Conference quark::mennotes-v1

         > Is there a limit to a human being's capacity to love?
 
         I don't think so.  Was it "love" you really meant to ask about?
         Because all of us love many simultaneously - parents, kids, sibs,
         dogs, cats, etc.  Our capacity to love is limitless.  Your
         question seems more like, "Can/should we have physical
         relationships with more than one person at a time?"
    
         > Why then does society impose itself on us as far as personal
         > relationships are concerned?
   
    For mass control.  A married man, worried about paying the bills and
    feeding his kids is easier to keep working and keep paying taxes than a
    single man.  When you've got nothing to lose, who can tell you what to
    do?   For women, the kids she has helps to control her actions and
    limit her freedoms, (a major part of the government's "concern" over
    abortion).  In order to avoid "society" from having to support her kids, 
    we make her try to get that support from the man with whom she risks 
    pregnancy.  And that's how we sell women lipstick, "fashion", (which are 
    decorations rather than clothes), etc, to help them win over a
    previously happy-go-lucky guy who'll take responsibility for them and 
    their eventual offspring. 
    
    Marriage was created, according to Margaret Mead, to "attach males to
    families".  This imposes upon men the same responsibilities to nurture 
    children that women already have, naturally.  Sooner or later, you've got 
    the house and the kids and more to think about than just your own desires. 
    And that's the goal.  She worries about her kids and she's expected to
    find a guy and force, (tempt, coerce, cajole, flatter, whatever), a guy 
    into worrying about them, too, so that both can be "responsible",
    (controllable), adults.  It has nothing whatsoever to do with the human
    capacity to love.
    
    >Can we share experiences?
    
    They're all around us, ad nauseum - the failure of people who try to
    force human nature to stay within the limits of social artifice for
    the "good of society" or to "be a good person" or "proper" or whatever 
    words currently in use to denote the social and governmental pressure 
    to conform.
    
    Sandy
                                                               

    RE:-1 What?!?!?!?  So the government came up with marriage and
    monogamy?  I think not.  It's much deeper than that.  I'm sorry 
    for whatever has put this bad taste in your mouth.    
    
    
    RE: Basenote-I would not want to have more than one intimate
    relationship at a time.  I enjoy building a relationship and life with
    one person.  I have been married for 6 years and our relationship has
    grown and just about every aspect (including the physical aspect) has
    gotten better with time.  Years ago I went the more than one woman at a
    time route, until I realised that it was for mostly physical
    gratification as well as putting another notch in the old belt buckle.
    It also has to do with ego building and wanting ones cake and eat it
    too.  I think real love (as corny as that sounds) is found when you 
    find the person who makes you shine and vica versa.  That person is 
    your point of refuge.  To find this real love you have to find a person 
    who you can get lost in and who will get lost in you as you become one.  
    A big part of my identity is that I'm my wife's husband and my children's
    father.  Some will say this is not good, but it suits me just fine.  
    
    
    Peace,
    
    Mike
                          

    
    
    Basenote,
    
      Sure you can..Just get plenty of vitamins and rest..Then have at
    it:-)
    Sincerely,
    
    Male Chauvinist Pig

    My belief is that you only find that one *true love* once in your life. 
    The person that you'd give all for.  If this doesn't work out and the
    relationship fails, you can love again but on the same level.  
    
    As for loving more than one person at the same time, sure, but I don't
    believe it to be possible to love them all the same (I'm not talking
    about family, but about intimate partners).  To me it seems that
    although you may enjoy them all and care for them, one is going to rise
    above the rest in your heart.
    
    Love is different in all aspects, family, lovers, and friends.  

    I can honestly say I love several people who I consider my nearest and
    dearest friends.
    
    But I have never been able to sustain more than one romantic *LOVE* at
    a time.  And if there have been crossovers in the past, the point of
    crossover was brief and painful, but extremely obvious to me (no
    confusion on who I truly *loved*).....
    
