My poly isn't your poly - so what?

[CielDuMatin]

As on so many other discussion boards, the whole definition thing seems to come up with amazing regularity. Whether it is discussion of the differences between polyamory and swinging, what love is, and so on and so forth.

I really don't want to open up those discussions again - there are threads for that if that discussion is still necessary, but I think that it might be a good idea to look at why we care and how we might want to deal with it on a community like this one....

I think there are specific circumstances where defining a term has relevance - examples of those would include when trying to cater for a particular group, and trying to understand what the needs of that group are, or when trying to be more public about a concept - having a clarity helps people think about it. But outside of that... (and here's my point...)

When it comes to me and what matters to me - I really don't mind what definition you use, or even if you choose not to define it rigidly or not - I haven't met many people at all where I could say that my poly is their poly, and that is perfectly fine to me - I don't have to be the same as them or think the same as them in order to communicate with them, become friends with them and like them and respect them as people.

Even among poly folk saying "I'm poly" doesn't mean a lot and, if you want people to have an accurate picture of your relationship style, you need to explain a lot more. In my opinion there's nothing wrong with that.

When I interact with people on this and other fora, since I am not trying to define this community or do anything that involves public acceptance of the term in general, I feel that it is perfectly OK to refer to things as "that's not the way I do it" - but that's all it is - it's not a value judgment on the other person's way. Maybe sometimes we could try to defuse a potential situation like this with a little more care in how we express our differing opinions and make it a little more obvious that we respect the other person's right to think differently and to have a differently-structured relationship. This would include using words that don't sound like sweeping generalizations or could be interpreted as "this is the way to do it".

As this nebulous community I feel that it is vital that we try to open our minds and treat those of a differing opinion with respect - they got where they are through their learnings, and life experiences, and I feel that we need to respect that, whether we would personally do it the same way or not.

Everybody comes to this forum with their experiences, and some of those experiences contain trigger words that will set off a chain of emotional reactions to what we write. Expecting everyone to "check their baggage at the door", or similar things, is easier said than done and not realistic. I'd like to think that we could be a little more sensitive to that.

This isn't specific to this forum or to any specific members, by the way - I have seen similar things in most poly communities.

I would appreciate hearing your views on this.

Edit to add: I guess the additional question I would like to know is why do you care what the "global" definition is?

[Ariakas]

Edit to add: I guess the additional question I would like to know is why do you care what the "global" definition is?

Personally, I don't care, I have never cared much for what people around me think of what I do or how I do it, and I care even less about labels. I have gone through life as a conservative geeky headbanging jock. The people who I care are really the only opinions I put any merit on. As a consummate debater, I enjoy debating fine points at times, and it is in fact how ALL of my friendships developed, but if they have an opinion, and want to try and push my into a label, they likely won't get to far into my circle of friends :)

That said, maybe people argue so vehemently for a global standard so that is can be recognized outside people who aren't poly. If the definition is vague and misunderstood, explaining it to people outside the community, and thereby getting public acceptance, would be almost impossible. That is the only reason I can see to lock the definition down into a nice tidy box.

[dakid]

I really don't mind what definition you use, or even if you choose not to define it rigidly or not - I haven't met many people at all where I could say that my poly is their poly, and that is perfectly fine to me - I don't have to be the same as them or think the same as them in order to communicate with them, become friends with them and like them and respect them as people.

Even among poly folk saying "I'm poly" doesn't mean a lot and, if you want people to have an accurate picture of your relationship style, you need to explain a lot more. In my opinion there's nothing wrong with that.

When I interact with people on this and other fora, since I am not trying to define this community or do anything that involves public acceptance of the term in general, I feel that it is perfectly OK to refer to things as "that's not the way I do it" - but that's all it is - it's not a value judgment on the other person's way. Maybe sometimes we could try to defuse a potential situation like this with a little more care in how we express our differing opinions and make it a little more obvious that we respect the other person's right to think differently and to have a differently-structured relationship. This would include using words that don't sound like sweeping generalizations or could be interpreted as "this is the way to do it".

i could not agree more. of course we have a variety of ways of being polyamorous - i celebrate our diversity i would not want it any other way!

what is painful and diversive at times is when we appear to be telling each other that our way is the only way, that another person's way of being poly is not poly. what i hope is meant in those moments is "that isn't how i practise poly" but sadly what often gets said is "that is not poly".

x

[constlady]

That said, maybe people argue so vehemently for a global standard so that is can be recognized outside people who aren't poly. If the definition is vague and misunderstood, explaining it to people outside the community, and thereby getting public acceptance, would be almost impossible. That is the only reason I can see to lock the definition down into a nice tidy box.

And for those of us with quite real concerns about the potential repercussions of not being adequately understood, this is the key.

I live in the smallest, most rural county in New York State.
It's a definite red streak politically and that conservatism runs through the judicial system.

If the law guardian of the children for whom I am currently legally responsible gets the impression from someone with a different definition of polyamory than I have that my lifestyle includes massive orgies or a constantly rotating cast of characters in and out of my life, I will be facing an uphill battle with the entire system in order to keep these kids safe.

It won't matter that their mother is an incarcerated addict - that's an understood disease, the system is used to dealing with that.
It won't matter that their father is a convicted felon and has also been found guilty of neglect previously - that again is a known enemy.
But let it get out that their grandmother is *gasp* polysomething and immediately red flags will be raised.

So these discussions on finding a definition, on being able to present to mainstream society a non-threatening picture that clarifies who I am and how I love have a very serious and very real potential to impact not only my life but the lives of four young children.

Personally, I don't wish to define how anyone lives their polylife, just as I don't want mine defined. But the reality for those of us who live under the threat of persecution is that there does need to be some sort of basic definition, not only for the outsiders to understand but for those within the community to rally around to remove that threat.

[crisare]

That said, maybe people argue so vehemently for a global standard so that is can be recognized outside people who aren't poly. If the definition is vague and misunderstood, explaining it to people outside the community, and thereby getting public acceptance, would be almost impossible. Exactly.

Also because language is useless if everyone gets to make up their own definition. Communication and understanding become impossible when people get to decide that various words mean various things for them and it doesn't matter what anyone else thinks it means.

If I went to a restaurant and ordered Lasagna and they brought me chicken, I'd be confused and somewhat upset. If I then asked where my lasagna was and they said "this is what we call lasagna" ... that would confuse me even more. We wouldn't be able to communicate.

There is already so much confusion about alternate sexualities and alternate lifestyles that I don't understand why anyone would want to add to that confusion.

Edited to say: Yes there are many different ways of being poly and I'm not disputing that. One can accept a broad definition of poly with regard to structure and partners without going so far as to say that poly = every variety of non-monogamy out there.

[X-User1335]

I like this blog! Mainley because when my huband and I began looking for what it is that we want, now we have the term poly, we began with pologimist. I prob spelled that wrong, but anyways. That's what I thought we were looking for. At the same time I didn't know if that's what it was or not, because I (and my husband) want me to have interaction and to fall in love with our partner as well as him. If anything, my husband finds it very important that her and I are on the same wave length mentally, physically, emotionally, etc. He wants us to click. I want it to.

Then we found the term polyamory. It seems to fit us better. It means love many. We want to fall in love with another, and it may turn into a marriage, we don't know. Who does when you go this route?

But I've seen other things written where it's the man, or the woman, or both, that go about it different than what we are. They both date others. I get it that is poly! But what we are doing is also.

I wrote a blog introducing us and even posted the question "Is that poly"? Mainly because I didn't want to offend anyone in my way of thinking. I don't want to offend anyone's lifestyle and name ours as the same as theirs.

I've came to the conclusion, very quickly I might add, that poly is poly. You are or your aren't. You are in a mono. relationship or you are in a poly one. No one can tell you that you are wrong in what you are doing, not and back it up anyways. And no one can tell you that you are not poly, you are just doing it all wrong! My poly is not your poly, so what. I like that line and I think I will probably be using it often! ;)

Thanks for the blog. It is very interesting to read what everyone's views of this lifestyle is. I'm really enjoying being a member here because of blogs like this! :)

[Ravenesque]

That said, maybe people argue so vehemently for a global standard so that is can be recognized outside people who aren't poly. If the definition is vague and misunderstood, explaining it to people outside the community, and thereby getting public acceptance, would be almost impossible. That is the only reason I can see to lock the definition down into a nice tidy box.

I quite love the use of the word global within this thread.

http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/global

Global. All-inclusive. Universal.

Having a global definition of polyamory would be lovely because it would by nature involve all polyamorists and inclusive of all polyamorous perspectives. If such a definition is used when attaining legal rights for polyamorous people is would be a huge positive and bring poly people from all walks of life together in support.

i could not agree more. of course we have a variety of ways of being polyamorous - i celebrate our diversity i would not want it any other way!

what is painful and diversive at times is when we appear to be telling each other that our way is the only way, that another person's way of being poly is not poly. what i hope is meant in those moments is "that isn't how i practise poly" but sadly what often gets said is "that is not poly".

x

Indeed dakid. Having a global definition would definitely not be stating "that is not poly" as is often said here because it would embrace all versions and perspectives of polyamory.

~Raven~

[LovingRadiance]

And for those of us with quite real concerns about the potential repercussions of not being adequately understood, this is the key.

I live in the smallest, most rural county in New York State.
It's a definite red streak politically and that conservatism runs through the judicial system.

If the law guardian of the children for whom I am currently legally responsible gets the impression from someone with a different definition of polyamory than I have that my lifestyle includes massive orgies or a constantly rotating cast of characters in and out of my life, I will be facing an uphill battle with the entire system in order to keep these kids safe.

It won't matter that their mother is an incarcerated addict - that's an understood disease, the system is used to dealing with that.
It won't matter that their father is a convicted felon and has also been found guilty of neglect previously - that again is a known enemy.
But let it get out that their grandmother is *gasp* polysomething and immediately red flags will be raised.

So these discussions on finding a definition, on being able to present to mainstream society a non-threatening picture that clarifies who I am and how I love have a very serious and very real potential to impact not only my life but the lives of four young children.

Personally, I don't wish to define how anyone lives their polylife, just as I don't want mine defined. But the reality for those of us who live under the threat of persecution is that there does need to be some sort of basic definition, not only for the outsiders to understand but for those within the community to rally around to remove that threat.

This! Any minute now 3 of GG's family members will be stopping by. His family is bound and determined that we are all "living in sin" and that we will drag our children down with us. They have already pushed for court battles to remove our youngest child from our home.

Additionally our second oldest-his mother and grandmother have also tried to remove him from our home (tried for 10 years).

It's very important in a legal sense that we educate the general population that there can be a CHILDFRIENDLY poly-lifestyle.

I don't give a damn how ANYONE practices their life. But when we can't define certain things-we put the innocent lives in the balance because the unknown causes fear and that fear causes condemnation and judgement and unnecessary and irrelevant legal actions that hurt our children.

[CielDuMatin]

LR (and constlady and anyone else): If work was done on a generally-accepted definition of poly for the legal rights issues surrounding families, what, in your opinion, is "child-friendly" enough to make it safe for you to still be poly and to have this issue become a non-issue? Or would any definition be good enough?

[crisare]

Yes. I live in the Baptist, conservative, South. If there is a red state, mine glows with an unholy red light. :) And I'm only partially joking.

I don't have children myself, but all of my partners have had children. It would be nice to know that someday people wouldn't automatically assume that we were all being irresponsible and endangering their children by choosing to have multiple, committed relationships.

And the only way that will happen is to take the fear out of the word by clearly defining it.

[LovingRadiance]

LR (and constlady and anyone else): If work was done on a generally-accepted definitions of poly for the legal rights issues surrounding families, what, in your opinion, is "child-friendly" enough to make it safe for you to still be poly and to have this issue become a non-issue? Or would any definition be good enough?

This is a complicated question...

Because what I would find "child-friendly" isn't what the LAW already defines as a child-friendly environment.

I've had multiple short term lovers.... and fuck buddies and fwb and raised my daughter well-but I can tell you right now-that had her father and I gone to court-I would have lost her over that detail and sadly-her life would have been destroyed because he was unable to be a responsible father.

Without a HUGE overhaul of current laws-there isn't much way to include those within a definition AND show the courts that the dynamic is a child-friendly environment.

Furthermore-each state in the US (not to mention any given country) has different laws on the books of what is or what is not acceptable in a "family dynamic" in regards to being a child-friendly environment.


Soooooo-that said,

for me the bottom line in raising children is that they need stability, security and safety. So TO ME if a child has a stable environment (where all those extra "for the moment" lovers don't come and go) and the security that all people within the environment (lovers, friends, family whatever) are willing to do whatever is necessary to ensure the child's security and safety.
There are no dangerous situations being created for the child then that wold be good to me.

BUT-how do you define and ensure that? It's ultimately impossible.
I think the argument is pretty much pointless to a large degree-because it's impossible.

I have already decided that defining myself as poly is too risky for my kids. I will tell someone I am in a long term loving relationship with my husband of 11 years and boyfriend of 17 years. But I won't any longer name it-because the risk is too high that the word I choose will lead to conclusions that simply aren't true or correct in my situation.

I think many others have found the same true for them.

[crisare]

I have already decided that defining myself as poly is too risky for my kids. I will tell someone I am in a long term loving relationship with my husband of 11 years and boyfriend of 17 years. But I won't any longer name it-because the risk is too high that the word I choose will lead to conclusions that simply aren't true or correct in my situation.

I think many others have found the same true for them. As I've mentioned, I don't have children, but just the discussions on these boards have led me to realize that I no longer want to self-identify as poly.

[StitchwitchD]

LR (and constlady and anyone else): If work was done on a generally-accepted definition of poly for the legal rights issues surrounding families, what, in your opinion, is "child-friendly" enough to make it safe for you to still be poly and to have this issue become a non-issue? Or would any definition be good enough?

I worry about this, because I'm trying to get custody of my kids, and my ex has tried to use his suspicions about my sex life against me in court to show that I was an unfit mother- but it was a non-issue at that point because he couldn't prove anything and my lawyer said that as long as I wasn't doing anything illegal (pedophilia, necrophilia, bestiality) and I wasn't doing anything inappropriate in front of the kids, no one cared.

The issue in my case is more that the court wants me to show I can stand on my own 2 feet and live in my own apartment- which is a pretty quiet and lonely place when my kids aren't there, and it really doesn't require any work to keep a place clean with just one adult living there. So, if I was in a monogamous relationship, I'd have the same issue with the court wanting me to prove that I can be a SINGLE mother and live alone and not rely on anyone or have them rely on me....which seems a bit unreasonable, every single mom I've known has needed a healthy support network.

I have friends who are foster parents who are adopting a teenager, and there were some issues about them having a single mom living in their basement, the agency was worried that their household wasn't stable, that people would be coming and going from her life- in the most stable home she's ever been in.

[MonoVCPHG]

I worry about this, because I'm trying to get custody of my kids, and my ex has tried to use his suspicions about my sex life against me in court to show that I was an unfit mother- but it was a non-issue at that point because he couldn't prove anything and my lawyer said that as long as I wasn't doing anything illegal (pedophilia, necrophilia, bestiality) and I wasn't doing anything inappropriate in front of the kids, no one cared.

.

This idea that multi-partner relationships are a detriment to children is probably going to be the biggest hurdle to cross in my mind. People who's kids consider me their uncle still needed a fair bit of reassurance that my presence was not going to confuse and disturb Redpepper's son. Even their kids sometimes accidentally refer to me as Dad LOL!

Hopefully someone will take on an extensive and unbiased study to ascertain what affects this has on children. Sad to say, but for the studies to be accepted I believe they will have to be done in the countries we live in as people will ignorantly choose to disregard the examples present in other cultures around the world.

This will be the biggest boon for acceptance and protection in my opinion. Redpepper, her husband and I had a video conference with one British author working on a book about differing family structures and child development. Perhaps that will be a good resource in the future.

[Ceoli]

If the law guardian of the children for whom I am currently legally responsible gets the impression from someone with a different definition of polyamory than I have that my lifestyle includes massive orgies or a constantly rotating cast of characters in and out of my life, I will be facing an uphill battle with the entire system in order to keep these kids safe.

It seems to me that the issue here isn't the definition. The issue is prejudices that are attached to the definition. If we start trying to make a definition for the purpose of preventing prejudice, we are actually enabling that prejudice and shifting it to other places.

Trying to tailor a definition to be more acceptable to mainstream society never really gets very far because it doesn't actually address the underlying prejudice it's trying to negate. This has been seen in the battle many gay people have already fought for more legal rights. None of these rights were gained by trying to create a definition of being gay that excludes the "less desirable" elements.

There are gay people who live in long term settled domestic relationships.

There are gay people who go clubbing and take a new person home every night.

None of these things have to do with the definition of being gay.

The fact that gay people have made advances with legal rights in society isn't because people decided to come up with a clear and concise definition that included one aspect but not the other in order to make it more acceptable to society. If the gay rights activists had tried that, none of the actual prejudices and myths that society holds about being gay would have been addressed and society would take longer to move forward into actual acceptance.


Similarly, there are poly people who live quiet domestic lives.

There are poly people who have a constantly rotating cast of characters in their lives.

There are poly people who have massive orgies.

None of these things have to do with the definition of poly.


Trying to add more to the definition than it actually is for the sake of clarity actually produces the opposite effect. Poly means loving more than one. Once we start to try to make a definition to be more specific for the sake of clarity, we're actually just trying to make sure the "wrong" things don't get lumped in with the "right" things in our definitions.

As a society, we're pretty comfortable with the fact that a monogamous relationship can mean marriage, dating, healthy relationships, toxic relationships, casual relationships, long term committed relationships and all sorts of variables in between. The reason we don't feel the need to be more specific about that definition is that there aren't as many prejudices attached to it.

The queer movement used to have a similar need to lend legitimacy to being queer. It wasn't achieved by trying to create a narrow definition that only contains the elements that are more acceptable to the views of society at the time. It's being achieved by dismantling the inherent myths and prejudices that people have towards the actual broader definitions.

My definition of poly is pretty clear. The only thing making it unclear is the prejudices people put to it. The only way to fix that is to address the prejudices and not cater to them.

[redpepper]

I think that a definition will make it easier for some to be able to tell people in full confidence that they are poly, knowing full well what they are saying is true for them. I flounder when I say I'm poly because I don't personally feel I can truly embrace the definition as it includes lifestyle choices that don't fit for me.

I seem to be the type to use a definition until I feel I can stand on my own two feet and then leave it... almost like learning to walk. A baby needs a coffee table to stand up to and then when it knows how to stand, that coffee table is still there, but not needed for that purpose anymore.

I guess the lack of definition makes me feel as if I am still learning to walk in my poly shoes whereas in other ways I am definitely walking just fine and don't even think about it anymore. I feel far more marginalized identifying as poly than I ever did when I identified as a Lesbian or even now as pansexual.

[Ravenesque]

I think that a definition will make it easier for some to be able to tell people in full confidence that they are poly, knowing full well what they are saying is true for them. I flounder when I say I'm poly because I don't personally feel I can truly embrace the definition as it includes lifestyle choices that don't fit for me.

...

I guess the lack of definition makes me feel as if I am still learning to walk in my poly shoes whereas in other ways I am definitely walking just fine and don't even think about it anymore. I feel far more marginalized identifying as poly than I ever did when I identified as a Lesbian or even now as pansexual.

Are you stating that there is a definition or that there isn't? You speak of a lack of definition but then you state that you cannot embrace the definition as it includes lifestyle choices that don't fit you.

Which definition are you finding you cannot embrace? And why does this definition including your lifestyle choice as well as others make you feel you cannot embrace it?

~Raven~

[Ravenesque]

My definition of poly is pretty clear. The only thing making it unclear is the prejudices people put to it. The only way to fix that is to address the prejudices and not cater to them.

Thank you. When I finally do get around to answering my own thread, there's another value I can add.

~Raven~

[dakid]

And for those of us with quite real concerns about the potential repercussions of not being adequately understood, this is the key.

I live in the smallest, most rural county in New York State.
It's a definite red streak politically and that conservatism runs through the judicial system.

If the law guardian of the children for whom I am currently legally responsible gets the impression from someone with a different definition of polyamory than I have that my lifestyle includes massive orgies or a constantly rotating cast of characters in and out of my life, I will be facing an uphill battle with the entire system in order to keep these kids safe.

It won't matter that their mother is an incarcerated addict - that's an understood disease, the system is used to dealing with that.
It won't matter that their father is a convicted felon and has also been found guilty of neglect previously - that again is a known enemy.
But let it get out that their grandmother is *gasp* polysomething and immediately red flags will be raised.

So these discussions on finding a definition, on being able to present to mainstream society a non-threatening picture that clarifies who I am and how I love have a very serious and very real potential to impact not only my life but the lives of four young children.

Personally, I don't wish to define how anyone lives their polylife, just as I don't want mine defined. But the reality for those of us who live under the threat of persecution is that there does need to be some sort of basic definition, not only for the outsiders to understand but for those within the community to rally around to remove that threat.

i feel for you, i really do. this is a difficult situation for you to be in i do understand that. i myself was until recently the full-time carer/parent of my young niece, because of both her parents drug and alcohol addictions. i had social services poking their noses into every area of my life, and i too lived in fear of being judged because of my sex and love life.

i was very lucky in that i have a friend who is a family lawyer and has a great deal of experience in this matter, sadly only in the UK otherwise i would perhaps suggest you two linking up. the advice i got from her kept me going at times when i thought i could go mad here.

happily for us, and more than miraculously to be honest, my niece was able to return to live with her mother (my sister) in august 2009, and my sister has now achieved 12 months clean of all illegal drugs (and been thoroughly tested don't you worry! regular hair tests and ongoing). i remain however responsible formy niece alongside my sister.

anyway, what i found was that in the UK there is reluctance to take children away from family care (we call it kinship care) mostly due to the cost of funding state care of a child. things have to be pretty bad before they'll do that. also, what i do when i am not with my niece, i was advised, is unlikely to be seen as relevant by a judge or social worker unless it somehow affected my niece.

i am sober, don't drink or take drugs. my niece was introduced to and developed fabulous friendships with my friends and partner, and the social workers did accept that these were stable longterm relationships with positive benefits for both my niece and myself. i never told her about or allowed her to meet my fuck-buddy and if i had had any one-night stand or similar she would never have known about that either. not that i had the time or energy but!

since my sex-life never infringed upon her life in any way (my fuck buddy would only visit whilst she was at school) and my partnerships/friendships are as stable as anyone's i was not judged negatively at all. they simply didn't know about my sex life beyond my partnerships, my lawyer advised i approach it on a need-to-know basis and as long as my niece didn't know and therefore wasn't being asked to lie or keep secrets, then they didn't need to know either.

of course they had to ask questions, but i was assured and do believe that they would have to ask questions about anybody in care of a child, whether single/celibate/monogamous/whatever. what they care about is stability, protection from abuse, and general safety, not how we get our rocks off when the child isn't there to be affected.

i do appreciate this may be different where you are, and i also remember from my own experience that however rationally we know something we still fear the worst, at least i often did. i just hope that you have a similar experience to mine, or at least that my story gives you something on some level.

on a more general level i very much agree with what ceoli has written here, we need to be careful not to adopt the prejudices of those who might judge us and to stay true to ourselves. if people are prejudiced against polyamory then no amount of stability/permanence/polyfidelity is going to beat that prejudice.

it is good practise in social care and child protection to judge each case on its merits. just because you may identify as poly does not mean that you live your life exactly as all others do who share that identity. that wouldn't be possible would it!

imagine if everybody, for example, who identified as a football fan was judged for the behaviour of every single other football out there, regardless of their behaviour, how awful that would be.

i wish you and your grandchildren all the very best, x

[Ceoli]

I flounder when I say I'm poly because I don't personally feel I can truly embrace the definition as it includes lifestyle choices that don't fit for me.

