Polyamory.com Forum  

Go Back   Polyamory.com Forum > Polyamory > Poly Relationships Corner

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #121  
Old 05-14-2014, 05:34 PM
SchrodingersCat's Avatar
SchrodingersCat SchrodingersCat is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Saskatchewan
Posts: 2,130
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rdos View Post
Reference: http://sgo.sagepub.com/content/3/3/2158244013497722

Theory: http://www.rdos.net/eng/asperger.htm

Your turn to show your credentials in the appropriate areas.
Oh, I don't have any. I'm a physicist.

But as an "Independent Researcher" you must know how the scientific method works. Quick summary: Expert A in Field X publishes peer-reviewed Study Q with Findings M. Either (a) Experts B, C, D in Field X read the study and agree with the findings and it becomes standard theory, or (b) Expert B in Field X disagrees with Findings M, so they publish peer-reviewed Study R with Findings N, where N contradicts M. Experts C, D evaluate the studies, perform new studies, go to conferences, chat in the lunchroom, and eventually (b1) come to consensus on M or N, or (b2) continue debating the topic ad nauseum.

In the event of (a) or (b1), any reasonably intelligent person can access the findings, see the consensus of the experts, and accept it as standard theory... without being an expert themselves! It gets written into textbooks accessible to any literate person, and they get to learn stuff without getting their own PhD in Field X.

That's where we are with oxytocin being involved in human bonding, and with bonobos having both reproductive and non-reproductive sex as a social interaction. Now, you don't have to agree with these findings. Skepticism is a good thing and I encourage it in all my students. But in order to actually *convince* other people that you're right and standard theory is wrong, you have to become Expert B in Field X and do Study R. So being an "Independent Researcher" who's done a study on Asperger's... doesn't fit the bill, I'm afraid.
__________________
Gralson: my husband (works out of town).
Auto: my girlfriend (lives with her husband Zoffee).

The most dangerous phrase in the English language is "we've always done it this way."
Reply With Quote
  #122  
Old 05-14-2014, 05:52 PM
rdos rdos is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 70
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SchrodingersCat View Post
But as an "Independent Researcher" you must know how the scientific method works. Quick summary: Expert A in Field X publishes peer-reviewed Study Q with Findings M. Either (a) Experts B, C, D in Field X read the study and agree with the findings and it becomes standard theory, or (b) Expert B in Field X disagrees with Findings M, so they publish peer-reviewed Study R with Findings N, where N contradicts M. Experts C, D evaluate the studies, perform new studies, go to conferences, chat in the lunchroom, and eventually (b1) come to consensus on M or N, or (b2) continue debating the topic ad nauseum.
I'm cooperating with professionals on this. The next published study will be a joint venture.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SchrodingersCat View Post
In the event of (a) or (b1), any reasonably intelligent person can access the findings, see the consensus of the experts, and accept it as standard theory... without being an expert themselves! It gets written into textbooks accessible to any literate person, and they get to learn stuff without getting their own PhD in Field X.
Sure. The big question is if I'm still alive when this comes in text-books. :-)

Quote:
Originally Posted by SchrodingersCat View Post
That's where we are with oxytocin being involved in human bonding, and with bonobos having both reproductive and non-reproductive sex as a social interaction. Now, you don't have to agree with these findings. Skepticism is a good thing and I encourage it in all my students. But in order to actually *convince* other people that you're right and standard theory is wrong, you have to become Expert B in Field X and do Study R. So being an "Independent Researcher" who's done a study on Asperger's... doesn't fit the bill, I'm afraid.
Never said oxytocin is not involved in bonding. Actually, I have no interest in what chemicals do what in the human brain. That's only interesting for drug-pushers. I have an ethological approach. I questioned the universal "truth" that sexual intercourse is related to bonding in all humans. That's something completely different.
Reply With Quote
  #123  
Old 05-14-2014, 06:17 PM
SchrodingersCat's Avatar
SchrodingersCat SchrodingersCat is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Saskatchewan
Posts: 2,130
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kdt26417
So, what (would y'all say) is the defining difference between swinging and polyamory? I mean, are they just two different words for the same thing? Is the difference between the two a stylistic difference?

