Discussion on Forum Sociology and Interpersonal Dynamics

................. Of course, that opens up the question of why I'm hesitant, and I'm not entirely clear on how to answer that, other than that it doesn't bear much resemblance to my experience, etc.

I think this kind of cuts to the heart of this (hijacked) thread.
Most opinions people hold are solely based on their personal experience or occasionally someone close to them.
But it's a big wide world out there (here?) and it's proven generally more beneficial to listen rather than talk until you have sufficient evidence you've covered the greater portion of that wide world.
Things only get better via learning & understanding.
We may still choose to agree to disagree. Other may chose to walk paths that we choose not to.

But in keeping with the request someone made (and offered) about suggestions I would just toss out a couple simple basic ones......

1> Try to keep our comments relative to the OP and Original Thread. Be careful what you say that may (either intentionally or not) become a hijack.

2> Leave your personal agendas at home UNLESS they have direct applicability to the OP and OT. It's an open forum and everyone is free to start a new thread to solicit comments on their agenda if they desire. You may get feedback, agreement, disagreement, approval or disapproval. Be open minded and learn from it.

GS
 
Having read and learned from this thread of ygirls... I think for me it boils down to three things; that GS kind of pointed out above..

This forum, for poly people, is about:

listening
learning
understanding
 
Please explain to me how what I said is any different from what you said. I have highlighted in color the similarities. You basically just repeated back what I said, putting a different spin on it. All I did differently than what you did is that I didn't draw a distinction in my post between "People Who Leave" for one reason versus "People Who Leave" for another reason.

I never said that it was different than what you said. I was clarifying and verifying.


And before you get on me about the last sentence in that quote - ALL IT SAYS is that they are "content" to let you do all the talking. NOWHERE does it ASSume that they ASKED you to speak on their behalf.

I think there's a subtle distinction between speaking on other people's behalf and raising issues that I see that other people have also talked about with me. There's a reason I'm not listing names. It's because I'm not speaking for them. I'm speaking of my experience and how it forms my views and some of that experience involves talking and chatting with people who have felt pushed out and unwelcome by the culture here. Since that mirrors some of my experience here it seems relevant. And I brought that up here as a response to statements that suggested that this forum doesn't do that.
 
I never said that it was different than what you said. I was clarifying and verifying.




I think there's a subtle distinction between speaking on other people's behalf and raising issues that I see that other people have also talked about with me. There's a reason I'm not listing names. It's because I'm not speaking for them. I'm speaking of my experience and how it forms my views and some of that experience involves talking and chatting with people who have felt pushed out and unwelcome by the culture here. Since that mirrors some of my experience here it seems relevant. And I brought that up here as a response to statements that suggested that this forum doesn't do that.



OK, just wanted to make sure we were on the same page.

This discussion is now in its own thread.
 
I agree, there is not a lot of strictly poly-fi people on here. There are some that practice poly-fi with certain relationships, but I haven't known many to be completely fluid bonded in a poly-fi situation.

I'd say we have no way of knowing how many of the people who have posted are currently in poly-fi tangles. It's not germane to many of the situations discussed. We read tales of A, who is involved with X and Y, for example--and without any mention of whether the arrangement includes fluid-bonding or not or whether it's open or closed because that part of the situation isn't germane to the problems they're encountering. I do recall folks mentioning that they have their V or triad or whatever and that's all they want, which suggests a strong possibility of a poly-fi arrangement.
 
We were strictly poly-fi until I had to suddenly leave state.
I opened the door to Maca to be with another woman who isn't part of our poly-fi V because we were looking at an undefined time apart (anywhere from 2-12 months).

The 11 months prior-we were poly-fi and the 12 years prior to that, even though it was "cheating", we were the three of us fidelitious together. Just didn't know what the hell poly was.

:rolleyes:
 
Long response from another thread

I'm going to try to keep this short enough to not be a hassle to read.

For you to claim that somehow all swingers are being maligned when the discussion has only mentioned a *very specific sub-group* that nobody has claimed is very large is nonsensical, unconstructive, and somewhat rude (as it paints those of us involved as somehow being "anti-swinger").

I'm not sure how to take this critique. I could, for example, write that "I really dislike those people who use poly as a cover for being unable to make up their minds and settle down into one relationship." It would make perfect sense for someone to point out that what I wrote was maligning poly- people. I could then respond "Oh no, but I only meant a very specific sub-group", but really... that's a kind of weak rhetorical dodge. Maybe I had some sort of point there somewhere, but it's pretty reasonable for the reader to think that I've got some weird ideas about poly- people after reading that.

But let's say that I don't have weird ideas. If someone was then to say, "Hey, that's not an accurate description of what being poly- is, and it sounds like you're slagging the way that poly- people do relationships.", what should my response be? Should it be "You shouldn't say that to me, because being accused of being anti-poly is rude!" or should it be "Oh... that's not how I meant it; what I want to convey is [for example] that I wish people would always be clear when what they're really looking for is a monogamous relationship down the road, but are right now just dating around."

I think it should be the latter. The former just shuts down the conversation. Incidentally, I wonder if this relates to Ceoli's point about politeness, which I was still wondering about.

