Can You Actually Be In Love With 2 People At The Same Time??

[Girlinuk]

Lust, comfort or love?

I haven't been on here in a LONG time. I have a girlfriend that I love very much. I want to be with her all the time. We have been together for going on 7 years, spending the first 3 and half years doing the long distance thing, and now almost 3 and half years living together.
In the last 2 months, a friend of ours who we met about a year and half ago I feel I have been developing feelings for. However, I am very much in love with my girlfriend. This other girl and I have had some flirtatious message exchanges, but I feel the feelings I know have had in the beginnings of the relationship I am now in.
Now, I know it could just be lust for this new girl. However, I have really wanted to know what people actually think.
First, I do know there are some polyamorous couples that probably are in this situation. So if anyone in that situation can respond as well, that would be nice.
So I guess I want to know, as the title suggests:
Can you actually be in love with 2 people at the same time??

As other people have said the definition of Love is wide and open to interpretation. Many people would love to change an aspect of their partner ( if not a few.) We see things in other people that we like and want. So why cant we feel for those things in somone else? However the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence. After 7 years in truth maybe you are just wondering what if...

Lots of people confuse lust with love but others confuse comfort with love. Perhaps instead of asking what is possible you should be asking what your friend has that your partner hasnt and indeed is it something you can live without?

Good luck z x

 

[EternalFantasies]

WaaaHaHa! Way to give the guy freedom to define love, then tell him he's wrong because he doesn't see it your way. There's at least three dozen descriptors I could use for the and none are the least bit flattering.



Comshaw

hehehe.. Anyone who thinks they can love two people at the same time have never truly been in love; or have decided to re-define it as a consequence of truly being in love and getting hurt, so they decided that's not 'love'.


Now refer to my post #11, but reverse the penalty.

 

[KimGordon67]

hehehe.. Anyone who thinks they can love two people at the same time have never truly been in love; or have decided to re-define it as a consequence of truly being in love and getting hurt, so they decided that's not 'love'.


Now refer to my post #11, but reverse the penalty.

... and you have the monopoly on knowing was 'truly being in love' looks like?

 

[EternalFantasies]

... and you have the monopoly on knowing was 'truly being in love' looks like?

Nope. That's common knowledge.

 

[KimGordon67]

Nope. That's common knowledge.

lol ... really. It's not something poets and philosophers have agonised over for literally centuries?

 

[EternalFantasies]

lol ... really. It's not something poets and philosophers have agonised over for literally centuries?

hehehe.. maybe some can alternate it, but they'd also be ill of sorts.
The source and the feeling are one. They cannot be split in two.

It's a level of 'interest' that get mixed in - and rare are those who'll admit it.


But the real pure thing? It's either or. Don't kid yourself.

 

[KimGordon67]

hehehe.. maybe some can alternate it, but they'd also be ill of sorts.
The source and the feeling are one. They cannot be split in two.

It's either or.

Whatever. Saying it doesn't actually make you right ... you have literally no evidence to support this statement.

 

[EternalFantasies]

you have literally no evidence to support this statement.

 

[richard_daily]

... and you have the monopoly on knowing was 'truly being in love' looks like?

He's simply fantasizing about it.

He has no real world experience.

 

[Comshaw]

hehehe.. Anyone who thinks they can love two people at the same time have never truly been in love; or have decided to re-define it as a consequence of truly being in love and getting hurt, so they decided that's not 'love'.


Now refer to my post #11, but reverse the penalty.

Yea, that's why I've been married for 46 years to the same woman and have had a 15 year poly relationship. I will leave you to your delusions that you and only you know the true definition and capacity of every human for love. It must be so much of a drag to be a demigod.

Comshaw

 

[EternalFantasies]

Yea, that's why I've been married for 46 years to the same woman and have had a 15 year poly relationship. I will leave you to your delusions that you and only you know the true definition and capacity of every human for love. It must be so much of a drag to be a demigod.

Comshaw

It's not mutually exclusive.

It's also complex. You may very well be in love with neither, rather in love with the idea, and/or with yourself and prefer options, and/or having what you cannot elsewhere, etc .

But --->'IN Love' <--- with two women, at the same time, is a fallacy men try to convince themselves of by compensating and excusing.

I know, in part, because I have been in love, a few times too, and in each time, I never cheated.
And so, not because it was against any values or being a strongly loyal person, rather had absolutely no interest. zilch.

 

[Comshaw]

Whatever. Saying it doesn't actually make you right ... you have literally no evidence to support this statement.

