I have been negligent
Jan. 20th, 2004 11:09 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
badseed1980I just realized it's been a really, really long time since I wrote a public or semi-public entry that actually said anything. Hmm. I should do that, shouldn't I?
A thought I posted as a comment on another person's journal on polyamory and multiple primaries:
"My one issue that I am trying to work through is this:
Love isn't just something you feel. It's something you do. Or rather, one of the most important parts of love is how you show it. Showing someone you love them, treating them like you love them, requires time, attention, and effort. The more people you spread that between, the less each one gets. And getting a little from a lot of people isn't the same as getting a lot from one. Not by a long shot. This is why I'm still having problems trying to adjust to a poly lifestyle, especially when there are multiple primaries. What if both (or all) of your primaries call you up one night and say, "I need you. Life is just so hard right now, I need to have you here to make me feel ok again." What do you do? How do you choose? How is it ok to leave one (or more) of them hanging?
I'm still afraid that maybe I'm not cut out for this...but I'm trying. And if someone can give me a way of looking at those points I just raised that will make me feel better, I'll appreciate it."
Another thought, this one posted for the first time---
I may have said this somewhere before, but I don't remember. I hate feeling in the middle. In my religious practice, I was content as an eclectic for ten years before deciding to move to a traditional path. I've heard eclectics bitch about traditionalists, and I've heard the trads bitch about the eclectics. I get pissed off at all of 'em. Same thing with people who claim that either monogamy or polyamory is a "better" way of living and loving, that one is wrong and the other is right. Some anti-poly people say that the poly lifestyle is just something immature commitmentphobes do to justify their "inability" to commit to a "real" relationship. Some anti-monogamy people say that monogamists are selfish and unenlightened, and that if they didn't let society "repress" them so much, they'd understand it's "better" to be poly.. I get pissed at both of them. In religion and love, the right way is only the right way on an individual basis. Not for everyone. This rant is not directed at anyone in particular, just at a whole bunch of random people, people I know and strangers, who have expressed these irritating ideas.
Now I feel like I've done something. :)
A thought I posted as a comment on another person's journal on polyamory and multiple primaries:
"My one issue that I am trying to work through is this:
Love isn't just something you feel. It's something you do. Or rather, one of the most important parts of love is how you show it. Showing someone you love them, treating them like you love them, requires time, attention, and effort. The more people you spread that between, the less each one gets. And getting a little from a lot of people isn't the same as getting a lot from one. Not by a long shot. This is why I'm still having problems trying to adjust to a poly lifestyle, especially when there are multiple primaries. What if both (or all) of your primaries call you up one night and say, "I need you. Life is just so hard right now, I need to have you here to make me feel ok again." What do you do? How do you choose? How is it ok to leave one (or more) of them hanging?
I'm still afraid that maybe I'm not cut out for this...but I'm trying. And if someone can give me a way of looking at those points I just raised that will make me feel better, I'll appreciate it."
Another thought, this one posted for the first time---
I may have said this somewhere before, but I don't remember. I hate feeling in the middle. In my religious practice, I was content as an eclectic for ten years before deciding to move to a traditional path. I've heard eclectics bitch about traditionalists, and I've heard the trads bitch about the eclectics. I get pissed off at all of 'em. Same thing with people who claim that either monogamy or polyamory is a "better" way of living and loving, that one is wrong and the other is right. Some anti-poly people say that the poly lifestyle is just something immature commitmentphobes do to justify their "inability" to commit to a "real" relationship. Some anti-monogamy people say that monogamists are selfish and unenlightened, and that if they didn't let society "repress" them so much, they'd understand it's "better" to be poly.. I get pissed at both of them. In religion and love, the right way is only the right way on an individual basis. Not for everyone. This rant is not directed at anyone in particular, just at a whole bunch of random people, people I know and strangers, who have expressed these irritating ideas.
Now I feel like I've done something. :)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
my thoughts on your thoughts
Date: 2004-01-20 04:42 pm (UTC)especially when there are multiple primaries but i have to disagree with this statement. primary by definition is solitary, except in a triad(which is damn near impossible to pull off) and in that type of situation, everyone is involved with everyone else. which is not the case in your situation.
knowing what you are going through right now, i can understand your feelings on the topic, and i have said it once and i will say it again, that boy needs an asswhopping of the bitch slap variety.
the "i need you now" situation can be looked at from many different angles. your primary needs you to attend a special function, his/her job and promotion depends on it. your secondary's pet just died. what do you do?
it's a list of priorities and whom you feel needs you most right now.
any relationship even monogamous ones, you can feel that you are being stretched too tight.
you are allowed to love more than one person. i do agree with you though, that primarys get top billing, and it is about quality and quanity.
communication is key.
