▲ 587 ▼ Good point (lemmy.world) submitted 2 years ago by ilovecinnamon@lemmy.world to c/lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world 107 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[+] Stovetop@lemmy.world 213 points 2 years ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (3 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] tiramichu@lemm.ee 131 points 2 years ago (1 child) Is the answer. Cheating is a mechanism to both have their cake, and eat it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] HyonoKo@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 years ago (1 child) Very nice analogy. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] creation7758@lemmy.ml 16 points 2 years ago (2 children) I've always hated this analogy. Why can't I buy a cake and eat it? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] rambling_lunatic@sh.itjust.works 50 points 2 years ago (2 children) You can either possess a cake or consume it. Consuming the pastry means you no longer have it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] zibzanna@lemmy.world 50 points 2 years ago (3 children) I cannot believe I spent my whole life not grasping this phrase. Thank you. I'm embarrassed how much my mind just expanded. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] frunch@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) There are a lot of clichés that may not make a lot of sense at face value. I've found some actually go a lot deeper than you expect, or may actually apply on multiple levels. Common wisdom often hits harder than I initially realized as I've gotten older... Edit: and as you comment shows, I've also been guilty of straight-up misinterpreting the meanings as well. Literally just the other day i realized that Lifesavers™ candy are supposed to be little life preservers, as one would have on a boat. For whatever reason, i thought they were just making some grandiose claim as brands often like to do... Sometimes our first impressions become our impressions until correction which may not take place for a long time permalink fedilink source parent [–] The_Terrible_Humbaba@slrpnk.net 2 points 2 years ago (2 children) I've only had this phrase explained to me recently, and since then I can't help but think it would make more sense if it was told the other way around; such as "you can't eat your cake and have it too". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Amanduh@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago Six in one half dozen in the other permalink fedilink source parent [–] ivanafterall@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago Or if it had originally been rendered as, "you can't keep your cake and eat it, too!" permalink fedilink source parent [–] rambling_lunatic@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years ago No problem, chief 👍 permalink fedilink source parent [–] GladiusB@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) The problem is, that is the cake's sole purpose. If it isn't consumed it doesn't mature and yield more cake. The analogy is a well known idiom, but it sounds a bit short when you think about it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] rautapekoni@sopuli.xyz 2 points 2 years ago* I think it's more about restraint versus instant gratification. When people have cake it's usually meant to be shared in some kind of party, so if you go ahead and eat the cake alone you miss out on the sharing which could be said to be the cakes original purpose. permalink fedilink source parent [–] PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago* It’s a reference to a very pretty cake. Imagine a wedding cake on display at the wedding, before the bride and groom cut into it. They want to keep the cake pristine so it can stay on display. But that means they can’t eat it, because eating it would destroy the art. They also want to eat it, because it’s cake. They want to have their cake (to display) and eat it too. permalink fedilink source parent [+] zea_64@lemmy.blahaj.zone -19 points 2 years ago (2 children) I don't understand why society demonizes that (the multiple people thing, not the lack of communication). If that's what's best for my partner, who am I to stop them? What does exclusivity even get me besides limiting my jealousy? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] tiramichu@lemm.ee 108 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Polyamoury is cool. Cheating is not cool. That's all it comes down to - consent If someone needs multiple partners in their life to feel fulfilled, then wonderful, but they just have to make sure that everyone involved is fine with that before they get into the situation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] radicalautonomy@lemmy.world 16 points 2 years ago (1 child) Polyamory is very cool for people who are wired for it. A whole lot of people aren't, and that's okay. And some people could be wired for it, but they have a whole lot of self-work to do before they'll practice it well. It works for me because I know that I never again want to presume any semblance of control or authority over any partner's absolute right to seek out joy and fulfillment by forming however many ethical and consensual relationships they wish, of whatever style they wish, with whomever they wish, for as long as they wish, and I insist upon the same right for myself. Jealousy is just not an emotion I experience. Envy, yes...envy being wanting what someone else has. When I see a partner of mine having a particular dynamic with another partner that I want to have with them, I feel envy. But not jealousy, which is not wanting someone else to have something of yours. That is, I don't feel anxiety about their other partner "stealing them away from me." Anything lacking between me and a partner has nothing to do with anyone else not in our relationship; if I feel something is missing between us or want things to be a certain way, it is incumbent upon me to speak up, and vice versa. Outside of our relationship, I cheer my partners on in their other connections because love is fucking amazing, man! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] zea_64@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 years ago Thank you for spelling out my feelings. I've been struggling to process them because I haven't seen any prior art. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Kedly@lemm.ee 22 points 2 years ago (1 child) In most cultures betraying contracts is usually considered bad, and relationships are basically intimate and emotional contracts. Trust is important even in business contracts, but in interpersonal ones its ESSENTIAL. If you entered into a polyamorous relationship, cool, thats the contract all parties agreed to, but if it wasnt specifically polyamorous its defaults to monogamous, and if you breach that trust, you're probably not getting it back, and without trust ever having a healthy relationship again is probably gone permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] creditCrazy@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Granted I haven't been around the dating pool very often but from what I've seen of cheating it's rarely because the person is interested in polyamory but because they are simply normal and are trying to take advantage of one aspect of a relationship and fulfill their other desires with a different relationship for example taking advantage of husband A being rich and take advantage of husband B because he's physically hot both are being taken advantaged of and husband A feels like he's nothing more than a wallet and husband B feels like he's nothing more than a dick on top of all that in the US the family court system very heavily favors women so if a girl is not 100% interested in a man it's quite possible for the man to loose his entire lively hood I will admit this is a pretty male centric take but like I said i haven't been paying much attention to dating world and i only have the perspective of a man permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Kedly@lemm.ee 1 point 2 years ago* You missed my point. I'm saying that if you're not specifically in a poly relationship, then non exclusivity is an immediate and automatic relationship contract breach in 99+% of cases. So yes, the cheater isn't interested in Poly relationships in the vast majority of cases, but I was only bringing poly relationships up because they are a notable exception to non exclusivity being an immediate deal breaker permalink fedilink source parent [+] aoidenpa@lemmy.world -22 points 2 years ago (1 child) That makes sense but I think real reason is they get off doing something so terrible and evil and immoral. I get it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TexMexBazooka@lemm.ee 10 points 2 years ago Very black and white view of things. Bad history? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] tiramichu@lemm.ee 131 points 2 years ago (1 child) Is the answer. Cheating is a mechanism to both have their cake, and eat it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] HyonoKo@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 years ago (1 child) Very nice analogy. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] creation7758@lemmy.ml 16 points 2 years ago (2 children) I've always hated this analogy. Why can't I buy a cake and eat it? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] rambling_lunatic@sh.itjust.works 50 points 2 years ago (2 children) You can either possess a cake or consume it. Consuming the pastry means you no longer have it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] zibzanna@lemmy.world 50 points 2 years ago (3 children) I cannot believe I spent my whole life not grasping this phrase. Thank you. I'm embarrassed how much my mind just expanded. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] frunch@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) There are a lot of clichés that may not make a lot of sense at face value. I've found some actually go a lot deeper than you expect, or may actually apply on multiple levels. Common wisdom often hits harder than I initially realized as I've gotten older... Edit: and as you comment shows, I've also been guilty of straight-up misinterpreting the meanings as well. Literally just the other day i realized that Lifesavers™ candy are supposed to be little life preservers, as one would have on a boat. For whatever reason, i thought they were just making some grandiose claim as brands often like to do... Sometimes our first impressions become our impressions until correction which may not take place for a long time permalink fedilink source parent [–] The_Terrible_Humbaba@slrpnk.net 2 points 2 years ago (2 children) I've only had this phrase explained to me recently, and since then I can't help but think it would make more sense if it was told the other way around; such as "you can't eat your cake and have it too". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Amanduh@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago Six in one half dozen in the other permalink fedilink source parent [–] ivanafterall@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago Or if it had originally been rendered as, "you can't keep your cake and eat it, too!" permalink fedilink source parent [–] rambling_lunatic@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years ago No problem, chief 👍 permalink fedilink source parent [–] GladiusB@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) The problem is, that is the cake's sole purpose. If it isn't consumed it doesn't mature and yield more cake. The analogy is a well known idiom, but it sounds a bit short when you think about it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] rautapekoni@sopuli.xyz 2 points 2 years ago* I think it's more about restraint versus instant gratification. When people have cake it's usually meant to be shared in some kind of party, so if you go ahead and eat the cake alone you miss out on the sharing which could be said to be the cakes original purpose. permalink fedilink source parent [–] PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago* It’s a reference to a very pretty cake. Imagine a wedding cake on display at the wedding, before the bride and groom cut into it. They want to keep the cake pristine so it can stay on display. But that means they can’t eat it, because eating it would destroy the art. They also want to eat it, because it’s cake. They want to have their cake (to display) and eat it too. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] HyonoKo@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 years ago (1 child) Very nice analogy. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] creation7758@lemmy.ml 16 points 2 years ago (2 children) I've always hated this analogy. Why can't I buy a cake and eat it? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] rambling_lunatic@sh.itjust.works 50 points 2 years ago (2 children) You can either possess a cake or consume it. Consuming the pastry means you no longer have it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] zibzanna@lemmy.world 50 points 2 years ago (3 children) I cannot believe I spent my whole life not grasping this phrase. Thank you. I'm embarrassed how much my mind just expanded. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] frunch@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) There are a lot of clichés that may not make a lot of sense at face value. I've found some actually go a lot deeper than you expect, or may actually apply on multiple levels. Common wisdom often hits harder than I initially realized as I've gotten older... Edit: and as you comment shows, I've also been guilty of straight-up misinterpreting the meanings as well. Literally just the other day i realized that Lifesavers™ candy are supposed to be little life preservers, as one would have on a boat. For whatever reason, i thought they were just making some grandiose claim as brands often like to do... Sometimes our first impressions become our impressions until correction which may not take place for a long time permalink fedilink source parent [–] The_Terrible_Humbaba@slrpnk.net 2 points 2 years ago (2 children) I've only had this phrase explained to me recently, and since then I can't help but think it would make more sense if it was told the other way around; such as "you can't eat your cake and have it too". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Amanduh@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago Six in one half dozen in the other permalink fedilink source parent [–] ivanafterall@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago Or if it had originally been rendered as, "you can't keep your cake and eat it, too!" permalink fedilink source parent [–] rambling_lunatic@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years ago No problem, chief 👍 permalink fedilink source parent [–] GladiusB@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) The problem is, that is the cake's sole purpose. If it isn't consumed it doesn't mature and yield more cake. The analogy is a well known idiom, but it sounds a bit short when you think about it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] rautapekoni@sopuli.xyz 2 points 2 years ago* I think it's more about restraint versus instant gratification. When people have cake it's usually meant to be shared in some kind of party, so if you go ahead and eat the cake alone you miss out on the sharing which could be said to be the cakes original purpose. permalink fedilink source parent [–] PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago* It’s a reference to a very pretty cake. Imagine a wedding cake on display at the wedding, before the bride and groom cut into it. They want to keep the cake pristine so it can stay on display. But that means they can’t eat it, because eating it would destroy the art. They also want to eat it, because it’s cake. They want to have their cake (to display) and eat it too. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] creation7758@lemmy.ml 16 points 2 years ago (2 children) I've always hated this analogy. Why can't I buy a cake and eat it? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] rambling_lunatic@sh.itjust.works 50 points 2 years ago (2 children) You can either possess a cake or consume it. Consuming the pastry means you no longer have it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] zibzanna@lemmy.world 50 points 2 years ago (3 children) I cannot believe I spent my whole life not grasping this phrase. Thank you. I'm embarrassed how much my mind just expanded. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] frunch@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) There are a lot of clichés that may not make a lot of sense at face value. I've found some actually go a lot deeper than you expect, or may actually apply on multiple levels. Common wisdom often hits harder than I initially realized as I've gotten older... Edit: and as you comment shows, I've also been guilty of straight-up misinterpreting the meanings as well. Literally just the other day i realized that Lifesavers™ candy are supposed to be little life preservers, as one would have on a boat. For whatever reason, i thought they were just making some grandiose claim as brands often like to do... Sometimes our first impressions become our impressions until correction which may not take place for a long time permalink fedilink source parent [–] The_Terrible_Humbaba@slrpnk.net 2 points 2 years ago (2 children) I've only had this phrase explained to me recently, and since then I can't help but think it would make more sense if it was told the other way around; such as "you can't eat your cake and have it too". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Amanduh@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago Six in one half dozen in the other permalink fedilink source parent [–] ivanafterall@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago Or if it had originally been rendered as, "you can't keep your cake and eat it, too!" permalink fedilink source parent [–] rambling_lunatic@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years ago No problem, chief 👍 permalink fedilink source parent [–] GladiusB@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) The problem is, that is the cake's sole purpose. If it isn't consumed it doesn't mature and yield more cake. The analogy is a well known idiom, but it sounds a bit short when you think about it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] rautapekoni@sopuli.xyz 2 points 2 years ago* I think it's more about restraint versus instant gratification. When people have cake it's usually meant to be shared in some kind of party, so if you go ahead and eat the cake alone you miss out on the sharing which could be said to be the cakes original purpose. permalink fedilink source parent [–] PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago* It’s a reference to a very pretty cake. Imagine a wedding cake on display at the wedding, before the bride and groom cut into it. They want to keep the cake pristine so it can stay on display. But that means they can’t eat it, because eating it would destroy the art. They also want to eat it, because it’s cake. They want to have their cake (to display) and eat it too. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] rambling_lunatic@sh.itjust.works 50 points 2 years ago (2 children) You can either possess a cake or consume it. Consuming the pastry means you no longer have it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] zibzanna@lemmy.world 50 points 2 years ago (3 children) I cannot believe I spent my whole life not grasping this phrase. Thank you. I'm embarrassed how much my mind just expanded. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] frunch@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) There are a lot of clichés that may not make a lot of sense at face value. I've found some actually go a lot deeper than you expect, or may actually apply on multiple levels. Common wisdom often hits harder than I initially realized as I've gotten older... Edit: and as you comment shows, I've also been guilty of straight-up misinterpreting the meanings as well. Literally just the other day i realized that Lifesavers™ candy are supposed to be little life preservers, as one would have on a boat. For whatever reason, i thought they were just making some grandiose claim as brands often like to do... Sometimes our first impressions become our impressions until correction which may not take place for a long time permalink fedilink source parent [–] The_Terrible_Humbaba@slrpnk.net 2 points 2 years ago (2 children) I've only had this phrase explained to me recently, and since then I can't help but think it would make more sense if it was told the other way around; such as "you can't eat your cake and have it too". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Amanduh@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago Six in one half dozen in the other permalink fedilink source parent [–] ivanafterall@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago Or if it had originally been rendered as, "you can't keep your cake and eat it, too!" permalink fedilink source parent [–] rambling_lunatic@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years ago No problem, chief 👍 permalink fedilink source parent [–] GladiusB@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) The problem is, that is the cake's sole purpose. If it isn't consumed it doesn't mature and yield more cake. The analogy is a well known idiom, but it sounds a bit short when you think about it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] rautapekoni@sopuli.xyz 2 points 2 years ago* I think it's more about restraint versus instant gratification. When people have cake it's usually meant to be shared in some kind of party, so if you go ahead and eat the cake alone you miss out on the sharing which could be said to be the cakes original purpose. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] zibzanna@lemmy.world 50 points 2 years ago (3 children) I cannot believe I spent my whole life not grasping this phrase. Thank you. I'm embarrassed how much my mind just expanded. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] frunch@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) There are a lot of clichés that may not make a lot of sense at face value. I've found some actually go a lot deeper than you expect, or may actually apply on multiple levels. Common wisdom often hits harder than I initially realized as I've gotten older... Edit: and as you comment shows, I've also been guilty of straight-up misinterpreting the meanings as well. Literally just the other day i realized that Lifesavers™ candy are supposed to be little life preservers, as one would have on a boat. For whatever reason, i thought they were just making some grandiose claim as brands often like to do... Sometimes our first impressions become our impressions until correction which may not take place for a long time permalink fedilink source parent [–] The_Terrible_Humbaba@slrpnk.net 2 points 2 years ago (2 children) I've only had this phrase explained to me recently, and since then I can't help but think it would make more sense if it was told the other way around; such as "you can't eat your cake and have it too". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Amanduh@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago Six in one half dozen in the other permalink fedilink source parent [–] ivanafterall@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago Or if it had originally been rendered as, "you can't keep your cake and eat it, too!" permalink fedilink source parent [–] rambling_lunatic@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years ago No problem, chief 👍 permalink fedilink source parent
