Polyamory.com Forum  

Go Back   Polyamory.com Forum > Polyamory > General Poly Discussions

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 11-19-2009, 01:56 AM
ImaginaryIllusion's Avatar
ImaginaryIllusion ImaginaryIllusion is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,928
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MonoVCPHG View Post
It has also been used only twice in 100 years and is directed at polygamists who use multiple marraigeS primarily in abusive ways towards young women. I see no wrong in that. It has never been used against a poly person as far as my research indicates.
Ah Nuts...now I have work to do...there's been a lot of discussion about this on a yahoo group on this since the call came up for intervenors in BC case with regards to this section 293. <sigh>

Ok...info from other group has been posted to the Press & Media Forum. Linked out below, and followed by excerpts from the discussion there...and in particular some links and articles both for and against which may be of some interest to various people.

May also be a good meaty discussion for members looking for something less...basic to discuss. If nothing else, I'd encourage everyone to read the linked articles.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ImaginaryIllusion View Post
Call for Intervenors

November 13, 2009

Court case: Upcoming BC Government's Court Reference on the Criminalization of Polygamy and Group Marriages
__________________
“People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.” - Chinese Proverb

-Imaginary Illusion

How did I get here & Where am I going?

Last edited by ImaginaryIllusion; 11-19-2009 at 03:46 AM. Reason: Updating for new information
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 11-19-2009, 07:15 AM
redpepper's Avatar
redpepper redpepper is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 7,634
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ImaginaryIllusion View Post
Ah Nuts...now I have work to do...there's been a lot of discussion about this on a yahoo group on this since the call came up for intervenors in BC case with regards to this section 293. <sigh>

Ok...info from other group has been posted to the Press & Media Forum. Linked out below, and followed by excerpts from the discussion there...and in particular some links and articles both for and against which may be of some interest to various people.

May also be a good meaty discussion for members looking for something less...basic to discuss. If nothing else, I'd encourage everyone to read the linked articles.
Some friends of ours went to intervene in Vancouver, Canada. They are still organizing and getting there act together, passion up and voices ready. We'll see what happens. One of them is giving me (and our local poly group website) an update as it goes along.
__________________
Anyone want to be friends on Facebook?
Send me your name via PM
My blog
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 11-19-2009, 11:21 AM
ImaginaryIllusion's Avatar
ImaginaryIllusion ImaginaryIllusion is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,928
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by redpepper View Post
Some friends of ours went to intervene in Vancouver, Canada. They are still organizing and getting there act together, passion up and voices ready. We'll see what happens. One of them is giving me (and our local poly group website) an update as it goes along.
Yep...the conversation I cross-posted came from same Vanpoly yahoo group that they would be meeting with. Their other website is www.vanpoly.ca.
__________________
“People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.” - Chinese Proverb

-Imaginary Illusion

How did I get here & Where am I going?
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 11-21-2009, 08:10 PM
Nyx Nyx is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: north america
Posts: 53
Default

[QUOTE=rolypoly;12299

- He must make all the first moves
- He must commit to me early on
- I would even say, he had better commit to me (I hear my aunt saying this)
- He better not look at other women
- It is his job to meet my needs
- He must desire me physically and sexually, love me with integrity, sacrifice for me, etc.

[/QUOTE]

So you are saying these are things that you feel have been stressed to you by your family/upbringing? That monogamy means that a man bends over backward for the woman he intends to marry? Wow.

My idea of monogamy is very different. I think my upbringing never really touched on what relationships were, healthy or otherwise. I could get into it more in depth, but it would take a while to explain the conflicting values my family exhibited. So I will just say that I sort of had to make up my own concept of what monogamy means....a concept which is, at this time, being totally disassembled (having been introduced to poly over a year ago). I had these very sort of stringent assumptions and expectations about monogamy but I never really examined them in depth until recently.