Re: my thoughts on your thoughts
Date: 2004-01-20 04:50 pm (UTC)I don't think the boy needs a bitch slap. I don't know what the heck the boy needs, and I don't think the boy does, either. :)
Re: my thoughts on your thoughts
Date: 2004-01-20 04:58 pm (UTC)*hugs* sweetie, i know it aint easy.
Re: my thoughts on your thoughts
Date: 2004-01-20 05:00 pm (UTC)Re: my thoughts on your thoughts
Date: 2004-01-20 06:09 pm (UTC)(I'm assuming you're talking metaphorically rather than literally here.)
Speaking as someone who is going through an asswhopping of the bitch slap variety in my life, I don't think this is something to wish upon others. "He really needs to start listening to those around him" works out so much better for all involved.
(By the way, if you don't remember me, we met at the post Thanksgiving feast thrown by the person whom I believe is
Re: my thoughts on your thoughts
Date: 2004-01-20 06:14 pm (UTC)And I agree with you, Mark.
Re: my thoughts on your thoughts
Date: 2004-01-20 07:36 pm (UTC)in this particular situation, i personally think he needs an ass whipping to unclog his ears,
and i do agree. he needs to LISTEN to those around him.
spending love
Date: 2004-01-20 04:51 pm (UTC)There's a song we learned in Sunday school (for UU's) that contradicts this: The Magic Penny. It goes:
"Love is something if you give it away...(repeat 4x)
You end up having more.
Oh, it's just like a magic penny,
Hold it tight and you won't have any,
Lend it spend it, you'll have so many
They'll roll all over the floor.
For, love is something if you give it away..."
And I remember thinking, as a kid, "there's something wrong with that logic." Because yes, it works, to an extent. Mostly with friends and platonic love, though, I'd think. The more people you love, the more you get back. But as you said, love requires time and attention, and there's only so much one can do in a week. Friendships can be inconsistent or erratic with shows of affection, but romantic love needs to be constant. So, yes, it can be difficult to prioritize things.
As for individual's choices being "better" than another, I have no idea if I've been one to say anything like that (I doubt it), but I agree that such things are very strongly based on the individual. It works for you, great. If something else works better for another, that's great, too. Respect that. Sheesh.
Re: spending love
Date: 2004-01-20 05:03 pm (UTC)Nope, you've neither said it nor implied it, though your post on being a whole person sort of made it sound like it, like a whole person would not be able to be content with just one person, if that one person still had stuff to work on. I knew that wasn't really what you meant though, and the edit you made certainly clarified it. :)
Re: spending love
Date: 2004-01-20 05:37 pm (UTC)Oops. Nope. Not at all.
Just the opposite.
I was thinking that a whole person doesn't need other people, they like company but do not rely on it for emotional fulfillment. Which isn't exactly true for me, because I can be without a good romance (see end of last relationship) if I have good friendships. But I can't be entirely without human contact. OK, revised: a "whole" person doesn't need an "other half."
Maybe.
Until other input convinces me otherwise.
Re: spending love
Date: 2004-01-20 05:40 pm (UTC)See, that's one thing I *don't* have to look for in a romantic relationship. I can get the feeling of "my other half" from my best friend. But the idea of a dynamic dualistic balance between two people, in any relationship, is one that appeals to my Wiccan seeker's mind. :) I can feel like I have another half without feeling like less than whole in myself. The 2-person whole is more than the sum of the two whole people who make it up. That was convoluted. :)
Re: spending love
Date: 2004-01-20 11:40 pm (UTC)Don't be hard on yourself for that. People weren't designed to be without social contact. The degree of social contact needed varies by person and context, but it's usually not something you have conscious control over, in my experience. *Anyone* who tells you that you need to be able to be happy with zero human contact doesn't know what they are really talking about, and probably has never been in the situation of having very little human contact.
Wicca stuff
Date: 2004-01-20 05:39 pm (UTC)If I ever come off as sounding like I'm saying "Eclectic Wiccan" practices are worthless or invalid, I do apologize. That's not what I mean at all. While I do think those practices can be very valid and fulfilling, I just think using the term "Wicca" to describe them is inaccurate.
Again, apologies if I've been belligerent.
