Nasty anti blog

Natja

New member
http://thestir.cafemom.com/love_sex/164827/forget_gay_marriage_polygamy_its

And oh boy...the comments are rather vexing, not just form the antis either...check this one out....

i just want to state that "polyamorous" and "open" are not the same thing. Polyamorous means you live with love 2 people and they live in your home. Open means the same thing as swingers.

or

keeping in mind I am not polyamorous this is how it was explained to me.

Polyamory is a relationship between 3 or more people. Sex partners may or may not enter the primary home - in my experience, when any of the people have children the meetings take place where the children are not present. Children may or may not be aware of the others as their parent's friends but they are not n the position of being a parental figure. There are specific rules, agreed to by everyone involved before anyone has sex.. The number of outside partners is discussed and agreed upon by all involved, most often in the groups I know a new partner is named and agreed to by those in the group before any sex occurs.. It is not swinging and there is nothing like trolling bars picking up people for a one night stand.

Open marriage is "swinging" when both partners have sex with others with pretty much no rules and no discussion of who or how many partners are involved. One night stands are not unheard of.

Where are they getting their information from???? :eek:
 
Re:
"Half of all marriages end in divorce, so the best way to combat that statistic is to eradicate the stability of marriage between committed partners?"

Hmmm. The stability of marriage resides in monogamy? I'll have to think about that.

Re:
"Agree or not, at least gay and polygamous marriages show some sort of committed union between adults -- promises to stay together for life."

W'll gee, if you're gonna cite those marriages, at least cite polyfidelity while you're at it.

Re:
"Of course promises get broken, but how can you raise children in such chaos that no promise is ever even made, let alone attempted to be lived?"

I get it, adults are transitioning in and out of the child's life like a revolving door. "Do it for the children" is certainly the loudest pro-monogamy argument I've heard (from multiple sources).

Re:
"Kids with gay parents or more than one mom will have some stuff to overcome, even if for no other reason than it's not the societal norm -- but at least they know where they belong."

Wait ... in poly, don't the biological parents tend to keep their kid regardless of whether they keep their poly partners? The kid then still belongs at home then ... That's not hard to see, is it?

Re:
"But what happens when Dad's girlfriend, who is acting as a surrogate mother, decides it's time for her to move on?"

Jenny Erikson doesn't seem to be considering that how involved an adult is in a child's life can (should) be proportionate to how committed that adult is to staying in the child's life. Just someone Mom or Dad are dating for the next few months? presumably won't become anything more than an acquaintance to the child.

Re (from ZamEnt25):
"People doing what works for them is why our society is in the mess it's in."

LOLOL! ... I'm sorry, that's just ...

Okay, right. So, new battle plan. Henceforth we will do what *doesn't* work for us. And that should solve the problem.

Re (from wamom223):
"And maybe just maybe if you don't want to forsake all others you shouldn't take vows you have no plans on keeping."

Certainly. I'm all for marital vows that don't include forsaking all others.

Re:
"I think people who think like you are trying to ruin the human race."

:confused: Bwa-ha-ha-haaaaa, my plans to ruin the human race are proceeding stupendously! [hunches over and rubs hands quickly while eyes dart back and forth]

Re:
"Funny how all these open marriages types are also narcissistic."

I am? How does wamom223 know that?

Re (from wamom223):
"The problem I have witnessed and read about are that with that many relationships to maintain they very rarely have enough left over for their children."

A reasonable concern. Depends on the details, I guess.

I guess I am somewhat zen about the badmouthing (and spread of misinformation) polyamory endures. People tend to fear the unknown and polyamory is a big unknown for a lot of people. They're going to greet it with xenophobia at first. In time, though, their rants will become the soil in which reasonable dialogs arise. So in a way it's a necessary process.

One thing Erikson's article illustrates is that polyamorous rights is the next big debate following (on the very heels of) gay rights. You can learn a lot about when and how polyamory will come to be accepted by listening to its enemies talk.

As a part of that listening process, I do try to give due credit for any valid concerns our opponents raise during the debate. Sometimes I don't know if a particular concern is valid or not, so I just make a note of it and consider it in future discussions. We do know that along with the poly success stories, there are poly horror stories. I find merit in examining both.

Polyamory isn't necessarily bad for kids (often quite the opposite in fact), but I do know of at least a case or two off the top of my head where the kids suffered because of it (or because of the way it was handled). I think it's fair to ask me to be concerned about that.

One thing's for sure though: Polyamory isn't going away. We're going to see more and more of it as time goes on. And overall, I think that's a good thing.
 
Jenny Erikson doesn't seem to be considering that how involved an adult is in a child's life can (should) be proportionate to how committed that adult is to staying in the child's life. Just someone Mom or Dad are dating for the next few months? presumably won't become anything more than an acquaintance to the child.