What is the definition as it stands and what lifestyle choices does it include that don't fit for you?

[constlady]

Thank you for your words dakid. Though the areas in which we live may be very different, it does give some hope that each case may be judged on its own merits.

As far as attorneys go, I had the good fortune to meet and chat a bit with Diana Adams at the last PolyLiving conference. She was intrigued with my situation, since most of the sexual civil rights cases she handles involve grandparents attempting to remove children from their parents, not the other way around and she told me to call if ever the word polyamory was used in a proceeding against me. She's a very good ally to have on one's side :)

That said, it is still a very real fear. And while I agree that removing the prejudices surrounding alternative lifestyles is the long term goal, once again my reality is that I and my grandchildren can't wait for that to occur.

Changing minds and hearts and removing prejudices is a generational task.
Very few people open up to changing their core beliefs (no matter how illogical they may be) by being confronted and challenged in a manner which puts them on the defensive. Once most people feel attacked, their response is to put up defenses which rarely allow for even the most logical of arguments to be truly heard.

Trying to tailor a definition to be more acceptable to mainstream society never really gets very far because it doesn't actually address the underlying prejudice it's trying to negate. This has been seen in the battle many gay people have already fought for more legal rights. None of these rights were gained by trying to create a definition of being gay that excludes the "less desirable" elements.

There are gay people who live in long term settled domestic relationships.

There are gay people who go clubbing and take a new person home every night.

None of these things have to do with the definition of being gay.

The fact that gay people have made advances with legal rights in society isn't because people decided to come up with a clear and concise definition that included one aspect but not the other in order to make it more acceptable to society. If the gay rights activists had tried that, none of the actual prejudices and myths that society holds about being gay would have been addressed and society would take longer to move forward into actual acceptance.


Someone here on another thread recently (and I thought it was Ceoli but can't remember enough about the beginnings of the thread to search it) mentioned that the gay rights movement had actually marginalized the more flamboyant members in their quest for mainstream acceptance. The tactic taken was to highlight the similarities between monogamous heterosexual couples and monogamous homosexual couples and others who didn't fit that model were edged out as the movement progressed. At least that's the way I remember the comment being presented. So there seems to be a dichotomy in perception here that confuses me?

I believe that as human beings we are far more alike than we are different.
But I also believe that the way to achieve meeting the mainstream half way isn't by pointing out the most different members of our community and trying to show how similar they are but by pointing out the most similar members and then expanding outward.

At this moment in time, it's a matter of what works in this existing world, not what the ideal world would look like to me. In my ideal world, no one would actually care how anyone else loved, other than as perhaps a way to expand their own horizons.
Working towards creating that is a long term goal; working towards protecting those who love differently than the current norm until the ideal is achieved is the short term goal.
It may take different tactics to reach both goals.

Someone else mentioned research into children raised in polyfamilies, hopefully to garner support for the idea that there is no inherent detriment to them. My understanding is that such research is currently beginning, though I'd have to dig through another site to remember the details.
It is a known issue among people who are poly activists - we need to have the research to back us up when we take on the status quo.

There are other groups who are funding research and publishing papers and informational brochures for professionals such as social workers, educators, psychiatric practioners etc. in an attempt to educate the very people who might be called upon to determine whether the children in my home are at risk simply because my boyfriend has another girlfriend.

What I'd like to see in terms of legislation at this point in time is simple.
Any agency charged with determining the suitability of a particular home for children should not be basing their recommendation in any way on the parent/guardian's sex life, unless of course that sex life includes abuse of the children, which to my way of thinking is a totally separate issue.

[dakid]

What I'd like to see in terms of legislation at this point in time is simple.
Any agency charged with determining the suitability of a particular home for children should not be basing their recommendation in any way on the parent/guardian's sex life, unless of course that sex life includes abuse of the children, which to my way of thinking is a totally separate issue.


me too, absolutely. we have acheived this in the UK largely because our government signed up to the universal declaration of human rights and went on to adopt european wide legislation to back it up. if any agency here were to judge a childcarer/parent based on their sexuality or sexual practises they would be in breach of this law and could be shown to be so. they didn't do so out of the goodness of their hearts (they are politicians after all!) but because of years and years of sustained pressure from citizens working together to fight for their/our rights.

if only the united states government could be persuaded of the merits of these rights.

a campaign to have the right to a private sex life and to not have your capacity to parent/care measured on the basis of your sex life would unite huge swathes of the population - from unmarried monogamous couples, to polyamorous people, swingers, lgbtqi folk, the bdsm community, promiscuous singletons, the list goes on.

i firmly believe that this is the best tactic because united we are stronger, divided we fall.

if you take into account all of the many ways that people love and share sex outside of marriage and/or monogamy, including so-called kinky or non-vanilla practises and including homosexuality and bisexuality too, i suspect we would find ourselves in the majority! certainly a block of potential voters to be taken seriously by those in power.

as long as each group fights its battle seperately and tries to distance themselves from other groups of people with "alternative" (alternative to what? who is normal and who is the majority?) lifestyle/sexual practises we are easy to dismiss. our strength is in our numbers.

x

ps as i have said i do understand your fear, and it is of course real and valid. however as long as you have access to high quality and supportive legal assistance i really doubt any court would take your children away from you without real evidence that the children were sufferering in your care, which i assume and trust they are not. unless i am missing something - is there a precedent in your state/area which i don't know about perhaps?

[redpepper]

Are you stating that there is a definition or that there isn't? You speak of a lack of definition but then you state that you cannot embrace the definition as it includes lifestyle choices that don't fit you.

Which definition are you finding you cannot embrace? And why does this definition including your lifestyle choice as well as others make you feel you cannot embrace it?

~Raven~

To answer Raven and Ceoli... I guess I thought I had stated my opinion in other threads before but maybe not well enough. I find that the current trend includes sex too much for me, in that it spends far too much time including swinging, friends with benefits types of relationships and open relationships far more than makes me feel comfortable. There is a fine line there, that is true, its just farther to thr sex side than I feel comfortable with. To me the definition of poly includes more loving of many partners in the form of boyfriend/girlfriend/spouse kind of relationships such as our monogamous friends identify. To me there is a coming together of two lives (many in this case) in terms of care of children in some cases but an over all connection of lives. I guess I want people to look at our family and see that rather than who I fuck, in order to make a judgment. I just feel more comfortable in that.Especially in terms of how they see my son being raised.

[CielDuMatin]

if only the united states government could be persuaded of the merits of these rights.I think that this would be a key in so many different issues of alternative culture.

If we could achieve that we wouldn't have to be fighting about definitions of polyamory, swinging, BDSM or anything like that from the point of view of keeping families together (which has been highlighted here as a major issue for some members).

Judge a family based on the individual environment, rather than based on a set of keywords. Does the family environment provide a good one for kids to grow up in or not?

It is heartening to know that some countries have already gone down this road, knowing that the country of my birth has gone there already warms my heart too, in some strangely illogical way. The fact that it is a country that doesn't explicitly have the separation of church and state in its constitution is even more encouraging.

dakid, has it made a difference? Are people really judged now on the environment for the kids, independent of how many partners someone has in their lives?

One of the other trends I have noticed in the UK that I applaud is the decreased use of "husband" and "wife" in everyday conversation. "Partner" is now used, which doesn't describe the gender or actual marital status of the people. In my experience in the USA, more often than not, using that word implies a homosexual relationship. I hope that that changes.

[redpepper]

For some reason non-monogamy fits better and encompasses more of the love. Even though poly has love as its root in the word.

[Ceoli]

For some reason non-monogamy fits better and encompasses more of the love. Even though poly has love as its root in the word.

That's interesting because non-monogamy by definition includes swinging and polyamory doesn't.

[redpepper]

Yup, I know. I don't know why that feels better. Maybe because its an older term? I have used it for 13 years now.

[Ceoli]

It might be comfortable for you because after 13 years of using that term you don't have very many assumptions attached to it and the meaning of it is very clear to you. There seem to be more assumptions attached to the word polyamory.

For me, it's more important to address the assumptions than to reshape definitions to accommodate them.

[Ravenesque]

For me, it's more important to address the assumptions than to reshape definitions to accommodate them.

I think this is interesting.

I like the attachment/assumption of honesty, ethics and good communication to polyamory however there could be a real asshole of a polyamorous person out there who is regularly dishonest, doesn't act ethically either, and communication, well forget about it.

Some might say "well that person isn't poly," but why does that seem a natural thing to say for them?

Because a moral high ground is being attached to polyamory. Yes. Without even knowing perhaps, people are setting polyamory up on a pedestal.

If there can be an asshole monogamous person, there can be an asshole polyamorous person.

~Raven~

[CielDuMatin]

That's interesting because non-monogamy by definition includes swinging and polyamory doesn't.Really? See I used to think that but when I brought up that distinction elsewhere I was told that I was wrong to make that distinction.

[Ceoli]

Really? See I used to think that but when I brought up that distinction elsewhere I was told that I was wrong to make that distinction.

I think when people attempt to make the distinctions mutually exclusive then there are problems. I've heard lots of people say that if someone is swinging, they're not poly. I honestly wouldn't know, because a swinging relationship isn't the same thing as poly relationship, so one doesn't inform the other.

There are poly people who swing and also have loving multiple relationships. If a poly person is also a swinger, I'm not going to assume that swinging defines their or my polyamory. It defines their swinging.

All of these can overlap and exist side by side without this idea of one "tainting" the other.

[constlady]

ps as i have said i do understand your fear, and it is of course real and valid. however as long as you have access to high quality and supportive legal assistance i really doubt any court would take your children away from you without real evidence that the children were sufferering in your care, which i assume and trust they are not. unless i am missing something - is there a precedent in your state/area which i don't know about perhaps?


I feel fairly confident that should a court battle arise, I would end up prevailing, given the fact that I do have good resources to draw on and the fact that the kids are safe, happy, healthy and thriving.

That doesn't mean that the battle itself won't do damage, emotionally and financially at the very least.
The children involved really cannot be put through such a tumultuous event again.

Having experienced the reality that the agencies appointed to protect children don't always follow their own rules and that application of the rules and the determinations vary from caseworker to caseworker even within the same agency, I'd prefer not to have to fight the system again.

I also am aware that I do have resources available to me that others in my situation may not and without obtaining legal protection for all, any triumph I may have personally is small consolation to the larger problem.

[CielDuMatin]

I think when people attempt to make the distinctions mutually exclusive then there are problems.

There are poly people who swing and also have loving multiple relationships. If a poly person is also a swinger, I'm not going to assume that swinging defines their or my polyamory. It defines their swinging.
Ah gotcha - so if I understand you correctly you feel that polyamory and swinging are different, but that they are not mutually-exclusive (trying to paraphrase you to make sure I understand) when it comes to how people self-identify and that a person saying that they are poly and swingers is not a contradiction

Is that an accurate paraphrasing of what you are saying? If not, I would like you to help me refine this.

If that is what you are saying then I totally agree with you - I also know some people who have a foot in both worlds. This would be a relief for me, because I really though I was on a completely different page with you and others on here on this issue.

[jasminegld]

If work was done on a generally-accepted definition of poly for the legal rights issues surrounding families, what, in your opinion, is "child-friendly" enough to make it safe for you to still be poly and to have this issue become a non-issue? Or would any definition be good enough?

UUs for Polyamory Awareness defines polyamory as the philosophy and practice of loving or relating intimately to more than one other person at a time with honesty and integrity.

UUPA's definition includes both philosphy and practice, to be inclusive of people who identify as poly but don't currently have multiple partners.

UUPA's definition includes "relating intimately" to be inclusive of people for whom the term "loving" is problematical, such as people in the gray area between polyamory and swinging. If they choose to call themselves poly, that's fine. If they don't, that's fine.

The definition doesn't specifically state "between adults," because teenagers can have poly dating relationships with other teenagers, and 17 year-olds can have poly dating relationships with 18 year olds. Substituting "age-appropriate" doesn't solve it, because we have no consensus on what constitutes "age-appropropriate" age differences among consenting and legal adults. So it becomes entirely too complicated to address all of that in a brief defition that a person can actually remember.

The "honesty and integrity" phrase is intended to cover "adults don't abuse children," as well as "people don't abuse people."

[dakid]

To answer Raven and Ceoli... I guess I thought I had stated my opinion in other threads before but maybe not well enough. I find that the current trend includes sex too much for me, in that it spends far too much time including swinging, friends with benefits types of relationships and open relationships far more than makes me feel comfortable. There is a fine line there, that is true, its just farther to thr sex side than I feel comfortable with. To me the definition of poly includes more loving of many partners in the form of boyfriend/girlfriend/spouse kind of relationships such as our monogamous friends identify. To me there is a coming together of two lives (many in this case) in terms of care of children in some cases but an over all connection of lives. I guess I want people to look at our family and see that rather than who I fuck, in order to make a judgment. I just feel more comfortable in that.Especially in terms of how they see my son being raised.

redpepper i hope you don't me saying this (i respect your views i just don't entirely understand them). why is it that you are uncomfortable about including sex to the extent you describe? you have, it is true, repeatedly said that you don't like this (or words to that effect) but what i am not understanding and am curious about is why.

i could to some extet understand if the state was threatening to remove your child, because of your sexual activities, but i'd like to seperate any fear you may around that from your general discomfort with the thought that someone somewhere might think you are having more sex, or sex in different contexts, to that which you are having.

i hope i am right in thinking that there is no current threat to your custody of your son, and that this is highly unlikely in the future.

would you mind helping me to understand this by explaining further along the lines i have described?

thank you

x

[Ceoli]

While people may have a foot in both worlds, it doesn't necessarily follow that both worlds have a clear divide. As was alluded to before, there are differing definitions of what constitutes a loving relationship, some are more conservative than others.

However, I don't think diversity within a larger definition taints it. I think assumptions do.

[dakid]

re - the questions about swinging/polyamory. for me it is fairly simple.

swingers self-identify as swingers and as i understand it do not experience the emotion of love for the people they swing with.

people who have polyamorous relationships/are polyamorous identify as such and do experience the emotion of love for their sexual and/or romantic partners.

i feel sexual and/or romantic love for multiple people at one time, i'm honest and open about this, and i identify as polyamorous/identify my relationships as polyamorous therefore i am and they are.

sadly it seems to me others in my supposed poly community feel ashamed or uncomfortable about potentially being linked to me and my kind in the minds of others. that for them is apparently more important than mutual understanding and community building between polyamorous identifying people. while i try to understand and strive to be forgiving it is nonetheless sad for me that they feel this way.

x

[dakid]

I feel fairly confident that should a court battle arise, I would end up prevailing, given the fact that I do have good resources to draw on and the fact that the kids are safe, happy, healthy and thriving.

That doesn't mean that the battle itself won't do damage, emotionally and financially at the very least.
The children involved really cannot be put through such a tumultuous event again.

Having experienced the reality that the agencies appointed to protect children don't always follow their own rules and that application of the rules and the determinations vary from caseworker to caseworker even within the same agency, I'd prefer not to have to fight the system again.

I also am aware that I do have resources available to me that others in my situation may not and without obtaining legal protection for all, any triumph I may have personally is small consolation to the larger problem.

i understand and i apologise for forgetting momentarily about the lack of public funding for legal representation in the united states. here i was able to access advice and representation at no cost to myself.

i also understand and agree strongly with your desire to protect the children from such stressful situations.

above all i salute your final paragraph, and hope that soon we as a community can unite as a community, and with other threatened communities, to defend ourselves from state interference in our private lives. what i mean is that we need to get together and fight for our right to have whatever sex and/or love lives we choose without the risk of children being taken from us where we are providing good care to those children.

i think we are tactically more likely to acheive this in unity, rather than trying to evict certain types of people/behaviour from our community. we cannot and never will be able to 100% control use of the word polyamorous whether or not we would want to. therefore our only hope, in terms of protecting our children and ourselves, is to defend our rights to a sex life of whatever kind we choose, provided it is based on informed consent.

until we have the right to be as kinky and as slutty as we want, even for those who don't want it, the rest of us will never be free from the risk of incorrect accusations.

i cannot thank you enough constlady for your willingness to respond to my words with patience and clarity.

x

[Ceoli]

I guess what it comes down to is that things don't have to look or even be entirely alike to have things in common. The definitions are only speaking to the elements that these things have in common. In the case of polyamory, love and multiple relationships. It does not specifically exclude the things that we don't have in common (the weight of sex vs love, the nature of how the love manifests) for a good reason. Because then it would also start excluding the things that they do have in common. It's a great way to specifically exclude people from a community.

[CielDuMatin]

OK, then I am confused again, and could use your help to sort this out, Ceoli.

That's interesting because non-monogamy by definition includes swinging and polyamory doesn't.

While people may have a foot in both worlds, it doesn't necessarily follow that both worlds have a clear divide.

To me, the first statement says to me that you believe that polyamory does not include swinging - a clear divide - 'one thing does not include another by definition', and the second that there is no clear divide. I am obviously missing something in my understanding of this.

[Edit to add:]
I guess what it comes down to is that things don't have to look or even be entirely alike to have things in common. The definitions are only speaking to the elements that these things have in common. In the case of polyamory, love and multiple relationships. It does not specifically exclude the things that we don't have in common (the weight of sex vs love, the nature of how the love manifests) for a good reason. Because then it would also start excluding the things that they do have in common. It's a great way to specifically exclude people from a community.See, this makes a ton of sense to me - the distinction between saying "I'm not you and that's fine that we have differences and things in common" and "I am not you which makes us have nothing in common" - we should be looking for more things that we have in common between the various subcultures, rather than focusing on the differences.

[jasminegld]

What I'd like to see in terms of legislation at this point in time is simple.
Any agency charged with determining the suitability of a particular home for children should not be basing their recommendation in any way on the parent/guardian's sex life, unless of course that sex life includes abuse of the children, which to my way of thinking is a totally separate issue.

It is my understanding that this is already the professional standard for licensed social workers. Now, whether an individual social worker adheres to the standard is a different question.

More importantly, the recommendation of the social worker is ONLY a recommendation. The decision is made by the family court judge, to whom the social workers' professional standards don't apply.

If we want to turn things around, we need out polys giving presentations to the next generation of lawyers and judges in law school classes, as well as to the next generation of social workers.

[Ceoli]

The divide isn't clear because one person may consider themselves in a poly relationship and another person may view that relationship as swinging.

People have a tendency to assign their own values to the definitions and then look at how other people manifest that definition through their own lens of values.

We've seen that in these forums when some people think that only a commitment over a long time would qualify as a loving relationship where others view the nature of the connection rather than the quantity of time. Both manifestations can exist under the same definition.

For me, it makes more sense to not assign personal values to definitions because they usually try to make such definitions mean more than they actually mean, and the usual purpose of doing so is to exclude certain identities for the sake of conformity.

[dakid]

It is my understanding that this is already the professional standard for licensed social workers. Now, whether an individual social worker adheres to the standard is a different question.

that is interesting. it is certainly the situation here in the UK but i had understood from others than it wasn't in the US. do you know what a US citizen would be able to do should an individual social worker not adhere to that standard? perhaps the folk on this board who seem to believe otherwise are basing that view on individual experiences of individual social workers rather than knowledge of the overall professional standards. it would certainly be interesting to know what a person's rights would be in cases of bad practise and what protection is in place for them.

x

[MonoVCPHG]

i hope i am right in thinking that there is no current threat to your custody of your son, and that this is highly unlikely in the future.

x

While there is perhaps no current threat to Redpepper's son..there is certainly the possibility of that changing based on the ideas and misinterpretations of those around us. And yes, sexual activities beyond the norm can definitely cause a great deal of issue with child protection where we live; especially when those activities are backed up by the concerns and aligations of other family members. Not to say that it could threaten actual custody, but certainly cause tremendous emotional and financial stress, not to mention family disintegration. Not choosing to use a huge umbrella word like polyamory is a safe choice. It's better to speak in clear descriptive terms of each relationship if there is more than yourselves at stake. I think there is more than one person with children on here that feel this way.

I'm fine with people including everything within the word polyamory. I just don't use it anymore except within the community itself.

Peace and love.
Mono

[Ceoli]

It's better to speak in clear descriptive terms of each relationship if there is more than yourselves at stake. I think there is more than one person with children on here that feel this way.

Which is exactly why I find it more productive to challenge the assumptions rather than the word that the assumptions are attached to.

[Ravenesque]

I guess what it comes down to is that things don't have to look or even be entirely alike to have things in common. The definitions are only speaking to the elements that these things have in common. In the case of polyamory, love and multiple relationships. It does not specifically exclude the things that we don't have in common (the weight of sex vs love, the nature of how the love manifests) for a good reason. Because then it would also start excluding the things that they do have in common. It's a great way to specifically exclude people from a community.

Indeed, therefore polyamory and swinging may not look alike (to some people) yet they may have many things in common. Hence saying they are not mutually exclusive.

It follows with an example I have used of the spectrum in regards to these two communities. You have two extremes. Those who virulently state that polyamory does not have to include sex and those who state that swinging does not have to include love.

