Rejecting the label

dingedheart

Well-known member
I ran across this article today and it seem to touch on several topics that get discussed here quite frequently. http://boldlygo.co/?p=205 ....Time management, veto power, abuse, enlightenment, poly superiority, appropriation, etc.

Does the author have some valid points? ....do these conditions exist in the community at large ?


I liked the privilege part. :) it makes sense to me however I never thought of it that way. And My experiences have been so different that it was very interesting to hear the back and forth mental gymnastics that can occur in large tribes regarding abuse of a partner.
 
Big + for the Star Trek references.
Now, is having relationships a privilege? Sure is. Is being in a situation when you can afford to open yourself to romance rather than work on day to day survival? Sure is. But having TV or a car are privileges too (for the record, I don't have access to either). So is having a computer or the Internet (I have access to both).

In the Western world, many things we take for granted are privileges, from being able to eat every day to owning more than one outfit. Very few people have all the privileges, very few have none.
Some is down to luck, some is down to choice.

When living on little money (I've been on welfare for a while), you learn very fast about choices. I haven't bought clothes in years, so my current (and unique) pair of pants has 3 buttonholes next to one another, as I create a new one every time I lose enough weight that my jeans get loose.

But being unemployed and on welfare also means I would have time to have many relationships, if I wanted to. And it seems to me live-in polyamory is a better economic model, since you pull in the resources of more people together in a single household.

Otherwise, I do agree my experience has mostly been with white polys. I think it's easier to be out if you're not already discriminated against for other stuff, though.

Ultimately, because I see polyamory as an orientation, I don't see it as a privilege. Being able to practice it, yes, that's a privilege. Being polyamorous? Not really. In many places over the world, it might mean that you'll need to keep that shut and stick to the one spouse you're allowed to have while being miserable for not being able to be with the other person(s) you love. Which, you know, is better than nothing for sure, but sucks as far as "privileges" go.

EDIT: finished reading the post, so below are my comments on the other points:

- About the abuse:
I would have thought that more people meant more potential for someone to notice the abuse, and therefore that the abusers would avoid that kind of arrangement (after all one important part of abuse is isolating your victim, and if they're polyamorous, they have many other people to run to if you hurt them, and many people to confirm to them that it's wrong, people to be witness and prevent gaslighting, etc).
However I do see the point that was made about peer pressure. If the other partners are fine, then I should suck it up. I guess it can happen. I can't say I've noticed that people say things about letting your partner treat others unfairly because it's not your relationship, though. What your partner does with others (partners, friends, family) is going to affect how you view them and as a result whether you want to stay with them. I don't see why it should be different for polyamory.
As for vetoes, I've always seen them as a "no reason asked, no reason given" kind of thing, when you just say no. I assume that when you have legitimate concerns about a person and brings them up to your partner, it hardly counts as a veto.

- About poly as an orientation:
Funny that I talked about it earlier in my post. I think it being an orientation is no excuse for bad conduct, but I do certainly believe it's an orientation. But just like being a gay man and being forced into straight relationships doesn't exclude molesting other men, being polyamorous never has and never will excuse cheating. Hell, I can't go to a poly forum or other place of discussion without constantly hearing "cheating isn't poly" or "he's cheating, so he's not poly".
Personally, I think you can be poly AND a cheater. I think using poly as an excuse to cheat is wrong, but I also think that dismissing anyone who cheats as "not poly" so that the poly label stays "pure" is wrong too. Whether the person is poly or not is independent from whether or not they're an asshole. I might have more sympathy for them is they are polyamorous and never realised they had the option to be true to themselves, but I'll also remember that when I was placed in that situation, I talked to my husband about it, I didn't cheat behind his back, and I knew there was a chance he would leave him, or tell me he wasn't okay with it, in which case I would have left.
(Sadly he told me he was fine with it even though it wasn't, which was probably the worse response possible. Would have saved us a few years if he had been honest about it, but hindsight is 20/20 I guess).
So yeah, if you're in a relationship and you fall in love with someone else, the moral options are repressing it or talking with your partner (at the end of which discussion you can open your relationship or end it, or I guess go the repressing route but with your spouse aware of it). Cheating and lying isn't going to be ethical. Hell I came clean to my husband to make sure I wouldn't cheat, because the idea I might do that someday along the line was killing me.
You can cheat and then come back from it and become a decent person, but you have to take responsibility for the cheating first.
 