I think what monogamy is to me is the expectation that your partner is the only person who holds The Special Place. The term Significant Other illustrates that. My children, my mom, my friends, etc are all significant. But no one gets that title except my monogamous partner, right? This partner has certain responsibilities and rights within the relationship: exclusive sexuality, emotional intimacy, life-sharing, and I believe most are responsible for giving their partner support (emotional, physical....and day to day things like fetching medicine when the partner is sick or sharing finances). They are also the person you check in with on a daily basis about pretty much everything.

What I am seeing in some poly relationship descriptions are these exact same things. But I think it is called Polyfidelity - which is confusing to me....I thought a major point of poly was to give your partner(s) the freedom to explore any/all relationships? But some people have these 'closed' poly groups.....which I don't understand. Is it possible some poly's are monogamous poly's? (Or am I opening a GIGANTIC can of worms on that?)

I am going to read the rest of the replies to this post and may post more.......
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 11-21-2009, 08:20 PM
Nyx Nyx is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: north america
Posts: 53
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GroundedSpirit View Post
Hi Ceoli,

1> In poly-minded folk, there's an acceptance of the fact/possibility that it's possible to have deep feelings/ caring/emotional bonding (love?) about someone other than one's primary mate and that the existence of this is not viewed as a threat to the primary relationship.

2> The expression of this caring in a sexual manner is accepted when it leads in that direction. It doesn't always, nor is it a requirement, but if it does it's just acknowledged as one component of a close relationship.

I really think this is GREAT! This makes a lot of sense to me and puts it in a way that is very simple. I think a lot of discussions and arguments I have had with people (mono and poly) are all about these two items listed above. In a nutshell. Good work!
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 11-21-2009, 08:24 PM
MonoVCPHG's Avatar
MonoVCPHG MonoVCPHG is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: In Redpepper's heart
Posts: 4,742
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nyx View Post

What I am seeing in some poly relationship descriptions are these exact same things. But I think it is called Polyfidelity - which is confusing to me....I thought a major point of poly was to give your partner(s) the freedom to explore any/all relationships? But some people have these 'closed' poly groups.....which I don't understand. Is it possible some poly's are monogamous poly's? (Or am I opening a GIGANTIC can of worms on that?)

I am going to read the rest of the replies to this post and may post more.......
The word poly refers to the ability to love more than one. It does not mandate that you have to be open all the time. That is how some people aproach living poly but not a requirement. You could be in love with just two people for your entire life and that is still being poly. Polyfidelitous living is essentially embracing more than one love in an apparently monogamous manner. It is not monogamous because it involves more than two people.

There are no "points" to how you have relationships...that almost makes it sound like a club with rules you have to follow or you are out LOL! (traditional monogamous relationships have a lot of these) Yes I do see this attitude in my poly community. There are some that think if you aren't open to new loves you aren't poly. That's fine for them. I would find a great deal of weakness in someone who felt they had to leave themselves open only to fit in or meet the "club" requirements. I find a weakness towards anything like that really..cheerleaders, jocks, bikers, anyone. I would also find this a weakness in someone forcing themselves to act mono just to blend with society for any reasons less than survival and health of family.

I hope this helps

Peace and love
Mono
__________________

Playing the Game of Life with Monopoly rules.
Monogamy might just be in my genes

Poly Events All Over

Last edited by MonoVCPHG; 11-21-2009 at 09:22 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 11-21-2009, 08:46 PM
Ceoli Ceoli is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: London, UK
Posts: 900
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nyx View Post
I really think this is GREAT! This makes a lot of sense to me and puts it in a way that is very simple. I think a lot of discussions and arguments I have had with people (mono and poly) are all about these two items listed above. In a nutshell. Good work!
I like those two points as well, except for the fact that the first point looks at it from the stand point of someone partnered in a primary relationship. There are other models of poly that don't use the primary/secondary model and there are lots of poly people who are not in primary relationships so this wouldn't apply to them (or me at the moment). I would rephrase it to say that love growing in one relationship does not take from the love in another relationship.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 11-23-2009, 03:09 AM
LovingRadiance's Avatar
LovingRadiance LovingRadiance is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Alaska
Posts: 5,249
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceoli View Post
I like those two points as well, except for the fact that the first point looks at it from the stand point of someone partnered in a primary relationship. There are other models of poly that don't use the primary/secondary model and there are lots of poly people who are not in primary relationships so this wouldn't apply to them (or me at the moment). I would rephrase it to say that love growing in one relationship does not take from the love in another relationship.
That fits much better to me. I have no ability to say that I BELIEVE that Maca is my primary AND that GreenGecko is my secondary.