However, when you move towards the center of the spectrum, you get the gray area people. Those who see love in swinging and those who sex in polyamory. Then the "differences" that some claim exist, really aren't there for those who inhabit the gray middle and some degrees from the gray middle. Those who inhabit the middle may use terms swinger and polyamorist while their behaviors are nearly indistinguishable from each other.

Separating the two does not speak to the experience of these individuals and proves divisive.

Understanding the above is the antithesis of not focusing on difference. It is in fact embracing difference where others would use difference to divide.

It is much like what occurred in another thread around one member's use of the word fuckbuddy. Another member insisted that the term lover be used. I have seen people describe their relationships and receive the most audacious response of "oh well that's different, you're not really a swinger, you're poly," because the behavior fit their definition of polyamory yet they totally disregard the individual's perspective and assertion that they are a swinger. And vice versa with the "That's not poly. You're a swinger," deigning to give their true definition of another's relationship and giving no value to that person's chosen self identification.

This is what can come from focusing only on the commonalities and not focusing on understanding and reaching across differences.

Blindness. Utter and complete. To anyone else's experience other than oneself.

~Raven~

[dakid]

mono, as i have stated elsewhere on this forum, i have parental responsibility for my niece so this is not just theory for me either.

excluding some people from the poly community, or tightening up definitions of polyamory, is not going to protect anyone from inaccurate accusations.

if someone wants to make a malicious allegation against you they will, regardless of the word(s) you or any other person uses to describe your or their sex and/or love lives.

an unjust system which would judge someone's parenting ability based solely on the sex that person is having (presuming its consensual) needs to be fought against, not the people who are the victims of said prejudice.

not only for ethical reasons, but for the tactical ones i have previously described.

it is in your and your family's best interests that you understand this and get involved in the struggle for us all to have the sex and love lives we choose, and to be allowed to parent well regardless of our sex and love lives.

sorry, edited to add: in my not always very humble opinion!

[MonoVCPHG]

it is in your and your family's best interests that you understand this and get involved in the struggle for us all to have the sex and love lives we choose, and to be allowed to parent well regardless of our sex and love lives.

![/I]

Sorry to disagree my friend, but I think it is better to distance ourselves from the vagueness and large umbrella that certain terms cover. I am no activist but I am trained in other areas to achieve goals. I think tactically as a small unit to protect my own, not in a broader sense of furthering a cause or movement if such a thing exists. From that perspective it is best to simplify and reduce weight or weaknesses to better my position. Therefore I stick to hard and fast definitions and descriptions. Sorry to not be a part of something bigger..not my way.

[MonoVCPHG]

I spoke to Redpepper about my last comment above and she reminded me of one important factor that I should have mentioned. If my actions in trying to protect my own family benefit the community as a whole that that is great! I'm not opposed to working as a group to achieve safety and acceptance for my family, but I do it for my family primarily and not the community.

[dakid]

although of course it doesn't have to be either or.

as i said i believe the best way to protect one's family and loved ones from prejudice and untrue allegations is also what is best for the community.

however if actions you take in the belief that they will protect your family (mistaken in my view but clearly not yours) is divisive and damaging to a community i am part of i will never support you, i am afraid. i fully respect your right to do what you think is for the best, don't get me wrong, but i cannot support you in doing so and will speak up to defend myself and my communities.

x

[dakid]

redpepper i hope you don't me saying this (i respect your views i just don't entirely understand them). why is it that you are uncomfortable about including sex to the extent you describe? you have, it is true, repeatedly said that you don't like this (or words to that effect) but what i am not understanding and am curious about is why.

i could to some extet understand if the state was threatening to remove your child, because of your sexual activities, but i'd like to seperate any fear you may around that from your general discomfort with the thought that someone somewhere might think you are having more sex, or sex in different contexts, to that which you are having.

i hope i am right in thinking that there is no current threat to your custody of your son, and that this is highly unlikely in the future.

would you mind helping me to understand this by explaining further along the lines i have described?

thank you

x

redpepper and mono, i'd also like to ask - is it that you don't think or want certain behaviours to be part of poly because you don't yourselves approve of those behaviours, or only because you think it is the best tactic to protect your family? is it both? or just the second?

x

[Ceoli]

From that perspective it is best to simplify and reduce weight or weaknesses to better my position. Therefore I stick to hard and fast definitions and descriptions.

But rejecting a word because of the connotations and prejudices attached to the word isn't sticking hard and fast to the definition of the word. It sounds like you're choosing to stick to the descriptions instead of the word in order not to be associated with the prejudices that others may attach to the word.

The only trouble is that by rejecting the word as such, it can appear to other poly people that you hold the same prejudices about people who are poly that that others may hold when they attach such prejudices to the word. This probably isn't the case, but it can come across that way.

[MonoVCPHG]

i fully respect your right to do what you think is for the best, don't get me wrong, but i cannot support you in doing so and will speak up to defend myself and my communities.

x

Don't get me wrong Dakid. I won't attack or try to shape things to fit my needs. That would never be my intention.
I simply won't identify with those that don't further my cause. What's yours is yours and what's mine is mine sort of thing. No hostility, just disassociation with certain terminologies if that is what is deemed necessary.

[MonoVCPHG]

The only trouble is that by rejecting the word as such, it can appear to other poly people that you hold the same prejudices about people who are poly that that others may hold when they attach such prejudices to the word. This probably isn't the case, but it can come across that way.

I totally see your point Ceoli and I agree with you. It certainly could come a cross as that. To say that I don't have some prejudices that I struggle with daily would be a bold faced lie...but I am working on that.

I could say exactly what other people want me too just to make it easy on myself but that would promote no growth in myself, nor would it challenge others to better their arguments and method of communicating. By recognizing my own areas for development I might be able to help others bridge a gap with their own.

[dakid]

no worries mono. but do you think this only based on a perceived tactical advantage or also because you yourself disapprove of "promiscuous" behaviour?

i am genuinely intrigued.

x

[dakid]

I totally see your point Ceoli and I agree with you. It certainly could come a cross as that. To say that I don't have some prejudices that I struggle with daily would be a bold faced lie...but I am working on that.

I could say exactly what other people want me too just to make it easy on myself but that would promote no growth in myself, nor would it challenge others to better their arguments and method of communicating. By recognizing my own areas for development I might be able to help others bridge a gap with their own.

perhaps you just answered my question? if so full respect for your honesty.

x

[dakid]

Don't get me wrong Dakid. I won't attack or try to shape things to fit my needs. That would never be my intention.
I simply won't identify with those that don't further my cause. What's yours is yours and what's mine is mine sort of thing. No hostility, just disassociation with certain terminologies if that is what is deemed necessary.

i just hope that attitude will ensure that you are never tempted to tell others that their practises are "not poly", and that you will stick you the concept "whats yours is yours" as you say - what others describe as poly is true for them its just not how you practise poly yourself. a valid and understandable distinction for you to make, as long as it contains acknowledgement that their poly is also poly.

i thank you for sharing your thoughts so openly and honestly.

x

[Ceoli]

I totally see your point Ceoli and I agree with you. It certainly could come a cross as that. To say that I don't have some prejudices that I struggle with daily would be a bold faced lie...but I am working on that.

I could say exactly what other people want me too just to make it easy on myself but that would promote no growth in myself, nor would it challenge others to better their arguments and method of communicating. By recognizing my own areas for development I might be able to help others bridge a gap with their own.

I just wonder how holding prejudices about other people's expression of poly that are the same prejudices that you hope others don't hold against you and your family helps to prevent the prejudice from affecting your family.

[MonoVCPHG]

perhaps you just answered my question? if so full respect for your honesty.

x

Sadly, I do admit to having prejudices and a tendency to judge. I am working on this because I truly understand that what others do does not affect what I have or do.

I have a tendency to look at a situation and put myself into it which usually results in a big "not in this fucking lifetime".

For some reason I can look at a single person who plays the field or dates multiple people and totally get it. It is when the word amory or love is woven in with this activity that I slip into judgment. Clearly I have an issue with differing ideas of the word "love" and the depth it implies. But this is my issue...I own it and will deal with it. It is not something directed at specific people but at concepts and general practices. Again...my issue, my burden.

I just wonder how holding prejudices about other people's expression of poly that are the same prejudices that you hope others don't hold against you and your family helps to prevent the prejudice from affecting your family.

The only way I see is to not claim to be anything but in a multi-partner relationship. I gave too much information out in the past and it lead to judgment that took a long time to dispel.

I don't expect everyone to get over all prejudices. For those (including myself in some areas) it will just be a case of keeping their mouth shut.

[NeonKaos]

i just hope that attitude will ensure that you are never tempted to tell others that their practises are "not poly", and that you will stick you the concept "whats yours is yours" as you say - what others describe as poly is true for them its just not how you practise poly yourself. a valid and understandable distinction for you to make, as long as it contains acknowledgement that their poly is also poly.




If he doesn't acknowledge it, does it make their poly any LESS poly than his poly?

It seems as though if you know yourself, you don't need to have others acknowledge that sort of thing. If I needed someone else to validate a label I gave myself, then I'd ask myself if that thing is really part of me or am I just trying to impress or shock people?

[MonoVCPHG]

i just hope that attitude will ensure that you are never tempted to tell others that their practises are "not poly",
x

There are cases where I will say this. If some one wants to call affairs poly I will call it. If some one uses the term poly to coerce a partner into letting them fuck around I will call it. Poly has a basic standard of honesty and respect for all involved that I recognize. But for the most part I will keep quiet...I'll will really really try:)

[dakid]

you mean secret affairs i presume? as in cheating? because over here we talk about (love) affairs without necessarily meaning that at all.

x

[redpepper]

But rejecting a word because of the connotations and prejudices attached to the word isn't sticking hard and fast to the definition of the word. It sounds like you're choosing to stick to the descriptions instead of the word in order not to be associated with the prejudices that others may attach to the word.

The only trouble is that by rejecting the word as such, it can appear to other poly people that you hold the same prejudices about people who are poly that that others may hold when they attach such prejudices to the word. This probably isn't the case, but it can come across that way.

I feel I am stuck between a rock and a hard place at the moment with all this. Perhaps it is better if I don't talk about it on here. Maybe, but I am hoping that by doing so there will be some understanding between everyone, possibly at my expense. So be it I guess.

I'm sorry if I come across as attaching prejudice to the word polyamorous. That is not my attempt. I am simply stuck with the yucky task of trying to be more mainstream in terms of my extended family. I am finding that in order to protect my family I need to adopt some mainstream version for ourselves that is acceptable to my family in order to make sure they don't attempt to have my son removed. I don't like this at all. It makes me feel sick sometimes, but it is necessary in terms of making sure what we have is safe. I feel very threatened by some of my family members who think I am fucking people randomly in front of my son. They think I talk about sex all the time and that we are invovlved in some kind of cult I'm sure. One such as religious polygamists. They already object to the music my son listens to, his clothes, what he likes to do. What he says in terms of his beliefs that we have taught him. Beliefs he has chosen for himself I might add, not that we have made him have. They see all of it as a sign that we are fucking with his head. That our lifestyle is bad for him. That is very dangerous to me.

If anyone has read the thread Mono started during our coming out time this past August you would know further why I feel threatened. It is a real threat. Not something I made up. I am sometimes shocked and horrified at how real it is. My instinct as a mother says, fuck all of you, my bond with my son is threatened. I can tell you now, no mother will now to anyone when their childs safety is threatened. It may seem that way, but, just between you and me, I am pretending and playing mainstream in order to protect my son. I would do ANYTHING including destroying a term I believe in to do that. The term/word/definition of poly means nothing to me where he is concerned. If I can use it and make it so others coming up behind me can use it as a respectable word in the eyes of society , I will do so.

Its not the same when a child is involved in polyamorous relationships . If I didn't have one I would gladly add sexual expression definitions to the definition of poly. I do feel here and in my community that they are worthy of including but I was hoping to rely on a non-sexual definition of poly in terms of presentation in my world and larger community. There is no other definition that takes sex out of its definition that I know of, other than multi-partners I guess or non-monogamy. The word monogamy doesn't have the same sex presence as poly does it seems. At least using a term that has that in it makes it somehow more acceptable to use with relatives. We all know, I think, that when we talk about monogamy, we are talking about relationship and sex. I struggle to see any definition out there that is floating around in mainstream culture that sees poly the same way and I think because it "is" an umbrella term rather than falling under the umbrella of non-monogamy. Correct me if I am wrong and please please let me know if there is anything that will "make" poly look more like a connection based relationship style rather than "this person is fucking that person and that person at the same time."

I'm not a reader unfortunately, this forum is sometimes more than my dyslexic brain can handle, so I'm not up on all the books people talk about on here personally. I rely on other people who's opinion I respect to tell me when there are good ones to read and pass on to my parents. I have given them info from on-line sources and gave them "love without limits," it has done nothing and I think may of added fuel to their fire. I thought I might try "pagan poly" or "poly pagan" or something, I will have to ask my friend again for the name, to see if that will help them understand. My mum is up on her pagan stuff although she is a christain.

If anyone reads back to before we came out you will see that I used to include other sexual expressions in my definition of poly. Its only because of this recent situation that I feel forced to find a different definition.

I don't know... It is all very desperate for me. This week is a big week in poly history in terms of the interveners coming together to incorporate (? I think that is what I understood they were doing, becoming a orginization of some kind so as to act as a body that is recognizable in court). A/The definition of poly will be made out of this and I am anxious to see what that will be. I don't know what will happen after, but it will bring interesting times for anyone that identifies as poly. For me it will mean the difference between getting invovled or not in terms of joining the cause to change the polygamy laws in Canada (or is it just in BC?). It may make a difference to any of us who have kids that need protecting.

[Ravenesque]

If he doesn't acknowledge it, does it make their poly any LESS poly than his poly?

It seems as though if you know yourself, you don't need to have others acknowledge that sort of thing. If I needed someone else to validate a label I gave myself, then I'd ask myself if that thing is really part of me or am I just trying to impress or shock people?

This is true but the one thing I do recognize is that those who hold the mindset that the shape and form my relationships take is somehow wrong, could take that to the governmental level and use government to hurt me with laws that put me and my loved at a disadvantage or subject to scrutiny in order to my life miserable no matter what life choice I decide to make. Adding to what the mainstream does already.

The concept of losing children because one's family is not seen as the norm is nothing new. The majority of the children within the foster care system are children of color. Ridiculously disproportionate in states like Arizona where the majority is overwhelmingly white. This has not stopped families of color from keeping their own traditions of what a family should be and how they should function.

redpepper, I understand. I understand the terror you are feeling and I feel... well I can't quite express what I feel at the raw-ness of what you just expressed to us here.

But don't you think we, we who see polyamory in the different ways that we do, that even so, do you not think that we'd want to help you? That we'd go to bat for you. Seek to protect you. That we'd support you. Don't you think it hurts us to see someone who loves similarly to how we love persecuted in this manner? It is like reaching out in love, yes in love and being told "no we don't want to be associated with you because it would taint us in the eyes of those who don't remotely believe what we're doing is right, in the eyes of those who would hurt us." Separating yourself from others within the poly community hurts more on this basis and then how are we able to help each other then. Divided and weakened. No help to each other and easily dismissed by mainstream.

~Raven~

[NeonKaos]

This is true but the one thing I do recognize is that those who hold the mindset that the shape and form my relationships take is somehow wrong, could take that to the governmental level and use government to hurt me with laws that put me and my loved at a disadvantage or subject to scrutiny in order to my life miserable no matter what life choice I decide to make. Adding to what the mainstream does already.




They shouldn't discriminate against swingers or people with fuck-buddies either.

Perhaps they should discriminate against people with fuck-buddies ONLY if you don't "love" your fuck-buddy.

[Ceoli]

Redpepper, I do get where you're coming from and appreciate that you need to make decisions to protect your family just as all of us have to do the same.

All I was saying is that the sex part is just an assumed part of the definition, that's all. It's a prejudicial view that polyamory is all about the sex. The thing is, regardless of the definition of the word, people are going to make those judgements. Rejecting the word doesn't prevent the judgements. That's why communication and explanation hold a lot more weight than which label is chosen. And you've been very clear and great about doing that. But rejecting labels can sometimes have the opposite of the intended effect in that it legitimizes the prejudice rather than addresses it. That's all I was getting at.

[redpepper]

This is true but the one thing I do recognize is that those who hold the mindset that the shape and form my relationships take is somehow wrong, could take that to the governmental level and use government to hurt me with laws that put me and my loved at a disadvantage or subject to scrutiny in order to my life miserable no matter what life choice I decide to make. Adding to what the mainstream does already.

The concept of losing children because one's family is not seen as the norm is nothing new. The majority of the children within the foster care system are children of color. Ridiculously disproportionate in states like Arizona where the majority is overwhelmingly white. This has not stopped families of color from keeping their own traditions of what a family should be and how they should function.

redpepper, I understand. I understand the terror you are feeling and I feel... well I can't quite express what I feel at the raw-ness of what you just expressed to us here.

But don't you think we, we who see polyamory in the different ways that we do, that even so, do you not think that we'd want to help you? That we'd go to bat for you. Seek to protect you. That we'd support you. Don't you think it hurts us to see someone who loves similarly to how we love persecuted in this manner? It is like reaching out in love, yes in love and being told "no we don't want to be associated with you because it would taint us in the eyes of those who don't remotely believe what we're doing is right, in the eyes of those who would hurt us." Separating yourself from others within the poly community hurts more on this basis and then how are we able to help each other then. Divided and weakened. No help to each other and easily dismissed by mainstream.

~Raven~
I agree raven which is why I wanted to be invovled monthes ago in interveneing. I just didn't have time. There are some really amazing poly people invovled that are fully aware of the definition debate, I am sure they will do their best to represent everyone. I have to trust that right now.

Please be patient. I am finding my feet within all this along with realizing that my own BLOOD is a threat. I have never experienced this before and we are definitely working towards establishing ourselves so that we can fight back if need be. I can PM you with those details as I don't feel comfortable posting them, but until that happens I am unable to accept and trust others to the extent that I would want them to help. Its a pride thing and a time for me to pull my family together. Just incase.
I can tell you this my friend, when we get organized and we find out about what will happen in court I will be fighting tooth and nail if it means our protection and others including those who live poly differently. I would welcome any help then. Until then, please let me quietly prepare. I will use the term for poly that will protect us until I feel safe.

[MonoVCPHG]

you mean secret affairs i presume? as in cheating? because over here we talk about (love) affairs without necessarily meaning that at all.

x

Secret affairs..yes. The kind I was involved in that hurt and humiliate the unknown partners.

[redpepper]

Redpepper, I do get where you're coming from and appreciate that you need to make decisions to protect your family just as all of us have to do the same.

All I was saying is that the sex part is just an assumed part of the definition, that's all. It's a prejudicial view that polyamory is all about the sex. The thing is, regardless of the definition of the word, people are going to make those judgements. Rejecting the word doesn't prevent the judgements. That's why communication and explanation hold a lot more weight than which label is chosen. And you've been very clear and great about doing that. But rejecting labels can sometimes have the opposite of the intended effect in that it legitimizes the prejudice rather than addresses it. That's all I was getting at.

Yes I see what you mean and agree. Thanks for pointing that out. I totally get where you are coming from.

[Ravenesque]

They shouldn't discriminate against swingers or people with fuck-buddies either.

Perhaps they should discriminate against people with fuck-buddies ONLY if you don't "love" your fuck-buddy.

Don't think that I don't know where you're going with that. I don't know if you're playing devil's advocate or being serious but I do agree with the point. Trust me.

And I've made it several times. I was involved in a discussion where the most disdainful, conservative and sex-negative arguments were being made as to why swingers should be excluded and why swingers would not find resources among polyamorists. Again it is a matter of moralizing polyamory above other forms of non-monogamy. *makes grabby hands* "Oooh, swingers are the big bad. They're gonna come and try to fuck you when you don't want them to. While you're sleeping dear god *wails* while... you're... sleeping... Protect your children. Protect your ass. It will be Armageddon! Ahhh!!"

I find nothing wrong with someone fucking someone else for whatever reason, whether it is one fuck or several fuckings over time. Recreational fucking or fucking only within one set of guidelines. If they assert no emotional attachment *shrugs* I'd advocate sexual safety. I'd also advocate that they have the same rights as others. And I do think it could be a legitimate part of someone's polyamorous style. As it could be a part of someone's swinger style. It could be a part of someone's style in BDSM. Whatever.

Redpepper, I do get where you're coming from and appreciate that you need to make decisions to protect your family just as all of us have to do the same.

All I was saying is that the sex part is just an assumed part of the definition, that's all. It's a prejudicial view that polyamory is all about the sex. The thing is, regardless of the definition of the word, people are going to make those judgements. Rejecting the word doesn't prevent the judgements. That's why communication and explanation hold a lot more weight than which label is chosen. And you've been very clear and great about doing that. But rejecting labels can sometimes have the opposite of the intended effect in that it legitimizes the prejudice rather than addresses it. That's all I was getting at.

A prejudicial view of polyamory which houses a prejudiced view of sex. Sex = negative unless it be purified by the cleansing waters of love. Because love (what is love again? Someone bring me a definition :rolleyes:) is the reason having sex would not be some dirty rank thing. Sex-negative.

I agree raven which is why I wanted to be invovled monthes ago in interveneing. I just didn't have time. There are some really amazing poly people invovled that are fully aware of the definition debate, I am sure they will do their best to represent everyone. I have to trust that right now.

Please be patient. I am finding my feet within all this along with realizing that my own BLOOD is a threat. I have never experienced this before and we are definitely working towards establishing ourselves so that we can fight back if need be. I can PM you with those details as I don't feel comfortable posting them, but until that happens I am unable to accept and trust others to the extent that I would want them to help. Its a pride thing and a time for me to pull my family together. Just incase.
I can tell you this my friend, when we get organized and we find out about what will happen in court I will be fighting tooth and nail if it means our protection and others including those who live poly differently. I would welcome any help then. Until then, please let me quietly prepare. I will use the term for poly that will protect us until I feel safe.

I would not tell you what you choose to do to protect your family is right or wrong. It is down to what feels right for you.

I just do not connect with an "every human for themselves" point of view and I don't ever suppose I will. I see myself as apart of the world. Interconnected. My actions affect others and their actions affect me. I got teary reading your post and I feel sad that that is the path you feel forced to take.

It seems to come down to a decision of whether it's worth it to protect some people at the expense of others.