Last edited:
Definitely agree that relationships are a privilege and having time for more than one is certainly a privilege.
I believe being polyamorous and living poly are two different things. Much like Tonberry said-I believe I am inherently polyamorous-and bisexual. But, being poly and bi doesn't mean I am living poly or bi.

Ironically for us-one of the benefits of poly is that it allows us financial stability and security we wouldn't have otherwise-because we do live together in the same home, sharing all of our expenses. So, while I comprehend the argument being made regarding that-it's not relevant to us personally. But, I do know other people who it is very pertinent to.

I don't personally know any "nonwhite" polys who are out; almost all of the poly's I know are lgbt. I think probably because most of them I've met through lgbt groups maybe? In fact, its been specifically noted that my two straight guys are the only two straight guys in our poly circles. LOL! Neither of whom asked for, desired or in any way thought of being poly until I pressed it.

Regarding the abuse-I haven't personally encountered the ideology of not having the right to have any say so regarding your partners partners. Maybe because that would SO NOT FUCKING WORK for me or in my world? I have heard of others with that attitude-but my experience is that generally they are childless "daters" who don't prefer live in partners. That isn't to say that is the "norm"-just what I have encountered.
I do know one V that has a much much much more lenient attitude about metamours than we do-and even they have a say so...

I certainly can see how abuse could be fostered with those attitudes-but those attitudes aren't part of our lifestyle. We very much have agreed that we all concur on new partners-or they aren't new partners. Period. It annoys some people who just want to play-but we have kids at home and play isn't a PRIVILEGE we have in our lives (in that manner). So-they can search elsewhere.


I concur with Tonberry on veto-I understand that to be "no options-I said no period" and we don't buy into THAT-but we do believe that its imperative for everyone's two cents to be taken into consideration and decisions to be made "from the collective" to use a star trek reference. LOL! Not individually made-because every decision impacts all of us-therefore, we should all get to chime in on it.

I concur completely regarding the writers issues with the fact that many polys are DOING the same behavior as swingers-just calling it love. I also have clear lines between acquaintance, friend and lover and similar experiences regarding the amount of time I can handle being around them. Because its draining.

The PRIMARY reason I don't jump out and say "I'm poly" in public atmospheres, is because it gets taken to mean I'm available to have sex when in fact, I am not.

Before I will consider someone a potential partner, they are going to spend AT LEAST a year getting to know me, probably closer to 3-4 years. That's just a reality for ME. I don't desire or tolerate sex with people I don't ALREADY have a close, emotional bond to and I don't create close emotional bonds easily. So, it takes A LOT OF TIME and committed effort before someone is getting in the sack with me.

That has been something the "poly community" as they say, has looked down on me for. Suggesting that I'm sex-negative. In fact, I'm not-I am totally ok with ANYONE HAVING SEX WITH ANY OTHER WILLING PARTNER WHENEVER the HELL THEY WANT TO. But-I don't have sex unless I desire it (reaction from having experienced rape) and I don't ever desire it before there is a deep emotional connection.
Shrug.
 
I ran across this article today and it seem to touch on several topics that get discussed here quite frequently. http://boldlygo.co/?p=205 ....Time management, veto power, abuse, enlightenment, poly superiority, appropriation, etc.

Does the author have some valid points? ....do these conditions exist in the community at large ?

