tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7372876601826078687.post5799548050623727846..comments2024-03-05T05:53:36.239-07:00Comments on The Masculine Heart: Robert Augustus Masters - Polyamory and the Stages of Intimate Relationshipwilliam harrymanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06981478282688361274noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7372876601826078687.post-42379989519142295602018-11-25T11:05:22.211-07:002018-11-25T11:05:22.211-07:00Let's hear from someone who is polyamorous and...Let's hear from someone who is polyamorous and that would be me. I love my wife deeply and she loves me as deeply. When I'm with my wife, I am fully present with her. We are married and with that we fight, make love, laugh and argue. When I am with one of my partner, I am fully present with her. We are partners and with that we fight, make love, laugh and argue in exactly the same way as when I am with my wife. They know each other and are fine with the arrangement of poly. Since my time with my partner began, my intimacy and general relationship has become closer and more mature. Both my wife and I are on second marriages. Mindset is everything here - if you think you are playing around - you are. The people I have become acquainted with who are poly are very honest and open with all of their friends, albeit they do not shout out the fact that they poly either. I found the poly community to be anything goes to very discreet. I am completely in love with both my wife and my partner and we are all okay with the arrangement. My partner doesn't want to move in with someone or have someone live with them as I don't want to move in with someone. I hope this opens some eyes in a good way. Peace...Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02281704431151224339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7372876601826078687.post-76062618508799544722014-02-27T12:23:35.515-07:002014-02-27T12:23:35.515-07:00I am naturally drawn to monogamy, but have been wi...I am naturally drawn to monogamy, but have been with couples in an open relationship and poly relationships. This model does not take into account those who are naturally poly and have never been in a monogamous relationship. In my experience one can have poly lovers for years who experience this kind of oneness and intimacy together. So, two or more can journey into these depths with the shared desire to support one another in their fullest expression. In fact, one of the most beautiful intimate experiences I had was with a couple who had been in an open relationship for 11 years and always shared their lovers.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08755764991685442128noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7372876601826078687.post-2679884582482793012013-10-28T06:06:02.653-07:002013-10-28T06:06:02.653-07:00Deborah Anapol in her book titled Polyamory which ...Deborah Anapol in her book titled Polyamory which as she says is about responsible non-monogamy consider the base for polyamory being mature monogamy. <br />Polyamory in its immature form is often irresponsible polyf***ory. Polyamory in Dr Anapol's understanding is not even necessarily sexual. <br />I am in a committed monogamous relationship. The rather fundamentalist idea that mature love can only move as monogamy is to my mind rather naive. Shall we also work out some schema to prove that mature love can only be heterosexual?<br />No! But Im sure someone somewhere has created such a system of development.<br />I'm interested in what I call in my Blog, Macroamory or greater love. To think that that can only flow in one particular form is in my worldview undeveloped and immature thinking. It is a view coming from a 'rule-role' level of mind that cannot see larger complexity, possibility or potential.<br />In my view, systems that seek to suggest absolute truth, completion, the only way and so on are best avoided or at best understood as someone seeking to validate a position that they hold dearly.<br />Thought provoking it is, interesting it is.. The 'truth', not to my mind. Love and all it's flows are much more interesting than that.<br />Christopher GladwellAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03714232081346923301noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7372876601826078687.post-22224321906442114632013-10-16T01:45:28.655-07:002013-10-16T01:45:28.655-07:00One could equally well argue that mature monogamy ...One could equally well argue that mature monogamy is a part of the path towards mature polyamory (for some?).<br />What mature polyamory looks like isn't even considered here, the assumption is that it is immature and usually an escape from the depths of intimacy. It most certainly is in its immature forms. i actually call this sort of dynamic 'polyfuckory'. <br />Deborah Anapol looks at the shape of mature polyamory in her book 'Polyamory towards responsible non-monogamy' quite successfully and as she clearly elucidates, 'If you cant do monogamy in a mature way, don't bother with polyamory.<br />As for me I'm in a fabulous committed monogamous relationship. <br />Im into what I call Macroamory whch is about greater love and all the potential expressions of that, for me that is monogamy, for others that may be polyamory? <br />The desire to understand maturity and immaturity is developmental, the desire to judge others for their perceived maturity or immaturity to my mind is questionable behaviour. Is such judgemental desire rooted in insecurity? <br />Christopher GladwellAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03714232081346923301noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7372876601826078687.post-16680331432966888702012-04-10T22:04:18.640-07:002012-04-10T22:04:18.640-07:00For me it is pretty simple. Like many others I pre...For me it is pretty simple. Like many others I prefer monogamy, and am always trying to grow in depth and maturity in my relationships. At the same time I have a number of dear friends who are polyamorous. My poly friends are wonderful people living engaged lives, and making valuable contributions to their community and the larger society. I do not see value in judging their choices and the depth of their maturity. My concern is living the most engaged and mature life that I can, and supporting others in their growth.<br /> peace . . . .Genyohttp://genyoonline.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7372876601826078687.post-26275415853196577342011-02-08T18:14:43.450-07:002011-02-08T18:14:43.450-07:00As someone trained in Psychology, I know that a lo...As someone trained in Psychology, I know that a lot of purported stages of this or that Theory (in this case relationships)have been used (as if Fundamental Truth + Proven authority/Fact) to sell an author's viewpoint theory +/or societal framework and construct.<br /> I am not evaluating or critiquing the stage model presented here (though I have my own opinions and sources that could argue against the position/construct of the above article). I just want to remind All readers to ask the critical questions, such as what are potential biases of the author, (chances are he has a bias -perhaps like one of the commentators Against Polyamory that mature Poly isn't possible--- Really? any Evidence for such? or from the pro-Poly side Against? or for that matter why Mature Monogamy might just be an inferior stage on the way to Poly which striveds for the Ideal being <br />Infinite capacity to Love + Be loved. since the author defines mature monogamy as with the limit of the Two= it's still a Limit. + to correct an earlier poster: Poly Can and often does take (one could argue) Mature(er) forms with all sorts of Negotiated rules/guidelines not just with a primary partner(s) but all (particularly in shared housing and child rearing situations). <br /> I'm not arguing for or against mono- or poly. but the assumption that "Maturity"= monogamy + never poly is suffused with certain societal/moralistic Biases. (also present is the assumption that humans can't handle complexity as well as paired relations. But we've been living in Groups/societies for Thousands if not Hundreds of thousands of years!)<br /> So...<br />I encourage readers to Critically Question + think on author motivations/biases, sources + Quality of evidences provided and reject blatant pet Theory/appeals to Authority!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7372876601826078687.post-54414967279061793352010-08-12T10:23:23.199-07:002010-08-12T10:23:23.199-07:00Give thanks.