~Raven~

[LovingRadiance]

Which definition are you finding you cannot embrace? And why does this definition including your lifestyle choice as well as others make you feel you cannot embrace it?
~Raven~
I think the part I find hard (I know I'm not RP-I've been following this thread with great intrique) is the lack of coherency. I don't care one way or another WHAT the definition is-I find the lack of clarity more frustrating then I can handle...
I guess most of all what I'd like to see is a clear understanding and agreement as to what the heck we mean when we use (ANY) word. I find it very confusing and disconcerting trying to talk to anyone when I'm unsure if we actually have similar understandings of the terms we are using.
Primarily because the biggest issue in my marriage has been that we (Maca and I) do not share the same definitions for the major (and not major) key words in relationships-which has led to MUCH heartache and unnecessary strife.

Thank you for your words dakid. Though the areas in which we live may be very different, it does give some hope that each case may be judged on its own merits.

That said, it is still a very real fear. And while I agree that removing the prejudices surrounding alternative lifestyles is the long term goal, once again my reality is that I and my grandchildren can't wait for that to occur.

Changing minds and hearts and removing prejudices is a generational task.
Very few people open up to changing their core beliefs (no matter how illogical they may be) by being confronted and challenged in a manner which puts them on the defensive. Once most people feel attacked, their response is to put up defenses which rarely allow for even the most logical of arguments to be truly heard.

I believe that as human beings we are far more alike than we are different.
But I also believe that the way to achieve meeting the mainstream half way isn't by pointing out the most different members of our community and trying to show how similar they are but by pointing out the most similar members and then expanding outward.

At this moment in time, it's a matter of what works in this existing world, not what the ideal world would look like to me. In my ideal world, no one would actually care how anyone else loved, other than as perhaps a way to expand their own horizons.
Working towards creating that is a long term goal; working towards protecting those who love differently than the current norm until the ideal is achieved is the short term goal.
It may take different tactics to reach both goals.

Someone else mentioned research into children raised in polyfamilies, hopefully to garner support for the idea that there is no inherent detriment to them. My understanding is that such research is currently beginning, though I'd have to dig through another site to remember the details.
It is a known issue among people who are poly activists - we need to have the research to back us up when we take on the status quo.

What I'd like to see in terms of legislation at this point in time is simple.
Any agency charged with determining the suitability of a particular home for children should not be basing their recommendation in any way on the parent/guardian's sex life, unless of course that sex life includes abuse of the children, which to my way of thinking is a totally separate issue.

I find this very well spoken and so far fitting much with my thoughts.
Where I live there are no "poly groups". There is very little knowledge of the word even. In fact having extra adults in a home (regardless of how they are identified) has been a BIG issue in custody battles here because of "appearance" causing the children "undo duress" in their public lives. While I personally find that eyerolling-I also am fully aware of the HIGH risk since "our" kids aren't "all ours"... AND they have other family members who already DO have issues with our life-and none of them KNOW we are poly!


if only the united states government could be persuaded of the merits of these rights.

SECOND. THIRD. FOURTH.
And all other countries as well!!


Judge a family based on the individual environment, rather than based on a set of keywords. Does the family environment provide a good one for kids to grow up in or not?

If this was across the board that would be awesome. But the other thing to understand here is that just because laws are changed-which would be AWESOME-that doesn't solve the problem either, because the truth is judges aren't machines-they are people with prejudices of their own and this DOES impact their decisions (something I've seen first hand MANY times).


If there can be an asshole monogamous person, there can be an asshole polyamorous person.


For me the difference is that I wouldn't identify an asshole as amorous anything-polyamorous, monoamorous. They are just an asshole. It's kind of like the word (no offense intended here) nigger. It doesn't mean "black" it means ignorant. If someone IS a "nigger" it makes NO difference if they appear black, white, green, red, yellow etc.
Well an asshole may be ACTIVELY in a mono or poly relationship-but I wouldn't identify their person as anything but an asshole...

(not in anyway being derogatory fyi-just sharing my thought process)

I feel fairly confident that should a court battle arise, I would end up prevailing, given the fact that I do have good resources to draw on and the fact that the kids are safe, happy, healthy and thriving.

That doesn't mean that the battle itself won't do damage, emotionally and financially at the very least.
The children involved really cannot be put through such a tumultuous event again.

Having experienced the reality that the agencies appointed to protect children don't always follow their own rules and that application of the rules and the determinations vary from caseworker to caseworker even within the same agency, I'd prefer not to have to fight the system again.


Exactly. My stepson is already in full time psychological care because of the damage caused by 10 years of court battles between his parents. Honestly-if court paperwork were brought up in regards to my younger children-I would leave (illegally) with them and "disappear". Its simply not worth it to them to go through that b.s. again.

UUs for Polyamory Awareness defines polyamory as the philosophy and practice of loving or relating intimately to more than one other person at a time with honesty and integrity.

UUPA's definition includes both philosphy and practice, to be inclusive of people who identify as poly but don't currently have multiple partners.

UUPA's definition includes "relating intimately" to be inclusive of people for whom the term "loving" is problematical, such as people in the gray area between polyamory and swinging. If they choose to call themselves poly, that's fine. If they don't, that's fine.

The definition doesn't specifically state "between adults," because teenagers can have poly dating relationships with other teenagers, and 17 year-olds can have poly dating relationships with 18 year olds. Substituting "age-appropriate" doesn't solve it, because we have no consensus on what constitutes "age-appropropriate" age differences among consenting and legal adults. So it becomes entirely too complicated to address all of that in a brief defition that a person can actually remember.

The "honesty and integrity" phrase is intended to cover "adults don't abuse children," as well as "people don't abuse people."

I think that's cool the way it's defined-but can you tell me what UU and UUPA stands for? (sorry if this was already addressed elsewhere, I have been out of the loop for a bit now)

why is it that you are uncomfortable about including sex to the extent you describe?
i hope i am right in thinking that there is no current threat to your custody of your son, and that this is highly unlikely in the future.
I'm not RP, but would like to say-I find that my sex life need not be a part of discussion publicly in regards to my relationships-and sort of feel like the definition of a word used to define my relationships shouldn't include so much sex in its definition...
Not that it should specifically limit what sexual practices a person with that type of relationship can have, but that it not be addressed.
(fyi-I realize some of my current thoughts are in contradiction to thoughts I had expressed only a week or two ago-I have been thinking a LOT on this during my surgery and recovery while reading everyone's posts and am continuing to clarify things and change them around in my head).

It is my understanding that this is already the professional standard for licensed social workers. Now, whether an individual social worker adheres to the standard is a different question.

More importantly, the recommendation of the social worker is ONLY a recommendation. The decision is made by the family court judge, to whom the social workers' professional standards don't apply.

If we want to turn things around, we need out polys giving presentations to the next generation of lawyers and judges in law school classes, as well as to the next generation of social workers.

[LovingRadiance]

Repeat of what I said before-these are people who make these decisions and like all people-they have their own prejudices and issues. Hell we still have men fighting against the prejudices that say children should always be with the mother in custodial court-God forbid one of those men be poly also-damn near to a guarantee loss for them at that point.
I do agree that out-poly's need to be educating the judges, lawyers, social workers, psychologists etc. But how do we put that into effect?

that is interesting. it is certainly the situation here in the UK but i had understood from others than it wasn't in the US. do you know what a US citizen would be able to do should an individual social worker not adhere to that standard? perhaps the folk on this board who seem to believe otherwise are basing that view on individual experiences of individual social workers rather than knowledge of the overall professional standards. it would certainly be interesting to know what a person's rights would be in cases of bad practise and what protection is in place for them.

You can keep going back to court as often as you want-on your own dime if you don't like the decision. BUT you can't easily get a new judge. In custody situations the judge decides if there is cause for a new judge to take over the case. You can ask-but they can choose to deny (happens a lot).
Also-you can request a new social worker to do the case IF you live in an area where there are enough for that to happen. Where I live-there are only two who deal with custodial stuff like that.... and they are friends. Not much hope there. You can hire a private custody investigator on your own dime, but again-the judge CAN (and often do) choose not to take the CI's suggestions-most often to the detriment of the family.
There really isn't any GOOD protection in place.
Our state laws say that the goal is to keep the child in the home of the bio-parent (even so far as if the bioparent does drug rehab and has 10 days clean they can regain the children). But this doesn't actually help in most cases-because the most common cases are between two bio-parents. There is no preference STATED for that-though it seems to favor the woman most commonly-and it's my understanding from volunteer work in this field-that our state is the most liberal in custody decisions and most OFTEN rules in favor of the father-but the fathers still are the minority overall here.
In our case (stepson)we would be dealing with another bio-parent who is single. So no help there.
As for the baby-it would be grandparents-no real risk of losing the child-but high risk of drama, stress, loss of money and general upheaval for the WHOLE family if they started shit-and as I've said-they've already seriously considered it.
While there is perhaps no current threat to Redpepper's son..there is certainly the possibility of that changing based on the ideas and misinterpretations of those around us.

Ditto. I was under that same impression with RP's son, and the same is true in our case.


if someone wants to make a malicious allegation against you they will, regardless of the word(s) you or any other person uses to describe your or their sex and/or love lives.
This may be true in theory-but not always in reality. In fact in regards to our parents-they love and adore their grandchildren. In general they have no reason, and would not choose to take us to court to remove those children from our care. HOWEVER-if they at any point were to come to the belief that our lifestyle was in anyway endangering their beloved grandchildren-they would immediately take action in court to remove the children from our care-which is basically where things stand with RP. Her parents love their grandchild-and they FEAR what they don't believe is the Unknown-because they believe they DO KNOW that these "risky behaviors" are occuring to their grandchild-because they don't understand what "polyamory" means in their daughters life and therefore-in their love and desire to protect their grandchild from harm their is GREAT risk of them making moves that they would not NORMALLY take against their child on behalf of that child and his welfare.
What is "reasonable risk" for a person to take on their own-is simply NOT reasonable risk when a child is included. Therefore as parents who practice poly-we have a greater risk. We aren't only exposing OURSELVES-but also innocent children who have not choosen to be poly (or mono) at this time. Our FIRST job is to protect them and their interests-promoting a lifestyle right comes somewhere down the list of responsibilities.

As someone else said-a LONG TERM goal is to change the dynamic to allow for no prejudice. But short term-we have to work within the TRUTH of the society we are in.
I would LOVE to fight for the rights of ALL KINDS of people. But if doing so puts my child at risk-I can't do so. They don't deserve to have their lives torn apart for my choices. When they are old enough to make their own choices-then I regain the freedom to fight those battles...

redpepper and mono, i'd also like to ask - is it that you don't think or want certain behaviours to be part of poly because you don't yourselves approve of those behaviours, or only because you think it is the best tactic to protect your family? is it both? or just the second?


Again-not Mono-or RP. But for me, it's a matter of facing reality when protecting my children. I don't (think I've said this before) care much how the word gets defined-but would like it defined clearly enough for the random mono people to understand it-so I can say "yes that describes us" or "no it doesn't".

Sadly, I do admit to having prejudices and a tendency to judge. I am working on this because I truly understand that what others do does not affect what I have or do.

The only way I see is to not claim to be anything but in a multi-partner relationship.

I don't expect everyone to get over all prejudices. For those (including myself in some areas) it will just be a case of keeping their mouth shut.

If only more people would keep their mouths shut. :) That would be awesome. In the meantime-we all have prejudices we have to work to find them inside of ourselves and then eradicate them. But this is an ongoing effort-not a "getting it all done today" thing. :)

[QUOTE=redpepper;18485]I feel I am stuck between a rock and a hard place at the moment with all this. Perhaps it is better if I don't talk about it on here. Maybe, but I am hoping that by doing so there will be some understanding between everyone, possibly at my expense. So be it I guess.
Hopefully not at your expense. Hopefully to everyone's clearer understanding and deeper thoughtfulness.

My instinct as a mother says, fuck all of you, my bond with my son is threatened. I can tell you now, no mother will now to anyone when their childs safety is threatened. It may seem that way, but, just between you and me, I am pretending and playing mainstream in order to protect my son. I would do ANYTHING including destroying a term I believe in to do that. The term/word/definition of poly means nothing to me where he is concerned. If I can use it and make it so others coming up behind me can use it as a respectable word in the eyes of society , I will do so.
Very reasonably so. I think it makes perfect sense. "mama bears" don't ask questions-they simply protect. That's what they are designed to do. Don't feel guilty about that.

Its not the same when a child is involved in polyamorous relationships . No, no its not. It's not the same in ANY dynamic when child is involved. There are MANY activities that people participate in EVERY DAY in societies the world over that are JUST FINE when a child is not involved. But when a child is involved it requires a bit more "fine tuning". I think this is part of what we are running up against. Example-it's ok to have a drink in your own home with or without children present. Not ok to have a drunken kegger with children present. Likewise it's ok to have a poly relationship that has positive impact on children (like having a third who cares for the child as their own) but when you have a number of random people coming through a revolving door-well that's not going to fly so well as it increases the risks for the child exponentially.


Please be patient. I am finding my feet within all this along with realizing that my own BLOOD is a threat. I have never experienced this before and we are definitely working towards establishing ourselves so that we can fight back if need be. I can PM you with those details as I don't feel comfortable posting them, but until that happens I am unable to accept and trust others to the extent that I would want them to help. Its a pride thing and a time for me to pull my family together. Just incase.
I can tell you this my friend, when we get organized and we find out about what will happen in court I will be fighting tooth and nail if it means our protection and others including those who live poly differently. I would welcome any help then. Until then, please let me quietly prepare. I will use the term for poly that will protect us until I feel safe.

There are many who will happily back you (and ourselves) when the time comes. Even from a distance RP. I hope you know that you aren't alone in your fight. I KNOW it feels like it (because it so often does for me as well) but you aren't alone and you won't be alone. The "silent" and "invisible" friends are here and happy to do all that we can to support you, be it appearing in person or just sending a small email or text that says "we're thinking of you and we love you".
XO

[Ravenesque]

I would LOVE to fight for the rights of ALL KINDS of people. But if doing so puts my child at risk-I can't do so. They don't deserve to have their lives torn apart for my choices. When they are old enough to make their own choices-then I regain the freedom to fight those battles...

This puts me in mind of this:

"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me."

I imagine the children might not fare too well when they got around to the last line of the above.

~Raven~

[lovefromgirl]

Ah, but when it comes to rights, the right to love multiple people is somewhere closer to "communist" -- it's the one people ditch first. Oh, no, they say, we don't want the right to marry more than one person. We just want to get married like you do, heteromonogamous folks!

So we're already not being spoken for. Looks like we'll have to speak for ourselves.

[LovingRadiance]

This puts me in mind of this:

"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me."

I imagine the children might not fare too well when they got around to the last line of the above.

~Raven~
I can see how you could make that connection-though the people who know me personally would be lost in its reference to me.
I'm very much one to speak out-and when it was just me and my oldest daughter (whose entire extended family backed me up and were no threat to me) I spoke out ENDLESSLY on ALL SORTS of things that had no "personal bearing" in my life.

So much so that when I married-and continued to do so, she ended up living out of state for a year (for her own protection) because my husbands exwife tried to kidnap her, took me to court (several times) for made up abuses against her son, tried to take my daughter (10 years old at the time) to court for made up abuses of her son etc. The courts simply didn't care about my daughters well-being. Their ONLY priority was investigating this drug-addicts accusations with no concern for how their methodology impacted my child.

When multiple psychologists and psychiatrists started writing the courts to demand that my stepson no longer be "drug through this torment" of his mothers devising-the courts ignored them as well. They continued to force the child to suffer all sorts of horrors in the name of "rehabilitating" his mother and helping him return to her home (he never had been in HER home to begin with but that was arbitrary).

When my stepson attempted to murder my youngest son (yes literally) and was put incare at age FOUR for his attempt and continued to swear that YES he did intend to kill his younger brother and claimed that his mother WANTED him to so his father would go back to her and care for her-the courts continued to go against the psychiatrists advice and put him in her care off and on (3days on 4 days off) until he finally broke down so badly that he now remains in care with no contact from her BY HIS OWN DEMAND (at age 13) as HE has figured out that the courts won't intervene on his behalf or that of his siblings.

So-do I still speak out-yes, I do. But I do so in a way that doesn't name ME as poly-doesn't name ME as bi in circles where the risk would be to my children.

I wear my rainbows, I associate with the gay/bi community openly (there isn't a poly community in our town) and I remain outspoken against the prejudices. But that is completely different then going out and saying "I'm poly and you can fuck off." knowing that my children's families may drag me (and therefore my children) through more torment and court b.s. that could in turn lead to further psychological damage to my ss as well as psychologically damaging my two younger children.

When they are grown-sure no problem. I'll happily go on tv live and say "yeah dumb asses-I raised these three beautiful, well adjusted, intelligent, well rounded, friendly, caring, natural leader children in a poly relationship. Not only was it successful, it was a HUGE BENEFIT to these children as well."
(I specify 3 because the 4th is as I said-not here to be raised, he's in care).

Until then-the kids come first-and frankly-no amount of love and support for the fight from other minorities is going to protect them from the pain and abuse they will recieve if I call everyone out on the topic.

[LovingRadiance]

I should add too-the children already do depend only on one. That one is me. The oldest 2 have already "seen it all" when it comes to custodial court and I can assure you-no one was there for them-but me. Not one judge, not one custody investigator, no one.

Ironically for my daughter-her father and I settled amicably with no court-so all of the pain and torment she got-was from my husbands ex-wife dragging us endlessly through court on false allegations.

At this point-there is no one there to fight for the kids-and hasn't been in a long long time if ever.

SO-I guess if someone REALLY wanted to motivate a HUGE change-the minority we should be fighting to "bring on board" would be the divorced, unmarried or single parents who suffer and watch their children suffer at our f'd up courts discretion daily. Because if we all united behind the children (our own, those of friends or family or just children in general)-instead of behind our myriad sex practices, we'd be a MUCH bigger group and accomplish EVEN MORE then we can by trying to unite under a vague umbrella term meaning we fuck more than one person.

[constlady]

Perhaps I should add that I am openly living my life, I'm completely out to my family, friends and coworkers, I belong to many polyamorous groups, including national associations involved in activism, have given an interview and allowed photos to be taken that identified me as a polyamorous woman.

I'm a firm believer in working to affect the changes in society to reach those long term goals, while doing what I need to do to attain the shorter term goals and the immediate goal of protecting the children in my care.

I do this knowing the risk, believing that I am lucky enough to be better equipped than many others who are in my situation to fight the battle if needed - I have the resources, the network, the connections and the knowledge of the system that it takes to survives such a battle intact, if wounded.

That doesn't mean I want to engage in such a battle because I do know the cost would be far higher to the kids than it is to me, even if we end up "winning".
It's a very fine line to walk and I've been lucky to maintain my balance for this long.

And I certainly understand and empathize with the choice to stay out of the fray; during the time that I was actively dealing with getting the children out of the Department of Social Services' custody, I too stepped back from my activism. There was simply too much at risk.
And now that I have legal custody, there simply is no time! :)

I truly believe that these kids will feel happy to have been provided a safe, sane, stable, healthy and loving home far more than they will wish I had fought harder for an ideological cause, possibly at their expense.

[LovingRadiance]

Perhaps I should add that I am openly living my life, I'm completely out to my family, friends and coworkers, I belong to many polyamorous groups, including national associations involved in activism, have given an interview and allowed photos to be taken that identified me as a polyamorous woman.

I truly believe that these kids will feel happy to have been provided a safe, sane, stable, healthy and loving home far more than they will wish I had fought harder for an ideological cause, possibly at their expense.

:)

I hear you. I am also "out" with my entire family, Maca's family and all of our friends and "chosen family" (not sexual chosen-just chosen). We're not secretive about GG living with us-but we don't share with Maca's co-workers that he is also my boyfriend. So who we choose to be "secretive" with is limited to Maca's coworkers, his exwife and GG's family (who he isn't involved with due to their issues with our baby's custody anyway).

I am very vocal about rights and equality for everyone. I just don't share with THOSE people that I am one of those "everyone's"..

[StitchwitchD]

SO-I guess if someone REALLY wanted to motivate a HUGE change-the minority we should be fighting to "bring on board" would be the divorced, unmarried or single parents who suffer and watch their children suffer at our f'd up courts discretion daily. Because if we all united behind the children (our own, those of friends or family or just children in general)-instead of behind our myriad sex practices, we'd be a MUCH bigger group and accomplish EVEN MORE then we can by trying to unite under a vague umbrella term meaning we fuck more than one person.

Very true. I know way more than I ever wanted to know about how broken our child protection/foster care system is in this country, and I feel like parents basically surrender all right to privacy from the day their first child is conceived until the last child turns 18.

Mandatory reporters have to report anything that they suspect might be child abuse or neglect, and CPS is required to investigate all of those reports, as well as any from anonymous tip lines, which could be well-meaning but misinformed, or could be someone with a vendetta lying to use CPS as a weapon in a personal conflict (seriously- my ex reported all my local friends to CPS in the months after I filed for divorce, and CPS had to take his claims of people having orgies in front of foster children seriously and do a thorough investigation.)

Combine this with the fact that we're in a recession, and actual child abuse goes up when parents are stressed out by money problems, and actual child neglect goes up when families can't afford to provide for their children's basic needs, and you have social workers who are overworked and have to make snap decisions based on too little information, frequently more their impression of people than any real facts. So, there's been cases where they decided that the child was safe in the home because the house was really clean, and didn't notice that the child was malnourished until it came up on the autopsy after the child was murdered, and there's been other times where families were torn apart because they were some combination of poor, non-white, and didn't keep their house clean enough to pass inspection 24/7.

But the people who know how CPS works enough to have a problem with it have too much to risk to make much of a stink about it, so most Americans still believe that as long as you aren't doing anything wrong, there's nothing to fear from CPS.

Oh, looking around I found a link to an agency that fights to defend sexual privacy rights. (http://www.ncsfreedom.org/index.php)

[redpepper]

This puts me in mind of this:

"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me."

I imagine the children might not fare too well when they got around to the last line of the above.

~Raven~

Why did I think someone would bring this up?

The thing is that it's all a fine line. This is a very powerful quote from somewhere that I have seen a million times before and is certainly words to live by, but it simplifies too much for me sometimes. I live by it, but I also remember that life is sometimes like sneaking out for a smoke while I should be in class at highschool. Sure, I did that and got away with it and all the while thought, "fuck you, I can smoke when I want to smoke." there is no need to be in peoples faces about what I do in my private life all the time. I come on here to do that.... I don't have tea with my mum and do that.