I'd definitely say yes to your first question. I think your second question is more of a blanket statement and so would have to say 'not exactly'. I think my favourite paragraph from the article came near the beginning:

****
Most of the people I’ve had contact with in the polyamory community have been economically privileged, most of them don’t have kids, some of them don’t have jobs or subsist by borrowing or, for lack of a better term, mooching off of the people that they date. (To clarify, this does not mean people who live off of benefits, unemployment or any other government assistance. But, specifically, to people who are class privileged because of who they date and choose to subsist off of their partner’s monetary wealth.) I wonder, as I try and take relationship advice from these people, if their experience is really so applicable to mine. Being an immigrant, I don’t have the benefit of social supports a lot of people do. I don’t have parents who can bail me out. And I will never feel comfortable with relying on my partners to provide for me economically and am lucky to be in a place where I don’t need to. Yet, most poly people refuse to acknowledge their privileges in this context or they give relationship advice or talk about polyamory as if this is all a given when it isn’t. And it gives people unrealistic expectations.
****

That one really rang a bell with me, particularly the very first line:
"Most of the people I’ve had contact with in the polyamory community have been economically privileged, most of them don’t have kids,"

She correctly said "most". I know some poly people who aren't economically privileged (in many senses I'd fit here) and I know some who have kids. However, I haven't seen any poly people who are both economically disadvantaged -and- who have kids. And as to myself, I may identify as poly, but I've never actually dated 2 women at the same time in the physical world (the online world is nice but it's not exactly the same thing). While I've received some vague, rather lukewarm objections to this assertion in the past, I've personally found that in general, this type of thing requires that a guy has to have a decent amount of income; enough to be able to make a decent contribution to his partners wellbeing; whether it's regarlarly sharing decent meals (in house or at a restaurant), accommodation, or something of this nature.
 
Ultimately, because I see polyamory as an orientation, I don't see it as a privilege. Being able to practice it, yes, that's a privilege. Being polyamorous? Not really. In many places over the world, it might mean that you'll need to keep that shut and stick to the one spouse you're allowed to have while being miserable for not being able to be with the other person(s) you love. Which, you know, is better than nothing for sure, but sucks as far as "privileges" go.

I agree. If you follow that 'miserable' path far enough, you'll see that it can lead to cheating. That's one particular path I don't think I'll ever personally follow, but I can understand the temptation of it if you're with someone who sustains you financially but not emotionally while someone else can sustain you emotionally but not financially.
 
I forgot to comment on the people who say they're polyamorous, when they mean they're open, or want casual relationships. I too find it annoying, especially since there are so many words for that already and they really don't need to use this one, which clearly has "love" in it.
I only encountered that attitude recently though, relatively speaking. My first experiences with poly folks were long-term established families. Most of my experience has been, really.

I also totally understand not wanting to call yourself something because of how you keep hearing it used. If most people who call themselves something are people you don't want to associate yourself with, you might not want to call yourself that. I understand it for things like a political position or a philosophical one, but since I see poly as an orientation, well that's what I am, and people giving it a bad name can't change that. I can only trust that people I choose to open up to will know me enough not to imagine things that don't sound like me at all, or that at least they will give me a chance to prove them wrong if they assume them.

Just like others, I tend to want strong emotional connections before I'll consider a relationship and sex. I did have an experience with a friend with benefits, but even that was after years of knowing and trusting each other. And really I should just call him a friend, we had a sexual experience once, it doesn't redefine our friendship or change it much, and neither of us is interested in doing it again (nor does either of us regret it).
The idea that poly = easy IS annoying, but I find people think similarly of many things that apply to women and sexuality. As soon as you start talking about your preferences, if you are a woman, it seems it means you're insatiable and will have sex with anyone. Kinky? Then people will assume you're not monogamous. Poly? People will assume you're into casual sex. Etc, etc.
 
As far as the topic of privilege goes I was thinking of it in it's broadest sense....any or all romantic relationships. I think thats a good way to frame things then work backward from there.


The star trek stuff caught my eye too. For a couple seconds I was looking for Jedi stuff to appear then relized I had the wrong movie or tv show.
 
