The Skinny on FRIENDS Club
Mud
READ CAREFULLY!
We have changed our club name. We are now called FRIENDS! We want to
thank
all who helped in making that name change and all the kind comments that
came when we were in the decision making process.
Also, we have changed the location of our first meeting! See location
below.
MEETING ANNOUNCEMENT!
INTRODUCTORY MEETING – Introduction to “FRIENDS” and the Polyamory
Lifestyle.
MEETING INFORMATION:
WHO: ALL ARE INVITED – Couples, Single males & Single females
WHAT: INTRODUCTORY MEETING and Lifestyle Discussion.
WHEN: SATURDAY - NOVEMBER 14, 1998 5:00PM thru 9:00PM. We will be
available
and in our meeting room to receive your calls for a room number after
1:00PM. If you would like to stop by earlier than 5:00PM to meet us,
you
are all welcome.
WHERE: COURTYARD By Marriott, located just one block north of I-465 on
Meridian Street on 103rd street. As you go north on Meridian Street off
of
I-465, COURTYARD sits on the south west corner of the intersection of
103rd
Street and N. Meridian Street.
ROOM NUMBER: DO NOT GO TO THE FRONT DESK and ask where the FRIENDS
meeting
is being held. Until we work out a different method, call us on our
Digital
Phone and we will give you our room number. Call 317-507-4576 to get
our
Room Number! Mike or Marsha will answer!
TIME: 5:00 PM - 9:00 PM or later. We will be in the room by 2:00PM so
we
will have time to talk to those wanting to stop by earlier.
REFRESHMENTS: Be a friend and bring a snack for yourself and someone
else.
Nothing large please, just finger foods to curb hunger and nervous
tension.
Also bring soft drinks of your choice. There will be ice and cups in
the
room. NO ALCOHOL PLEASE!
DRESS: Dress casual and free! You could end up sitting on the floor or
on a
bed. We have received questions about Ladies dressing provocatively.
We
welcome ladies to dress as they feel comfortable. Be as free as you
like!
AFTER HOURS: An introduction to new THINGS. These THINGS are all
intended
to break down old mindsets that we have. We will discuss them and
possibly
try them as time and guests permit. They include: The Stroking
Community,
a group massage given to one person at a time, The Hug Circle, Hugs to
break down barriers and build closeness and friendships, Free Flow, a
group
massage given to a lady that has a special need, G-Spot Massage, this
needs
no explanation.
IMMEDIATE NEEDS: We need the help of a Central Indiana Attorney who
plans to
be involved or is sympathetic to our organizations cause. If you know
of an
Attorney in the Central Indiana area who is in the lifestyle or who you
believe would be interested in helping, please contact us!
MEETING PRICE: $25.00 PER MALE Ladies are Free! If you have not sent
in
your payment by now, please make your payments at the door. DO NOT MAIL
ANY
MORE PAYMENTS for this meeting. Make payment by cash or check only at
the
door. If we have not received your check or cash in the mail by Friday
November 13, 1998, you will be charged at the door.
FEES: MEMBERSHIP FEE may be paid at this meeting if you would like to
join.
MEMBERSHIP FEES LIST:
Males with a female partner at all times - $50 per year
Males without a full time female partner - $100 per year
Gender Balance: The issue of Gender Balance will be discussed at the
meeting
and several meetings. Gender Balance will be different at various
occasions
and everyone will know ahead of time what this balance will be. Limits
will
be set by our couples members for social occasions. Classes, Seminars,
Workshops and Social Occasions may all have different Gender Balance.
Comments are always welcomed on all topics!
WEB PAGE: We are now making plans for starting our own Web page. We
have a
couple and a single male……all to be revealed at a later time if they
choose……who are working on this project. We have also had a couple of
other
offers for help on this project but they have not taken shape at this
time.
Any suggestions that you may have for content, special features or
operation
of our Web page, please let us know. We have discussed having our own
singles dating page, a members only page where photos are available
along
with Email addresses. First of all, we just want to get our page up and
operating!
TOPICS: Introduction to FRIENDS and the Polyamory Lifestyle, Breaking
Barriers - An Introduction To Polyamory, Lifestyle discussion,
Membership
Sign Up.
NOTES:
1. Just to let you know, we are now forming our FRIENDS Corporation.
2. We are looking for a nice large multi bedroom home with several acres
of
land, where we can have a permanent FRIENDS home. As we said earlier in
our
E-mail messages, we want to establish a permanent place to have our
meetings. We want to host the parties on a weekly or by weekly basis as
well as having mid-week meetings for small groups. When we do buy
property,
we will have meetings as needed. If anyone knows of a nice secluded
place
where a large home and land is located, please let us know.
3. Since this is our first meeting, we do not know how our time will
go. We
hope there will be lots of questions and answers available to you. This
is
a very important meeting. This is YOUR CLUB as well as ours. Without
YOU,
we have NO FRIENDS. Get involved, join our club, make suggestions, be
sociable, take classes, become a leader, help create the most pleasant,
satisfying and emotionally fulfilling lifestyle club in Indiana. We are
unique to other clubs who only sell and serve sex, yet we can not be
categorized as an adult club, although adult type activities will take
place
openly and will be welcomed by us at some gatherings.
4. We are following a European Lifestyle format where Sex among
consenting
adults is very normal and accepted by all. Intimate human contact and
sexual behavior are just a part of life and so it is at FRIENDS also!
5. Since we are NOT classified as an Adult club, we feel confident that
we
will be advertising in main stream media to contact others…….. so we
need
your help in shaping our plans and seek your advice and help as to
direction
and goal setting.
6. We are serious about wanting your help. We are forming a very close
knit
and loving group of people who will be sharing their personal lives with
others. We will be crying on each others shoulders, telling our fears
in
confidence and opening our hearts. We will be learning Intimacy, Love,
Passion and Compassion with the same people. With some, we will be
sharing
our bodies and letting those we choose to explore our most private
parts,
sharing in intimate, loving times and doing a great deal of bonding on a
spiritual level as well as a physical level.
7. In future meetings we will discuss the Bible, spirituality, our
society
and the different views of life in the world. We will find out that we
in
the USA are living in a sheltered society, carefully manipulated by
Church,
Government, Schools and those in so-called power and authority.
8. We are looking for help. We need couples and singles who want to
become
a part of this organization. We need Speakers, Organizers, Planners,
Massage Therapist, Massage Models/Volunteers, Advertising and more. We
are
firm believers in the barter system but all we can barter at this time
is
your membership and the price of classes and other meetings. We hope
you
will consider how important this Club can be to you and your
relationship
with others.
9. If you want to be involved personally, please contact us at your
earliest
convince. We want to meet you and discuss FRIENDS with you and the role
you
want to play.
RSVP – ASAP BY E-mail!
RESTRICTIONS: NO SMOKING IN THE MEETING ROOM, NO DRINKING OR ILLEGAL
DRUGS
ALLOWED! DRUG USE IS ALWAYS A NO NO!
WE ADVOCATE A CLEAR HEAD AND A CLEAN BODY & MIND!
If you have questions, please feel free to ask ANYTHING!
Love and Naked Hugs,
Mike & Marsha
fairest one
In alt.polyamory Mud <In...@indy.net> wrote:
: MEETING INFORMATION:
: WHO: ALL ARE INVITED – Couples, Single males & Single females
What about triads or quads?
: DRESS: Dress casual and free! You could end up sitting on the floor or on a
: bed. We have received questions about Ladies dressing provocatively. We
: welcome ladies to dress as they feel comfortable. Be as free as you like!
Are men allowed to dress provocatively?
: AFTER HOURS: An introduction to new THINGS. These THINGS are all intended
: to break down old mindsets that we have. We will discuss them and possibly
: try them as time and guests permit. They include: The Stroking Community,
: a group massage given to one person at a time, The Hug Circle, Hugs to
: break down barriers and build closeness and friendships, Free Flow, a
: group massage given to a lady that has a special need,
I have a special need, but I don't see how a group massage is going to
help me get my laundry done while I'm visiting my grandmother in the
hospital. Could you explain more?
: Without YOU, we have NO FRIENDS.
Y'know, last time someone told me this I ended up dumping zir because zie
was being a manipulative pain in the butt. Not accusing you of this, you
understand, but it makes me a touch nervous.
b,
almost puzzled.
Rich Zado
like a swingers club. it must be...............
(with aplogies to the swingers. I really have nothing against their
lifestyle. I just can't stand it when somebody confuses Poly and Swinging)
Mud wrote:
MEETING INFORMATION:
> WHO: ALL ARE INVITED – Couples, Single males & Single females
>
> WHAT: INTRODUCTORY MEETING and Lifestyle Discussion.
>
> AFTER HOURS: An introduction to new THINGS. These THINGS are all
> intended
> to break down old mindsets that we have. We will discuss them and
> possibly
> try them as time and guests permit. They include: The Stroking
> Community,
> a group massage given to one person at a time, The Hug Circle, Hugs to
> break down barriers and build closeness and friendships, Free Flow, a
> group
> massage given to a lady that has a special need, G-Spot Massage, this
> needs
> no explanation.
>
>
> MEETING PRICE: $25.00 PER MALE Ladies are Free!
Damn And i thought this was poly. What's with the ladys night??
> MEMBERSHIP FEES LIST:
> Males with a female partner at all times - $50 per year
> Males without a full time female partner - $100 per year
SWINGERS!!!!!!!!! God i hate it when you put a wolf in sheeps clothing and
expect us to eat mutton.....
Daniel B. Holzman
>
>MEETING INFORMATION:
>WHO: ALL ARE INVITED – Couples, Single males & Single females
Your assumptions of normative monogamy are showing.
>G-Spot Massage, this needs no explanation.
Where I come from, it's called "sex" for short.
>MEETING PRICE: $25.00 PER MALE Ladies are Free!
Even if the rest of the ad came across as something I would be interested
in, this would be a show-stopper. I do not patronize organizations which
engage in sex discrimination.
>MEMBERSHIP FEES LIST:
>Males with a female partner at all times - $50 per year
>Males without a full time female partner - $100 per year
Women can't be members?
From these calculations, should we conclude that you value a woman at
$50? < 1/2 :), but only half >
>TOPICS: Introduction to FRIENDS and the Polyamory Lifestyle, Breaking
>Barriers - An Introduction To Polyamory, Lifestyle discussion,
Um, polyamory is conspicuously absent from your fee structure, your
assumption that people come in sets of "male" or "male with female
partner," and your assumption of universal heterosexuality. How, then,
do you propose to introduce people to it? Is this post a call for
presenters?
>Get involved, join our club, make suggestions, be
>sociable, take classes, become a leader, help create the most pleasant,
>satisfying and emotionally fulfilling lifestyle club in Indiana. We are
I cannot help but feel that my assistance you do not want.
>4. We are following a European Lifestyle format where Sex among consenting
>adults is very normal and accepted by all. Intimate human contact and
>sexual behavior are just a part of life and so it is at FRIENDS also!
So I might pick up a cute guy there?
Mike & Marsha
one that appears!