In the grown up world this "sneaking" type of learned behavior has become very helpful. Believe me I learned it well from my parents... that is what obedient child rearing does to a child. This is why I believe we are a culture of sneaking around (cheating, steeling, not being honest and open) because we continue to raise children to obey rather than decide for themselves and become self sufficient and independent. I have managed to hide from my parents and others quite successfully in order to pursue what I value in my life, which is my freedom of choice. This whole thing for me is no different.

Because my mother accused Mono of molesting my child we had to come out and tell her what he was doing in our lives, thinking this was going to help. It turned out that it made things worse and she made it so we had to go to a professional to have him checked out. I can tell you I was devastated by this on many levels; my pride at raising an amazing son who is safe and cared for and loved more than many other kids I know, the fact that my mum could distort our reality so badly that she could cause Mono to lose his job (they both work in the same "company"), the fact that she could be so blinded by her version of what is "right" so as to not see properly what was going on is shocking to me still.....(I have felt her wrath before but this was the worst yet) am I going to sit there and give her a blast of poly 101 and all its ins and outs around sex, no! I'm going to shrink away and protect myself and my family, gain strength and do the things I need to do to separate myself from her. Figure out strategies, figure out her game, lick my wounds.... to me it's like a war.

I am also going to be that kid at high school who sneaks out for a smoke too. All the while fighting for what I value and what I believe to be true, that we are entitled to fuck who we want in any way we want and to develop meaningful and deep relationships with whomever we chose. There is nothing sex-negative about that or anti poly word...that has everything to do with staying afloat and keeping from triggering others.... do you really believe that I have had time to sit around and debate within myself the ins and outs of not identifying with poly so as to not offend others in the community? No I haven't had time.... again, I am sorry for this, I realize at some point that will change and I will have time, but for now I am a work in progress as we all are and I will get to it.

[Ceoli]

[B]A prejudicial view of polyamory which houses a prejudiced view of sex. Sex = negative unless it be purified by the cleansing waters of love. Because love (what is love again? Someone bring me a definition :rolleyes:) is the reason having sex would not be some dirty rank thing. Sex-negative.

A very good point and thank you for catching that. I suppose I was layering my battles there and am now examining how to address the intersection of prejudice and sex negativity.

[LovingRadiance]

Very true. I know way more than I ever wanted to know about how broken our child protection/foster care system is in this country, and I feel like parents basically surrender all right to privacy from the day their first child is conceived until the last child turns 18.

Mandatory reporters have to report anything that they suspect might be child abuse or neglect, and CPS is required to investigate all of those reports, as well as any from anonymous tip lines, which could be well-meaning but misinformed, or could be someone with a vendetta lying to use CPS as a weapon in a personal conflict (seriously- my ex reported all my local friends to CPS in the months after I filed for divorce, and CPS had to take his claims of people having orgies in front of foster children seriously and do a thorough investigation.)

Combine this with the fact that we're in a recession, and actual child abuse goes up when parents are stressed out by money problems, and actual child neglect goes up when families can't afford to provide for their children's basic needs, and you have social workers who are overworked and have to make snap decisions based on too little information, frequently more their impression of people than any real facts. So, there's been cases where they decided that the child was safe in the home because the house was really clean, and didn't notice that the child was malnourished until it came up on the autopsy after the child was murdered, and there's been other times where families were torn apart because they were some combination of poor, non-white, and didn't keep their house clean enough to pass inspection 24/7.

But the people who know how CPS works enough to have a problem with it have too much to risk to make much of a stink about it, so most Americans still believe that as long as you aren't doing anything wrong, there's nothing to fear from CPS.

Oh, looking around I found a link to an agency that fights to defend sexual privacy rights. (http://www.ncsfreedom.org/index.php)

You hit that nail on the head several times over! I'd be interested in any concrete ideas for what we can (as people) start doing to make changes in this. Unfortunately it won't be a quick fix-but the more information we can share the sooner we can make changes become realities instead of dreams!

I'm going to check out that link! :)

[LovingRadiance]

In the grown up world this "sneaking" type of learned behavior has become very helpful. Believe me I learned it well from my parents... that is what obedient child rearing does to a child. This is why I believe we are a culture of sneaking around (cheating, steeling, not being honest and open) because we continue to raise children to obey rather than decide for themselves and become self sufficient and independent. I have managed to hide from my parents and others quite successfully in order to pursue what I value in my life, which is my freedom of choice. This whole thing for me is no different.

Because my mother accused Mono of molesting my child we had to come out and tell her what he was doing in our lives, thinking this was going to help. It turned out that it made things worse and she made it so we had to go to a professional to have him checked out. I can tell you I was devastated by this on many levels; my pride at raising an amazing son who is safe and cared for and loved more than many other kids I know, the fact that my mum could distort our reality so badly that she could cause Mono to lose his job (they both work in the same "company"), the fact that she could be so blinded by her version of what is "right" so as to not see properly what was going on is shocking to me still.....(I have felt her wrath before but this was the worst yet) am I going to sit there and give her a blast of poly 101 and all its ins and outs around sex, no! I'm going to shrink away and protect myself and my family, gain strength and do the things I need to do to separate myself from her. Figure out strategies, figure out her game, lick my wounds.... to me it's like a war.

I am also going to be that kid at high school who sneaks out for a smoke too. All the while fighting for what I value and what I believe to be true, that we are entitled to fuck who we want in any way we want and to develop meaningful and deep relationships with whomever we chose. There is nothing sex-negative about that or anti poly word...that has everything to do with staying afloat and keeping from triggering others.... do you really believe that I have had time to sit around and debate within myself the ins and outs of not identifying with poly so as to not offend others in the community? No I haven't had time.... again, I am sorry for this, I realize at some point that will change and I will have time, but for now I am a work in progress as we all are and I will get to it.

Great parents like you and I are teaching our children to be independent thinkers-in time it will "take over" and the world will be amazed that we were "ahead of the game" so to speak in this. Don't get discouraged-we'll create an amazing generation!

It's not "like war" honey-it IS war. It's war for the safety of a child first. THEN the safety and security of a man (mono in your case). THEN the rights of the minority. Trying to do it in any other order-well it's not parenting.

It's ok, and I think even good for people who ARE NOT in the position of having to protect a child to "carry the battle" so to speak while those who must protect the children. Children are children for a finite amount of time, however the need to eradicte prejudice will be around for an infinite amount of time.

It's enough that parents put their all into raising right minded, independent, intelligent, thoughtful and unprejudiced children. Because those children will be carrying quite the load towards eradication of these prejudices and judgments and f'd up laws as they mature.

[redpepper]

It's ok, and I think even good for people who ARE NOT in the position of having to protect a child to "carry the battle" so to speak while those who must protect the children. Children are children for a finite amount of time, however the need to eradicate prejudice will be around for an infinite amount of time.

It's enough that parents put their all into raising right minded, independent, intelligent, thoughtful and unprejudiced children. Because those children will be carrying quite the load towards eradication of these prejudices and judgments and f'd up laws as they mature.

So I went on a run, I kicked some things, yelled at the ocean and had a deep hard cry and came back realizing just this LR... thank you.

I will do my best to intervene with other poly folk around here in the hopes of making the law better for my boy and other kids/families. Being identified as a polygamous religious follower is making it illegal to ever live with Mono or have any ceremony to make our bond sacred to us. My boy can be taken away for that reason and my mother will be on the front line when they come to get him, wheeling that law above her head... that is worth fighting against in my humble opinion. I can't see any other choice I have.

I'm sorry that it may mean that the meaning of polyamory is skewed for others, but hopefully it will mean that those that chose to identify with it can also identify with swinging, open relationships... whatever, as well. I don't think it means that will be taken away. I once identified as a polyamorist in an open relationship looking for a poly relationship and doing some swinging on the side. Maybe this is just where it will end up, I don't know.

[redpepper]

A very good point and thank you for catching that. I suppose I was layering my battles there and am now examining how to address the intersection of prejudice and sex negativity.

New thread? :)

[redpepper]

Perhaps I should add that I am openly living my life, I'm completely out to my family, friends and coworkers, I belong to many polyamorous groups, including national associations involved in activism, have given an interview and allowed photos to be taken that identified me as a polyamorous woman.

I'm a firm believer in working to affect the changes in society to reach those long term goals, while doing what I need to do to attain the shorter term goals and the immediate goal of protecting the children in my care.

I do this knowing the risk, believing that I am lucky enough to be better equipped than many others who are in my situation to fight the battle if needed - I have the resources, the network, the connections and the knowledge of the system that it takes to survives such a battle intact, if wounded.

That doesn't mean I want to engage in such a battle because I do know the cost would be far higher to the kids than it is to me, even if we end up "winning".
It's a very fine line to walk and I've been lucky to maintain my balance for this long.

And I certainly understand and empathize with the choice to stay out of the fray; during the time that I was actively dealing with getting the children out of the Department of Social Services' custody, I too stepped back from my activism. There was simply too much at risk.
And now that I have legal custody, there simply is no time! :)

I truly believe that these kids will feel happy to have been provided a safe, sane, stable, healthy and loving home far more than they will wish I had fought harder for an ideological cause, possibly at their expense.

thanks for this constlady. I am hope filled reading this. I know I am at the beginning of a long haul possibly and I need to make sure it is put on my shoulders, not my boys... hopefully he will be blissfully unaware and will still get to see his grand parents by the end of it. It's all timing and playing the game right. At least I haven't had to fight to get him back! What a journey you have been on... I admire your strength. I can't imagine what that must of been like other than that I burst into tears at the mere thought of being separated from my child. I love him more than my own life. Certainly more than anyone else.

[redpepper]

Very true. I know way more than I ever wanted to know about how broken our child protection/foster care system is in this country, and I feel like parents basically surrender all right to privacy from the day their first child is conceived until the last child turns 18.

Mandatory reporters have to report anything that they suspect might be child abuse or neglect, and CPS is required to investigate all of those reports, as well as any from anonymous tip lines, which could be well-meaning but misinformed, or could be someone with a vendetta lying to use CPS as a weapon in a personal conflict (seriously- my ex reported all my local friends to CPS in the months after I filed for divorce, and CPS had to take his claims of people having orgies in front of foster children seriously and do a thorough investigation.)

Combine this with the fact that we're in a recession, and actual child abuse goes up when parents are stressed out by money problems, and actual child neglect goes up when families can't afford to provide for their children's basic needs, and you have social workers who are overworked and have to make snap decisions based on too little information, frequently more their impression of people than any real facts. So, there's been cases where they decided that the child was safe in the home because the house was really clean, and didn't notice that the child was malnourished until it came up on the autopsy after the child was murdered, and there's been other times where families were torn apart because they were some combination of poor, non-white, and didn't keep their house clean enough to pass inspection 24/7.

But the people who know how CPS works enough to have a problem with it have too much to risk to make much of a stink about it, so most Americans still believe that as long as you aren't doing anything wrong, there's nothing to fear from CPS.

Oh, looking around I found a link to an agency that fights to defend sexual privacy rights. (http://www.ncsfreedom.org/index.php)

thanks for this also stitchwitch, the same goes here I'm afraid. I deal with social workers everyday and although the clientele is different it opperates similarly.

Once families are in the system, it is near impossible to get out even when the next generation is having kids. The cycle continues. There is really no real place to get help other than to rely on community and get over our own stuff. The system does nothing but keep people down it seems. Especially when kids are involved.

My mum is doing a masters in social work and believes so strongly that she will save the world through social work....save her grandson. It's all magical thinking. But it sure can destroy families.

[Ravenesque]

A very good point and thank you for catching that. I suppose I was layering my battles there and am now examining how to address the intersection of prejudice and sex negativity.

You're right to. It's part of the base if not the base of the difference in how many are perceiving and using the term polyamory here. I think of sex positively. Others here either see sex negatively or have decided to accept mainstream sex-negativity.

It's been admitted here that some are willing to cut sex out of polyamory if it will put them in a positive or favorable light for their would be persecutors. They do this to save their children. Others have qualified this decision as being "good" parents. I don't qualify it as positive or the makings of a good parent. It is simply what it is. A choice made.

It's not a decision I would make.

An oversight when it comes to that poem which has been made by nearly everyone I've read so far is this: when they come for you, having cut yourself off from those who would have supported you, or having offered them up first, who will protect the children then? The persecutors?

Change has never happened quietly or by acquiescing to oppression. Any identity that you can put ahead of "rights" has had battles whether they were battles of philosophy or battles where blood ran in the streets. Some speak of ideals here with such contempt all while hiding from the reality. Clinging to *gasp* an ideal that if you just keep your heads down and not associate with "those people," not draw too much attention to yourselves, it will be ok. Patting each other on the back as if modeling that behavior is showing children independence and how to stand up for their rights as people.

Members of the queer community stood up one year and said fuck this shit. Women did the same. People of color did the same. People the world over have done the same. They stood up and said "this is who we are and it is not who you are but we are human. We demand equal rights."

But hey perhaps I am not acknowledging something. Many here run from even the term "oppression" because they're not used to it. They are taught that oppressed people are to blame for their own oppression as though they existed in a vacuum with a phantom oppressor. Similar to the mentality that a raped woman was to blame for her rape. They are taught this view or they are simply taught to ignore oppression, it's source and how it effects others. Unlike many, they have inhabited the proverbial normative center for most of their lives, are used to privilege in most aspects of their lives and see no reason why they should care about oppression. Bleeding hearts just end up bloody. Too much trouble and mess. Why not go the easy path in the rare instance where oppression does touch their lives and "pass." Passing is not new. It's been done by many within oppressed groups. Pass for white. Pass for straight. Pass for normal. Pass for someone who agrees with normative values.

The ones who choose to pass are not usually the ones instrumental in bringing the changes that end up benefiting them and allowing them to stop pretending.

~Raven~

[ImaginaryIllusion]

They do this to save their children. Others have qualified this decision as being "good" parents. I don't qualify it as positive or the makings of a good parent. It is simply what it is. A choice made.

It's not a decision I would make.


I'd suggest those without children go back and re-examine this line of thought if and when you have children. You might find the decisions you will be willing to make will be drastically different that those made as a non-parent/guardian.

[Ceoli]

I'd suggest those without children go back and re-examine this line of thought if and when you have children. You might find the decisions you will be willing to make will be drastically different that those made as a non-parent/guardian.

I have to call this out because this line of thought often sits beneath a lot of misunderstandings. People who don't have children are perfectly capable of understanding the implications, obligations and challenges having a child brings to any dynamic. We may not understand what the actual experience feels like, but we can certainly get a good idea.

I've had poly friends raise their children in open sex positive environments while directly addressing the prejudice attached to such. I've had poly friends raise their children in such a way as to protect themselves and their children from such prejudices. Both choices are valid and both choices carry their own consequence.

But really, it's a bit insulting to to be told in effect "You can't possibly understand because you don't have kids". The subtext of that, whether intended or not, is "Your opinion is not valid in this area".

I've worked closely with children for most of my professional life and I've had that line dropped on me more than once when a parent disagreed with me on something. It's fair enough to disagree and and since it's their kid, I respect that. But respect the fact that not having kids does not automatically mean ignorance of all the issues that go along with having them.

[Ravenesque]

I'd suggest those without children go back and re-examine this line of thought if and when you have children. You might find the decisions you will be willing to make will be drastically different that those made as a non-parent/guardian.

I love a "suggestion" like this. The assumption that I would make the same decisions as the ones stated here in the same situation therefore I should re-examine my current stance is an argument lacking any sort of logic and ignoring a myriad of variables. It is quite an arrogant view to think everyone would act like you in the same situation.

Just taking a gander at the women in my family and the history and approach to dealing with adversity... I think not.



I have to call this out because this line of thought often sits beneath a lot of misunderstandings. People who don't have children are perfectly capable of understanding the implications, obligations and challenges having a child brings to any dynamic. We may not understand what the actual experience feels like, but we can certainly get a good idea.

I've had poly friends raise their children in open sex positive environments while directly addressing the prejudice attached to such. I've had poly friends raise their children in such a way as to protect themselves and their children from such prejudices. Both choices are valid and both choices carry their own consequence.

But really, it's a bit insulting to to be told in effect "You can't possibly understand because you don't have kids". The subtext of that, whether intended or not, is "Your opinion is not valid in this area".

I've worked closely with children for most of my professional life and I've had that line dropped on me more than once when a parent disagreed with me on something. It's fair enough to disagree and and since it's their kid, I respect that. But respect the fact that not having kids does not automatically mean ignorance of all the issues that go along with having them.

Thank you. Some might be grateful I didn't say it was a "bad" decision. :eek: Oooh. :rolleyes:

And imagine the assumptions being made in regards to the role children play in my life and my family's life. Amazing really.

~Raven~

[MonoVCPHG]

As some of you know there is a move a foot by a group in Vancouver BC to challenge Canada’s anti Polygamy law .
I believe it is this week that the issue comes before court.

A call for intervenors was put out with clear requirements:

“Qualifications of an Intervenor

If you are a Canadian Resident:
1) currently living with multiple partners in a conjugal (marital or marital-like) relationships, or
2) have engaged in polyamorous relationships either in the past or currently AND have a desire to live with multiple partners in a conjugal (marital or marital-like) relationships in the future
then we ask you to email us.
While we are interested in hearing from ALL people who fit the above criteria, we are especially interested in having at least one female in a MFF (male-female-female) grouping.”

So in this case, based on the qualifications desired, the face of polyamory has been somewhat chosen. I would assume the courts will ask for a definition of what polyamory is and it will need to be specific but I could be wrong. In that case it will be the submission of this group that potentially could establish the meaning of the word throughout our courts and country.

So, there is the possibility that at least from a legal sense, polyamory could get its official definition in Canada soon. I believe this would be the first court recognized legal definition of polyamory in the world if it is put forth?

[Ravenesque]

As some of you know there is a move a foot by a group in Vancouver BC to challenge Canada’s anti Polygamy law .
I believe it is this week that the issue comes before court.

A call for intervenors was put out with clear requirements:

“Qualifications of an Intervenor

If you are a Canadian Resident:
1) currently living with multiple partners in a conjugal (marital or marital-like) relationships, or
2) have engaged in polyamorous relationships either in the past or currently AND have a desire to live with multiple partners in a conjugal (marital or marital-like) relationships in the future
then we ask you to email us.
While we are interested in hearing from ALL people who fit the above criteria, we are especially interested in having at least one female in a MFF (male-female-female) grouping.”

So in this case, based on the qualifications desired, the face of polyamory has been somewhat chosen. I would assume the courts will ask for a definition of what polyamory is and it will need to be specific but I could be wrong. In that case it will be the submission of this group that potentially could establish the meaning of the word throughout our courts and country.

So, there is the possibility that at least from a legal sense, polyamory could get its official definition in Canada soon. I believe this would be the first court recognized legal definition of polyamory in the world if it is put forth?

I did not see anything in your quote about establishing a definition. A politically active group is seeking Intervenors and they defined what that was, adding a preference as to the type of relationships involved. The preference is also heterosexually biased. They will be representing many poly people in the fight against the anti-polygamy laws which is a positive. But unless they are taking a sample from every form of polyamorous relationship, I don't see how their actions could establish a legal definition which reflected polyamorists without a skew in any one direction.

~Raven~

[MonoVCPHG]

I did not see anything in your quote about establishing a definition. A politically active group is seeking Intervenors and they defined what that was, adding a preference as to the type of relationships involved. The preference is also heterosexually biased. They will be representing many poly people in the fight against the anti-polygamy laws which is a positive. But unless they are taking a sample from every form of polyamorous relationship, I don't see how their actions could establish a legal definition which reflected polyamorists without a skew in any one direction.

~Raven~

There is behind the scenes stuff occuring (including a possible definition) that everyone will be kept up on as new info comes in, Raven. I simply don't have the info for you right.

[CielDuMatin]

The preference is also heterosexually biased.I did not see anything in the quoted text or any of the articles I have seen to imply that it is heterosexually biased. They talk about "marriage-like" (which in my mind would include same sex, given my understanding of the laws in Canada), and say that they would like at least one MFF configuration.

What have you seen to make you feel that this is hetero-biased?

But unless they are taking a sample from every form of polyamorous relationship, I don't see how their actions could establish a legal definition which reflected polyamorists without a skew in any one direction.I think that would be very very hard to do, since everyone does poly differently (and should) - how do you split the poly community into representative groups in order to pick a sample from every form of polyamorous relationship? Who decides how those groupings should be laid-out? Doesn't defining those groups cause an automatic skewing or over-classification?

[GroundedSpirit]

It seems to me that somewhat of a division is forming here which if you think about it, is detrimental to what the commonalities are that are shared.
Being a veteran of a few campaigns of activism myself I would only like to remind everyone that all the soldiers are equally important and have a role to play.
We need the bold and brave, willing and capable of standing on the front line and taking the hits. Making all the noise. Creating important distractions. But no less do we need those in a position to "walk softly and carry a big stick". To operate quietly from the inside, pulling out the supporting pins and planting the timed charges.
For the two different groups to be belittling each other, potentially affecting unity, only comes from a place of ego.
Everyone remember we're all on the same team and encourage each other to do all they can when they can. All efforts in the long run are equally important.

:)

GS

[CielDuMatin]

For the two different groups to be belittling each other, potentially affecting unity, only comes from a place of ego.
Everyone remember we're all on the same team and encourage each other to do all they can when they can.Very well-said, GS. On my way back from my morning dental appointment (yup., start the day off on a high note, I know!) I was thinking along these same lines. I have some ideas and will start a new thread on it, rather than taking this one off in another different direction....

[MonoVCPHG]

Everyone remember we're all on the same team and encourage each other to do all they can when they can. All efforts in the long run are equally important.

:)

GS


Good points by everyone....I need to get back to working on and sharing the day to day aspects of my realtionship as that is where I am in life. Definitions and legal issues, while important, are not my primary concern. Finding ways to continue growing is. Setting an example and opening minds by doing is my contribution.

Peace and Love
Mono

[lovefromgirl]

Perhaps -- and this is a guess based on knowledge of polygamous communities here in the US, so it may be completely wrong (fancy that!) -- perhaps the request for female intervenors living in an MFF(FFFFFFF... etc) configuration might be to show that such an arrangement is possible, by choice, without being inherently abusive, and that the problems seen in the aforesaid polygamous communities stem from the people involved, not the mere presence of multiple wives.

