Comments

1
File everything Dan said under "no shit, Sherlock."
2
Agree 100% with every one of Dan's words.
4
I think a better case would be a violation of the right of privacy, if there is some privacy protection in Australia.
5
It's a stupid semantic debate. The real question is why she's in court for her private consenting sexual behavior and not her employers for their organized pedophilia ring.
6
It's not an employer's business what you do in your private life, that said, what the hell do you expect if you work for a religious organisation? Fairness? Puh-lease.

Polyamory is definitely not a sexual orientation. Who you are with in that group is.
7
Polyamories is a polite euphemism for philanderers.
8
@raindrop: that's a bingo!
9
Raindrop --
Please, I prefer the term "Shameless Fornicator."
Make a note of it.
10
raindrop @7, the classic is Shameless Hussy and the contemporary is Slut but being a happy corporate drone I go with Outsourcer.
11
ctmcmull, you're high maintenance enough.
12
Dan, I'm a child abuse researcher at Monash University in Australia. The Australian Catholic Church has spent millions of dollars defending these sorts of cases, in addition to defending their employees who are child rapists. I just thought I'd note that the Catholic Church employees that rape children, even those that are convicted, often don't get fired. They sure do have some confusing workplace policies.
13
Be glad they had the option of claiming protection under sexual orientation anti-discrimination laws. Otherwise they'd have had to say poly was a race or nationality. I'd have gone with Polynesian, because why the hell not? Don't know it won't work if you haven't tried.

The real problem is a lack of protection from discrimination for private behavior unrelated to one's job. So instead you have to stretch the definition of orientation or race or religion to try to cover something that ought to be protected on its own merits.
14
@raindrop, should men who are polyamorous be fired also? What about the ones who cheat on their wives/partners or O.M.G! have S.E.X before marriage? Or is that okay because only men have carnal urges and good women are chaste and only endure sex for babies?
@10, def. Outsourcer, 'cause we women are to close our eyes and think of England. I myself prefer to think of France or white sand beaches but I'm certain raindrop would want to think of the master outsourcer Romney, or Utah, or car elevators, or whether our trees are at the correct height, or how to strap a dog onto the roof of Airforce One.
15
And the cultural consensus is clearly this: an adult should be free to make whatever sexual choices she likes, and free to enter into as many relationships as she likes (including concurrent ones), so long as her partner(s) are other consenting adults."

Sure, that's true if you live in places like NYC, SF or LA.
The "cultural consensus" in places like Omaha or Houston or SLC or Jacksonville appears to be that you should follow more "Biblical" arrangements in your relationships... whatever that happens to mean locally (typically: monogamy, men-only get to slut around, concubines, escorts, etc.).

Just saying that the "culture" in America is hardly at any sort of "consensus" about what is ok. In fact there seems to be many, many various cultures with different rules all over this land.
16
Proven right by an Australian, Dan?
Bloody Catholics.
17
@Raindrop got it right, pretty much. I made a movie called "Love a la Carte" and the main character in this "honest comedy about cheating" is called Phil Anders. Google that title and you find where it plays around online - but yeah, it's about the behaviors of struggling monogamists who don't realize they're not monogamists. Or you could say its like "Fatal Attraction" but with jokes instead of boiling rabbits. Last words said in the movie? "It gets better."
18
Iseult @14, not sure how you read my comment. I have needs/wants that are not met within my primary relationship. I outsource so that I can have them met within other kinds of relationships, thus preserving my highly-valued primary relationship.
19
It seems kind of silly to think that all humans ARE naturally non-monogamous, though? You can find people that prefer monogamy even when they're aware of and okay with the other options, and you can find people that tried non-monogamy and hated it. I don't really have any opinions on whether poly counts as an orientation or not, but the existence of even a single black swan does prove that not all swans are white, y'know?
20
@14 Sorry to pick on you, but I just have to set the "lie back and think of England" saying straight, since I'm seeing it a lot these days and mostly in the sense you use it.

The saying isn't referring to daydreaming of places one would rather be while having unsatisfactory sex. It refers to good married Englishwomen's "taking one for the team" by having sex with their husbands in order to fulfill their duties to produce sons for Britain's armies
21
I certainly don't see poly as a synonym for cheater. If you promise to be "faithful" (monogamous) to a person and you go behind their back to have sex with another person, you're violating the consent given in the first relationship. If everyone knows what is going on and is willing to work in that framework, be poly to your hearts content. I'm extremely monogamous, but I don't have any desire to force others to live to my relationship style.
22
robguy @21,
There’s the complication of various CPOSs believing themselves to be groovy polys in mono/poly relationships — it’s just that the monos must never know.
23
On a roll, Alison.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.