Polyamory.com Forum  

Go Back   Polyamory.com Forum > Polyamory > General Poly Discussions


Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-05-2014, 10:16 PM
rosephase rosephase is offline
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 40
Default Annoying article


I just ran into this on Facebook. It pissed me off. So I'm sharing it with you guys because I like it when other people can articulate my frustration better then I can. Take a look and I know there are probably some redeeming things about it ( if you can stomach getting all the way through it) and I'm really open to hearing that.

Thanks guys!
Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2014, 07:57 PM
MeeraReed MeeraReed is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: East Coast, U.S.
Posts: 368

Couldn't get past the title. So I have nothing constructive to add!
Single, straight, female, solo, non-monogamous.
Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2014, 08:26 PM
SchrodingersCat's Avatar
SchrodingersCat SchrodingersCat is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Saskatchewan
Posts: 2,365

I got slightly past the title, but I didn't find it to be well-written enough to even understand the main thesis without too much thinking to be worth it. What's the point of the essay?

OP, may I ask your opinion and what pissed you off about it?
As I am sure any cat owner will be able to tell you,
someone else putting you in a box is entirely different
from getting into a box yourself.
Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2014, 08:29 PM
SchrodingersCat's Avatar
SchrodingersCat SchrodingersCat is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Saskatchewan
Posts: 2,365

In stubbornness, I gave it another attempt. I got as far as it saying that relationship styles are somehow related to spirituality.

In my opinion, spirituality is a personal thing, and no person can tell any other person how best to express their spirituality. My hunch is that this person had some negative experiences and rather than saying "well, that just doesn't work for me" they went into a "this is terrible for anyone and it's all wrong wrong wrong" mentality.

I hate it when other people tell me what's best for me. Give me options, highlight possible consequences, but at the end of the day, let me decide what's in my own best interest. I'm grown-up enough to accept responsibility for the outcomes of my choices.
As I am sure any cat owner will be able to tell you,
someone else putting you in a box is entirely different
from getting into a box yourself.
Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2014, 08:34 PM
NewPerspective NewPerspective is offline
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Toronto
Posts: 8

I just saw the title and my first thought was it isn't worth reading.
Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2014, 09:02 PM
Tonberry Tonberry is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 1,432

It's about tantric sex. Not my thing. Doesn't really seem pertinent here, except that polyamory is one of the 4 relationship types they mention.
Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2014, 10:36 PM
belleamore's Avatar
belleamore belleamore is offline
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 14

Saw the title, went "bwuh?" and decided not to give it a read.
Me: 31 year old pansexual female, in a relationship... zig-zag? Married to B (8/2010), dating M (5/2013) :: blog
Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2014, 04:22 AM
Brighty18's Avatar
Brighty18 Brighty18 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Taos, NM
Posts: 14
Default IH etatents

I actually made it through the entire article, though I confess that my constant eye rolling may have inadvertently caused me to miss a few passages.

Basically, the sense I got was that the author was saying that the problem with polyamory is that it comes from a space that is essentially selfish and based merely on sexual relationships rather than long term, committed, caring relationships. And, to make that point, he couches his argument in plenty of swearing and the jargon of Eastern spirituality. Amongst other claims, he asserts that polyamorous relationships lead to bad parenting, and, bizarrely, dying alone.

Throughout it all he discusses the idea of higherogamy, which, by his definition as the joining of the sacred masculine and feminine, strikes me as a little normative as far as gender and sexuality are concerned. Perhaps he means it metaphorically - at least I can hope. In the end, he advocates sacred sexuality, but only his brand of it.

Oddly, at the end, he makes this (hopefully) tongue-in-cheek claim that the article was channeled by some disincarnate being from the star system whomp. This makes me wonder how much of the entire thing is tongue-in-cheek. Hell, I swear like a proverbial sailor and his constant, glip potty mouth grated on my nerves.

In the end, I found some (okay, most) or his arguments reductive and over-simplified. Perhaps it is just the way I practice polyamory, but I trust that my partners will be there in my old age and I don't think of myself as selfish as all. And it's certainly about love more than sex.

Again, I think the author sincerely meant well, he just made his arguments poorly. He reminds me of many people I encounter every day in Taos, deeply spiritual people who's earnestness is just a big misguided in terms of making a point. And this just guy makes it worse by his flip attitude.
Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2014, 01:38 PM
YouAreHere's Avatar
YouAreHere YouAreHere is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: SoNH
Posts: 1,244

The UI stopped me before I could even start reading. Tiny font (although I guess I could blow it up?), unable to read the whole article on one page, or to even scroll? Ecch. No thanks.