[–] frunch@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) There are a lot of clichés that may not make a lot of sense at face value. I've found some actually go a lot deeper than you expect, or may actually apply on multiple levels. Common wisdom often hits harder than I initially realized as I've gotten older... Edit: and as you comment shows, I've also been guilty of straight-up misinterpreting the meanings as well. Literally just the other day i realized that Lifesavers™ candy are supposed to be little life preservers, as one would have on a boat. For whatever reason, i thought they were just making some grandiose claim as brands often like to do... Sometimes our first impressions become our impressions until correction which may not take place for a long time permalink fedilink source parent
[–] The_Terrible_Humbaba@slrpnk.net 2 points 2 years ago (2 children) I've only had this phrase explained to me recently, and since then I can't help but think it would make more sense if it was told the other way around; such as "you can't eat your cake and have it too". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Amanduh@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago Six in one half dozen in the other permalink fedilink source parent [–] ivanafterall@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago Or if it had originally been rendered as, "you can't keep your cake and eat it, too!" permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Amanduh@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago Six in one half dozen in the other permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ivanafterall@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago Or if it had originally been rendered as, "you can't keep your cake and eat it, too!" permalink fedilink source parent
[–] rambling_lunatic@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years ago No problem, chief 👍 permalink fedilink source parent
[–] GladiusB@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) The problem is, that is the cake's sole purpose. If it isn't consumed it doesn't mature and yield more cake. The analogy is a well known idiom, but it sounds a bit short when you think about it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] rautapekoni@sopuli.xyz 2 points 2 years ago* I think it's more about restraint versus instant gratification. When people have cake it's usually meant to be shared in some kind of party, so if you go ahead and eat the cake alone you miss out on the sharing which could be said to be the cakes original purpose. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] rautapekoni@sopuli.xyz 2 points 2 years ago* I think it's more about restraint versus instant gratification. When people have cake it's usually meant to be shared in some kind of party, so if you go ahead and eat the cake alone you miss out on the sharing which could be said to be the cakes original purpose. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago* It’s a reference to a very pretty cake. Imagine a wedding cake on display at the wedding, before the bride and groom cut into it. They want to keep the cake pristine so it can stay on display. But that means they can’t eat it, because eating it would destroy the art. They also want to eat it, because it’s cake. They want to have their cake (to display) and eat it too. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] zea_64@lemmy.blahaj.zone -19 points 2 years ago (2 children) I don't understand why society demonizes that (the multiple people thing, not the lack of communication). If that's what's best for my partner, who am I to stop them? What does exclusivity even get me besides limiting my jealousy? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] tiramichu@lemm.ee 108 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Polyamoury is cool. Cheating is not cool. That's all it comes down to - consent If someone needs multiple partners in their life to feel fulfilled, then wonderful, but they just have to make sure that everyone involved is fine with that before they get into the situation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] radicalautonomy@lemmy.world 16 points 2 years ago (1 child) Polyamory is very cool for people who are wired for it. A whole lot of people aren't, and that's okay. And some people could be wired for it, but they have a whole lot of self-work to do before they'll practice it well. It works for me because I know that I never again want to presume any semblance of control or authority over any partner's absolute right to seek out joy and fulfillment by forming however many ethical and consensual relationships they wish, of whatever style they wish, with whomever they wish, for as long as they wish, and I insist upon the same right for myself. Jealousy is just not an emotion I experience. Envy, yes...envy being wanting what someone else has. When I see a partner of mine having a particular dynamic with another partner that I want to have with them, I feel envy. But not jealousy, which is not wanting someone else to have something of yours. That is, I don't feel anxiety about their other partner "stealing them away from me." Anything lacking between me and a partner has nothing to do with anyone else not in our relationship; if I feel something is missing between us or want things to be a certain way, it is incumbent upon me to speak up, and vice versa. Outside of our relationship, I cheer my partners on in their other connections because love is fucking amazing, man! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] zea_64@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 years ago Thank you for spelling out my feelings. I've been struggling to process them because I haven't seen any prior art. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Kedly@lemm.ee 22 points 2 years ago (1 child) In most cultures betraying contracts is usually considered bad, and relationships are basically intimate and emotional contracts. Trust is important even in business contracts, but in interpersonal ones its ESSENTIAL. If you entered into a polyamorous relationship, cool, thats the contract all parties agreed to, but if it wasnt specifically polyamorous its defaults to monogamous, and if you breach that trust, you're probably not getting it back, and without trust ever having a healthy relationship again is probably gone permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] creditCrazy@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Granted I haven't been around the dating pool very often but from what I've seen of cheating it's rarely because the person is interested in polyamory but because they are simply normal and are trying to take advantage of one aspect of a relationship and fulfill their other desires with a different relationship for example taking advantage of husband A being rich and take advantage of husband B because he's physically hot both are being taken advantaged of and husband A feels like he's nothing more than a wallet and husband B feels like he's nothing more than a dick on top of all that in the US the family court system very heavily favors women so if a girl is not 100% interested in a man it's quite possible for the man to loose his entire lively hood I will admit this is a pretty male centric take but like I said i haven't been paying much attention to dating world and i only have the perspective of a man permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Kedly@lemm.ee 1 point 2 years ago* You missed my point. I'm saying that if you're not specifically in a poly relationship, then non exclusivity is an immediate and automatic relationship contract breach in 99+% of cases. So yes, the cheater isn't interested in Poly relationships in the vast majority of cases, but I was only bringing poly relationships up because they are a notable exception to non exclusivity being an immediate deal breaker permalink fedilink source parent
[–] tiramichu@lemm.ee 108 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Polyamoury is cool. Cheating is not cool. That's all it comes down to - consent If someone needs multiple partners in their life to feel fulfilled, then wonderful, but they just have to make sure that everyone involved is fine with that before they get into the situation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] radicalautonomy@lemmy.world 16 points 2 years ago (1 child) Polyamory is very cool for people who are wired for it. A whole lot of people aren't, and that's okay. And some people could be wired for it, but they have a whole lot of self-work to do before they'll practice it well. It works for me because I know that I never again want to presume any semblance of control or authority over any partner's absolute right to seek out joy and fulfillment by forming however many ethical and consensual relationships they wish, of whatever style they wish, with whomever they wish, for as long as they wish, and I insist upon the same right for myself. Jealousy is just not an emotion I experience. Envy, yes...envy being wanting what someone else has. When I see a partner of mine having a particular dynamic with another partner that I want to have with them, I feel envy. But not jealousy, which is not wanting someone else to have something of yours. That is, I don't feel anxiety about their other partner "stealing them away from me." Anything lacking between me and a partner has nothing to do with anyone else not in our relationship; if I feel something is missing between us or want things to be a certain way, it is incumbent upon me to speak up, and vice versa. Outside of our relationship, I cheer my partners on in their other connections because love is fucking amazing, man! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] zea_64@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 years ago Thank you for spelling out my feelings. I've been struggling to process them because I haven't seen any prior art. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] radicalautonomy@lemmy.world 16 points 2 years ago (1 child) Polyamory is very cool for people who are wired for it. A whole lot of people aren't, and that's okay. And some people could be wired for it, but they have a whole lot of self-work to do before they'll practice it well. It works for me because I know that I never again want to presume any semblance of control or authority over any partner's absolute right to seek out joy and fulfillment by forming however many ethical and consensual relationships they wish, of whatever style they wish, with whomever they wish, for as long as they wish, and I insist upon the same right for myself. Jealousy is just not an emotion I experience. Envy, yes...envy being wanting what someone else has. When I see a partner of mine having a particular dynamic with another partner that I want to have with them, I feel envy. But not jealousy, which is not wanting someone else to have something of yours. That is, I don't feel anxiety about their other partner "stealing them away from me." Anything lacking between me and a partner has nothing to do with anyone else not in our relationship; if I feel something is missing between us or want things to be a certain way, it is incumbent upon me to speak up, and vice versa. Outside of our relationship, I cheer my partners on in their other connections because love is fucking amazing, man! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] zea_64@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 years ago Thank you for spelling out my feelings. I've been struggling to process them because I haven't seen any prior art. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] zea_64@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 years ago Thank you for spelling out my feelings. I've been struggling to process them because I haven't seen any prior art. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Kedly@lemm.ee 22 points 2 years ago (1 child) In most cultures betraying contracts is usually considered bad, and relationships are basically intimate and emotional contracts. Trust is important even in business contracts, but in interpersonal ones its ESSENTIAL. If you entered into a polyamorous relationship, cool, thats the contract all parties agreed to, but if it wasnt specifically polyamorous its defaults to monogamous, and if you breach that trust, you're probably not getting it back, and without trust ever having a healthy relationship again is probably gone permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] creditCrazy@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Granted I haven't been around the dating pool very often but from what I've seen of cheating it's rarely because the person is interested in polyamory but because they are simply normal and are trying to take advantage of one aspect of a relationship and fulfill their other desires with a different relationship for example taking advantage of husband A being rich and take advantage of husband B because he's physically hot both are being taken advantaged of and husband A feels like he's nothing more than a wallet and husband B feels like he's nothing more than a dick on top of all that in the US the family court system very heavily favors women so if a girl is not 100% interested in a man it's quite possible for the man to loose his entire lively hood I will admit this is a pretty male centric take but like I said i haven't been paying much attention to dating world and i only have the perspective of a man permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Kedly@lemm.ee 1 point 2 years ago* You missed my point. I'm saying that if you're not specifically in a poly relationship, then non exclusivity is an immediate and automatic relationship contract breach in 99+% of cases. So yes, the cheater isn't interested in Poly relationships in the vast majority of cases, but I was only bringing poly relationships up because they are a notable exception to non exclusivity being an immediate deal breaker permalink fedilink source parent
[–] creditCrazy@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Granted I haven't been around the dating pool very often but from what I've seen of cheating it's rarely because the person is interested in polyamory but because they are simply normal and are trying to take advantage of one aspect of a relationship and fulfill their other desires with a different relationship for example taking advantage of husband A being rich and take advantage of husband B because he's physically hot both are being taken advantaged of and husband A feels like he's nothing more than a wallet and husband B feels like he's nothing more than a dick on top of all that in the US the family court system very heavily favors women so if a girl is not 100% interested in a man it's quite possible for the man to loose his entire lively hood I will admit this is a pretty male centric take but like I said i haven't been paying much attention to dating world and i only have the perspective of a man permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Kedly@lemm.ee 1 point 2 years ago* You missed my point. I'm saying that if you're not specifically in a poly relationship, then non exclusivity is an immediate and automatic relationship contract breach in 99+% of cases. So yes, the cheater isn't interested in Poly relationships in the vast majority of cases, but I was only bringing poly relationships up because they are a notable exception to non exclusivity being an immediate deal breaker permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Kedly@lemm.ee 1 point 2 years ago* You missed my point. I'm saying that if you're not specifically in a poly relationship, then non exclusivity is an immediate and automatic relationship contract breach in 99+% of cases. So yes, the cheater isn't interested in Poly relationships in the vast majority of cases, but I was only bringing poly relationships up because they are a notable exception to non exclusivity being an immediate deal breaker permalink fedilink source parent
[+] aoidenpa@lemmy.world -22 points 2 years ago (1 child) That makes sense but I think real reason is they get off doing something so terrible and evil and immoral. I get it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TexMexBazooka@lemm.ee 10 points 2 years ago Very black and white view of things. Bad history? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] TexMexBazooka@lemm.ee 10 points 2 years ago Very black and white view of things. Bad history? permalink fedilink source parent
