Musings on "lifestyle"
Aqua
vaguely poly-relevant content into the newsgroup.
In my recent websurfings, I stumbled across another online community for
polyamory. The introductory text talked completely straight-facedly
about 'the polyamorous lifestyle'. Because I learnt nearly everything I
know about polyamory from this newsgroup, I had a more-or-less knee-jerk
'don't call it "lifestyle"' reaction.
Then I started to think some more about why I didn't think "lifestyle"
was a good word (since this other group obviously thought it was fine),
and at least initially, I couldn't put it into words at all well.
Suddenly I had a flash from my subconscious - 'the only people who use
the word "lifestyle" are advertisers and people who are terrified of
being mistaken for their parents.'
That might have been a bit cruel (I make no promises about the cruelty
or otherwise of my subconscious) but when I thought about it some more I
was able to come up with some words that aren't quite as judgemental
that I think was what my subconscious was trying to get across, and I
don't remember being used about the problem with "lifestyle" before.
"Lifestyle" is about appearances - what your life looks like to others.
It's about signalling who you are and what your values are to other
people, so you can find "people like you" more easily and show them
you're loyal. (Cross-reference to the alt.poly.fashion.history threads).
Unfortunately, precisely because it's about appearances and not about
your actual life, values and personality, it's not reliable and can
often be easily hijacked. The only real way to find out what someone is
like is to spend enough time interacting with them, or trust the
opinions of someone else who has. I think this is why alt.poly puts
more emphasis on the sheer amount of time you've spent here, the kinds
of things you've posted and the way you interact with other posters,
than how many parrot T-shirts you have.
In my own life experience, when I'm focussed on living my life, what
that looks like to other people comes a rather distant second, and when
I'm concerned about what I look like to other people I'm usually too
self-conscious to be enjoying myself or doing much of anything I
consider useful. (I'm not saying I should completely ignore the
impression I make, but when I'm 'in the the flow' I'm usually conveying
exactly who I am at least as well as when I try to consciously think
about how to present myself.)
Bringing it back to polyamory: if your primary motivation for having
multiple sexual/romantic relationships is 'looking like one of the cool
kids' or 'being in the polyamorous lifestyle' I don't think you have any
business doing anything as potentially harmful to other human beings as
being in a romantic/sexual relationship with them. What I mean is that
sexual/romantic relationships can be very rewarding, but there's also a
much higher risk of real emotional harm both to yourself and the other
people involved. You only get to make that decision for yourself, not
for the other person/people, of course.
But just as most people agree that it's not ethical to marry someone
else for the money (without them knowing and consenting) I don't think
it's ethical for adults to be in intimate relationships with other
adults for the sake of appearances, or "lifestyle". Not that what I
think is going to change what anyone else does, of course. And rightly so.
Aqua
eilinel
Not much time for details, but well thought-out and well written.
And a refreshing change from the recent spam.
Eilinel
Stuffed Crust
> Bringing it back to polyamory: if your primary motivation for having
> multiple sexual/romantic relationships is 'looking like one of the cool
> kids' or 'being in the polyamorous lifestyle' I don't think you have any
> business doing anything as potentially harmful to other human beings as
> being in a romantic/sexual relationship with them. What I mean is that
> sexual/romantic relationships can be very rewarding, but there's also a
> much higher risk of real emotional harm both to yourself and the other
> people involved. You only get to make that decision for yourself, not
> for the other person/people, of course.
This brings up something I've mulled over in my head for some time now;
"poly" and "open" are usually treated as synonomous, to the point where
if someone told me that they were poly I pretty much assumed
(correctly!) that they were just using it as an excuse to sleep around.
(Not that there's anything inherently wrong with sleeping around; just
call a spade a spade and say you have an open relationship, instead of
claiming a moral high ground, damnit...)
The healthy ones don't advertise; they just live their lives and work
their asses off to ensure that both themselves and the relationships
they're in are solid and healtly. A relationship with one person is
hard enough; adding more exponentionally so... polyagony, indeed!
To date, there has been exactly one cluster of folks I've met that
identified as "poly" that I felt was healthy. And even then, one of
them really wasn't. She talked the talk, but when it came time for
decisions, her actions failed to match up and she failed spectacularly,
hurting everyone else, badly.
- Solomon [/delurk]
--
Solomon Peachy pizza at shaftnet dot org
Melbourne, FL ^^ (mail/jabber/gtalk) ^^
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
Ed
news:8ksbv6-...@george.jamver.id.au:
> "Lifestyle" is about appearances - what your life looks like to
> others. It's about signalling who you are and what your values are to
> other people, so you can find "people like you" more easily and show
> them you're loyal. (Cross-reference to the alt.poly.fashion.history
> threads).
>
While I found what you wrote interesting, it follows from the above
premise and that premise doesn't click with me at all. While it is true
that one may talk about the glamorous lifestyles of the rich and famous,
which does seem to be about show, when talking about something like
polyamory or, in another controversial use of the word, sexual
orientation, I think the implication is more about choice. Being
polyamorous is like choosing to live in New York City. It's a lifestyle
choice. Being gay is about gay bars and pride parades. It's a lifestyle
choice.
I guess the pride parades part could tie back to your appearances
argument, but still think the choice part is the most signficant. It's
at least what offends me the most.
--
Ed
Ed
news:4b23bbe5$0$5117$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com:
> This brings up something I've mulled over in my head for some time
> now; "poly" and "open" are usually treated as synonomous, to the point
> where if someone told me that they were poly I pretty much assumed
> (correctly!) that they were just using it as an excuse to sleep
> around. (Not that there's anything inherently wrong with sleeping
> around; just call a spade a spade and say you have an open
> relationship, instead of claiming a moral high ground, damnit...)
>
And polyamory is morally superior to an open relationship how?
--
Ed
Stuffed Crust
>> around. (Not that there's anything inherently wrong with sleeping
>> around; just call a spade a spade and say you have an open
>> relationship, instead of claiming a moral high ground, damnit...)
> And polyamory is morally superior to an open relationship how?
Oh, it isn't, nor is it morally superior to any other type of
relationship, as long as you're being honest with yourself about why
you're doing what you're doing. But that said...
Personally, I like to use more specific terms wherever I can to try and
remove ambiguiuty, hence the distinction I tried to draw between an
"open relationship" and a "polyamorous relationship"
To quote the alt.polyamory FAQ:
"Another thing to consider is that the word
'polyamorous' is, like all labels, just a tool. What you do and how
you treat the people you love is probably more important to them, in the
long run, than whether you fit a particular descriptive term, so don't
sweat it, okay? And take good care of each other."
To me, that is the distinction between poly and open; love, and more
importantly, what you do and how you treat those you supposedly love,
and claiming "poly" implies a much higher bar of responsibilities than
claiming "open".
Subsequently, polyamory (at least as how it's been explained to me by
aformementioned people) implies that there's some sort of deeper
emotional/romantic attachment, that it's about so much more than sex,
bla bla bla bla.
Instead, what I've generally seen (especially from aforementioned
people) basically boils down to this -- "I can have a fling or fuckbuddy
or FwB; it's okay because I'm poly, and everyone else has to STFU and
accept me the way I am." ...and when things get more serious,
supposedly the whole point of them being poly (as opposed to merely
"open").. bad shit happens.
Perhaps I'm a bit of an idealist here and I take a somewhat more
ideal/literal definition of polyamory than most, but in a roundabout
sort of way this ties back in with the OP's point in that the "poly
lifestyle" is a set of outward principles that's largely superficial; A
symptom of deeper views/feelings that in of itself says little about the
underlying motivations that lead to it, and the ones that flaunt it tend
to be insecure, while the healthy ones just get on with their lives.
As the FAQ puts it -- "Some people think the definition is a bit loose,
but it's got to be fairly roomy to fit the wide range of poly
arrangements out there."
With a definition this loose, there's bound to be problems...
- Solomon
Steve Pope
>Stuffed Crust <pi...@spam.shaftnet.org> wrote in
>> This brings up something I've mulled over in my head for some time
>> now; "poly" and "open" are usually treated as synonomous, to the point
>> where if someone told me that they were poly I pretty much assumed
>> (correctly!) that they were just using it as an excuse to sleep
>> around. (Not that there's anything inherently wrong with sleeping
>> around; just call a spade a spade and say you have an open
>> relationship, instead of claiming a moral high ground, damnit...)
>And polyamory is morally superior to an open relationship how?
Most people who use both terms would say that open relationships
are one major subtype of polyamory, the other major subtype being
polyfidelity, or closed polyamory.
(For me, using open relationships and polyamory as mutually exclusive
terms grates about as much as "lifestyle" does.)
Steve
Steve Pope
>To me, that is the distinction between poly and open; love, and more
>importantly, what you do and how you treat those you supposedly love,
>and claiming "poly" implies a much higher bar of responsibilities than
>claiming "open".
>Subsequently, polyamory (at least as how it's been explained to me by
>aformementioned people) implies that there's some sort of deeper
>emotional/romantic attachment, that it's about so much more than sex,
>bla bla bla bla.
Here is some additional information:
The phrase "open relationship" has been around much longer than
the term "polyamory", which really did not come into wide use
until around 1990. "Open relationship" has always meant what
many would now call open polyamory.
Beings as one of the two vee's I am in was in existence thirty
years ago, I have for a long time been accustomed to these
two terms being synonymous.
There are some scattered recent attempts to cast the word "open" as
implying a less loving relationship. You may be better off discounting
such attemps to define this word *unless they are coming from
someone who uses it in self-description*.
So if the "aforementioned people" are describing themselves as
practicing open relationships, then their definition of the term
has some weight. If not, then not so much.
Hope this helps.
Steve
Stuffed Crust
> Most people who use both terms would say that open relationships
> are one major subtype of polyamory, the other major subtype being
> polyfidelity, or closed polyamory.
>
> (For me, using open relationships and polyamory as mutually exclusive
> terms grates about as much as "lifestyle" does.)
I agree with you, and I wasn't trying to convey these terms as mutually
exclusive.
When someone tells me they're poly, I've always asked them to
elaborate/explain, because just how loose the umbrella definition is.
My pet peeve is when they don't practice what they preach -- They draw
the distinction between poly and open, claiming the former as a sort of
moral high ground, but their behaivor is actually the latter (according
to their own definitions!), and everyone that was expecting the former
gets burned badly. (Especially the primaries...)
But at the same time, that inconsitency (and do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do) is
an universal human trait, and wreaks havoc on all types of
relationships.
- Solomon
ElissaAnn
"Ed" <edcomm1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9CDF5B149EBFA...@85.214.113.135...
> Aqua <aq...@internode.on.net> wrote in
> news:8ksbv6-...@george.jamver.id.au:
>
>> "Lifestyle" is about appearances - what your life looks like to
>> others. It's about signalling who you are and what your values are to
>> other people, so you can find "people like you" more easily and show
>> them you're loyal. (Cross-reference to the alt.poly.fashion.history
>> threads).
>>
>
> While I found what you wrote interesting, it follows from the above
> premise and that premise doesn't click with me at all. While it is true
> that one may talk about the glamorous lifestyles of the rich and famous,
> which does seem to be about show, when talking about something like
> polyamory or, in another controversial use of the word, sexual
> orientation, I think the implication is more about choice. Being
> polyamorous is like choosing to live in New York City. It's a lifestyle
> choice. Being gay is about gay bars and pride parades. It's a lifestyle
> choice.
Are you trolling, or do you actually believe this last bit?
Elissa
Steve Pope
>"Ed" <edcomm1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> While I found what you wrote interesting, it follows from the above
>> premise and that premise doesn't click with me at all. While it is true
>> that one may talk about the glamorous lifestyles of the rich and famous,
>> which does seem to be about show, when talking about something like
>> polyamory or, in another controversial use of the word, sexual
>> orientation, I think the implication is more about choice. Being
>> polyamorous is like choosing to live in New York City. It's a lifestyle
>> choice. Being gay is about gay bars and pride parades. It's a lifestyle
>> choice.
>Are you trolling, or do you actually believe this last bit?
I believe Ed was describing the above as something that offends him,
if you take his post in total.
(At least that's how I read it.)
Steve
Darkhawk (H. Nicoll)
> "Ed" <edcomm1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9CDF5B149EBFA...@85.214.113.135...
> > Being
> > polyamorous is like choosing to live in New York City. It's a lifestyle
> > choice. Being gay is about gay bars and pride parades. It's a lifestyle
> > choice.
>
> Are you trolling, or do you actually believe this last bit?
Well, that's certainly the line that the hardline social conservatives
would like us all to believe, because if this shit is a "lifestyle
choice" it can be changed as easily as giving up cheap TV dinners and
anyone who doesn't is just being stroppy.
- Darkhawk, who thinks that bit is the only thing
Aqua was missing in analysis and that
it wasn't the point of Aqua's analysis
so that doesn't matter
--
Darkhawk - K. H. A. Nicoll - http://aelfhame.net/~darkhawk/
Come, take my body (Allelu--)
Come, take my soul (Take my soul--) "Dark Time"
Come, take me over, I want to be whole. October Project
Darkhawk (H. Nicoll)
> To me, that is the distinction between poly and open; love, and more
> importantly, what you do and how you treat those you supposedly love,
> and claiming "poly" implies a much higher bar of responsibilities than
> claiming "open".