----------------------------
Greetings from FRIENDS - A Group Experience
In Indianapolis, Indiana
This is a message to webbies, to let everyone in the Lovestyle/Lifestyle
that Rick Zado has attacked FRIENDS Poly Group in Indianapolis, Indiana for
no reason at all. FRIENDS has extended open arms to all lifestyle
individuals, no matter what gender combinations might be involved.
This sort of Low Life individual should be shamed off of the Web and banned
from any Lifestyle site.
He/She/It had to be threatened to quit harassing FRIENDS via E-mail.
Our Poly choice has brought many, many individuals together.
We hope that Poly people will banish this person from their sites and pass
this message along to other sites to let them know of this virus on the Web.
Warm Wishes and wet dreams,
Mike & Marsha
piranha
to alt.polyamory and emailed since i doubt the writer
does us the courtesy to actually _read_ alt.poly.]
In article <364B31A8...@indy.net>, Mud <In...@indy.net> wrote:
>Greetings From Indianapolis!
>
>READ CAREFULLY!
oh yeah. you bet.
>We have changed our club name. We are now called FRIENDS! We want to
>thank
>all who helped in making that name change and all the kind comments that
>came when we were in the decision making process.
what a lovely euphemism. "FRIENDS". the quakers will
be so pleased.
>INTRODUCTORY MEETING – Introduction to “FRIENDS” and the Polyamory
>Lifestyle.
why is this not a poly meeting? first give-away: the
euphemistic name of the group. second give-away: the
use of the term "lifestyle".
polyamory isn't a lifestyle, "friend" from indy. it's
never yet included the need for an interior decorator,
and one can't have a lifestyle without one, i believe.
>MEETING INFORMATION:
>WHO: ALL ARE INVITED – Couples, Single males & Single females
third give-away: no mention of non-dyadic polyamorous
relationships, like Vs, triads, quads.
>DRESS: Dress casual and free! You could end up sitting on the floor or
>on a
>bed. We have received questions about Ladies dressing provocatively.
>We
>welcome ladies to dress as they feel comfortable. Be as free as you
>like!
fourth give-away: ladies may dress provocatively. i
gather guys won't? and what does the way somebody
dresses have to do with polyamory? yeah, i can be
picked out on the street as a poly person because
i dress accordingly. *snort*.
fifth give-away: "females" and "ladies". there are
no women present in this "lifestyle".
>AFTER HOURS: An introduction to new THINGS. These THINGS are all
>intended
>to break down old mindsets that we have.
but only some of the old mindsets. like the ones
about sexual monogamy. not the ones about couple-
dom, or the ones about homosexuality. gotta be care-
ful or one might actually acquire some real insight.
and that could hurt. can't have it. shiny, happy
people who massage g-spots. maybe demonstrate a
sybian, eh?
how radical.
>We will discuss them and
>possibly
>try them as time and guests permit. They include: The Stroking
>Community,
>a group massage given to one person at a time, The Hug Circle, Hugs to
>break down barriers and build closeness and friendships, Free Flow, a
>group
>massage given to a lady that has a special need, G-Spot Massage, this
>needs
>no explanation.
no, indeed. basically you're talking about having sex,
tho you don't want to say it. what's the problem? say:
"we're gonna have sex! yay! it's gonna be great!" why
are you ashamed of admitting to sexual intimacy? why
the euphemisms?
and no men with special needs?
>MEETING PRICE: $25.00 PER MALE Ladies are Free!
as if we didn't know by now, this one is the kicker --
it costs $25 per man, but ladies are free (guess you're
having trouble attracting them, eh? all that special
g-spot massage not conducive enough?).
woowoo. sex discrimination really turns _me_ on, how
about you?
>MEMBERSHIP FEES LIST:
>Males with a female partner at all times - $50 per year
>Males without a full time female partner - $100 per year
so if you own a woman you can rent out, you get a
$50 discount. wow.
you're some FRIENDS, i can tell.
hint: don't post swinging announcements to alt.poly-
amory. most of us have no problem with your life-
style, but it's of no interest to those of us who're
polyamourous without being swingers. those two are
not the same, and the emperor is still naked, no mat-
ter how lovely a weave you spin with your euphemistic
invitation.
-piranha
------------------------------------------------------------------------
please help fight spam -- http://www.cauce.org
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Janet Hardy
Jill Lundquist wrote in message <72g4kh$hkl$1...@csnews.cs.colorado.edu>...
It is inappropriate to
>advertise swing clubs on alt.polyamory.
Is this written down somewhere?
Verdant
Jill Lundquist
don't read alt.swingers and don't want to encourage more of this kind
of crossposting]
In article <364B31A8...@indy.net>, Mud <In...@indy.net> wrote:
>Greetings From Indianapolis!
>
>READ CAREFULLY!
>We have changed our club name. We are now called FRIENDS!
>INTRODUCTORY MEETING – Introduction to “FRIENDS” and the Polyamory
>Lifestyle.
From the rest of your post it is eminently clear that you are a
swing club, not a polyamory group. It is inappropriate to
advertise swing clubs on alt.polyamory. Please do not do so again.
There are plenty of appropriate places to do so, and I'll let
the denizens of alt.swingers speak up about whether that is a
good place for them or not, and to suggest alternatives if not.
Also, I for one would be much happier if you would not use the word
"polyamory" to describe your group, since it is tremendously
misleading. The polyamory meetings and parties I've been to have had
more women than men, for one thing. I have also never seen sexual
activity at polyamory-oriented gatherings. I assume it happens from
time to time, though I haven't done it myself, but it is in private
if so.
The polyamory groups also have similar dress standards for women and
men, and in the relatively unusual instance that one must pay to go,
women and men are charged the same. I am _appalled_ that you are
charging people different amounts according to their sex, and
especially charging men more according to whether they happen to be
with a woman, in the name of polyamory. What about couples where
both people are men? Why double charge them? If that kind of
discrimination is legal where you live (it's not where I live), you
can certainly do it, but please don't call it polyamory.
>8. We are looking for help. We need couples and singles who want to
>become a part of this organization.
I am neither a couple nor a single, and hope not to be either again,
and I have met many others who are neither coupled nor single at --
you guessed it -- polyamorous organizations. This is just one of the
many many things that points away from your group being oriented
toward polyamory. Other than the discrimination against men in your
fee structure, I am okay with what you're doing, but it is misleading
to call yourselves a polyamory group. Why not embrace the perfectly
good word "swingers" or, if you don't like that word, find another
word or phrase that doesn't already mean something quite different?
--
Jill Lundquist ji...@cs.colorado.edu
"I mean, I LIKE flake-baggery and fruit-o-rama, but I like TOUGH-MINDED
flake-baggery and fruit-o-rama." -MWB
Jill Lundquist
In article <72fvgp$dvi$1...@news.iquest.net>,
Mike & Marsha <bitm...@iquest.net> wrote:
>This is a message to webbies, to let everyone in the Lovestyle/Lifestyle
>that Rick Zado has attacked FRIENDS Poly Group in Indianapolis, Indiana for
>no reason at all.
I read his post, and agree that it wasn't very clear. To clarify, he
objected to you misrepresenting your group as a polyamory-oriented
group. I hope that now that you understand the objection you will
find a better name for your group and stop posting swinger ads to
alt.polyamory.
>This sort of Low Life individual should be shamed off of the Web and banned
>from any Lifestyle site.
Um, I think you're overreacting a bit to a pretty mild flame.
bikerbabe in black leather
In article <72fvgp$dvi$1...@news.iquest.net>,
Mike & Marsha <bitm...@iquest.net> wrote:
>
>This is a message to webbies, to let everyone in the Lovestyle/Lifestyle
In the first place, this is USENET, not the web.
>that Rick Zado has attacked FRIENDS Poly Group in Indianapolis, Indiana for
>no reason at all.
In the second place, Rick was echoing a concern that many of us poly
folks has, and that's the fact that some swing groups are attempting
to "legitimize" their clubs (not that I think swinging isn't perfectly
legitimate) by saying they are all about polyamory.
Let's examine some differences, shall we?
All poly organizations I've encountered haven't worried about "gender
balance". Nor have they discriminated against men by charging them
more, or by turning them away when the perceived gender balance wasn't
optimal.
I've not encountered a poly organization that considered itself a
"pickup" place. While meeting poly folks has happened at poly get
togethers, it's not one of the focusses of the group.
Poly groups aren't couple-centric, and they aren't particularly
heterocentric.
Poly conventions have charged a very nominal membership to cover the
costs of the use of the facility and similar expenses, but don't have
someone profiting from them. Most poly groups don't charge money at
all.
Swingers clubs or groups do some or all of the above.
Now, you don't want to be called a swinging club, yet you use the same
terminology and euphemisms that swingers do, and you are practicing
gender discrimination and couple-centrism. On top of that add the
fact that you're charging a pretty good sum (and I suspect you're
profiting from it), and it makes you look like a slightly more liberal
swinging club. Nothing wrong with being so, but a lot of poly folks
are going to take issue with you calling yourself a poly club. I'm
one of those people. Once I became single, I was persona non grata
with many of the swingers I knew, and I don't want people with that
kind of mindset coopting the word poly for themselves because it
sounds more legitimate than swinging.
> FRIENDS has extended open arms to all lifestyle
>individuals, no matter what gender combinations might be involved.
>This sort of Low Life individual should be shamed off of the Web and banned
>from any Lifestyle site.
I doubt that banning Rick from a "Lifestyle" site will harm him much.
Remember, polyamory is not "The Lifestyle", nor does it use any
euphemisms to describe it.
>He/She/It had to be threatened to quit harassing FRIENDS via E-mail.
>Our Poly choice has brought many, many individuals together.
>We hope that Poly people will banish this person from their sites and pass
>this message along to other sites to let them know of this virus on the Web.
I hope not, since Rick expressed a sentiment echoed by many on this
USENET NEWSGROUP.
Really, please, check out www.polyamory.org (that's a web site. Not a
USENET site). Very carefully note that nowhere does it say anything
about the "Lifestyle".
Anmar, who guesses I've now made the "Lifestyle" blacklist. Oh well,
so much for getting back into swinging.
--
Anmar Mirza #Chief of Tranquility#I'm a cheap date, but an expensive pet.
EMT-D TBTW10#Base, Lawrence Co. #Road rage is a nice term for "immature."
N9ISY (tech)#Somewhere out on the# Have sawmill, will travel.
EOL DoD#1147#Mirza Ranch.#http://php.indiana.edu/~amirza/home.html
Mary Malmros
Janet Hardy <ver...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>Jill Lundquist wrote in message <72g4kh$hkl$1...@csnews.cs.colorado.edu>...
>
>>advertise swing clubs on alt.polyamory.
>
It is now.
--
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Mary Malmros Very Small Being mal...@shore.net
"They write books that contradict the rocks..."
Holly Wilper
>
> Jill Lundquist wrote in message <72g4kh$hkl$1...@csnews.cs.colorado.edu>...
>
> It is inappropriate to
> >advertise swing clubs on alt.polyamory.