Forget the mono/poly thing (as a mono, sometimes I have a different POV than what you guys will take from it, so it does interest me to read these articles and see the back-and-forth), the UI alone got this software geek in a lather.
Dramatis personae:
Me: Mono. Divorced, two kids (DanceGirl, 15; and PokéGirl, 12), two cats, one house, many projects.
Chops: My partner. Poly.
Xena: Chops' other nesting partner, Poly. Also in a relationship with Shaggy
Noa: Chops' other other partner (heh). Married, Poly.
Shaggy: Poly, in a relationship with Xena
Choplet: Chops' son

External mono/poly blog: From Baltic to Boardwalk
Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2014, 03:47 PM
GalaGirl GalaGirl is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 4,852

I found it frustrating to read because it reads as "rough" to me rather than a "finished." My constructive feedback?

1) I did not like UI. Tiny font, and I like to just read down, not click sideways. But the look of it was "magazine enough."

2) Title could be off putting. "Want to Play?" is better -- and taken from the last pages.

While "Lizard Brain Fuck Monkeys and the Path to Enlightenment" is eye catching, it sets a "holier than thou" tone from the starting gate in the reader. Who wants to sign up to be called a "lizard brain fuck monkey" for choosing to polyship? And then stick around to read through 15 pages of rough draft to find out how this author thinks the reader "does poly wrong and unenlightened?"

Author misses serving the reader the PIE -- (p)ersuade, (i)nform or (e)ntertain -- from the start with a title that pushes the potential readers away rather than invites them IN.

3) Length. Since this has an angle, it seems to be trying to be "magazine article: 4-8 pages." This piece is 15 pages on this UI and half needs to go.

Could save 4 pages right off the bat by losing editor note and the (F-M-F) story. Then clarify and condense the pitfall list.

I can't say I disagree with any of the author's pitfalls or that doing things like that could be bad for your spiritual health. But don't make me jump through hoops to dig them out. If you promise to "enlighten" me in the title, serve me better PIE in the article.

4) I don't mind viewing it from the Tantra/Buddhist lens, but either commit to that lens and execute better all the way across the piece, or drop it entirely and go for simpler. As it stands it detracts from the readability of the piece while driving up word count in a mag article.

5) What appears to be main thesis (to me) is buried in the "Want to Play?" part of it on page 14.

I think if the article had
  • started it with "Want to Play? as the title
  • opened with the "Want to play?" chunk on page 14 as the introduction
  • gone on to list the "pitfalls" after that
  • finished with a massaged version of the existing conclusion
  • built better transitions in between to link those "blocks"

it could have been a more effective piece.

Make the point and work from the tip of the triangle and outward to support it. Rather than trying to go "funnel" style and gather all these things to narrow down to final point. That's just not working here -- reader gets lost!

(I use quote function to block it off visually here -- mostly author's words, but not perfect. I'm not retyping that monster. )



Want to Play?

So here's the simplest test of if you are ready -- actually truly, helpfully ready for a poly lifestyle...

You're already doing it -- incredibly well with a dedicated partner first. And everyone else connected to that relationship - kids, exes, spouses, family, are also overflowing with love light and consciousness.

Because if we're not practicing "polyamory" - loving many consciously and skillfully -- before we embark on "polyamory AND polysexuality" -- we probably haven't mastered the core capacities we'd need to make a strong showing anyway.

If I can't speak my deepest truths to an ex spouse, or prioritize time for my thankless teens or be clear and own my part in ongoing family patterns with my siblings, what are the odds of me miraculously getting better and this with relative strangers thrown into the mix?"
6) Pitfalls identified by author but in my own words... as best as I can make out? This is the area most in need of trimming/condensing/clarifying!



{"Watch out for pitfalls and learn intrapersonal and interpersonal skills so you aren't dinging your spiritual health while polyshipping!" type transition here. Then do the list of skills/pitfalls to know about that are bad for your spiritual health.}

"More evolved schtick" -- Be prepared for the "fake-evolved" who say polyshipping is for the "more evolved" who are actually selfish folks who push you beyond your limits while calling YOU selfish when you try to maintain your personal boundaries for yourself. Don't be that pusher either.