To me, there are two potential distinctions between "poly" and "open".
One is "'Open relationship' is a phrase many people have _actually heard
of_. 'Polyamorous' isn't. If one wants to communicate, one says 'open
relationship'. If one wants to use terms that probably will not be
understood, one says 'polyamorous'."
The other is "In closed relationships, people are not to form additional
sexual or romantic relationships. In open relationships, they can.
Many people assume that monogamous relationship systems are necessarily
closed and that polyamorous relationship systems are necessarily open,
and are wrong."
- Darkhawk, personally closed polyamorous system
(overall system not officially closed
but who has the time?)
Ed
news:hg0i6b$5ha$1...@blue.rahul.net:
I was mostly teasing the poster for saying that polyamory offered some
moral high ground. Like those who say poly is just an excuse for
cheating. I meant no real harm. :)
--
Ed
Ed
news:7oi4b8F...@mid.individual.net:
Do I believe that these are choices? No. I was citing examples of how
the word "lifestyle" is thrown around to imply that things that aren't
choices somehow are.
I probably should have quoted those last few sentences to be more clear.
--
Ed
Stef
Aqua <aq...@internode.on.net> wrote:
[a lot of stuff I agree with]
>Suddenly I had a flash from my subconscious - 'the only people who use
>the word "lifestyle" are advertisers and people who are terrified of
>being mistaken for their parents.'
The other people who use the word "lifestyle" are people who are trying
to convince governments to limit the rights of people who have
identities or behaviors they disapprove of. I think the way they use
"lifestyle" carries the implication that there's nothing *essential* in
what these people are doing, and thus it's OK for the government to act
in ways that discourage it.
You mentioned appearances and I think that's relevant. In general people
have an understanding that it's OK for there to be dress codes (within
limits) when people attend certain events or interact with certain
organizations.
I think when "people who want discrimination against other people to be
OK" use the word "lifestyle," they are trying to suggest that being
openly queer or poly or whatever they disapprove of is disrespectful,
the same way wearing the wrong clothes to a formal occasion is
considered disrespectful. Also they are trying to suggest that it's
simple not to be openly queer or poly or whatever -- it's just as simple
as changing into "proper attire."
If this is true, it explains why some of these people seem to think it's
OK for them to have sex with other people of the same sex, or to have
sex with people who aren't their spouses, as long as they don't get
caught.
Personally, I think that being queer or poly or belonging to a
particular religion are essential at least for some people. They aren't
like clothing that you can put on and take off without discomfort. And I
think it's wrong for government and society to try to force people to
live out those very important aspects of their lives entirely in
private.
--
Stef ** st...@cat-and-dragon.com **
** cat-and-dragon.com/stef ** firecat.livejournal.com **
**
I will maintain a healthy amount of skepticism when I capture the
beautiful rebel and she claims she is attracted to my power and good
looks and will gladly betray her companions if I just let her in on
my plans.
-- When I become an Evil Overlord (http://minievil.eviloverlord.com/)
Stef
Stuffed Crust <pi...@spam.shaftnet.org> wrote:
>This brings up something I've mulled over in my head for some time now;
>"poly" and "open" are usually treated as synonomous, to the point where
>if someone told me that they were poly I pretty much assumed
>(correctly!) that they were just using it as an excuse to sleep around.
>(Not that there's anything inherently wrong with sleeping around; just
>call a spade a spade and say you have an open relationship, instead of
>claiming a moral high ground, damnit...)
Were these people actually claiming a moral high ground by using the
word poly, or were they just using the word to signal their sexual
availability? I've noticed the word poly means different things in
different groups.
>To date, there has been exactly one cluster of folks I've met that
>identified as "poly" that I felt was healthy. And even then, one of
>them really wasn't. She talked the talk, but when it came time for
>decisions, her actions failed to match up and she failed spectacularly,
>hurting everyone else, badly.
Been there, done that. I've been doing poly (I'm defining it as "having
multiple romantic and/or sexual relationships with the knowledge and
consent of everyone involved") for coming up on 20 years. But I'm not
perfect at relationships and I sometimes fail and hurt people. However,
I failed and hurt people when I was in monogamous relationships too.
--
Stef ** st...@cat-and-dragon.com **
** cat-and-dragon.com/stef ** firecat.livejournal.com **
**
"People come up to me on the street all the time, acting like I'm some
long-lost brother -- like they *know* me. Well, I'm not their
brother..." -- Dylan quoted in Mikal Gilmore, _Night Beat: A Shadow
History of Rock & Roll_
Stef
Stuffed Crust <pi...@spam.shaftnet.org> wrote:
>Personally, I like to use more specific terms wherever I can to try and
>remove ambiguiuty, hence the distinction I tried to draw between an
>"open relationship" and a "polyamorous relationship"
>
>To quote the alt.polyamory FAQ:
>
>"Another thing to consider is that the word
> 'polyamorous' is, like all labels, just a tool. What you do and how
> you treat the people you love is probably more important to them, in the
> long run, than whether you fit a particular descriptive term, so don't
> sweat it, okay? And take good care of each other."
>
>To me, that is the distinction between poly and open; love, and more
>importantly, what you do and how you treat those you supposedly love,
>and claiming "poly" implies a much higher bar of responsibilities than
>claiming "open".
I think you're interpreting the quote very differently from how it's
actually meant. I think it means the word "polyamorous" is a label and a
tool, not a guarantee or a promise. How you treat people is more
important than what label you use.
I'm not sure how you get from there to "claiming 'poly' implies a much
higher bar of responsibilities."
>Subsequently, polyamory (at least as how it's been explained to me by
>aformementioned people) implies that there's some sort of deeper
>emotional/romantic attachment, that it's about so much more than sex,
>bla bla bla bla.
It sounds like you are saying that some people tell you poly means
"deeper emotional/romantic attachment," and other people use the word to
mean "my spouse/bf/gf doesn't mind, let's do it."
That's true. People mean different things when they use the word. So if
you want a particular experience, then you need to use more words to
figure out whether you and the person using "poly" are after the same
experience.
I guess it would be nice if everyone used "poly" to mean "I want a LTR"
and "open" to mean "I want a one-night stand," but they don't.
>Perhaps I'm a bit of an idealist here and I take a somewhat more
>ideal/literal definition of polyamory than most,
I think it's fine to use a restrictive definition of polyamory
personally, as long as you understand that there are other ways to use
the term.
My preferred definition is restrictive too, because I get riled up when
people say they're in a poly situation when to me they are doing
something that looks like cheating -- pretending to be monogamous and
having secret lovers.
I get less riled up if people say they're in a poly situation and what
they mean is that it's OK in the context of whatever committed
relationships they have if they also sleep around. I would hope that
they let people they sleep around with know that this might just be a
fling and it's not necessarily going to lead to something committed --
but I hope that no matter what word they use to describe what they're
doing.
>As the FAQ puts it -- "Some people think the definition is a bit loose,
>but it's got to be fairly roomy to fit the wide range of poly
>arrangements out there."
>
>With a definition this loose, there's bound to be problems...
Which is why you sometimes have to use more words...
PS: I hope it doesn't seem like I'm pounding on you. I am glad you
delurked and I am enjoying the discussion. Sometimes I enjoy discussions
kind of vociferously.
--
Stef ** st...@cat-and-dragon.com **
** cat-and-dragon.com/stef ** firecat.livejournal.com **
**
Reductio ad absurdum doesn't work when you have *not* reduced it to
the absurd, but instead, the sensible. -- Sharon Curtis
Stef
Stuffed Crust <pi...@spam.shaftnet.org> wrote:
>My pet peeve is when they don't practice what they preach -- They draw
>the distinction between poly and open, claiming the former as a sort of
>moral high ground, but their behaivor is actually the latter (according
>to their own definitions!), and everyone that was expecting the former
>gets burned badly. (Especially the primaries...)
It sounds like there's a story or two behind this pet peeve...
--
Stef ** st...@cat-and-dragon.com **
** cat-and-dragon.com/stef ** firecat.livejournal.com **
**
"All of life can be broken down into moments of transition or moments of
revelation. This had the feeling of both." -- "Z'ha'dum," Babylon 5
Steve Pope
>Aqua <aq...@internode.on.net> wrote:
>[a lot of stuff I agree with]
>>Suddenly I had a flash from my subconscious - 'the only people who use
>>the word "lifestyle" are advertisers and people who are terrified of
>>being mistaken for their parents.'
>The other people who use the word "lifestyle" are people who are trying
>to convince governments to limit the rights of people who have
>identities or behaviors they disapprove of. I think the way they use
>"lifestyle" carries the implication that there's nothing *essential* in
>what these people are doing, and thus it's OK for the government to act
>in ways that discourage it.
I tend to think of "lifestyle" as a loan word from anthropology, where
it is validly used to describe a situation where some economic aspect
of a culture drives much of the behavior of individuals in that
culture (nomadic lifestyle, sea-faring lifestyle, agrarian lifestyle etc.)
I think it is, usually, a distortion to try to use it to describe
modern people who live in the larger economy, regardless of how
fervent an interest they may have in some aspect of themselves
and/or in a subculture.
And, as a frequently distorted word, it is very easy for people to pick
it up and totally misuse it, or use it maliciously.
Steve
David Weinshenker
> Well, that's certainly the line that the hardline social conservatives
> would like us all to believe, because if this shit is a "lifestyle
> choice" it can be changed as easily as giving up cheap TV dinners and
> anyone who doesn't is just being stroppy.
Of course, opposing -that- noise with "but it's not a choice"
implies that if being e.g. gay -were- a choice, the conservatives'
attitude would somehow be OK after all, but since "we just can't
help it that we're That Way", they ought not to hassle us about it:
The structure of the whole "fate vs. choice" argument buys into the
underlying negativity of their position - the alternatives seem to
be that it's either an unwelcome fate (something one "should want
to change" if one could) or a choice to be discouraged.
(Suppose racial characteristics were a matter of choice:
would that somehow make racism any less objectionable?)
If they say "but being gay is just a lifestyle choice" our answer
should be, not "it's not a choice: we're Just That Way", but "if
it's a choice, you must respect it": after all, Christianity can
certainly also be called a "lifestyle choice" - one that some
Christians actively encourage non-Christians to make, for that
matter!
-dave w
Serene Vannoy
> Given the recent quietness, I thought I'd try to inject some actually
> vaguely poly-relevant content into the newsgroup.
I found this post a bit distastefully judgmental, and I think it's
because of the sweeping generalizations:
> 'the only people who use
> the word "lifestyle" are advertisers and people who are terrified of
> being mistaken for their parents.'
No, not true. A lot of perfectly well balanced poly people use that word
because they don't have any idea it might bother someone else.
> "Lifestyle" is about appearances - what your life looks like to others.
> It's about signalling who you are and what your values are to other
> people, so you can find "people like you" more easily and show them
> you're loyal. (Cross-reference to the alt.poly.fashion.history threads).
You don't know that's what that word is about for people. For some
people, it's about trying to put into words what they're experiencing,
while living in a culture that doesn't legitimize their feelings or
experiences. They often encounter that word before they find alt.poly
(if they ever do).
> Bringing it back to polyamory: if your primary motivation for having
> multiple sexual/romantic relationships is 'looking like one of the cool
> kids' or 'being in the polyamorous lifestyle' I don't think you have any
> business doing anything as potentially harmful to other human beings as
> being in a romantic/sexual relationship with them. What I mean is that
> sexual/romantic relationships can be very rewarding, but there's also a
> much higher risk of real emotional harm both to yourself and the other
> people involved. You only get to make that decision for yourself, not
> for the other person/people, of course.
Wow, that's a huge leap, from using a word to harming everyone you love.
Serene
--
42 Magazine, celebrating life with meaning. Issue 2 is here!
http://42magazine.com
"I tend to come down on the side of autonomy. Once people are grown up,
I believe they have the right to go to hell in the handbasket of their
choosing." -- Pat Kight, on alt.polyamory
Serene Vannoy
> This brings up something I've mulled over in my head for some time now;
> "poly" and "open" are usually treated as synonomous, to the point where
> if someone told me that they were poly I pretty much assumed
> (correctly!) that they were just using it as an excuse to sleep around.
> (Not that there's anything inherently wrong with sleeping around; just
> call a spade a spade and say you have an open relationship, instead of
> claiming a moral high ground, damnit...)
I don't think it's as simple as that. Plenty of people who are poly
would also (correctly!) describe themselves as in open relationships. My
family, for instance. (Not that we sleep around much in practice, but
our relationships don't include any agreements or expectations not to.)
> The healthy ones don't advertise; they just live their lives and work
> their asses off to ensure that both themselves and the relationships
> they're in are solid and healtly.
Feh. Plenty of healthy polyamorous people are vocal about it. It's about
visibility, in a lot of cases, and I respect people who are out about it.