Oh come on now! He's using the trumpian form of evidence, his opinion. The truth is what he says it is don't you know.


https://i.pinimg.com/originals/85/83/8f/85838ff10b8e0b0c3d3d3c331ec4a66d.jpg




Comshaw

 

[EternalFantasies]

Oh come on now! He's using the trumpian form of evidence, his opinion. The truth is what he says it is don't you know.


https://i.pinimg.com/originals/85/83/8f/85838ff10b8e0b0c3d3d3c331ec4a66d.jpg

Comshaw

You can practice polyamory, even people in love do, it just doesn't mean they are 'in-love' with all participants. Ma Man!

 

[Luk]

It has to be true. EternalFuckwit is in love with all of the mAnns and hashes.

 

[Comshaw]

It's not mutually exclusive.

It's also complex. You may very well be in love with neither, rather in love with the idea, and/or with yourself and prefer options, and/or having what you cannot elsewhere, etc .

But --->'IN Love' <--- with two women, at the same time, is a fallacy men try to convince themselves of by compensating and excusing.

I know, in part, because I have been in love, a few times too, and in each time, I never cheated.
And so, not because it was against any values or being a strongly loyal person, rather had absolutely no interest. zilch.

So you've had multiple partners, but one at a time, in other words a serial polyamorous individual. So you consider "loving" a person and then abandoning them as better then a poly relationship?

From your post above you consider those who are poly to be cheaters. Really? And because you can't figure out how to love more then one at once, no one is capable of it?

I get the feeling that no matter what's said, what kind of anecdotal or empirical evidence is presented you will not believe it and will default to your own opinion as truth. I think mayhaps it's time to pull the pigeon card.

See ya.


Comshaw

 

[EternalFantasies]

How did i make that first claim of yours?

hehehe.. ok.. either way, I get the feeling you don't know what being in-love is.


One cannot be -> in-love <- with more than one person. You can love many, but in-love? nope.

Deal with it.

 

[yukonnights]

Speaking from experience; Yes, it is possible. However, there are many caveats one has to append to that simple answer. I think the first issue is to really think about what is meant by our word "love". It's many things, and not all people will define it the same. Perhaps one way to sum up a lot of the meaning is: Do no harm, to the best of your ability. Another trait is: Do everything you can to better their life. (all the other stuff like attraction, compatibility, etc are a given.)

One of the greatest stumbling blocks is the culture/society in which we have lived. The idea of a "single love" and only a single love is so ingrained in some cultures as to make it hard to even discuss the issue. The downfall of that 'single love' mindset is that it fosters a 'possessive love' mentality. This mentality says; "I own you and to even imagine that you could love another is an affront to everything I have been taught to believe, etc".

If one of the parties involved has this "possessive love" mindset, the odds are not favorable that they will change it. In that case, polyamory is not possible, because to go forward would indeed bring harm to that person...who is one you love.

This is really a much deeper question than can be properly discussed in such a format as we have here.

There's been examples of polyamorous love given, here's another. Husband A has a perfectly loving relationship with Wife A. Unfortunately, a stroke has rendered him paralyzed from the neck down. His wife is an extreme extrovert and together they enjoyed every form of entertainment about town. Further, they are still in the prime of life and both were very sexual people. What is more loving; to apply the strict rules of monogamy...or to encourage her to find a second love who can fulfill those things he no longer can?

I can say with certainty that in that situation polyamory is certainly possible. If it were me, I would strongly encourage her to seek as much fulfillment in life she could. That is an extreme example to make the point that it's not only possible, but honorable. The next step to ponder is more subtle; In what ways am I not providing all the things he/she needs? In what ways am I crippled? If love is not possessive, then in the true sense of love, l should try my best to make it possible for the one I love to find those who can provide what I cannot.

This is already too long...but I hope you get the gist. I would encourage you to seek a more in depth perspective in another place. Good info is out there, just search it out.

 

[yukonnights]

"Being in love".
I still struggle to understand the term.
On one hand we project onto the other person an ideal and when reality sets in we move from infatuation to being desillusioned to comfort. So I think that "love" is an illusion and it's all about fucking yourself. On the other hand everybody wants sparkle or excitement in their life. Life is monotonous and boring enough already.

Now switching to the other side of it & drawing parallels to my existence:
I don't spend my time with protocol - courtesy visits with my lifelong friends and family, and I switch between them as I feel & tend to withdraw periodically into my own world. It's a relationship killer when you meet too often and run out of interesting things to talk about. They're ok with it, because they know that I'm loyal and will always be there for them.

So I can't commit myself to saying that I approve or disapprove of the experience of Comshaw or Kim. That's something that I would never see myself doing, but I would be able to understand where they're coming from.

