Making the Case For Female Bisexuality and Polyamory, Particularly in a Commune
Visual Purple
societal constraint. BiPoly is how women will be in a peaceful, free
society that does not presume to tell women how to express our natural
sexuality, the sexuality we are born with and that which we express
when we are little girls and fall in love with both males and females
who become our lifelong imagos.
The case for Bisexuality and Polyamory as the norm of females can be
summed up in this magnificently accurate and beautiful description by
Lord Byron: "Man's love is of man's life a thing apart; 'tis woman's
whole existence."
Though the majority of women are sexually attracted to men and find
them exciting, few are profoundly satisfied by men emotionally after
the first months of courtship during which men behave as though they
are capable of the type of self-disclosure and communication that women
find so natural. In fact, the vast majority men cannot sustain this
state of intense emotion and openness for very long.
Just as a woman is becoming emotionally attached to a man she thinks
understands her uniquely, he becomes overwhelmed and frightened by the
depth of emotion and pulls away to regain his composure.
The sexual response in women is connected to our emotional response. We
cannot respond to a man sexually who has hurt us by disappointing us,
even if we love him. If we love him and we are hurt we may submit to
his overtures to have sex, but we do not really wish to be physically
intimate with him and we come away feeling that we have been violated
and that we betrayed ourselves by giving in. We feel out of control of
our bodies and helpless. Women are all too often being put in the
position of paying for keeping their men in their lives by "putting
out" when they do not really wish to.
Men simply cannot love as women do. Men's brains are not "wired" to
allow them to communicate and emote, or even to think and emote, as
women's brains are. Men's lack of communication skills, relative to
that of women, leaves us feeling abandoned and unloved.
With each new romance, we women think that we have finally found the
one special man who can understand, only to be disappointed again.
Eventually, these repeated disappointments lead to cynicism and wholly
dysfunctional relationships.
Men find their most sustained support for their identity in that which
they do, that which they accomplish. Women's primary satisfaction comes
from their interpersonal relationships. A man shows a woman he loves
her by bringing home the bacon. A woman demonstrates her love in shows
of affection and in wanting to share her thoughts and feelings. Men are
put off by the amounts of shows of affection that a woman finds
reassuring. A man in a relationship is also generally bored and annoyed
by a run-on litany fleeting of thoughts and emotions that the woman
experienced during the day. Women are hurt when what they have to share
is not appreciated. After all, sharing in this way is the way in which
women friends show one another they care.
Though women are attracted to men in any number of ways and on any
number of levels, when they really need to be understood they generally
turn to other women.
Much of the talk that transpires between and among women centers on
their common confusion and frustration with men. They try to analyze
their men's behavior together and don't usually do a very good job. A
good deal of women's conversations consists of wheel-spinning second
guessing about men.
All too often men do not satisfy us sexually either. There is a basic
biological parity between men and women. Unless this parity is
painstakingly overcome our sexual encounters with men leave us
emotionally as well as physically, even if we achieve orgasm.
A good deal of unhappiness among women would be obviated if we women
found the love our very existence is dependent upon in one another.
We women can satisfy one another emotionally as men cannot satisfy us.
The love and mutual understanding that exist between and among women in
love far exceed that between men and women in love.
If women are to be happy and profoundly fulfilled we will have to
recognize that we need to be more than just friends. To be complete,
we need to be one another's lovers.
Much of the jealousy and competitiveness that exist between and among
women is really desire. We have been taught not to desire one another,
and society has taught us that it is forbidden to express that desire,
so we experience those feelings negatively.
When women make themselves beautiful, do they not take other women's
opinions of their looks into consideration no less than the opinions of
men?
If we woman found the satisfaction of our profound need for love in one
another's arms, we would be less dissatisfied with our men. We would
not, in our emotional starvation, try to get more out of our men
emotionally than they are capable of giving us. We would enjoy the
sexual pleasure that they can give us, have and raise our babies with
them, enjoy the special contribution they give as friends, share our
opinions with them on important matters in order to get both the female
and male perspective on things and work along side them as partners and
comrades in our workplaces. We would be free to love them and receive
as much love as they can give, but would not need them either
financially or emotionally.