I forgot to comment on the people who say they're polyamorous, when they mean they're open, or want casual relationships. I too find it annoying, especially since there are so many words for that already and they really don't need to use this one, which clearly has "love" in it.
I only encountered that attitude recently though, relatively speaking. My first experiences with poly folks were long-term established families. Most of my experience has been, really.

I also totally understand not wanting to call yourself something because of how you keep hearing it used. If most people who call themselves something are people you don't want to associate yourself with, you might not want to call yourself that. I understand it for things like a political position or a philosophical one, but since I see poly as an orientation, well that's what I am, and people giving it a bad name can't change that. I can only trust that people I choose to open up to will know me enough not to imagine things that don't sound like me at all, or that at least they will give me a chance to prove them wrong if they assume them.

Just like others, I tend to want strong emotional connections before I'll consider a relationship and sex. I did have an experience with a friend with benefits, but even that was after years of knowing and trusting each other. And really I should just call him a friend, we had a sexual experience once, it doesn't redefine our friendship or change it much, and neither of us is interested in doing it again (nor does either of us regret it).
The idea that poly = easy IS annoying, but I find people think similarly of many things that apply to women and sexuality. As soon as you start talking about your preferences, if you are a woman, it seems it means you're insatiable and will have sex with anyone. Kinky? Then people will assume you're not monogamous. Poly? People will assume you're into casual sex. Etc, etc.

Good points Tom. Another point, concerning the article in the OP; she says she defines herself as non monogamous, so the kinky thing would be fine for her, but I'm not sure she's given much thought to just how broad a term non monogamous is. For one thing, it would include swingers, and from what she said, she liked the term polyamorous -precisely- because it tended to demand a love component in the relationships. She then goes on about how some in the poly community people define love differently then her, but to me that simply sounds like she should identify as a more 'serious'/emotionally inclined subset of polyamory, instead of making do with what I think is the far broader category of non monogamy. I'd put myself in that same subset myself.
 
However, I haven't seen any poly people who are both economically disadvantaged -and- who have kids.

Well they do exist! Runic Wolf, Wendigo, and I have been economically disadvantaged for years, though this year seems to be a turning point as all 3 of us have gotten full time jobs and Wendigo's wife, Pretty Lady (a struggling author) has been approached with a book deal.

Runic Wolf and I spent half of this year on public assistance, which saved us from having to move our son and cat into my mother in law's spare bedroom. Wendigo and Pretty Lady weren't quite so lucky 2 years ago when their house became unsafe to live in. They live out in the country on a family plot of land with 2 houses, so while they had a place to go, it meant moving themselves and their teenaged son into a 3 bedroom house already occupied by Pretty Lady's sister and her 2 teenagers. Wendigo has also been out of work for a few years, though Runic Wolf was just able to get him into his company.

You can't believe how good it felt to not have to be able to afford my son's school supplies on our own this year; to not have to borrow money from family or put his name on the free back pack list (which does little good to a middle schooler when the supplies included are crayons and the like). And it feels pretty damn good to get to see Wendigo everyday and know that he's just a tiny bit less stressed out himself.
 
Well they do exist! Runic Wolf, Wendigo, and I have been economically disadvantaged for years, though this year seems to be a turning point as all 3 of us have gotten full time jobs and Wendigo's wife, Pretty Lady (a struggling author) has been approached with a book deal.

Cool :). Actually if you think about it, if you actually -live- with more then one of your partners, it could be more economically feasible then if you only had one partner.

Runic Wolf and I spent half of this year on public assistance, which saved us from having to move our son and cat into my mother in law's spare bedroom. Wendigo and Pretty Lady weren't quite so lucky 2 years ago when their house became unsafe to live in. They live out in the country on a family plot of land with 2 houses, so while they had a place to go, it meant moving themselves and their teenaged son into a 3 bedroom house already occupied by Pretty Lady's sister and her 2 teenagers. Wendigo has also been out of work for a few years, though Runic Wolf was just able to get him into his company.

Cool :).