It's much the same as when YGirl mentioned the possibility of a stripper having a drug problem--you castigated her for maligning strippers when she did no such thing. You didn't respond to what she actually stated, you responded to a notion that *nobody* had stated while trying to assign her responsibility for stating it. That's just not cricket.

Alright, assuming that we agree about the following:

*There exist within our culture damaging stereotypes about strippers.
*Repeating these damaging stereotypes perpetuates them.
*Perpetuating these stereotypes leads to more damage, as it normalizes them and teaches them to people who may not have been exposed to them.
*We should not do that, unless we think that damaging strippers is a good idea.

...that leaves us with the question of whether or not YGirl's post did that. You presumably agree with YGirl that it didn't. I disagree, and stated so. So... the question then becomes whether or not it is "cricket" for me to express disagreement with you and YGirl.

So, again, I'll ask that you respond to what was actually stated and not something else. Or if you do respond to something else, make it clear that you're not responding to any statement actually made.

Well, you can ask that, but I'm not sure that I accept the premise that the author (or any individual person) has final say over what "was actually stated". When we communicate, we don't do so with perfect fidelity to our intent, and I strongly believe that we as authors need to acknowledge that a reader is going to have to perform an interpretive act in every reading.

Which is not to say that there's no such thing as a... um, "tendentious reading", which I think is what I'm actually being accused of. It's possible to deliberately miscontrue what someone is communicating in such a way as to make them sound like a bad person. I can assert all I want that I'm not doing that, but that's hardly going to change anyone's mind if bad faith is being assumed.

That said, in an attempt to address the "tendentious reading" idea, I'd say "expressing dumb, prejudicial ideas" doesn't make someone a bad person, as I think that we all do it. When I do it, I want it to be pointed out, because I think part of the project of being a member of a diverse community is ridding oneself of these ideas, which are often invisible to us.
 
It's much the same as when YGirl mentioned the possibility of a stripper having a drug problem--you castigated her for maligning strippers when she did no such thing. You didn't respond to what she actually stated, you responded to a notion that *nobody* had stated while trying to assign her responsibility for stating it. That's just not cricket.

It's entirely reasonable to notice that suggesting the possibility of a stripper having a drug problem is something that is driven by and perpetuates a stereotype. If the person in question had been, say, a school teacher or a nurse or something, I doubt drugs would have been a possibility brought up for the issues that were being talked about in that thread.

But as jkelly mentions in his response, I'm not entirely clear why it's "not cricket" to have an opposing point of view and disagreement on this matter.
 
If the person in question had been, say, a school teacher or a nurse or something, I doubt drugs would have been a possibility brought up for the issues that were being talked about in that thread.


If the person in question had been, say, a pharmacist or a doctor or something, then I might also have suspected a drug problem. Is that perpetuating a negative stereotype about medical professionals?

I do not appreciate that my remarks have been taken out of context. Your responses and JKelly's also fail to address the fact that I have worked in this business and seen with my very own eyes these "negative stereotypes" play themselves out. I have acknowledged that not all people employed in this sector fit this stereotype. Indeed, we all fit stereotypes at various times in our lives, and one stereotype here and another there do not define who we are as individuals. I was referring to a very specific situation of three strippers living in the same house and having no money. Where is all the money going? I suggested one possibility. This was all because various people were suggesting that one of the roommates move out as being the solution to the OP's problem. I was not making a speech out of nowhere about my feelings regarding strippers in general.

If you guys can't GET that, and if you insist on being deliberately obtuse and on spinning my comment to suit your own agenda(s), then I sincerely do not want to converse with either one of you anymore. It seems that you want me to be "sorry" for what I said. Well, I'm sorry you don't like what I said.
 
Last edited:
All, I have been very quiet as of late due to my busy schedule this summer. I do get on the site everyday and do mod stuff if needed. I have time to read 2-3 new threads/ posts, I look for sneaky spam to zap while skimming through the rest of it.

The mods discuss stuff off-forum, every message that is sent to a mod, every reported thread, every little thing that is brought to our attention is discussed and seconded at least unless it is egregious and in those cases we act pending discussion. If there is a question, we address it. This along with conference calls occasionally across many timezones is the job of moderators. Many of the mods do much more than I when it comes to responding to forum issues, user issues, questions of development and what would be the best decision to make in any given situation with the information we have, including forum rules and feedback from members.

That's as far as our job as culture-setters goes. I agree with those that have said that the membership leads the culture and one of the reasons that we penalize the little we do; to facilitate what I experience as a place where the burden is on the individual to explore something with a measure of decency and honesty. Posters with veiled intentions are easy to spot, and on this I would like to say that I have also felt the shift to a more mature forum recently as well. People who engage a lot develop better communication, and greater debating skills. In my opinion, those who feel intimidated should walk straight toward that fear because it's a sign that your brain is aroused to something you want to understand.

This thread is evidence of the fact that no one here walks away from a hard question.

There are so many points to respond to that I don't know where to begin weighing in. This forum is part of my life, I make time for it, I benefit as much as I give just like everything else in my life.

