Marginalization of young polys

I’m a 25 year old and found the term “poly” when I was 20......
I really don’t know why anyone would have issue with younger poly people and I haven’t really seen a lot of it. To be honest most of the ageism I see is from young people who don’t want “old creepy people” at their hot sexy parties. .........
I find people who like me. And I hang out with people I like. The only people who have ever had issue with my voice are random strangers on the internet who don’t like that I write about my ideas on poly. And with all due respect, who the fuck cares?


I deleted some of your post in my quote Rose, with all due respect only because it seemed silly to copy the whole thing-not because I take issue with any of it! ;)

I noted you have two posts, and wanted to say first of all-
welcome to the forum! Hope we get to know you better in the days/weeks ahead!

Second-I feel much the same, I haven't known the word poly for long (only a few months) but I've lived the life at various times from 18 years old on (I'm not 34).
I've never felt like I was treated badly by others and most of the time the "negative treatment" I was witnessing was from *some* of the younger crowd to the older crowd for precisely the reason you listed.
 
As Mono said in my community here I feel good that there is room for all to be included. I am not so sure that marginalization is as big as it seems from this thread. At least not in my experience and in terms of the community here as far as I know.

This thread and even this forum is a very small and not terribly representative slice of the poly world. It would be difficult to make any sorts of assessments about how young people are or are not integrated in communities based on what's here. However, this thread has demonstrated that the dynamic can and does exist in some form or another.


That doesn't mean that we don't struggle sometimes I'm sure. I know I do. I get to the bottom of it with that person, and see it just as an issue with that person. It makes us care and love each other more by the time we have worked it through.

While it's definitely a good thing to personally engage anyone who's having problems with a group, I also find it useful to always examine and re-examine how the general practices and culture of a group can create a welcoming or unwelcoming atmosphere for different identities.
 
Like most others here it seems, I can't say that I've seen the true marginalization spoken of here. And what keeps that at bay is people just engaging in discussion and sharing their viewpoints and experiences.
For example, I've been engaged with a local Socrates Cafe group for some time and we had representation of all possible age groups - from 15 to 70s+. It was absolutely enlightening to hear the perspective from that broad a range of people and I can absolutely say that everyone comes away with a broader understanding - not only of a particular topic - but of people in general.
If anyone is curious you can Google it or go to..........
http://www.philosopher.org/en/Socrates_Cafe.html

So even though I accept the desire to come together in targeted groups that have interest to only that select group, I simply encourage everyone- of ANY age - to always bring their perspective and ideas to as large a population as possible. We all gain from each other and to segregate and splinter reduces the possibility of better understanding each other and the gains that can come from that.

GS
 
And what keeps that at bay is people just engaging in discussion and sharing their viewpoints and experiences.
GS, that was my hope in bringing it up here, rather than letting a passing remark go without follow-up. I am glad that people have talked about what they have experienced, not just on this forum, but in their own circles of friends, social networks and communities, too. The more we know.... and all that.
 
So even though I accept the desire to come together in targeted groups that have interest to only that select group, I simply encourage everyone- of ANY age - to always bring their perspective and ideas to as large a population as possible. We all gain from each other and to segregate and splinter reduces the possibility of better understanding each other and the gains that can come from that.

I find that groups aimed at particular identities do not ONLY have resources that interest that targeted group. This is a assumption that I've seen in more than one place. The misconception that there would be no resources/views/ideas to share across differing groups of people.

This idea is usually dispelled with the barest interaction with these groups.

I disagree that having these groups are segregating and splintering. Targeted groups tend to bring together people who have little or no representation or community base/support system they feel comfortable with. Bringing people together seems quite the opposite of splintering/segregating.

One example I see is ModernPoly's fundraiser to go to PolyLiving and the Poly Leadership Conference. They're going, representing poly people from a poly perspective that may not have been represented before. At once they are bringing together poly people AND engaging the poly community they do not represent as a whole. Where is the splintering/segregating?

It has been discussed that bringing views and perspectives that are different is difficult when ostracization occurs when those views are expressed. Marginalization. How are the needs of those with differing views being addressed? How is the marginalization being addressed?

Next.
Are there groups that are not targeted?

It reminds me of the question and concept that was always put forward at my university campus. Can someone male join the women's group? Can someone white join the groups representing different ethnicities and people of color? Can a Christian join the Islamic group? Can someone straight join the queer group? Can they come to meetings?