Aw heck, I've been with Auto for over 2 years and we have no plans of going anywhere soon, but I'm still not even the slightest bit involved in a parental role with her kids, nor will I ever be.

Partners don't usually move in and begin acting as surrogate parents without intending to stick around for a while.

Not to mention, how many single parents move in with a partner without any marriage commitment, and then how often do those relationships fail?

Allowing people to parent your children without an explicit long term commitment isn't a poly issue, it's a modern parenting issue. Monos botch it just as often as polys.
 
I agree that it's a parenting issue. Just as many monogamous single parents allow a stream of people into their children's lives. It's simply more understandable for a monogamous single parent to do that because of course, we are all looking to replace the child's biological parent in the child's life as well as our own. So as bad as it's viewed, there's a lot of pity for poor single mum who got dumped by her baby daddy and now she needs to find a new daddy for her bastard child.

The desire for non monogamy is already seen as pathological by many, so it's not just "single mum", it's "crazy nymphomaniac single mum whose baby daddy had a lucky escape seeks new victim(s) to help her fuck up her kid".
 
Opening subject summary:

You know the story: Boy meets girl, boy marries girl, boy invites another girl into their bed, and girl is strangely ok with it, because she has her own lesbian lover on the side anyway.

Wait, what?

Welcome to polyamory, the strange perversion of what love in marriage looks like. On Showtime’s Polyamory: Married & Dating, married couple Michael and Kamala talk about their open marriage, and why monogamy “just doesn’t work for them.”

OK, I decried sarcasm on another thread, but here in response to stupid article I will use it: Yes, let's summarize what poly is all about from the example of ONE triad shown on a sensationalizing TV show!

Ugh, I hate the idea in the media that poly is all about MFF triads! That's just more patriarchal bullshit. Of course, the male in the TV show has "2 wives." Of course the wife's other lover is seen as someone "on the side." Since that "lesbian" isn't also fucking the guy, she must be just a piece on the side!

Grrr...
 
Ugh, I hate the idea in the media that poly is all about MFF triads! That's just more patriarchal bullshit. Of course, the male in the TV show has "2 wives." Of course the wife's other lover is seen as someone "on the side." Since that "lesbian" isn't also fucking the guy, she must be just a piece on the side!

The MFF+ thing is something that bothers me about media portrayals of poly lately. Frequently I'm seeing in the Mormon context, but it shows up in other situations too.

It is one way poly is done, sure, but show enough of it and the general population will construe that is the only way to do poly, IMHO. I'm happy to see poly portrayed -- it was hardly findable outside of SF/F when I was struggling with my first triad -- but there's more to it than the MFF V or Mormon plural marriages and others aspects should be shown.
 
Re (from london):
"The desire for non monogamy is already seen as pathological by many, so it's not just 'single mum,' it's 'crazy nymphomaniac single mum whose baby daddy had a lucky escape seeks new victim(s) to help her fuck up her kid.'"

Heh.

Re (from Magdlyn):
"Yes, let's summarize what poly is all about from the example of *one* triad shown on a sensationalizing TV show!"

Jenny Erikson's a wee bit paranoid, methinks.

Re:
"Ugh, I hate the idea in the media that poly is all about MFF triads!"

An idea that spreads like wildfire ...

Re (from KerryRen):
"It is one way poly is done, sure, but show enough of it and the general population will construe that is the only way to do poly, IMHO."

They will and do so construe. I believe it's related to the rash of UH's we get.
 
Allowing people to parent your children without an explicit long term commitment isn't a poly issue, it's a modern parenting issue. Monos botch it just as often as polys.

Pretty much what I was thinking. There are so many things relating to children that people use as arguments against polyamory, that occur in monogamous relationships too.

There are divorces, step-families, boyfriends and girlfriends of your parents, etc, in tons of families nowadays. Pretty much every time someone says "but polyamory is wrong because what would happen in this scenario involving parenting?" there are examples of these cases happening right now in mono families.
You don't even need to look at divorced and remarried families (or single parents) for that. These things often happen with friends of the family, too. Are parents not supposed to have friends in case they have a fallout and the children miss their buddy?
 
Re:
"Are parents not supposed to have friends in case they have a fallout and the children miss their buddy?"

Point being, look at it from the child's point of view. What affects the child the most is whether this or that person is around (in the child's company), not whether the person in question is spoiling the traditional marriage covenant. Kids don't exactly need to know just what the grown-ups are doing in the bedroom anyhow!
 
Point being, look at it from the child's point of view. What affects the child the most is whether this or that person is around (in the child's company), not whether the person in question is spoiling the traditional marriage covenant. Kids don't exactly need to know just what the grown-ups are doing in the bedroom anyhow!