You struggle with that phrase because technically it's meaningless. We all think we know what it means...but can you get "in" it? What are you getting into?

The best definition I've been able to come up with is this; Love is a cycle of giving and receiving. I give my best efforts to try and make your life the best it can be...you receive those efforts and return yours back to me. There must be this cycle of both giving and receiving. If I fail to give, then the cycle is broken and love has broken down...if I fail to receive your gift, to spurn it and turn away...love has broken down.

There is no "in love". Love exists between any who both offer and receive love with another person...Without that cycle, love has broken down. (and in regard to polyamory, the "any" can be two or many...possible, but not easy

 

[EternalFantasies]

How does the expression go? to 'fall' in love?

We used to make fun of the one who falls in love. Like he fell in a hole.


I wonder if it's possible to say one fell into two holes at the same time. That's mensa material there for ya isn't he?


And if so, how it might be... balls all smashed n all...


https://media.giphy.com/media/Vg0JstydL8HCg/giphy.gif

 

[coachdb18]

How does the expression go? to 'fall' in love?

We used to make fun of the one who falls in love. Like he fell in a hole.


I wonder if it's possible to say one fell into two holes at the same time. That's mensa material there for ya isn't he?


And if so, how it might be... balls all smashed n all...


https://media.giphy.com/media/Vg0JstydL8HCg/giphy.gif

Having an ex that you absolutely love but are so incompatible as to kill each other on contact... doesn’t mean you’ll cease loving them when you find a new but compatible love. Oh if life were simpler than it is

 

[jezzilee]

Everyone is different and there is no one size fits all in love. People feel different things and experience love, loving someone and being in love in their own unique way. Where one person cannot love more than one person at a time others may be in love with more than one. Whatever works and makes all parties in the loving relationship happy is a good thing.

 

[dolf]

Love is not a finite resource.

Anyone who has more than one child knows that you can love each to the moon and back without it taking any love away from the others.

Love is a chemical in the brain. An evolutionary tactic to improve our chances of survival. That doesn't make it any less amazing and beautiful.

 

[richard_daily]

So you've had multiple partners, but one at a time, in other words a serial polyamorous individual. So you consider "loving" a person and then abandoning them as better then a poly relationship?

From your post above you consider those who are poly to be cheaters. Really? And because you can't figure out how to love more then one at once, no one is capable of it?

I get the feeling that no matter what's said, what kind of anecdotal or empirical evidence is presented you will not believe it and will default to your own opinion as truth. I think mayhaps it's time to pull the pigeon card.

See ya.


Comshaw

So, he's failed at monogamous love several times, but he insists that it's "correct", anyways. Sounds like he's got Stockholm Syndrome.

He can't wrap his head around anything other than simple concepts, so that's why he keeps insisting that "his way" is "correct" regardless of countless examples to the contrary.

You can be "in-love" with anyone you want. As Dolf said, it's a chemical reaction in the brain, and it's lovely... Not unlike a drug high (for those who are more familiar with drug-induced euphoria and have trouble finding a mate).

Lust/Eros/Love/Commitment don't end or begin at the monogamous relationship. Monogamy is simply a social construct/contract that for many is confining and doesn't work, again as evidenced in our high divorce rates, and Eternally Dreamings own admissions of having multiple monogamous relationships. If monogamy worked for him, he'd only ever have been in one.

Society tells him that he must only love one person at a time, and he trusts society over his own proclivities and desires.

 

[Saint_Ann]

So, he's failed at monogamous love several times, but he insists that it's "correct", anyways. Sounds like he's got Stockholm Syndrome.

He can't wrap his head around anything other than simple concepts, so that's why he keeps insisting that "his way" is "correct" regardless of countless examples to the contrary.

You can be "in-love" with anyone you want. As Dolf said, it's a chemical reaction in the brain, and it's lovely... Not unlike a drug high (for those who are more familiar with drug-induced euphoria and have trouble finding a mate).

Lust/Eros/Love/Commitment don't end or begin at the monogamous relationship. Monogamy is simply a social construct/contract that for many is confining and doesn't work, again as evidenced in our high divorce rates, and Eternally Dreamings own admissions of having multiple monogamous relationships. If monogamy worked for him, he'd only ever have been in one.

Society tells him that he must only love one person at a time, and he trusts society over his own proclivities and desires.

Some people abuse drugs. Some people abuse love. Some people like you abuse women.

As long as you get your daily dose of dopamine.

 

[richard_daily]

Some people abuse drugs. Some people abuse love. Some people like you abuse women.

As long as you get your daily dose of dopamine.

Have you ever been in love, Ken?