Ravenscroft
Banned
Okay, so it's about Wikipedia, therefore I figured "eh... media."
I keep an eye on "old school" pre-MySpace stuff because (at an educated guess) lots of people form early impressions of "poly" from these, & perhaps put too much faith in them. I went to WP this morning from passing curiosity about how they portray polyfidelity as separate from polyamory.
Then I figured to compare to other concepts, like open marriage. Now, I am NOT a fan of the "open marriage" idea -- among other faults, it supports "sacred dyad" Monogamist thinking, therefore immediately veering away from core ideals of polyamory. When people talk "open" couplehood they really ought to stick closer to the "couple" part, & avoid confusing people (themselves & others) with claims to poly-anything.
Anyway, I go up to the WP search box, start typing in "Open marriage"... & a few letters in wind up with a list of articles --
For the most part, each article seems unaware of the others, happily wasting bytes at both re-chewing the same cud & directly contradicting each other. All I can figure is that "an idiot with a hammer thinks everything looks like a nail." Each is likely someone's "wild hair" project or hobbyhorse, or dragged over from their blog, deliberately ignoring the existence of other headings that'd serve as well (if not better).
Here's how I figure it: go back to the root & take the "marrriage" part out entirely. File it all into headings under the open relationship article.
Though Monogamism demands that couplehood is the ONLY POSSIBLE form of relating -- & everything else thereby a rude challenge, or a momentary aberration, or somehow "on the border" of the True Faith without actually stepping over -- it's at best secondary whether any given person is a solo individual (momentarily or circumstantially or intentionally) or part of a larger group, whether that group has two or three or seven or forty members.
Meantime, I really ought to find someone who knows more about Wikipedia & ask if these rather fluffy & self-serving essays can be rolled into one ghastly mass as being "about the same thing," in hopes at least that the redundancies can be cut.
I keep an eye on "old school" pre-MySpace stuff because (at an educated guess) lots of people form early impressions of "poly" from these, & perhaps put too much faith in them. I went to WP this morning from passing curiosity about how they portray polyfidelity as separate from polyamory.
Then I figured to compare to other concepts, like open marriage. Now, I am NOT a fan of the "open marriage" idea -- among other faults, it supports "sacred dyad" Monogamist thinking, therefore immediately veering away from core ideals of polyamory. When people talk "open" couplehood they really ought to stick closer to the "couple" part, & avoid confusing people (themselves & others) with claims to poly-anything.
Anyway, I go up to the WP search box, start typing in "Open marriage"... & a few letters in wind up with a list of articles --
- Open marriage
- Open relationship
- Open marriage relationship (no, I am NOT making this up)
- Open marriage styles
- Open marriage acceptance
- Open marriage incidence
- Open marriage jealousy
For the most part, each article seems unaware of the others, happily wasting bytes at both re-chewing the same cud & directly contradicting each other. All I can figure is that "an idiot with a hammer thinks everything looks like a nail." Each is likely someone's "wild hair" project or hobbyhorse, or dragged over from their blog, deliberately ignoring the existence of other headings that'd serve as well (if not better).
Here's how I figure it: go back to the root & take the "marrriage" part out entirely. File it all into headings under the open relationship article.
Though Monogamism demands that couplehood is the ONLY POSSIBLE form of relating -- & everything else thereby a rude challenge, or a momentary aberration, or somehow "on the border" of the True Faith without actually stepping over -- it's at best secondary whether any given person is a solo individual (momentarily or circumstantially or intentionally) or part of a larger group, whether that group has two or three or seven or forty members.
Meantime, I really ought to find someone who knows more about Wikipedia & ask if these rather fluffy & self-serving essays can be rolled into one ghastly mass as being "about the same thing," in hopes at least that the redundancies can be cut.