Comments
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.
is a proud member of the
media network
media network
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
When I glanced and saw that your post included referring to me as a "little girl" (despite being an adult by every metric of adulthood I've ever heard of) I decided to skim it rather than read it.
So I only have this to say: I have no recollection of you as a poster so if I disagree with you all the time it's because I disagree with you each time on it's own merit with no connection to the last time. There aren't many posters here who I remember continuously from week to week, and you aren't one of them.
Although now that you made such an obnoxiously and unjustifiably condescending remark, you will be. Congrats?
I'm sure your roommate is an accurate representation of every poly person. "My roommate did such and such" really makes you an expert. Wow, having to get your own phone because your roommate has so many strong intimate connections is such a tragic problem.
'Lots of things that are ethically wrong are easier than things that are ethically right.'
Thank you.
'You were asking "how fucking hard can it be".
I answered how fucking hard it can be, that was my point.
I didn't comment on the ethics of it, even though they are not as clear-cut in every case as you seem to think.'
It is fucking hard. But clean up your mess before you start a new one.
@211 You know what people who make character assumptions based on skin color are called, right ? You troll.
@202 kserasera "Whatever works for anybody, I'm cool with. As long as no one is being unduly dishonest, cruel or disrespectful to anyone else's feelings."
Exactly. We're not whining about being precious snowflakes exempt from the Normal Sex Rules edicted and enforced by Church and State. All of us (LGBT and others) are activists for both sexual freedom and social recognition of the relationships we've built. We want Church and State to stay the fuck away from our genitals and our ways to use them : they have no business edicting Sex Rules - although they have done it for thousands of years now !
Their only acceptable level of intrusion in our sexualities and relationships should be to check that everybody involved is a consenting adult. Anything more is unacceptable and IMMORAL.
But you're missing my point.
The whole question was self-control. If poly people's need to fuck multiple people is so strong they can't possibly resist it, that's fine. But all they need to tack on is a phone call. A phone call is easy, what follows isn't.
But that's the point. If it's "my desire to do this in the moment is so strong I can't suppress it" then it's impulse control, that I get, but all it takes to stop that from being cheating is notifying the other partner.
But if you're saying "I want to do this, but I'm going to sit here and consciously consider the ramifications on my partner, how much it would hurt him or her and how much of a HASSLE it would be to do the right thing and I'm going to choose to just hide it instead"
That's not a self control issue, that's not acting on an impulse that you can't suppress, that's consciously making an incredibly selfish and hurtful decision.
That's two different things.
A natural poly goes into a situation where they meet someone else and either break up or propose poly.
A CPOS cheats.
If 213 is what you wanted to say in 188, then yes, I completely missed your point.
I think a natural poly, already aware of his/her poly-ness, would not agree to a mono relationship even for the time being, and wait until someone else came along to mention poly.
From what polys have already written, I feel that a lone poly would propose poly from starts to a prospective partner, and get that agreed on, before getting involved. When they chance upon someone more, the poly would check with the first partner, check that everything's fine, and proceed - or if the poly deal is reneged on, break up and proceed, still on a poly basis.
And for all -phobes out there :
How come everytime some of us expresses sexual interests outside of the cultural norm of "sex is male-centered, heterosexual, monogamous, PiV", there's you "normalcy advocates" ready to shout and demean us, to call us cheaters and sluts ? Sex police has to stop.
Different sexual choices don't mean we'll live them in an unethical way. We'll probably live them in a more ethical way than the last thousands of years of male-centered, church-approved and reproduction-oriented sex on record - when females were forced into being babies or sex dispensing furniture, and males who didn't fit the allowed framework were treated as females or worse. See the Allan Turing suicide.
Your description might apply in some ideal world, but actual relationships seem to work much more messily. (And when they're messy, they write to Dan.) Poly people have plenty of opportunities to hurt their various partners, and do. (Just look at the various letters about threeways and other outside adventures, "I agreed to X with conditions A, B, C but my partner decided that destroyed their spontaneity in the moment and I should just be okay with whatever they wanted, and now I don't trust them.")
Hmmm, seems like the traditional marriage of the old days (as in the days of kings and queens and kingdoms) was, at root, a BUSINESS transaction. A way of consolidating power and kingdoms. And the prenuptual arrangements were typically very elaborate.
