Mono wiring vs. poly wiring

Now that I see Mono's quote:

It seems pretty clear that he is talking about his own personal viewpoint and showing what may have influenced him to see things in a certain way. He is not saying all monogamous people see things this way. From his personal experience, he sees this as an influence. In effect, it sounds like he is saying "In my mono mind..."

And I would still call that to task. It's fine to have a personal opinion on something, but to attribute an opinion that has nothing to do with the things that monogamy addresses to a person's own mono wiring is not only making a larger definition of what being wired mono is, but it is attaching all sorts of inaccurate assumptions to that definition. So it's not the opinion being called into question- it's the stated fact that such opinions are being driven by monogamous wiring that I'm disputing.

As I said earlier, that kind of reasoning creates an artificial divide between mono and poly people. Saying things like "Of course you can't understand, you're not wired mono" just makes that divide even bigger. My motivations are not to lambaste Mono for having an opinion. My motivations are to shrink the divides that exist between mono and poly people because of such flawed reasoning, regardless of how generally accepted that reasoning may be.
 
Thread pared

I've pared many messages from the thread that were parts of non-productive tangents. I much prefer to let a discussion run its course naturally, though I will act to keep a discussion on topic and functional if I think it's becoming toxic.

Please, consider your words carefully. Comments that aren't outright ad hominem can stil be insulting and inflammatory.

Also, consider your assumptions carefully. Assuming that somebody else is discussing in poor faith can derail a conversation in short order.
 
I appreciate the effort and hard work it takes to moderate a discussion forum, especially when things get heated and emotions get riled up. There is often nothing a mod can do that won't piss someone off when they step in to cool things down.

This is why I take the time to explain my opinions on these sorts of procedures, so that the rules can be modified, or the moderators can at least understand what some possible consequences might be during the enacting of said rules. These consequences might be acceptable, but at least they will not be a surprise.

My opposition to the method of editing posts doesn't actually work in my favor here, as the editing makes me look better since no one can go back and pull out those lines that so angered everyone. But, objectively, I see flaws in the method, hence my comments. My words are in print for all to see, including the offensive ones. Unlike certain politicians, I do understand that when it's said on the internet, it's on the record and one can't say "I never said that" when one so clearly did. One can explain and/or apologize, but one can't really hide that it was said in the first place.

I did try to refrain from crying "why me? they did it too!", especially since the initial response I received from Seventh Crow was a private discussion, so maybe I wasn't the only one being talked to, but since it has been brought up publicly, I do feel it is not out of place for me to point out that it appears as though my posts were singled out for editing and deletion when there were other posts with equally strong use of language and apparently high amounts of emotion.

Perhaps I was the only one who didn't see the need to try and censor someone else's words just because I didn't like what was being said. As mentioned previously, the only rule that might have been applicable was rather fuzzy on whether it applied in this situation or not (I maintain that I did not break the ad hominem rule except to point out what an ad hominem was on several occasions to illuminate that I did not, in fact, make an ad hominem attack). As far as I could tell, neither was anyone else breaking that rule, they were just getting upset, so I saw no reason to try and censor anyone else even though I clearly disagreed with several other posts, and some of them were worded just as strongly, if not moreso, than mine.

Breaking in and asking everyone to step away for a few hours was a reasonable approach and first step, and, as everyone can see, the argument immediately ceased. All following posts are regarding the moderating tactics, which the moderators themselves brought up. Since a moderator has stated that editing other people's posts will not be used for now, we can leave that one be.

But, like Ceoli, I would like to know where the line is drawn on which posts will be selected for deletion, since the posts that were deleted were not against any guidelines. Repetitiveness isn't an ad hominem attack, nor was it spam. Several posts were made asking what a person actually said, and some of those posts were immediately after a quote taken from that person. I figured people couldn't see them for some reason or another, and all caps, bolding, and large fonts is considered "yelling". Since we were already repeating ourselves several times, repeating myself in rapid succession didn't seem out of line, and is not addressed in the guidelines one way or another.

There should be some objective way to determine which posts get deleted, so that the moderators do not delete the posts of the people they happen to disagree with while people they agree with use equal or similar language or tactics. I am not saying this was the case here - I have no idea why some posts were deleted & edited while others remain, and that's kind of the point. If I don't know what made some posts eligible and others not, then I can't avoid breaking the guidelines in the future. There should be some method of determining that this post counts as a breach in the guidelines while that post doesn't.