Re: Wicca stuff
Date: 2004-01-20 05:42 pm (UTC)Re: Wicca stuff
Date: 2004-01-20 05:54 pm (UTC)Well, "eclectic British Paganism" could still refer to people who mix and match from various British pagan practices but may or may not use practices similar to Wicca...
Coming up with this term is indeed hard.
Re: Wicca stuff
Date: 2004-01-20 06:03 pm (UTC)Re: Wicca stuff
Date: 2004-01-20 06:38 pm (UTC)Um.
Something similar was applied to me when I mentioned I was a Unitarian Universalist. She said, "Oh, the ice cream religion! One hundred and one flavors of whatever you like!" I personally find it only makes sense to take what you do agree with and not what you don't--what kind of person would you be if you espoused some tenet not because you really believed it but because it came with a pre-packaged faith?
Re: Wicca stuff
Date: 2004-01-20 06:45 pm (UTC)Well, sometimes what you believe is more important in a religion, and sometimes what you do is more important. Depends on the religion. I don't let my choice of religion dictate my beliefs. It's more like the other way around. My beliefs fit rather snugly and are quite comfortable with the practices of Wicca so far as I have seen them.
hell and so forth
Date: 2004-01-20 08:03 pm (UTC)I personally find it only makes sense to take what you do agree with and not what you don't this statement had me involuntarily cringing. the baptist logic is that it is a sin to even think such thoughts. the reason being. if you took what you wanted and left out what you didn't, then it wouldn't be the word of god anymore, but the word of you. for example, should one decide to start a religion, the base for the religion would be the 10 commandments. but this individual decides that "well i don't like certain people so i am going to do away with 'thou shalt not kill'", then he decides that lieing is okay too. and instead replaces them with "thou shalt kill anyone thou finds unjust." and "lie whenever you want to".
a few years down the line, one of his followers decides the leader is wrong and makes his own religion again using the big 10 as a base, but he decides that adultery isn't a sin, and that everyone should just let loose on the sabboth.....
pretty soon you got everyone doing their own thing. and the world is filled with mayhem. but hey that's okay, because according their individual relgions, it's okay.
Re: hell and so forth
Date: 2004-01-20 08:13 pm (UTC)which, of course, precludes most baptists...*duck* (JOKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
Re: hell and so forth
Date: 2004-01-20 09:32 pm (UTC)OK, fine. You said it better and in fewer words.
Re: hell and so forth
Date: 2004-01-20 09:34 pm (UTC)Re: hell and so forth
Date: 2004-01-21 12:28 am (UTC)Re: hell and so forth
Date: 2004-01-20 08:54 pm (UTC)What I meant is, say you're Christian and your particular sect believes strongly that all who do not practice your particular brand of Xtianity are damned, going to hell, and are worthy only of your disdain, even outright harassment. But say you agree with many parts of this sect, but disagree that this sort of treatment of your neighbors really follows Christ's teachings, and you choose to not engage in such behavior, because it does not fit with your personal beliefs. That's closer to what I meant.
No, of course one shouldn't just mold religion to fit their own selfish preferences, but neither should they publicly espouse a belief that they do not really hold; that would be morally conflicting, at the least. Within bounds, one should be able to reject certain aspects of a religion they otherwise agree with. There are always those, after all, who a religion is ashamed of, because they choose to get fanatical about some detail and give the others a bad name.
Does that make sense?
Re: hell and so forth
Date: 2004-01-20 09:12 pm (UTC)Re: hell and so forth
Date: 2004-01-20 09:40 pm (UTC)I dunno. Not really a Christian. Certainly not the kind who identifies myself as part of a religion more as a default than because I'm devout. But people (particularly Xtians I know) do this all the time. Pea still considers herself a Baptist and reacts as one when religion is brought up, but she doesn't conduct herself as one. It happens. We're not actually sheep; we can't all believe exactly the same thing, but beliefs will match mostly, within a religion.
This sort of indecision and inability to soundly defend arguments is why I will only call myself a "UU" or a (very non-specific) "pagan"--these things vary every day and I'm rather wishy-washy about definitions. I don't really want to make others conform to me, and prefer they extend myself and others the same respect, and that's about it. So, considering this, I should probably not get into these conversations as I only confuse and piss people off, instead of enlightening them as to what goes on in my head.
Oh well.
Re: hell and so forth
Date: 2004-01-20 09:45 pm (UTC)Re: hell and so forth
Date: 2004-01-21 12:08 am (UTC)it is just hard to let go of some of the teachings try as i might.