Exactly. I think if someone becomes important enough in your child's life, then they should be able to stay in their life (unless they're dangerous), even if they aren't part of yours much anymore.
 
IMHO people who try and take potshots against poly are all jealous, sexually frustrated, socially trapped people who are bucking the constraints they feel more than they are attacking polyamory.

America is largely sex-negative and we all suffer under the tyranny of the masses. These anti-poly bloggers are simply jealous that they lack the courage to commit to a sex positive, loving lifestyle.

Every fiber of their being screams in protest. Sex is sinful. Monogamy is the only way. Marriage is sacred. Freaks in bed always rape children. The maintain and defend these beliefs out of sheer ignorance.
 
A lot of people also believe that their way is "the one true path" and don't understand the concept of "different strokes for different folks." That's heavily compounded when you live your life according to a book written hundreds of years ago by tyrants who needed a way to control commoners through mind control and guilt tactics, because earning their support by treating them fairly and giving them what they needed was way too much work.

Sadly, there are far too many people who just aren't happy with their lives. And too many of them are like my late MIL: "If I can't be happy, I don't see why anyone else should."
 
"Happiness is selfishness; too many people these days aren't willing to sacrifice; everyone's just about 'me me me' anymore; no one cares about the children; etc. etc. etc."

Many such zealots probably take comfort in the conviction that someday (soon very soon) Jesus is gonna come down and kick some serious behind on such irresponsible polyamorists and other perverts as you and me.
 
Netflix had some kind of documentary on polyamorism that I think was part of a series (Strange Sex, but I might be wrong)...and it centered on a woman with two male partners. It seemed to be working well for all of them. Of course this article didn't reference that show ;)
 
Last edited:
It was kinda disrespectful of Erikson to not mention poly units such as mine (a lifetime poly-fi MFM V), but I guess complaining about that is a bit of a red herring. It's the more fluid poly households that Erikson wants to talk about, the ones where new partners do come and go often, the ones where children are exposed to that and can be affected by it. I suppose she's singling out what she sees as polyamory's weakness, but that's her perogative. So, let's talk about that branch of polyamory. And so far, the answer has been pretty simple. Any adult should be no more involved in a child's life than how long that adult will be around to be involved.

And the other thing is, adults pass in and out of children's lives all the time. What about their school teachers? What about a random police officer (or other adult) a child may greet on the street? What about grandparents that pass away? and most of all, what about platonic friends the child's parents have? Fallings out can happen, adults can disappear from a child's life, and that child may experience an owie because of it. But the only real difference in a temporary poly companion is the sex -- and that's actually not something the child should know much if anything about anyway! So, "Stop poly; save the children," doesn't exactly work as a bombproof argument.
 
And the other thing is, adults pass in and out of children's lives all the time. What about their school teachers?

Wow. I've never heard that brought up in these discussions before, but that's such a good point. Teachers spend 6 hours a day, 5 days a week with your kids... They're interacting with them, teaching them, keeping them busy... and then summer comes, and just like that, they're gone. Even live-in partners usually see kids for less time than that, what with people's busy schedules these days. But how many people say "Oh, you shouldn't send your kids to school. They'll get attached to their teachers and then it will be traumatizing when they don't see them anymore."
 
Yeah, the, "You're traumatizing the children by removing an adult from their lives," doesn't hold water. Not unless it can be established that the child is a lot more attached to the poly adult than that same child would be attached to one of his/her teachers.

As a piano teacher, I spent 30 minutes a week one-on-one with many children. After months or perhaps years of lessons with me, the child would move on (to another teacher or to another field of study). It was more than just a teaching gig; my students and I became friends in the process. I miss them today, and flatter myself that they miss me too. We all have people come into our lives and then go out again. Missing them is part of the experience of living.

Just think of how the series M*A*S*H ended. Hawkeye and B.J. -- inseparable friends -- said goodbye to each other -- for good. And think of how Lord of the Rings ended. Frodo departed on a ship to the Undying Lands, in the process bidding Sam farewell -- for the rest of Sam's life.

It happens to all of us. We lose people. We miss people. And yet we treasure the memories of good times we shared with them, and life goes on.

With polyamory, I think you have to examine each individual case and judge it on its own merits. You can't just say, "Well you're going to damage the kids every time they lose an adult."
 
And think of how Lord of the Rings ended. Frodo departed on a ship to the Undying Lands, in the process bidding Sam farewell -- for the rest of Sam's life.

In the book, Sam follows the others years later after Rosie passes away and his many children (I forget the exact number right now) have come to adulthood. Sam is allowed to go because he also is a ringbearer.

This info is in one of the Appendices.

:)
 
Uh, ahem, heh. Yeah I know just enough about LotR to get myself into trouble, but not enough to get myself back out of trouble.

A fine pickle I've landed myself in this time, eh? :D [j/k of course.]
 
Back
Top