Polyamory.com Forum  

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

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 08-23-2011, 06:06 PM
River's Avatar
River River is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: NM, USA
Posts: 1,894
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by opalescent View Post
... I really, really don't get how or why 'materialistic' is the term your friend chose to describe the responses. .... I'm really curious about it.
Well, the impression I got was that Sean was using "materialistic" as roughly synonymous with "greedy". And I agree very much that the word seems widly off the mark, since people and relationships are not material possessions.

I've come to think of my sexuality as just one of many ways in which I can be intimate and give and receive love and affection, but I'm certainly often around people who don't see sexuality in this way, but rather as a resource which other people have which one can get from them, like a commodity. So these are radically differing paradigms about sexuality which often result in great misunderstandings in communication and in relationships.

A person who thinks of sexuality as an exchange of resource may have a terrible time comprehending what polyamory is to a person like me, for whom sex is less central to loving experience (though still lovely and important). Friendship is central to my loverly relationships, and non-sexual intimacies and sharings of experience are as precious to me as "making love". So it is not difficult for me to love multiple persons "romantically," because the model is friendship rather than resource or ownership. I don't possess my dear Kevin, nor FarawaySweetheart. Nor would I wish to! They are free agents in their own lives, and we come together because we enjoy one another. Period.

Mature, sensible people do not insist to their close friends that they have no other close friends, right?! That's crazy talk! So why do/should "we" expect this of our lovers? It is a form of madness. It really isn't very loving.

A friend of mine just complained to me about his wife who won't let him have female friends, for fear.... He feels imprisoned, because he prefers women for friends, since he finds so many men rather uninteresting. And I have many such stories. It is commonplace, it seems, for people to imprison "the one they love". I think it's time for our culture to grow up some.
__________________
bi, partnered, available

River's Blog
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 08-23-2011, 07:45 PM
ladyslipper ladyslipper is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 47
Default

It's a polite way of "slut-shaming", so polite in fact, it was almost unrecognizable. It's one of our society's favorite past-times among both men and women!

http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress....-slut-shaming/
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 08-23-2011, 08:19 PM
Ready2Fly Ready2Fly is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 45
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by River View Post
The model is friendship rather than resource or ownership. I don't possess my dear Kevin, nor FarawaySweetheart. Nor would I wish to! They are free agents in their own lives, and we come together because we enjoy one another. Period.

Mature, sensible people do not insist to their close friends that they have no other close friends, right?! That's crazy talk! So why do/should "we" expect this of our lovers? It is a form of madness. It really isn't very loving.
I completely agree. My perception of the culture of compulsory monogamy is that it is all about cutting off relationships, rather than fostering them. Not only is it unloving of your partner, but (and especially) of the wider community. I sometimes lurk in mainstream love advice forums... because I can't take my eyes away from the train wreck. All the advice (when it's not about your obligation to snoop in your partner's phone records and e-mail) is about how to stop caring for, stop feeling for, stop fostering intimacy with, anyone other than your partner. The world of the typical "taken" monogamist must be awful internal torture, always vigilant for developing caring feelings for others--- so that when they do arise they can be instantly obliterated. No wonder the world is such a harsh and lonely place.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ladyslipper View Post
It's a polite way of "slut-shaming"
Exactly.

Last edited by Ready2Fly; 08-23-2011 at 08:23 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 08-23-2011, 08:33 PM
Chimera Chimera is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: New York
Posts: 66
Default

River, I hate to say this, but your friend Sean sounds like a typical sexist man. Jeez, he's almost an archetype. That includes the inability to hear what women in that thread were saying. His own quite mistaken assertions were challenged from about every angle possible, so he digs in with a dismissive/derogatory response. *sigh*

I'm sure he has some positives since you are his friend, but I put people like that in my "not worth wasting one more word on" category.
__________________
"Love takes off masks that we fear we cannot live without and know we cannot live within."James Baldwin
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 08-23-2011, 10:30 PM
River's Avatar
River River is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: NM, USA
Posts: 1,894
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimera View Post
I'm sure he has some positives since you are his friend, but I put people like that in my "not worth wasting one more word on" category.
He's not only my friend, he's one of my inner circle of very best friends, and I love him with all of my heart. (He was just here with me for a brief visit.)