If the pressure to satisfy our every emotional and physical need was
taken off men they would feel freer to give what they honestly can.
They would not feel the need to protect themselves emotionally from us.
We would not overwhelm them. We would not seem as needy, weak and
dependent to them. We would not talk to them more than they can
tolerate. They would come to respect us in a way that society does not
presently provide the conditions for.
It is for the above reasons that I believe that Bisexuality and
Polyamory are the norm and is the best possible state for women.
Note: I speak for women, not for men. It is not my place to decide if
Bisexuality is the norm for men. I am not a man and do not presume to
decide what is best for men. Men will have to grapple with their real
needs and their cultural heritages and decide what is best for them.
Men have done a lousy job of describing the sexuality that is
appropriate for women. There is every reason to believe that women
would do an equally lousy job if we were to presume to describe men's
sexuality for them.
It is clear that Polyamory is the normal state for most men. That is
the universal norm and need not be proven. Polyamory amongst men can be
analyzed, but need not be proven. Only a small minority of men
absolutely freely choose to be monogamous with one woman all their
lives.
The following account is from a heterosexual, Polyamorous man who was
involved in a Polyamorous quad relationship for some time. He was also
a member of a Kibbutz for a period. He relates the following account
of his experience, which I have edited with a very light hand to
protect identities. The passage is reproduced here with his written
permission:
"Regarding my former relationship with a poly group, my girlfriend and
I were living with her ex-boyfriend and his new love. The other couple
was both bisexual. My girlfriend and I were both straight, but, living
together, we shared everything. That's where I discovered how special
it is to bond with this other man, who I was not having sex with, but
sharing the lovemaking with what was his partner, as well as my
partner. Later, we had others come by who were interested in playing
with one or another of us, and, chemistry being what it is, sometimes
you just feel like being on the sidelines, cheering your team on, LOL.
Seriously, in a community of more than a few people, I feel there are
going to be people that, for one reason or another, don't have sex.
However, there should be a strong bond on an emotional level. My
feelings about children are that a kibbutz is the absolute best way to
raise a child, as children provide a special energy to the community,
and, as children are taught, so they will teach (hopefully)."
I find the above passage remarkable. We see that the relationships that
are forged among the males need not be sexual in order to be intimate.
Rather than enmity and jealousy between or among men who are lovers of
the same woman or women, that situation can bring about profound
closeness and friendship, a feeling of sharing something precious.
We can extend this feeling of camaraderie to include our economic
relationships. Our lovers and their lovers can also be those with whom
we share cooperative ventures. When those who we love either as dear
friends or lovers are those with whom we share the responsibility for
our common livelihood, our bonds are reinforced.
If the men who are lovers of the same woman or women are close friends
based, in part, on that commonality and they are also members of the
same cooperative economic ventures, then our present problems of
paternity, including inheritance laws, that are based on greed, ego,
jealousy and possessiveness of women, children and property will become
passé.
All of the men, as well as all of the women, in Polyamorous communes
will think of all of the children in those communes as belonging to the
entire community and children will be thought of as being yours, mine
and ours. This is true despite the fact that it is highly unlikely
that everyone in the commune will be lovers, as the author of the
passage above states. Human nature being what it is, we do not all fall
in love with everyone, are not sexually attracted to everyone and do
not wish to be sexually intimate with everyone. Sex will always be
very personal and quite exclusive. In the case of Polyamory, the
exclusivity involves a few people based on mutual love and desire,
rather than one mate.
Communes based on "group marriage" involving all the members are not
likely to be stable. Past attempts at "group marriage" have failed.
Doreen Ellen Bell-Dotan, Tzfat, Israel
Lars Fischer
> Note: I speak for women,
No, you don't. You speak for you (and those, if any, who have assigned
you the right to speak for them).
> not for men.
And yet you go on and do just that.
Question: how would it work for you to have an opinion or a preference
that is yours, not universal? Would it diminish you preference if it is
not shared by everyone?