> A relationship with one person is
> hard enough; adding more exponentionally so
Not in my experience. Poly is VASTLY easier for me than monogamy.
Vastly. Incredibly. Hugely.
> ... polyagony, indeed!
>
> To date, there has been exactly one cluster of folks I've met that
> identified as "poly" that I felt was healthy. And even then, one of
> them really wasn't. She talked the talk, but when it came time for
> decisions, her actions failed to match up and she failed spectacularly,
> hurting everyone else, badly.
I'm sorry you've not met healthy polyfolk. I'd venture to guess your
sample size isn't all that huge.
Steve Pope
>Darkhawk (H. Nicoll) wrote:
>> Well, that's certainly the line that the hardline social conservatives
>> would like us all to believe, because if this shit is a "lifestyle
>> choice" it can be changed as easily as giving up cheap TV dinners and
>> anyone who doesn't is just being stroppy.
>Of course, opposing -that- noise with "but it's not a choice"
>implies that if being e.g. gay -were- a choice, the conservatives'
>attitude would somehow be OK after all, but since "we just can't
>help it that we're That Way", they ought not to hassle us about it:
>The structure of the whole "fate vs. choice" argument buys into the
>underlying negativity of their position - the alternatives seem to
>be that it's either an unwelcome fate (something one "should want
>to change" if one could) or a choice to be discouraged.
Yes, this is an example of where the conservatives have been
successful in being able to set the debate, i.e., promoting
the idea that those defending gay people must have to prove that being
gay is not in any way a choice.
Just as those opposing pollution now must prove it causes global
warming.
There are many other examples.
Steve
Orlando Enrique Fiol
>The other people who use the word "lifestyle" are people who are trying
>to convince governments to limit the rights of people who have
>identities or behaviors they disapprove of. I think the way they use
>"lifestyle" carries the implication that there's nothing *essential* in
>what these people are doing, and thus it's OK for the government to act
>in ways that discourage it.
Agreed. The implication is that these people's humanity is separate from the
lifestyle choices they make. Theoretically, if these deviants' lifestyles could
be persecuted, their humanity would fall within "respectable" limits.
>You mentioned appearances and I think that's relevant. In general people
>have an understanding that it's OK for there to be dress codes (within
>limits) when people attend certain events or interact with certain
>organizations.
>I think when "people who want discrimination against other people to be
>OK" use the word "lifestyle," they are trying to suggest that being
>openly queer or poly or whatever they disapprove of is disrespectful,
>the same way wearing the wrong clothes to a formal occasion is
>considered disrespectful.
I strangely get this even though appearances obviously resonate very little
with me. Even if people could be "cleansed" of their supposedly disrespectful
lifestyle choices, that would likely turn them into miserable human beings
divorced from the behaviors that accord with their values and ethics. How happy
would such people be living that way?
>Also they are trying to suggest that it's
>simple not to be openly queer or poly or whatever -- it's just as simple
>as changing into "proper attire."
That may be true for some behavioral choices. A drug user can theoretically get
through certain social situations without using. As a newly minted Christian,
I've had to catch myself when tempted to swear in front of my Jamaican
Pentecostal brethren because they don't. I personally don't think God will hate
me for cursing, but they consider it disrespectful and I can modify my behavior
with relative ease in order to please them.
>Personally, I think that being queer or poly or belonging to a
>particular religion are essential at least for some people. They aren't
>like clothing that you can put on and take off without discomfort. And I
>think it's wrong for government and society to try to force people to
>live out those very important aspects of their lives entirely in
>private.
I entirely agree. But, when swingers or people in open relationships use the
word "lifestyle," I think the mean it precisely in terms of something
nonessential to their humanity, a set of behaviors they can and have turned on
and off depending on where they live and who's around. Lifestyle, in that
context, suggests something to be done in relative secret or at least around
nonjudgmental sympathizers rather than society at large. In a sense, the word
and its related concepts can actually protect people.
Orlando
Orlando Enrique Fiol
>Were these people actually claiming a moral high ground by using the
>word poly, or were they just using the word to signal their sexual
>availability? I've noticed the word poly means different things in
>different groups.
Not having seen what Aqua did, I don't know how these people meant to use poly.
I often wish that use of the word polyamory automatically signaled sexual
availability without having to broach the topic directly. However, to many
polyfolk, especially women on this newsgroup, polyamory and sexual availability
are rarely significantly coupled in their worldview.
Orlando
Orlando Enrique Fiol
>I think you're interpreting the quote very differently from how it's
>actually meant. I think it means the word "polyamorous" is a label and a
>tool, not a guarantee or a promise. How you treat people is more
>important than what label you use.
In my quest for supplemental or secondary sexual relationships, I have
definitely come to learn that polyamory is not a guarantee or promise of even
friendship.
>It sounds like you are saying that some people tell you poly means
>"deeper emotional/romantic attachment," and other people use the word to
>mean "my spouse/bf/gf doesn't mind, let's do it."
It can mean both things in my lexicon, although I tend to use it more for
multiple committed romantic relationships than sexual flings. Polyamory should,
in an ideal world, refer to multiple loving relationships.
>I guess it would be nice if everyone used "poly" to mean "I want a LTR"
>and "open" to mean "I want a one-night stand," but they don't.
Yes, that would facilitate cleaner communication.
>My preferred definition is restrictive too, because I get riled up when
>people say they're in a poly situation when to me they are doing
>something that looks like cheating -- pretending to be monogamous and
>having secret lovers.
Would you prefer it if those people simply said they were cheating? There is so
much moral baggage associated with cheating that cheaters usually have trouble
finding sympathetic, supportive places to discuss what they're doing, which is
why they sometimes come here.
>I get less riled up if people say they're in a poly situation and what
>they mean is that it's OK in the context of whatever committed
>relationships they have if they also sleep around.
The cold, hard truth is that there are committed relationships in which one
person wants or needs to sleep around, but the other won't allow it. If enough
in that relationship is going well and not worth losing, one either takes risks
while cheating or endures the drought. I don't feel it's my place to pass
judgment on why people are driven to cheat. Some folks are in dire sexual need,
while others just like the thrill of new conquests or nascent lust. To be
honest, I'm somewhat put off by poly people's moralizing on cheating, as though
they have a point to prove to the world that they are not cheaters, that what
they do is intrinsically different from cheating because it's open and
consentual all around.
>I would hope that they let people they sleep around with know that this might
just be a fling and it's not necessarily going to lead to something committed.
That's responsibly mature.
Orlando
Kai Jones
<daz...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Darkhawk (H. Nicoll) wrote:
>> Well, that's certainly the line that the hardline social conservatives
>> would like us all to believe, because if this shit is a "lifestyle
>> choice" it can be changed as easily as giving up cheap TV dinners and
>> anyone who doesn't is just being stroppy.
>
>Of course, opposing -that- noise with "but it's not a choice"
>implies that if being e.g. gay -were- a choice, the conservatives'
>attitude would somehow be OK after all, but since "we just can't
>help it that we're That Way", they ought not to hassle us about it:
>The structure of the whole "fate vs. choice" argument buys into the
>underlying negativity of their position - the alternatives seem to
>be that it's either an unwelcome fate (something one "should want
>to change" if one could) or a choice to be discouraged.
This. I agree with this and believe it to be a cogent, useful
explanation.
>If they say "but being gay is just a lifestyle choice" our answer
>should be, not "it's not a choice: we're Just That Way", but "if
>it's a choice, you must respect it"
Exactly. If you don't respect my choices, who will respect yours?
--
Kai Jones sni...@panix.com
Smartass by nurture as well as nature. Oh yeah, and I'm contrary, too.
Teal
>
> Stef <st...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> >Aqua <aq...@internode.on.net> wrote:
>
> >[a lot of stuff I agree with]
>
> >>Suddenly I had a flash from my subconscious - 'the only people who use
> >>the word "lifestyle" are advertisers and people who are terrified of
> >>being mistaken for their parents.'
>
> >The other people who use the word "lifestyle" are people who are trying
> >to convince governments to limit the rights of people who have
> >identities or behaviors they disapprove of. I think the way they use
> >"lifestyle" carries the implication that there's nothing *essential* in
> >what these people are doing, and thus it's OK for the government to act
> >in ways that discourage it.
>
> I tend to think of "lifestyle" as a loan word from anthropology, where
> it is validly used to describe a situation where some economic aspect
> of a culture drives much of the behavior of individuals in that
> culture (nomadic lifestyle, sea-faring lifestyle, agrarian lifestyle etc.)
When I studied anthropology at uni as an undergrad, the word
"lifestyle" was not used to describe those sorts of things. I don't
recall it being used at all, really. I do recall lots of terms like
"power structure", "mode of production", "functionalism", "moiety",
"double cross-cousin marriage" and "social control" though, along with
many more... specific terms, used to describe specific aspects of a
society under discussion. In my experience, "lifestyle" is used by
layfolk to describe such things, not anthropologists.
> I think it is, usually, a distortion to try to use it to describe
> modern people who live in the larger economy, regardless of how
> fervent an interest they may have in some aspect of themselves
> and/or in a subculture.
>
> And, as a frequently distorted word, it is very easy for people to pick
> it up and totally misuse it, or use it maliciously.
I think that like many words, it has different meaning to different
folks. Some use it the way that many folk here on alt.poly describe, as
an othering and/or trivialising term. Others use it as a shorthand to
describe some aspect of their own way of living. And yet others use it
in different ways again. Like "polyamory" and "open relationship", I
think it behooves someone who really wants to communicate well to pay
attention to the way that it is being used in a given conversation and
respond accordingly, rather than assuming that it always has the same
meaning each and every time that it is used.
Teal
Steve Pope
>Steve Pope wrote...
>> I tend to think of "lifestyle" as a loan word from anthropology, where
>> it is validly used to describe a situation where some economic aspect
>> of a culture drives much of the behavior of individuals in that
>> culture (nomadic lifestyle, sea-faring lifestyle, agrarian lifestyle etc.)
>When I studied anthropology at uni as an undergrad, the word
>"lifestyle" was not used to describe those sorts of things. I don't
>recall it being used at all, really. I do recall lots of terms like
>"power structure", "mode of production", "functionalism", "moiety",
>"double cross-cousin marriage" and "social control" though, along with
>many more... specific terms, used to describe specific aspects of a
>society under discussion. In my experience, "lifestyle" is used by
>layfolk to describe such things, not anthropologists.
I encounter it in older anthropological literature. In more recent
literature I encounter the term "lifeways" instead.
(Possibly the usage varies by topic; 90% of the anthropology I
have studied is concerned with native Americans.)
Steve
Kai Jones
<use...@chromatic-dragonfly.com> wrote:
>Like "polyamory" and "open relationship", I
>think it behooves someone who really wants to communicate well to pay
>attention to the way that it is being used in a given conversation and
>respond accordingly, rather than assuming that it always has the same
>meaning each and every time that it is used.
Yeah, you know, I catch a lot of flack for asking "But what does that
mean to you?" both here and nearly everywhere else I socialize.
Because people do use words idiosyncratically; it can be perfectly
clear in my head what I mean when I say, e.g., "I'm normal," but the
volume of content carried by that phrase is completely different to
another person.
I wouldn't be with my LDR if I hadn't been very careful to ask my
husband what polyamory means to him, because he's completely opposed
to the kind of polyamory he had in his head, and didn't even realize
there were other kinds of relationships that might also be labeled
polyamory.
Orlando Enrique Fiol
>I wouldn't be with my LDR if I hadn't been very careful to ask my
>husband what polyamory means to him, because he's completely opposed
>to the kind of polyamory he had in his head, and didn't even realize
>there were other kinds of relationships that might also be labeled
>polyamory.
How does your kind of polyamory differ from what he had in his head?
Orlando
Teal
> Teal <use...@chromatic-dragonfly.com> wrote:
> >Steve Pope wrote...
>
> >> I tend to think of "lifestyle" as a loan word from anthropology, where
> >> it is validly used to describe a situation where some economic aspect
> >> of a culture drives much of the behavior of individuals in that
> >> culture (nomadic lifestyle, sea-faring lifestyle, agrarian lifestyle etc.)
>
> >When I studied anthropology at uni as an undergrad, the word
> >"lifestyle" was not used to describe those sorts of things. I don't
> >recall it being used at all, really. I do recall lots of terms like
> >"power structure", "mode of production", "functionalism", "moiety",
> >"double cross-cousin marriage" and "social control" though, along with
> >many more... specific terms, used to describe specific aspects of a
> >society under discussion. In my experience, "lifestyle" is used by
> >layfolk to describe such things, not anthropologists.
>
> I encounter it in older anthropological literature. In more recent
> literature I encounter the term "lifeways" instead.
*looks vaguely surprised* It's just a lot broader and vaguer than
terminology I recall encountering in an anthropology context. Out of
curiosity, what form has your study taken? Formal tertiary study?
Reading articles on the web/in magazines/etc out of personal interest?
Something else?
> (Possibly the usage varies by topic; 90% of the anthropology I
> have studied is concerned with native Americans.)