It is a discomfort expressed by those not in the group who misinterpret the group as being exclusive. The groups never were, they never state such and did have allies who were not of the group represented at the group's core. People who understood the mission of the group were strong allies and dispelled this assumption when they could.

The only time I have seen exclusivity in targeted alternative groups was in a poly forum here in New York State that stated there were no resources available for those who were apart of another alternative community.

I would ask others to examine the assumption of exclusivity when they see certain groups like these. What is the reason behind the discomfort felt and is this assumption being used as a justification for not engaging such groups?

~Raven~
 

I disagree that having these groups are segregating and splintering. Targeted groups tend to bring together people who have little or no representation or community base/support system they feel comfortable with. Bringing people together seems quite the opposite of splintering/segregating.

....................
I would ask others to examine the assumption of exclusivity when they see certain groups like these. What is the reason behind the discomfort felt and is this assumption being used as a justification for not engaging such groups?

~Raven~

Hey Raven,

Ok, maybe I'm having a mentally challenged moment, but by this post are you seeing some form of debate - or difference - between our viewpoints ?

And that there's some value in that debate ? I'm confused ?????

My comments have been to simply point out the advantages & disadvantages, the pros & cons of splintering.
So I'm struggling to see where you're going with this and what your real point is ? Maybe it's just me ......duhhhhhh

But the fact that it IS splintering is not debatable.
That would be like saying the sky isn't blue.

And when you introduced some comments about the mens vs womens groups, or the religious groups etc at school, I lost what you were trying to tie that to entirely LOL But it serves as a good illustration of the point.

If a group labeled themselves as a 'christian' group, hung their banner out that way, then it's not likely to attract many non-christian members. How is 'poly' any different ? If some group decides to go off on their own and hang out a banner that says "18 to 35 polys come here" or "Young polys " etc, who do you expect is GOING to come there ? And who do you suppose is going to assume (feel) that they don't belong and not go there ?

But in any case, regarding poly in particular and what I've seen from browsing some of these sites and related discussions, there appears to be two different aspects to the whole discussion. The folks that seem to want to break off and build something better fitting them "seem" to be more focused on the networking aspects - the finding potential lovers etc - than some of the bigger picture aspects. And that's something I can see where there might be a desire. But I'm just seeing the potential that along with that there could be some 'blinder' effect and that if they stay locked only into those environments they may miss out on some of the bigger picture issues until in some cases it may be too late.

Life is full of risks & choices & setting priorities. I only serve up the reminder that it's wise to be AWARE of those risks & choices.
In the case of this splintering, although there's no doubt in my mind that the intentions of the groups are not to ostracize anyone, the choice of labeling and how they are promoted are going to have that effect unless they intentionally put effort into explaining to 'muslims' that they are more than welcome to come on in to our 'christian' group too ! Because the 'label' and all the 'buzz' is going to convey a very different message.

That make sense ?
 
But the fact that it IS splintering is not debatable.
That would be like saying the sky isn't blue.

I think the point that's being missed is that groups can ALREADY be splintering without even being aware of it by how a dominant culture or identity welcomes or doesn't welcome other cultures or identities.

It's easy to say that you would want to welcome everyone and just let everyone have equal footing in a group, but frankly the reality of such a situation is often very different from the intent. It would mean allowing the culture of a group to be changed by various identities and my experience is that groups tend to be very resistant to such things.

Honestly, this is a point of view that can only come from a place of privilege. I would suggest that people outside that privilege might have a different and just as valid point of view.
 
Last edited:
Honestly, this is a point of view that can only come from a place of privilege. I would suggest that people outside that privilege might have a different and just as valid point of view.

Hi Ceoli,
This is genuine curiousity and nothing else so please see it that way :) You talk about this place of privilege a lot and I am wondering if you feel you are from a place of privelege?

I'm not sure what a place of privilege would be in the context of a poly community? Could you explain this place of privilege in a strictly poly sense?

Additionally, if there are people outside this privilege why don't they just form there own group? This seems like such a simple topic with such a simple answer to me.

Totally curious
Mono
 
You stated a point I disagreed with. I responded. What are you confused about? There is value in sharing my perspective as there is value in sharing yours. Do you believe otherwise GS?

But the fact that it IS splintering is not debatable.
That would be like saying the sky isn't blue.

*laughs* Are you serious? Ok. Well the sky isn't blue. The colors we see in the sky are caused by light from the sun scattering across the atmosphere. That's as far into a science lesson I'll get with you there.

You stated opinion not fact. Beyond that I agree with Ceoli's response to you here to be honest.