You can't believe how good it felt to not have to be able to afford my son's school supplies on our own this year; to not have to borrow money from family or put his name on the free back pack list (which does little good to a middle schooler when the supplies included are crayons and the like). And it feels pretty damn good to get to see Wendigo everyday and know that he's just a tiny bit less stressed out himself.

Definitely sounds good. I really would like to see the day that I myself have my own kids... but I definitely wouldn't want any now because of my economic situation. Well, I'm taking an accounting course and my mother has a retreat that she's working on in Mexico, so hopefully I'll be able to get that employment thing going in the not too distant future.
 
The star trek stuff caught my eye too. For a couple seconds I was looking for Jedi stuff to appear then relized I had the wrong movie or tv show.

Star Wars vs. Star Trek is definitely one of the consummate archetypical debates of contemporary Western popular culture. You can apply it to just about any intellectual masturbation exercise, and use it to prove whatever point you want.

I have always leaned toward the "Trek" camp, probably because I can find more characters in it with whom i identify in real life, but it doesn't really matter which side of the fence you land on. It is still a wonderful rhetorical tool.
 
The author definitely brings up some good thinking points, but for all of her talk of "superiority" she has quite a bit of that kind of tone in a lot of her writing.

While living and practicing poly may be a privilege, actually feeling polyamorous is not. Regardless of this, I don't understand why it is important to her to make poly people accept this in order for her to feel comfortable using the label for herself. It doesn't really follow. Lots of things are privileges and I don't really know why she is stuck on this. In a sense, this almost seems to be a very "superior" tone from her because SHE gets it and SHE realizes what a privilege it is and the rest of us are just ignorant and self-absorbed.

(I will say that almost any time I hear someone calling someone else pretentious or superior, it quite more often than not belies their own feelings of superiority over whatever group they are calling out.)

While some people do appropriate concepts, I don't think this means that everyone who uses some of these words is just trying to be more "exotic" or "sacred" and may actually be interested in some of these concepts or open and willing to learn. This, again, seems to be our "superior" author fighting to defend the original and cultural notions of these words against all the faceless ignorant privileged white people that use the words. Language does change, sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worse, but beating someone over the head for it or looking down your nose at them isn't the way to educate people to use more "enlightened" word choices. In my experience, people often don't realize when they are saying something that may be hurtful, offensive, or naive in some way and giving them the benefit of the doubt tends to make them a lot more receptive to hearing what you have to say on the matter. I do realize that conscious and aware language choices are important when it comes to issues of culture and diversity, but it is hard to justify that when the author is taking the stereotypically naggy tone that people tend to make fun of and start throwing labels like "politically correct" at the speaker. As someone who tends to try to be conscious of these things, even I get triggered when I feel like someone is speaking down to me like an uneducated grub and this is exactly what the author is doing here. This "appropriation" occurs in many walks of life and again I don't see it as a really compelling reason to reject the label of poly. The author can label herself as she chooses, but I feel she is revealing far more about herself than the "poly community" she speaks of in her article.

As far as abuse and cheating go, I have never seen those behaviors validated on this website, in my local poly community, or in the books I've read on the subject. My experience with the "poly community" at large is limited, but I am willing to guess that so is the author's (which is quite ironic that she is so worried about labeling things the "right way", yet makes blanket statements about an entire group of people without considering that the problems she is experiencing might be specific to her area or website). I understand that she would get frustrated with people using poly as an excuse to cheat and be crappy (I do too), but someone who is truly poly doesn't need to stop calling themselves poly because someone else is using the word wrong, nor should they. That would be like every genuine sufferer of OCD or bipolar rejecting those labels because people tend to use them inappropriately all the time. It isn't necessary. Education about more accurate ways to use the labels is much more appropriate in my opinion (although I will always recognize the right of someone to label themselves as they choose, but some labels will foster a greater understanding of the concept you are trying to convey and if you use nonstandard labels you may set yourself up for misunderstanding). I can see how a poly setup may open doors for abuse that didn't previously exist, and I think that is definitely an important topic to consider adding to discussion about poly.