Unless, of course, part of the guidelines include "all rule-breaker decisions are a subjective decision", in which case, it's entirely up to how the moderators feel about someone. This is a valid and legal method, most notably used in certain other online poly communities, but, IMO, encourages "favorites" and not designed to make the larger community feel welcome.

**This was written prior to Seventh Crow's most recent post about "Thread pared" but was not posted then because the thread was locked. I had some points I still wanted to make, so I posted it anyway, even after the "Thread Pared" post. I'm really not a fan of someone else going back and editing/deleting other people's words, thereby changing the nature of the discussion, whether they're my posts or someone else's. Again, spam and useless name-calling I think are reasonable uses of the deletion privilege.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps I was the only one who didn't see the need to try and censor someone else's words just because I didn't like what was being said.

I certainly don't see that need. Unfortunately, deleting the posts doesn't change the basic problem that many people started taking things personally and were responding accordingly.
 
I've come back to this thread to give credit to a question that underlies all of this and not hijack LR's thread. One last shot. LOL!

Here was the point I was trying to make.

A person who is inherently monogamous or wired monogamously has no desire to open up. This is not to be confused with a person who is just in a monogamous relationship because they have only found one love so far. That person may have a desire or acceptance to open up.

So, when viewing information on how to "open up" the information is perceived as a threat to what the truly monogamous person wants in their life. It is not seen as enlightening or positive because it goes against their nature and threatens the world they know.

Same words, same pages, but the information is received differently. The forecast of a warm dry summer could be perceived as the best thing in the world to a sun bather…but to a farmer the same forecast might be viewed as the worst thing as it could spell disaster to what he knows and loves…his crops.

That is all I was trying to say Ygirl…sorry if it sounded confusing or divisive..but there is a difference…no sense denying that. We just need to accept it and work with that.


More peace and more Love
Mono
 
I've come back to this thread to give credit to a question that underlies all of this and not hijack LR's thread. One last shot. LOL!

Here was the point I was trying to make.

A person who is inherently monogamous or wired monogamously has no desire to open up. This is not to be confused with a person who is just in a monogamous relationship because they have only found one love so far. That person may have a desire or acceptance to open up.

So, when viewing information on how to "open up" the information is perceived as a threat to what the truly monogamous person wants in their life. It is not seen as enlightening or positive because it goes against their nature and threatens the world they know.

Same words, same pages, but the information is received differently. The forecast of a warm dry summer could be perceived as the best thing in the world to a sun bather…but to a farmer the same forecast might be viewed as the worst thing as it could spell disaster to what he knows and loves…his crops.

I get it. I get what you are saying. I agree that two people can read the same book and take diametrically opposed viewpoints of it.

And now I'm going to drop the bullshit completely.

The underlined portion in the quote above basically states that because YOU are "wired" to be monogamous (which NO ONE here has any problem with), that it makes you qualified to say that ALL PEOPLE WHO ARE WIRED MONOGAMOUS WILL BE THREATENED BY A BOOK ABOUT "OPENING UP". You do not even KNOW all monogamous people. You do not know how all monogamous people think. You do not know what makes all monogamous folks "tick", what makes all monogamous people feel threatened, what makes all monogamous people happy. The only thing you can say all monogamous people have in common based on their monogamous nature is that they can all ONLY BE IN LOVE WITH ONE PERSON AT A TIME.

It's like saying "I'm a woman, and all women want children. Therefore, all women FEEL THREATENED by people who DON'T want children."

It's like saying "I'm gay, so I can tell you how all gay people will feel about a certain movie, because scientists have proved that homosexuality is based on nature not nurture."

This is not about how YOU, Mono, feel about a certain book (and the comment made was not about "opening up" but about whether a certain book seems "new agey" or not).

YOU do NOT know for a FACT that ALL MONOGAMOUS PEOPLE FEEL THREATENED by information about "opening up". You know that it makes YOU feel threatened.

Are you saying that you DO know how all monogamous people feel about it? What are all their names? Did they tell you this in writing or over the phone, or in person? Really, I want to know. I'm trying to understand because if my reasoning is out of line, i'd like to change it so i can you know, learn and grow from the experience. I don't HAVE to be right about this...
 
Last edited:
Wow...I'll concede to your point. In my opinion I feel any person who is wired monogamously as I feel it internally, with the ability to love one person intimately/romantically at a time, who is in a mongamous relationship and is presented a book on "opening up" by their partner, would have a tendancy to view the information as a threat to the relationship style they know. The partner looking to open up would see it as a positive with a chance for growth as they define it which is neither right or wrong.

If any referance to "new ageyness" was implied, I apologize, because having never actually used that word, it was not implied or intended.
 
