Aren't we all polyamorous?

[km34]

Originally Posted by Shadowgbq

Dude, historically, relationships often *have* been a form of slavery. If you think about arranged marriages and the history of the patriarchy in Europe and Asia, such a comparison is by no means hyperbolic or contrived.

But, that's not what I was saying at all. I am making the broader point that social progress has always been inhibited by saying "Well, you know, history and institutions have taught us to be xyz, and I guess everyone isn't completely miserable with that, and it's a bitch to try to change it within our lifetimes so we might as well follow in kind."

Too bad you're out of the conversation, I for one am learning a lot from everyone's replies and thoughts.

Who here is following in kind? Most of the people on this forum advocate for polyamory to be accepted either on a personal level with friends and family or publicly by hosting/speaking at events.

I think the gist is that you can't expect everyone's outlooks to change all at once. You have to acknowledge that even if YOU are poly, others are mono. If you can't accept that,why should they accept you?

No matter how monogamy initially developed, it is the most common relationship structure of this day and age. Some people love it, and even if they learnabout alternatives choose it.

On a side note, I think calling people who choose monogamy "conformist" even though they are following their emotions is awful. Also, I find using the term "ignorant" as a derivative is way off base. A lack of knowledge is nothing to be ashamed of - the refusal to respect people and learn is. Oh, and why can people blame the white men for everything and it is considered valid, but if I got all bent out of shape about something that could be blamed on black people or Native Americans or Chinese people etc. I'm racist?

[lovefromgirl]

Originally Posted by Shadowgbq

Virginia used this exact argument in Congress to block the abolition of slavery in 1776.

Please take that in the (hopefully) thought-provoking but inoffensive way I intend it.

Like the other poster whose name I don't currently recall pointed out, your grasp of the history involved is shaky at best. What actually happened only proves my point. Social changes that stick happen slowly.

Now stop mansplaining oppression to me. I've got... something nasty, and I can't think clearly enough to put it any nicer way. I get it. I'm a non-Christian queer poly woman with a disability. Trust me, I know from oppression. If I can go about my day without stopping to rant at everyone I know, surely you can buck up and be grateful your gender wasn't the one bartered for cows back in the day?

[Shadowgbq]

Originally Posted by km34

Who here is following in kind? Most of the people on this forum advocate for polyamory to be accepted either on a personal level with friends and family or publicly by hosting/speaking at events.

I think the gist is that you can't expect everyone's outlooks to change all at once. You have to acknowledge that even if YOU are poly, others are mono. If you can't accept that,why should they accept you?

No matter how monogamy initially developed, it is the most common relationship structure of this day and age. Some people love it, and even if they learnabout alternatives choose it.

On a side note, I think calling people who choose monogamy "conformist" even though they are following their emotions is awful. Also, I find using the term "ignorant" as a derivative is way off base. A lack of knowledge is nothing to be ashamed of - the refusal to respect people and learn is. Oh, and why can people blame the white men for everything and it is considered valid, but if I got all bent out of shape about something that could be blamed on black people or Native Americans or Chinese people etc. I'm racist?

People 'love' monogamy enough to fight, suffer, break up, lie, divorce, cheat, eventually hate one another or otherwise deviate from it destructively about 99% of the time it's tried. It is also true that many people who are monogamists are conforming to a social convention. I accept that, and I accept the people who do all of these things. I never said I hated anyone or looked down on others. I think you are reading that stuff into a much more abstract discussion about sexuality & social trends.

That said, I'm not poly, or mono, or any such label. I'm emotionally liberated, and right now I have only one partner, and she has only me. It's new and not many people even know about the philosophy yet.

I never use ignorant as an insult unless it's willful ignorance.

I said Europe and Asia, so I am putting down rich Oriental men from centuries past as well as white men for creating a culture where women are property and relationships are based on money & exclusivity. If you can prove that underprivileged women from Venus actually did it, let me know & I'll criticize them. :-)

[Shadowgbq]

Originally Posted by lovefromgirl

Like the other poster whose name I don't currently recall pointed out, your grasp of the history involved is shaky at best. What actually happened only proves my point. Social changes that stick happen slowly.

Now stop mansplaining oppression to me. I've got... something nasty, and I can't think clearly enough to put it any nicer way. I get it. I'm a non-Christian queer poly woman with a disability. Trust me, I know from oppression. If I can go about my day without stopping to rant at everyone I know, surely you can buck up and be grateful your gender wasn't the one bartered for cows back in the day?

You don't know anything about me, and you have no idea whether I grasp the history of the american revolution or not. I'm sorry that I threatened you into trying to insult a stranger. Let me get this straight, I'm being macho and man-whatevering, but I also need to buck up and stop being frail or...? How about we stick to a respectful discussion of the issues and stop trying to criticize me as a scholar or give life advice.

That said, obviously I wouldn't be so concerned with the historical oppression of women if I were some macho chauvinist. The only "nasty" I see here is the rocks being thrown at the new poster who said NOTHING about you or anyone else personally at all.

Changes happen slowly, but the only reason they happen at all is because brave individuals try to stand up for what is right, without molding their thoughts around the cultural dogma of the collective.

[lovefromgirl]

Originally Posted by Shadowgbq

You don't know anything about me, and you have no idea whether I grasp the history of the american revolution or not. I'm sorry that I threatened you into trying to insult a stranger. Let me get this straight, I'm being macho and man-whatevering, but I also need to buck up and stop being frail or...? How about we stick to a respectful discussion of the issues and stop trying to criticize me as a scholar or give life advice.

Actually, I was saying the other poster had it right. Virginia said no in 1776; eighty-five years later, oh, look! A civil war. Because eventually enough of us did get fed up. Didn't get black people equal rights in this country, and many would argue they still haven't got them (see also T. Martin). Stopping at slavery is kind of like stopping at women's suffrage: so, we count as people now. Cool. Now where are the rest of our rights? And we fight the long fight, knowing we may not benefit, but our descendants will.