How the author defines "friend" and "lover" is and always has been free to be different from the poly person next door. This article seems less and less a real criticism of poly than it does a lot of finger-pointing and the author trying to distance herself from the concept of poly, while dragging every bad thing she can think of about it through the mud just to solidify that distance. So some poly people did things different from you. Boo-hoo. Put on your big kid pants and realize that you are allowed to do things different under poly. It is a pretty broad relationship style and people are free to do things the way they choose. If you want lines to demarcate friends and lovers, great! If you would rather let things be more fluid, awesome! The important part is consent and keeping all partners aboveboard and honest with each other. As long as everyone is happy, the triad or quad or network down the street doesn't have to fit YOUR version of poly. Don't get involved with them if you don't like it, but there is no need to say "If that is poly, then I'M not poly." You don't have to be guilty by association. If you find something distasteful, you don't have to live it or condone it in your own life.

While the abuse thing may be something to look out for, and it is definitely always a good thing to examine one's privilege, this article reads less as a mature criticism of issues in poly and more like a childish stab at a community the author didn't quite mesh with and a chance to parade her educated and diversity friendly self in contrast to it. I don't really see much point in looking down your nose at an entire group of people because you met a few you didn't like and your local or internet communities weren't exactly what you thought they would be.
 
Last edited:
Well, the vast majority of poly folks that I know in person are definitely "economically disenfranchised" and most have kids, so my own experiences don't mirror the author's at all.

I definitely consider myself fortunate to be able to have the relationships that I do. Part of it was happenstance, but a lot of it was hard work, and a willingness to make it succeed. "Privilege" is a very emotive word, so I am very careful in using it.

The time that I need to devote to my relationships is definitely a commodity for me - I have a very busy job where I need to be willing to work whenever they need me, without warning or being paid overtime. Sometimes this calls for accommodations in my relationships, but that is something I have to do. My "spare time" for other hobbies tends to take third place to this. So I'm really not sure whether I have any more time for my relationships than someone that is "economically disenfranchised".

I don't think that I know in person of any poly person who "mooches" off someone with money - I am guessing that this is a factor of the local demographic where the author lives.

I have met a few non-Caucasians who have self-identified as poly, but I agree that the Caucasians are the majority.

A significant number of the folks that I know in our local poly community are either LGBT or into Kink - both of these tend to be marginalizing and take them out of the mainstream. I would say that the proportion of people in these categories in the poly community is significantly higher than in the so-called "mainstream" community, so I don't share the same viewpoint as the author at all. Because I find the premise flawed, I can not agree with the conclusions.

Nearly all poly people that I know don't wrap their poly up in some sort of exotic spirituality, as the author says. They just get on with it, without trying to explain it.

On the topic of abuse and abusers - I would like to know if the rate of occurrence of this in the poly community is in any way different from that of the community at large. There are abusers in both, and I have seen no data whatsoever to indicate that polys are abusive any more than anyone else.

And the superiority is something that I am quite often trying to dispel - I don't hear it much in my local group, but the number of folks that come online and talk about how polyamory is "more evolved", or that "everyone is really poly". I try to be polite about it, but won't tolerate it. I see others doing the same thing. So while there are folks (usually newbies) who spout this stuff, the experienced poly folk don't tend to. Polyamory is absolutely not the solution to most problems - in fact, it rarely is.

I definitely have the concept of acquaintances, friends and lovers (and I will add "colleagues" into that mix too) - and while people can go from one to another, they are definitely different in my mind.

So, to close, I don't share this person's experiences with the poly communities in which I have been involved, so therefore cannot draw anything like the same conclusions. It's a shame that this person's experiences in the community have been so negative.

ETA: and I totally agree with MusicalRose, who seems to have posted at the same time as me!
 
Last edited:
Star Trek and Star Wars

Star Wars vs. Star Trek is definitely one of the consummate archetypical debates of contemporary Western popular culture. You can apply it to just about any intellectual masturbation exercise, and use it to prove whatever point you want.