>
> Is this written down somewhere?
>
It is written in more than one of the FAQs that personal ads are
inappropriate in alt.polyamory.
I don't know that anything is specifically said about swing clubs, but I
wonder if this add wouldn't come under the heading of "commercial
advertisement" anyway. Which, my limited knowledge of nettiquette says,
should be limited to the commercial newsgroups?
After all, $50 or $100 per year for a group that seems to just get a
hotel room for meetings sounds pretty commercial to me.
holly
Janet Hardy
Holly Wilper wrote in message <364C46...@uiuc.edu>...
>Janet Hardy wrote:
>>
>> Jill Lundquist wrote in message <72g4kh$hkl$1...@csnews.cs.colorado.edu>...
>>
>> It is inappropriate to
>> >advertise swing clubs on alt.polyamory.
>>
>> Is this written down somewhere?
>>
>
>It is written in more than one of the FAQs that personal ads are
>inappropriate in alt.polyamory.
Yes, and?...
>I don't know that anything is specifically said about swing clubs, but I
>wonder if this add wouldn't come under the heading of "commercial
>advertisement" anyway. Which, my limited knowledge of nettiquette says,
>should be limited to the commercial newsgroups?
>
>After all, $50 or $100 per year for a group that seems to just get a
>hotel room for meetings sounds pretty commercial to me.
Gee, alt.polycon was $30 for only one weekend, and nobody bitched about
that.
Look, if the charter is written so as to specifically prohibit this kind of
post, then I'd say you've got a legitimate beef. If not, then you're stuck
trying to distinguish between poly group meetings and swing club meetings --
a slope which innumerable threads of innumerable posts have shown to be
oil-slicked Teflon.
Verdant
Robin Lee Powell
>This is a message to webbies, to let everyone in the Lovestyle/Lifestyle
>individuals, no matter what gender combinations might be involved.
>This sort of Low Life individual should be shamed off of the Web and banned
>from any Lifestyle site.
Ummm, we're poly. Not swingers. It's not a lifestyle. Fuck off.
-Robin
PS: Yes, some of us are swingers, but that's not the point of the group.
--
My Home Page (Too Much Information!):http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/~rlpowell/
This above all: to thine ownself be true, And it must follow, as the night the
day, Thou canst not then be false to any man. Farewell: my blessing season
this in thee! -- Hamlet, Act 1 Scene 3
Louise
>INTRODUCTORY MEETING – Introduction to “FRIENDS” and the Polyamory
>Lifestyle.
Hello, Mike and Marsha.
The way your group is described in your recent postings, it does not
sound to me very typical of polyamory groups. People who come to your
group expecting something more like the poly social or support events
described on this newsgroup are likely to be disappointed, angry,
and/or extremely embarassed.
As well, it makes *me* angry that you are describing your group as a
"polyamory" group, especially since you mention that you are planning
to advertise in "main stream media". I would like to continue
describing myself and my relationship as polyamorous, without having
the people I'm talking to assume that I'm saying that I belong to a
sex club.
Please find some more accurate term to describe your club.
>5. Since we are NOT classified as an Adult club, we feel confident that
>we
>will be advertising in main stream media to contact others…….. so we
>need
>your help in shaping our plans and seek your advice and help as to
>direction
>and goal setting.
>6. We are serious about wanting your help.
My main advice is to be more honest about the purpose and emphasis of
your group. If you would like to understand more about what
polyamory really is, try reading this newsgroup for a while. [This is
a newsgroup, by the way. It is not a "site", and it is not "the
web". ]
Louise
Mary Malmros
Janet Hardy <ver...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>Holly Wilper wrote in message <364C46...@uiuc.edu>...
>>Janet Hardy wrote:
>>>
>>> Jill Lundquist wrote in message <72g4kh$hkl$1...@csnews.cs.colorado.edu>...
>>>
>>> It is inappropriate to
>>> >advertise swing clubs on alt.polyamory.
>>>
>>> Is this written down somewhere?
>>>
>>
>>It is written in more than one of the FAQs that personal ads are
>>inappropriate in alt.polyamory.
>
>
>Yes, and?...
Janet, what's your point? Why are you asking these questions?
Janet Hardy
> >>It is written in more than one of the FAQs that personal ads are
> >>inappropriate in alt.polyamory.
> >
> >Yes, and?...
>
> Janet, what's your point? Why are you asking these questions?
Because their post wasn't a personal ad, was no more a commercial ad than many
others that get posted here without question, and was in keeping, AFAIK, with
the group's charter -- except that it was posted by Nasty Icky Heterosexual
Swingers instead of Cool Groovy Bisexual Polyamorists.
I don't swing myself, and I haven't much enjoyed the vibe at the swing events
I've attended. But I don't think it's any great surprise to anyone here that I
find the boundary between polyamory and swinging to be a very soft one, and that
I think ethical swingers should have their own welcome place in the polyamory
tent.
Verdant
Adam Wasserman
wrote:
>the group's charter -- except that it was posted by Nasty Icky Heterosexual
>Swingers instead of Cool Groovy Bisexual Polyamorists.
I had perceived that the overall problem with this post is that many
people, yourself included, felt this group to be a swinger's thing,
and yet it was labled poly.
People did not want poly to be publicly associated with what might
really be swinging.
No?
Adam
--
"Bother," said Pooh, as Piglet stole his pocket money at knifepoint.
Dave in Phoenix
>I had perceived that the overall problem with this post is that many
>people, yourself included, felt this group to be a swinger's thing,
>and yet it was labled poly.
The group is for poly heterosexual couples group that includes sexuality as
part of real loving relationships. This is very different from recreational
sex of swingig.
Poly is never defined as just non-couple-centric or just non icky
heterosexuals or excluding sexuality as part of group activities. Amory is
simply based on "real" loving relationships...just what this group seeks.
Dave, Liberated Christians, Phoenix AZ
Christian Poly Resource Center at http://www.libchrist.com
Promoting Intimacy & Other-Centered Loving Sexuality
Sybian for Maximum G-spot orgasms for womens pleasure and therapy.
piranha
Janet Hardy <ver...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>Because their post wasn't a personal ad, was no more a commercial ad than many
>others that get posted here without question,
you totally missed the "membership" fee where men get a
discount for bringing a woman? and that the fee was a
tad high for sitting in a meeting room for a couple of
hours, talking about "polyamory"?
commercial, _and_ sex discrimination.
not that its commercialism was what turned me off most
-- the sex discrimination and gender balance and the
idea that women might want to dress "provocatively" is
_so_ not poly compared to any poly group i've ever been
with.
>and was in keeping, AFAIK, with
>the group's charter -- except that it was posted by Nasty Icky Heterosexual
>Swingers instead of Cool Groovy Bisexual Polyamorists.
by nasty, icky, hetero-centric swingers instead of cool
groovy inclusive, non-discriminatory swingers. you're
missing what's really important in distinguishing this
community from the sort of community indy seems to be
familiar with.
>I don't swing myself, and I haven't much enjoyed the vibe at the swing events
>I've attended. But I don't think it's any great surprise to anyone here that I
>find the boundary between polyamory and swinging to be a very soft one, and that
>I think ethical swingers should have their own welcome place in the polyamory
>tent.
"ethical" swinging to me means to not, as a community,
as an organization, discriminate against one gender,
or certain sexual orientations. that is the biggest
beef i've had with the crossovers like the liberated
christians. if it's a poly gathering, there is no
need whatsoever to say "hets only, and bi women", and
to charge more for single men. there is no need to
have a pretty close gender balance. we get together
to talk about poly stuff. i don't care whether the
folks i'm talking to are of the correct gender or the
appropriate sexual orientation.
i don't mind ethical swingers under the poly tent, tho
i actually see both swingers and polies together under
the responsible non-monogamy tent, but i do not think
it advances my interests in the least if swingers
start to call swing parties "poly meetings", sorry.
there is clearly a place for both swing parties and
poly meetings, i just don't want them confused. i do
not expect to do any acting at a meeting of the local
theatre appreciation group, you know?
Mary Malmros
>
>> >>It is written in more than one of the FAQs that personal ads are
>> >>inappropriate in alt.polyamory.
>> >
>> >Yes, and?...
>>
>> Janet, what's your point? Why are you asking these questions?
>
>the group's charter -- except that it was posted by Nasty Icky Heterosexual
>Swingers instead of Cool Groovy Bisexual Polyamorists.
>
>I've attended. But I don't think it's any great surprise to anyone here that I
>find the boundary between polyamory and swinging to be a very soft one, and that
>I think ethical swingers should have their own welcome place in the polyamory
>tent.
Urm, well...maybe so, but this is a newsgroup, not a tent. It's got a FAQ,
it's got threads, it's got ongoing discussions, it's got its own culture
and no particular obligation to be caring sharing all-inclusive of anyone
who wants to label what they do as "polyamory". People responded to the
ad as they did for their own set of reasons (me, I responded to the whinging
about the criticisms of the ad), but mostly it seemed to me that they were
pointing out some of the hypocrisy and deceptiveness and bigoted practices
implicit or explicit in the ad. If that's something tt Cool Groovy Bisexal
Polyamorists do, then I say rah for the Cool Groovy Bisexual Polyamorists.
Jim Roberts
real issue, so pay attention to HER, and stop your rants. Read her posts and think
about them, instead of merely glancing at them and going off, which is the worst
habit of the most prolific posters to this group. Read and think.
The rest of you have confused your personal tastes on the offending post (which are
much the same as mine) with the RULES for this newsgroup as expressed in the FAQs.
If a post does not conflict with the stated rules for the newsgroup, then you are out
of line to flame them in principle. A bit of unhealthy megalomania or group
possessiveness seems to infect you. This is an international Internet newsgroup, not
a private pen-pal group.
It seems to me that, unless precisely and explicitly distinguished from it, swinging
fits under polyamory, though not polyfidelity. I take it from Janet's posts that no
one posting to this group has successfully done that yet. We have a lot of
poly*in*fidelitous persons posting to this group, if the posts are taken literally.
If this group is only to be for the polyfidelitous, then we drop over half the
current active posters. So are we to become Leninist Splittists, Big Tenters, or
does someone have the guts to define swinging and define it out out of polyamory, or
shall we just take a vote on the issue?
My recommendation (which won't be read by most of the posters to this thread, since
they have put me in their killfiles) is that Janet post a statement on some possible
distinction between polyamory and swinging and call for a vote on whether to be
splittists or big tenters.
jimbat
Janet Hardy
Adam Wasserman wrote in message <364d482f...@news.supernews.com>...
>People did not want poly to be publicly associated with what might
>really be swinging.
>
>No?
*Some* people don't. Others don't care. Still others feel that ethical
non-monogamy is ethical non-monogamy, and that we need all the advocates we
can get in a hostile and oppressive universe.
Verdant
Janet Hardy
>In article <364CDB09...@earthlink.net>,
>Janet Hardy <ver...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>Because their post wasn't a personal ad, was no more a commercial ad than
many
>>others that get posted here without question,
>
> discount for bringing a woman? and that the fee was a
> tad high for sitting in a meeting room for a couple of
> hours, talking about "polyamory"?