And when you introduced some comments about the mens vs womens groups, or the religious groups etc at school, I lost what you were trying to tie that to entirely LOL But it serves as a good illustration of the point.

If a group labeled themselves as a 'christian' group, hung their banner out that way, then it's not likely to attract many non-christian members. How is 'poly' any different ? If some group decides to go off on their own and hang out a banner that says "18 to 35 polys come here" or "Young polys " etc, who do you expect is GOING to come there ? And who do you suppose is going to assume (feel) that they don't belong and not go there ?

That is the exact view I addressed. The fact is that though a group may be targeted towards certain people, people who are not the targets can be included if they have interest in the goals of the group. Explain how a group aimed at the LGBTQ community can then have heterosexual members and heterosexual couples. Or monogamous individuals being within poly groups.

You're missing the point and illustrating the assumption I stated before. Why do you assume that any group aimed at these people or those people makes it all right to assume other people don't belong there?

A turn on what Ceoli stated might be that being used to the manner the dominant culture creates communities which by nature excludes SOMEBODY, perhaps it is nearly impossible to imagine communities which don't even if the mission of the community does not have a direct relation to members outside the core but just the indirect one that human beings have just by being human.
Life is full of risks & choices & setting priorities. I only serve up the reminder that it's wise to be AWARE of those risks & choices.
In the case of this splintering, although there's no doubt in my mind that the intentions of the groups are not to ostracize anyone, the choice of labeling and how they are promoted are going to have that effect unless they intentionally put effort into explaining to 'muslims' that they are more than welcome to come on in to our 'christian' group too ! Because the 'label' and all the 'buzz' is going to convey a very different message.

That make sense ?

It doesn't again, because you're stating that assuming something about a group that is not true is all right. The book by it's cover and all that. You speak of the splintering these groups cause and not of the splintering and marginalization which may occur outside of those groups, the example being the poly community, which the groups may be responding to.

~Raven~
 
Last edited:
This is genuine curiousity and nothing else so please see it that way :) You talk about this place of privilege a lot and I am wondering if you feel you are from a place of privelege?

I'm not sure what a place of privilege would be in the context of a poly community? Could you explain this place of privilege in a strictly poly sense?

Yes and no. I certainly have a great deal of privilege in a lot of areas of life...the color of my skin, the level of education I have, the fact that I was born in the US, the fact that despite I'm queer, I can often pass for straight, etc. There are other places where I have felt marginalized or subject to assumptions that made my position more difficult. I've felt that as a woman when working in areas that are dominated by men. I've had that experience as a poly person who is single in poly communities that are very couple-centric. I've had many poly people assume my motivations simply because of the fact that I'm single. I've had that happen on this forum many times.

Privilege emerges when the environment makes it easier for certain identities to exist and be who they are over other identities. This can happen actively with assumptions being made and then interactions coming from those assumptions. It can happen passively by the group ignoring some conversations and not ignoring others. That means it can really manifest in any group where a variety of identities come together.


Additionally, if there are people outside this privilege why don't they just form there own group? This seems like such a simple topic with such a simple answer to me.

Well, that's kind of funny, because when Raven did *just that*, it was (incorrectly, in my opinion) perceived as forming an exclusive and unfairly selective group that was to either create some closed network or to create a narrow dating pool.

I personally embrace the power of "and" in any of these situations. There's no reason both can't exist. BUT: *IF* (and I do mean *IF*) the goal of a community is to be inclusive (as people on this forum continue to state that they wish it to be that way), then I feel it's important to understand how a community might be practicing things that *aren't* inclusive in nature. I don't see why people think that's such a big deal, honestly.
 
I personally embrace the power of "and" in any of these situations. There's no reason both can't exist. BUT: *IF* (and I do mean *IF*) the goal of a community is to be inclusive (as people on this forum continue to state that they wish it to be that way), then I feel it's important to understand how a community might be practicing things that *aren't* inclusive in nature. I don't see why people think that's such a big deal, honestly.

Thanks for answering Ceoli. I see no problem with people having things that aren't inclusive as well.

Take care

Mono
 
I am finding that in reading peoples thoughts on age I have begun thinking of the fact that we live in an age obsessed culture here in North America. It seems that to be young is somehow seen as better than being old and has made some people become obsessed with staying young by various methods. Its too bad really because in some cultures elders are revered as being wise and knowledgable. I'm not saying that younger generations are not wise also, but in our culture it seems that the older generations are sometimes forgotten. Their wisdom is forgotten.