Even for those not in the upper/ruling classes, more often than not a marriage was preceded by an agreement to exchange goods as part of the deal (which often contained clauses nullifying or modifying the deal if certain conditions were not met, such as the woman being barren or adultery.)
Most in the farmer/working class married because they needed another body (and, in time, more bodies in the form of children) to work the fields/run the family business.
The concept of marriage for romantic love is a relatively new one (less than a few hundred years old) and one which REALLY "redefined" the institution from its traditional form to the one we know today in Western culture.
Regarding this week's column...oh for heaven's sake! This seemingly unending need to label and define ourselves and our sexuality grows tedious. "LGBTQIHPetc...." God forbid we should overlook someone/some possible aspect of human sexuality in our initialism!
I had no interest in reading all the arguments and life stories of those who took Dan to task on his classification of "poly"; was just disappointed not to get a Dan Savage column to read (though perhaps Dan appreciated the time off;)
Children of the last 20 years don't have "exaggerated" self esteem, they actually tend to have atrociously poor self esteem which they obsessively augment with false contingent self esteem - which, by the way, is what their parents were instilling them with all along.
Kids with intrinsic self esteem don't cut themselves when they get an A- instead of an A+, they don't kill themselves when they get teased at school, they don't starve themselves in an endless perfectionistic pursuit and fall apart at the tiniest whiff of failure.
The moral isn't "raise kids with less self-esteem" the moral is raise kids with true self-esteem instead of phony self-esteem.
Congrats, you're the same as every person, monogamous or straight.
You've explained your own strain of poly thoroughly and occasionally with eloquence, but perhaps have not clearly gotten across the difference between someone you would accept as poly though perhaps a practitioner of a strain of poly that wouldn't suit you, and someone who, as in post 217, you would say isn't poly at all. Can you flesh this out into a viable distinction? I think it could be useful.
I'll try again next week. Happy holidays, everybody!
Every human being on the planet, with few exceptions, likes to fuck and to fall in love. You are not the exception.
Is it liberating to feel butt-hurt?
whether you can control impulses may be of concern).
let the first person come forward to throw a stone be the one who has only ever (romantically) loved a single person for their entire life. otherwise, dating or divorcing or "serial monogamy" are simply other forms of polyamory without the overlapping timeframe(s).
polyamory is not an "excuse to cheat"; it should be the opposite of cheating: honest and open communication about your desires. neither does polyamory preclude commitment. one can commit to many people. of course, that does not imply that it will be easy or conflict free, but then, monogamy is no different there.
somebody pointed out that nobody complains about loving multiple children that you have birthed--and society implies that love should be equal, but it isn't always.
i agree with hyacinth that you can call someone your "primary" like calling one friend your "best friend",
but that does not mean your love for any or all of your friends should or can be quantified or qualified.
it should really only matter to you (or your lovers or friends) what your priorities are. one main point of polyamory is that "love is not a scarce resource". however, time and energy are usually scarce, so conflicts are probably inevitable in any relationship, regardless of the number of people involved.
as far as marriage goes, i think it's a religious concept and should be completely separate from legal concerns. (in other words: ban all marriages under the separation of church and state idea.) if people want to enter into legal contracts for property or child-raising activities, that can be done without a religious ceremony, (which even a marriage at the local district magistrate, in pennsylvania at least, qualifies as, since a deity happens to be mentioned).
also, please stop whining about how boring this stuff is while simultaneously expanding its # of comments.
let the first person come forward to throw a stone be the one who has only ever (romantically) loved a single person for their entire life. otherwise, dating or divorcing or "serial monogamy" are simply other forms of polyamory without the overlapping timeframe(s).
polyamory is not an "excuse to cheat"; it should be the opposite of cheating: honest and open communication about your desires. neither does polyamory preclude commitment. one can commit to many people. of course, that does not imply that it will be easy or conflict-free, but then, monogamy is no different there.
somebody pointed out that nobody complains about loving multiple children that you have birthed--and society implies that love should be equal, but it isn't always.
i agree with hyacinth that you can call someone your "primary" like calling one friend your "best friend", but that does not mean your love for any or all of your friends should or can be quantified or qualified.
it should really only matter to you (or your lovers or friends) what your priorities are. one main point of polyamory is that "love is not a scarce resource". however, time, energy and money are usually scarce, so conflicts are probably inevitable in any relationship, regardless of the number of people involved.
as far as marriage goes, i think it's a religious concept and should be completely separate from legal concerns. (in other words: ban all marriages under the separation of church and state idea.) if people want to enter into legal contracts for financial, child-raising, or social activities, that can be done without a religious ceremony, (which even a marriage at the local district magistrate, in pennsylvania at least, qualifies as, since a deity happens to be mentioned).
also, please stop whining about how boring this stuff is while simultaneously expanding its # of comments.
