Polyamory.com Forum  

Go Back   Polyamory.com Forum > Site Usage > User Guidelines & Forum Features

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81  
Old 08-15-2010, 10:26 PM
GroundedSpirit GroundedSpirit is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: New England USA
Posts: 1,231
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jkelly View Post
................. Of course, that opens up the question of why I'm hesitant, and I'm not entirely clear on how to answer that, other than that it doesn't bear much resemblance to my experience, etc.
I think this kind of cuts to the heart of this (hijacked) thread.
Most opinions people hold are solely based on their personal experience or occasionally someone close to them.
But it's a big wide world out there (here?) and it's proven generally more beneficial to listen rather than talk until you have sufficient evidence you've covered the greater portion of that wide world.
Things only get better via learning & understanding.
We may still choose to agree to disagree. Other may chose to walk paths that we choose not to.

But in keeping with the request someone made (and offered) about suggestions I would just toss out a couple simple basic ones......

1> Try to keep our comments relative to the OP and Original Thread. Be careful what you say that may (either intentionally or not) become a hijack.

2> Leave your personal agendas at home UNLESS they have direct applicability to the OP and OT. It's an open forum and everyone is free to start a new thread to solicit comments on their agenda if they desire. You may get feedback, agreement, disagreement, approval or disapproval. Be open minded and learn from it.

GS
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 08-15-2010, 10:41 PM
redpepper's Avatar
redpepper redpepper is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 7,639
Default

Having read and learned from this thread of ygirls... I think for me it boils down to three things; that GS kind of pointed out above..

This forum, for poly people, is about:

listening
learning
understanding
__________________
Anyone want to be friends on Facebook?
Send me your name via PM
My blog
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 08-15-2010, 10:51 PM
Fidelia Fidelia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Right here. Right now.
Posts: 649
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by YGirl View Post
ETA: I am sorry I ever responded to HMA's thread at ALL, since it was obviously intended to solicit validation, not "ideas".
FWIW, that was my assessment of that thread. At least by the time I got to it.
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 08-15-2010, 11:52 PM
Ceoli Ceoli is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: London, UK
Posts: 900
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by YGirl View Post
Please explain to me how what I said is any different from what you said. I have highlighted in color the similarities. You basically just repeated back what I said, putting a different spin on it. All I did differently than what you did is that I didn't draw a distinction in my post between "People Who Leave" for one reason versus "People Who Leave" for another reason.
I never said that it was different than what you said. I was clarifying and verifying.


Quote:
Originally Posted by YGirl View Post
And before you get on me about the last sentence in that quote - ALL IT SAYS is that they are "content" to let you do all the talking. NOWHERE does it ASSume that they ASKED you to speak on their behalf.
I think there's a subtle distinction between speaking on other people's behalf and raising issues that I see that other people have also talked about with me. There's a reason I'm not listing names. It's because I'm not speaking for them. I'm speaking of my experience and how it forms my views and some of that experience involves talking and chatting with people who have felt pushed out and unwelcome by the culture here. Since that mirrors some of my experience here it seems relevant. And I brought that up here as a response to statements that suggested that this forum doesn't do that.
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 08-16-2010, 04:31 AM
NeonKaos NeonKaos is offline
Custodian
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: new england
Posts: 3,221
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceoli View Post
I never said that it was different than what you said. I was clarifying and verifying.




I think there's a subtle distinction between speaking on other people's behalf and raising issues that I see that other people have also talked about with me. There's a reason I'm not listing names. It's because I'm not speaking for them. I'm speaking of my experience and how it forms my views and some of that experience involves talking and chatting with people who have felt pushed out and unwelcome by the culture here. Since that mirrors some of my experience here it seems relevant. And I brought that up here as a response to statements that suggested that this forum doesn't do that.


OK, just wanted to make sure we were on the same page.

This discussion is now in its own thread.
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 08-16-2010, 05:24 AM
AutumnalTone AutumnalTone is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Kansas City Metro
Posts: 2,186
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by redpepper View Post
I agree, there is not a lot of strictly poly-fi people on here. There are some that practice poly-fi with certain relationships, but I haven't known many to be completely fluid bonded in a poly-fi situation.
I'd say we have no way of knowing how many of the people who have posted are currently in poly-fi tangles. It's not germane to many of the situations discussed. We read tales of A, who is involved with X and Y, for example--and without any mention of whether the arrangement includes fluid-bonding or not or whether it's open or closed because that part of the situation isn't germane to the problems they're encountering. I do recall folks mentioning that they have their V or triad or whatever and that's all they want, which suggests a strong possibility of a poly-fi arrangement.
__________________
When speaking of various forms of non-monogamy...it ain't poly if you're just fucking around.

While polyamory, open relationships, and swinging are all distinctly different approaches to non-monogamy, they are not mutually exlusive. Folks can, and some do, engage in more than one of them at a time--and it's all good.
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 08-16-2010, 05:37 AM
LovingRadiance's Avatar
LovingRadiance LovingRadiance is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Alaska
Posts: 5,426
Default

We were strictly poly-fi until I had to suddenly leave state.
I opened the door to Maca to be with another woman who isn't part of our poly-fi V because we were looking at an undefined time apart (anywhere from 2-12 months).