/Lars
Josh Robinson
to persuade lots of Hot Bi Babes to sleep with him?
/J
--
Josh Robinson
jmr59 [at] hermes [dot] cam [dot] ac [dot] uk
Griff
> What odds do I get on 'Doreen' being the alter-ego of a man who's trying
> to persuade lots of Hot Bi Babes to sleep with him?
>
> /J
Sucker bet, IMO.
Griff
--
... Yes, I am a minion of Satan, but my duties are largely ceremonial.
melissa Jacobini
society restraining them is giving too little credit to the
individuality and preferences of each individual woman , not everybody
has to be the same, luckily we are not all the same, and i know many
very open minded liberated woman who are str8 because that is their
sexual identity and not because of society
Philippa Cowderoy
> Note: I speak for women, not for men.
You do not speak for me. Nor is it your place to decide what is best for
me.
Sometimes you gotta fight fire with fire. Most
of the time you just get burnt worse though.
John Palmer
wrote:
>Note: I speak for women, not for men. It is not my place to decide if
>Bisexuality is the norm for men. I am not a man and do not presume to
>decide what is best for men.
That's a good idea, not deciding what's right for other types of
people. I mean, other people aren't like you, and you might not
understand their thoughts, needs, and desires.
--
Everything I needed to know in life I learned in Kindergarten. Like:
Beauty has a beginning, and an ending, but always lives beyond its span,
in the hearts of many.
Boho Peacenik Momma
>The case for Bisexuality and Polyamory as the norm of females can be
>summed up in this magnificently accurate and beautiful description by
>Lord Byron: "Man's love is of man's life a thing apart; 'tis woman's
>whole existence."
Wow. Taking advice from a gay rake. Now *there's* sense for you.
--
Piglet
Ann Burlingham
> BiSexual and Polyamorous is how women would develop naturally without
> societal constraint. BiPoly is how women will be in a peaceful, free
> society that does not presume to tell women how to express our natural
> sexuality, the sexuality we are born with and that which we express
> when we are little girls and fall in love with both males and females
> who become our lifelong imagos.
It's like reading an even worse version of _The wanderground_.
--
What use was it having all that money if you could never sit still
or just watch your cattle eating grass?
- Alexander McCall Smith, _The No.1 Ladies' Detective Agency_
Steve Pope
> BiSexual and Polyamorous is how women would develop naturally without
> societal constraint. BiPoly is how women will be in a peaceful <snip>
I keep wanting to rhyme "Bipoly" with "Gallipoli".
Steve
felinefalcon
> summed up in this magnificently accurate and beautiful description by
> Lord Byron: "Man's love is of man's life a thing apart; 'tis woman's
> whole existence."
Byron was a, a gay male, adn B a product of a mysogenistigc culture.
What in the hell does he know about women? Also I strongly disagree -
love and my romantic entanglements are not my entire life. You demean
us all by suming women up in that way.
> Though the majority of women are sexually attracted to men and find
> them exciting, few are profoundly satisfied by men emotionally after
> the first months of courtship during which men behave as though they
> are capable of the type of self-disclosure and communication that women
> find so natural. In fact, the vast majority men cannot sustain this
> state of intense emotion and openness for very long.
Actaully, I have known many men in my life who were far more
emotionally open and available to me than my current girlfriend was for
the first year that i knew her. My current male attachments are
equally satisfying as my female.
> Just as a woman is becoming emotionally attached to a man she thinks
> understands her uniquely, he becomes overwhelmed and frightened by the
> depth of emotion and pulls away to regain his composure.
Nope. Not a uneversal. Stop generalizing
> The sexual response in women is connected to our emotional response.
Agreed. But so is a man's. Trust me. Have you ever been in bed with a
man who was scared sad or hurt? Guess what: he isn't goingo t be up for
sex any more than a woman is.
>We cannot respond to a man sexually who has hurt us by disappointing us,
> even if we love him.
Not true.
> Men simply cannot love as women do. Men's brains are not "wired" to
> allow them to communicate and emote, or even to think and emote, as
> women's brains are. Men's lack of communication skills, relative to
> that of women, leaves us feeling abandoned and unloved.