    -Jody

For heaven's sake, I didn't mean to suggest that modern-day governments 
have invented marriage!  Early societal leaders, the precursors of 
modern-day governments, began to see the benefits of "attaching males to 
families" and included that in the first stirrings of organizations.
It remains today as the modern-day marriage license, which anyone can get 
for a song, and the modern divorce court, which will even ignore the 
agreement(s) made between husband and wife and impose its own will.

    Anyone who prefers married monogamy certainly won't feel the presence
    of much of this pressure the basenoter is talking about.  But did you
    feel any when you were in your so called "belt notching days"?  Where
    do you think it came from?  From a desire of society to see everyone
    have what you call "real love"?  Is this the same society that
    traditionally separates husbands and wives in nursing homes?  If not
    for their own gain, do you think the legal ramifications of marriage
    and divorce are there merely for people's own good?  Is this the same 
    government that's in bed with the tobacco companies?
    
    I may sound cynical, and I admit I am, but don't mistake it for a bad
    taste in my mouth.  Were I in a decision-making capacity at the dawning
    of organized societies and I had to come up with a way to deal with
    people as a mass and minimize their individual leanings, I well may have
    come up with the same scheme.  It *has* worked!  Many books, articles
    and men themselves will admit that marriage "civililzes" them - some
    marry to gain "stability".  Aren't civilized, stable citizens what a
    government wants?  Margaret Meade speaks a lot of the "disruptive"
    quality of "unattached" men on a society.  Marriage helps to keep men 
    out of the government's hair and keeps women's kids out of it, too.
    And whatever other various arcane pressures there are, the government's
    role is the ruling one and has the biggest teeth.

    Oh, I dunno... seems to me it's hard enough finding one person to love,
    without worrying about whether you can find two or three. (Or N; I
    wouldn't presume to place an arbitrary limit on the romantically
    ambitious!)
    
    Of course, if I were to have the opportunity to try such an
    arrangement, I'd prefer it if everybody involved loved each other, so
    we could all hang out together; otherwise I'd have to schedule time
    with each individual, and wouldn't have any left over to finish
    re-reading "Ulysses"...
    
    -b (that diabolical arch-fiend, Annoying Girl!)

    .6 Some animals are monogamous and some aren't.  Does this logic apply
    to them as well?  The beginning government of some species set up the
    species to be monogamous and the others either didn't have a government
    or the government was more laxed.  What are your resources, and where
    is your logic.  
    
    
    Peace,
    
    Mike  

>    -b (that diabolical arch-fiend, Annoying Girl!)

 Watch it or I'll paste you with snowballs on the way home from school. :-) :-)

    You do and I'll kidnap Hobbes again...
    
    -b

    RE:.4  
    
       I agree that you only ever find one "true love" in your lifetime.
    I believe this happens because you'll never trust as openly again
    after being burned the first time.  This assumes things didn't work
    out in that relationship.
    
    RE:.0  
    
       I don't think it's posible to be romanticaly in love with more than
    one person.  At least not for me.  
    
       Now in lust with more than one person is an entirely different
    matter altogether! ;^)
    
                                 L.J.

    I agree about the one big love.  I read an article once that brought
    this home. it quoted things like Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton as
    examples.  I had one big love a few years ago and the previous note is
    right by me.  You trust in that person.  You never do it again. You
    might WANT to but somehow you can't - like you burned it all up.
    
    I also believe you can love more than one person at once, you just love
    them differently.
    
    but all in all love is very difficult.....
    
    
    diana

    Well, from my point of view, I certainly don't believe in the One True
    Love theory, because mine have improved with practice and age. It is
    a different kind of love, and deeper, IMHO.
    
    Trust is earned; if it was earned with the first, it can be earned with
    another.
    
    Haven't figured out the multiple love angle yet. Tried it once or twice
    drove me crazy.
    
    -roger
    
    

    I think the limits to love are those you impose on yourself.  
    