@ 183 - migrationist - yes, i think that poly requires great discipline. the good of the whole, rather than just your own interests. and relationships tend to be conducted with the long view, even if it's a temporary arrangement... i know that round here, when there is a drama, the whole community is affected - by which i mean, you can hear about it at the school gates, or down at the cafe. so keeping things functional / civilised is in the vested interest of all.
i seriously challenge the 'impulse-control' concept. a few people have stated that it's about the 'new relationship smell', or a wandering eye. but my observation is that poly folks - whatever shape that is to them - very rarely do spur-of-the-moment affairs. even if you have a totally free reign, most people will check in with their other people before doing anything.
i personally do relationship first, sex later.... there's a standing joke, that i have a stand-down period of ten years. honestly, it's not that bad. i just don't like new people... at all.
And, while I hate the word orientated, it actually is a word. I had the same reaction the first time I heard someone use it. LOL
Your distinction is between "who you can love" and "how you love". But consider how the "who you can love" parameter doesn't really seem more important or fundamental than the "how you can love" parameter. After all, we all have sexual preferences -- brunettes vs. blondes, bears vs. twinks, whites vs. blacks... If I say I just cannot feel any lust for, say, Black women, does that mean that "white-only" is my sexual orientation? If I can't lust after women who are too skinny (like fashion models -- sigh!...), is this also part of my sexual orientation? And what about women who look like my grandmother?
In other words, "sexual orientation" shades gradually into "sexual preference" when you look at phenotypes (physical types). Wouldn't you agree?
As for BDSM or poly being "how you love", well... many an action or activity is better defined by "how" you do it than by "what object" you do it to. You can dance with a guy, a gal, a child, or by yourself -- and it's all dancing, because of how you do it. What makes sex different?
I think, deep inside, the classification you propose, Dan, is really about "what you can change" and "what you can't change". You've famously said you couldn't lust after a woman (that one butch lesbian you once mentioned excluded) even if you wanted to; so it's your sexual orientation, something you can do nothing about, just like heterosexuals can do nothing about theirs. Whereas things like BDSM or poly, at least to those who don't "live" them, look like preferences that could presumably change throughout life.
And I'm willing to bet there are people for whome these are preferences that will change, just as there are bi-curious people who may "experiment with gayness" and then decide it isn't strong enough in them to warrant a lifestyle change. I'm even willing to say there are more such people-whose-preferences-will-evolve in areas like BDSM and poly than there are among the bi-curious.
But still--once something sets in so much that, for all intents and purposes, you feel that you simply no longer have any power to change it -- at that stage, what is the difference?
In conclusion: "how" and "who" are not hierarchical with respect to each other, and they are often intertwined in ways that defy clear-cut classifications. Which means that the differentiation between "sexual orientation" and "sexual identification" is a matter of degree, in the end a case-by-case classification (with some cases much more frequent, granted, but still).
Or perhaps we should change the terms? Not distinguish "orientation" from "identification", but, say, "strong identification" from "weak identification" (leaving all the intermediate slots open for those who want them)?
I understand you don't like people trying to discuss happiness, what it means, and how to achieve it. So be it. But rest assured that your god, if he existed, would disagree with you. The Jesus you like so much would disagree with you. He was, you know, the welcoming type -- going around with prostitutes and stuff -- and always thought that people and their souls mattered more than mere sexual questions.
If the gates of paradise are closed to those who can't have sex the way you want them to, are they really the gates of paradise -- or are they the gates of another place?...
From what I can see, the problem is a lot of child-raising these days is based on some sort of feeling of guilt, with tenous but threatening "future consequences" in terms of likeability, group acceptability etc. if you don't do what is expected. Without other things ("values", "right and wrong", etc.) to get support from when one happens to be different from the others, these vague threats become too overwhelmingly important --hence the children cutting themselves because of an A-. Or getting the exaggerated but superficial self-esteem of little brats who think the world revolves around them -- but will collapse at any sight of this not being the case. (South Park's Cartman comes to mind.)