And women can't have poor communication skills? Communication skills
are a LEARNED skill set. Again, Stop generalizing.
> With each new romance, we women think that we have finally found the
> one special man who can understand, only to be disappointed again.
> Eventually, these repeated disappointments lead to cynicism and wholly
> dysfunctional relationships.
Maybe for YOU.
> Men find their most sustained support for their identity in that which
> they do, that which they accomplish. Women's primary satisfaction comes
> from their interpersonal relationships.
I guess my quest to be a preeminent psychologyist and self definition
as a counselor and teacher makes me a man. Oh, and my friend S, the
king of interpersonal skillsnad relationships, whose entire self
definition comes through his social contact and relationships is a
woman.
>A man shows a woman he loves her by bringing home the bacon. A woman >demonstrates her love in shows of affection and in wanting to share her thoughts and >feelings.
Damn, I guess I'll go return the 95 dollar chalice i got my love for
yule and tell her I love her insted.
> Though women are attracted to men in any number of ways and on any
> number of levels, when they really need to be understood they generally
> turn to other women.
Never. I rarely get allong well with other women. Aside from bitching
about PMS, I am just as happy talking to my man, or my male friends.
> Much of the talk that transpires between and among women centers on
> their common confusion and frustration with men. They try to analyze
> their men's behavior together and don't usually do a very good job. A
> good deal of women's conversations consists of wheel-spinning second
> guessing about men.
> All too often men do not satisfy us sexually either. There is a basic
> biological parity between men and women. Unless this parity is
> painstakingly overcome our sexual encounters with men leave us
> emotionally as well as physically, even if we achieve orgasm.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)
Parity \Par"i*ty\, n. [L. paritas, fr. par, paris, equal: cf. F.
parit['e]. See Pair, Peer an equal.]
The quality or condition of being equal or equivalent; A like
state or degree; equality; close correspondence; analogy; as,
parity of reasoning.
> The love and mutual understanding that exist between and among women in
> love far exceed that between men and women in love.
What women do YOU know? I can't STAND 90% of womankind.
> Note: I speak for women, not for men. It is not my place to decide if
> Bisexuality is the norm for men.
Guess what, its not your place to decide what is the norm for women
either. How dare you presume to speak for me? I am not you; I look
differnt, quite possibly could be for a different culture and
definitely have my own unique life experience.
> It is clear that Polyamory is the normal state for most men. That is
> the universal norm and need not be proven. Polyamory amongst men can be
> analyzed, but need not be proven. Only a small minority of men
> absolutely freely choose to be monogamous with one woman all their
> lives.
Please, show me some studies. And I thoght you were going to refrain
from speaking for men?
All in all, your essay is poorly written, full of sweeping and
occasionally contradictory generalizations and completely unsuported by
any scientific research or even good real life examples. Thanks fro
trying but sorry, no dice.
-ff
Aqua
about him, that Byron was bisexual.
Or is that included under gay?
Aqua
Ruth Lawrence
"Ann Burlingham" <an...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:uhd81m...@panix.com...
> "Visual Purple" <Doree...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> BiSexual and Polyamorous is how women would develop naturally without
>> societal constraint. BiPoly is how women will be in a peaceful, free
>> society that does not presume to tell women how to express our natural
>> sexuality, the sexuality we are born with and that which we express
>> when we are little girls and fall in love with both males and females
>> who become our lifelong imagos.
>
> It's like reading an even worse version of _The wanderground_.
I have trouble distinguishing it from lesbian separatism, or Moonies.
Ruth
Mean Green Dancing Machine
According to _Bitch_ magazine it is.
--
--- Aahz <*> (Copyright 2006 by aa...@pobox.com)
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 http://rule6.info/
Androgynous poly kinky vanilla queer het Pythonista
Labor Department : Labor :: Fire Department : Fire.
The Pedantocrat
> In article <ho83a3-...@transparent.jamver.id.au>,
> Aqua <aq...@internode.on.net> wrote:
>>
>>I was under the impression, not that I'm that terribly well-informed
>>about him, that Byron was bisexual.