None of us see things with perfect clarity, knowledge and insight in every realm of life. We're human! Yes, he has growth areas to work on. We all do. And he's growing, and has been contemplating all of this polyamory stuff, since one of his closest friends is poly. You gotta give him some credit for at least thinking freshly and being honest about his thoughts and feelings, which are changing (as we all do with experience and good communication). "Sean" (not his real name here) is quite an open-minded fellow, generally. He's the only heterosexual guy friend of mine that will snuggle and cuddle with me, kiss me on the lips..., spend long hours talking from the heart in heart-open space. He's a fine person with - perhaps - a blind spot about polyamory. Still, he's marvelously and lovingly supportive of me as I welcome a new love into my life -- though I already have a long time loverly partnership with my dear Kevin (also his dear friend).
__________________
bi, partnered, available

River's Blog
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 08-23-2011, 11:01 PM
Chimera Chimera is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: New York
Posts: 66
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by River View Post
He's not only my friend, he's one of my inner circle of very best friends, and I love him with all of my heart. (He was just here with me for a brief visit.)

None of us see things with perfect clarity, knowledge and insight in every realm of life. We're human! Yes, he has growth areas to work on.
I wasn't trying to say he's not a worthwhile person at all and I very much agree what you've said. However, I'm taking issue with his assertions. I know these are interwebs conversations, so it's hard to parse what the actual words and meanings were. I'm trying to say that I don't think his issue is with polyamory, but with women. That seems to me to be his real blind spot and a sexist one -- a reliance on pseudo-scientific generalizations that conflate biology with socially constructed categories. So we go from women not being inclined to poly, to women being "materialistic" if they are. Neither is based in nature, neither is accurate.
__________________
"Love takes off masks that we fear we cannot live without and know we cannot live within."James Baldwin

Last edited by Chimera; 08-23-2011 at 11:45 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 08-23-2011, 11:30 PM
NeonKaos NeonKaos is offline
Custodian
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: new england
Posts: 3,221
Default

Whatever. WE'll make sure we all give Sean plenty of "space". Yeah, "space". That's a good way to put it.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 08-24-2011, 12:06 AM
nycindie's Avatar
nycindie nycindie is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The Big Apple
Posts: 7,413
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NeonKaos View Post
WE'll make sure we all give Sean plenty of "space". Yeah, "space".
I read that and the words, "Space 1999" popped into my head. Remember that series?


Okay, sorry for the tangent.
__________________
The world opens up... when you do.

"Oh, oh, can't you see? Love is the drug for me." ~Bryan Ferry
"Love and the self are one . . ." ~Leo Buscaglia "

An excellent blog post against hierarchy in polyamory: http://solopoly.net/2014/10/31/why-i...short-version/
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 08-24-2011, 12:10 AM
NeonKaos NeonKaos is offline
Custodian
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: new england
Posts: 3,221
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nycindie View Post
I read that and the words, "Space 1999" popped into my head. Remember that series?


Okay, sorry for the tangent.
I do remember that, although i didn't watch it. Just like Battlestar Galactica. I did watch Star Trek and Buck Rodgers though because my father watched those and they were on before my bedtime.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 08-24-2011, 12:38 AM
River's Avatar
River River is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: NM, USA
Posts: 1,894
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimera View Post
That seems to me to be his real blind spot and a sexist one -- a reliance on pseudo-scientific generalizations that conflate biology with socially constructed categories. So we go from women not being inclined to poly, to women being "materialistic" if they are. Neither is based in nature, neither is accurate.
My impression is that Sean is not particularly sexist. I've known him for quite a few years, and he seems to genuinely like and respect women. Then again, perhaps he does have some sexism going on. I think something else may be at work, which is very likely to be about fear of loss (or?), should his own Sweetie be with another man. He has said that he would not enjoy the thought of his loverly companion having sexual relations with another man. This is hardly unusual in this culture! More likely, he has the usual, typical fears/issues that monogamously inclined people so often do.

I, of course, wish he'd speak for himself -- and only engage in this sort of talk here with his privacy respected by the fictitious name "Sean".

It's not easy addressing the many layers of social conditioning we've all had. It hasn't been for me, I'll assure you.
__________________
bi, partnered, available

River's Blog
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 11:52 AM.