    I remember a girl in high school who had 2 boyfriends, and I didn't
    understand how she could love two at the same time.  It seemed 
    that most people (including me) were going through life looking for
    the perfect love, someone to spend the rest of their lives with.
    And in most cases people are in love with one other person at a time.
    There seems to be some process where you sift through the people
    who are available at the time, and come out with one you stick with,
    while you determine whether they possess all the qualities you want
    in a mate (and ensure that they don't have any you can't live with).
    Some people find what they're looking for, at least for a while.  It
    seems others get stuck in an infinite loop.
    
    After failed marriage number two, I'm heartily sick of being stuck in
    that loop.  When you're *sure* you've found the right one, and he
    isn't, then how can you trust your instincts again?  You can blame the
    first failed marriage on the folly of youth, but when the second one is
    based on many years of experience and a logical choice, what the heck
    can you use to find the right one after that???
    
    When marriage leaves a bad taste in your mouth and you no longer
    believe that a relationship with any one person can withstand the
    rigors of day-to-day life, then what?  Love something about one
    person and love something else about someone else?  That's a thought.
    Or love one person, but don't live with them?  Then it doesn't matter
    so much that they can't stand your panty hose drying in the bathroom,
    or that you can't deal with their intolerance for your children, or
    that you hate their dog.
    
    I don't really have an answer, because even in romantic loves, there
    are different kinds of love.  If you're going for the all-out marriage
    with one person, then you'd better love ONE person, at least *most* of
    the time. :-)  Can you have a brief encounter - an affair - while
    you're married, and love both your mate and the other person at the
    same time?  Why not?  (Disclaimer - this is purely theoretical, I
    haven't done it.)  They're different types of love.
    
    Why are we taught that some kinds of love are good and others are bad?
    Why do we limit ourselves so much in who and how much we love?  Isn't
    love good?  Personally, the more love I let out, the better I feel (and
    we're NOT talking sex or promiscuity here).  It's just hard to do
    because it's contrary to what I've been taught.
    
    Paula 
    
    

re: 567.0                 Can you love more than one?                12 replies
>QCAV01::CNKUMAR                                      21 lines  15-FEB-1991 07:34
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 "Can you love more than one?" 
	More than one what ?????

>Is there a limit to a human being's capacity to love?
No. Allegedly, according to one authority, one being so loved all the
people of this world that he layed down his life for them ...

(For some people, this is probably easier than trying to live with them...);^)

>Why then does society impose itself on us as far as personal relationships 
are concerned?

Society does not "impose itself" on us. It depends on which society.
Multi-ogonamy has been around ans is practiced in many cultures, even the USA
 currently .. today .. even as we speak.


>Can we share experiences?

Can we share WHAT experiences ? Experiences at bing in love (Eros) to many
other people, or loving many people simultaneously (either Agape or kinky) ?


Is this question on purpose allegorically presupposed ?

Bob

    >Some animals are monogamous and some aren't. 
    
    I agree.  And I believe the human animal isn't and that's why I can 
    answer an unqualified "yes" to the basenote question.  My source?  The
    same source as that which fostered your beliefs - life.
    
    Humankind is the only species with a cognizant ability that allows it to 
    screw up its own nature such that no one knows anymore what's natural 
    for them.  It's an artifically created confusion that lower animals
    just don't have.  They abide by their natures, whatever they may be,
    and that's that.  Thinking animals, (us), on the other hand, have woven
    elaborate scenarios in myth, storytelling, inventing of other worlds,
    etc, to rationalize the human condition and use the information to
    control humans and not to set them free.  How many of our myths
    celebrate the ecstacy of being human, healthy and alive?  What was
    really wrong with Narcissus?  Why did healthy, young, beautiful Leda
    have to be raped - by a swan, yet?!  Rapunzel, Cinderella, Icarus,
    Adam & Eve - eveywhere are the stern warnings against enjoying the 
    burning passions of youth and health.  Why?  What might happen?  You
    might be difficult to control, that's what, and you might "litter" the
    place with your "unclaimed" offspring.  And how will we know how many
    kids we've got here anyway?  Suppose we want to go to war?  It helps to
    know how many 18 year old males we got.  People must not be allowed
    indiscriminate reproduction.  So the "ruling class" controls it be it
    the religious leaders of the past or, once church and state separated,
    both of them using the power of the law and the fear of God.
    