[LovingRadiance]

An oversight when it comes to that poem which has been made by nearly everyone I've read so far is this: when they come for you, having cut yourself off from those who would have supported you, or having offered them up first, who will protect the children then? The persecutors?

Change has never happened quietly or by acquiescing to oppression. Any identity that you can put ahead of "rights" has had battles whether they were battles of philosophy or battles where blood ran in the streets. Some speak of ideals here with such contempt all while hiding from the reality. Clinging to *gasp* an ideal that if you just keep your heads down and not associate with "those people," not draw too much attention to yourselves, it will be ok. Patting each other on the back as if modeling that behavior is showing children independence and how to stand up for their rights as people.

Members of the queer community stood up one year and said fuck this shit. Women did the same. People of color did the same. People the world over have done the same. They stood up and said "this is who we are and it is not who you are but we are human. We demand equal rights."

The ones who choose to pass are not usually the ones instrumental in bringing the changes that end up benefiting them and allowing them to stop pretending.

~Raven~

Raven-the part here that intriques me is that the three of us who have talked about protecting our children, are also the the same who have pointed out that in our REAL LIFE communities we are SIGNIFICANTLY involved ON HAND in fighting for the rights of the minority-even if we feel we can't pick a name to be our "umbrella" tag word to describe us in order to protect our children.

I'm not saying in any way that you aren't on the right track for you-but the truth is that you don't have a clue what we do or don't do.
One of my CLOSEST friends is a 16/17 year old who just "came out" as gay. I'm not only "privately" behind this young man-I'm up front in people's faces about it. Likewise for the young man who came out at church a few years back (his parents were the pastors). My first sexual experience was with a young man whose older brother was voted "king" of the local gay mens society and the man voted "queen" was a very good friend of my mom's and our family. I am involved in fighting for the rights PUBLICLY of these people and when I was dating a woman (at barely 18 years old) and someone got in her face and managed to get one hit in before I could get between them not only did I fight back, but I took it to court and won.

You seem to presume that because we are fighting against being labeled as something we aren't-that we aren't fighting for anyone-including ourselves. But that is a HUGE (and incorrect) assumption to make, especially when we've said otherwise.

What did I miss that makes it so impossible for you to accept that I don't need to tell the world I'm Polyamorous-in order to tell them I have a husband, boyfriend and sister whom live with me and help me raise my kids
AND
continue to fight for equality publicly and openly across the board for EVERYONE?

[LovingRadiance]

I'd suggest those without children go back and re-examine this line of thought if and when you have children. You might find the decisions you will be willing to make will be drastically different that those made as a non-parent/guardian.

No kidding. It's a whole different ball-game. Hell-it's not even a BALL game anymore. It's more of a juggling game-only you get to juggle burning objects that could kill.

[LovingRadiance]

It seems to me that somewhat of a division is forming here which if you think about it, is detrimental to what the commonalities are that are shared.
Being a veteran of a few campaigns of activism myself I would only like to remind everyone that all the soldiers are equally important and have a role to play.
We need the bold and brave, willing and capable of standing on the front line and taking the hits. Making all the noise. Creating important distractions. But no less do we need those in a position to "walk softly and carry a big stick". To operate quietly from the inside, pulling out the supporting pins and planting the timed charges.
For the two different groups to be belittling each other, potentially affecting unity, only comes from a place of ego.
Everyone remember we're all on the same team and encourage each other to do all they can when they can. All efforts in the long run are equally important.

:)

GS
Thanks GS. I was trying to get that concept across last night when I was posting about the fact that it's enough for a parent to put their time into raising a child to support the battle and when that child is safely grown they can go on to be the "front lines men" as well can those children.

But you said it MUCH MUCH more succinctly than I could. :)

[Ceoli]

I don't think anyone here is expecting everyone to be an activist. However, when people make decisions in which prejudice can be perceived from it, it's perfectly reasonable to address it and get to the bottom of it. That is not belittling any point of view. However, at the risk of repeating myself, assuming that those without children are ignorant of the issues that surround the dynamics of a child does feel belittling.

[Ceoli]

You seem to presume that because we are fighting against being labeled as something we aren't-that we aren't fighting for anyone-including ourselves. But that is a HUGE (and incorrect) assumption to make, especially when we've said otherwise.

I don't think that is the issue. The issue is when people start saying "I don't want to share a label with those people (whoever those people may be) because I don't want what I do to be in any way associated with what they do." In this conversation, those people happen to be regular people who have a different way of practicing their polyamory and who are dealing with lots of prejudice about it from outside and now apparently from inside poly communities. The choice to do that is certainly a valid choice, especially if you're reasons are to protect your rights and family, but it doesn't change the experience of prejudice that is created by such a choice. This is being addressed from the experience of that prejudice, not from some moral high horse of activism.

[LovingRadiance]

I don't think anyone here is expecting everyone to be an activist. However, when people make decisions in which prejudice can be perceived from it, it's perfectly reasonable to address it and get to the bottom of it. That is not belittling any point of view. However, at the risk of repeating myself, assuming that those without children are ignorant of the issues that surround the dynamics of a child does feel belittling.

I hope this comes out right-but if it doesn't-please work with me patiently.

I can comprehend intellectually the way it feels to have my leg amputated, but unless my leg is ACTUALLY amputated-it's only conceptual.
While it's GOOD for me to work on conceptual understanding of things I don't personally experience, it's unfair to those truly suffering the experience and somewhat egotistical for me to tell someone I DO understand what they experience if I in fact haven't ever been through their situation.
EVEN if I have been through having my leg amputated, I STILL don't know exactly what THEY are going through-because I am not them. I don't have their mind, their life experience etc and therefore I don't feel exactly what they feel.

When someone with no children lectures me on my decision making-that to me is belittling. They are assuming that they know what is best in my situation, despite having no experience in my situation.

Further that to someone who doesn't even KNOW me OR my children-and it comes across as highly arrogant and presumptive.

When that is then furthered by them suggesting that I don't do enough in the way of fighting against prejudice simply because I don't personally claim a specified term to describe my situation-that leaves me disgusted.

WHY is it wrong for me to not describe myself as poly if I AM openly letting people know that I DO have a husband and boyfriend, that we DO live together and raise our children together AND I am actively out there fighting against prejudice for ALL groups that I can in our area AND I have openly supported and befriended people in those groups, including transexual, bi, gay, lesbian, black, AK native etc?

I do understand the concept that refusing to take a name as something can promote prejudice. BUT the truth is that taking a name for oneself can do the same. When a person identifies as one thing-they can promote other people's already prejudice views on anything BUT that thing.
(as in "see even so and so is blah blah blah" that proves that anything else is shit")

It is ridiculous to me that there is more focus on making everyone be NAMED the same thing-when we aren't all the same, then focusing on making ALL DIFFERENT PEOPLE under ANY NAME equal...

AND as GS said-a war isn't fought ONLY with Marines who go out in front shooting and screaming to their deaths. There's a lot of war done from behind the scenes.

When I was training to go into the military-I trained to be a sniper.. ironically what I hear in this thread (and across the whole forum recently) is that a sniper is useless. In fact oft times a sniper saves the asses of the troops stomping through the woods noisily behind him/her. Just because the sniper doesn't make as much noise-does NOT minimize their importance NOR does it mean that they aren't 100% involved and taking a huge risk for the war.

There seems to be an attitude on here that if we aren't all Marines, we're the enemy. Besides raising my eyebrow-that offends me as I know it's not true.

That doesn't even touch on the fact that in truth we don't personally know each other-so we can't really say that any one person isnt actually a "marine on special duty".. ...

Geez-and that brings in the whole "special ops" who can't TELL ANYONE who/what/where/when they are! Those guys don't count either? The ones who have to keep a REALLY f'ing low profile in order to infiltrate the "enemy camp" and fight the battle "from the enemy's side" by sending back useful info to the troops????

[LovingRadiance]

I don't think that is the issue. The issue is when people start saying "I don't want to share a label with those people (whoever those people may be) because I don't want what I do to be in any way associated with what they do." In this conversation, those people happen to be regular people who have a different way of practicing their polyamory and who are dealing with lots of prejudice about it from outside and now apparently from inside poly communities. The choice to do that is certainly a valid choice, especially if you're reasons are to protect your rights and family, but it doesn't change the experience of prejudice that is created by such a choice. This is being addressed from the experience of that prejudice, not from some moral high horse of activism.

Ceoli-I guess my issue is this. I'm a woman, but I'm not black.
I'm not going to call myself black. I'm not.

BUT-my daughter IS part white-part Puerto Rican.
She refers to herself as white.
She LOOKS white and she doesn't want any "special treatment" for being technically Puerto Rican.
That doesn't mean she's promoting a prejudice towards Puerto Ricans.
That can't be decided until one actually knows her and how she lives her life.
She's more than happy and willing to actively fight for the rights of "her people". But you couldn't know that if the only thing asked was if she chooses to self-identify as Puerto Rican.

Likewise-I prefer definitive understanding of a word-before using it.

Polyamory-seriously LACKS definitive understanding of it's meaning.
As does CHRISTIAN.
Therefore I don't prefer to use either to self-identify. If I have to explain what I am ANYWAY-I'd rather just do that, instead of prefacing the explanation with a word that my listener doesn't comprehend anyway.

Which-is what I have been saying all along.

I don't care WHAT the meaning is-I just don't wish to self-identify using a term that doesn't HAVE an agreed upon meaning.

How is that promoting prejudice?
If the people who use the word can't say what the hell it functionally means-only conceptually, what use is it anyway?

How is promoting myself as loving two men simultaneously, respectfully and openly in anyway promoting prejudice against someone who identifies as poly (or someone who identifies as mono for that matter?)

[Ceoli]

I can comprehend intellectually the way it feels to have my leg amputated, but unless my leg is ACTUALLY amputated-it's only conceptual.
While it's GOOD for me to work on conceptual understanding of things I don't personally experience, it's unfair to those truly suffering the experience and somewhat egotistical for me to tell someone I DO understand what they experience if I in fact haven't ever been through their situation.
EVEN if I have been through having my leg amputated, I STILL don't know exactly what THEY are going through-because I am not them. I don't have their mind, their life experience etc and therefore I don't feel exactly what they feel.

I specifically said earlier in this thread that I certainly cannot understand the EXPERIENCE of having a child. I was speaking to the issues that surround having a child and the presumption that any of us who are looking at this from outside are ignorant of such issues. It has been repeatedly acknowledged in this thread that having a child to protect when dealing with all these issues is incredibly important. And while it may not be right for you as a parent to be all activist about it, I can certainly point to other parents for whom it was very right to be an activist, as a way to protect their children. But it has been REPEATEDLY said in this that BOTH choices are valid.


When someone with no children lectures me on my decision making-that to me is belittling. They are assuming that they know what is best in my situation, despite having no experience in my situation.

Further that to someone who doesn't even KNOW me OR my children-and it comes across as highly arrogant and presumptive.


I apologize if speaking of the effect that your decisions have on others is lecturing. I don't think anyone was speaking about questioning that what you're doing is best for your children.

I will say, however, that as a teacher who has worked directly with social services in more than a few occasions, there certainly ARE times when a parent needs to be questioned for the sake of the well being of the child. Nobody was suggesting this in any of the cases in this thread.

When that is then furthered by them suggesting that I don't do enough in the way of fighting against prejudice simply because I don't personally claim a specified term to describe my situation-that leaves me disgusted.

WHY is it wrong for me to not describe myself as poly if I AM openly letting people know that I DO have a husband and boyfriend, that we DO live together and raise our children together AND I am actively out there fighting against prejudice for ALL groups that I can in our area AND I have openly supported and befriended people in those groups, including transexual, bi, gay, lesbian, black, AK native etc?

Nobody was suggesting that you HAVE to fight or be activists or even openly use the specific word poly. All I've been addressing is that certain choices (for whatever VALID reasons they are made) further contribute to prejudices that are being experienced by others.


There seems to be an attitude on here that if we aren't all Marines, we're the enemy. Besides raising my eyebrow-that offends me as I know it's not true.

Clearly our viewpoints are causing us to see different attitudes then. I don't see this attitude you describe. I do, however see an attitude that people who choose to be activists or even openly sex-positive are somehow couched in theory and aren't in touch with the day to day realities of having a poly family.

I'm willing to bet neither of these views is actually what's happening.

However, the prejudice is certainly very real. I don't see finding a solution that helps EVERYONE if we continue to either ignore this prejudice or say that prejudice is ok as long as there's a kid to protect.

I honestly don't think people who are choosing not to take up arms are saying prejudice is ok and as I and others have said repeatedly in this thread, it's a VALID CHOICE to not take up arms. But it is completely fair to question the active rejection of other people's poly life by choosing to disassociate and to discuss the prejudice that produces.

[Ceoli]

BUT-my daughter IS part white-part Puerto Rican.
She refers to herself as white.
She LOOKS white and she doesn't want any "special treatment" for being technically Puerto Rican.
That doesn't mean she's promoting a prejudice towards Puerto Ricans.
That can't be decided until one actually knows her and how she lives her life.
She's more than happy and willing to actively fight for the rights of "her people". But you couldn't know that if the only thing asked was if she chooses to self-identify as Puerto Rican.

If she chooses not to self-identify as Puerto Rican because she doesn't feel that identity, then that's definitely a valid choice for her. If she chooses to not identify as Puerto Rican because lots of Puerto Ricans are drug dealers or in gangs and she doesn't want to be seen with that, then I have several Puerto Rican friends that would have something to say about that. (I'm not saying that this is what she's doing, I'm just illustrating the analogy)

Likewise-I prefer definitive understanding of a word-before using it.

Polyamory-seriously LACKS definitive understanding of it's meaning.
As does CHRISTIAN.
Therefore I don't prefer to use either to self-identify. If I have to explain what I am ANYWAY-I'd rather just do that, instead of prefacing the explanation with a word that my listener doesn't comprehend anyway.

Which-is what I have been saying all along.


The thing is, both polyamory and Christianity have pretty clear definitions. We as a society for whatever reason have decided to merge EXAMPLES of the definition with the actual DEFINITION itself. We also seem to think that because lots of people misunderstand the definition, that there isn't a clear one. The same thing happened with the word polygamy. I prefer to dispel the misunderstanding rather than contribute to it by saying that the word doesn't apply to me because of the misunderstandings of the word, not the actual word itself.

The thing is, choosing not to use the specific word ISN'T the issue. It's choosing to take on the same assumptions around that word that most of the non poly world takes on that causes problems for everyone.

Just the other day, someone told me that they couldn't be poly because they're not promiscuous. I spent some time explaining that being promiscuous isn't the definition of what it is to be poly. Sure there could be poly people who are promiscuous and proud of it. (There are lots of monogamous people who are as well). But I won't say that I'm not one of THEM because I'm not promiscuous. I'm just going to say that we both practice it a different way.


I don't care WHAT the meaning is-I just don't wish to self-identify using a term that doesn't HAVE an agreed upon meaning.


I wonder how many words that describe identity truly have an agreed upon meaning across cultures. I'm willing to bet not many. It's just what cultures assume to be behind that. Society has always progressed by dispelling assumptions, not by enabling them.


How is that promoting prejudice?
If the people who use the word can't say what the hell it functionally means-only conceptually, what use is it anyway?

How is promoting myself as loving two men simultaneously, respectfully and openly in anyway promoting prejudice against someone who identifies as poly (or someone who identifies as mono for that matter?)

By saying I love two men in a secure healthy loving relationship but I don't identify as poly because I'm not promiscuous like those poly people (this is just an example) I am promoting the idea that identifying as poly means being promiscuous. In such, I'm actively working against the clear definition that already exists.

[CielDuMatin]

I do, however see an attitude that people who choose to be activists or even openly sex-positive are somehow couched in theory and aren't in touch with the day to day realities of having a poly family.Based on my experiences, I have seen some activists who have a lot of real-world experience, can speak to it and teach others from that. I have also seen others that have no practical experience, are couched in theory and aren't in touch with the day-to-day realities of a poly family. That statement is not a value-judgement in any way.

I don't see any correlation between sex-positivity and experience (or lack thereof). I have seen plenty of the various extremes of those.

There. One data point, based on my limited experience, for what it's worth.

[LovingRadiance]

ceoli-I was responding and my whole system crashed. SOOOOO I'm starting over. :(
Didn't want you to think I ran off pissed or whatever.
(ok-I was pissed-but at the computer, not you!)

[Ceoli]

ceoli-I was responding and my whole system crashed. SOOOOO I'm starting over. :(
Didn't want you to think I ran off pissed or whatever.
(ok-I was pissed-but at the computer, not you!)

That sucks!!

I'll be of pretty soon but will be back later this evening. Looking forward to your response.

[LovingRadiance]

[QUOTE]I specifically said earlier in this thread that I certainly cannot understand the EXPERIENCE of having a child. I was speaking to the issues that surround having a child and the presumption that any of us who are looking at this from outside are ignorant of such issues. It has been repeatedly acknowledged in this thread that having a child to protect when dealing with all these issues is incredibly important. And while it may not be right for you as a parent to be all activist about it, I can certainly point to other parents for whom it was very right to be an activist, as a way to protect their children. But it has been REPEATEDLY said in this that BOTH choices are valid.

The impression I'm getting is that in fact both aren't accepted as valid.
But more then that I get the impression that because I'm prioritizing the safety of my children first-there is an assumption that I am not an activist and that in fact I am "leaving my peers in the dust" along with the implied "threat" that because of this choice-those same peers will leave me hanging when I "need" them.

In truth-I am very active in trying to stop all sorts of prejudice-but I do it with the priority of my children's safety in the forefront, not as a secondary priority...

I apologize if speaking of the effect that your decisions have on others is lecturing. I don't think anyone was speaking about questioning that what you're doing is best for your children.
No I wasn't getting that impression. I was more getting the impression that I am doing it in a way that doesn't take into consideration minimizing damage to others simultaneously. Almost the assumption that I'm not educated or aware of the risks involved to others or don't give a shit about others, when in fact that's not true. (not from you per se either).

I will say, however, that as a teacher who has worked directly with social services in more than a few occasions, there certainly ARE times when a parent needs to be questioned for the sake of the well being of the child. Nobody was suggesting this in any of the cases in this thread.

No argument from this peanut. If social services had beendoing their job worth a crap they would have stepped in for my ss when his mom was wrecking cars (drunk) with him in it, or when she was leaving him in cars at bars, forgetting about him and running off with her dealers. But despite catching this happening-they let it go, "because he had other family who could take him"-even though we couldn't because the court deemed her reasonable for 50/50 custody if social services didn't remove him from her care (rolling eyes)-so yes there are DEFINATELY lots of times they need to step in. I could tell you horror stories of neighbors whose children were tied out to fences and locked in coffins without social services stepping in in spite of reports. :(

Nobody was suggesting that you HAVE to fight or be activists or even openly use the specific word poly. All I've been addressing is that certain choices (for whatever VALID reasons they are made) further contribute to prejudices that are being experienced by others.

My point I suppose is that those choices CAN further contribute to prejudices-but they don't have to. By assuming that they DO, there is an assumption that the person choosing not to use that specific word is actively promoting AVOIDING the word-which I don't do either.
In fact with responsible communication its VERY possible to promote awareness, reduce confusion and reduce prejudice towards people who do use that term as a self-identifier-without ever using that word in the conversation.

Clearly our viewpoints are causing us to see different attitudes then. I don't see this attitude you describe. I do, however see an attitude that people who choose to be activists or even openly sex-positive are somehow couched in theory and aren't in touch with the day to day realities of having a poly family.
I don't think that those two things have anything to do with one another. Someone can be sex-positive or sex-negative and not be in touch with day to day realities of having a poly family.
I think I'm confused about what you mean here...

However, the prejudice is certainly very real. I don't see finding a solution that helps EVERYONE if we continue to either ignore this prejudice or say that prejudice is ok as long as there's a kid to protect.
I agree-but I don't think I ever said anything to even SUGGEST that I thought prejudice was ok as long as there are children to protect. I don't feel that way-I do feel that you can't make fighting prejudice as specific way more important than keeping your child safe. You have to be more creative and imaginitive-so that you can fight prejudice without endangering the child more than necessary. But that doesn't mean not fighting it.

Like a sniper-or like Schindler or like "special forces" who can't share their whereabouts/missions etc who keep a low profile-they often find and bring home the "key's" that allow the front line guys to win the war, or they manage to safely remove endangered people from within the "enemy zone" or they silently, slealthily "knock off" the enemy one person at a time...

I honestly don't think people who are choosing not to take up arms are saying prejudice is ok and as I and others have said repeatedly in this thread, it's a VALID CHOICE to not take up arms. But it is completely fair to question the active rejection of other people's poly life by choosing to disassociate and to discuss the prejudice that produces.
But where have I rejected someone else's poly life?
And how has anything I said produced prejudice against other poly people (or anyone else for that matter)?

If she chooses not to self-identify as Puerto Rican because she doesn't feel that identity, then that's definitely a valid choice for her. If she chooses to not identify as Puerto Rican because lots of Puerto Ricans are drug dealers or in gangs and she doesn't want to be seen with that, then I have several Puerto Rican friends that would have something to say about that. (I'm not saying that this is what she's doing, I'm just illustrating the analogy)It's not my impression that either of those (or the points they serve to illustrate) are her reason.
I think it's more along the lines of-Puerto Rican doesn't truly define who she is. It's only a PART of who she is and it's simply not true that she is ONLY that part. So she doesn't choose to use it.
She certainly doesn't deny it either. She desperately wants to go to Puerto Rico, see where her family is from. She learned Spanish so she could communicate with her family from there more easily and she is proud of her heritage.

But more then that pride for her heritage, she's proud of HERSELF and wants to be identified as herself-an individual, not a body of people from an island (or anywhere else).

The thing is, both polyamory and Christianity have pretty clear definitions. We as a society for whatever reason have decided to merge EXAMPLES of the definition with the actual DEFINITION itself. We also seem to think that because lots of people misunderstand the definition, that there isn't a clear one. The same thing happened with the word polygamy. I prefer to dispel the misunderstanding rather than contribute to it by saying that the word doesn't apply to me because of the misunderstandings of the word, not the actual word itself.