I paid about that much last year so that my partner and I could sit in a
meeting room in Oakland doing exactly that. A lot of you were there. A few
of you were running the event.
As for the sex discrimination, I'm certainly willing to agree that it's a
suboptimal way of solving a genuine problem (IME, any sexually oriented
event open to the general public is going to have a gender balance problem),
and to discuss other options.
.
> not that its commercialism was what turned me off most
> -- the sex discrimination and gender balance and the
> idea that women might want to dress "provocatively" is
> _so_ not poly compared to any poly group i've ever been
> with.
What if it had been an all-men's or all-women's gathering? Gay men have been
doing ethical poly since before you and I were born. *And* they discriminate
on the basis of gender, *and* they dress provocatively. Would such an
announcement be unwelcome here?
>>and was in keeping, AFAIK, with
>>the group's charter -- except that it was posted by Nasty Icky
Heterosexual
>>Swingers instead of Cool Groovy Bisexual Polyamorists.
>
> by nasty, icky, hetero-centric swingers instead of cool
> groovy inclusive, non-discriminatory swingers. you're
> missing what's really important in distinguishing this
> community from the sort of community indy seems to be
> familiar with.
I see a very similar sort of discrimination going on here, except it's based
on being Our Sort Of People -- e.g., pagan college-educated SCAish bisexual
science-fiction-reading netfolk who work in high-tech, who I suspect
constitute a clear majority of posters to alt.poly. Since I fit only a
couple of those categories, *I* feel less than totally welcome here.
If that's really the sort of newsgroup you want, where we all pat each other
on the back and tell each other how groovy and inclusive we are, okey-doke.
Me, I'd rather learn from those who *aren't* the same as me, who may have
come up with ideas and solutions I haven't tried yet.
> "ethical" swinging to me means to not, as a community,
> as an organization, discriminate against one gender,
> or certain sexual orientations. that is the biggest
> beef i've had with the crossovers like the liberated
> christians.
My greatest area of experience is in the BDSM community, where I've found
that any event open to the general public is likely to draw from two to five
times as many men as women. If there is the slightest expectation of play
and/or sex with the women, the men are likely to compete in various subtle
and non-subtle ways ranging from aggressive cruising to outright physical
violence -- *not* a recipe for a safe or fun event.
I haven't found that charging extra for men is a good solution to that
problem -- it simply ensures that the men who *do* attend are even more
desperate (and feel even more entitled) than they would be otherwise. The
long-term answer is to recruit women -- these days, in the Bay Area BDSM
community, we're probably seeing more new women showing up than men, and
gender balance is seldom a serious problem at events which require any sort
of screening (orientations, referrals et al). The short-term answer may be
to admit only enough single men to balance out the single women in
attendance, or some other such solution.
if it's a poly gathering, there is no
> need whatsoever to say "hets only, and bi women", and
> to charge more for single men. there is no need to
> have a pretty close gender balance. we get together
> to talk about poly stuff. i don't care whether the
> folks i'm talking to are of the correct gender or the
> appropriate sexual orientation.
Really? You'd feel comfortable talking about your innermost poly problems in
a group of ten men in which you were the only woman?
And perhaps it *is* true that their events include the possibility, or even
the likelihood, of sex. So what? What on earth is wrong with the idea of
friendly recreational sex? And how would you suggest that a mixed-gender
group that wants to promote such sex make it feel safe for the women there?
> i don't mind ethical swingers under the poly tent, tho
> i actually see both swingers and polies together under
> the responsible non-monogamy tent, but i do not think
> it advances my interests in the least if swingers
> start to call swing parties "poly meetings", sorry.
> there is clearly a place for both swing parties and
> poly meetings, i just don't want them confused. i do
> not expect to do any acting at a meeting of the local
> theatre appreciation group, you know?
So poly, by your definition, is all talk, no action? Seems to me I remember
some posts in the wake of the last alt.polycon that would indicate
otherwise...
Verdant
Janet Hardy
Jim Roberts wrote in message <364D932C...@erols.com>...
>My recommendation (which won't be read by most of the posters to this
thread, since
>they have put me in their killfiles) is that Janet post a statement on some
possible
>distinction between polyamory and swinging and call for a vote on whether
to be
>splittists or big tenters.
<plaintively> Why do you hate me so, Jim?
Verdant
John Palmer
wrote:
>On Fri, 13 Nov 1998 17:21:13 -0800, Janet Hardy <ver...@earthlink.net>
>wrote:
>
>>the group's charter -- except that it was posted by Nasty Icky Heterosexual
>>Swingers instead of Cool Groovy Bisexual Polyamorists.
>
>I had perceived that the overall problem with this post is that many
>people, yourself included, felt this group to be a swinger's thing,
>and yet it was labled poly.
>
>People did not want poly to be publicly associated with what might
>really be swinging.
I think it's more the deceptiveness that set people off. "We're
a swing club. . . oh, but please don't call us that, even though we
give no indication of understanding polyamory; call us a polyamory
club!"
--
"Everything I needed to know in life, I learned in
kindergarten. Like: morality must exist beyond the
purview of a deity if morality is to have a meaning
beyond tyranny.
Adam Wasserman
<ver...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Adam Wasserman wrote in message <364d482f...@news.supernews.com>...
>
>>People did not want poly to be publicly associated with what might
>>really be swinging.
>>
>>No?
>
>*Some* people don't. Others don't care. Still others feel that ethical
Well, I thought it was obvious from my context that
a) I know that it is *some*
b) that I was specifically referring to the posters making fun of
FRIENDS
>non-monogamy is ethical non-monogamy, and that we need all the advocates we
>can get in a hostile and oppressive universe.
This just YA variation on the swing vs. poly thread that is a meme
that Just Won't Die. It's like some horror film like Terminator where
the monster keeps coming back every time it is destroyed.
It is abundantly clear to me that we have several different "camps" if
you will, and that attempts to convert or convince are pretty futile.
It is a good place to disagree agreeably if I ever saw one.
I am sorry that your universe is hostile and oppressive (really), mine
is not. I got plenty of room in mine, so you are all invited. :-)
Mary Malmros
Janet Hardy <ver...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>Adam Wasserman wrote in message <364d482f...@news.supernews.com>...
>
>>People did not want poly to be publicly associated with what might
>>really be swinging.
>>
>>No?
>
>
>*Some* people don't. Others don't care. Still others feel that ethical
...and maybe someone should newgroup alt.ethical.non-monogamy?
Not religious either way, just reacting to a jerking knee, I think,
Mary Malmros
Janet Hardy <ver...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>piranha wrote in message <72k1oh$kfc$1...@excalibur.gooroos.com>...
>>In article <364CDB09...@earthlink.net>,
>>Janet Hardy <ver...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>>and was in keeping, AFAIK, with
>>>the group's charter -- except that it was posted by Nasty Icky
>Heterosexual
>>>Swingers instead of Cool Groovy Bisexual Polyamorists.
>>
>> by nasty, icky, hetero-centric swingers instead of cool
>> groovy inclusive, non-discriminatory swingers. you're
>> missing what's really important in distinguishing this
>> community from the sort of community indy seems to be
>> familiar with.
>
>
>I see a very similar sort of discrimination going on here, except it's based
>on being Our Sort Of People -- e.g., pagan college-educated SCAish bisexual
>science-fiction-reading netfolk who work in high-tech, who I suspect
>constitute a clear majority of posters to alt.poly. Since I fit only a
>couple of those categories, *I* feel less than totally welcome here.
>
>If that's really the sort of newsgroup you want, where we all pat each other
>on the back and tell each other how groovy and inclusive we are, okey-doke.
>Me, I'd rather learn from those who *aren't* the same as me, who may have
>come up with ideas and solutions I haven't tried yet.
Perhps, then, you might want to walk your talk and try learning from some
of those pagan college-educated SCAish bisexual science-fiction-reading
netfolk who work in high-tech who, according to you, "constitute a clear
majority of the posters on alt.poly". Honestly, Verdant, it seems to me
that many of your posts are either attempting to remake this newsgroup
in your image, or chiding us for not being more like Your Kind Of People.
It goes both ways, ya know.
Jim Roberts
Janet Hardy wrote:
Well, actually I like green, lush things, which this newsgroup isn't. It's
very, very predictable, and therefore is boring to those who aren't into
watching the poor things at play.
I thought you might enjoy some net-bondage 8^)> I've enjoyed some of that
myself. You seem to be the only person with the experience and brains to handle
the job, so go get 'em Ms Goodwill Ambassador.
jimbat
Jjim
many
with
>the group's charter -- except that it was posted by Nasty Icky Heterosexual
>Swingers instead of Cool Groovy Bisexual Polyamorists.
While I think your questions are very appropriate, I'm not sure the answers
you're assuming and trying to lead toward are.
Yes - the FAQ probably doesn't specifically exclude posting of swingers
meetings. Truthfully I've never read the FAQ. I've been on USENET a long
time, and I find that if I follow the general rule that was around long
before most of you were and long before most of the FAQs were created,
things are ok. That rule was: stay on topic. If you have something to say on
another topic, move it to a newsgroup that is about that topic.
Cross-posting to both the topic newsgroup and another group that might have
SOME interest is not within that rule - that's what was called spam before
the media hijacked that term to mean "anything commercial and bad on the
'net". The people crossover, not the messages - people who have both
interests join both groups.
So this group is about polyamory. I'm a relative newcomer to both the group
and the topic, but to me that's about many loves. Not about lots of open sex
with friends and acquaintances. Sure there is a large intersection - many
poly people are swingers and many swingers are poly. Those who intersect
should read both newsgroups. That does not mean that both newsgroups should
become the same - they are DIFFERENT topics (with some intersection).
Let me put it this way - I like working on cars. There are other poly people
in this newsgroup who like working on cars also. Therefore, poly is about
working on cars, and we should discuss it here.
doesn't work, does it? So why does it seem to work with swinging for some
people?
Back to the original ad - the part that offends me is that they are not
willing to say what they are. IMHO, there is NOTHING wrong with swinging. So
why are these people who are throwing a swinging party so embarrassed by it
that they have to call it something else? If you're that embarrassed by it,
you have no business starting your own group. Get comfortable with it before
you start purporting to help others with it. And don't start hijacking
titles from other groups. SOME poly people are swingers, but not ALL poly
people, so it's not fair to them to start using the names as if they were
synonymous.
jim
Michael Snyder
Janet Hardy wrote in message <364CDB09...@earthlink.net>...
>Mary Malmros wrote:
>
>> >>It is written in more than one of the FAQs that personal ads are
>> >>inappropriate in alt.polyamory.
>> >
>> >Yes, and?...
>>
>
>Because their post wasn't a personal ad, was no more a commercial ad than
many
>others that get posted here without question, and was in keeping, AFAIK,
with
>the group's charter -- except that it was posted by Nasty Icky Heterosexual
>Swingers instead of Cool Groovy Bisexual Polyamorists.
