so much as love sometimes needs clarification. Friends could be lovers, but they could just be friends, too. And that is OK, too, just as long as everyone is on the same page. -
-
Re: love needs no labels
Thu, August 23, 2007 - 7:56 AMBlame the English language... -
-
Re: love needs no labels
Thu, August 23, 2007 - 8:04 AMNah.
People are inexact in how they use language. Saying, "This is what I love about you," is very different from saying, "I love you." Loving an aspect of me doesn't lead me to believe that I am being loved in a very grand way. I don't want people to qualify, either. At the same time, I don't want to be confused. Clarity alleviates stress. Clarity alleviates expections. Clarity alleviates conflicts. If, for example, I were to know that a man loves me as a friend or like a sister, ie, purely platonic, I will keep any hint of attraction to myself. Yes, it is up to me to manage my vanity and my hopes and expectations, but clarity of language from an Other does help that. And then I don't have to ask the awkward question, "What do you mean when you tell me that you love me?" -
-
Re: love needs no labels
Thu, August 23, 2007 - 11:16 PMah, yes... and clarity requires labels. lots of them.
it seems in this example, the labels are needed to decipher just how much love to return and also how to interact with each person.
If someone loves you as a friend or as a sister, well then I am guessing if you were to express your attraction to that person it might upset some balance in your relationship? but if you are attracted to this person and they do not return that interest, then isnt there an inherent imbalance? and if so, where is the love, truly?
but this thing about labels....
I struggle with this. I've tried with someone I love deeply to not define what it is we have, to just be with it and each other and enjoy. and the time we spend together, when we do just enjoy each other, without the stresses of the outside world, is wonderful.
however, the problem with this is that there are others in our lives who are, as I call them, Named Players. and the Named Players, more often than not, feel they are more important than those with no labels. so they insist on taking precedence, even if that was not the original agreement. and they are allowed to take precedence because they ARE a Named Player. so they take more and more time of the one in the middle until the unlabeled are pushed as far away as possible. plus, people on the outside of the relationship see the Named Player as more important... oftentimes they dont even know about the love with no labels, and well, doesnt this make the love with no label just even more insignificant?
it takes the dedication of all loves to make sure their lovers feel special... and feel loved! and, I would go further in saying that in any successful relationship, there are some sort of labels.. whether they are outright spoken or not.
one lover might be the one who speaks to me in my touch love language.
another might be the one who fulfills my need to give or receive service
yet another silver tongued stud might be the one who fills your affirmations tank.
no, you might not speak these labels, but I really think they are there none-the-less. without the labels, well, I think things would be more awkward. you wouldnt know exactly how to act with that certain someone. just like the poster above who isnt sure if her feelings of attraction will be welcomed unless she knows how that love interest really sees her. and seeing needs a label of some sort.
oh, and just for the record, that label needs to have a mutually agreed upon definition too!
for instance...
two people can agree to the label of say.... "girlfriend", and each be very happy in using it
however...
person A equates that to meaning a significant romantic interest
person B equates that to meaning a close platonic friend!
yikes! look at the train wreck waiting to happen there!
anyway, just my buck fifty for the evening; inflation, dontcha know!
-
-
Re: love needs no labels
Fri, August 24, 2007 - 9:15 AMWow. That's really complicated. Including not calling me by my name.
Ummmm, actually, here's the deal. I have a wonderful platonic relationship with this one man. We had to get straight about some things, but I have accepted that he doesn't really want a sexual component to our relationship. He will hug me and give me chaste, closedmouthed kisses on my lips. And that is mighty cozy. He confused me originally because he was being very flirtatious and I assumed that he wanted something more. Then I got confused because he really didn't. He also apologized for leading me on. And now when he says he loves me, I know that he means as a very loving friend and that is perfectly fine.
