View Single Post
Old 07-21-2007, 05:22 AM   #10
NoBoxes
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce View Post
For you to just accept that her dance card will always be full while you're mowing the lawn or changing the oil in the car, takes an attitude that is so unnatural I can't comprehend it. I don't think you can either.
I suppose there will be some that accuse me of being insecure and selfish because I can't contemplate such an arrangement.
Not at all, remember Elspode's opening paragraph:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspode View Post
Have you ever loved someone so much that you cringe when they are interested in someone else, and cringe when they aren’t? Have you ever put someone else’s happiness so far above your own that, when they tell you they love someone else, you don’t actually want to puke your guts out?
This certainly raised a red flag for me in that his description could be interpreted as being not just of love; but, of additional dependence (e.g. insecurity, mother figure, female domination ... etc.). This could easily give rise to viewing his attitude as so [/i]unnatural[/i] that one might have difficulty comprehending it.

Later; however, Elspode makes this pertinent statement:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspode View Post
There are benefits within the marriage that tend to outweigh the gut churning stuff for me. First and foremost, we are largely much more attentive to each other now than we have been in years.
This leads me to believe that this is not so much an unnatural situation as a non-conventional approach to keeping the primary relationship worthwhile.

Even though Elspode has said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspode View Post
At present, all signs point to everything being secondary to the pursuit of polyamory.
The indicators are that the pursuit of polyamory is actually a means to improving his relationship with Selene where they both benefit despite the disparity in their other relationships. There are many people who would do anything for love.

It's just my opinion.

Last edited by NoBoxes; 07-21-2007 at 05:29 AM. Reason: punctuation typo
  Reply With Quote