Men who are feminists are coming into a woman's fight, a woman's space. Thus, when women's voices are discounted in discussions about their own historical oppression, I get tetchy. I also get skeptical when it's men arguing that monogamy is oppressive "because it hurts women". Is it really? Or is that because there are just fewer women to fuck?

That's what's been bothering me underneath all of this. Hooray for breakthroughs.

[Shadowgbq]

Originally Posted by lovefromgirl

Men who are feminists are coming into a woman's fight, a woman's space. Thus, when women's voices are discounted in discussions about their own historical oppression, I get tetchy. I also get skeptical when it's men arguing that monogamy is oppressive "because it hurts women". Is it really? Or is that because there are just fewer women to fuck?

That's what's been bothering me underneath all of this. Hooray for breakthroughs.

You know, it's very brave & cool of you to talk about this issue. I have never thought about it in these terms, but I know there does seem to be some bedrock skepticism out there to a guy's motives when you talk about the history of marriage & patriarchy etc. Thank you, and I hope you will accept my remarks in the sincere way that I mean them.

I think equality of the sexes is everyone's fight, not just women's. I have never defined myself as a feminist because 21 different people tend to think 21 different things when the word is used. But I definitely find myself having more respect, appreciation & sympathy for women than men on average. Whether that makes me a feminist, I don't know.

People & groups can definitely play a role in their own oppression, but I try my hardest to respond to every individual based on their reasoning, regardless of gender or race.

As for supporting polyamory just to have more women to fuck, first and foremost I should say that I see sex as a compassionate act, a kindness to be given generously -- not something that I "take" from women. That said, my experience in my neck of the woods leads me to believe that the LAST thing you want to do if you want to "get laid" a lot is come out and talk about free love and sexuality. Not only are women automatically skeptical, but the concepts scare the heck out of a majority of women outside a few liberally-oriented metropolises.

Where I'm from, the guys who get the most "action" (or w/e sex-negative term we wanna use) are serial monogamists, or people who claim to be monogamists but constantly seek casual sex. I guess since exclusivity is synonymous with "a serious relationship" in most midwestern girls' minds, a monogamous guy represents the emotionally safe lay, either from a "he's not tied down" perspective if he's single, or a "he's cheating so it's completely no strings attached and no emotions to deal with" angle if he's not. Of course there are even uglier psychological aspects that often occur with "cheating" and casual sex, and none of them are possible turn-ons for women if the possibility isn't there. Last but not least, emotional masochism & "bad boy" lust is rampant in my hometown, and to even know how to use big words like "polyamory" chases many girls away.

So, any selfish sexual "tycoons" out there talking about polyamory as a way to manipulate women for sex need to be in very precise circumstances for it to work, otherwise it'd seem like the dumbest thing that a shallow guy can do...of course apart from his already-stupid decision to have a sexuality based on using people & getting physical sensations on his prick.

[lovefromgirl]

Originally Posted by Shadowgbq

You know, it's very brave & cool of you to talk about this issue. I have never thought about it in these terms, but I know there does seem to be some bedrock skepticism out there to a guy's motives when you talk about the history of marriage & patriarchy etc. Thank you, and I hope you will accept my remarks in the sincere way that I mean them.

I'm glad we seem to be coming to consensus, at least. Here is common ground. Here is a place I can start to discuss this with you. Yes, absolutely, there are those of us who will become skeptical. This is how it is for allies of any group (LGBTQ, people of color, people with disabilities--this is where I've seen it happen!). Approach with caution, aware that the people you want to help will show you how you can help.

I think equality of the sexes is everyone's fight, not just women's. I have never defined myself as a feminist because 21 different people tend to think 21 different things when the word is used. But I definitely find myself having more respect, appreciation & sympathy for women than men on average. Whether that makes me a feminist, I don't know.

At the very least, it makes you willing to try, which is more than many can say. And yeah, there are almost as many feminisms as there are feminists. Have you read around the various blogs to get an idea of what various people think? Definitely not a monolith! My particular feminism is egalitarian, is simultaneously woman-oriented. Rights for women based in who women are, not in women molding themselves to be like men. I chafe at the idea that I should take on the predominant sociocultural traits of men.

People & groups can definitely play a role in their own oppression, but I try my hardest to respond to every individual based on their reasoning, regardless of gender or race.

I sort of agree. I know there are people who are pointedly Not Helping. I am all in favor of people choosing their own... "oppression" is an interesting word. Let me substitute "way of life". But I draw the line when I am told I must think like those people. "Nope," I say. "I'm comfortable where I am." And if I'm in a place that isn't as "free" as some people think I should be, well, I'm working within my circumstances. My choices reflect what I desire.

As for supporting polyamory just to have more women to fuck, first and foremost I should say that I see sex as a compassionate act, a kindness to be given generously -- not something that I "take" from women.

I wish I could give and take more easily. Unfortunately, I am aware that, as a woman, to many men, "no" is just a conditional "yes", and that serious abuses in that vein have occurred in communities closely associated with polyamory (so, potential for crossover). I am very sex-positive with people I trust. It's not easy to be that way with complete strangers. "Don't be a rapist" is the goal. "Steer clear of a rapist" is the current reality. God, that hurts.

So, any selfish sexual "tycoons" out there talking about polyamory as a way to manipulate women for sex need to be in very precise circumstances for it to work, otherwise it'd seem like the dumbest thing that a shallow guy can do...of course apart from his already-stupid decision to have a sexuality based on using people & getting physical sensations on his prick.

You wouldn't believe what I've encountered. Or maybe you would. Suffice to say there are some prize idiots in the poly community.