>
events
>I've attended. But I don't think it's any great surprise to anyone here
that I
>find the boundary between polyamory and swinging to be a very soft one, and
that
>I think ethical swingers should have their own welcome place in the
polyamory
>tent.
Way cool -- I thought I was the only one who thought so.
Michael Snyder
Mary Malmros wrote in message <72k420$o...@northshore.shore.net>...
>Urm, well...maybe so, but this is a newsgroup, not a tent. It's got a FAQ,
>it's got threads, it's got ongoing discussions, it's got its own culture
>and no particular obligation to be caring sharing all-inclusive of anyone
>who wants to label what they do as "polyamory".
Seems to me you can get flamed around here for being
"un-inclusive" toward gays, bis or people of other races.
How come it's mainly het swingers whom we're not under any
particular obligation to be inclusive to?
> People responded to the
>ad as they did for their own set of reasons (me, I responded to the
whinging
>about the criticisms of the ad),
With good reason ...
>but mostly it seemed to me that they were
>pointing out some of the hypocrisy and deceptiveness and bigoted practices
>implicit or explicit in the ad.
With good reason.
But there's a way in which one can point out failings
that says "keep trying, we know you can do better",
and there's a way that says "go away, we don't want
YOUR kind around here!".
Jim Roberts
Mary Malmros wrote:
[Janet's quoted stuff deleted]
>
> Perhps, then, you might want to walk your talk and try learning from some
> of those pagan college-educated SCAish bisexual science-fiction-reading
> netfolk who work in high-tech who, according to you, "constitute a clear
> majority of the posters on alt.poly". Honestly, Verdant, it seems to me
> that many of your posts are either attempting to remake this newsgroup
> in your image, or chiding us for not being more like Your Kind Of People.
> It goes both ways, ya know.
The usual cliched, unresponsive - indeed deliberately so - post from the PC
club. Mary, you aren't responding to anything Janet actually wrote but only to
your own demons. *Pay attention, listen up.*
I can't think what "those pagan college-educated SCAish bisexual
science-fiction-reading
netfolk who work in high-tech" might possibly have to teach those of us who read
others' posts with understanding and who think with some sort of clarity about
things that are real, unless they follow their own advice and *learn from us*!
jimbat
Janet Hardy
Mary Malmros wrote in message <72kigb$8...@northshore.shore.net>...
>In article <72kdbs$7g0$1...@ash.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
>Janet Hardy <ver...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>If that's really the sort of newsgroup you want, where we all pat each
other
>>on the back and tell each other how groovy and inclusive we are,
okey-doke.
>>Me, I'd rather learn from those who *aren't* the same as me, who may have
>>come up with ideas and solutions I haven't tried yet.
>
>Perhps, then, you might want to walk your talk and try learning from some
>of those pagan college-educated SCAish bisexual science-fiction-reading
>netfolk who work in high-tech who, according to you, "constitute a clear
>majority of the posters on alt.poly".
Don't need to -- almost everybody I know in meatlife fits that description.
(Remember, I'm part of the Bay Area BDSM community.)
Honestly, Verdant, it seems to me
>that many of your posts are either attempting to remake this newsgroup
>in your image, or chiding us for not being more like Your Kind Of People.
>It goes both ways, ya know.
My Kind Of People? You mean I'm going to start my own NG for plump
perimenopausal polymorphously perverse publishers (alliteration!) who are
mothers of young adult children? Fat fucking chance.
I'd rather just hang out somewhere where multiple points of view and life
histories are welcome.
Verdant
bogus
lifestyles?
Louise wrote in message <364d755...@news.cgocable.net>...
s...@bob.eecs.berkeley.edu
I've run into more than a couple polyamorists who believe that
once you make the transition from "polyamory" to "polyamory
events" you have already moved somewhat in the direction of
swinging. The belief is there's a pretty big distinction between
being poly in your relationships; and attending poly events,
since in the latter scenario the expectation is that there is
some incidence of flirting with new people, meeting potential new
partners, and so forth. These are social activities that, like
swinging, are compatible with, but not a necessary part of, being
polyamorist.
(Note: I don't find this line of reasoning totally accurate myself,
but that's somewhat besides the point.)
Viewed in this way, if alt.poly were purely a discussion group,
then fencing off discussion of swinging, and certainly swing
events, would be appropriate. But since alt.poly also serves as
a forum for announcing and even organizing poly events, if you
start trying to fence off swing events as opposed to poly events,
then you usually find yourself being exclusionary primarly on the
basis of stylistic differences. And at that point, the attempts
at exclusion start to look pretty silly, to some.
Steve
Dave in Phoenix
>What is 'Polyamory' and what are the differences between it and 'Swinging'
>lifestyles?
Polyamory vs. Swinging
There is a BIG difference in philosophy between traditional "playcouple"
swinging and real polyamous relationships. Both are very legitimate, but I
am much more interested in polyamory than just the fun of playing in
swinging. However at times, the difference can be more of attitude and they
overlap in many areas. Also some people may want polyamory relationships
with some people, and just swinging play with others.
Many swingers are really looking for polyamory, but since swing clubs and
swing publications are far more numerous than polyamory, many people looking
for real relationships identify with swingers but seek more than what
traditional swinging offers. This is especially true of couples who only
want to meet other couples for a more meaningful relationship that may
include picnics and non sexual activities with the entire family. Swinging
is virtually exclusively couples, other than groups out to make money off of
the many single men who just want to watch people have sex. Polyamory groups
are often open to all, although many groups seek relative gender balance.
The "Playcouple" Foundation of Swinging
Traditional swinging is based on the "Playcouple" philosophy which was
coined and is promoted by The Lifestyle Organization and NASCA, which is the
largest worldwide organization for "the Playcouples of the World". As one
traditional swing leader said in an article The Swinging Couple, "The key
to successful swinging is to remain "uninvolved" and to only have a
recreational sex, short-term attitude. You play the game, then disconnect
and go home with your primary partner. Swinging is not about personal sex,
which is what a couple have in their own, private, one-on-one relationship.
It is instead, about recreational friendly sex. Swinging is about protecting
our relationships not risking them. Approached as recreational activity
there, is no more risk than you find in a mixed bowling league or at a
Saturday night card club... just far more pleasure, excitement and
stimulation."
Often however swingers that are seeking more "real" loving polyamory
relationships are disappointed that many poly people tend to not be sexual
enough. Many couples enjoy the sexuality of swinging but want to include
more real love...but not at the exclusion of casual sexual sharing with a
wider range of "loving" real friendships. What they seek is very different
than just "playcouple" swinging.
Couple-Centric & Bisexual Issues
Whether swingers or poly, many (and in our experience almost all) couples
seek other couples. They often want to relate as couple friends not just sex
buddies. Couples are heterosexual with bi females very welcome but bi
males, for HIV and other reasons often have to be in the closet. This is
not fair since many bi males are not anally active and often are more safe
sex conscious than most couples. But the fact is the only ever known HIV
case in swinging was the result of a bi male having anal intercourse with
women and giving them HIV.
The couple-centric nature is almost forced on swinging due to the huge
oversupply of single men interested in sex, and virtually no single women
(until they are first in a solid prime relationship as a couple). Also
single men tend to be desperate for sex, while couples often seek emotional
and physical intimacy not just sex. The couple-centric nature also helps
overcome jealously issues. Once in a group we encourage couples not just to
be couples but individuals free to relate to others as people, since it is
so hard to find 4 people that are compatible. But this is much different
than allowing in single men who have no prime relationship.
Many polyamory folks (see alt.polyamory newsgroup) tend to get very upset
with ideas of having gender balance or excluding anyone. Therefore, they
tend to attract the bi males that swingers reject. Recently the small, and
only poly group in Phoenix, The Phoenix Community, to expand its members
decided to participate in the Gay Pride parade and seek alliance with more
bisexual groups. However it appear they then lost their support from
heterosexuals and the group no longer exists. We totally support gays in
all ways, including our extensive biblical support. But at Liberated
Christians, we find gender balance is important not couple relationships.
However, the practical results of this has been the same as with most all
swing groups - couples and singles women welcome but single males only if
there are single females available, which seldom ever happens. Some single
women, wind up coupled by bringing in a male relationship.
It is interesting that studies of sexual orientation in North America come
up with men tending to identify at the polar extremes -fully heterosexual or
fully homosexual - while women cluster more in the middle of the scale -
bisexual
In the mainstream population, bi women fall into the "arousing sex toy"
category these days, as long as nobody messes with the larger societal
structure (i.e. occasional threesomes are OK as long as everybody still gets
married). Bi men are still in the "that's pretty gross" category. We try
and "preach" acceptance of all to overcome these repressive ideas.
There are exceptions and I'd love to see how a more open group can avoid the
too much male energy problem since I would prefer this over couples only.
But here in Phoenix we tracked 2500 replies to us and found the ratio as 200
single males for 20 couples for 1-2 single females (some were dominatrix's
looking for male slaves!).
At Liberated Christians we totally support swinging, but our real interest
is real intimacy, polyamory and overcoming jealousy by love not by avoiding
any real intimacy. But this is much harder than just having recreational
sex with relative strangers.
"Love" Makes The Difference
The difference between traditional swinging and polyamory is the word "love"
(amory). The "love" doesn't have to even involve a long-term commitment.
Although some would disagree this is "love"; I can honestly love the spirit
and soul of a person I've just met. If a women wants to share sensual or
sexual pleasure as two wonderful human souls for the moment it can be very
loving, even if its just for a one time pleasure sharing experience. But
some of us also want long-term lasting loving friendships that unlike most
of our regular friends, can also include wonderful sexual pleasure sharing.
Dangerous To Weak Relationships
Both swinging and polyamory can be dangerous to your prime relationship if
your relationship is not built on a firm foundation of true love and honest
communications. In polyamory, you may have all equal relationships or you
may have a prime and other secondary relationships. Open relationships
magnify existing conditions within a relationship. If trust, love,
commitment and openness exist, then the relationship is usually further
strengthened. If, however, there is jealousy, insecurity and lack of honest
communications, these problems will be painfully magnified in an open
lifestyle. Working through these problems, however, in an open lifestyle,
can help all aspects of the relationship, since issues may come up that are
never dealt with otherwise. I've seen many examples of this happening and
sometimes relationships break up because of these issues. But that may even
be good, since it uncovered problems that may have eventually doomed the
relationship anyway.
Women, typically but not always, are the most reluctant to explore open
relationships. However, once exposed to loving intimacy and perhaps sexual
variety in safe, caring groups, they often become the strongest supporters
of the lifestyle. The joke in swinging is that its the man who drags the
woman into the lifestyle and also the man who has to drag her away from the
swing club. Often it is the man who becomes more possessive and jealous.
"Responsible" Non-monogamy
"Responsible, particularly in the context of talking about responsible
non-monogamy, which includes swinging, has to do with responsibility to
one's partners and to agreements that one has with them, especially with
your primary relationship. Responsible means honestly in communications,
not cheating, as well as being responsible for protecting against pregnancy
or STD's. It means both being responsible for YOU to say NO, if you don't
want to do something and the responsibility to respect the desires of your
various partners.