Wow...I'll concede to your point. In my opinion I feel any person who is wired monogamously as I feel it internally, with the ability to love one person intimately/romantically at a time, who is in a mongamous relationship and is presented a book on "opening up" by their partner, would have a tendancy to view the information as a threat to the relationship style they know. The partner looking to open up would see it as a positive with a chance for growth as they define it which is neither right or wrong.

If any referance to "new ageyness" was implied, I apologize, because having never actually used that word, it was not implied or intended.

I admire your attempt to put your statement into E-prime (English Prime, which is a practical application of General Semantics and more information on this can be obtained through Googling these terms), but I would replace the word "would" with "might" or "may" and venture that the "IMO" is superfluous. However, you get an "A" for effort.

The remark about "new-ageyness" was originally made by Seventh Crow; I thought we all knew that, but perhaps it was not made clear that that is what I was referring to. It certainly could have sounded like I was saying it was you who said that.

Stick a fork in me, anyone?
 
Last edited:
Here was the point I was trying to make.

A person who is inherently monogamous or wired monogamously has no desire to open up. This is not to be confused with a person who is just in a monogamous relationship because they have only found one love so far. That person may have a desire or acceptance to open up.

If by "open up" you mean opening up the romantic relationship to more than two people, then yes I agree. If by "open up" you mean approaching a relationship with an open mind and heart, then I would disagree.


So, when viewing information on how to "open up" the information is perceived as a threat to what the truly monogamous person wants in their life. It is not seen as enlightening or positive because it goes against their nature and threatens the world they know.

This is where I differ. It is entirely possible to be monogamous and not perceive information that runs counter to what they want as a "threat". That perception of threat has nothing to do with mono or poly wiring. It has to do with whether someone is easily threatened or not. Or more to the point, it has more to do with being secure or insecure. A secure person wouldn't see a threat in different ideas where an insecure person would. Monogamous people are not inherently insecure. They're inherently monogamous. That is the difference I see.


Same words, same pages, but the information is received differently. The forecast of a warm dry summer could be perceived as the best thing in the world to a sun bather…but to a farmer the same forecast might be viewed as the worst thing as it could spell disaster to what he knows and loves…his crops.

That analogy doesn't fit for me because those are situations that point to quantifiable physical consequences, not emotional perceptions.

Now, if a person is monogamous and in an monogamous relationship with someone who then wants to change the agreements of their relationship to be open, then yeah there's a good reason to be threatened. But facing the end of one's relationship because of an idea being actively applied to one's life isn't the same as just reading about or learning about an idea. I could only feel threatened by such an idea if I felt there was a very real possibility of that idea disrupting my life. But perception of threat isn't because of being monogamous or poly, it's because of being in an insecure situation.
 
If by "open up" you mean opening up the romantic relationship to more than two people, then yes I agree. .

That is what I meant, yes.

A secure person wouldn't see a threat in different ideas where an insecure person would. Monogamous people are not inherently insecure. They're inherently monogamous.


If an inherently/wired mono couple were merely to be looking at information on opening up then they probably wouldn't see it as a threat or feel insecure. If one of the partners is entertaining the idea of opening up than the information would probably be viewed as a threat by the other partner unless they too wanted this.
One of the celebrated aspects of monogamous couplings is the security of exclusivity. It is not seen as a weakness or area of insecurity to not want your partner to share certain aspects of themselves with others. It is also seen as a gift to only share aspects of themsleves exclusively with one partner. To mono people this is not based on insecurity, it is what partially defines the nature of their relationship.

Now, if a person is monogamous and in an monogamous relationship with someone who then wants to change the agreements of their relationship to be open, then yeah there's a good reason to be threatened. But facing the end of one's relationship because of an idea being actively applied to one's life isn't the same as just reading about or learning about an idea. I could only feel threatened by such an idea if I felt there was a very real possibility of that idea disrupting my life. .

Agreed.
 
One of the celebrated aspects of monogamous couplings is the security of exclusivity. It is not seen as a weakness or area of insecurity to not want your partner to share certain aspects of themselves with others.

I am not saying that wanting exclusivity is a weakness or area of insecurity. I am saying that feeling threatened by the very idea that other types of relationships aren't exclusive is a sign of insecurity. If my relationship is secure and I know where I stand, then I would have no problem reading about relationships that are put together in different ways than mine. And again, that feeling of threat or security can be felt by mono and poly people alike because that type of security has nothing to do with mono or poly wiring.
 