Could be. I studied it for three years as an undergrad in the mid-80s,
in the course of which I recall a lot of stuff about Australian
aboriginal cultures (they were the focus of one entire subject that I
did during one year) and quite a few African (esp. Nilotic) and Pacific
islander cultures. I don't recall spending a lot of time on American
native peoples, though. The theoretical focus of the Adelaide Uni
Anthropology department at the time revolved around Structural-
Functionalist and Marxist analysis. What perspectives or theoretical
approaches have your readings come from?
Teal
Steve Pope
>Steve Pope wrote...
>> I encounter it in older anthropological literature. In more recent
>> literature I encounter the term "lifeways" instead.
>*looks vaguely surprised* It's just a lot broader and vaguer than
>terminology I recall encountering in an anthropology context. Out of
>curiosity, what form has your study taken? Formal tertiary study?
>Reading articles on the web/in magazines/etc out of personal interest?
>Something else?
Generally texts on archaeology of the Americas, most of it pertaining
to the southwestern U.S., including well-known works Kroeber, Kidder, and
other luminaries in the field. In addition, some works
that more have to do with native religion, post-European history
of the southwest, folklorism (e.g. Harold Courlander) and various
monographs put out by University of New Mexico Press that tend to be
recent Ph.D. theses.
So, roughly, 30 or 40 volumes over the past 15 years or so, most
of which I still have in my personal library.
No, I have not studied this subject formally; I have looked into
courses are offered by the local universities and while
I'm a fan of continuing education, nothing that has been offered
in this particular subject area has meshed with my schedule.
>> (Possibly the usage varies by topic; 90% of the anthropology I
>> have studied is concerned with native Americans.)
>
>Could be. I studied it for three years as an undergrad in the mid-80s,
>in the course of which I recall a lot of stuff about Australian
>aboriginal cultures (they were the focus of one entire subject that I
>did during one year) and quite a few African (esp. Nilotic) and Pacific
>islander cultures. I don't recall spending a lot of time on American
>native peoples, though. The theoretical focus of the Adelaide Uni
>Anthropology department at the time revolved around Structural-
>Functionalist and Marxist analysis. What perspectives or theoretical
>approaches have your readings come from?
Physical anthropology, ethnology, and folklorism.
Steve
Aahz Maruch
David Weinshenker <daz...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>If they say "but being gay is just a lifestyle choice" our answer
>should be, not "it's not a choice: we're Just That Way", but "if
>it's a choice, you must respect it": after all, Christianity can
>certainly also be called a "lifestyle choice" - one that some
>Christians actively encourage non-Christians to make, for that
>matter!
Very well put!
--
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 http://rule6.info/
<*> <*> <*>
'Some people, when confronted with a problem, think "I know, I'll use regular
expressions". Now they have two problems.' --Jamie Zawinski, comp.emacs
Guy W. Thomas
> Aqua <aq...@internode.on.net> wrote:
>> Bringing it back to polyamory: if your primary motivation for having
>> multiple sexual/romantic relationships is 'looking like one of the cool
>> kids' or 'being in the polyamorous lifestyle' I don't think you have any
>> business doing anything as potentially harmful to other human beings as
>> being in a romantic/sexual relationship with them. What I mean is that
>> sexual/romantic relationships can be very rewarding, but there's also a
>> much higher risk of real emotional harm both to yourself and the other
>> people involved. You only get to make that decision for yourself, not
>> for the other person/people, of course.
>
> "poly" and "open" are usually treated as synonomous, to the point where
> if someone told me that they were poly I pretty much assumed
> (correctly!) that they were just using it as an excuse to sleep around.
> (Not that there's anything inherently wrong with sleeping around; just
> call a spade a spade and say you have an open relationship, instead of
> claiming a moral high ground, damnit...)
I haven't read the whole thread, but I'm betting you're getting your
head handed to you because of the above paragraph. At least around here
polyamory and open relationship aren't seen as synonymous. I can see
where you might think that, but they aren't. Some people who say they
are in an open relationship mean they're open to having sex with others,
but they may not be thrilled with their partner starting another loving
relationship. Some people who are polyamorous are in closed
relationships. They have found their ideal configuration and aren't
looking for any new people. It's much more complex.
> The healthy ones don't advertise; they just live their lives and work
> their asses off to ensure that both themselves and the relationships
> they're in are solid and healtly. A relationship with one person is
> hard enough; adding more exponentionally so... polyagony, indeed!
I'd like to point out that a lot of your language sounds pretty
judgmental to me. You're not likely to get the best response with that
(or maybe you will. You'll certainly get a lot of respones)
> To date, there has been exactly one cluster of folks I've met that
> identified as "poly" that I felt was healthy. And even then, one of
> them really wasn't. She talked the talk, but when it came time for
> decisions, her actions failed to match up and she failed spectacularly,
> hurting everyone else, badly.
It doesn't really matter whether you think a relationship is healthy or
not. Its the people in the relationship who need to determine whether a
relationship is working for them or not. (Perhaps you'd like to say a
little about what you mean by a "healthy" relationship?)
--
Guy W. Thomas
San Leandro, CA
http://www.xango.org http://stonebender.livejournal.com/
"If you can't believe what you read in comic books, what can you believe?"
-- Bullwinkle J. Moose
Guy W. Thomas
> Ed <edcomm1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> around. (Not that there's anything inherently wrong with sleeping
>>> around; just call a spade a spade and say you have an open
>>> relationship, instead of claiming a moral high ground, damnit...)
>
>
> relationship, as long as you're being honest with yourself about why
> you're doing what you're doing. But that said...
>
> Personally, I like to use more specific terms wherever I can to try and
> remove ambiguiuty, hence the distinction I tried to draw between an
> "open relationship" and a "polyamorous relationship"
See how well it's working out? I always think if you are being
misunderstood you should use more words. Exactly what is more specific
about your terms?
> To quote the alt.polyamory FAQ:
>
> "Another thing to consider is that the word
> 'polyamorous' is, like all labels, just a tool. What you do and how
> you treat the people you love is probably more important to them, in the
> long run, than whether you fit a particular descriptive term, so don't
> sweat it, okay? And take good care of each other."
>
> To me, that is the distinction between poly and open; love, and more
> importantly, what you do and how you treat those you supposedly love,
> and claiming "poly" implies a much higher bar of responsibilities than
> claiming "open".
You can do a lot of things in a poly relationship that might look like
an open relationship or is for that matter. You can do a lot of things
in an open relationship that might look like a poly relationship. How is
it that you would determine how to treat somebody in a poly relationship
as opposed to an open one? You can't make assumptions just from a word
what it means one person may be completely to an other one. That's why
one of the mantras of alt.poly is communicate communicate communicate.
> Subsequently, polyamory (at least as how it's been explained to me by
> aformementioned people) implies that there's some sort of deeper
> emotional/romantic attachment, that it's about so much more than sex,
> bla bla bla bla.
>
> Instead, what I've generally seen (especially from aforementioned
> people) basically boils down to this -- "I can have a fling or fuckbuddy
> or FwB; it's okay because I'm poly, and everyone else has to STFU and
> accept me the way I am." ...and when things get more serious,
> supposedly the whole point of them being poly (as opposed to merely
> "open").. bad shit happens.
That's not true at all. At least with the people I know. Some people
need some kind approval from their other partners. Some don't and
there's all the shades in between.
> Perhaps I'm a bit of an idealist here and I take a somewhat more
> ideal/literal definition of polyamory than most, but in a roundabout
> sort of way this ties back in with the OP's point in that the "poly
> lifestyle" is a set of outward principles that's largely superficial; A
> symptom of deeper views/feelings that in of itself says little about the
> underlying motivations that lead to it, and the ones that flaunt it tend
> to be insecure, while the healthy ones just get on with their lives.
>
> As the FAQ puts it -- "Some people think the definition is a bit loose,
> but it's got to be fairly roomy to fit the wide range of poly
> arrangements out there."
>
> With a definition this loose, there's bound to be problems...
And not repeat myself but that's why we like to use more words.
Guy W. Thomas
> Ed <edcomm1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Stuffed Crust <pi...@spam.shaftnet.org> wrote in
>
>>> now; "poly" and "open" are usually treated as synonomous, to the point
>>> where if someone told me that they were poly I pretty much assumed
>>> (correctly!) that they were just using it as an excuse to sleep
>>> around; just call a spade a spade and say you have an open
>>> relationship, instead of claiming a moral high ground, damnit...)
>
>> And polyamory is morally superior to an open relationship how?
>
> are one major subtype of polyamory, the other major subtype being
> polyfidelity, or closed polyamory.
I'm not sure how that relates to whether or not poly is morally superior
to an open relationship. Depending upon what you mean by both.
> (For me, using open relationships and polyamory as mutually exclusive
> terms grates about as much as "lifestyle" does.)
Guy W. Thomas
<snip>
> If they say "but being gay is just a lifestyle choice" our answer
> should be, not "it's not a choice: we're Just That Way", but "if
> it's a choice, you must respect it": after all, Christianity can
> certainly also be called a "lifestyle choice" - one that some
> Christians actively encourage non-Christians to make, for that
> matter!
Nice job, David
Steve Pope
>Steve Pope wrote:
>> Ed <edcomm1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Stuffed Crust <pi...@spam.shaftnet.org> wrote in
>>>> This brings up something I've mulled over in my head for some time
>>>> now; "poly" and "open" are usually treated as synonomous, to the point
>>>> where if someone told me that they were poly I pretty much assumed
>>>> (correctly!) that they were just using it as an excuse to sleep
>>>> around. (Not that there's anything inherently wrong with sleeping
>>>> around; just call a spade a spade and say you have an open
>>>> relationship, instead of claiming a moral high ground, damnit...)
>>> And polyamory is morally superior to an open relationship how?
>> Most people who use both terms would say that open relationships
>> are one major subtype of polyamory, the other major subtype being
>> polyfidelity, or closed polyamory.
>I'm not sure how that relates to whether or not poly is morally superior
>to an open relationship.
Because logically, a set cannot be morally superior to one of its subsets.
Steve
Guy W. Thomas
What about two large sets with a subset part of each? I'm not sure I see
polyamory as a subset of open relationship. I'm not sure exactly how I
feel right now, I don't think this way (no smart comments on my
intelligence please :-) But I don't tend to think of one type of
relationship as more moral than another. I don't understand how some
work and some I get how they might work, but would make me unhappy and
then there are others I think I could make work for me or they just work
for me.
Dan Abel
Teal <use...@chromatic-dragonfly.com> wrote:
> in different ways again. Like "polyamory" and "open relationship", I
> think it behooves someone who really wants to communicate well to pay
> attention to the way that it is being used in a given conversation and
> respond accordingly, rather than assuming that it always has the same
> meaning each and every time that it is used.
Doesn't "Alice in Wonderland" have a section on this?
--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA
da...@sonic.net
Aahz Maruch
Nope.
--
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 http://rule6.info/
<*> <*> <*>
Hint: you're half-right
Stef
>If they say "but being gay is just a lifestyle choice" our answer
>should be, not "it's not a choice: we're Just That Way", but "if
>it's a choice, you must respect it": after all, Christianity can
>certainly also be called a "lifestyle choice" - one that some
>Christians actively encourage non-Christians to make, for that
>matter!
That's clever but I think it wouldn't be very convincing, because it's
from a frame of reference that some Christians (assuming we're using
"Christians" to stand in for "people who want to stop other people from
being gay") don't share.
I think both answers -- "I didn't choose it, it's what I am" and "it's a
choice and I have the right to have this choice respected" -- have value
depending on the context.
The real issue isn't whether beliefs/behavior are superficially or
deeply rooted. The real question is what to do about the general belief
that your behavior/identity/culture can't co-exist with mine so I have
to destroy yours first.
--
Stef ** st...@cat-and-dragon.com **
** cat-and-dragon.com/stef ** firecat.livejournal.com **
**
In the Beatles' minds, it appears, that audience became an enclosing and
demanding reality, always wanting, often threatening, rarely
understanding enough. -- Mikal Gilmore, _Night Beat: A Shadow History of
Rock & Roll_
Orlando Enrique Fiol
>That's clever but I think it wouldn't be very convincing, because it's
>from a frame of reference that some Christians (assuming we're using
>"Christians" to stand in for "people who want to stop other people from
>being gay") don't share.
>I think both answers -- "I didn't choose it, it's what I am" and "it's a
>choice and I have the right to have this choice respected" -- have value
>depending on the context.
We stop people all the time from doing what they would otherwise do were it not
for society's limitations. That's how we deal with crime and child abuse, for
instance. Christians simply fail to realize that most of the societies in which
they live are not theocracies and therefore contain large segments of people
who don't concur with the Bible in terms of public policy.
>The real issue isn't whether beliefs/behavior are superficially or
>deeply rooted. The real question is what to do about the general belief
>that your behavior/identity/culture can't co-exist with mine so I have
>to destroy yours first.
The cold truth is that divergent cultures simply must coexist and find ways to
get along because it's impractical to expect every "deviant" culture to be
either exterminated or voluntarily pack up and leave.