To love yourself, you should to enjoy spending time with yourself--no matter who, or in what situation, you are.
Dan, you rock.
I wonder though, about what fuels the polyamorous side of people. Is it indeed chasing that first flush of new love (i.e. "a fresh piece of strange") or is it really an accepted desire that no one person would be enough?
I doubt it's all quite that simple, but I guess I get it. I've been very, *very* fortunate in that who I've been in love with (for over seventeen_years :-) !) still gives me butterflies in my gut, a smile on my face and yet we share a history that I would never forsake for any outside thing. It's so difficult to find anyone you genuinely click with. I never thought I would still be in love this much for this long, but I am :-) ! I'm very lucky, blessed and fortunate. I wouldn't wanna start over having anyone getting to know me as well (and with as much detail:)) as my man does and has for a long time now.
I tell him this all of the time: 1 of You is 10,000,000 of anyone else (Very True :-) .) .
That's enough polyamory for me!
:-)
"To love yourself, you should to enjoy spending time with yourself--no matter who, or in what situation, you are."
Well said! Exactly! It's so easy to get lost in the shuffle with day-to-day hectic activity. Sometimes you can't distinguish between what is other people's vibes and what is yours.. I'm a big advocate of setting aside daily time to meditate. But then, an excess of noisy environs jars my nerves sometimes.
I'm with you ankylosaur about appreciating and learning to enjoy spending time with yourself. Only You know how you are, and what you would like to attain in this life. No one can show you the way towards that other than yourself.. That, and it's awesome to establish discipline in taking time for yourself to check in with how you're doing. It's crucial, actually. That, and it gives you that much more of a boost to your nervous system, too. Besides: what good is anyone to anyone else if you aren't good (and kind) to yourself first?
All of the answers are there inside any one of us. It's just the matter of stopping all of the external stimuli long enough to check in and spot where those answers are :-) . Cheers, Everyone. Happy Holidays 2012.
:-)
And yet I am fascinated by others, and the ways in which they differ from me. I suppose there is a balance to be found between accepting yourself and being welcoming to others (and their quirks), and finding it -- so that you're not unfair, neither to yourself nor to others -- is one of life's many growth routes leading to enlightenment (if that's the word you like for the kind of thing this leads us to).
Happy holidays to all here. All in all, you're an interesting bunch.
And now it's time to take the cat to the vet.
:-)
Don't sweat the grammar thing. It's Monday ;-) .
Cheers & Happy Holidays, Everyone :-) .
Hard to say for sure, but I think it is more along the "no one person will be enough". All the poly people - serious self-identified not under-the-table CPOSes - I've met were very planful about it and bordered on the over-communication side. They'd all arrived at the point where they just could say to themselves and others that they could not be happy with just one person, or in a particular pairing. In some cases, it was because the marriage wasn't working, or in others because they recognized they just wanted and needed that new fresh feeling and excitement.
The former cases (marriage wasn't working) that I knew of involved couples where for some reason (change of orientation, physical illness, total loss of drive/interest) one of the pair just would not meeth the needs of the latter and set them loose. The other, much larger group, was the latter.
Where does the latter come from? Some people just crave that fresh excitement - love junkies of a sort - and others wanted physical variety. They were solid enough in their primary relationships (or not! and had become officially single before pursuing poly) to allow for this. It was like swinger 'dating' instead of just sex. The desire in a lot of cases was for the new relationship excitement and when a secondary person got to be 'old' they tended to be discarded or exchanged for a new secondary (new excitement) while the primary folks remained constant throughout.
I have to say: there was a lot of drama and I saw more than a few pairings explode or dissolve under the stress of trying to take care of everyone's feelings. I think the stress and drama increase as a function of the exponential power of the number of partners involved. There were clearly cases of mis-matches - a primary partner who wanted lots of poly partners, and the other primary who didn't want any.
Cheers,
Auntie Grizelda
Cheers and Happy holidays, 2013 & beyond!
:-)
Cheers, merry Mayan end of the world to everybody, and a meow to the happy few! :-)
A touche' of my own, to quote you:
"I think the stress and drama increase as a function of the exponential power of the number of partners involved."