Last edited:
It is important to distinguish between the existence of alternative information and the application of that information to one's life.

I like to know what alternatives exist in order to make as informed a choice as possible, but that does not mean I find the roads not traveled a THREAT unless someone else tries to force them on me.
 
I am saying that feeling threatened by the very idea that other types of relationships aren't exclusive as a sign of insecurity. .


I completely agree!! Now the big challenge is presenting the idea of alternate relationship styles to the mainstream in a manner that doesn't immediately evoke defensiveness. This is tricky because it is so easy to raise hackles which feeds into more negativity. I know mono people that are quick to judge and attack poly and I also know people in my community who attempt to bring about acceptance by converting people with traditional views. So how do we do this? How do we take the higher road?
 
If any referance to "new ageyness" was implied, I apologize, because having never actually used that word, it was not implied or intended.

Do I need to start pulling out the quotes again? I quoted the line 3 times (and had 2 of them deleted) and STILL there's confusion.

There was a reason I posted that quote 3 times in a row. Maybe they should have been left alone.

And, since posters keep insisting on moving away from the actual point of dissension, I'll go along with the change in direction and reiterate that monogamous people are not inherently insecure, feel threatened, or close-minded, just as poly people are not inherently secure, open-minded or "enlightened".

There ya go, monogamous people don't suck, that's my mono-bashing comment for the morning.

I get really testing when I find myself defending a position I don't agree with (monogamy) simply because the the side I do agree with (polyamory) is using logical fallacies and outright untruths. I'm not monogamous, I don't agree with monogamy, but here I stand, defending monogamous people for not being close-minded because, well, they aren't (as a group). There are lots of people who are monogamous for no other reason than because they are not capable of romantically loving more than one person at a time and they do not feel threatened by the existence of other poly people. ANYONE whose relationship is facing a change in structure of any sort is likely to feel a little unstable at the idea of the relationship structure changing, particularly if it wasn't his or her idea to begin with - a poly person whose partner has brought up the idea of going monogamous has just as much likelihood of feeling "threatened" as a mono person being faced with polyamory for the first time. There is plenty for me to disagree with about monogamous culture, but the idea that monogamy inherently MAKES someone close-minded is just flat-out wrong.
 
Last edited:
I am not saying that wanting exclusivity is a weakness or area of insecurity. I am saying that feeling threatened by the very idea that other types of relationships aren't exclusive is a sign of insecurity. If my relationship is secure and I know where I stand, then I would have no problem reading about relationships that are put together in different ways than mine. And again, that feeling of threat or security can be felt by mono and poly people alike because that type of security has nothing to do with mono or poly wiring.

Yeah - I get this alot, so does Ouroboros. Even just talking hypothetically about things. In fact, it seems that people are even more defensive if things in our relationship are going well. I can only hypothesize, but it seems like they feel their relationship is at stake.

We each have friends that we realize we shouldn't broach this topic with based on how defensive they get... Even some of our most sexually positive friends, and friends that have explored poly before and gotten burned.

It is my wish that we could all be more secure in ourselves so that we can communicate different viewpoints among friends and broaden our perspectives further. Ahhh - that could apply to everything in life, and the world would be a little peacefuller.
 
Last edited:
I completely agree!! Now the big challenge is presenting the idea of alternate relationship styles to the mainstream in a manner that doesn't immediately evoke defensiveness. This is tricky because it is so easy to raise hackles which feeds into more negativity. I know mono people that are quick to judge and attack poly and I also know people in my community who attempt to bring about acceptance by converting people with traditional views. So how do we do this? How do we take the higher road?

Well, the first way is to not give a mono or poly nature credit for those differences of perception that have nothing to do with being mono or poly. Surprisingly enough, it goes pretty darn far in my experience.
 
monogamous people don't suck,

.

I think some do...I get judged pretty hard by some monogamous people and have lost a lot of friends on this journey. But not all do for sure LOL!

I have a confession to make as well..I know some poly people in my community that suck as well ;)

My actual in-person community I meant
 
Last edited:
I think some do...I get judged pretty hard by some monogamous people and have lost a lot of friends on this journey. But not all do for sure LOL!

I have a confession to make as well..I know some poly people in my communitiy that suck as well ;)

That's the friggin' point! It's not a poly vs. mono problem, it's that some people suck, and some people don't, and the definition of "suck" is totally subjective.

I'll say it for you again...

It has nothing to do with whether one is monogamous or polyamorous. That's a false divide and you are contributing to the us vs. them atmosphere that makes general acceptance (of both sides) difficult.
 
Back
Top