I tend to think of life, and the flow of it, in terms of a cycle that is never ending. We are born, we grow, we die. Just as the seasons, just as the moon phases, just as anything in life. All have a place and all have a knowledge all their own.

At this time of year that cycle in the northern hemosphere has just begun again. I think of new beginnings and new starts in my life.

All I can do really is be aware and keep my mind, heart and ears open to receive the gifts that each individual brings. In doing so I act as an example somehow and have to have confidence in that for myself and promote it in others. I really haven't seen a better way for me.
 
I'm not going to answer for Ceoli on where she sees herself but the place of privilege doesn't really change. White, middle classed, male, heterosexual, Christian, monogamous. That is the center of privilege and then there are degrees away from that.

Those who are used to the benefits being closer to the center brings, usually address the world through that lens.

An example is marriage equality. The bid is to get the same benefits heterosexual couples get, usually with the argument 'we're just like you,' rather than questioning why heterosexual couples get those benefits and displacing that moral construct.

I've seen similar bids for acceptance by those within the polyamorous community. Sameness. It is the only way to attain privilege which is only available to people with certain traits. No thought is raised on why privilege is connected to those traits.

Negative behaviors (such as exclusivity based on difference) that were normalized by the dominant culture are not challenged unless they are seen as threats to the dominant culture's privilege.

Well, that's kind of funny, because when Raven did *just that*, it was (incorrectly, in my opinion) perceived as forming an exclusive and unfairly selective group that was to either create some closed network or to create a narrow dating pool.

I personally embrace the power of "and" in any of these situations. There's no reason both can't exist. BUT: *IF* (and I do mean *IF*) the goal of a community is to be inclusive (as people on this forum continue to state that they wish it to be that way), then I feel it's important to understand how a community might be practicing things that *aren't* inclusive in nature. I don't see why people think that's such a big deal, honestly.

It's that rock and a hard place. I have already asked what alternatives are being given to poly people who do not find communities that address their needs if the very act of creating communities is characterized negatively. No answers. Not a surprise at this point.

B
oth. And. Redsirenn's "In Addition To." I like all of these as well. I think having both is beneficial, as redsirenn stated "in addition to." Variety makes it more likely to find that which resonates with us. I also agree that it is important to examine non-inclusive characteristics of a group if the goal is to be inclusive.

~Raven~
 
Last edited:
I think the point that's being missed is that groups can ALREADY be splintering without even being aware of it by how a dominant culture or identity welcomes or doesn't welcome other cultures or identities.

Ahhhhhh (light bulb {dim} going off)
Thank you !
So is that what this is really all about ?
Like you say in your quote below - the possibility of that kind of thing seems to be part of any culture. And if in fact that HAS been the experience of anyone bumping into various poly groups I think it's VERY unfortunate. And unusual. What I've experienced in a variety of different cultures/movements in their early stages is that usually there's much more openness. It always seemed that only after something had gained some momentum and may have become dominated by some domineering people that it started to close up.
I would never have guessed that the poly culture had progressed to that stage yet.

Ceoli; said:
It's easy to say that you would want to welcome everyone and just let everyone have equal footing in a group, but frankly the reality of such a situation is often very different from the intent. It would mean allowing the culture of a group to be changed by various identities and my experience is that groups tend to be very resistant to such things.

All very true - and a subject well beyond the scope of this forum.
I just find it interesting - and enlightening - that there's a perception that poly groups (some ? all ?) have matured to the phase where any real 'culture' has even developed and become entrenched, especially to the point someone would feel it so rigid they needed to start from scratch.
This particular one certainly hasn't it seems based on other posts.
Very interesting...........


Ceoli; said:
Honestly, this is a point of view that can only come from a place of privilege. I would suggest that people outside that privilege might have a different and just as valid point of view.

I guess I'm with Mon on a later post he made on this one. This (privilege) that you so often speak of - not sure where that fits in - but it seems to be a sore spot. Probably be an interesting topic for another thread.

Thanks !

GS
 
I guess I'm with Mon on a later post he made on this one. This (privilege) that you so often speak of - not sure where that fits in - but it seems to be a sore spot. Probably be an interesting topic for another thread.

I would suggest that you start by reading the books I suggested so that you can better understand what I'm talking about. It is not a "sore spot" but an actual mechanism that exists and works in many ways in society and something that I choose to remain aware of and work to dismantle.
 
I would suggest that you start by reading the books I suggested so that you can better understand what I'm talking about. It is not a "sore spot" but an actual mechanism that exists and works in many ways in society and something that I choose to remain aware of and work to dismantle.