That's another reason why I would never be a natural for being poly: the more people that are involved, the more drama you will have, no matter how even-keeled anyone is. Some people get off on that kind of near-frantic activity, enjoying multiple relationships and stuff. Some people love being at the center of the action..
I just don't get it, but I respect anyone's choice to do what they wanna do. I love having one great thing and putting my best energies and time into that. I seriously lucked out in life to have found who I did. So much so that I honestly wouldn't jeopardize what we share for anything, or, anyone else in the world. The trippy thing is still being this happy and into him and it's been seventeen years.. I wouldn't trade that time in my life for anyone or any piece of strange. There's such a brilliant, almost in-jokey sort of rapport and chemistry. We're very close, and it would kill me to do anything to harm him, or what we've built together.
I used to think I was commitment-shy until I found love... So, it makes me wonder: is some polyamorous behavior due to an aversion to not wanting to face other troubling issues in one's life, or is it just not that complicated at all and that some people just need a few extra side-orders of tail?
Not that I know anything, but somehow I think it might be a combination of both: perhaps some troubling issues burbling underneath the more outward stance of being poly by choice..
More power to any of you polyamorous peeps, but how do you do it? How do you start over with someone else and bring them up to speed about who you are, what you like, etc.? It just sounds so exhausting, all of that activity..
I'm lucky, 'cos who I'm with is still delightful to be around and he keeps me on my toes, *yet* there's a very solid bond and a lot of love that keeps us around one another. I'd be the biggest ass on the planet if I threw that aside for anything, or, anyone else.
I never used to be able to seriously concentrate or focus on one person until I fell truly in love: seventeen++years ago.
:-)
@ 250, Auntie Grizelda: I wish my cat lived to be 17+. Mine too had to be put down at age 13 'cos of kidney trouble. Man, was that one devastating, exhausting day the day he was put down.. I was in the room the whole time: petting him throughout the whole process, providing as much comfort and solace as I could..
It was so sad not having a cat after that that I wound up adopting two cats that grew up together about 10 days after I had to put my cat down to sleep.
I feel bad for anyone who doesn't know, experience or appreciate the love of a cat.
Indeed: Happy Holidays To Everyone! I can't top what you wrote Auntie G., so I'll leave it as your word being the gospel!
:-)
Cheers and all the best and merry Mayan end of the world, and lots of meows!! :-)
.
Glad to see I was right.
.
I've known some folks (like the one husband mentioned) that are mono - strong sex drive, just not interested in multi.
I've known others that pretty much screwed whatever came by. I tend to call them swingers (sorry if I stepped on your label).. Think glory holes.
But, polys are the ones that want to love (or at least get to know) their partners. With honesty.
Re the folks who think polly = horny. I know a polly marriage (polly fidelity group) where I don't think they have any more sex than most later middle aged folks. It's about fixing the kitchen light & why is that dog throwing up - not nightly (or weekly) orgies. I've been around these folks enough to be pretty sure: It's for family not for sex.
Yea, they wake up next to more than one person. Then they get ready and go to work while finding a Hello Kitty backpack and trying to get cereal out of their briefcase. Just like Mr. & Mrs. Vanilla down the street.
As to the labels vs identity thing: I think the letter above hit it "...polyamorous innately. I feel I am wired to be like this. I didn't choose it..." sound familiar? So I go with "identity".
That being said, it's all BS: There is no such thing as "gay" "straight" "polly" etc. It's all words. Dan Savage is Dan Savage, Sue Smith is Sue Smith. You may be / act / choose some set of things that earns the (human contrived) labels we find so significant. But whether by choice or a bump on the head next week you can be / act / choose some other set that will get you a whole new label. The label is not the object.
It's like that chunk of material out in space we call Pluto. It isn't any different because ape mouth noises changed from planet to dwarf planet. We may treat it different, we may treat each other different because of labels... But, it and we are not the labels.
.
Glad to see I was right.
.
I've known some folks (like the one husband mentioned) that are mono - strong sex drive, just not interested in multi.
I've known others that pretty much screwed whatever came by. I tend to call them swingers (sorry if I stepped on your label).. Think glory holes.
But, polys are the ones that want to love (or at least get to know) their partners. With honesty.
Re the folks who think polly = horny. I know a polly marriage (polly fidelity group) where I don't think they have any more sex than most later middle aged folks. It's about fixing the kitchen light & why is that dog throwing up - not nightly (or weekly) orgies. I've been around these folks enough to be pretty sure: It's for family not for sex.