A word exists only to convey a concept or thought from one person to the other. If the two people don't share an understanding of what the word means-then it's a waste of space in the conversation because the concept is not communicated using that word.
I'm all for dispelling misunderstanding-but not by creating it first.
No one I have met has even HEARD the word polyamory. They don't identify it WITH anything-they would have to look online to find a definition. But the definitions online-well they are all different. So that wouldn't clear things up for them.
Christianity is similar in that every church defines it a little differently.
It makes more sense to me to define what I am, what I have if someone asks.
I can (and do) work towards greater acceptance ALL of the time, but I don't talk about my love life ALL of the time... So there are MANY opportunities for me to help alleviate prejudice and very few of them include anything to do with my use of that word specifically.

The thing is, choosing not to use the specific word ISN'T the issue. It's choosing to take on the same assumptions around that word that most of the non poly world takes on that causes problems for everyone.
Again-don't see where I've done this.. Please help me out.

[LovingRadiance]

Just the other day, someone told me that they couldn't be poly because they're not promiscuous. I spent some time explaining that being promiscuous isn't the definition of what it is to be poly. Sure there could be poly people who are promiscuous and proud of it. (There are lots of monogamous people who are as well). But I won't say that I'm not one of THEM because I'm not promiscuous. I'm just going to say that we both practice it a different way.

Great way to handle it. Personally-I've never encountered that type of conversation. Mostly because of where I live. It's a completely different environment and attitude here. I agree with your methodology-I don't DENY being poly-I just don't offer the word as decription to people who don't understand it anyway.

I wonder how many words that describe identity truly have an agreed upon meaning across cultures.
At this point I'm not trying to do much "across cultures". Alaska is so isolated, it's a matter of effecting people in this culture. And using words that have an agreed upon meaning is the only way to have a productive conversation. Otherwise its' like speaking French to a Russian. Why bother? Better in my mind to speak to someone in the language they already speak and work towards communication which will allow you to understand one another-THEN work to teach them your language.

My issue is-that if there isn't an agreed upon language FOR polyamorists-then what would you teach AFTER you reach understanding one another?

By saying I love two men in a secure healthy loving relationship but I don't identify as poly because I'm not promiscuous like those poly people (this is just an example) I am promoting the idea that identifying as poly means being promiscuous. In such, I'm actively working against the clear definition that already exists.

In my mind that would be flat rude. Among other things including promoting incorrect assumptions, biases and prejudices.
Not something that would ever come out of my mouth.
THAT my friend is exactly what got me riled up!

I feel like that was exactly what I was being told I WAS doing in real life simply because I said I don't choose to use the word polyamory as a self-identifier.
But it's NOT what I would do, have done or ever will do. I would never make such a statement because it is in and of itself prejudiced.
;)

So maybe the answer lies in recognizing that just because I have a different FIRST priority doesn't mean I don't still hold myself to a high level or responsibility to my "peers".
Instead of assuming the worst case scenario-just saying "have you considered how this might/could promote prejudice" and "if so what are your thoughts on how to avoid that while still upholding your principles on protecting your children as a first priority".

Opposed to telling me that my choice to protect my children first WILL promote prejudice????

[Ceoli]

The impression I'm getting is that in fact both aren't accepted as valid.
But more then that I get the impression that because I'm prioritizing the safety of my children first-there is an assumption that I am not an activist and that in fact I am "leaving my peers in the dust" along with the implied "threat" that because of this choice-those same peers will leave me hanging when I "need" them.

I'm not sure where you get the perception that people are assuming that you're not an activist from. Nobody was saying that you weren't an activist or anything like that to my knowledge. This piece of the conversation started when a specific person said that they chose to not identify as poly because of certain lifestyle choices of other poly people that they didn't agree with. All I was saying is that equating poly with those lifestyle choices is an assumption made about poly and an inaccurate one. To make a decision based upon an inaccurate assumption does nothing to undo that assumption as it's held by the larger society. You came into this after that was addressed.

In truth-I am very active in trying to stop all sorts of prejudice-but I do it with the priority of my children's safety in the forefront, not as a secondary priority...


And that's awesome. I love and respect my friends who do the same.

Answering to the rest of this would just have me repeating myself. I'm not even sure where this whole "You have to be an activist" came into this. Can you please provide me with an example of where one of us said or implied something to that effect in this thread?

[redpepper]

Others here either see sex negatively or have decided to accept mainstream sex-negativity.

I'm sorry, I don't understand who you are directing this too, me? and what you mean by this.... could you please clarify for us? Perhaps a definition of sex positive and negative? Your version?

It's been admitted here that some are willing to cut sex out of polyamory if it will put them in a positive or favorable light for their would be persecutors. They do this to save their children. Others have qualified this decision as being "good" parents. I don't qualify it as positive or the makings of a good parent. It is simply what it is. A choice made.

you are right, it is a choice. Did you hear when I said that I didn't like making that choice? Just wondering, cause I feel a little like you are telling me I am not a good parent. Are you directing this towards me? If you aren't, perhaps you could use a different way of stating your opinion that doesn't come across as judgmental?

Change has never happened quietly or by acquiescing to oppression. Any identity that you can put ahead of "rights" has had battles whether they were battles of philosophy or battles where blood ran in the streets. Some speak of ideals here with such contempt all while hiding from the reality. Clinging to *gasp* an ideal that if you just keep your heads down and not associate with "those people," not draw too much attention to yourselves, it will be ok. Patting each other on the back as if modeling that behavior is showing children independence and how to stand up for their rights as people.

This seems very vague to me and again feels like it is in some way directed at me. Do you think I am clinging to ideals? Do you think I am hiding from reality? Do you think I am not associating with people as a way of hiding? to make it okay? If so, how? I don't get where you are getting this from.... I take this all personally and perhaps that is not where I should take it, but I do, so correct me if I am wrong in that.... If you are talking about people in general, some people in general, who are not writing on here, but our society/culture/country... then I would be more willing to engage in that kind of conversation as I think you are right in a lot of cases. I just need some clarification first.

Members of the queer community stood up one year and said fuck this shit. Women did the same. People of color did the same. People the world over have done the same. They stood up and said "this is who we are and it is not who you are but we are human. We demand equal rights."

Yes and I was one of those queers fighting for what queer women take for granted now. My mother was one of those women, with her kids on each side of her. Ironic now isn't it that 30 years later we can't even talk to each other.... yet she raised the person I am, similar values coming head to head. I would go on and clarify what my childhood was like as the daughter of a women's rights activist, but I feel I have put myself out there too much and that it will only cause more judgment from you at this point.

But hey perhaps I am not acknowledging something. Many here run from even the term "oppression" because they're not used to it. They are taught that oppressed people are to blame for their own oppression as though they existed in a vacuum with a phantom oppressor. Similar to the mentality that a raped woman was to blame for her rape. They are taught this view or they are simply taught to ignore oppression, it's source and how it effects others. Unlike many, they have inhabited the proverbial normative center for most of their lives, are used to privilege in most aspects of their lives and see no reason why they should care about oppression. Bleeding hearts just end up bloody. Too much trouble and mess. Why not go the easy path in the rare instance where oppression does touch their lives and "pass." Passing is not new. It's been done by many within oppressed groups. Pass for white. Pass for straight. Pass for normal. Pass for someone who agrees with normative values.

Again, directed towards me? Do you think I am blaming oppressed people for my oppression? Do you think I am trying to "pass" with everyone in my life? Yes, I go for passing sometimes... why? because that is how I have chosen to quietly make change that has worked in the past.... after I stopped yelling at people and being angry and frustrated about the world. I just shut people out with this approach, it didn't work for me.

The ones who choose to pass are not usually the ones instrumental in bringing the changes that end up benefiting them and allowing them to stop pretending.

I have no idea what you just said here.... say again? Maybe my response above was enough? In a nutshell, I disagree with your last statement.... you sound like my anarchist friend... he talks like you do. Do you identify as an anarchist?

[redpepper]

I LOVE this open, honest communication! :P :D

[ImaginaryIllusion]

Ok, my last post got a couple of responses which are at best pretty radical interpretations of the text…and at worst could be read as trying to imply something about the author. I don’t know what is going on…be it material from earlier in the thread, or personal issues being projected into the text, or whatever. So let me clarify.

Starting with clearing the air:

I'd suggest those without children go back and re-examine this line of thought if and when you have children. You might find the decisions you will be willing to make will be drastically different that those made as a non-parent/guardian.

I love a "suggestion" like this. The assumption that I would make the same decisions as the ones stated here in the same situation therefore I should re-examine my current stance is an argument lacking any sort of logic and ignoring a myriad of variables. It is quite an arrogant view to think everyone would act like you in the same situation.


Like I said…radical interpretation. If I made any assumption at all, it is that you are not a parent…yet, and the part of your post I was responding to was simply your assertion that you would not make a certain decision if you were a parent.

I said nothing about your stance, current or otherwise. I did not say re-examine now. I did not say it without a logical reason, and I did not say anything about anyone acting like me in any situation. There was no situation, other than the transition from being a non-parent/guardian, to being a parent/guardian.

Ok, 2nd assumption was that you didn’t mean to suggest that ‘I’ was arrogant.



And imagine the assumptions being made in regards to the role children play in my life and my family's life. Amazing really.

Not sure why this was a necessary comment...I made no such assumptions.

I have to call this out because this line of thought often sits beneath a lot of misunderstandings.
You know…I think this specific phrase is probably what gets some peoples hackles up. ‘Calling out’ being something that’s done in old westerns just before a gunfight makes it seem very challenging, and could be perceived as an attempt to invalidate someone else’s perspective. Just a thought.

If you have such an intense desire to ‘call out’ everything that’s posted so be it...challenge it all if you like…fill your boots. I'll just say...I don’t answer to you. My lines of thinking don’t answer to you. They answer to me. My opinions and lines of thinking are quite capable of standing on their own, and being valid based on me and my experiences, regardless of challenges...or how much they may make anyone’s blood boil. They are just as valid as anyone else’s experiences or opinions no matter how much they may not suit my own preferences. They don’t need to agree...and I’m ok with that. In this case I actually think we do agree...we just haven't figured that out yet.


Now, the gist of whatever you think I said...

But really, it's a bit insulting to to be told in effect "You can't possibly understand because you don't have kids". The subtext of that, whether intended or not, is "Your opinion is not valid in this area".

However, at the risk of repeating myself, assuming that those without children are ignorant of the issues that surround the dynamics of a child does feel belittling.

Again...not at all what I said. If you choose to create an interpretation such as this and be insulted by it, that’s your choice. Take it, own it, make a flower arrangement with it, do whatever you want with it. However it’s not what I said, nor what I meant.


What I did say...and what I actually meant by it:
I do assume LR has both made the transition to become a parent, and also understands what I did say... although I must confess to be a little confused about the metaphor.
No kidding. It's a whole different ball-game. Hell-it's not even a BALL game anymore. It's more of a juggling game-only you get to juggle burning objects that could kill.
Juggling baby geese is one thing...but I’m not so sure about juggling kids...and even less so if they were lit on fire first. I can’t get mine to sit still long enough for pictures. It’s all just making for weird mental images. :)

In response to the assertion (from a currently non-parent) that they would (as a prediction in the present, about their own actions in the future) not make a certain decision if they were a parent...
To paraphrase, I merely indicated the possibility that their decisions (any decisions, and the way they make them) might...operative word might…be very different to those that they would make now.
It was not a “suggestion”…it was just a suggestion. It’s a subset of the larger suggestion that I would make to anyone who considers themselves conscious and sentient…to go back to re-evaluate and reassess from time to time. Their decisions, their assumptions, everything about themselves. People change over time.
Life moves pretty fast. You don't stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it.

Age, life events, education, relationships, society, our own development, all serve to affect us over time. Some events can change us in fundamental and significant ways. Puberty, developing the ability to think in abstract ways, passing into adulthood, the list is extensive. I have a hard time imagining anyone going too far wrong by doing some reassessments, soul-searching or what have you from time to time.

Becoming a parent is one of those experiences capable of such change.
Similar to puberty, it can involve not only physical changes, but psychological, and physiological changes. There are chemical and hormonal devices to bond children to their parents, particularly the mothers. These devices, these bonds are natural, instinctual, base, a product of our evolution, and they sometimes defy the rational mind. Yes, parents can be a little crazy…especially the mothers. There is a reason you don’t mess with a bear cub in the mountains...because Mother Bear is a force of nature not to be trifled with, and fundamentally humans don’t differ a huge amount in this respect.

As far as I’m concerned, this is one of those experiences that cannot be fully known to those who have not experienced it. It can change people in very fundamental ways. The way in which decisions are made can be significantly different than before hand. As such I believe it would be virtually impossible for anyone (short of inventing clairvoyance or Vulcan mind melds) to truly know or predict exactly what decisions they would make after such an event. I know I’ve made this transition, and there are many areas where my thinking and mindset have shifted dramatically. There are areas where my thoughts with regards to my children do not fit in the realm or reason, logic, or rational thought. And even while I understand that I have these thoughts as a parent, I also know that my wife’s experience is different on a level which I can never understand as another mother could.

This is what I’m talking about when I say that non-parents may be very surprised what decisions they will make and why, if and when they become parents. And that was all I was saying. It’s an experience like puberty, like losing a loved one to sickness, or another loved one to violence, being in a combat zone, being stranded in a survival situation, growing up on the streets of NYC...many others. These are situations where no one can be fully sure of their reactions until they are faced with it. They can prepare for it as much as they want, think it through, plan, read, research, whatever...but in the face of reality, the actual actions can…operative word can…be very different than the plan.



Just taking a gander at the women in my family and the history and approach to dealing with adversity... I think not.


Raven, If you believe that, and end up living that reality, more power to you. Seriously...no where did I say that decision would be different. If between your own will, your role models, and your own experience as a parent you decide to carry on your course in spite of the obstacles you would get nothing from me other than respect and admiration for that. The same respect and admiration I would give LR or RP for being true to themselves as parents.

However, I would bet that if you became a parent, …active, raising the kid in your home 24/7 parent, something about the way you make decisions will change. Seriously…if you make it to the kid’s 5th birthday, do your soul searching, and can’t find any decision you’ve made as a mother that you wouldn’t have made, or evaluated differently when you were not a mother, I’ll buy you dinner.

[ImaginaryIllusion]

Now…the extension of the comment which was read into the original comment…and what I think it actually means:

While we’re on the subject of what non-parents may or may not know about parents and kids…it’s not entirely unlike teachers and students. Everyone thinks they’re an expert, since generally everyone has been a kid with a parent…just as almost everyone has been a student with a teacher.
I’ve been told by my friends who have since become teachers that it’s quite a different reality being a teacher...including that of Parent/Teacher days where they get to meet several ‘experts’ who will pontificate at the teachers about how they should be doing their job.

This is very similar I think to how parents feel when continuously challenged to justify themselves to those who aren’t parents.

When someone with no children lectures me on my decision making-that to me is belittling. They are assuming that they know what is best in my situation, despite having no experience in my situation.

Further that to someone who doesn't even KNOW me OR my children-and it comes across as highly arrogant and presumptive.

I apologize if speaking of the effect that your decisions have on others is lecturing. I don't think anyone was speaking about questioning that what you're doing is best for your children.

Ceoli…I chose this specifically because I do think you understand how it can come across...and that it’s probably not the intention.

I also know you realize the other extension of this though…as I alluded to above, the experience of being a parent is an experience unique to individuals...and those who have not had that experience will not have the same perspective. I’ve seen you say as much.

I can comprehend intellectually the way it feels to have my leg amputated, but unless my leg is ACTUALLY amputated-it's only conceptual.
While it's GOOD for me to work on conceptual understanding of things I don't personally experience, it's unfair to those truly suffering the experience and somewhat egotistical for me to tell someone I DO understand what they experience if I in fact haven't ever been through their situation.
EVEN if I have been through having my leg amputated, I STILL don't know exactly what THEY are going through-because I am not them. I don't have their mind, their life experience etc and therefore I don't feel exactly what they feel.

I specifically said earlier in this thread that I certainly cannot understand the EXPERIENCE of having a child. I was speaking to the issues that surround having a child and the presumption that any of us who are looking at this from outside are ignorant of such issues.

This last part is the only clincher. Nothing in my post said anything about you or anyone else being ignorant of the issues surrounding care. Between own family, siblings, exposure to children, social work, friends with kids, teaching, there’s a myriad of ways to get experience with kids, know the issues, see family drama in action, even be a part of it.

Non-parents and their perspective can in fact be very valuable, benefiting from not being as myopic or clouded by affections and instinct as parents might be. Regardless of what they know about parenting, they’re still experts with many years experience of being kids…and might remember what it was like better than the parents...but still with the communication abilities of an adult, which kids sometimes lack. Sometimes it can simply be similar to the perspective an observer may have from outside the NRE of two new lovers. As I said, parents can be a little irrational about their kids…and non-parents can sometimes provide a moderating force to balance that. Mothers being a force of nature, the only thing to say about that is that sometimes it needs to be approached very delicately lest the bear comes out from hibernation.

Along those lines, if it sometimes feels that parents react badly to the suggestion that they should make decisions more like you, or that they don’t think you understand, some of that may be a result of a not so delicate approach...but in a few places like this thread, I think some of it comes from a place of envy. Just like some people grow up and get into the working world and long to be back in school again sometimes, so do some parents sometimes long to be able to make decisions for only themselves. To be able to enjoy a former life they might only vaguely remember where there was no responsibility, no babysitters, no minivan, or clothes covered in dried up pabulum.

It’s not that non-parents don’t have something to contribute…and I would never assume that they have nothing to contribute just because they aren’t a parent. I had plenty of good ideas before I was a parent that are still good ideas after too. However, having been a non-parent, while I believe it’s possible, it’s few and far between the individuals who are not parents who would truly understand the full mindset, and decision making of those who are…and that can exist across time as well. The mind as a non-parent may be very different than a few short months later when they become a parent, and that one is different again than the mind after another couple years or raising a child.

Ceoli...I know you in particular should understand this…which is why I also dug out this nugget...
The facilitator responded with this powerful question: "Who do you think understands the experiences and challenges of being a person of color in white privileged society? You or the people who have lived it all their lives?"

This is simply one of the most brilliant things I’ve ever heard or read. It speaks to something I think is just a plain truth.

In this particular context of addressing non-parents (and I would gladly remodel this for dozens of contexts…it’s that versatile), I would simply paraphrase it to say, who do you think understands the experiences and challenges of being a parent? You, or those who have time-in as parents?

[redpepper]

A little "non-violent communication" might help however.

(this was to go with my last post)

[Ceoli]

Imaginary, I find your post to be a bit too exhausting to fully address tonight as I have to pack for travel, but I will address these points that stuck out to me:

You know…I think this specific phrase is probably what gets some peoples hackles up. ‘Calling out’ being something that’s done in old westerns just before a gunfight makes it seem very challenging, and could be perceived as an attempt to invalidate someone else’s perspective. Just a thought.

If you have such an intense desire to ‘call out’ everything that’s posted so be it...challenge it all if you like…fill your boots. I'll just say...I don’t answer to you. My lines of thinking don’t answer to you. They answer to me. My opinions and lines of thinking are quite capable of standing on their own, and being valid based on me and my experiences, regardless of challenges...or how much they may make anyone’s blood boil. They are just as valid as anyone else’s experiences or opinions no matter how much they may not suit my own preferences. They don’t need to agree...and I’m ok with that. In this case I actually think we do agree...we just haven't figured that out yet.

"Calling out" is the phrase that is most often used in multiple communities I've participated in when something is said by someone that creates ripples in others that the original person may not perceive. It has nothing to do with gunfights in my cultural background. If you have a better phrase feel free to offer it and I'd be happy to consider it. As to my motivations for calling things out, feel free to assume what you would like. I only call things out that have ripples that reach to me, whether the person perceives that or not. I find a ton of assumptions made on this forum and when those assumptions touch me, I address them. To call something out is to bring the issue out into the open so that everyone involved can better understand what happened. I also like to have my ideas challenged and examined. They are worth more to me if they've been examined that way. If it annoys you, then feel free to ignore me.

Again...not at all what I said. If you choose to create an interpretation such as this and be insulted by it, that’s your choice. Take it, own it, make a flower arrangement with it, do whatever you want with it. However it’s not what I said, nor what I meant.

I find it interesting that you previously mention that I should consider that how I phrase something can raise other people's hackles and speak to how it's my choice to have my hackles raised in this situation. So I'm confused as to which advice should be followed when and by whom. I'm honestly ok with either situation. I explained how what you said was insulting to me, you explained that's not what you meant and we could probably go back and forth about it, but frankly, I don't find it worth my time to do so.

And finally:

In this particular context of addressing non-parents (and I would gladly remodel this for dozens of contexts…it’s that versatile), I would simply paraphrase it to say, who do you think understands the experiences and challenges of being a parent? You, or those who have time-in as parents?

I have never spoken to the experiences and challenges of being a parent. I've merely spoken to the effect that certain choices have on other people, despite the fact that they are probably valid choices being made as a parent. I have never said that they should or shouldn't make those choices or presumed to say or know what is best for them.

[Ravenesque]

Ceoli, you voiced many of my views when I could not while at work. I would only end up repeating much of what you said so I won't backtrack too much.

LovingRadiance, point out where I said that poly parents should make one choice above another or that you had to declare yourself polyamorous.

I'm sorry, I don't understand who you are directing this too, me? and what you mean by this.... could you please clarify for us? Perhaps a definition of sex positive and negative? Your version?

My statements are based on comments from this thread and from others within this forum. From discussions where it is insisted that relationships where sex is prevalent cannot be considered polyamorous (sexless is fine and dandy) to discussions such as this where it is rationalized that accepting a sex-negative culture and disassociating from parts of the poly community who do not, is acceptable.

Simplest concisest definition. It is broader than the below.

Sex positive is accepting of sexuality and expressing it openly. Sex positive education would include teaching safe sex.
Sex negative is moralizing sex to be a vice. Something shameful. Something to be avoided or hidden or suppressed.


you are right, it is a choice. Did you hear when I said that I didn't like making that choice? Just wondering, cause I feel a little like you are telling me I am not a good parent. Are you directing this towards me? If you aren't, perhaps you could use a different way of stating your opinion that doesn't come across as judgmental?

My words were pretty exact. Where is the judgment and the statement that you or others who make this choice are not good parents? Did it seem a judgment because I said I would not make the same choice? It is a choice. I do find moralizing it as what makes a good parent questionable. What kind of parent is the one who makes a differing choice?