I dunno ceoli, it seems to be a sore spot for raven... I am not getting why other than it seems that something happened at some group? Anyway, what more can one do but keep at it all and hope for some kind of change. Is there really and answer to all of this that we haven't gone over a million times?
 
I dunno ceoli, it seems to be a sore spot for raven... I am not getting why other than it seems that something happened at some group?

What are you talking about redpepper?

Anyway, what more can one do but keep at it all and hope for some kind of change. Is there really and answer to all of this that we haven't gone over a million times?

There is hoping for change and there is taking action and creating change.

No answers have been offered. No examination of how to work towards inclusiveness and address marginalization within the poly community has been done. No effort at finding out the purpose behind the creation of young poly groups has been shown.

What has been done a million times is dismissal that a problem might exist and negativity has been attached to young polyamorists. Assumptions were made. Lack of information was shown.

Were you going to offer any insight about young poly groups? Based on your interactions with them, what have you discovered about the purpose and missions of these groups? Have you found that marginalization is an issue addressed by them? What methods would you suggest in creating a more inclusive and welcoming poly community?

~Raven~
 
Last edited:

Were you going to offer any insight about young poly groups? Based on your interactions with them, what have you discovered about the purpose and missions of these groups? Have you found that marginalization is an issue addressed by them? What methods would you suggest in creating a more inclusive and welcoming poly community?

~Raven~

As the third youngest person in the only polygroup in our area-which has had all of ONE meeting... I don't feel like I get marginalized at all. The oldest person in the group is a good friend and the second is an ex-boyfriend of mine... They are around 10 years older than I am. The two younger than I are my boyfriend and my sister......

I haven't offered any answers or suggestions because I haven't experienced or seen any marginalization of young people in my poly-experiences. I have talked to a number of people older and younger in person, on OKC and on here. I have gotten along with all of them for the most part.
I've only really found myself having difficulty with two people in all of my "poly-experiences". Both were on the board and as a rule of thumb I simply don't respond to their posts. I don't disparage them, I don't disrespect them, I just allow other people more to their liking respond when they post......
In r/l-the closest I've come to seeing this marginalization within the poly-community is as someone previous stated, the younger crowd treating the older crowd like they aren't "good enough" for the younger crowd's poly get togethers due to being unattractive and old....
 
I personally cannot offer any corrective suggestions for an issue that does not exist in my community. There is no age division in our extensive group. There is generational gaps for sure but that is not poly specific. There are those who have experienced a lot for no other reason than they have been on the planet longer LOL! Perhaps age is not the issue here? Perhaps it is really the different approaches to poly? We see a broad approach to poly that span all ages in our community....it just depends on what people want out of relationships. Using age as a line to divide people is bullshit. From the outside it looks as if we're masking different approaches with the excuse of different ages and that is completely misinformed and reflects a lack of experience and exposure; not in anyone in particular, but in all of us. Fuck I got caught up in it until I realized how stupid it looks.....maybe I should grow up too.

Sorry I have nothing of great insight to offer, but seriously, this is just not a part of my community. Perhaps mine has been able to mature a bit more. Not in the age sense, but in the sense of simply learning more over more time. Than again, I am an old bald dude so what the fuck do I know? I know one thing; Poly is often poly's worst advocate. Infighting and petty squabbles make us all look like a joke.....call me the court jester, because I am staying put as long as my Love will have me!....I'll even wear tights ;)
 
LovingRadiance said...
In r/l-the closest I've come to seeing this marginalization within the poly-community is as someone previous stated, the younger crowd treating the older crowd like they aren't "good enough" for the younger crowd's poly get togethers due to being unattractive and old....

This. I met someone who was into non-monogamy, or at least he professed to be; he was maybe a few years older than I am. He told me of his experiences with local nudists and said he'd been put off them by the lack of young, tight bodies.

Who's being ageist there?

Not much of a stretch to believe he'd be just as disgusted by the wonderful over-35 crowd in my local poly community.

Ravenesque said...
What has been done a million times is dismissal that a problem might exist

Raven, I've seen a great deal of that dismissal coming from the younger polys. Even accounting for the possibility that I'm brainwashed, how do you explain away the other opinions? Surely we can't all be internalizing the greater poly world's abhorrence of those in our age group. Is it not fathomable that, at least in some people's experience, the poly world doesn't hate us?

Isn't not being hated a good thing?
 
Back
Top