Is it inappropriate to ask such questions because swinging and polyamory are words that are best defined uniquely and subjectively by each individual?

Like, if I go to a swing club but don't participate, I can self-identify as a "swing event attendee;" it's not like my self-worth will take a ding if I don't self-identify as an actual swinger.
Here's my take on it.

There are "generally accepted" definitions for swinging and poly. Those are, more or less, that swinging is about having casual sex with people outside your principal relationship(s), and polyamory is about building romantic relationships with people. So when you say "I'm polyamorous" or "I'm a swinger," that's what people are going to *assume* you mean, if they understand the generally accepted definitions.

Now, their assumption does *not* stop you from redefining it for yourself. So I could say "I'm polyamorous" when I'm in a monoromantic marriage but having sex with my friends. Similarly, I could say "I'm a swinger" even if I'm asexual but I like casual cuddling. In either case, I'd better be prepared to correct people's assumptions, because that's not what *most* people mean by polyamorous/swinger.

I've identified as Polyamorous ever since I learned the word, regardless of whether I was in 0, 1, many relationships at the time. Other people identify Polyamory with their behaviour: they're polyamorous when they're in multiple relationships, monogamous when they're in one, and single when they're in zero. Neither of us is right or wrong, it's our own personal identity and we can define it however the heck we want.

Frankly, most asexuals I've spoken with find sex actually repulsive. So while there's nothing stopping someone from self-identifying as an asexual swinger... it's highly unlikely and I've never actually heard of it. Similarly, swinging is frowned upon by society in general, to the extent that most people who *do* fit the generally accepted swinger definition choose not to self-identify. So I think a lot of this is moot... fun intellectual discussion, but having little bearing on reality.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mmkeekah View Post
I respectfully disagree with you rdos. To a majority of people sex is part of love - and in my humble opinion, I feel it is incorrect to state that because the fixed definition of polyamory does not include the word "sex" directly in it that it means sex is optional.
At first I disagreed with this. It seemed to be saying, basically, that asexuals could not have romantic relationships. But when I got ready to reply and read it more carefully, it seems to be saying that for *most* people, romantic relationships include sex. I can't disagree with that - I recognize that we asexuals are in the minority. You didn't deny that the definition of polyamory does not include sex, so no disagreement there.

Then it's just some confusion about what is meant by "optional." The way it was introduced by rdos is that polyamory does not necessarily include sex, i.e. that a person *can be* in multiple romantic relationships without having sex in any of them. That's true, and if you disagree, then I disrespectfully say "screw you" because you are denying my reality and personal identity, and I'm not very respectful to people who do that. Auto and I are the only people who get to say whether our relationship is romantic, and the fact that we don't have sex is not a factor in our decision.
__________________
Gralson: my husband (works out of town).
Auto: my girlfriend (lives with her husband Zoffee).

The most dangerous phrase in the English language is "we've always done it this way."
Reply With Quote
  #124  
Old 05-14-2014, 06:18 PM
SchrodingersCat's Avatar
SchrodingersCat SchrodingersCat is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Saskatchewan
Posts: 2,130
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rdos View Post
Never said oxytocin is not involved in bonding.
Oh?

Quote:
Originally Posted by rdos View Post
I very much doubt that oxytocin has a special function in humans.
__________________
Gralson: my husband (works out of town).
Auto: my girlfriend (lives with her husband Zoffee).

The most dangerous phrase in the English language is "we've always done it this way."
Reply With Quote
  #125  
Old 05-14-2014, 06:23 PM
rdos rdos is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 70
Default

Don't understand. If oxytocin is related to bonding in both bonobos and humans, then it doesn't have a special function in humans. Oxytocin is a brain chemical, and has nothing to do with what behaviors activates bonding.
Reply With Quote
  #126  
Old 05-14-2014, 06:26 PM
mmkeekah's Avatar
mmkeekah mmkeekah is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Denver, Colorado
Posts: 31
Default

Thank you, Schrodinger's Cat, for taking the time to re-read what I wrote. I respect your right to define your relationship or relationships in anyway you see fit. I respect you even more for trying to understand what I wrote. Hats off to you.
Reply With Quote
  #127  
Old 05-14-2014, 06:43 PM
SchrodingersCat's Avatar
SchrodingersCat SchrodingersCat is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Saskatchewan
Posts: 2,130
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rdos View Post
I'm cooperating with professionals on this. The next published study will be a joint venture.
I look forward to seeing the results.

