View Single Post
Old 01-06-2010, 08:20 PM
redpepper's Avatar
redpepper redpepper is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 7,723

Originally Posted by Ravenesque View Post
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 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?

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 ) 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.
Anyone want to be friends on Facebook?
Send me your name via PM
My blog
Reply With Quote