>>
>>Or is that included under gay?
>
>
> According to _Bitch_ magazine it is.
It goes to show that you can't believe everything you read.
--
The Pedantocrat
Mean Green Dancing Machine
Boho Peacenik Momma
Yeah, I thought about that. After I pressed 'send', unfortunately.
"Gay rake" is way more alliterative. Assonant. Whatever.
--
Piglet
Lars Fischer
> I was under the impression, not that I'm that terribly well-informed
> about him, that Byron was bisexual.
AOL.
/Lars
Elise
Ann Burlingham wrote:
> "Visual Purple" <Doree...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > BiSexual and Polyamorous is how women would develop naturally without
> > societal constraint. BiPoly is how women will be in a peaceful, free
> > society that does not presume to tell women how to express our natural
> > sexuality, the sexuality we are born with and that which we express
> > when we are little girls and fall in love with both males and females
> > who become our lifelong imagos.
>
> It's like reading an even worse version of _The wanderground_.
Oh my sweet galloping Goddess on a Harley. With a spoon. You owe me a
monitor for that one. And possibly a new cat; I think I scared one of
ours right into orbit.
I've missed you guys.
Elise,
delurking, and still giggling
Elise
Mean Green Dancing Machine wrote:
> In article <1amdnQn51dJ...@suscom.com>,
> The Pedantocrat <pedan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Mean Green Dancing Machine wrote:
> >> In article <ho83a3-...@transparent.jamver.id.au>,
> >> Aqua <aq...@internode.on.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>I was under the impression, not that I'm that terribly well-informed
> >>>about him, that Byron was bisexual.
> >>>
> >>>Or is that included under gay?
> >>
> >> According to _Bitch_ magazine it is.
Ah, but *which* _Bitch_? (If it ain't got Twersky writing on women in
rock, it ain't the _Bitch_ I most long to see. Alas, alas, gone, gone,
gone. Lamented and fondly remembered.)
> >It goes to show that you can't believe everything you read.
>
> Well, yes; that was sarcasm, in case it wasn't obvious.
Oh, the sarcasm is a pretty bird
and she whistles as she flies....
Byron was, most of all, a Personality. Positively Byronic, in fact. I
think that citizenship trumps, or possibly even negates, all others.
I think I'd take relationship advice from Oscar Wilde before taking it
from Byron. I'd probably take it from Quentin Crisp before either.
What's the next question? I'll take Swishy Poly for eighty, Alex.
Elise,
waiting for the game show music to start, and handing feather boas out
to anyone who wants one
David Weinshenker
> >
> > It's like reading an even worse version of _The wanderground_.
>
> Oh my sweet galloping Goddess on a Harley. With a spoon. You owe me a
> monitor for that one.
I'd not heard of _The wanderground_... is it something to be avoided?
> And possibly a new cat; I think I scared one of
> ours right into orbit.
... but this has me breaking out laughing now, too!
-dave w
Teal
> Elise wrote:
> > Ann Burlingham wrote:
> > > "Visual Purple" <Doree...@gmail.com> writes:
> > >
> > > > [ etc. ]
> > >
> > > It's like reading an even worse version of _The wanderground_.
> >
> > Oh my sweet galloping Goddess on a Harley. With a spoon. You owe me a
> > monitor for that one.
>
> I'd not heard of _The wanderground_... is it something to be avoided?
I think I used to have a copy of it, lo these many years ago. IIRC, I
tried several times to read it but couldn't get past the first bit, and
eventually palmed it off onto some poor hapless friend or bookseller or
such. I don't seem to miss it at all.
Teal
--
"Who could have predicted a harmless gasoline fight
could end in tragedy?" --- J. Nicoll
anon
It says that the Poly is single male to multiple women. That is only one
of many forms of this lifestyle.
The different type of poly relationship are:
1. Multiple females! (FF...)
2. Single female to a couple! (F MF)
3. Single female to multiple males! (F MM...)
4. Multiple males! (MM...)
5. Single male to a couple! (M MF)
6. Single male to multiple females! (M FF...)
This is mostly a dream of many guys.