Quote:
Actually, I have no interest in what chemicals do what in the human brain. That's only interesting for drug-pushers.
False. I'm not a drug-pusher, and I find neurochemistry to be absolutely fascinating. If I could spend my life just getting PhD's, neuroscience would be next on the list. It's so amazing to think that all these complexities of thought, emotion, and personality can be boiled down to molecular interactions and electrical impulses.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rdos View Post
Don't understand. If oxytocin is related to bonding in both bonobos and humans, then it doesn't have a special function in humans. Oxytocin is a brain chemical, and has nothing to do with what behaviors activates bonding.
Oh, I understood the emphasis as "special function" in humans, not special function "in humans [only]." Well, no one said it did, so then I don't really get what your point was. My point was that its "special function" is bonding, be it humans, chimps, bonobos, or other primates/mammals that have complex social structures like ours.
__________________
Gralson: my husband (works out of town).
Auto: my girlfriend (lives with her husband Zoffee).

The most dangerous phrase in the English language is "we've always done it this way."

Last edited by SchrodingersCat; 05-14-2014 at 06:50 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #128  
Old 05-14-2014, 08:31 PM
kdt26417's Avatar
kdt26417 kdt26417 is offline
Official Greeter
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Olympia, Washington
Posts: 5,483
Default

@ SchrodingersCat ... I tend to agree that I can "mold" the definitions of swing and poly to fit my own perceptions, but if the definitions I use diverge from the commonly-understood definitions, then I'll need to explain my definitions before using the words.

And, by extension it makes sense to me to say that any word at all can be used with my own unique definition for it. It's not like anyone could stop me. But I'd still need to explain the unique nature of my definition for that word before using it in a conversation.

The non-monogamous lexicon is more in its formative stages than are most of the other words in the English language, so special (often prescriptive) exceptions are often made to the commonly-known non-monogamous definitions. Don't know what the moral of that story is, except maybe just that I ought to be aware that "my 'swing' and my 'poly'" may not be another person's swing and poly.
__________________
Love means never having to say, "Put down that meat cleaver!"
Reply With Quote
  #129  
Old 05-14-2014, 08:40 PM
mmkeekah's Avatar
mmkeekah mmkeekah is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Denver, Colorado
Posts: 31
Default

It kinda tickles my funny bone - this whole discussion on definitions - because I didn't change either definition of swinging or poly. I didn't even add sex as a requirement into the definition of poly. I found those definitions online - they weren't even mine.

So to me they are very distinct in their definitions and I don't see the need to change or blur their descriptions. All I've said is they share commonalities and I feel each group should support the other.

I think the only item that I stated that some disagreed with me was when I stated I felt that voyeurs attending a swingers event were in fact participating in a swinging event - whether they are being watched or they are watching. But I don't really care enough to argue the point. YMMV
Reply With Quote
  #130  
Old 05-14-2014, 09:42 PM
kdt26417's Avatar
kdt26417 kdt26417 is offline
Official Greeter
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Olympia, Washington
Posts: 5,483
Default

Re:
Quote:
"I found those definitions online -- they weren't even mine."
Shee-it.

I've gotten in (verbal) trouble before for quoting the definition of polyamory out of Wikipedia, as stated by the original coiner of the word. Ironically, if I had just spouted off my own first-thought natural-language definition for the word, I'm certain I'd have come out of that conversation smelling like a rose. It's amazing how things can go when you try to respect what's already been established -- amirite?

Oh and by the way. It seems to me like demanding "romantic" instead of "intimate" is really splitting hairs. I mean, a mere glance at Wiktionary will confirm that "intimate" doesn't at all have to mean something sexual.

Oh well. You do the best you can and then, like, life goes on.

Kinda sad when a thread about swingers and polyamorists joining hands devolves into yet another endless debate about semantics. Sigh
__________________
Love means never having to say, "Put down that meat cleaver!"
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
polyamorous, polyamory, sex, swingers

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 05:05 AM.