It's great to see men discussing...Give thanks.<br /><br />It's great to see men discussing this kind of topic with sincere regard for their emotional capacities and vulnerabilities. Well done to all of us - it's a great example for me as i am only a young man with few role models for male holistic expression.<br /><br />There is a lot going on in both the article and the comments that would require further thought and careful heart felt judgement. <br /><br />All i can say right now is thanks for that inspiration and the lessons involved.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7372876601826078687.post-39630110315658098062009-02-01T09:27:00.000-07:002009-02-01T09:27:00.000-07:00Bill, for me it boils down to polyamory versus uni...Bill, for me it boils down to polyamory versus universal love. Mystics have experiences that transcend sexuality, and at that point it is indeed possible to go both "wide" and "deep". Sri Aurobindo said that while monogamy is best for the body, the soul is naturally polyamorous. What he meant was that the soul is in contact with the All, and so it can enjoy the ecstasy of union with every being it encounters. The body is limited, but the soul, potentially, is not.<BR/><BR/>As Masters seems to be suggesting, a mature monogamous relationship can provide a starting point or base or center for such an experience of universal love, because such relationships provide a form of psychotherapeutic integration that gives a good foundation for a spiritual journey. But certainly multiplying one's emotional and sexual attachments by having many partners does not seem to me to in any way contribute to the development of higher levels of consciousness that transcend sexuality altogether.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7372876601826078687.post-49608630359353526902009-01-24T15:45:00.000-07:002009-01-24T15:45:00.000-07:00Hey guys,I've never seen a true case of mature pol...Hey guys,<BR/><BR/>I've never seen a true case of mature polyamory, and even if such a thing existed, I doubt that it can never reach the depth of mature monogamy - as RAM says:<BR/><BR/><B>"those who promote multiple-partnering might jump in and say that [polyamory] is not immature monogamy, because of how loving and open it is. Though there may in some cases be some truth in this, it glosses over the difficulties associated with such “love” and “openness”. One such difficulty is the restriction that multiple-partnering (or so-called “open relationship”) places on attachment, coupled with its denial that it is doing so. If we have more than one lover, then when things get rocky or flat with one, we can go to another, instead of staying with and working with that rockiness or flatness; we can, in other words, keep ourselves removed from getting as attached as we might if we were with only one deep intimate. Another difficulty has to do with the fuzzy or easily-collapsed boundaries that often accompany the enthused “openness” of “open” relationships (this of course also often characterizes immature monogamy), through which the eroticizing of unresolved issues (like craving being wanted) is confused with sexual freedom."</B><BR/><BR/>We can go deep (mature monogamy) or we can go wide (polyamory) in relationships, but we can seldom do both with any success.<BR/><BR/>I tend to think the impulse toward polyamory is seldom about intimacy, as Pavlina has been arguing it is, and more about transgressing the boundaries that make monogamy both rewarding and challenging.<BR/><BR/>No boundaries, no depth - at least to me.<BR/><BR/>I would like to see how RAM would respond to the stuff Pavlina has been posting - would make a good discussion.<BR/><BR/>Peace,<BR/>Billwilliam harrymanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06981478282688361274noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7372876601826078687.post-19550216295041348772009-01-24T15:28:00.000-07:002009-01-24T15:28:00.000-07:00Hmm... not sure where I should comment on this. He...Hmm... not sure where I should comment on this. Here or on FriendFeed. Since I'm coming in kinda late, I guess I'll do it here.<BR/><BR/>Yeah, I thought the same thing as Apollo as I read this. It's the also the typical argument of supporters of a polyamorous lifestyle, whereby they attempt to distinguish between "polyamory" and "promiscuity".<BR/><BR/>Personally, I suspect that in at least 99% of the cases, the people are just fooling themselves and are really in a promiscuous relationship, not a "mature polyamorous" one. But I'm not sure I'd totally rule out the possibility of achieving true mature polyamory.<BR/><BR/>I'd be interested to hear what RAM has to say on that, though. Bill?<BR/><BR/>~GAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10247442591196124669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7372876601826078687.post-85596016997962714322009-01-20T23:04:00.000-07:002009-01-20T23:04:00.000-07:00I see one big flaw in the stage model that Masters...I see one big flaw in the stage model that Masters proposes in the lack of acknowledgement of mature polyamoury. It may be more rare than mature monogamy, but surely polyamourous relationships can advance into being-centred forms. Does two necessarily facilitate more whole, mature and grounded relationships than three (or more)? I don't think that is the case,Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com