    Paula, you *must* be cynical because I think you're right on target.  ;-)   
    
    Sandy

I don't believe in "one true love" as an inherent part of the human 
condition.  I've seen too many examples of people who love more than 
one person, very deeply.

I think that, often times, there is a very practical reason for a 
societal norm.  But the practical reason for doing the behavior is not 
very motivating, so the culture builds up myth and ceremony around the 
practice to make it more motivating, exciting, and workable.  

For example, I think that, practically speaking, monogamy is the best
way to form a solid partnership that not only helps me with the
practical duties of living, but that helps me to practice deep
intimacy that I can use with other people.  I think that, practically 
speaking, from a pure "amount of time spent" perspective, a human 
being cannot have more than one intimate partner and expect the 
intimacy and bonded partnership of those relationships to equal that 
of the well-done monogamous relationship.

Instead of trying to explain the intricacies of the depth difference 
of a monogamous relationship versus a polygamous relationship, the 
culture build up the myths of romantic love, the "one true love," and 
other such appealing icons.  The culture also builds in elaborate 
ceremony (weddings, coming out parties, anniversaries, and so forth), 
adds some fear of god ("Thou shalt not..."), and "subtle" social 
pressure ("So, Gerry, you must have _lots_ of girlfriends at school, 
don't you???").

Being inundated with mushy pop songs, weddings, fear-of-god messages, 
tax breaks, benefits breaks, and gentle proddings by friends and 
relatives gets people into monogamous relationships more efficiently 
than prolonged debates about the levels of intimacy that one can 
attain using monogamy.

I find that I can get myself to a place of acceptance about societal 
pressures when I think of the intention of the norm and not the 
largely-mythical sales rhetoric that the culture has cooked up over 
the years.  When I think of the practical side behind societal norms, 
I can almost see the sales pitch as kinda quaint, an imaginative 
community bonding.

							--Gerry

    The best kind of love is that which grows and grows and develops into a
    relationship where two people are so much a part of each other that to
    be apart is to be only a part of oneself.   
    
    It's worth so much that you feel good about making it work.   
    
    For me, this means only *one* significant other.  I see no reason
    why it couldn't be more than one significant other, as long as the
    triangle were well balanced, and all three (or four, or more) feel
    equally a part of one another.  
    
    BUT...
    
    Myself and most of my acquaintences have enough complexity in our lives, 
    and the  development of a really true-love polygomistic relationship is 
    beyond our capabilities.   And most of the people I know who argue for 
    polygomy as the *true* essence of human relationships, are really just
    looking for a rationalization of their own behavior.  I know no one
    who has developed a deeply caring, equally loving relationship between
    three people - but I know a lot who say they love two people, neither
    of which knows about the other one (or at least one is soon to be
    estranged because of the other one).
    
    I believe that strong pair binding behavior predominates within the
    human experience.  Even in societies that condone polygomy, there always
    seems to be wife number one, number two, etc.  (Almost never do you
    see *husband* number one, number two... by the way)  There is usually 
    a hierarchy of protocol or authority within the family unit, and love 
    is seldom if ever the motivation for marriage in these societies.
    
    In the sixties, many tried to form lasting love relationships in a
    commune style of living, but the relationships were not (in most cases)
    as committed as a marriage - or the communes developed into communities
    of paired SOs.
    
    I like one-one love.  It works.
    