I find communities that actively reject marginalized people to be rather dysfunctional. Since this is a site that falls highly in google searches, it strikes me that there are ways it can be a bit more responsible about examining how welcoming it really is.

As of now, this is a great site for mono couples opening their relationship, strongly couple-centric ways of practicing poly and the general poly-fi model. There are all sorts of ways that these models take up the most space and generally don't leave much space for others. This happens in all sorts of subtle ways that people can either examine or not. If people see that as a fiction I'm weaving or as being over-senstitive, that's fine. If this site is happy with where it is, then great. But it would not be true to say that this site is the place to go for everyone who is struggling. There are many struggling people who would not feel welcome here. There are definitely other sites where alternative voices have more weight. This isn't one of them. It would just be nice if those sites googled as high as this one, then people who are new to poly that approach it in other ways wouldn't be put off.

Ceoli, your google talk set off my spam spidey sense. I have read and read and read your words, and still I haven't grasped what you mean when you say "actively reject marginalized people" You can start a thread and talk about anything you want to. I find it ridiculous to read about subtleties from you when you are constantly throwing shit at the forum. You are free to respond to or create discussion about anything.
-R

PS- please don't "translate" what I've written.
 
Just a little heavy on the brand names. I am jaded, I admit, but it bothers me to talk about the structure of our forum in relation to search engines. A reality for sure, but creepy when making a case for a community.

All mods including myself do not benefit from search engine rankings. We are VOLUNTEERS.
 
All mods including myself do not benefit from search engine rankings. We are VOLUNTEERS.


I don't think that's what Ceoli meant. I think she meant that this forum has assumed some sort of higher social responsibility due to the fact that it has the ".com" suffix and is one of the top search results when someone googles "polyamory". I don't think she meant that the moderation staff personally benefits from the google-search rankings.

The former seems to suggest that people will become turned-off to the "polyamory lifestyle" or get the "wrong" idea about it from this forum, thereby causing false assumptions and stereotypes to be projected on to all the other polyamorous people who don't agree with things that have been posted on here.

For example, someone might read this thread and think that I hate strippers and that I think they are all liars and drug addicts, and that that will imply that all polyamorous people everywhere are "anti-stripper", and that this forum is non-inclusive and unwelcoming toward all people who work as strippers, and that we are marginalizing adult-entertainment workers, and that there are "people who leave" because the moderators here have that kind of attitude.

(which, if anyone reads my posts, could not be further from the reality of the situation)
 
Last edited:
I don't think that's what Ceoli meant. I think she meant that this forum has assumed some sort of higher social responsibility due to the fact that it has the ".com" suffix and is one of the top search results when someone googles "polyamory". I don't think she meant that the moderation staff personally benefits from the google-search rankings.

The former seems to suggest that people will become turned-off to the "polyamory lifestyle" or get the "wrong" idea about it from this forum, thereby causing false assumptions and stereotypes to be projected on to all the other polyamorous people who don't agree with things that have been posted on here.

For example, someone might read this thread and think that I hate strippers and that I think they are all liars and drug addicts, and that that will imply that all polyamorous people everywhere are "anti-stripper", and that this forum is non-inclusive and unwelcoming toward all people who work as strippers, and that we are marginalizing adult-entertainment workers, and that there are "people who leave" because the moderators here have that kind of attitude.

(which, if anyone reads my posts, could not be further from the reality of the situation)

I know that implication wasn't really there, just the whole thing struck me the wrong way and I meant to emphasize the limitations of moderation and the reality (my view of reality) that a complaint about free exchange and discrimination not backed by action is tinny at best. We are not running a corporation.

Sorry, but this kind of discussion turns me right off so I'll bow out. I'm more interested in meaningful exchange than political-type parrying personally, and that's what I'm looking for in my own experience here.
 
I know that implication wasn't really there, just the whole thing struck me the wrong way and I meant to emphasize the limitations of moderation and the reality (my view of reality) that a complaint about free exchange and discrimination not backed by action is tinny at best. We are not running a corporation.

Sorry, but this kind of discussion turns me right off so I'll bow out. I'm more interested in meaningful exchange than political-type parrying personally, and that's what I'm looking for in my own experience here.

Dude I dig where you are at, you know who I am and where you can find me yo.
 
If you guys can't GET that, and if you insist on being deliberately obtuse and on spinning my comment to suit your own agenda(s), then I sincerely do not want to converse with either one of you anymore. It seems that you want me to be "sorry" for what I said. Well, I'm sorry you don't like what I said.

I wasn't spinning anything to suit any agenda and it wasn't about you. It was about how remarks can be seen. Ah well.
 
I wasn't spinning anything to suit any agenda and it wasn't about you. It was about how remarks can be seen. Ah well.

If it really isn't "about me", then it's other people's problem(s) if "remarks can be seen" in ways other than they were actually meant. I explained that remark, and folks still insisted that it was meant as "You're a stripper, therefore you must have a drug problem". Ah well.
 
Last edited:
People can, and will, hallucinate all sorts of wild meanings into what others say. It's only a problem when they refuse to own the hallucinations they created.
 
Back
Top