Orlando
Darkhawk (H. Nicoll)
> Stuffed Crust wrote:
> > A relationship with one person is
> > hard enough; adding more exponentionally so
>
> Not in my experience. Poly is VASTLY easier for me than monogamy.
> Vastly. Incredibly. Hugely.
Meee tooooooooooooo.
At least with polyamory I understand how things work!
- Darkhawk, Ugoling
--
Darkhawk - K. H. A. Nicoll - http://aelfhame.net/~darkhawk/
Come, take my body (Allelu--)
Come, take my soul (Take my soul--) "Dark Time"
Come, take me over, I want to be whole. October Project
Serene Vannoy
> Serene Vannoy <ser...@serenepages.org> wrote:
>> Stuffed Crust wrote:
>
>> > A relationship with one person is
>>> hard enough; adding more exponentionally so
>> Not in my experience. Poly is VASTLY easier for me than monogamy.
>> Vastly. Incredibly. Hugely.
>
> Meee tooooooooooooo.
>
> At least with polyamory I understand how things work!
>
> - Darkhawk, Ugoling
Darkhawk, dear, have you noticed we're getting more alike as we get
older? Should I be frightened? ;-)
Serene, teasing
Darkhawk (H. Nicoll)
> Darkhawk, dear, have you noticed we're getting more alike as we get
> older? Should I be frightened? ;-)
I'm pretty sure my kid is pre-verbal, so I think you're safe from any
confusion.
- Darkhawk, lapful of sleeping baby ;)
Serene Vannoy
> Serene Vannoy <ser...@serenepages.org> wrote:
>> Darkhawk, dear, have you noticed we're getting more alike as we get
>> older? Should I be frightened? ;-)
>
> I'm pretty sure my kid is pre-verbal, so I think you're safe from any
> confusion.
>
> - Darkhawk, lapful of sleeping baby ;)
Hee! Mine is often, um, weird-verbal. I'm sure that's what every parent
of every teenager has ever thought, but wow, sometimes we seriously have
to take a minute and run our parsers at full steam to get what she's on
about.
Serene
Phoenix
> The real issue isn't whether beliefs/behavior are superficially or
> deeply rooted. The real question is what to do about the general belief
> that your behavior/identity/culture can't co-exist with mine so I have
> to destroy yours first.
Yes. That.
Deborah
often <3s Stef and is doing so now
--
"Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health care is the
most shocking and inhumane."-Martin Luther King, Jr.
nickie{D}
[snip]
>
> This brings up something I've mulled over in my head for some time now;
> "poly" and "open" are usually treated as synonomous, to the point where
> if someone told me that they were poly I pretty much assumed
> (correctly!) that they were just using it as an excuse to sleep around.
> (Not that there's anything inherently wrong with sleeping around; just
> call a spade a spade and say you have an open relationship, instead of
> claiming a moral high ground, damnit...)
>
I hope by now you've seen lots of people posting to contradict this and
you will no longer make this assumption.
I'm polyamorous in that I live with two beloved partners and we are
coming up to our tenth anniversary as a triad. I am not particularly
"open" - indeed currently am not at all interested in any more
relationships, one-night stands or anything else.
If/when I tell people I am polyamorous it is to explain to them that I
have two partners and they are both vitally important in my life.
I've recently had conversations like this in medical contexts and have
been pleased with how easily these conversations have gone.
My (possibly flawed) understanding of open relationships is that people
in them do not usually ask their existing partners before having sexual
interaction with others. This may be in a context of having some
"rules" or it may not involve any such niceties.
However, neither I nor my partners would consider developing
relationships, either sexual or otherwise, short-term or long-term,
without consulting each other first and agreeing some ground rules.
For example, a new party night has started up monthly for bisexuals in
the UK and I am happy for one of my partners to attend this as and when
he wishes to do so and I accept that there may be sexual contact at this
event. I expect my partner to "play safely and come home".
If I were well enough I'd probably go with him, but I'm not nearly well
enough for such things right now. With luck, this will change and in
six months time, maybe I'll be having fun, playing safely and coming
home too!
I think the *only* assumption you can make if someone tells you they are
polyamorous is that they will *never* think of you as "the one for them".
--
nickie{D}
Ed
news:oqidnSunFsXlbr7W...@earthlink.com:
> Darkhawk (H. Nicoll) wrote:
>> Well, that's certainly the line that the hardline social
>> conservatives would like us all to believe, because if this shit is a
>> "lifestyle choice" it can be changed as easily as giving up cheap TV
>> dinners and anyone who doesn't is just being stroppy.
>
> Of course, opposing -that- noise with "but it's not a choice"
> implies that if being e.g. gay -were- a choice, the conservatives'
> attitude would somehow be OK after all, but since "we just can't
> help it that we're That Way", they ought not to hassle us about it:
> The structure of the whole "fate vs. choice" argument buys into the
> underlying negativity of their position - the alternatives seem to
> be that it's either an unwelcome fate (something one "should want
> to change" if one could) or a choice to be discouraged.
>
> (Suppose racial characteristics were a matter of choice:
> would that somehow make racism any less objectionable?)
>
> If they say "but being gay is just a lifestyle choice" our answer
> should be, not "it's not a choice: we're Just That Way", but "if
> it's a choice, you must respect it": after all, Christianity can
> certainly also be called a "lifestyle choice" - one that some
> Christians actively encourage non-Christians to make, for that
> matter!
I certainly agree with all of the above.
I am still offended, though, when I am told that I could be straight if
I chose to be.
FWIW.
--
Ed
Kai Jones
wrote:
>My (possibly flawed) understanding of open relationships is that people
>in them do not usually ask their existing partners before having sexual
>interaction with others. This may be in a context of having some
>"rules" or it may not involve any such niceties.
Yeah, but they don't ask because that's the agreement. At least, my
husband and I don't have to ask in advance of any specific sexual
interaction in certain agreed circumstances. Example: SF/F
conventions.
>However, neither I nor my partners would consider developing
>relationships, either sexual or otherwise, short-term or long-term,
>without consulting each other first and agreeing some ground rules.
Because you're not in an open relationship.
>I think the *only* assumption you can make if someone tells you they are
>polyamorous is that they will *never* think of you as "the one for them".
I don't think even that one is safe, I've heard too many stories of
people who got dumped because one of their polyamorous partners fell
in love and decided to stop being polyamorous.
Pat Kight
> The other is "In closed relationships, people are not to form additional
> sexual or romantic relationships. In open relationships, they can.
> Many people assume that monogamous relationship systems are necessarily
> closed and that polyamorous relationship systems are necessarily open,
> and are wrong."
This.
(Oh, and Solomon: Welcome!)
--
Pat Kight
kig...@peak.org
Pat Kight
>>> I'm not sure how that relates to whether or not poly is morally
>>> superior to an open relationship.
>>
>> Because logically, a set cannot be morally superior to one of its
>> subsets.
>>
>
> What about two large sets with a subset part of each? I'm not sure I see
> polyamory as a subset of open relationship. I'm not sure exactly how I
> feel right now, I don't think this way (no smart comments on my
> intelligence please :-) But I don't tend to think of one type of
> relationship as more moral than another. I don't understand how some
> work and some I get how they might work, but would make me unhappy and
> then there are others I think I could make work for me or they just work
> for me.
I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the notion of any *form* of
relationship being morally superior to any other. But that may have more
to do with how deeply the phrase "morally superior" annoys me, since I
mostly encounter it from the mouths (or fingers) of people trying to
demonstrate that they, personally, are morally superior to
me/others/everyone. Which tends to poke my "fuck you" button.
What matters to me is how actual human beings behave toward one another,
not the labels they want to put on their relationships.
We are, however, label-making animals, and we seem to want a word for
every sort of relationship, even when we're employing different internal
definitions of the word in question.
Like Darkhawk, I believe that "polyamorous" and "open" are not mutually
exclusive. Some poly relationships are open, some are not. The same can
be said of monogamous relationships.
--
Pat Kight
kig...@peak.org
Steve Pope
>On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 09:26:18 +0000, nickie{D} <nit...@bulldoghome.com>
>>My (possibly flawed) understanding of open relationships is that people
>>in them do not usually ask their existing partners before having sexual
>>interaction with others. This may be in a context of having some
>>"rules" or it may not involve any such niceties.
>Yeah, but they don't ask because that's the agreement. At least, my
>husband and I don't have to ask in advance of any specific sexual
>interaction in certain agreed circumstances. Example: SF/F
>conventions.
>>However, neither I nor my partners would consider developing
>>relationships, either sexual or otherwise, short-term or long-term,
>>without consulting each other first and agreeing some ground rules.
>Because you're not in an open relationship.
It would be called an open relationship by many people -- if the
pariticipants are open to meeting new partners, having a pre-consultation
rule does not make it non-open.
Open relationships range from minimal discussion/disclosure to
very extensive discussion/disclosure. For me, any poly relationship
that does not include a permanent expectation of fidelity
with a statically defined set of partners is and open relationship.
Steve
Guy W. Thomas
> Guy W. Thomas wrote:
>> Steve Pope wrote:
>>> Guy W. Thomas <xang...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> I'm not sure how that relates to whether or not poly is morally
>>>> superior to an open relationship.
>>>
>>> Because logically, a set cannot be morally superior to one of its
>>> subsets.
>>>
>>
>> What about two large sets with a subset part of each? I'm not sure I
>> see polyamory as a subset of open relationship. I'm not sure exactly
>> how I feel right now, I don't think this way (no smart comments on my
>> intelligence please :-) But I don't tend to think of one type of
>> relationship as more moral than another. I don't understand how some
>> work and some I get how they might work, but would make me unhappy and
>> then there are others I think I could make work for me or they just
>> work for me.
>
> I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the notion of any *form* of
> relationship being morally superior to any other. But that may have more
> to do with how deeply the phrase "morally superior" annoys me, since I
> mostly encounter it from the mouths (or fingers) of people trying to
> demonstrate that they, personally, are morally superior to
> me/others/everyone. Which tends to poke my "fuck you" button.
Me too.
> What matters to me is how actual human beings behave toward one another,
> not the labels they want to put on their relationships.
Yep.
> We are, however, label-making animals, and we seem to want a word for
> every sort of relationship, even when we're employing different internal
> definitions of the word in question.
Right, which is part of what I was trying to get to.
> Like Darkhawk, I believe that "polyamorous" and "open" are not mutually
> exclusive. Some poly relationships are open, some are not. The same can
> be said of monogamous relationships.
>
Exactly.
Steve Pope
>Guy W. Thomas wrote:
>> Steve Pope wrote:
>>> Guy W. Thomas <xang...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> I'm not sure how that relates to whether or not poly is morally
>>>> superior to an open relationship.
>>> Because logically, a set cannot be morally superior to one of its
>>> subsets.
>> What about two large sets with a subset part of each? I'm not sure I see
>> polyamory as a subset of open relationship. I'm not sure exactly how I
>> feel right now, I don't think this way (no smart comments on my
>> intelligence please :-) But I don't tend to think of one type of
>> relationship as more moral than another. I don't understand how some
>> work and some I get how they might work, but would make me unhappy and
>> then there are others I think I could make work for me or they just work
>> for me.
>I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the notion of any *form* of
>relationship being morally superior to any other. But that may have more
>to do with how deeply the phrase "morally superior" annoys me, since I
>mostly encounter it from the mouths (or fingers) of people trying to
>demonstrate that they, personally, are morally superior to
>me/others/everyone. Which tends to poke my "fuck you" button.
Yes, and one way to demonstrate that thing A is not morally superior
to thing B is to make a case that they are not sufficiently
differernt from each other, in ways that really matter, to warrant being
in a different category, whatever the source of one's morals.
When you drill down and look at it, people in open relationships and poly
relationships and conventional two-person relationships are really
doing many of the same sorts of thing, if they are persons of average
honesty and integrity.
Steve
Doug Wickstr�m
<xang...@gmail.com> wrote:
>What about two large sets with a subset part of each? I'm not sure I see
>polyamory as a subset of open relationship. I'm not sure exactly how I
>feel right now, I don't think this way (no smart comments on my
>intelligence please :-) But I don't tend to think of one type of
>relationship as more moral than another. I don't understand how some
>work and some I get how they might work, but would make me unhappy and
>then there are others I think I could make work for me or they just work
>for me.
Set: Open Relationship
Subset 1: Sex outside relationship OK, no love permitted
outside. Often known as "sleeping around."
Subset 2: Love outside relationship, with or without sex. Often
known as "open polyamory."
--
Doug Wickstr�
Steve Pope
>Set: Open Relationship
>
>Subset 1: Sex outside relationship OK, no love permitted
>outside. Often known as "sleeping around."
>
>Subset 2: Love outside relationship, with or without sex. Often
>known as "open polyamory."
Thank you Doug!
Steve
Doug Wickstr�m
wrote:
>Like Darkhawk, I believe that "polyamorous" and "open" are not mutually
>exclusive. Some poly relationships are open, some are not. The same can
>be said of monogamous relationships.
I don't believe there is such a thing as an "open" monogamous
relationship. Exclusivity is part of the meaning of monogamous,
after all.