The 11 months prior-we were poly-fi and the 12 years prior to that, even though it was "cheating", we were the three of us fidelitious together. Just didn't know what the hell poly was.

__________________
"Love As Thou Wilt"
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 08-16-2010, 05:38 AM
LovingRadiance's Avatar
LovingRadiance LovingRadiance is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Alaska
Posts: 5,426
Default

And while I'm at, we are all 3 fluid bonded-and not fluid-bonded with "her".
__________________
"Love As Thou Wilt"
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 08-19-2010, 10:11 PM
jkelly jkelly is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 168
Default Long response from another thread

I'm going to try to keep this short enough to not be a hassle to read.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AutumnalTone View Post
For you to claim that somehow all swingers are being maligned when the discussion has only mentioned a *very specific sub-group* that nobody has claimed is very large is nonsensical, unconstructive, and somewhat rude (as it paints those of us involved as somehow being "anti-swinger").
I'm not sure how to take this critique. I could, for example, write that "I really dislike those people who use poly as a cover for being unable to make up their minds and settle down into one relationship." It would make perfect sense for someone to point out that what I wrote was maligning poly- people. I could then respond "Oh no, but I only meant a very specific sub-group", but really... that's a kind of weak rhetorical dodge. Maybe I had some sort of point there somewhere, but it's pretty reasonable for the reader to think that I've got some weird ideas about poly- people after reading that.

But let's say that I don't have weird ideas. If someone was then to say, "Hey, that's not an accurate description of what being poly- is, and it sounds like you're slagging the way that poly- people do relationships.", what should my response be? Should it be "You shouldn't say that to me, because being accused of being anti-poly is rude!" or should it be "Oh... that's not how I meant it; what I want to convey is [for example] that I wish people would always be clear when what they're really looking for is a monogamous relationship down the road, but are right now just dating around."

I think it should be the latter. The former just shuts down the conversation. Incidentally, I wonder if this relates to Ceoli's point about politeness, which I was still wondering about.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AutumnalTone View Post
It's much the same as when YGirl mentioned the possibility of a stripper having a drug problem--you castigated her for maligning strippers when she did no such thing. You didn't respond to what she actually stated, you responded to a notion that *nobody* had stated while trying to assign her responsibility for stating it. That's just not cricket.
Alright, assuming that we agree about the following:

*There exist within our culture damaging stereotypes about strippers.
*Repeating these damaging stereotypes perpetuates them.
*Perpetuating these stereotypes leads to more damage, as it normalizes them and teaches them to people who may not have been exposed to them.
*We should not do that, unless we think that damaging strippers is a good idea.

...that leaves us with the question of whether or not YGirl's post did that. You presumably agree with YGirl that it didn't. I disagree, and stated so. So... the question then becomes whether or not it is "cricket" for me to express disagreement with you and YGirl.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AutumnalTone View Post
So, again, I'll ask that you respond to what was actually stated and not something else. Or if you do respond to something else, make it clear that you're not responding to any statement actually made.
Well, you can ask that, but I'm not sure that I accept the premise that the author (or any individual person) has final say over what "was actually stated". When we communicate, we don't do so with perfect fidelity to our intent, and I strongly believe that we as authors need to acknowledge that a reader is going to have to perform an interpretive act in every reading.

Which is not to say that there's no such thing as a... um, "tendentious reading", which I think is what I'm actually being accused of. It's possible to deliberately miscontrue what someone is communicating in such a way as to make them sound like a bad person. I can assert all I want that I'm not doing that, but that's hardly going to change anyone's mind if bad faith is being assumed.

That said, in an attempt to address the "tendentious reading" idea, I'd say "expressing dumb, prejudicial ideas" doesn't make someone a bad person, as I think that we all do it. When I do it, I want it to be pointed out, because I think part of the project of being a member of a diverse community is ridding oneself of these ideas, which are often invisible to us.
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 08-20-2010, 09:50 AM
Ceoli Ceoli is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: London, UK
Posts: 900
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AutumnalTone View Post
It's much the same as when YGirl mentioned the possibility of a stripper having a drug problem--you castigated her for maligning strippers when she did no such thing. You didn't respond to what she actually stated, you responded to a notion that *nobody* had stated while trying to assign her responsibility for stating it. That's just not cricket.
It's entirely reasonable to notice that suggesting the possibility of a stripper having a drug problem is something that is driven by and perpetuates a stereotype. If the person in question had been, say, a school teacher or a nurse or something, I doubt drugs would have been a possibility brought up for the issues that were being talked about in that thread.

But as jkelly mentions in his response, I'm not entirely clear why it's "not cricket" to have an opposing point of view and disagreement on this matter.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
advice, assumptions, criticism, generalizations, nvc, sniping, wank

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:10 AM.