"Conscious" vs "Assumptive" Relationships
In our Phoenix group, especially from our communications workshops one big
benefit for people exploring responsible, non-monogamy has been that it
forces us into in "conscious relating" especially to our primary
relationship or spouse, based on honesty not just the usual "assumptive
relationships". Too often in relationships, little honest communication
takes place about jealousy for example. This is because these ideas are
never challenged in a traditional monogamous relationships until cheating
occurs which is often devastating to the relationship. Open relationships
force couples to deal with these issues and be conscious of them instead of
just assuming the other will never have an interest in anyone else. Many
couples tell me, by dealing with these issues honestly, it has made their
relationship much stronger.
Prime Resources For Polyamory & Swinging Information
Swinging
We have a very good relationship with The Lifestyles Organization, have
presented at Lifestyle conventions, and get many referrals from them,
especially regarding Christian issues. We also present at many other swing
conventions. We totally support swinging, even though it is not our primary
interest. In addition to our extensive swinging section of our web site,
and the many links we have, we primarily refer you to The Lifestyles
Organization at http://www.Playcouples.com.
Polyamory
In addition to our workshops, and vast materials on web site, we highly
recommend publications of Loving More, especially:
The New Love Without Limits by Dr. Deborah Anapol. This book is "must have"
reading for anyone interested in a polyamous lifestyle. Deborah and Loving
More teamed up to reprint this original classic, now with updated chapters,
resources, and new material combined with the best of the original book.
Perhaps the most widely read book on polyamory ever and certainly one of the
best.
Loving More-The Polyfidelity Primer by Ryam Nearing Ryam's classic "how to"
on group marriage and poly relationships in general. Focused primarily on
polyfidelity with many good tips, worksheets, and advice on how to start a
local group. Very good definitions of different styles of poly
relationships.
Both books as well as Loving More Magazine are available at
http://www.lovemore.com
Dave in Phoenix
>can get in a hostile and oppressive universe.
Good point. It always amazes me on this NG that there are so many attacts
over different types of poly when you should be supportive of all forms of
responsible non-monogamy as a legitimate moral CHOICE aainst the rest of the
monogamous world.
But in this group people have a very narrow definition of polyamory (having
to be all inclusive) which is not found at all in the traditional accepted
meanings of poly which is better refelected by simply "Loving More"....
It's the love that makes it poly not swinging. But can be loving other
couples, other heterosexual couples etc., its still polyamory.
Dave in Phoenix
> if swingers
> start to call swing parties "poly meetings", sorry.
> there is clearly a place for both swing parties and
> poly meetings, i just don't want them confused.
Interesting the well meaning Friends Club is being attacked in alt.swingers
because they are poly just as you attacking them for being swingers. And all
they want to do is bring folks together in love and peace yet many both
swingers and poly's attack them.
================
Here is the attack from the swinging side posted in alt.swingers:
"You seem to be very confused as to the news group. The title is
alt.swingers, not alt. polyamory yes we know your cross posting we'll get
to that later and from your attitude we question whether you belong here at
all. Your opinon of swingers seems to be in conflict with this news group
and we find it rather insulting. We don't condemn your choice of lifestyle
why should you look down your nose at swingers. "(Ummm, we're poly. Not
swingers. It's not a lifestyle. Fuck off. -Robin)" And if you think that
poly isn't a lifestyle then you need to go back to school. There are a lot
of good poly groups out there like "Synergy" from what you have displayed
with your attitude yours is not one of them.
So keep your posts to alt.polyamory. we'll keep ours to alt.swingers.
We don't wish you any luck with your venture as you will surely cause more
problems than anything else for the poly lifestyle."
GnK Freedom Acres Devore, Ca
END OF alt.swinger post.. making it clear that was not me, just showing the
problems in both groups.
Mary Malmros
Dave in Phoenix <dav...@primenet.com> wrote:
>"Janet Hardy" <ver...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> Still others feel that ethical
>>non-monogamy is ethical non-monogamy, and that we need all the advocates we
>>can get in a hostile and oppressive universe.
>
>Good point. It always amazes me on this NG that there are so many attacts
>over different types of poly when you should be supportive of all forms of
>responsible non-monogamy as a legitimate moral CHOICE aainst the rest of the
>monogamous world.
I'm gonna be devil's advocate, because I hate being told what I "should"
do or what I "should" think or what my stance on an issue 'should" be.
Why "should" I be "supportive of all forms of responsible non-monogamy"?
For that matter, why "should" I be "against the rest of the monogamous
world"?
Honestly, I'm tired of being fellow-travelered. I'm tired of going to
gay pride rallies and being accosted by members of the Socialist Workers'
Party who tell me that "OF COURSE we're on the same side, and OF COURSE
time and money and support that you give to us is really just the same
as time and money and support that you give to gay causes, only it's
not so appallingly _narrow_ (jeez why can't You People learn to think
_global_ fermarxsakes)." I understand solidarity and making common
cause, so please don't talk down to me like I'm some wet-behind-the-ears
wanna-be "different" alienated teenager. I'm just tired of being
lectured and bullied and shanghaied into supporting other people's
agenda, when they don't even have the respect for _me_ to let me
decide whether it's my agenda as well.
Mary Malmros
Michael Snyder <msn...@cygnus.com> wrote:
>
>Mary Malmros wrote in message <72k420$o...@northshore.shore.net>...
>>Urm, well...maybe so, but this is a newsgroup, not a tent. It's got a FAQ,
>>it's got threads, it's got ongoing discussions, it's got its own culture
>>and no particular obligation to be caring sharing all-inclusive of anyone
>>who wants to label what they do as "polyamory".
>
>Seems to me you can get flamed around here for being
>"un-inclusive" toward gays, bis or people of other races.
>How come it's mainly het swingers whom we're not under any
>particular obligation to be inclusive to?
How 'bout you sweep up after your strawman? Sexual orientation and
race have no bearing on whether one is or isn't polyamorous; a gay
polyamorous organization is still a polyamorous organization. A
swing club is not; and a swing club that claims to be all-inclusive,
but that betrays its het bias, is going to get justly flamed
for hypocrisy.
bogus
lifestyles?
Mary Malmros
>>I'm gonna be devil's advocate, because I hate being told what I "should"
>>do or what I "should" think or what my stance on an issue 'should" be.
>>Why "should" I be "supportive of all forms of responsible non-monogamy"?
>>For that matter, why "should" I be "against the rest of the monogamous
>>world"?
>
>
>Your personal agenda and interests may be more important than supporting all
>forms of responsible non-monomgany or polyamory in a monogamous world.
>
>I guess I was too idealistic to think the various groups should cooperate
>instead of fight and show the world the similarities in positive sexuality,
>honestly in open relationships vs cheating etc.
Yeah, you were. Idealistic Dave! Look at him, all bold and noble and
covered with battle scars! While the rest of us sit back on our asses
and click the remote, he's out there fighting the good fight. Certainly
none of us who aren't right in lockstep with Dave have ever done a friggin'
thing for cooperation amongst people of minority sexualities. Why, it's
obvious! If we had, we'd be right there marching along with him while
he calls the cadence!
>But you are certainly correct you have the right to fight other poly's whose
>interest you don't like.
Oh, what a piece of work.
And where did I say that I wanted to or DID do that?
You're either an idjit or you're about the most intellectually dishonest
person I've ever encountered, Dave.
Mary Malmros
>>polyamorous organization is still a polyamorous organization. A
>>swing club is not;
>
>
>>and a swing club that claims to be all-inclusive,
>>but that betrays its het bias, is going to get justly flamed
>>for hypocrisy.
>
Dave, if I describe a loaf of bread and call it a sirloin steak, I hope
you've got the smarts to figure it out.
Janet Hardy
Mary Malmros wrote in message <72l77f$3...@northshore.shore.net>...
>In article <72kkho$on8$1...@cronkite.cygnus.com>,
>Michael Snyder <msn...@cygnus.com> wrote:
>>
>>Seems to me you can get flamed around here for being
>>"un-inclusive" toward gays, bis or people of other races.
>>How come it's mainly het swingers whom we're not under any
>>particular obligation to be inclusive to?
>
>How 'bout you sweep up after your strawman? Sexual orientation and
>polyamorous organization is still a polyamorous organization....
Even if it excludes people who are not of the same gender as the other
attendees? How about if it excludes bisexuals?
A
>swing club is not; and a swing club that claims to be all-inclusive,
>but that betrays its het bias, is going to get justly flamed
>for hypocrisy.
Certainly, a claim for all-inclusiveness paired with rejection of some
potential members is contradictory, and a group that makes both statements
should have that contradiction pointed out to it. However, it's a long step
from "your claims are contradictory" to "you don't belong here, go away."
Verdant
Janet Hardy
bearpaw wrote in message ...
>3) There is no valid rational reason that I have ever seen for limiting
> membership of any polyamory support/social group to any particular
> orientation.
Would you feel that way about an all-male or all-female poly group?
Verdant
bogus
Dave in Phoenix
> i don't care whether the
> folks i'm talking to are of the correct gender or the
> appropriate sexual orientation.
Where is polyamory defined as mixing all genders and sexual orientations?
You are trying to redefine poly based on your interests.
Some in this group people have a very narrow definition of polyamory (having
to be all inclusive) which is not found at all in the traditional accepted
meanings of poly which is better described by simply "Loving More".... It's
the love that makes it poly not non-emotional, recreational sport sex of
swinging. Loving other couples, seeking other heterosexual couples and
seeking to grow in love and express love at different levels, sexually even
in a group certainly is polyamory. Except by your own personal definition.
bearpaw
>Good point. It always amazes me on this NG that there are so many attacts
>over different types of poly when you should be supportive of all forms of
>monogamous world.
>
>But in this group people have a very narrow definition of polyamory (having
>to be all inclusive) which is not found at all in the traditional accepted
Wow, a flashback. I haven't seen you post this bit of (intentional?)
confusion in a while. But perhaps I haven't been paying attention ...
1) Specific polyamorous relationships can include people of whatever
sexual orientations they happen to be.
2) Polyamory, as a *term*, is not exclusive of people based on their
orientation.
3) There is no valid rational reason that I have ever seen for limiting
membership of any polyamory support/social group to any particular
orientation. ("Because we aren't comfortable with queers, and don't
want to be 'forced' to be around them" is *not* a valid rational
reason. It's an *irrational* reason.)
Gosh, some of us are not "inclusive" enough to refrain from commenting
on yet another example of heterocentric exclusion. My heart friggin'
bleeds. I don't have a narrow definition of polyamory, Davy ... I
have meaningful definitions of "inclusion" and "support".
Bearpaw
--
bea...@world.std.com ~~ http://world.std.com/~bearpaw/
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed
citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing
that ever has." - Margaret Mead
Dave in Phoenix
>Gosh, some of us are not "inclusive" enough to refrain from commenting
>on yet another example of heterocentric exclusion. My heart friggin'
>bleeds. I don't have a narrow definition of polyamory, Davy ... I
>have meaningful definitions of "inclusion" and "support".