Yea, they wake up next to more than one person. Then they get ready and go to work while finding a Hello Kitty backpack and trying to get cereal out of their briefcase. Just like Mr. & Mrs. Vanilla down the street.
As to the labels vs identity thing: I think the letter above hit it "...polyamorous innately. I feel I am wired to be like this. I didn't choose it..." sound familiar? So I go with "identity".
That being said, it's all BS: There is no such thing as "gay" "straight" "polly" etc. It's all words. Dan Savage is Dan Savage, Sue Smith is Sue Smith. You may be / act / choose some set of things that earns the (human contrived) labels we find so significant. But whether by choice or a bump on the head next week you can be / act / choose some other set that will get you a whole new label. The label is not the object.
It's like that chunk of material out in space we call Pluto. It isn't any different because ape mouth noises changed from planet to dwarf planet. We may treat it different, we may treat each other different because of labels... But, it and we are not the labels.
Poly or Mono refers to the relationship, specifically the number of people involved in it. However, gay/bi/straight/trans/et al refers to the individual's identity, his/her personal idea of being and the kinds of individuals he or she feels attracted to.
How many individuals at a time? One, two, many, who’s counting? That doesn’t change the preference.
I understand that the number can be so important and intrinsical to some people, that it can become part of how they see themselves, of their sexual identity. However, I still don’t see it as something we have to move from its corresponding side of the dictionary. The number is not part of the orientation, unlike the kinds of persons one feels attracted to.
I agree with you, Dan.
Poly or Mono refers to the relationship, specifically the number of people involved in it. However, gay/bi/straight/trans/et al refers to the individual's identity, his/her personal idea of being and the kinds of individuals he or she feels attracted to.
How many individuals at a time? One, two, many, who’s counting? That doesn’t change the preference.
I understand that the number can be so important and intrinsical to some people, that it can become part of how they see themselves, of their sexual identity. However, I still don’t see it as something we have to move from its corresponding side of the dictionary. The number is not part of the orientation, unlike the kinds of persons one feels attracted to.
I agree with you, Dan.
To actual polys : how do you check that an unknown, presenting himself as poly, married guy is not a mono cheating on his wife ? It's a practical question I've asked before, and I've not had definite answers.
-- triggering --
@ankylosaur - so, does your renewed presence here mean that you have changed your mind on "sex being ethical between a child and an adult, as long as another adult is supervising" - aka advocacing pedophily ?
Other readers, sorry for this vomit-inducing reminder. Survivor of incest duty, kind of thing.
She invited me to and introduced me to a larger poly group in our area. It was super-duper sketchy: everyone had to arrange child care and brought hot-dish to the pot-luck! There I met her husband and her serious boyfriend.
I'm not saying everyone does it this way, but people who are being ethical are transparent and honest about it - even if they don't have a public dating profile, will be comfortable with you talking to spouse/partner - at least to confirm that they have permission to play. If someone won't do that for you, then just walk away.
I prefer monogamy, but it's possible I could be happy with polyamory too. However, there are some people who just can't be happy in a non-monogamous relationship, and there are some people who just can't be happy in a monogamous one. And many of those people are hard-wired to be the way they are.
That's not a sexual orientation, it's a relationship orientation.
***
Some bisexuals don't have a strong desire to be with someone of a particular sex--they can be happy with either. But some bisexuals (I think a minority) actually do have a strong desire to be with a person of EACH gender that they are attracted to. And that's fine too!
***
How do you know that someone presenting themselves as poly is not actually a cheating mono person? You say you want to talk to their other partner(s) before things go anywhere. Of course, a cheater could get people to lie for them, but this is true regardless of mono or poly.
That's not a sexual orientation, it's a relationship orientation.
***
Some bisexuals don't have a strong desire to be with someone of a particular sex--they can be happy with either. But some bisexuals (I think a minority) actually do have a strong desire to be with a person of EACH gender that they are attracted to. And that's fine too!
***
How do you know that someone presenting themselves as poly is not actually a cheating mono person? You say you want to talk to their other partner(s) before things go anywhere. Of course, a cheater could get people to lie for them, but this is true regardless of mono or poly.
"How do you know that someone presenting themselves as poly is not actually a cheating mono person?"