--
Doug Wickstr�
Aahz Maruch
What do you call monogamous swingers?
--
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 http://rule6.info/
<*> <*> <*>
'I never say anything is "completely full" until I've stood on top of it.'
--SJM discussing garbage cans
Steve Pope
>Doug Wickstr�m <nims...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 09:00:20 -0800, Pat Kight <kig...@peak.org>
>>>Like Darkhawk, I believe that "polyamorous" and "open" are not mutually
>>>exclusive. Some poly relationships are open, some are not. The same can
>>>be said of monogamous relationships.
>>I don't believe there is such a thing as an "open" monogamous
>>relationship. Exclusivity is part of the meaning of monogamous,
>>after all.
>What do you call monogamous swingers?
High-frequency traders. The U.S. Congress is about to put a
tax on them.
Steve
Aqua
"Monogamous" can also be purely descriptive, like Marc's current
relationship situation as I understand it. Or at least, to me there's a
difference between a (self-declared) monogamous person and a person who
happens to be in a monogamous relationship. And of course, "monogamous"
has in some places and times referred to one marriage per lifetime,
whereas currently it means one marriage at any given time.
Also, in the original conception* in the 1972 book, an open marriage was
one where the two partners weren't locked into traditional roles and had
more scope for friendships and personal development outside the
partnership, and sexual activity with others was only one chapter among
many.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Marriage_%28book%29
I realise that chapter was so Shocking! that no-one seems to have paid
attention to the rest of it, but I think it is worth bearing in mind
that monogamous relationships vary a lot with respect to how tolerated
outside friendships and activities are. It makes perfect sense to me
that one might want to describe one particular monogamous relationship
as more open than another, although both are sexually exclusive.
As a lot of this discussion is about words and how different people use
them, I'd like to put a strong vote "no" against "open" meaning "has
more than one sexual partner".
Aqua
*For the pedants: prior to the book, there was also a concept called
"open marriage" but that referred to freedom to choose which single
person to marry, not constrained by, for example, social or religious
rules. In some sense, the current movement towards same-sex marriage is
a continuation of that: "open marriage" 1960s-style wasn't open as to
sex/gender identity of the partners.
Dan Abel
Chickpea <chic...@gmx.co.uk> wrote:
> In alt.polyamory, (Aahz Maruch) wrote in
> <hg1jvl$rls$1...@panix5.panix.com>::
>
> >In article <dabel-A1930E....@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au>,
> >Dan Abel <da...@sonic.net> wrote:
> >>In article <MPG.258eadead...@news.internode.on.net>,
> >> Teal <use...@chromatic-dragonfly.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> in different ways again. Like "polyamory" and "open relationship", I
> >>> think it behooves someone who really wants to communicate well to pay
> >>> attention to the way that it is being used in a given conversation and
> >>> respond accordingly, rather than assuming that it always has the same
> >>> meaning each and every time that it is used.
> >>
> >>Doesn't "Alice in Wonderland" have a section on this?
> >
> >Nope.
>
> �When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it
> means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.�
>
> http://www.sabian.org/Alice/lgchap06.htm
Thanks. I really need to read those books again. There is some deep
meaning in parts.
Aqua
> ElissaAnn <eli...@everybodycansing.com> wrote:
>> "Ed" <edcomm1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9CDF5B149EBFA...@85.214.113.135...
>
>>> Being
>>> polyamorous is like choosing to live in New York City. It's a lifestyle
>>> choice. Being gay is about gay bars and pride parades. It's a lifestyle
>>> choice.
>> Are you trolling, or do you actually believe this last bit?
>
> Well, that's certainly the line that the hardline social conservatives
> would like us all to believe, because if this shit is a "lifestyle
> choice" it can be changed as easily as giving up cheap TV dinners and
> anyone who doesn't is just being stroppy.
>
> Aqua was missing in analysis and that
> it wasn't the point of Aqua's analysis
> so that doesn't matter
And I totally agree with you on this point, and in fact my original post
completely omitted any discussion of using the word "lifestyle" as a
condemnation or judgement of other human beings, again because I think
it wasn't relevant to what I was musing about. But I'm happy to muse
about it if people want.
Aqua
Aqua
> In article <oqidnSunFsXlbr7W...@earthlink.com>,
> David Weinshenker <daz...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> If they say "but being gay is just a lifestyle choice" our answer
>> should be, not "it's not a choice: we're Just That Way", but "if
>> it's a choice, you must respect it": after all, Christianity can
>> certainly also be called a "lifestyle choice" - one that some
>> Christians actively encourage non-Christians to make, for that
>> matter!
>
> That's clever but I think it wouldn't be very convincing, because it's
> from a frame of reference that some Christians (assuming we're using
> "Christians" to stand in for "people who want to stop other people from
> being gay") don't share.
>
> I think both answers -- "I didn't choose it, it's what I am" and "it's a
> choice and I have the right to have this choice respected" -- have value
> depending on the context.
>
> The real issue isn't whether beliefs/behavior are superficially or
> deeply rooted. The real question is what to do about the general belief
> that your behavior/identity/culture can't co-exist with mine so I have
> to destroy yours first.
Can I agree with both of you? Pretty please?
Aqua
Aqua
> Aqua <aq...@internode.on.net> wrote in
> news:8ksbv6-...@george.jamver.id.au:
>
>> "Lifestyle" is about appearances - what your life looks like to
>> others. It's about signalling who you are and what your values are to
>> other people, so you can find "people like you" more easily and show
>> them you're loyal. (Cross-reference to the alt.poly.fashion.history
>> threads).
>>
>
> While I found what you wrote interesting, it follows from the above
> premise and that premise doesn't click with me at all. While it is true
> that one may talk about the glamorous lifestyles of the rich and famous,
> which does seem to be about show, when talking about something like
> polyamory or, in another controversial use of the word, sexual
> orientation, I think the implication is more about choice. Being
> polyamorous is like choosing to live in New York City. It's a lifestyle
> choice. Being gay is about gay bars and pride parades. It's a lifestyle
> choice.
>
> argument, but still think the choice part is the most signficant. It's
> at least what offends me the most.
I think I don't understand what you're offended by. *If* you're
offended by the word "lifestyle" because it's used to talk about people
who don't fit the (appearance) norm and implying that they're just not
trying hard enough to fit the (appearance) norm, I agree with your
offended-ness.
But I think my point that "lifestyle" is about appearances remains: the
fundie Christians rant against the "gay lifestyle" precisely because
they can paint an appearance of [people who are not (only) sexually
attracted to the "opposite" sex gender] as "those unpleasant people over
there who do those things completely alien to Our Lives". If they had
to talk about gay people as people with lives, one case being the
charming Brian and Luke next door*, the argument would fall apart a lot
faster.
Some of the appearance manifestations of gay people, forming the visible
gay community, gay bars and pride parades as you say, are precisely
attempts to control their own appearance because other people are trying
to define and control their appearance for them.
It didn't fit in my original musings, but part of what triggered my
musings is superficially quite unrelated. It's a series of ads for an
in-car navigation system that seems to be on billboards everywhere I go
at the moment. The ads are all shots from inside a car (as though you
the viewer of the ad are the driver of the car), and in one there are
three leather-clad bikies looking in, and the slogan is something along
the lines of "don't ask for directions, get a [name of navigation
system]". And that ad made me really angry, because [random quantum
fluctuations] forbid you ever *talk* to a person who rides a motorcycle
and maybe discover they foster injured wildlife and do charity rides for
sick children, and in fact make a far greater positive contribution to
the world than you. (The other ads all similarly work on stereotypical
appearances of "scary" people.)
And so part of my musings have also sprung out of my increasing
awareness of the invisible norm (I think this might be the notorious
hegemony) and the way that there are all these "alternative lifestyles"
but no-one talks much about or analyses the "standard" "normal"
lifestyle(s). So "lifestyle" gets used a lot as a negative judgment of
"other people". My musings really started from the point of 'who uses
the word "lifestyle" positively or self-descriptively?'
Aqua
* this is a rhetorical example. There is alas not a charming couple
called Brian and Luke living next door to me, anyway.
Aqua
>
>>> Ed <edcomm1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>> Stuffed Crust <pi...@spam.shaftnet.org> wrote in
>
>>>>> This brings up something I've mulled over in my head for some time
>>>>> now; "poly" and "open" are usually treated as synonomous, to the point
>>>>> where if someone told me that they were poly I pretty much assumed
>>>>> (correctly!) that they were just using it as an excuse to sleep
>>>>> around. (Not that there's anything inherently wrong with sleeping
>>>>> around; just call a spade a spade and say you have an open
>>>>> relationship, instead of claiming a moral high ground, damnit...)
>
>
>>> Most people who use both terms would say that open relationships
>>> are one major subtype of polyamory, the other major subtype being
>>> polyfidelity, or closed polyamory.
>
>> I'm not sure how that relates to whether or not poly is morally superior
>> to an open relationship.
>
> Because logically, a set cannot be morally superior to one of its subsets.
Oh, bullsh!t. Logically, logic and set theory has nothing to say about
the morality or otherwise of the contents of sets, subsets or supersets.
You'd first need to define morality, and the properties of sets with
respect to the morality of individual components of the sets. In other
words, you need to define a whole parallel syntax of set theory. And I
personally can think of enough different ways to do that, leading to
quite different conclusions about "moral superiority of supersets" that
there is no way on this green earth anyone has already done it and
gotten unanimous agreement with zir methodology that anyone can make
pronouncements like this.
I mean, getting a consensus on global warming would be simple by comparison.
Aqua
Steve Pope
>In alt.polyamory, (Steve Pope) wrote in <hg0i6b$5ha$1...@blue.rahul.net>::
>>Most people who use both terms would say that open relationships
>>are one major subtype of polyamory, the other major subtype being
>>polyfidelity, or closed polyamory.
>>(For me, using open relationships and polyamory as mutually exclusive
>>terms grates about as much as "lifestyle" does.)
>IME, when people here refer to a relationship or a marriage as "open",
>it's more likely to be marriage/relationship+fuckbuddies than what I'd
>think of as poly.
"here" = where?
Also notice my wording above. "Most people who use both terms."
People who do not claim one or the other term tend to often have
derogatory descriptions of the terms they do not claim -- e.g.
"open relationships" are non-loving or "polyamorists" overprocess
everything. It's in the same vein as "promiscuity is what
other people do."
Such descriptions, since they are not self-descriptions, tend
to be largely worthless.
Steve
Aqua
> In article <8ksbv6-...@george.jamver.id.au>,
> Aqua <aq...@internode.on.net> wrote:
>
> [a lot of stuff I agree with]
>
>> Suddenly I had a flash from my subconscious - 'the only people who use
>> the word "lifestyle" are advertisers and people who are terrified of
>> being mistaken for their parents.'
>
> The other people who use the word "lifestyle" are people who are trying
> to convince governments to limit the rights of people who have
> identities or behaviors they disapprove of. I think the way they use
> "lifestyle" carries the implication that there's nothing *essential* in
> what these people are doing, and thus it's OK for the government to act
> in ways that discourage it.
Yes, I realised after I'd posted that I'd completely left out all the
negative usages of "lifestyle". My posting was partly based on: given
all the negative ways "lifestyle" is used, why and when would anyone use
it in a positive or self-descriptive sense? It would have helped if I'd
said that, so I guess I'm clarifying now.
And I completely agree with you that part of what makes "lifestyle" so
useful in negative or disparaging contexts is its "non-essential" quality.
> You mentioned appearances and I think that's relevant. In general people
> have an understanding that it's OK for there to be dress codes (within
> limits) when people attend certain events or interact with certain
> organizations.
>
> I think when "people who want discrimination against other people to be
> OK" use the word "lifestyle," they are trying to suggest that being
> openly queer or poly or whatever they disapprove of is disrespectful,
> the same way wearing the wrong clothes to a formal occasion is
> considered disrespectful. Also they are trying to suggest that it's
> simple not to be openly queer or poly or whatever -- it's just as simple
> as changing into "proper attire."
>
> If this is true, it explains why some of these people seem to think it's
> OK for them to have sex with other people of the same sex, or to have
> sex with people who aren't their spouses, as long as they don't get
> caught.
This is really interesting and thought-provoking, and I'm glad you wrote
it. Because I have been wondering why these people do seem to get
caught doing these sorts of things so regularly, which doesn't fit *my*
conception of "moral" or "ethical" behaviour. I mean, yes, there
certainly are aspects of what I consider "proper" behaviour that have a
lot to do with appearance (eg going to the bathroom and closing the door
- I certainly don't think it's a moral weakness that one has a bladder
that needs emptying!) but there's also a lot of stuff that's much more
absolute for me, and not simply about whether other people know (or can
find out).
I must think more.
> Personally, I think that being queer or poly or belonging to a
> particular religion are essential at least for some people. They aren't
> like clothing that you can put on and take off without discomfort. And I
> think it's wrong for government and society to try to force people to
> live out those very important aspects of their lives entirely in
> private.