But, in real life with the man marrying each female it is illegal in
the US, And there are some Mormon believers and others following this
versions of this lifestyle.
7. Multiple couples! (MF MF ...)
To me a more truer form of this lifestyle.
Either partner of each couple may or may not be bi, which creates
many versions of this type of Poly relationship.
Elise
David Weinshenker wrote:
> Elise wrote:
> >
> > Ann Burlingham wrote:
> > > "Visual Purple" <Doree...@gmail.com> writes:
> > >
> > > > [ etc. ]
> > >
> > > It's like reading an even worse version of _The wanderground_.
> >
> > Oh my sweet galloping Goddess on a Harley. With a spoon. You owe me a
> > monitor for that one.
>
> I'd not heard of _The wanderground_... is it something to be avoided?
It's... it's a rite of passage. Rather, it was a rite of passage, in a
particular intersection of place/time/community. I do not think I can
say fairer than that.
However, buy me a margarita (or a scooby snack) sometime and I'll say
more than that.
Elise,
now pondering the intersections between belief, questions, identity,
and good writing
ObPoly: oh, yeah, pretty much. And you?
---
"No, that's my sister. I'm La Belle Dame Sans A Reasonably Cooperative
Attitude."
Ted Eisenstein
> David Weinshenker wrote:
>
>>Elise wrote:
>>
>>>Ann Burlingham wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Visual Purple" <Doree...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>[ etc. ]
>>>>
>>>>It's like reading an even worse version of _The wanderground_.
>>>
>>>Oh my sweet galloping Goddess on a Harley. With a spoon. You owe me a
>>>monitor for that one.
>>
>>I'd not heard of _The wanderground_... is it something to be avoided?
>
>
> It's... it's a rite of passage. Rather, it was a rite of passage, in a
> particular intersection of place/time/community. I do not think I can
> say fairer than that.
>
> However, buy me a margarita (or a scooby snack) sometime and I'll say
> more than that.
>
> Elise,
> now pondering the intersections between belief, questions, identity,
> and good writing
I'd sort of like to know what it is, too. . . I wonder if it's possible
to send a margarita through the mail, and, by the way, what the heck is
a "scooby snack"?
Ted
melissa Jacobini
>
>
> I'd sort of like to know what it is, too. . . I wonder if it's possible
> to send a margarita through the mail, and, by the way, what the heck is
> a "scooby snack"?
>
> Ted
Is the dog treats SCooby doo is rewarded or braibed with
Mean Green Dancing Machine
Elise <Liones...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>Mean Green Dancing Machine wrote:
>>>> In article <ho83a3-...@transparent.jamver.id.au>,
>>>> Aqua <aq...@internode.on.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>I was under the impression, not that I'm that terribly well-informed
>>>>>about him, that Byron was bisexual.
>>>>>
>>>>>Or is that included under gay?
>>>>
>>>> According to _Bitch_ magazine it is.
>
>Ah, but *which* _Bitch_? (If it ain't got Twersky writing on women in
>rock, it ain't the _Bitch_ I most long to see. Alas, alas, gone, gone,
>gone. Lamented and fondly remembered.)
Hard to say. This is http://www.bitchmagazine.com/ (also available in
print, of course, but this is the easiest way for you to decide). The
short story is that _Bitch_ published an article about historical
revisionism and sexuality that did not use the word "bisexual" at all.
My primary wrote a letter complaining about this (after I pointed it
out), and their response was to print an abridged letter and reply that
"bisexual" was obsolete. Here's my counter-response:
Dear Bitch,
I'd have a little more respect for your declaring "bisexual" obsolete
in favor of "queer" ("dear bitch", no. 30) if your article ("We Were
Here, We Were (Maybe) Queer", no. 29) hadn't used "gay" and "lesbian"
several times (about as often as "queer" from what I see, without
doing an actual word count). Does this mean that the appropriate
choices are now restricted to "gay", "lesbian", and "queer"? I think
it takes a special kind of arrogance -- the kind normally associated
with mainstream society -- to deny other people their own
self-labelling and identity. There are plenty of people who actively
prefer to identify as bisexual; my take is that "bisexual" is about
as obsolete as feminism.