I have always leaned toward the "Trek" camp, probably because I can find more characters in it with whom i identify in real life, but it doesn't really matter which side of the fence you land on. It is still a wonderful rhetorical tool.

BoringGuy, I really liked where this subject was going, but felt that we were kind of veering off of the OP, so I created a new thread over in the Fireplace forum called Star Trek and Star Wars with my thoughts on what you said as well as space for anyone else to have their say on these 2 great Sci Fi phenomena :).
 
That one really rang a bell with me, particularly the very first line:
"Most of the people I’ve had contact with in the polyamory community have been economically privileged, most of them don’t have kids,"

It rang a bell with me, too--the author apparently has very little experience with poly folk.

I've met very few poly folk who are economically privileged. Predominantly, those without children are young and have put off childbearing or are old enough their children are grown; I certainly wouldn't say those without children constitute a majority.
 
It rang a bell with me, too--the author apparently has very little experience with poly folk.

I've met very few poly folk who are economically privileged. Predominantly, those without children are young and have put off childbearing or are old enough their children are grown; I certainly wouldn't say those without children constitute a majority.

Well, we might have just hung in different poly circles, but the fact that the author brought up the fact that she's an immigrant makes me think of a whole different economic level; there's a reason that many countries are called 'third world'. That being said, as I mentioned earlier, polyamory -can- work for people regardless of their economic situation, particularly if it involves living together; it's much easier to get one more room then it is to get a bachelor's apartment type thing. And then there's all the pooling of resources that can happen as well.
 
So, I guess I/we are the poly demographic that the author of the article has issues with. We are "economically privileged", in the sense that my income is sufficient to provide for our needs and many of our wants, and we don't have kids (after two miscarriages and a lot of heartbreak). So I guess the guys are "mooching" off me since they don't work for someone else for money. (Although they both would if that became necessary.)

So yes, we are privileged - I worked hard and acquired a shitload of student loans to get here. Pardon me if I don't apologize profusely for enjoying the fruits of the 60-90 hour weeks I've been working for the last 13 years...and will continue to work until I retire (hopefully at 50). (Sorry folks, side issue and a whole different debate...:cool:)

Most of the article didn't really resonate with me as the only "poly community" I have been exposed to is here and the old alt.polyamory usenet group and I haven't seen much of what they are referring to.

The main thing that got to me was the part where they were talking about abusers. So, you are in a relationship with someone who treats other people like shit? And POLYAMORY is the problem? Why the FUCK are you in a relationship with someone who treats people like shit?!?!:eek: Because "everyone else" is okay with it? What are you, a sheep?

Jane("Use-whatever-labels-you-like")Q
 
Even as economically disadvantaged as we were, living together would not be an option. First because Pretty Lady would never leave her family property to get foreclosed on and secondly because they would never consider moving their son out of his school district and into ours. He is a junior in high school and the head of his JROTC drill team. Finally, Pretty Lady would never allow any sexual activity in the house as long and the children were home (as she has not for the entire 16 years they've been married) and I can't live like that.
 
Does the author have some valid points? ....do these conditions exist in the community at large ?
I enjoyed the article for being throughtprovoking. The tone of the article had some snark in it, since it was journal writing/opinion piece. But it had good points. Thanks for posting it, Dinged! :)

DingedHeart said:
Does the author have some valid points? ....do these conditions exist in the community at large ?

Let me scroll through...

I had to agree -- All relationships ARE a privilege, regardless of configuration.