Good point. How does anyone really know it's just not fluffed-up b.s. dressed in nice clothing?
I can see your point, Lilaj: who's to say someone isn't using the poly rap to try to get in other people's pants dishonorably, but justifying it with an 'ism' attached to it?
I guess you can tell when someone can't tie themselves down to one particular person. You can spot those types easily. I dunno. I'm kinda burnt out on all the isms, buzzwords, catchphrases, yaddayaddayadda.
Pick a set of genitals and work with that. Don't be greedy ;) lol!
@ 261, sissoucat: Thanks :-) . And to Everyone, Peace & Happy Christmas, as John Lennon would say :-) .
"I'm not that, so this isn't important. Let's move on."
"I've never met any (that came out to me about their initiate lifestyle), so it isn't important. Let's move on."
"Quibbling over terminology, like we are actual experts on sexuality and entomology and human evolution. Now I'm bored. Let's move on."
"How dare those assholes say they are hard-wired for something and can't have a proper relationship without it! We all manage."
"It doesn't make any difference whether they have this identity or not. It only negatively affects their lives and families because they are pervs.."
"I can't imagine how that would work equitably and without harm. Therefore, it can't and must not be a good idea."
"I want to marry (an object, an animal, an idea.) Therefore, that's my sexual identity. I'm dismissing the entire idea with my unique cleverness. Let's move on."
You'll all notice, I trust, that each and every one of those arguments has been used to discredit the LBGT communities insistence on recognizing and legitimizing their sexual identities. And I say identities for a reason, because orientation doesn't apply to trans, which IS included. Those who self-identified as TS or TV are not required to be attracted to any gender in particular. It is entirely their *sexual identity* that is supported by the community.
The reason you are all getting so angry, or pretending to be bored in an attempt to suppress, even though you bothered to write in about it, is because you know that poly is a sexual identity. The letters prove it; the responses prove it. The same tired and invalid arguments are used against it, the same impotent and irrational anger at a lifestyle the posters claim not to even share but still need to be upset about, all the while knowing that other identifies are included in the Community that have nothing to do with whom one is attracted to.
Those of you who are in fact poly and felt forced into the mono culture around us have alot of anger, and much invested in the status quo. Like many of the homos in the last century, you need to lash out against those who are freely expressing that sexuality and rocking the boat in a way that you are jealous of and feel you can't have. And get them to shut the hel up and stop sticking it in your face. And why should they have any fun if you can't? Need proof? How about this theme running through the comments?
"Men need other partners, but we've been forced to accept only one in our society, so suck it up, buttercups. Let's move on."
Poly is an identity. We form communities, we raise our children, and we sometimes have to fight to keep all those. Yes, it's about relationships *and* sex and family, same as an orientation. Like LBGT orientations and trans-identities, or intersexed, we will be recognized, because it is justified, and our lives depend on it. We will do it all by ourselves if we have to, with or without your help, but we would prefer to have it. If we can't count on you, at least don't be piss on us like the rest of this culture. You, like them, will be on the wrong side of history.
Dan himself said that poly is not an identity. This is a direct quote from his response to the original letter writer (emphasis added):
"You are not "a poly."
POLY IS NOT A SEXUAL IDENTITY, PP, it's not a sexual orientation. It's not something you are, it's something you do. There's no such thing as a person who is "a poly," just as there's no such thing as a person who is "a monogamous." Polyamorous and monogamous are adjectives, not nouns. There are only people—gay, straight, bi—and some people are in monogamous relationships, some are in open relationships, some are in polyamorous relationships, some are in monogamish relationships, some are in four-star-general relationships. These are relationship models, PP, not sexual identities."
Man, does that sound like someone I know well ;-)!
Thank you for providing one more reason why I'm so happily single, and have long since moved on.
@252 It's not exhausting at all if you a.) Know yourself well and b.) Take time to get to know someone a little bit before sex clouds the issue. When I met my last lover, we dated for almost two months before consummating things. I dated a whole bunch of guys at that time without getting groiny with any of them. The one that I chose emerged as the clear winner. So far, over a year in, I'm realizing that I chose well.
In my humble opinion, the key things about being successfully poly are pretty much the same things that it takes to be successfully human:
Keep an open heart, act with compassion, and look out for those around you. Own it when you fuck up. And most of all -- KNOW THYSELF. Know and accept that you WILL get hurt. When that happens, don't seek revenge. Move on after grieving for an appropriate time.