Beyond that, regardless of what terms one chooses, the fact is that
your article about revisionism of historical figures does not in any
way include reference to bisexuality. I think it's quite reasonable
for people to be upset about that. The gay and lesbian community has
a long history of trying to erase bisexuality, and it's pathetic that
Bitch is buying into it.
serene
>This is wrong.
>
>It says that the Poly is single male to multiple women. That is only one
>of many forms of this lifestyle.
>
>The different type of poly relationship are:
...so much more varied than your little laundry list gives room for.
>
>1. Multiple females! (FF...)
>2. Single female to a couple! (F MF)
>3. Single female to multiple males! (F MM...)
>
>4. Multiple males! (MM...)
>5. Single male to a couple! (M MF)
>6. Single male to multiple females! (M FF...)
> This is mostly a dream of many guys.
> But, in real life with the man marrying each female it is illegal in
>the US, And there are some Mormon believers and others following this
>versions of this lifestyle.
Anyone marrying more than one person at a time is illegal in the US.
Why single out this configuration (which, incidentally, is the
configuration of part of my relationship web).
>
>7. Multiple couples! (MF MF ...)
> To me a more truer form of this lifestyle.
Barf.
serene
Elise
Ted Eisenstein wrote:
> Elise wrote:
> >[...]
> > However, buy me a margarita (or a scooby snack) sometime and I'll say
> > more than that.
>
> I'd sort of like to know what it is, too. . . I wonder if it's possible
> to send a margarita through the mail, and, by the way, what the heck is
> a "scooby snack"?
A Scooby Snack, to me, is a drink. A froofy rum drink, no less. Below
be web pages with Scooby Snack recipes and Extremely Biased Views
thereof.
Canonical, i.e., how I first had them:
http://www.barmeister.com/cgi-bin/drink.view.pl?drink=1332
Tolerable:
http://www.drinksmixer.com/drink7947.html
Might be a good idea:
http://www.drinksmixer.com/drink528.html
Ew! Rank heresy, and probably not the thing at all:
http://www.drinksmixer.com/drink1777.html
http://www.drinksmixer.com/drink1778.html
And if APC15 is in Minneapolis, I bet the rest of the book discussion
and social history could be arranged to happen, under the right
conditions.
Elise,
pondering cultural anthropology and historians and stuff
Stef
anon <an...@anon.org> wrote:
>This is wrong.
>
>It says that the Poly is single male to multiple women. That is only one
>of many forms of this lifestyle.
True.
>The different type of poly relationship are:
>
>1. Multiple females! (FF...)
>2. Single female to a couple! (F MF)
>3. Single female to multiple males! (F MM...)
>
>4. Multiple males! (MM...)
>5. Single male to a couple! (M MF)
>6. Single male to multiple females! (M FF...)
[...]
I prefer "some people involved with some other people." Not everyone is
male or female, and the nouns "male" and "female" make me think of
animal behaviorists.
--
Stef ** st...@cat-and-dragon.com <*> http://www.cat-and-dragon.com/stef
**
It wasn't, he swore, that he picked up so many women....It was just that
he never put any *down*. -- Lois McMaster Bujold, MIRROR DANCE
Darkhawk (H. Nicoll)
> I prefer "some people involved with some other people." Not everyone is
> male or female, and the nouns "male" and "female" make me think of
> animal behaviorists.
Not to mention that not everyone privileges the "couple" unit in their
polywebs.
- Darkhawk, wondering what's in the box the cat just
tried to climb into
--
Darkhawk - H. A. Nicoll - http://aelfhame.net/~darkhawk/
They are one person, they are two alone
They are three together, they are for each other
- "Helplessly Hoping", Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young
Vron McIntyre
> Oh my sweet galloping Goddess on a Harley. With a spoon. You owe me
a
> monitor for that one. And possibly a new cat; I think I scared one
of
> ours right into orbit.
