Yes, Poly erasure is definitely preferable to forced outing.

Also preferable to endless TMI

Of course Dan. Clinking onto your threads one can pretend for short periods that the world is just an angst moment in someone else’s life, and you take care of them with care when it’s needed and a slightly mocking humour when that’s needed.
All for one and One for all.

The person who alleged "poly erasure" later revealed themselves to have been joking.
Since Dan took the bait, I think the monogamish shouldn't necessarily announce it or subject people to TMI, but they could correct people who assume in conversation that they are monogamous. This seems to me like a reasonable middle ground.

Sporty @1: Isn't "forced" outing always the worse option? Unless one is a family-values-voting hypocrite?

The fact that the founder of AA had a different definition of "higher power" than the rest of his organization did (and still does) really doesn't change anything; in the end, his vision lost out, and AA is what it is: an organization that tells its members they can't succeed by themselves... This amounts to replacing alcohol with a friend in the sky instead of encouraging individuals to take responsibility for their lives and their fuck-ups, which is the only really useful way to grow, learn, and become a better person, IMNSHO.

Well, Bill Wilson was a lot stranger than his public impression. He believed in 'channelling' and Ouija boards, and was entranced by the idea that big doses of niacin were going to help alcoholics. He DID keep these notions, and his LSD experiments, to himself. He had enough awareness to avoid steering AA by his personal enthusiasms.

AA's 'spiritual' language is infuriating to anyone who thinks seriously about religions. We atheists have obvious objections, but the Catholic church, and a long string of evangelicals do too.

The 'open, welcoming' vagueness has the unintended effect of making AA a venue for any kind of religious fad. It just depends on what room you walk into, and who happens to be there. So long as you don't fall into the hands of a bullying subculture (there are several) anyone coming into AA should NOT feel a burden of religious coercion.

@5 I would think any group that provides help would have to be founded on the premise that getting help is preferable to not getting help. And getting help kind of requires outside intervention. And who succeeds on their own at anything, anyway?

I know several atheists who have been sober for a long time thanks to AA. They never had a friend in the sky. They did learn to accept that many things in life are out of their control, including the urge to drink alcohol. They also learned to appreciate the difference between being in control of your actions and being in control of your feelings and surroundings.

I also know several people for whom AA is just another flavor of church. They're annoying. They're also struggling immensely. I try not to begrudge people their choice of floatation device when they're drowning.

smajor @7: "I try not to begrudge people their choice of floatation device when they're drowning." Amen. If believing in a sky friend helps even some people quit their addictions then it's a positive thing. And in my limited experience with AA, the "higher power" clause is highly optional. No one's going to throw you out if you skip it.

Oh Ricardo, I thought of you yesterday, hoped you were ok and here you are. Psychic or what.

I don't know that I could ever do AA for a number of reasons. But it helps some people (far less than is commonly thought), so I don't think it should be denigrated. I know several people to use the term "Higher Power" as a synonym for the power of the collective group of those at an AA meeting.
I think one's "Higher Power" can be whatever one wishes it to be.

Just look around, this story is way higher than us.
My dad got off grog thru AA, then he was a strong Catholic. Sort of. I’m starting to loath religions. Everywhere I look it’s god or allah, leave me alone. Death comes to us all, that’s all we really know.

Atheist 12 stepper here. Some groups you have to push back a bit against those who are determined to define for you what your higher power should be. Depending on your time in the program and level of self confidence, this might be something you are happy to do, or you might just want to find a different meeting.

Myself, I tend to express it in meetings something like this : "I don't need to believe there is a ruler of the universe to understand that I don't rule the universe" and "I don't need god to be there to catch what I'm letting go - I can just let go".

There are people in 12 step groups who say things like "G.O.D. just stands for "good orderly direction" and think they are somehow being useful to the atheists. It's not helpful to me, in fact I find it condescending and annoying, but one thing I have learned in the program is that just because someone else says something, doesn't mean I have to listen to them. I get to work my own program, just as they get to work their's. Not my job to take their inventory, I have my own side of the street to sweep.

@ 9 - Hi Lava! Yes, I'm still around, just very busy.

@ 7 and 12 - So what both of you are basically saying is that AA works if you're an atheist and don't pay attention to the higher power crap. I'd say this reflects a serious shortcoming of the program, since an important element of its philosophy is something one must ignore for it to work.

Ricardo @13: I don't think that's unprecedented. There are lots of Christians who don't believe all gays are going to hell, Jews who eat shellfish and have tattoos, Democrats who are for gun rights. It's not as if there are dozens of different grassroots organisations dedicated to helping people quit drinking. If you need help that badly, it's not a huge deal to gloss over one of twelve steps when the other eleven can be a lifesaver.

If this is relevant to the conversation, probably not, but... AA doesn't work most of the time. I think that's OK- most things don't. When it does, it helps people. But I think the "go to AA" assumption that it will help people (like "go to therapy") is really delusional- most of the time it will do no good. As for the imaginary friend in the sky- I don't care what people believe and I don't see why others make fun of people for it. Religious beliefs can be deeper than they appear on the surface of the ritual- they can also be more shallow. It's a personal thing and varied, and humans have had religion in some form for thousands of years so it seems a little weird to sneer at it now as if our current view of the world is any more objectively or eternally accurate. Years from now, if we survive, future humans will sneer at us. The problem isn't if someone has a sky friend- it's if they are judgmental or oppressive in their beliefs and apply that to others through a powerful institution or social/political control. And religions do that sometimes, but so do other institutions. So the TLDR is that if AA or belief in an imaginary sky god friend get people through life, which is unbearably difficult for most of us at least some of the time, then good for them. But if getting help and community comes in the form of shaming, oppressing or controlling others then they can fuck right off with that- they've filled that gnawing void with in-group bigotry which is a lot less lonely than alienated alcoholism perhaps but just transferring the nastiness onto others.

@15 And people have been rightfully sneering at religion for thousands of years.

Like who, JodoKast?

People have been sneering at religious institutions for thousands of years, but it's pretty rare historically to find materialists before the modern era. I can't think of any examples off-hand, but I'm admittedly not a student of this kind of history. The comments above are not about particular religious institutions or specific dogmas/beliefs, but rather about personal belief in higher powers generally, unless I've misunderstood. This sort of "new atheism" isn't going to age well- it's as much a sign of the times as any other historical cultural trend. I say this as an atheist myself (I'm likewise a product of the times) but I've looked into religion enough to know that it can be both deeper and more shallow than sky gods and that the sneering is reductive.