Just because a poly group seeks to be more exclusive to include only people
that more naturally have something in common and because it would be
unnatural for them to seek same sex intimate LOVING relationships
(heterosexuals wanting gender balance) does not EXCLUDE them from the
definition of polyamory by any definition I've ever seen except what you
WISH it would be.
Forcing people of all sexual orientations and genders together is not a
definition of polyamory...seeking loving relationships is the definition and
many because of the heterosexual orientation God gave them (not their fault
they didn't choose it any more than gays do), they do not want loving
relationships in a group with gays or lesbians, no matter how much they
support gays and lesbians as we do.
Gays and Lesbians for their own groups. Why should they be forced against
their will into a MF couples group as you seem to make them have to in order
to be poly? You want the heteros to be forced to accept gays/lesbians to be
called poly...makes no sense and including ALL including those that by god
given orientation are NOT seeking sexual love which each other.
Yes, polyamory includes sexual love. Expressing levels of love sexually is
what most poly's also do. Sorry if sex is so offensive to some on this
group but its part of AMORY which is romantic love .. but based on some
level of emotion..love...very opposite of recreational sex of swinging. But
both include responsible non-monogamous sexual relationships which can be in
private or done in a group setting. That has nothing to do with the
definition of polyamory.
Dave in Phoenix
>I'm gonna be devil's advocate, because I hate being told what I "should"
>do or what I "should" think or what my stance on an issue 'should" be.
>Why "should" I be "supportive of all forms of responsible non-monogamy"?
>For that matter, why "should" I be "against the rest of the monogamous
>world"?
Actually I agree with your point.
Your personal agenda and interests may be more important than supporting all
forms of responsible non-monomgany or polyamory in a monogamous world.
I guess I was too idealistic to think the various groups should cooperate
instead of fight and show the world the similarities in positive sexuality,
honestly in open relationships vs cheating etc.
But you are certainly correct you have the right to fight other poly's whose
interest you don't like. But that doesn't make them any more or less poly
by traditional accepted definitions than you are.
Dave in Phoenix
>swing club is not;
Very much agreed.
>and a swing club that claims to be all-inclusive,
>but that betrays its het bias, is going to get justly flamed
>for hypocrisy.
Why are they a "swing club"? Because they discriminate against single men?
Just like us they are primarily for heterosexual couples (or GENDER BALANCED
to some extent singles) seeking LOVING FRIENDSHIPS (not recreational sex)
based on honest relationships and sharing sexuality among those seeking
loving real relationships.
Does't sound at all like a swing club to me.... Swinging is recreational,
non-emotional sex only. That is the definition of swinging.
Nowhere does polyamory have to include all sexual orientations in groups and
not be concerned about gender balance. That has never been a definition of
polyamroy..except by a few in this NG.
Rob
>How 'bout you sweep up after your strawman? Sexual orientation and
>race have no bearing on whether one is or isn't polyamorous; a gay
>polyamorous organization is still a polyamorous organization. A
>swing club is not; and a swing club that claims to be all-inclusive,
>but that betrays its het bias, is going to get justly flamed
>for hypocrisy.
Well, you've convinced me, for one, of the justice of your adversary's
cause.
I hadn't had much to say in this thread up to now because I think it's
silly to debate whether a group such as these "Friends" (or, for that
matter, Dave Hutchinson's group) is or is not poly. I have no interest in
joining either group.
However, it seems to me that any private group that meets for the purpose
of sharing intimacy has a right to exclude from its ranks anyone with whom
its members are not comfortable, WHATEVER MAY BE THEIR REASON FOR DOING
SO. Yeah, the "Friends" appear to be hypocrites -- but so do a lot of
their critics, who appear to be seeking to exclude them from alt.poly for
no better reason than being themselves uncomfortable with them. And
alt.poly is not a private group but a public forum, one which can only
benefit from a healthy diversity of viewpoints -- even irrational and
prejudiced viewpoints (of which I'll admit to owning a few myself).
Now, if these "Friends" were seeking to impose their values or prejudices
on the group, that might be another matter. But they're not, as far as I
can see.
umar
Alan Bostick
In article <364CDB09...@earthlink.net>,
Janet Hardy <ver...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> I don't swing myself, and I haven't much enjoyed the vibe at the swing events
> I've attended. But I don't think it's any great surprise to anyone here that I
> find the boundary between polyamory and swinging to be a very soft one, and that
> I think ethical swingers should have their own welcome place in the polyamory
> tent.
I couldn't have said it better myself.
Unfortunately, saying it better doesn't ever seem to change anyone's
minds. I've given up trying. But I still think Janet is right.
I've been doing my relationship thing now for coming up on twenty years,
long before alt.polyamory was even a gleam in Jennifer Wesp's eye. I
have been at times a very enthusiastic poster to the group, but I've
always been a bit bugged by one ongoing current in the group that seems
to construct polyamory in a conformist and fairly restrictive manner.
The shibboleths of this construction of polyamory appear to stem from an
apparent need by many of us to distance ourselves from the usual mundane
misperceptions of polyamory. "POLYAMORY ISN'T CHEATING!!!1!" leads to
the obsession with absolute honesty in sexual matters, to the point
where lying to a partner about a sexual encounter becomes a matter that
dwarfs (say) lying to a partner about how much money is left in the
savings account after having gone to Las Vegas for COMDEX. And
"POLYAMORY ISN'T SWINGING!!!!1!11" generates the (to my mind) bizarre
disdain for anything that hints at connection to or affinity with the
swinging and "lifestyles" community.
The truth of the matter is, these shibboleths are arbitrary. And in
buying into them, we are letting mundane misperception of polyamory
shape who we are every bit as much as if we accepted the judgements that
we are cheaters or swingers, and swung or cheated in response.
I'm always a little bit afraid (but not much) that the arbiters of
polyamoritude will reconstruct things again so that my relationship
thing, the one I've been doing for just about two decades, isn't
*really* polyamory after all. And you know what? If it happens, I'm
not going to change my relationship thing around to speak of, but just
drop out of the polyamory community, or at least that part of it that
is dominated by the arbiters of polyamoritude.
*rolls over, pulls the covers over his head, and goes back to sleep*
--
Alan Bostick | LIVE ONE: Is this a game of chance?
mailto:abos...@netcom.com | W.C. FIELDS: Not the way I play it, no....
news:alt.grelb | (from MY LITTLE CHICKADEE)
http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~abostick
Alan Bostick
jpal...@ix.netcom.com (John Palmer) wrote:
>
> I think it's more the deceptiveness that set people off. "We're
> a swing club. . . oh, but please don't call us that, even though we
> give no indication of understanding polyamory; call us a polyamory
> club!"
What deceptiveness? Is it deception to refer to a photocopy as a Xerox?
I'm not aware that Polyamory is trademarked, or that any particular set
of people get to decide who gets to call themselves polyamorous and who
doesn't.
songbird
Janet Hardy wrote in message <72ghna$dok$1...@birch.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
>Jill Lundquist wrote in message <72g4kh$hkl$1...@csnews.cs.colorado.edu>...
>>It is inappropriate to advertise swing clubs on alt.polyamory.
>
>Is this written down somewhere?
i think it falls under the commercial clause of usenet posting.
(i.e. don't do it unless the group is clearly commercially oriented)
i'd like it to not be done here.
songbird (all that needs to be said
in this thread
songbird
[...]
>I'm always a little bit afraid (but not much) that the arbiters of
>polyamoritude will reconstruct things again so that my relationship
>thing, the one I've been doing for just about two decades, isn't
>*really* polyamory after all. And you know what? If it happens, I'm
>not going to change my relationship thing around to speak of, but just
>drop out of the polyamory community, or at least that part of it that
>is dominated by the arbiters of polyamoritude.
>
>*rolls over, pulls the covers over his head, and goes back to sleep*
my disagreement with a commercial posting has nothing to do with
this issue.
if you've seen my other posts you'd notice i largely would include
swinging in polyamory as a subset, but i also note that there are some
who don't care to be included under the umbrella, so fella, they can
classify themselves anyway they are happy to be classified as (or remain
macholy unclassified and pure unto themselves)
songbird (happy nappy
piranha
>> membership of any polyamory support/social group to any particular
>> orientation.
>
dunno about bearpaw, but i sure would, and i've never
heard of one yet (and if i knew of one, it'd not be
one i'd join, even if i could manage to be of the re-
quired gender). but then i've never seen the point
of segregation into huge groups like gender when it
comes to discussing relationship issues.
-piranha
------------------------------------------------------------------------
please help fight spam -- http://www.cauce.org
------------------------------------------------------------------------
piranha
>forms of responsible non-monomgany or polyamory in a monogamous world.
you betcha. i don't have to support everyone who wants
to jump on the bandwagon du jour.
>I guess I was too idealistic to think the various groups should cooperate
>instead of fight and show the world the similarities in positive sexuality,
>honestly in open relationships vs cheating etc.
how old _are_ you? really now, let's not bullshit quite
so blatantly. you've been around this block quite a few
times, tho not much ever seems to sink in.
i don't care what form of ethical non-monogamy you prac-
tice. i support you in as far that i don't think the
law should stand in your way. i just don't want you to
muddy the waters more than necessary, but that's what
you are doing, and by now i think it's pretty much out
of cowardice; you hope to sneak in your "greater inti-
macy thru sybian massage" under the innocuous-sounding
label of polyamory, so it's more acceptable to your
whitebread liberated christians' uptight neighbours.
i spit on acceptable. do whatever intimacy you want to
engage in. i am all for it. but just as i call a spade
a spade, and not a fork, i don't call meetings that cost
$25 a shot for guys ("ladies" free) and where those "la-
dies" are encouraged to dress provocatively and look
forward to having that special need filled, "polyamorous
meetings". at polyamorous meetings i've been to (and i
have been to them for a couple of decades now), people
bring their kids, they sit around and yak, they eat,
they talk about their emotions, their issues, their pro-
blems. they don't dress provocatively and expect to
have their special sexual needs met. it is simply a
different culture from swingers, and you simply don't
_get_ that.
it's not sex-negative to enjoy discussion groups. it's
not polyamory to get together with strangers and have
sex on the spot. the things we strive for aren't even
the same, for the most part (most polies i know would
prefer equal marriage rights, or the government getting
out of sponsoring marriages altogether; not a single
swinger i've met ever cared one hoot about marrying
more than one person). not a thing stands in your way
to liberate yourself from your sexual fidelity shackles;
you're not fighting the same battles. in fact i am not
sure what you think we have in common that would require
mutual support?
>But you are certainly correct you have the right to fight other poly's whose
>interest you don't like. But that doesn't make them any more or less poly
>by traditional accepted definitions than you are.
they may well be poly, but these advertised meetings
are nothing of the sort. i do wonder who is sex-nega-
tive here; you can't even say the words "yes, we have
sex at those gatherings, and it's great". no, you
waffle around about "greater intimacy", as if getting
all sweaty was the essence of intimacy.
truth in advertising. it's not just for corporations
anymore to avoid it, eh?
piranha
>> i don't care whether the
>> folks i'm talking to are of the correct gender or the
>> appropriate sexual orientation.