>
> I've missed you guys.
Missed you too!
Vron
Vicki Rosenzweig
>In article <rt2Af.277273$qk4.2...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
>anon <an...@anon.org> wrote:
>
>>This is wrong.
>>
>>It says that the Poly is single male to multiple women. That is only one
>>of many forms of this lifestyle.
>
>True.
>
>>The different type of poly relationship are:
>>
>>1. Multiple females! (FF...)
>>2. Single female to a couple! (F MF)
>>3. Single female to multiple males! (F MM...)
>>
>>4. Multiple males! (MM...)
>>5. Single male to a couple! (M MF)
>>6. Single male to multiple females! (M FF...)
>[...]
>
>I prefer "some people involved with some other people." Not everyone is
>male or female, and the nouns "male" and "female" make me think of
>animal behaviorists.
Also, none of anon (of ibid?)'s categories fits my poly web, because we
weren't looking to fit anyone's particular categories, we're just living
our lives and being happy to have found people we love and can have
relationships with. (Phrased that way because sometimes love is not
reciprocated, and even reciprocated love is not always enough.)
--
Vicki Rosenzweig
v...@redbird.org | http://www.redbird.org
The statement "I feel more passionately about this than you
do" may be a fact, but it is not an argument." --Molly Ivins
ElissaAnn
"ChickPea" <E-0C0013...@cleopatra.co.uk> wrote in message
news:e4i2t1p6p5a5bdede...@4ax.com...
> In alt.polyamory, (melissa Jacobini) wrote in
> <43D0F3FE...@triad.rr.com>::
> girls. They're essentially very small caramel choc-chip cookies, in a
> purple bag with a pic of Scooby on the front. Life would be harder
> without
> them.
Oh, no! You just broke the Cute-Meter!
Elissa
--
Q. How long does it take to tune a harp?
A. Nobody knows yet.
Ryk
>Oh my sweet galloping Goddess on a Harley. With a spoon. You owe me a
>monitor for that one. And possibly a new cat; I think I scared one of
>ours right into orbit.
>
>I've missed you guys.
and we have missed you. Welcome back!
Ryk
Aqua
This is indeed true. It's always a pain when you have to pick between
the facts and artistic elegance.
Aqua
Morag R
> I think I'd take relationship advice from Oscar Wilde before taking it
> from Byron. I'd probably take it from Quentin Crisp before either.
Yep. "Manners from Heaven" is one of my favourite reference books :)
Cheers
MoragR
--
Email - morag *at* homemail *dot* com *dot* au
Doug Wickstrom
<1137746963.7...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
"Elise" <Liones...@gmail.com> caused electrons to dance and
photons to travel coherently in saying:
>Oh my sweet galloping Goddess on a Harley. With a spoon. You owe me a
>monitor for that one. And possibly a new cat; I think I scared one of
>ours right into orbit.
>
>I've missed you guys.
I think it's fair to say that we guys have missed you.
--
Doug Wickstrom <nims...@comcast.net>
"Never proclaim yourself a philosopher, nor make much talk among the ignorant
about your principles, but show them by actions." --Epictetus
Now filtering out all cross-posted messages and everything posted
through Google News.
Lars Fischer
> The different type of poly relationship are:
Rather limited list that does even begin to account for the complexity
we hear about on alt.poly. Smacks of theory w/o practice.
> 7. Multiple couples! (MF MF ...)
> To me a more truer form of this lifestyle.
Oh, come on. I don't have a lifestyle, and I'm not on a quest for poly
purity or Instant Enlightenment[TM]. And what's this about couples
being somehow better?
/Lars
Ruth Lawrence
"Lars Fischer" <no-...@suk.dk> wrote in message
news:dr2m0g$nl9$1...@news.net.uni-c.dk...
The privileging of Couples is one of
my Pet Peeves.
Ruth, datapointing rather than cranky
Vicki Rosenzweig
I have a lifestyle--it's an urban, cat-keeping, car-less one. That's not
either the result, or the cause, of my polyness, though. (I even have a
sweetie who owns a car.)