Be secure in yourself. Work on those areas where you have insecurities. Ask for what you need. Really listen to others. Treat metamours (the other lovers of your lover) with warmth and compassion. Don't be a sneaky fuck. Be proactive about sexual health and honest about any issues that arise. Remember to develop interests outside the love-life.
Don't fear being alone sometimes.
Being whole-heartedly poly, like being whole-heartedly monogamous (or actually being whole-heartedly anyplace in between) is a great opportunity for personal growth. No matter if we chose this or didn't choose it (I obviously come down for me on the "didn't choose it" side), the key thing is to live our lives according to our own deepest inner truth(s), as long as we aren't hurting anyone else.
Poly-sigh.
Poly people, of course, encounter plenty of bigotry and I understand why they want to compare themselves to gays in order to piggyback on the acceptance that the gay movement has achieved. But that doesn't make them identical, and it's not bigoted to point that out. Poly people aren't hurting anybody, and we should promote tolerance. But I don't think we should have to declarify the meaning of "orientation" to make that happen.
Frankly, six guys and their girlfriends who get paid to pretend they are thousands online, to present the republican party online as a young, hip, opened minded majority of twenty and thirty somethings doesn't equal a hornets nest.
sex is sex, no matter what orientation you are, it doesn't matter if you are gay, straight or bi, it doesn't need to be written in your genes to finally claim your Constitutional Rights.
Thinking it does, is stuck in the 50s bigoted mind frame. And if Frankie understood how taking that position is a bigoted way to view the world, these arguments wouldn't take place. It's the way he thinks, he seems smart enough to understand what the definition of a bigot, but plays stupid, to be honest, I think it's paychecks from the right wing that influences what he posts. Everything that has to do with science, he uses references that are websites like "sciencedaily dot com, scientific american dot com, nature group dot com, all right wing magazines with the sole purpose of publishing bogus science results to make false political claims.
You should here what these idiots get from these tabloid science online rags, one site claimed that one nucleotide difference in a person's DNA can have drastic effects on that individuals sexual behavior, he is an idiot and doesn't understand science and sure as hell doesn't understand genetics. The same as fly ash being more dangerous and toxic than nuclear waste (oh he only said "more radioactive") it's just a bunch of semantics, a pseudo-grammarian that thinks he can tell any lie truthfully so long as the right words are chosen by the right word artist.
LOL more like right wing wingnut!
Keep speaking the truth Dan!
The world has come way to far to stop short of Truth, Freedom, Liberty and Justice for ALL!
Poly people whom it isn't their job to spread right wing propaganda will join the Equal Rights for ALL movement, because having equal rights is a good thing.
Bigots fear that homosexuals are after a piece of the over privileged pie that is theirs, and they will never understand why it's wrong to unjustly discriminate against anyone.
The ones who "awaken" and begin to understand the truth don't argue with and sling insults at you for speaking the truth.
They apologize with tears in eyes, and ask you what can they do to help. And they continue to help until at least the laws no longer sponsor bigotry.
You can't remove hatred from a man's heart
BUT YOU CAN SURE AS HELL REMOVE IT FROM UNITED STATES LAW
WE JUST NEED TO SAY IT LOUDER AND MORE OFTEN
It's not wrong for Poly People to claim non-monogamy is an orientation, it's wrong to step in NOW and sabotage the marriage equality movement and saying gee, did I do that?
Until we have online voting where we can get 90% voter turnout for all elections (possibly even 100%) Republicans can use scare tacits in attempt to derail LGBT rights that have been protected by the Constitution since day one. Those rights are being withheld, UNCONSTITUTIONALLY WITHHELD
No Poly or BDSM lifestyler who isn't a bigot wouldn't dare jeopardize all the work that's done because they realize that it doesn't fucking matter if your are genetically poly or genetically BDSM, the Constitution Protects your rights too. And Frankly making those claims is a little Dawkinsesk, Richard talks all kinds of shit that proves he doesn't understand the first thing about genetics, but that doesn't stop him from making a killing with seemingly logical books with theories based on fallacy
FUCK THAT SHIT
Carry ON DAN!
His Truth Will Carry On!
Can you here Johnny Cash singing The Battle Hymn of the Republic?
Don't quit, keep speaking, Liberty will prevail!