    
    -m

    I personally think that within a group of 50 or so people you can find
    a suitable spouse (I speak from only a hetro position). Not necessarily
    the most perfect match, but someone you can spend all or part of your
    life with. This assumes they are of the same general age, the opposite
    sex, similiar socio-ecconomic background, etc.
    
    That being the case, there would be plenty of people to love.
    
    Steve

    i am sure it is possible to love more than one person at the same time.
    
    of course, there are different kinds of love.  
    
    there is the familial love i have for all my brothers, sisters, and
    parents.  i think i love them all about the same.  but, i _like_ some
    of them more than others, and enjoy their company more.  i don't have
    any idea how to quantify or qualify this love, since it is placed at
    the door of so many people.
    
    there is the love i feel for my closest friends.  this is a
    gender-neutral love... and is not far removed from the "agape" kind of
    love i feel for my spouse.  not as strongly felt, or as accepting, but
    not far.  it is a love which doesn't demand much (except perhaps, the
    absence of betrayal).  it makes the friendship binding and lasting.
    
    then there is romantic love.  i have never felt this for more than one
    person at a time (and i don't care if it is cultural bias that cause
    this or not), and that person has always been female.  this love makes
    me want to BE with her.  and SHARE with her.  and GIVE to her.  and be
    intimate.
    
    the romantic love developes into what the Bible calls agape.  this kind
    of love is undemanding, and unconditional.  it is the love i have felt
    only once in my life.  i feel it now.  and it makes me happy.
    
    tony

>>>>>>>> this kind of love is undemanding, and unconditional.

    Tony, I think the phrase "unconditional love" is something that is
    manufactured by man cuz he'd like to believe it's true.  However, I
    think when tested, a person will find out the the love is conditional.
    That will account for a high divorce rate as well, but doesn't have to
    end in divorce either.  If one "tries" another's love, this can be
    proven out.  I'm talking about the love between mates here.

    I don't think there are any set limits on human love so I do think that
    people *can* love more than one person at a time, but our life styles
    force us to make choices.  I, also, think there are degrees of love. 
    We might love two or three people, but if we want to be married and
    have only one life to live we'll try to marry the one we love the most. 
    Of course, I don't think people always love more than one person.  But,
    I think it can and does happen.
    
    Lorna
    

    what lorna said
    
    bj

I have trouble with the concept of "the one you love most."  To me, 
love is love.  What adds to the feeling of love is the feeling that I 
am with a potential partner, someone who shares my important goals, 
and someone who is compatible with me (I've loved people dearly with 
whom I couldn't live for more than 2 days).

I think that you can marry an excellent partner--someone really 
compatible and headed in the same direction--and that person might not 
necessarily be the one who generates the "most" loving feelings.  
However, with time and work, the intimacy that I develop with that 
person will allow me to say--if not "I love you the most"--"We know 
each other best, and we are the most important people in our lives."


							--Gerry

    I, too, do not believe that there is only "one true love" that you will
    meet in a lifetime.  I believe you can meet many true loves, depending
    on what happens to you over a lifetime, how well you know yourself, and
    how willing you are to trust another.
    
    Also, do not equate marriage with love.  Many people love, and never
    marry.  Many marry and never love.  Marriage evolved as an economic
    union, a method of propogating the species in a very practical
    economical way, so that the best unions would survive, and their
    offspring would flourish, extending family ties, and yes, even
    political influence.  The love angle of marriage is a fairly recent
    phenomena, a luxury of the industrial age and better economic times,
    when people could afford to love the one they were to marry.  Marriage
    was used to form a union with a neighbor, or business.
    
    Homo sapiens have the longest child nurturing period of all the animal
    kingdom, and that has greatly influenced societal norms when it comes
    to family/marriage/love.  Most everything that influences those norms,
    comes from directly or indirectly the desire to propogate the race, in
    the best way and form that particular society sees fit.
    
    As for loving more than one person at a time, intimately, yes, I think
    it is quite possible, and probably happens more often than we realize. 
    But it is kept under wraps, a secret, because our mores don't allow it.