"Limitless/no boundaries" -- polyshipping people could have firmer boundaries, respect boundaries, not push other people's boundaries. It's not cool to run around with no boundaries. You get born, you will die. You come with a built in boundary! Stop pretending like "limits do not exist in our polyship" or "we don't have to obey any limits in our polyship. " Learn to work within your particular limits and the limits of your poly people so it can be a harmonious polyship. Or just don't be with these people in polyship!

"Agreements/Social contracts -- beware not making them well/not practical and just CALLING them wonderful contracts." Good planning, conflict resolution skills, clear expectations, boundaries are actually needed for it to WORK like a wonderful contract, not just have pretty paper floofy words.

"Don't rush people or make them the scapegoat of all the polyship's problems. Or if they seem to want off the polyship -- land to let them off with minimal damage!" (That section made me wonder if the author had personal experience axe to grind -- it went on a bit long.)

"Polyshipping is playing with fire -- emotional edge play." It can lead to wowing experiences or it can bite you in the ass or BOTH. (Expressed in Tantra/Kundalini snake terms for the most part.)

"Not knowing when to hang up your hat." If it won't fly any more for you? Land it. Know when to end a polyship so you can leave. Stop making waves/drama trying to get a thing to fly that just... won't. Learn to accept. (Expressed in terms of muddy waters and clams with pearls of wisdom at bottom.)

" Polyshipping is extra hard as a parent." Don't neglect your kids and fob them off on TV, babysitters, etc. Be PRESENT in your parenting if you are a parent. The kids did not sign up to polyship. They are along for the ride. So if you polyship as a parent, pay attention to your parenting. You polyshipping is not excuse to slack on your parenting.

"Level of Commitment" -- figure out what that means in your configuration and what it does not mean. Actually talk about illness and dying when you make your social contracts. Because we all get sick and we all die so... figure out how that plays in there, if it plays in your polyshipping plans and your expectations of your poly people.

"Being less than honest with yourself" -- beware of falling into that temptation because you are unwilling to deal with shit.

"Expect problems" -- just because you polyship doesn't mean LIFE isn't still happening. Shit happens sometimes in Life.

"Expect intensity to crank up" -- more people = more relating = more intensity than relating with fewer people.

"Don't get carried away" -- yeah, some of it is awesome fun. That "fun stuff" is more fun to feel that the "shit happens" stuff, but don't get all caught up in the "whee!" so much that your exuberant behavior ends up making shit for other people in your polyship. Enjoy the "whee!" while seeking to reduce shit happening in your polyship.

"Don't make it all about you, or take things personally." There's more than just YOU here in the polyship. There's more than just influences YOU are aware of that could bother the people in your polyship. Don't waste time spinning the blame game wheel. Move it forward -- here's some shit that happened. How can the shit best be cleaned up?

"One of the maturities you might be called to grow in polyshipping is "philosophical/spiritual maturity" -- be aware of that. Where "be more ___" becomes more important to you than "have more ___." Experiencing this could be rewarding in polyshipping or could throw you for a loop in polyshipping because you think something is wrong with the polyship. ( I think that's what that was trying to say... I'm not sure.)

"Beware the thrillseekers and don't be a thrillseeker yourself." This is not polyfuckery and you having more notches on the bedpost. (More of the "don't get caught up in the "Whee!" thing but couched in spiritual development/tantra vocab. Also seems to be trying to say "your polysaturation point could happen and then you have to deal with that limit" but doesn't quite make it.)
Those pitfalls could be better identified and articulated, and perhaps better grouped. I just went down in the order the author had it but in reviewing it -- editor could group similar ones together. Better outline of points for sure along with word count.

7)Leave the concluding paragraph where it is, but massage it. I'm not happy with my stab at it but something like this could be one way to end it:


Polyshipping is challenging. For most of us, it could be worth taking the time to map out WHEN in life we want to polyship and HOW we want to polyship with our partners and get through the transitional time more slowly with a plan than just jumping into it together (so that we don't damage our spiritual health in the process.)

One important exception: If all the people in your group are truly certain that your shared Dharma -- your shared life's work in this lifetime-- is indeed to pioneer the the relational path, to deliberately create karma with each other however it falls? Then don't just jump right in and get messy.

Jump in, get messy, be the trailblazing pioneers, AND SHARE what you all found! We all could benefit from your willingness to push the edge if you share what you have learned along the way. And we'd thank you for your service!"
For sure an editor that is NOT the author though.

Thanks for the read though! I enjoyed reading it even if I think it could use more work.


Last edited by GalaGirl; 01-14-2014 at 03:18 AM.
Reply With Quote

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 11:56 AM.