Originally Posted by undefinable
In this instance i am using the term Polyamorist in a broad sense, so as not to get bogged down by "which flavor of poly is best" issues. I intended it as an inclusive label (something which i am loathe to do) for the purposes of the discussion.
That said, i think i will take a shot at hijacking my own thread
I am not comfortable with a "involvement in the community" provision as it feels to me like a price of admission. It seems exclusive, and elitist, and i just dont like it. For me it is akin to saying that a person who dedicates their life to jogging as far as possible is not an athlete because they do not compete in marathons. No recognition given for the countless hours, injuries, and sacrifices they have made, because they do not contribute to the process
Or like saying a gay man who does not have active involvement in LGBT issues. Attraction, romantic relationships, and sex with other men does not qualify if he doesnt participate in the community as well.
Personally the criteria you put forth would qualify a person as a polyamorous activist
quite well, but i think it is defining too precisely a group of people who are by nature inclusive.
Proceed to lay waste to my logic..........NOW!
I dont think there's a requirement
to be considered poly, I certainly didn't intend what I said to convey that message.
To fall back on metaphor, its the difference between calling one's self religious and calling one's self Christian; one implies a more formalized way of living and thinking than the other with a more specific "crowd" to be a part of.
I feel like I'm not explaining myself in the right way and I'm having difficulty conveying the proper meaning. That annoys me.
See this is part of what got my wheels turning. How can the perception of polyamorists out there in everywhere include two criteria that are most often not simultaneous.
For that you'd probably have to look at where people see poly people most often. They're unlikely to know anyone who is so they have to fallback on the only exposure they have and that usually is media of some form. Take a look at some of the recent examples of poly in the media, its easy to see why someone would come away with the idea that poly people are young and successful if that was the only exposure they have to draw on. Plus we still have a cultural perception that "playing the field" is something you do when you're young until you're ready to "grow up" and get married.