Absolute, whole-hearted agreement. There's also the issue that, going
back to the idea of "discreet" behaviour, that even though it's often
very disruptive and traumatic initially, there's a lot of stuff that
benefits from being taken from "private" to a more public context, that
there's greater risk of harm of various kinds when it's always forced to
be private and discreet. Most of the examples I can think of right now
relate particularly to children and private abuse of them. Which makes
the related issues of teaching children about privacy and discretion
interesting and complicated.
Aqua
Pat Kight
Some people - and I know a few - describe their relationships as
monogamous in the sense that they intend not to fall in love with anyone
but their one significant other - but open in the sense that they have
an agreement that permits outside sexual activity.
At least one such couple of my acquaintance calls that an "open"
relationship.
While I might (and do) have opinions about how accurate the description
is - or how ... challenging ... it might be to keep things within the
strictures of such an agreement, I'm not going to argue with them about
what they choose to call the arrangement.
--
Pat Kight
kig...@peak.org
Steve Pope
>Ed wrote:
>> While I found what you wrote interesting, it follows from the above
>> premise and that premise doesn't click with me at all. While it is true
>> that one may talk about the glamorous lifestyles of the rich and famous,
>> which does seem to be about show, when talking about something like
>> polyamory or, in another controversial use of the word, sexual
>> orientation, I think the implication is more about choice. Being
>> polyamorous is like choosing to live in New York City. It's a lifestyle
>> choice. Being gay is about gay bars and pride parades. It's a lifestyle
>> choice.
>> I guess the pride parades part could tie back to your appearances
>> argument, but still think the choice part is the most signficant. It's
>> at least what offends me the most.
>I think I don't understand what you're offended by. *If* you're
>offended by the word "lifestyle" because it's used to talk about people
>who don't fit the (appearance) norm and implying that they're just not
>trying hard enough to fit the (appearance) norm, I agree with your
>offended-ness.
I would say Ed is offended that there is a widely-helf belief that
queerness is a lifestyle choice, which insinuates it is an affectation.
>But I think my point that "lifestyle" is about appearances remains: the
>fundie Christians rant against the "gay lifestyle" precisely because
>they can paint an appearance of [people who are not (only) sexually
>attracted to the "opposite" sex gender] as "those unpleasant people over
>there who do those things completely alien to Our Lives". If they had
>to talk about gay people as people with lives, one case being the
>charming Brian and Luke next door*, the argument would fall apart a lot
>faster.
Still this plays into the fallacy pointed out by David. Or so it
seems to me.
Steve
Pat Kight
> Steve Pope wrote:
>> Guy W. Thomas <xang...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Steve Pope wrote:
>>
>>>> Ed <edcomm1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> And polyamory is morally superior to an open relationship how?
>>
>>>> Most people who use both terms would say that open relationships
>>>> are one major subtype of polyamory, the other major subtype being
>>>> polyfidelity, or closed polyamory.
>>
>>> I'm not sure how that relates to whether or not poly is morally
>>> superior to an open relationship.
>>
>> Because logically, a set cannot be morally superior to one of its
>> subsets.
>
> Oh, bullsh!t. Logically, logic and set theory has nothing to say about
> the morality or otherwise of the contents of sets, subsets or supersets.
I *heart* Aqua.
And I'm glad I decided to read on through the thread before responding
to Steve's point, because zie put it much more succinctly than I would have.
--
Pat Kight
kig...@peak.org
Steve Pope
>Aqua wrote:
>> Steve Pope wrote:
>>> Because logically, a set cannot be morally superior to one of its
>>> subsets.
>> Oh, bullsh!t. Logically, logic and set theory has nothing to say about
>> the morality or otherwise of the contents of sets, subsets or supersets.
>I *heart* Aqua.
Good for you.
I *heart* the fact that I do not have anything resembling Aqua's
(lack of) moral compass.
I believe in responsibility. Perhaps an example would help.
Let's take the Catholic Church, for example, who has, as a subset, the
Franciscan friars who abused the natives along the west coast of North
America. I do not grant the Church any more moral superiority than
those friars who form a subset.
Am I unforgiving? Fine, and no Aqua/Pat lovefest is going to convince
me otherwise.
Steve
David Weinshenker
> I believe in responsibility. Perhaps an example would help.
> Let's take the Catholic Church, for example, who has, as a subset, the
> Franciscan friars who abused the natives along the west coast of North
> America. I do not grant the Church any more moral superiority than
> those friars who form a subset.
Well, of the Franciscan friars, the ones who "abused the
natives" are themselves a subset, both in space and time:
is your view of the Franciscans across all space-time
conditioned by that specific situation. (I don't believe
that this abuse is in progress at the present time - yet
the Franciscan order still exists: do you believe that
the present members should be "responsible" for this past
malpractice?)
Should we rename San Francisco so that we don't "commemorate
the patron saint of an order of Evil Native-Abusers"?
-dave w
Steve Pope
>Steve Pope wrote:
>> I believe in responsibility. Perhaps an example would help.
>> Let's take the Catholic Church, for example, who has, as a subset, the
>> Franciscan friars who abused the natives along the west coast of North
>> America. I do not grant the Church any more moral superiority than
>> those friars who form a subset.
>Well, of the Franciscan friars, the ones who "abused the
>natives" are themselves a subset, both in space and time:
>is your view of the Franciscans across all space-time
>conditioned by that specific situation.
That's a good point. Francesco himself had a good reputation
as an animal advocate, and it was only centuries later that the
above-mentioned atrocities occured, so it's hard to pin the
blame on all historical Franciscans.
>(I don't believe
>that this abuse is in progress at the present time - yet
>the Franciscan order still exists: do you believe that
>the present members should be "responsible" for this past
>malpractice?)
>Should we rename San Francisco so that we don't "commemorate
>the patron saint of an order of Evil Native-Abusers"?
The fact that they beatified 'nip Serra within the past couple
decades as though nothing bad transpired points to current-time-frame
culpability, yes. What should be done about it, I'm not sure.
I was just trying to illustrate the concept behind my post to
which Aqua replied "bullshit".
Steve
Aqua
> Aqua wrote:
>> Given the recent quietness, I thought I'd try to inject some actually
>> vaguely poly-relevant content into the newsgroup.
>
> I found this post a bit distastefully judgmental, and I think it's
> because of the sweeping generalizations:
I was mainly trying to get some discussion going, and I'd certainly like
to get a more nuanced view, and maybe even a more nuanced way for me to
talk about my view :-).
>
> > 'the only people who use
> > the word "lifestyle" are advertisers and people who are terrified of
> > being mistaken for their parents.'
>
> No, not true. A lot of perfectly well balanced poly people use that word
> because they don't have any idea it might bother someone else.
I think this criticism is a bit unfair - I did make it clear that this
was my raw, unrefined thinkstuff (although I should start explicitly
calling it "raw unrefined thinkstuff"). I included it in the post
because it amused me as much as anything.
> > "Lifestyle" is about appearances - what your life looks like to others.
> > It's about signalling who you are and what your values are to other
> > people, so you can find "people like you" more easily and show them
> > you're loyal. (Cross-reference to the alt.poly.fashion.history
> threads).
>
> You don't know that's what that word is about for people. For some
> people, it's about trying to put into words what they're experiencing,
> while living in a culture that doesn't legitimize their feelings or
> experiences. They often encounter that word before they find alt.poly
> (if they ever do).
On the one hand, point taken. Yes, people may grab the word "lifestyle"
because it's the closest word that's handy and they're not bothered by
its other meanings and connotations.
On the other hand, we know there are plenty of people who find their way
to happy successful lives with multiple relationships before ever
becoming aware of the word "polyamory". Some of them invent their own
words, some of them are happy to not use any word (or use lots of words
as needed).
So I do think it's worth a bit of consideration why some groups - who
might not be aware of alt.poly, but who are trying to be publically
visible, publically advocate for polyamory (and they certainly are aware
of that word), who seem to have done some reading and be in contact with
others with similar aims, might think the word "lifestyle" is a good and
valuable part of their public presentation.
This group I stumbled across I might otherwise perhaps be a useful
member of, but I was put right off by its fondness for "lifestyle" (as a
positive) in its very first few paragraphs, and that sent out a very
strong message to me that this group is not actually interested in
someone like me. Because I don't live, and have no interest in, 'the
polyamorous lifestyle'. And the polyamorous people and relationships I
respect don't, either. And I just don't think 'the polyamorous
lifestyle' is such an innocent phrase that I should assume that's not
really what they mean at all.
I've been out marching for same-sex marriage rights recently and I can't
ignore the contrast in approach, where I, as someone married to a member
of the opposite sex, don't feel excluded. The GLBT community organising
these marches manage to keep the focus on same-sex marriage and yet are
clearly interested in people outside their community participating and
supporting them (which they do need if the law in Australia is ever
going to get changed).
And you know, it *is* quite okay if that poly group does want to be of a
particular kind and only appeal to very specific people. But that's not
how they're presenting themselves, either.
>> Bringing it back to polyamory: if your primary motivation for having
>> multiple sexual/romantic relationships is 'looking like one of the
>> cool kids' or 'being in the polyamorous lifestyle' I don't think you
>> have any business doing anything as potentially harmful to other human
>> beings as being in a romantic/sexual relationship with them. What I
>> mean is that sexual/romantic relationships can be very rewarding, but
>> there's also a much higher risk of real emotional harm both to
>> yourself and the other people involved. You only get to make that
>> decision for yourself, not for the other person/people, of course.
>
> Wow, that's a huge leap, from using a word to harming everyone you love.
Well, I didn't say 'if you use the word "lifestyle"...'; I said 'if your
primary motivation for having multiple sexual/romantic relationships is
'looking like one of the cool kids' or 'being in the polyamorous
lifestyle'...'. Yes, those are two rather distinct things. I fly
through ideas rather rapidly sometimes. I perhaps overdid the
ideas/post ratio in my original post because I really did want alt.poly
to have some conversation that was at least marginally poly related
before the inevitable end-of-year break.
But I think it's handy that I now more fully understand that when other
people use the word "lifestyle" uncritically, that I am left wondering
exactly how naive they are, and whether they've thought through the
connotations of their word choices. And I think it *is* legitimate for
me to think they're not people I'm going to be comfortable hanging
around with - it's not their problem that I like to think quite so much
about words and connotations and how ideas flow together, not unless
they *are* genuine about their aim to increase public acceptance of
polyamory, in which case they need me as part of the overall team, in my
apparently not-so-humble opinion.
Aqua
Aahz Maruch
Chickpea <chic...@gmx.co.uk> wrote:
>In alt.polyamory, (Aahz Maruch) wrote in
><hg1jvl$rls$1...@panix5.panix.com>::
>>In article <dabel-A1930E....@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au>,
>>Dan Abel <da...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>In article <MPG.258eadead...@news.internode.on.net>,
>>> Teal <use...@chromatic-dragonfly.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> in different ways again. Like "polyamory" and "open relationship", I
>>>> think it behooves someone who really wants to communicate well to pay
>>>> attention to the way that it is being used in a given conversation and
>>>> respond accordingly, rather than assuming that it always has the same
>>>> meaning each and every time that it is used.
>>>
>>>Doesn't "Alice in Wonderland" have a section on this?
>>
>>Nope.
>
>"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it
>means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."
>
>http://www.sabian.org/Alice/lgchap06.htm
Are you contradicting me? If yes, did you actually read the top of the
page returned by that URL?
Aahz Maruch
>was a good word (since this other group obviously thought it was fine),
>and at least initially, I couldn't put it into words at all well.
>Suddenly I had a flash from my subconscious - 'the only people who use
>being mistaken for their parents.'
Although this is really tangential to your point (which I mostly agree
with), one of the reasons I object to "lifestyle" when talking about
polyamory in specific is because swinging is sometimes referred to as
"the lifestyle" and I dislike equating polyamory with swinging.
Steve Pope
>In alt.polyamory, (Steve Pope) wrote in <hg49qd$qum$1...@blue.rahul.net>::
>>Chickpea <chic...@gmx.co.uk> wrote:
>>>IME, when people here refer to a relationship or a marriage as "open",
>>>it's more likely to be marriage/relationship+fuckbuddies than what I'd
>>>think of as poly.
>>"here" = where?
>UK, as usual.
Thanks. Another datapoint.
Steve
Orlando Enrique Fiol
>While I might (and do) have opinions about how accurate the description
>is - or how ... challenging ... it might be to keep things within the
>strictures of such an agreement, I'm not going to argue with them about
>what they choose to call the arrangement.
To me, an important distinction may exist between polyamory and polysexuality.
The former is mainly concerned with multiple romantic attachments, while the
latter is more concerned with sexual relationships. There is obviously
considerable overlap between both classifications. I probably fall squarely on
the side of polysexuality.
Orlando
Orlando Enrique Fiol
>Yes, people may grab the word "lifestyle"
>because it's the closest word that's handy and they're not bothered by
>its other meanings and connotations.
It would behoove you to ask such people what they mean by lifestyle rather than
assume that you could never feel comfortable among them.