Fastforward to a few months ago. I met this man who seemed a kindred spirit despite the differences in our cultural and religious backgrounds. He kept telling me about how much he loved me. He told me over and over about how wonderful I was. Tossed out words like "partnership." I was attracted to him, but didn't necessarily want to tell him right away. I finally did because we were talking about meeting up again. And it was more like "might want to make love to you," and "OK if you don't feel similarly." So I tried to make it as clear as possible that, yes, I felt an attraction, but it wasn't necessary to act upon it. I emphasized that while I did have an open marriage, that companionship mattered more to me than anything. Well, suddenly my "forever friend" stopped considering me special. Matter of fact, he accused me of attempting to convert him to polyamory and blocked my email. So what did all this effusive language mean on his part? I didn't ask him to tell me he loved me "so very much" or that he thought I was "special" and "wonderful" and such, even though it did much for my ego. And, frankly, I don't even know if he and I had similar ideas just plain about friendship. Maybe that's part of the problem? Just figuring out friendship? Far as I am concerned, there was no imbalance. I was willing to accept whatever outcome. If he had expressed mutual attraction or possibility of that, then, great. And if not, I figured, no harm, no foul. I would have honestly spoken my mind and that was that. I was shocked when he flipped out on me like that. If he chooses to reconnect with me, I will love him as one friend to another.
Perhaps the situation you have with Named Players is that they are possessive people who don't know how to give a lover freedom to explore and be with whomever might make them happy? I never have a right to interfere with someone else's happiness. Besides, that type of interference usually leads to resentment.
-
-
Re: love needs no labels
Fri, August 24, 2007 - 9:18 AM"Love" IS a label. Just sayin'. -
-
Re: love needs no labels
Fri, August 24, 2007 - 9:45 AMThe point I was attempting to make, albeit badly, was that polyamory and monogamy is the terminology that gets in the way. Love is more about how you choose to be. Everyone has a choice about how open or closed they are. And the clearer the communication, the less likely that expectations will trip you up.
-
Re: love needs no labels
Sat, August 25, 2007 - 2:43 AM"Love" IS a label. Just sayin'.
Actually, "Love" is just a word. It only becomes a label when someone assigns personal meaning to it, and those meanings vary from person to person. The word "Love" all by itself means absolutely nothing - nothing more than the letters L, O, V and E put in sequential order. -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: love needs no labels
Sat, August 25, 2007 - 12:59 PMWell, they also vary from situation to situation. Love between a parent and child is different from love between two friends and different from romantic love between two adults and on and on. Love is still love regardless of monogamy or polyamory. Just has different boundaries. If you are faithful to ONE then you don't break that vow. But that doesn't mean you don't stop loving others. It just means that there's a certain inherent understanding in a given relationship. If someone is monogamous and I know they're monogamous, I am not going to attempt to have anything beyond friendship. That would be unethical and manipulative. If I know someone is polyamorous and if I feel an affection for them, then I will test the waters. Either someone will say yes or they'll say no. And hopefully open the door (at 4 AM like my lover did) and not block my email like this one man did. And then I hope I have the emotional maturity to accept a "No" as well as a "Yes". And I would have with that man, too, if he had not freaked out. He decided that I was looking for casual sex. I guess he didn't know me or accept me as well as I thought. -
-
Re: love needs no labels
Tue, October 9, 2007 - 1:13 PMI was just pointing out that the word "Love" is completely relative to the person, and mean nothing, really.
To some people, Love means withholding from other people (such as in Monogamy). To other people, Love means letting them be free to be with other people (suth as in Polyamory). It's all absolutely relative, subjective, and different from person to person.
To quote Drew Carey from the old "Who's Line Is It Anyway" show....
"...everything is made up and the points don't matter."
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: love needs no labels
Sat, October 6, 2007 - 4:33 PMI like the hebrew word for love. "Ahava" means "to give love." And as an action I choose to love not just one person because having just one focus can keep you out of focus. I do have a primary relationship, but as I delve into myself I know that I can't be sustained monogamy emotionally. -
-
Re: love needs no labels
Tue, October 9, 2007 - 4:39 PMOf course most of us have more than one focus, anyway.
I could be sustained emotionally through just monogamy, but I want to give more love to more people. Some of that platonic and some of that not platonic. Mainly grateful for the freedom my husband and I give one another.
-