This seems very vague to me and again feels like it is in some way directed at me. Do you think I am clinging to ideals? Do you think I am hiding from reality? Do you think I am not associating with people as a way of hiding? to make it okay? If so, how? I don't get where you are getting this from.... I take this all personally and perhaps that is not where I should take it, but I do, so correct me if I am wrong in that.... If you are talking about people in general, some people in general, who are not writing on here, but our society/culture/country... then I would be more willing to engage in that kind of conversation as I think you are right in a lot of cases. I just need some clarification first.

My thoughts were not only directed at you. There are behaviors and attitudes in our society/culture/country which are replicated here on a smaller scale. Normative means what is generally accepted as normal and the morally right way to do things.


Yes and I was one of those queers fighting for what queer women take for granted now. My mother was one of those women, with her kids on each side of her. Ironic now isn't it that 30 years later we can't even talk to each other.... yet she raised the person I am, similar values coming head to head. I would go on and clarify what my childhood was like as the daughter of a women's rights activist, but I feel I have put myself out there too much and that it will only cause more judgment from you at this point.

Again what judgment are you referring to? Is simply not thinking as you do being judgmental?

Again, directed towards me? Do you think I am blaming oppressed people for my oppression? Do you think I am trying to "pass" with everyone in my life? Yes, I go for passing sometimes... why? because that is how I have chosen to quietly make change that has worked in the past.... after I stopped yelling at people and being angry and frustrated about the world. I just shut people out with this approach, it didn't work for me.

My statement was that there is a taught mindset that oppression is the fault of those who are oppressed. Poly rights were spoken of in another thread and it was pointedly stated that oppression wasn't being spoken of. When questioned, the response was that a victim mentality was not the reality of those seeking poly rights and how sad it must be to have that reality. Insulting. Born of a privileged perspective. Victims don't choose victimhood yet when they do fight against it, calling an egg an egg (oppression and naming their oppressors whether people or structures) they are told they are wallowing in victimhood. So hey, if having one's kids taken away is not being victimized and treated unjustly, if that isn't oppression I don't know what is. Maybe it's a definitional problem :rolleyes: No I think it's just a matter of disassociation again.


I have no idea what you just said here.... say again? Maybe my response above was enough? In a nutshell, I disagree with your last statement.... you sound like my anarchist friend... he talks like you do. Do you identify as an anarchist?

The pretenders don't usually contribute to the change which enables them to stop pretending. Not unless we're talking about espionage.

What is anarchy to you and what about my statements seem similar to his statements?

~Raven~

[jasminegld]

Sorry to disagree my friend, but I think it is better to distance ourselves from the vagueness and large umbrella that certain terms cover. I am no activist but I am trained in other areas to achieve goals. I think tactically as a small unit to protect my own, not in a broader sense of furthering a cause or movement if such a thing exists. From that perspective it is best to simplify and reduce weight or weaknesses to better my position. Therefore I stick to hard and fast definitions and descriptions. Sorry to not be a part of something bigger..not my way.

I am an activist, and out in lots of places as poly and as a poly activist...which threatened to seriously complicate a custody dispute I found myself connected to not so long ago. Because of my work with UUs for Polyamory Awareness, I was pretty well tied to UUPA's large umbrella definition, presented it to the lawyer, and stood by that defintion. I had made my decision about being out years ago; there was no running and hiding at that point.

Standing tall, confidently, and unashamedly works wonders. Nobody expects it. It confuses them.

At the same time, this was my decision and my family's decision. Each person and each family has to make their own decision, which is competely dependent on their own circumstances. Some of us can be out, and some of us can't risk it. No one else can judge.

Those of us who do choose to be out will make the world a little safer for everyone else every time we are visible. And things keep getting a little bit better.

[Ravenesque]

Like I said…radical interpretation. If I made any assumption at all, it is that you are not a parent…yet, and the part of your post I was responding to was simply your assertion that you would not make a certain decision if you were a parent.

Indeed it is an assumption. At least quote what was said and not what you created. I simply stated it is not a decision I would make.

Not sure why this was a necessary comment...I made no such assumptions.

In response to the assertion (from a currently non-parent) that they would (as a prediction in the present, about their own actions in the future) not make a certain decision if they were a parent...

:) You made an assumption as to the role children have in my life and the choices I have made in regards to them. Unless you're secretly my mother and can also tell me the color of the onesy I wore that night when I was 18 months, you have no knowledge of this and can only presume.



To paraphrase, I merely indicated the possibility that their decisions (any decisions, and the way they make them) might...operative word might…be very different to those that they would make now.
It was not a “suggestion”…it was just a suggestion. It’s a subset of the larger suggestion that I would make to anyone who considers themselves conscious and sentient…to go back to re-evaluate and reassess from time to time. Their decisions, their assumptions, everything about themselves. People change over time.

So you made an unnecessary universal statement? Just to make it. No purpose. People change. Like "fire burns." I see.

Age, life events, education, relationships, society, our own development, all serve to affect us over time. Some events can change us in fundamental and significant ways. Puberty, developing the ability to think in abstract ways, passing into adulthood, the list is extensive. I have a hard time imagining anyone going too far wrong by doing some reassessments, soul-searching or what have you from time to time.

People change.

Becoming a parent is one of those experiences capable of such change.
Similar to puberty, it can involve not only physical changes, but psychological, and physiological changes. There are chemical and hormonal devices to bond children to their parents, particularly the mothers. These devices, these bonds are natural, instinctual, base, a product of our evolution, and they sometimes defy the rational mind. Yes, parents can be a little crazy…especially the mothers. There is a reason you don’t mess with a bear cub in the mountains...because Mother Bear is a force of nature not to be trifled with, and fundamentally humans don’t differ a huge amount in this respect.

No mention of parents who are not biological? What of non-normative families where the parents are not there and it is other relatives who raise the children. Adoptive parents? And extended families where childcare is shared. Where do they fit? How do they bond?

As far as I’m concerned, this is one of those experiences that cannot be fully known to those who have not experienced it. It can change people in very fundamental ways. The way in which decisions are made can be significantly different than before hand. As such I believe it would be virtually impossible for anyone (short of inventing clairvoyance or Vulcan mind melds) to truly know or predict exactly what decisions they would make after such an event. I know I’ve made this transition, and there are many areas where my thinking and mindset have shifted dramatically. There are areas where my thoughts with regards to my children do not fit in the realm or reason, logic, or rational thought. And even while I understand that I have these thoughts as a parent, I also know that my wife’s experience is different on a level which I can never understand as another mother could.

This is what I’m talking about when I say that non-parents may be very surprised what decisions they will make and why, if and when they become parents. And that was all I was saying. It’s an experience like puberty, like losing a loved one to sickness, or another loved one to violence, being in a combat zone, being stranded in a survival situation, growing up on the streets of NYC...many others. These are situations where no one can be fully sure of their reactions until they are faced with it. They can prepare for it as much as they want, think it through, plan, read, research, whatever...but in the face of reality, the actual actions can…operative word can…be very different than the plan.

People change. Yes we know this. No points to be made at all it seems.


Raven, If you believe that, and end up living that reality, more power to you. Seriously...no where did I say that decision would be different. If between your own will, your role models, and your own experience as a parent you decide to carry on your course in spite of the obstacles you would get nothing from me other than respect and admiration for that. The same respect and admiration I would give LR or RP for being true to themselves as parents.

However, I would bet that if you became a parent, …active, raising the kid in your home 24/7 parent, something about the way you make decisions will change. Seriously…if you make it to the kid’s 5th birthday, do your soul searching, and can’t find any decision you’ve made as a mother that you wouldn’t have made, or evaluated differently when you were not a mother, I’ll buy you dinner.

ImaginaryIllusion, interesting post saying many things that are generally known yet not addressing the topic of the rationale behind these choices that is not exclusive to poly parents. What are non-parents Imaginary? Do you wish to exclude them from discussions of children within poly situations?

~Raven~

[Ravenesque]

Along those lines, if it sometimes feels that parents react badly to the suggestion that they should make decisions more like you, or that they don’t think you understand, some of that may be a result of a not so delicate approach...but in a few places like this thread, I think some of it comes from a place of envy. Just like some people grow up and get into the working world and long to be back in school again sometimes, so do some parents sometimes long to be able to make decisions for only themselves. To be able to enjoy a former life they might only vaguely remember where there was no responsibility, no babysitters, no minivan, or clothes covered in dried up pabulum.

As opposed to your suggestion, no one here suggested what anyone else should do in regards to their children. If that is what some decided to hear, how they decided to interpret it, there is nothing we can do about that.

It’s not that non-parents don’t have something to contribute…and I would never assume that they have nothing to contribute just because they aren’t a parent. I had plenty of good ideas before I was a parent that are still good ideas after too. However, having been a non-parent, while I believe it’s possible, it’s few and far between the individuals who are not parents who would truly understand the full mindset, and decision making of those who are…and that can exist across time as well. The mind as a non-parent may be very different than a few short months later when they become a parent, and that one is different again than the mind after another couple years or raising a child.

The full mindset... Is there only one Imaginary? The one parent full mindset? The decision making of those who are parents.
Do parents differ at all Imaginary? Or is it the same mechanism?

Hmm, so with all these general statements I suppose it wouldn't hurt to add a few more.

Once one becomes a parent, they may not change.

Once one becomes a parent, they may change, they may become more radical than they were.


In this particular context of addressing non-parents (and I would gladly remodel this for dozens of contexts…it’s that versatile), I would simply paraphrase it to say, [I]who do you think understands the experiences and challenges of being a parent? You, or those who have time-in as parents?

Ok, I see what this is. An elaborate thread hijack.

Do you have an opinion on disassociating sex from polyamory and/or individuals disassociating from polyamory because it encompasses the more sexual aspects as well as the less sexual? Do you think it's an issue? Do you think it may effect the success of campaigns to gain poly rights?

Any thoughts?

~Raven~

[Ravenesque]

I am an activist, and out in lots of places as poly and as a poly activist...which threatened to seriously complicate a custody dispute I found myself connected to not so long ago. Because of my work with UUs for Polyamory Awareness, I was pretty well tied to UUPA's large umbrella definition, presented it to the lawyer, and stood by that defintion. I had made my decision about being out years ago; there was no running and hiding at that point.

Standing tall, confidently, and unashamedly works wonders. Nobody expects it. It confuses them.

At the same time, this was my decision and my family's decision. Each person and each family has to make their own decision, which is competely dependent on their own circumstances. Some of us can be out, and some of us can't risk it. No one else can judge.

Those of us who do choose to be out will make the world a little safer for everyone else every time we are visible. And things keep getting a little bit better.

Brava. And thank you for sharing that.

~Raven~

[ImaginaryIllusion]

"Calling out" is the phrase that is most often used in multiple communities I've participated in when something is said by someone that creates ripples in others that the original person may not perceive. It has nothing to do with gunfights in my cultural background.
Interesting...I've not seen it used that way before.

To call something out is to bring the issue out into the open so that everyone involved can better understand what happened. I also like to have my ideas challenged and examined. They are worth more to me if they've been examined that way. If it annoys you, then feel free to ignore me.

All fair enough.


I find it interesting that you previously mention that I should consider that how I phrase something can raise other people's hackles and speak to how it's my choice to have my hackles raised in this situation. So I'm confused as to which advice should be followed when and by whom. I'm honestly ok with either situation. I explained how what you said was insulting to me, you explained that's not what you meant and we could probably go back and forth about it, but frankly, I don't find it worth my time to do so.

Also fair enough. Both parts of advice can be followed often by everyone. (edit: that is both figuring out what might trigger others to avoid misunderstandings, and to not be triggered)


I have never spoken to the experiences and challenges of being a parent. I've merely spoken to the effect that certain choices have on other people, despite the fact that they are probably valid choices being made as a parent. I have never said that they should or shouldn't make those choices or presumed to say or know what is best for them.
I know. The only thing I was trying to communicate was a better understanding of parents, and why sometimes leaps into misunderstandings that defy logic happen.

[MonoVCPHG]

I am an activist, and out in lots of places as poly and as a poly activist...which threatened to seriously complicate a custody dispute I found myself connected to not so long ago. .

I'm sorry to hear this..did you manage to effectively protect your child? Can you tell us more about it?

[redpepper]

I am an activist, and out in lots of places as poly and as a poly activist...which threatened to seriously complicate a custody dispute I found myself connected to not so long ago. Because of my work with UUs for Polyamory Awareness, I was pretty well tied to UUPA's large umbrella definition, presented it to the lawyer, and stood by that defintion. I had made my decision about being out years ago; there was no running and hiding at that point.

Standing tall, confidently, and unashamedly works wonders. Nobody expects it. It confuses them.

At the same time, this was my decision and my family's decision. Each person and each family has to make their own decision, which is competely dependent on their own circumstances. Some of us can be out, and some of us can't risk it. No one else can judge.

Those of us who do choose to be out will make the world a little safer for everyone else every time we are visible. And things keep getting a little bit better.

I would love to know more too. Being on the brink of taking my/our "coming out" and flying with it I certainly would like some tips on how and what worked for you.

Apart from coming out to my parents, as I have said in other threads, I have come out to just about everyone else, including on FB, where a lot of my friends are from many years gone by. It feels great and I get a lot of admiration for sticking to where my happiness is. I also get support from Nerdist's (my husband) mum who has opened her arms to Mono and has welcomed him into her side of the family.

My side is very struck and this is a first for me. All my life they have told me they are proud of me and that they think I chose people well in my life. Now they tell me that they are disappointed and have been deceived. They have also told me that I am not very bright all my life and I have felt abandoned by them many times when I make choices that they don't agree with but this is HUGE abandonment and brought up my childhood traumas to the point of my freezing and/or exploding in anger about their reaction to it all....

Do you have any pointers on how to deal with my feelings so as to stand tall and be as confident as you are? Just doing it doesn't work for me when my confidence is low and I am feeling threatened. I have been told to just ignore them, it's their problem, start doing things without them and I know all that, but it hurts like hell right now. We were very close, they live only five houses down and we used to spend time together everyday. We did everything together. I am getting there. There are things I will and can do, intervening in court being one and continuing to make my poly queer presence known at various public events on various levels, including pride and family picnic days at local parks. I just want to feel safe when I am out there. Before I had my child and it was just me I couldn't care less how safe I was, I could handle anything I thought. That has changed and is still something I adjust to, especially where activism goes. Perhaps this is unique to me?

I guess the biggest thing I can do right now is to gather my community around me and rely on them to help me feel stronger. I have made some good friends on here and at home and they have been loving, kind and we support each other to know end. That feels really good. I cherish them for that as I hope they cherish me. It sounds like you have created the same for yourself. I commend you in that and thank you for giving me hope..... please tell us more?:)

[redpepper]

Ceoli, you voiced many of my views when I could not while at work. I would only end up repeating much of what you said so I won't backtrack too much.

LovingRadiance, point out where I said that poly parents should make one choice above another or that you had to declare yourself polyamorous.

My statements are based on comments from this thread and from others within this forum. From discussions where it is insisted that relationships where sex is prevalent cannot be considered polyamorous (sexless is fine and dandy) to discussions such as this where it is rationalized that accepting a sex-negative culture and disassociating from parts of the poly community who do not, is acceptable.

Simplest concisest definition. It is broader than the below.

Sex positive is accepting of sexuality and expressing it openly. Sex positive education would include teaching safe sex.
Sex negative is moralizing sex to be a vice. Something shameful. Something to be avoided or hidden or suppressed.

My words were pretty exact. Where is the judgment and the statement that you or others who make this choice are not good parents? Did it seem a judgment because I said I would not make the same choice? It is a choice. I do find moralizing it as what makes a good parent questionable. What kind of parent is the one who makes a differing choice?

My thoughts were not only directed at you. There are behaviors and attitudes in our society/culture/country which are replicated here on a smaller scale. Normative means what is generally accepted as normal and the morally right way to do things.

Again what judgment are you referring to? Is simply not thinking as you do being judgmental?

My statement was that there is a taught mindset that oppression is the fault of those who are oppressed. Poly rights were spoken of in another thread and it was pointedly stated that oppression wasn't being spoken of. When questioned, the response was that a victim mentality was not the reality of those seeking poly rights and how sad it must be to have that reality. Insulting. Born of a privileged perspective. Victims don't choose victimhood yet when they do fight against it, calling an egg an egg (oppression and naming their oppressors whether people or structures) they are told they are wallowing in victimhood. So hey, if having one's kids taken away is not being victimized and treated unjustly, if that isn't oppression I don't know what is. Maybe it's a definitional problem :rolleyes: No I think it's just a matter of disassociation again.


The pretenders don't usually contribute to the change which enables them to stop pretending. Not unless we're talking about espionage.

What is anarchy to you and what about my statements seem similar to his statements?

~Raven~

Thanks for replying Raven, I have some clarification I think. I hear you when you say that you are not directing all your comments to me. I also hear that sometimes you are. Would you be so kind as to actually include my name in those posts so that I can answer directly and comment directly? Perhaps this will help sort out who you disagree with better.

I think a lot of the time the use of language that people use is confusing and comes across as confrontational. I myself try and remember that it is not going to make anyone feel safe if they are spoken to in such a way as to put them on stage so to speak. In my education this can be seen as a form of bullying and is not what I have learned about good group dynamics. I had a manager once that someone brought up on charges in my company because they continually showed up staff in front of their co-workers. Maybe it's the field I work in or the education I have, but I find that I feel more safe when someone couches (I like that word, I'm stealing it :p) their words in respect and love. That doesn't mean that you have to agree with me, but that the words of disagreement don't point a finger at me as if to remove me from the group but rather are about curiosity about who I am and interest in my perspective. More along the lines of folding me into the group rather than shutting me out because I am different than others. Does that make sense? It just seems to be better communication to me and as we are all trying to work on being poly and as we pretty much all agree that good communication is a must, then why not we all try and work on thinking of our words in terms of how we would talk to those we love, rather than those we disagree with and are different from. Even when I disagree with my partners I try to practice ways of telling them that come from concern, respect, caring, empathy and love....

I am not trying to point fingers, as but just a thought. thanks for your consideration.

[redpepper]

I would love to know more too. Being on the brink of taking my/our "coming out" and flying with it I certainly would like some tips on how and what worked for you.

Apart from coming out to my parents, as I have said in other threads, I have come out to just about everyone else, including on FB, where a lot of my friends are from many years gone by. It feels great and I get a lot of admiration for sticking to where my happiness is. I also get support from Nerdist's (my husband) mum who has opened her arms to Mono and has welcomed him into her side of the family.

My side is very struck and this is a first for me. All my life they have told me they are proud of me and that they think I chose people well in my life. Now they tell me that they are disappointed and have been deceived. They have also told me that I am not very bright all my life and I have felt abandoned by them many times when I make choices that they don't agree with but this is HUGE abandonment and brought up my childhood traumas to the point of my freezing and/or exploding in anger about their reaction to it all....

Do you have any pointers on how to deal with my feelings so as to stand tall and be as confident as you are? Just doing it doesn't work for me when my confidence is low and I am feeling threatened. I have been told to just ignore them, it's their problem, start doing things without them and I know all that, but it hurts like hell right now. We were very close, they live only five houses down and we used to spend time together everyday. We did everything together. I am getting there. There are things I will and can do, intervening in court being one and continuing to make my poly queer presence known at various public events on various levels, including pride and family picnic days at local parks. I just want to feel safe when I am out there. Before I had my child and it was just me I couldn't care less how safe I was, I could handle anything I thought. That has changed and is still something I adjust to, especially where activism goes. Perhaps this is unique to me?

I guess the biggest thing I can do right now is to gather my community around me and rely on them to help me feel stronger. I have made some good friends on here and at home and they have been loving, kind and we support each other to know end. That feels really good. I cherish them for that as I hope they cherish me. It sounds like you have created the same for yourself. I commend you in that and thank you for giving me hope..... please tell us more?:)

Sorry I quoted my whole post, I'm on my phone, its just easier.

I was just thinking, this summer when we all went to pride I felt strong and proud and full of confidence. I'm bound and determined to be so again and I will be! Damn it!

[MonoVCPHG]

Sorry I quoted my whole post, I'm on my phone, its just easier.

I was just thinking, this summer when we all went to pride I felt strong and proud and full of confidence. I'm bound and determined to be so again and I will be! Damn it!

I have no doubt..I'll be with you this year as well.

[LovingRadiance]

What I did say...and what I actually meant by it:
I do assume LR has both made the transition to become a parent, and also understands what I did say... although I must confess to be a little confused about the metaphor.

Juggling baby geese is one thing...but I’m not so sure about juggling kids...and even less so if they were lit on fire first. I can’t get mine to sit still long enough for pictures. It’s all just making for weird mental images. :)


Becoming a parent is one of those experiences capable of such change.
Similar to puberty, it can involve not only physical changes, but psychological, and physiological changes. There are chemical and hormonal devices to bond children to their parents, particularly the mothers. These devices, these bonds are natural, instinctual, base, a product of our evolution, and they sometimes defy the rational mind. Yes, parents can be a little crazy…especially the mothers. There is a reason you don’t mess with a bear cub in the mountains...because Mother Bear is a force of nature not to be trifled with, and fundamentally humans don’t differ a huge amount in this respect.

However, I would bet that if you became a parent, …active, raising the kid in your home 24/7 parent, something about the way you make decisions will change. Seriously…if you make it to the kid’s 5th birthday, do your soul searching, and can’t find any decision you’ve made as a mother that you wouldn’t have made, or evaluated differently when you were not a mother, I’ll buy you dinner.

DAMN! No dinner for me. :(

My point was that life is a game of juggling our responsibilities and priorities, but when you also have kids every decision you make becomes significantly more dangerous (like juggling burning objects).
(My kids won't sit still for pictures either and one is already technically an adult!) :)

[LovingRadiance]

[B]
This is simply one of the most brilliant things I’ve ever heard or read. It speaks to something I think is just a plain truth.

In this particular context of addressing non-parents (and I would gladly remodel this for dozens of contexts…it’s that versatile), I would simply paraphrase it to say, who do you think understands the experiences and challenges of being a parent? You, or those who have time-in as parents?

Thank you II.
I think you summed up a lot of the feelings and frustrations in your.... lengthy article? ;)

There are many parts of parenting my sister understands personally-as she's been by my side raising my children from the first day.
But there are many she can't, because those babies didn't come from her body and something that connects a mother to a child that comes from her womb. I don't know what it would be called-but it's there.
I don't have THAT connection with my stepson or my Godchildren. It's something you only have with a child borne of your body.

It does NOT negate or impact love for a child-ANYONE can have that deep abiding love for a child.
It's just something altogether different.