>So I do think it's worth a bit of consideration why some groups - who
>might not be aware of alt.poly, but who are trying to be publically
>visible, publically advocate for polyamory (and they certainly are aware
>of that word), who seem to have done some reading and be in contact with
>others with similar aims, might think the word "lifestyle" is a good and
>valuable part of their public presentation.
You already seem to have closed off such a nuanced discussion by concluding
that the word lifestyle, at least applied to polyamory, is anathema to you.
>This group I stumbled across I might otherwise perhaps be a useful
>member of, but I was put right off by its fondness for "lifestyle" (as a
>positive) in its very first few paragraphs, and that sent out a very
>strong message to me that this group is not actually interested in
>someone like me. Because I don't live, and have no interest in, 'the
>polyamorous lifestyle'. And the polyamorous people and relationships I
>respect don't, either. And I just don't think 'the polyamorous
>lifestyle' is such an innocent phrase that I should assume that's not
>really what they mean at all.
You may be ascribing harsh connotations to the word lifestyle that many people
do not intend. I usually interpret that word as the set of behaviors typically
associated with a certain philosophy, morality or group identification. Thus,
the musician's lifestyle may involve late nights and drinking at gigs, while
the engineer lifestyle might involve math geekery over late night cups of
espresso. The BD/SM lifestyle tends to involve play parties and/or
pain/pleasure roleplay scenarios. Following this logic, the polyamorous
lifestyle may, for some people, entail multiple relationships typically formed
at sympathetic and supportive social gatherings where polyfolk feel safe
inquiring about potential romantic/sexual interest with the understanding that
pre-existing relationships will not be compromised by duplicity. In that light,
I see nothing wrong with the word lifestyle.
Orlando
Pat Kight
Steve, you are missing the point by such a wide marine that I wonder
whether you aimed at all.
You're free to judge anyone by whatever moral standards you choose. WTF
does set theory have to do with that?
--
Pat Kight
kig...@peak.org
Steve Pope
>Steve Pope wrote:
>> Pat Kight <kig...@peak.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Aqua wrote:
>>
>>>> Steve Pope wrote:
>>
>>>>> Because logically, a set cannot be morally superior to one of its
>>>>> subsets.
>>
>>>> Oh, bullsh!t. Logically, logic and set theory has nothing to say about
>>>> the morality or otherwise of the contents of sets, subsets or supersets.
>>
>>> I *heart* Aqua.
>>
>> Good for you.
>>
>> I *heart* the fact that I do not have anything resembling Aqua's
>> (lack of) moral compass.
>>
>> I believe in responsibility. Perhaps an example would help.
>> Let's take the Catholic Church, for example, who has, as a subset, the
>> Franciscan friars who abused the natives along the west coast of North
>> America. I do not grant the Church any more moral superiority than
>> those friars who form a subset.
>>
>> Am I unforgiving? Fine, and no Aqua/Pat lovefest is going to convince
>> me otherwise.
>Steve, you are missing the point by such a wide marine that I wonder
>whether you aimed at all.
Incorrect. Aqua made not even a tiny effort to understand what I meant
with the statement that she instantly started criticizing. How does this
suddenly translate into *me* missing the point?
And I am continuing, with the above, to communicate the relevant point
of my statement. Communication is important and I will pursue
it somewhat doggedly, even with persons who are not really trying...
Steve
Pat Kight
> Steve, you are missing the point by such a wide marine
Make that wide margin. My fingers have a mind of their own tonight.
--
Pat Kight
Ed
news:qbigv6-...@george.jamver.id.au:
> Ed wrote:
>> Aqua <aq...@internode.on.net> wrote in
>> news:8ksbv6-...@george.jamver.id.au:
>>
>>> "Lifestyle" is about appearances - what your life looks like to
>>> others. It's about signalling who you are and what your values are
>>> to other people, so you can find "people like you" more easily and
>>> show them you're loyal. (Cross-reference to the
>>> alt.poly.fashion.history threads).
>>>
>>
>> While I found what you wrote interesting, it follows from the above
>> premise and that premise doesn't click with me at all. While it is
>> true that one may talk about the glamorous lifestyles of the rich and
>> famous, which does seem to be about show, when talking about
>> something like polyamory or, in another controversial use of the
>> word, sexual orientation, I think the implication is more about
>> choice. Being polyamorous is like choosing to live in New York City.
>> It's a lifestyle choice. Being gay is about gay bars and pride
>> parades. It's a lifestyle choice.
>>
>> I guess the pride parades part could tie back to your appearances
>> argument, but still think the choice part is the most signficant.
>> It's at least what offends me the most.
>
> I think I don't understand what you're offended by.
I think you already know this, but to reiterate, it was definitely
nothing you wrote that offended me.
> *If* you're
> offended by the word "lifestyle" because it's used to talk about
> people who don't fit the (appearance) norm and implying that they're
> just not trying hard enough to fit the (appearance) norm, I agree with
> your offended-ness.
That's not it. I'm offended that people who might, say, happen to see a
picture of my partner and me on my desk at work can't seem to get past
their mental image of buttfucking. Sorry to be crude, but that, in a
nutshell, is what the word "lifestyle" means to me: An assumption that
who I am reduces to a few choices of things in my life that, were I
simply to choose differently, I would somehow then be normal.
>
> But I think my point that "lifestyle" is about appearances remains:
> the fundie Christians rant against the "gay lifestyle" precisely
> because they can paint an appearance of [people who are not (only)
> sexually attracted to the "opposite" sex gender] as "those unpleasant
> people over there who do those things completely alien to Our Lives".
> If they had to talk about gay people as people with lives, one case
> being the charming Brian and Luke next door*, the argument would fall
> apart a lot faster.
You'd think. Just doesn't happen to be my experience.
>
> Some of the appearance manifestations of gay people, forming the
> visible gay community, gay bars and pride parades as you say, are
> precisely attempts to control their own appearance because other
> people are trying to define and control their appearance for them.
I guess. I see those things as ways to take back the debate. "You think
I'm faggy? I'll show you faggy." I was once asked why gay folk talk
about gay pride. Why, this person asked, would you be proud about
something you had no control over. I told her that it wasn't pride in
the "I worked hard for my PhD" kind of sense. It was in the "no, I don't
deserve to have my face shoved in the dirt" kind of sense. Gay "pride"
is a reaction to the attempts of those who think that, for some reason,
we should feel shame about who we are.
>
> It didn't fit in my original musings, but part of what triggered my
> musings is superficially quite unrelated. It's a series of ads for an
> in-car navigation system that seems to be on billboards everywhere I
> go at the moment. The ads are all shots from inside a car (as though
> you the viewer of the ad are the driver of the car), and in one there
> are three leather-clad bikies looking in, and the slogan is something
> along the lines of "don't ask for directions, get a [name of
> navigation system]". And that ad made me really angry, because
> [random quantum fluctuations] forbid you ever *talk* to a person who
> rides a motorcycle and maybe discover they foster injured wildlife and
> do charity rides for sick children, and in fact make a far greater
> positive contribution to the world than you. (The other ads all
> similarly work on stereotypical appearances of "scary" people.)
>
> And so part of my musings have also sprung out of my increasing
> awareness of the invisible norm (I think this might be the notorious
> hegemony) and the way that there are all these "alternative
> lifestyles" but no-one talks much about or analyses the "standard"
> "normal" lifestyle(s). So "lifestyle" gets used a lot as a negative
> judgment of "other people". My musings really started from the point
> of 'who uses the word "lifestyle" positively or self-descriptively?'
I, for one, would be happy someday to be amongst those described as
living the lifestyle of the rich and famous. :)
>
> Aqua
> * this is a rhetorical example. There is alas not a charming couple
> called Brian and Luke living next door to me, anyway.
Too bad. No Brians or Lukes nearby, but there is a James and Chip as
well as a Randy and Chris in our building. But then, we do live in
*that* part of town. :)
--
Ed
Ed
@blue.rahul.net:
> Let's take the Catholic Church, for example, who has, as a subset, the
> Franciscan friars who abused the natives along the west coast of North
> America. I do not grant the Church any more moral superiority than
> those friars who form a subset.
>
And of course, that church is a subset of all humans. Is that larger set
still morally responsible for that subset's actions?
--
Ed
Aahz Maruch
>>In article <ba4bi5h6h99guk3ld...@4ax.com>,
>>Chickpea <chic...@gmx.co.uk> wrote:
>>>In alt.polyamory, (Aahz Maruch) wrote in
>>><hg1jvl$rls$1...@panix5.panix.com>::
>>>>In article <dabel-A1930E....@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au>,
>>>>Dan Abel <da...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>>>In article <MPG.258eadead...@news.internode.on.net>,
>>>>> Teal <use...@chromatic-dragonfly.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> in different ways again. Like "polyamory" and "open relationship", I
>>>>>> think it behooves someone who really wants to communicate well to pay
>>>>>> attention to the way that it is being used in a given conversation and
>>>>>> respond accordingly, rather than assuming that it always has the same
>>>>>> meaning each and every time that it is used.
>>>>>
>>>>>Doesn't "Alice in Wonderland" have a section on this?
>>>>
>>>>Nope.
>>>
>>>"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it
>>>means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."
>>>
>>>http://www.sabian.org/Alice/lgchap06.htm
>>
>>Are you contradicting me? If yes, did you actually read the top of the
>>page returned by that URL?
>
>enough.
I'm correcting someone about precise language WRT Charles Lutwidge
Dodgson and you're accusing me of being *picky*?
Steve Pope
>spo...@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) wrote in news:hg4c3p$sf4$1
>> Let's take the Catholic Church, for example, who has, as a subset, the
>> Franciscan friars who abused the natives along the west coast of North
>> America. I do not grant the Church any more moral superiority than
>> those friars who form a subset.
>And of course, that church is a subset of all humans. Is that larger set
>still morally responsible for that subset's actions?
To the extent that humans in general are accepting of these
harm-causing institutions such as the church, yes humans in general are
not morally superior to Roman Catholics, who in turn are not
morally superior to the native-abusing Franciscans.
Steve
Aahz Maruch
>does not say *exactly* the same thing as the point he was making.
You apparently did not read my .sig in the post where I said "nope".
Stuffed Crust
> (Oh, and Solomon: Welcome!)
Heh, thanks. No stranger to the joys of usenet, I am.
For what it's worth I was lurking here back in the 02-03 timeframe too,
but when the poly relationship I was in blew up spectacularly (a case of
the do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do pet peeve...), there really wasn't much of a
point in getting my very raw nose rubbed further in what had/could have
been.
(For what it's worth she's on her second husband since I walked
away, a sign that "poly" was hardly the problem...)
- Solomon
--
Solomon Peachy pizza at shaftnet dot org
Melbourne, FL ^^ (mail/jabber/gtalk) ^^
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
Stuffed Crust
>>My pet peeve is when they don't practice what they preach -- They draw
>>the distinction between poly and open, claiming the former as a sort of
>>moral high ground, but their behaivor is actually the latter (according
>>to their own definitions!), and everyone that was expecting the former
>>gets burned badly. (Especially the primaries...)
>
> It sounds like there's a story or two behind this pet peeve...
Yeah... there is...
I've personaly been burned twice by this, but in the here-and-now I'm in
the process of watching an airplane crash into a train wreck, another in
the early stages of blowing up (there's still hope...) and have managed
to steer completely of two more cluster[f*ck]s becuse they gave me the
creeps from the get-go.
I suppose the moral of the story is that it takes healthy people
to have a healthy relationship (or relationships) regardless of the
labels they use to identify themselves.
Ben
> "Lifestyle" is about appearances - what your life looks like to others.
> It's about signalling who you are and what your values are to other
> people, so you can find "people like you" more easily and show them
> you're loyal. (Cross-reference to the alt.poly.fashion.history
> threads).
That's not what I see in "lifestyle". I see a statement about actions and
behaviour. For example, "the gay lifestyle" seems often to specifically
refer, when people use it, to behaviour such as unsafe sex, very
transitory partners, drug use, and partying hard. It doesn't seem to say
a great deal about the values of the imagined gay people, except that
they presumably like to party!
When someone says to me "Mary's living the student lifestyle at the
moment", or "John has a bit of the bachelor lifestyle going on", what I
hear is "This person's actions conform to those of a stereotypical
[student|bachelor|gay person]". They are calling up a stereotype for
comparison.
So, the only flaw in the plan as I see it is the complete naivety of
assuming that your perception of the actions of a stereotypical [student|
bachelor|gay person|poly person] is sufficiently general to be an
accurate or useful way of communicating. It's parochial, if you like.
> Unfortunately, precisely because it's about appearances and not about
> your actual life, values and personality, it's not reliable and can
> often be easily hijacked.
To me a statement about actions (what you "appear" to do, if you like) is
clearer than a statement about values. There's nothing to guarantee that
a person's actions will consistently reflect their values; many people's
actions don't, and I'm more likely to be hurt by their actions than their
values.
What I'm trying to say is that I see "lifestyle" as /attempting/ to say
something about actions, but falling very far short. If it really DID say
something about people's actions, I'd be all in favour.
Ben.