That this exact person exists is totally normal. That this exact person would write this doesn’t seem that way, because what they would write would probably be boring and this is not.
I suggest you review your prejudices. A person with the traits indicated (self awareness, well integrated preferences and desires, healthy boundaries, developed but not unbalanced rational thought) is not necessarily (or even usually) boring merely because they happen to like to cook, look pretty and be socially successful.
Pretty sure “polyamory is boring” was meant as a reference to this post, not in a pejorative sense. (Of course, the phrase is misleading about the content if you haven’t read that post!)
I read that post, then re-read the thread root, and re-read E’s submission…
...and I still don’t see it. I don’t notice the supposed difference in “this got normal” or thickness or focus or whatever. To me, both Scott’s post and E’s submission have about the same level of underlying energy and motivation and “Here listen to this awesome thing I really want to talk about because it gets me intellectually excited!”-ness.
Help?
(or maybe ikrase is pattern-matching something that isn’t really there, but I try to disprove the hypothesis “I’m missing something.” first)
I suggest you review your prejudices. A person with the traits indicated (self awareness, well integrated preferences and desires, healthy boundaries, developed but not unbalanced rational thought) is not necessarily (or even usually) boring merely because they happen to like to cook, look pretty and be socially successful.
I mean boring in the ‘polyamory is boring’ or ‘it all adds up to normality’ thing. I read this and noticed that I was confused.
I think “boring” is an extremely unsuitable word for that. Learn to take joy in the merely real!
Pretty sure “polyamory is boring” was meant as a reference to this post, not in a pejorative sense. (Of course, the phrase is misleading about the content if you haven’t read that post!)
I read that post, then re-read the thread root, and re-read E’s submission…
...and I still don’t see it. I don’t notice the supposed difference in “this got normal” or thickness or focus or whatever. To me, both Scott’s post and E’s submission have about the same level of underlying energy and motivation and “Here listen to this awesome thing I really want to talk about because it gets me intellectually excited!”-ness.
Help?
(or maybe ikrase is pattern-matching something that isn’t really there, but I try to disprove the hypothesis “I’m missing something.” first)
I had read that post, and I didn’t realize ikrase meant “boring” to be a reference to “Polyamory Is Boring” until he/she mentioned it.