Like Mono-GG CHOOSES to identify himself as my secondary in some of his actions and when discussing the situation (he doesn't use these words ever) with certain people who are "in the know".

But for ME-they are both quite definitely my primaries. They have equal responsibility to me (in my eyes) and to our family. They both support the household with their incomes, they both participate in planning and organizing finances, care of the children, upkeep of our home etc.

So I can more easily identify with the
"love growing in one relationship does not take from the love in another relationship."

wording.

__________________
"Love As Thou Wilt"
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 12-07-2009, 03:47 AM
Legion's Avatar
Legion Legion is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: California
Posts: 95
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceoli View Post
So let's lay it out there. What's the difference?
my opinion/perception of underlying principles:

Poly:
1. Love is self-perpetuating in all its forms (romantic, platonic, agape, &c.). The more you love, the more love you have.

2.



Mono:

1. Love is self-perpetuating in all forms excepting romantic love. In regards to romantic love, the more individuals you love, the less you love each one. True, pure and legitimate romantic love is reserved for one person, all others are forsaken and forsworn.

2.


Other rules or guidelines like honesty, communication, and trust are not specific to one or the other, but I think an important thing to recognize is that these are two very different paradigms: sets of assumptions, concepts, values, and practices that constitute a way of viewing reality for the communities that share them.

There are all sorts of beliefs that people hold, but these vary from individual to individual. Things like: "if a man cheats, it's because his lover wasn't any good." or "Bros before hos". They can be sexist, racist or in our situations, prejudices about lovestyles.

I admit I am one of those that sees monogamy as a less enlightened way of living when used as a moral compass. I respect our MonoVCHP's way of living and also my lover, Bee's declaration that she "doesn't really want to sleep with anyone else because things get confusing." That's fine if you don't have the desire or the time or whatever it is. I guess part of my high horse when it comes to poly vs. mono is that I get defensive. I've had people respond the same way jools described but I wasn't as savvy to answer so appropriately. I end up defending my way, and they defend theirs... sigh.
__________________
Often he had been often bound with fetters and chains, and the chains had been rent asunder by him, and the fetters broken in pieces: neither could any man tame him...and he asked him, What is thy name? And he answered, saying, My name is Legion: for we are many.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 12-07-2009, 06:21 PM
GroundedSpirit GroundedSpirit is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: New England USA
Posts: 1,231
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Legion View Post
my opinion/perception of underlying principles:

Poly:
1. Love is self-perpetuating in all its forms (romantic, platonic, agape, &c.). The more you love, the more love you have.
Mono:
1. Love is self-perpetuating in all forms excepting romantic love. In regards to romantic love, the more individuals you love, the less you love each one. True, pure and legitimate romantic love is reserved for one person, all others are forsaken and forsworn.
..
This is an interesting theory. Note the underlining (mine) about a theory of love having limitations.

I suspect we couldn't get an accurate poll here on a "poly" area as to whether many people (mono) hold this belief to be true or not. I have absolutely nothing to contribute on that topic as it's not a theory I've ever heard debated in a group of (labeled) mono people.
But gut instinct says..........
I suspect folks choosing to live a mono lovestyle probably don't question the "possibility" of romantic love flowering (it's existence) but simply forbid any EXPRESSION of that love. In other words - it's a "concept" vs "reality" issue. I suspect it's the expression, the actions, associated with spreading love that constitutes the threat or breaking of vows. Whether "mono" minded people (as any large percentage) believe "love" to be a finite thing, somehow just doesn't compute with me.
But I'd love to hear (or see) a good discussion of this somewhere among a group of mono minded folk.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:27 AM.