  • The expression of being in relationship and being safe in that expression (seen it, experienced it)
  • Having the TIME to have relationships in (seen it, experienced it)
  • Having the MONEY to have relationships with -- dating costs, raising kids costs, having enough food/home/clothes costs etc. (seen it, exeperienced it)
  • Woman considering relationship on factors other than just love (seen it, experienced it)
  • Moocher dating moneyed partners (seen it. )
  • Disabled/ablesim factor (seen it.)
  • Color/Race factor (seen it, experienced it.)
  • Orientation (queer, bi, trans, etc) factor. (seen it, experienced it)

Appropriation -- I've seen some of that but I don't really care. Everyone has the right to run their polyship however it is they want. Culture spreads via communication/sharing so... trying to keep anything "culture pure" is silly. Esp here in the USA -- it's a mishmosh already! The country was built on mishmosh of cultures. And the culture keeps on evolving in time even in a country that isn't built on mixed peoples. Technology, knowledge - other factors change how "things are done and expressed" which is part of culture.


Empathy vs Sympathy vs fake "i feel your pain"
-- the poly patriarch thing with the queer thing? No, not experienced that myself. There IS the issue of polyness, queerness, kinkyness, and more causing probs with child custody cases. There's similarities in there, I agree.


Abusers hiding easier inside polyamory
-- I agree. It is easier for abusers to hide in there. Seen it. The way it was written though... missed some bits for me.

JaneSmythe said:
The main thing that got to me was the part where they were talking about abusers. So, you are in a relationship with someone who treats other people like shit? And POLYAMORY is the problem? Why the FUCK are you in a relationship with someone who treats people like shit?!?! Because "everyone else" is okay with it? What are you, a sheep?

Jane -- No, abuse victims are messed up by the abuser. NOT polyamory. It is not that polyamory is the problem, or that BDSM is the problem.

It is that the nature of both (having many partners potential) that makes it EASIER for the abuser to hide in because s/he is harder to pin down and recognize as abusive than if there were in a monogamous (or expected monogamous) arrangement. Article could have communicated this a bit more clearly.

So it's harder to notice them/ roust them out. Esp. if the victim is gaslighted and unsure they are even being abused in a way that "counts." Not all abuse is physical leaving bruises on the body. Most people will count hitting as abusive. Some is more subtle leaving bruises on the soul where it cannot be seen. Some people will not acknowledge mental or emotional abuses even though they pain the victim just as much or more than beatings and are forms of controlling them. The article DID touch on this aspect.

When people say "Why don't they just leave?!" well... sometimes the victims are fully aware that the leaving time is the most dangerous time. Retribution from the abuser can mean death -- of the victim or the victim's kids or other loved ones. Wackadoodle is wackdoodle. Sigh. The article failed to touch on this end of it. The leaving time being dangerous time. Some people choose to be ALIVE even if dinged a lot than DEAD.

Some abusers are NOT going to let the "bad ex" off light. Some might, and just focus on their other abused honeys. But not all. And if the abuser were with ONE partner -- say married to them. If that person suddenly disappears people will look to the spouse and go hrm.... If the abuser was with MANY partners, and one disappears? The abuser can go "Oh, we broke up and they left" and not as many will look at them and go hrm as "deep"... because they still see them roughly the same. A person with many partners.

Article did not touch on that.

Veto Power / Weak Boundaries -- I have seen that. That paragraph would have been better as a bullet point its own. The way presented you can mix it up with the abuse bullet point. I can see why in the thought process it comes linked to the abuse though. It is a close cousin. It can happen on top of abuse too.

Superiority -- I have seen that. Polyamory is not more "evolved" than monoamory just as polyships are not more evolved than monoships. People like what they like for their relationship configurations. Nobody's business but the people IN the relationship.

Sugarcoating Cheating with "Polyamory" -- I have seen that. The article could have bulleted that out a bit more clearly though it touches on it.

Poly vs Swing and "vocabulary usage" calibration so everyone is talking about the same thing -- I have seen that. The article touches on it but it isn't a clear bullet point.

Really ANY one of those bullets could be a whole article in of itself!

And because of that, it could lead to interesting talks. I'm going to show it to DH. Thanks again, Dinged!

GalaGirl
 
Last edited:
Gala,

you're very welcome, my pleasure.

I thought it might generate a discussion.

I was surprised to see in your analysis of the article that you skipped over her choice of Scifi series :D ....that debate actually spawned another thread :D
 
Back
Top