Polyamory.com Forum  

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

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #11  
Old 04-22-2012, 12:10 PM
nycindie's Avatar
nycindie nycindie is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The Big Apple
Posts: 7,222
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadowgbq View Post
First things first, I am sorry for raising your ire. My understanding is that this is a place to exchange ideas and that nobody is going to be cursed at or called a heretic for sharing hers or his. You seem to be making a lot of absolute pronouncements while talking about how upset you are about my making absolute pronouncements.
Oh no, you misunderstand. Firstly, I'm not upset at all. Not a whit. Just sharing my opinion. Anonymous people on message boards don't raise my ire. I wasn't cursing at you, just cursing in the course of conversation. I have a potty mouth, that's just me. And I didn't call you a heretic. Name-calling is not something I'm into and I don't even know you. As for making absolute pronouncements, I don't think that's what I was doing. My point is that it is how people treat each other that matters more than anything, and that good, healthy, respectful relationships can be poly or mono or whatever else one wants to call it. Where is the absolute pronouncement I am supposedly making in that?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadowgbq View Post
I didn't say I thought polyamory was a perfect, ideal paradigm. It's not. People who self-label poly often share a lot of ideas with the people who self-label mono, such as the subjectivism you're preaching to me right now.
I am not preaching. I don't care if you agree or not, I'm not out to convince anyone of anything. I was simply stating my opinion as a response to what you posted earlier. Not preaching. And I don't even know what you mean by subjectivism - I mean, I know what the word means but don't understand why you say I was preaching it. That isn't a word I would use to talk about this topic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadowgbq View Post
I actually belong to a new school of relationship philosophy that began about 7 years ago, but that's neither here nor there. It doesn't make me superior to anyone because I didn't invent it, other people did, and I followed their example. But I'm not a 'poly' and I'm not the first person to criticize our relationship culture in general.
I don't identify as poly either. I don't care much for trying to fit myself into any labels.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadowgbq View Post
...monogamy itself, by definition, is a system of claiming most of your partner's sexuality as your sole entitlement.
Again, that is bullshit. Maybe I've just known a lot of enlightened people who have done a great deal of inner work, but I know many monogamists who have never thought of their love relationships as defined by a claim to a partner's sexuality. That may have been true in the past but it's not the case, across the board, in the 21st century. Never in my 12-year monogamous marriage did I feel I owned my husband or his dick. I have known a great many people who simply have no need for multiple lovers but who also do not see their partners, nor their partner's sexuality, as something they possess. And there are more than a few "monos" who belong to this forum. Polyamorous relationships aren't that much different than monogamous ones, in the sense that respect, caring, integrity, and honesty are crucial for them to work well and be satisfying. If there are flaws in the relationship, look at the people who aren't managing it well. It's so easy to make monogamy the scapegoat. Now I am not denying that there are ideas and stereotypes in "popular culture," about monogamous relationships, that coincide with what you're saying, but to make blanket statements about people in monogamous relationships, calling them "people-owners" and immoral, just sounds silly and arrogant. Successful, loving, perfectly joyous monogamous relationships exist and the people who are in those relationships are not villains simply because they're monogamous.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadowgbq View Post
Polyamory is also a paradigm in which people are expected to reflect certain concepts in their treatment of one another, such as compersion, hierarchy, etc...
Hierarchy is not a requisite of polyamory, nor an automatic expectation. Many people do not need a hierarchy in order to live polyamorously and therefore do not subscribe to that approach.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadowgbq View Post
It's as if you're saying, "Anarchy & Communism have no inherent meaning or value, what does have value is whether people decide to have no government or a massive one and what those systems do for them."
Oh well, theories, concepts, and beliefs are just theories, concepts, and beliefs. People will ascribe whatever meaning to them that they will, but what really means something is how people act. Not what they dream or pontificate about. No, what I am saying is more like seeing polyamory or monogamy as boats. Both are perfectly sea-worthy, but it is up to the people in the boats to steer them to paradise, and keep them from capsizing, running aground, springing leaks, etc. If the boat falls apart, it isn't the boat's fault. It's the people who didn't take care of it.
__________________
The world opens up... when you do.

Oh, oh, can't you see? Love is the drug for me. ~Bryan Ferry
"Love is that condition in which another person's happiness is essential to your own." ~Robert Heinlein

Last edited by nycindie; 04-22-2012 at 09:09 PM.
Reply With Quote
 

Tags
definitions, descriptions, measurement, terminology

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 09:27 AM.