A wider view of more than one (girls can play too!)

[Silatuyok]

I've done it back in the day, but wouldn't recommend it. It just made me feel trashy.

Edit: I interpret "more than one lover at a time" to mean more than one over the same period of time, not more than one at the SAME time. Just thought I'd clarify.

 

[Sartana]

Never done it and probably never will. One person takes enough attention and effort.

 

[coyote]

another way to look at it might be...

devoting all your attention to one person puts an awful lot of pressure on that person to be everything to you

it may be easier for some people to not be the center of someone else's universe

it may even seem selfish to demand that one person fulfill all your needs

maybe the reason some relationships are difficult to maintain is that there are simply too many expectations placed upon the individuals involved

wife, lover, friend, confidant, partner, caretaker, housekeeper, etc...

husband, lover, friend, confidant, partner, handyman, comedian, breadwinner, etc....

why do we insist that one person has to do them all?

and when we do, why do we wonder why it is so difficult to make work?

 

[WeirdyMcGee]

^ I just refuse to share.
If someone feels I'm 'too much' or 'not enough' for them, they can go find someone else (or a few someone elses) to take their clothes off with.
haha

Of course-- whatever everyone else does is hardly my business. If they think they should have more than one partner-- go for it.
I'm just not into the idea at all.
One of the only things I may have any confidence in = I am way worth it to be committed to completely.

 

[Section_31]

Good points on all Coy

 

[MrJones]

I know I wouldn't be good enough for anyone, but I'd rather be alone than be with someone I love and see how she goes with someone else. I just couldn't do it.

I don't understand why people are so against to it, though. I say that as long as you are open to your multiple partners about it, go ahead, choose the life you want. It's not even my business.

 

[coyote]

^ I just refuse to share.
If someone feels I'm 'too much' or 'not enough' for them, they can go find someone else (or a few someone elses) to take their clothes off with.
haha

Of course-- whatever everyone else does is hardly my business. If they think they should have more than one partner-- go for it.
I'm just not into the idea at all.
One of the only things I may have any confidence in = I am way worth it to be committed to completely.

but do YOU want to be in the position of having to be everything to another person?

for some people that's simply too much - they either don't won't to or are not able to

in which case, is it fair of them to demand that the other person can't have some of their needs met by someone else?

 

[Aletheia]

Edit: I interpret "more than one lover at a time" to mean more than one over the same period of time, not more than one at the SAME time. J

That was exactly what I meant by it. I didn't phrase it very well.

EDIT: clarification added to OP.

 

[Aletheia]

If one person is not enough for you, then you just seem really needy to me.

I think it the opposite of needy to be able to grant your partner(s) freedom.

 

[WeirdyMcGee]

but do YOU want to be in the position of having to be everything to another person?

for some people that's simply too much - they either don't won't to or are not able to

in which case, is it fair of them to demand that the other person can't have some of their needs met by someone else?

Hm... I just have a hard time looking at it like that, I suppose.
It doesn't make sense to me.

 

[MrJones]

Hm... I just have a hard time looking at it like that, I suppose.
It doesn't make sense to me.

Don't worry, we all have different opinions. I couldn't accept such an "open" relationship like that. Commitment would be very important for me in a relationship, because I could only be with one person. If I'd be able to be with more than one it would make me feel like I don't really want to be with that first person that much. A girlfriend would mean to me that she is the only person in the whole world I want to be with, and I would love that she felt the same.

Being the chosen person for a girl from all the people in the world is kind of impossible, though.

 

[AGR]

Hm... I just have a hard time looking at it like that, I suppose.
It doesn't make sense to me.

To me it doesnt either,wouldnt it be harder to fullfill those needs when you have to divide your time among a lot of people?

to me it would be easier with only one person,to me also fulfilling any needs that I have doesnt mean that the person has to be perfect that would be expecting too much.

 

[Aletheia]

makes sense to me

Hm... I just have a hard time looking at it like that, I suppose.
It doesn't make sense to me.

I have a long long long history of running from relationships.

One reason is that he becomes everything to me, and the fear of loss becomes so overwhelming that I run.

Another reason is that I feel I'm expected to be everything to him, and my fear of disappointing others, fear of my own imperfections (especially around social and organizational roles) becomes so overwhelming that I run.

The solution may be to get rid of the "everything to each other" bit. I might get closer to lovers without all the labels and without all the fear in the way.

(It's taken me a long long long time to see this.)

 

[coyote]

i can get my underwear, vacuum cleaner, pickles, and a computer all from Wal-mart

cheap, quick, and easy - all my needs met

but am i getting the best of everything?

couldn't i get a better computer somewhere else?

why shouldn't it be ok with me if someone else got their computer from Wal-Mart if they want to?

i'll still get my pickles there

everyone wins

 

[MrJones]

Well, we all have our own feelings and our own way to see things, it doesn't mean anyone is right or wrong. I understand both sides but I'll keep feeling the same, but I understand how someone would find it more interesting to do it differently.

 

[Pookah]

I would never want more than one person romantically at a time. And I would expect them to be loyal to me as well.

 

[coyote]

Well, we all have our own feelings and our own way to see things, it doesn't mean anyone is right or wrong. I understand both sides but I'll keep feeling the same, but I understand how someone would find it more interesting to do it differently.

i don't think there's a right or wrong answer at all - that's the whole point

just presenting some alternative viewpoints to the "happily ever after" scenario

 

[Agent_Violet]

just presenting some alternative viewpoints to the "happily ever after" scenario

There definitely is no "happily ever after" the way we've been led to believe.

Everyone needs to make their own version of happily ever after no matter how "alternative" their version seems to other people

 

[recluse]

I voted no it's never an ok thing to do.

I just think it's wrong. How can you devote your heart to more than one person? Also there would be jealousy involved even if both persons agreed to an open relationship. Also there's std's and unwanted pregnancies to contend with.

It's impossible for me to even consider having one girlfriend anyway!::

 

[MikeyC]

There definitely is no "happily ever after" the way we've been led to believe.

Movies always tend to portray that the good guy gets the good girl at the end, and vice versa. Not always the case. In fact, hardly the case.