>
>You are trying to redefine poly based on your interests.
i'm not trying to redefine anything; i'm simply much more
familiar with poly culture than you are.
>Some in this group people have a very narrow definition of polyamory (having
>to be all inclusive)
what interesting double-speak. the ones who want to be
more inclusive are the more narrow-minded. does this
sort of talk not hurt your brain, dave?
>which is not found at all in the traditional accepted
>meanings of poly which is better refelected by simply "Loving More"....
>It's the love that makes it poly not non-emotional, recreational sport sex
>of swinging. Loving other couples, seeking other heterosexual couples and
>seeking to grow in love and express love at different levels, sexually even
>in a group certainly is polyamory. Except by your own personal definition.
*yawn*. we've been here too often for me to bother
with this in detail; you just don't listen very well,
and i just came home from a wrevel, and i'm tired.
i am, btw, not somebody who would claim that swingers
don't form emotional bonds -- you're the one who does
that, remember. i am merely saying that a swing club
is distinctly different from a polyamory gathering, and
that what you (and the "FRIENDS" do) is basically swin-
ging with a bit of icing. i don't at all deny that
your members might be looking for something more than
"thrusting penis-in-vagina" sex, but i also don't think
that all swingers are that cold about it. casual, re-
creational sex does to me _not_ mean there is no inti-
macy involved, no emotion.
but it's still a far cry from a polyamorous relation-
ship. it's an activity, not a philosophy, and that's
where i see the difference. nothing wrong with what
you actually do, IMO. just with your presentation.
repeat ad nauseam.
piranha
Janet Hardy <ver...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>piranha wrote in message <72k1oh$kfc$1...@excalibur.gooroos.com>...
>>In article <364CDB09...@earthlink.net>,
>>
>> you totally missed the "membership" fee where men get a
>> discount for bringing a woman? and that the fee was a
>> tad high for sitting in a meeting room for a couple of
>> hours, talking about "polyamory"?
>
>I paid about that much last year so that my partner and I could sit in a
>meeting room in Oakland doing exactly that. A lot of you were there. A few
>of you were running the event.
i state unequivocably that me and my pacific parrotlet
had nothing to do with said event in oakland and its
organization.
but i thought it came out quite a bit cheaper than $25
an hour. wasn't it a whole weekend? yet i didn't pay
close attention, so if it was indeed several hundreds
of dollars, pardon my ignorance. the other difference
is that it was a con, ergo there needed to be room for
a largish number of people, which means you're sort of
stuck with paying a hotel. local gatherings aren't
ever as large IME, and they can easily meet in the
backroom of a pub, or at the local library -- i've yet
to shell out more than $10, ever, for any such meeting,
and most were entirely free. if there was any discri-
mination about fees, it was in favour of people who
were poor, not in favour of people with boobs.
>As for the sex discrimination, I'm certainly willing to agree that it's a
>suboptimal way of solving a genuine problem (IME, any sexually oriented
>event open to the general public is going to have a gender balance problem),
>and to discuss other options.
since i don't go to public events to fuck total stran-
gers, i can't draw on any personal experience with
gender balance -- i would imagine as long as i got to
fuck, i'd be fine. if not, then i'd probably not go
anymore. i've never had a problem finding willing
partners for the times when i did want sex, and, as
i stated here before, i see nothing wrong with paying
for it, if one can't access a partner who does it for
the mutual pleasure at the time. for me fucking a
total stranger at a swing club would be pretty much
identical to fucking a prostitute, tho i'd probably
slightly prefer the pro.
maybe, if the events are so prone to overload by des-
perate single men there is something else wrong with
them. i don't recognize such men from my personal
circles, tho i have no doubt that uncouth twits are
in abundance out there. one more reason not to go to
public sex events, IMO, but to reserve one's sexual
encounters for private gatherings.
you later talk about the results of charging, which
are pretty much what i would have expected -- it's a
totally non-sensical notion that making somebody pay
more would attract a better quality of man; it just
attracts a more wealthy type of man. i've seen that
enough in other avenues. money does not miraculously
imbue the carrier with couth and social graces.
>What if it had been an all-men's or all-women's gathering? Gay men have been
>doing ethical poly since before you and I were born. *And* they discriminate
>on the basis of gender, *and* they dress provocatively. Would such an
>announcement be unwelcome here?
i'm not fond of all-men and all-women meetings for
the purpose of discussing relationships; i think
it's silly. for whatever little good it might do
some people who feel magically safer among members
of the same sex (as if no members of their sex were
ever abusive), i think it perpetuates dumb stereo-
types. i prefer mixed groups so much that i don't
even participate in same-sex groups anymore.
groups based on a shared sexual orientation make a
bit more sense; at least now we're talking some-
thing slightly more tangible, because gays _do_
have some common issues (i dispute that all women
or all men have the same issues). the more one
narrows the membership of a group, the more sense
it makes to me. gender is too broad.
so if a group of gay poly men was to meet for the
purpose of discussing their poly relationships, i
would probably not be bothered much, tho i'd be
surprised if they excluded lesbians, and i'd be
sad if they excluded hets who live in polyamorous
relationships with gays or lesbians. it wouldn't
make sense to me to exclude those people, they're
involved in the same types of relationships.
it would depend on the type of ad tho. if it was
basically the same, except substituting gay for het
i'd feel the same about it; negative, as if it was
deceitful and misleading, mealy-mouthed.
>> by nasty, icky, hetero-centric swingers instead of cool
>> groovy inclusive, non-discriminatory swingers. you're
>> missing what's really important in distinguishing this
>> community from the sort of community indy seems to be
>> familiar with.
>
>I see a very similar sort of discrimination going on here, except it's based
>on being Our Sort Of People -- e.g., pagan college-educated SCAish bisexual
>science-fiction-reading netfolk who work in high-tech, who I suspect
>constitute a clear majority of posters to alt.poly. Since I fit only a
>couple of those categories, *I* feel less than totally welcome here.
sorry to hear that. i don't fit 3.5 out of the 7, and
i feel fine here. it's, as usual, much morea question
of common approach to me than of common interests (hob-
bies/profession).
>If that's really the sort of newsgroup you want, where we all pat each other
>on the back and tell each other how groovy and inclusive we are, okey-doke.
>Me, I'd rather learn from those who *aren't* the same as me, who may have
>come up with ideas and solutions I haven't tried yet.
*snort*. well, then you should be able to learn a lot
here, since by your own words above, you don't fit the
alleged majority profile.
give me a break. this is just too sanctimonious. i
_like_ that we are by definition inclusive of every
gender and every orientation who wants to do poly. i
see self-proclaimed swingers welcomed here all the
time, as long as they don't treat this culture as if
it was alt.swingers.
i don't get how you don't understand this. have you
_read_ alt.swingers? don't you see the difference?
(i am _not_ saying they're icky; i'm saying they're
different, and i am neither scared nor judgmental
of difference per se -- it's simply that their cul-
ture is nothing like this culture here.)
>I haven't found that charging extra for men is a good solution to that
>problem -- it simply ensures that the men who *do* attend are even more
>desperate (and feel even more entitled) than they would be otherwise. The
>long-term answer is to recruit women -- these days, in the Bay Area BDSM
>community, we're probably seeing more new women showing up than men, and
>gender balance is seldom a serious problem at events which require any sort
>of screening (orientations, referrals et al). The short-term answer may be
>to admit only enough single men to balance out the single women in
>attendance, or some other such solution.
i think that short-term answer is a stupid one, and i
am much more in favour of going by referral and orien-
tations. that way there is no discrimination, and
there's at least a degree of quality assurance (and
i would hope that goes for the women too, because i'm
smelling a bit of an assumption here that the women
are groovy by definition, which sure doesn't jive with
some of the icky women i know).
>> if it's a poly gathering, there is no
>> need whatsoever to say "hets only, and bi women", and
>> to charge more for single men. there is no need to
>> have a pretty close gender balance. we get together
>> to talk about poly stuff. i don't care whether the
>> folks i'm talking to are of the correct gender or the
>> appropriate sexual orientation.
>
>Really? You'd feel comfortable talking about your innermost poly problems in
>a group of ten men in which you were the only woman?
it's not that simple. i'd feel comfortable talking
about my innermost poly problems with my shrink, not
with a group of folks. i'd feel comfortable talking
about a lot of issues with people i know and trust;
gender is completely irrelevant. i harbour no illu-
sions that women are somehow safer than men; i grew
up with some veritable harpies, and i just snort if
somebody gives me the "woman as gentle nurturer"
spiel. i can bond with the right man as easily as
with the right woman. i can feel great in a circle
where everyone is of a different sex/gender, or i
can feel like shit. i'd hardly enjoy a meeting of
the KKK macho brigade, nor would i enjoy phyllis
schlafly and friends much. i don't really under-
stand how you could ask this question in all se-
riousness, because it implies that you would feel
great among women, period, no matter who they are,
but men, no matter who they are, would leave you
uncomfortable. if i felt that way, i'd think some-
thing was really wrong with me, that i was so ali-
enated from half the human species by definition.
i wouldn't feel comfortable talking about any seri-
ous issues that involve privacy with total stran-
gers; again gender is irrelevant.
and i seriously doubt one has to be transgendered
to feel that gender doesn't matter when it comes to
discussing relationship issues. all of us humans
have them.
>And perhaps it *is* true that their events include the possibility, or even
>the likelihood, of sex. So what? What on earth is wrong with the idea of
>friendly recreational sex?
not a thing. just don't call it by some euphemism
because that makes it more acceptable to the main-
stream. call it "recreational sex". i'm all for
it, for anyone who wants to engage in it in an ethi-
cal way. (i'm all against it when people do it in
deceitful ways -- which is probably why i have such
a problem with the "FRIENDS"; the whole ad just was
so goddamn squirrely.)
>And how would you suggest that a mixed-gender
>group that wants to promote such sex make it feel safe for the women there?
i'm not unconcerned about the men either. as you
said above -- screenings, orientations, referrals
from trusted members. it certainly would go a lot
farther than simply asking for more money.
>So poly, by your definition, is all talk, no action?
the communication, it seems to be failing. poly, as
a way of life, is certainly not all talk. but poly
gatherings, the public part of it, _are_ all talk.
what people do in the privacy of their own suites is
their business; it's separate from the public pre-
sence. like, people go (so i hear) to SF cons. and
i hear that some of those people have sex there. but
an SF con isn't about having sex.
it's always interesting to me how some people just
don't seem to get that sort of thing. like, soc.
singles.moderated isn't a meat market. but people
_do_ meet at their gatherings. there is a distinct
difference in culture between singles events that
are designed for people to meet, and events at
which some of the people who meet happen to be sin-
gle, and looking, among other things. it's a con-
ceptual thing, and some people never understand the
difference -- and i don't know how to explain it to
somebody who doesn't feel it; it's maybe too damn
zen, or maybe i'be just not found the right way yet.
Jim Roberts
them. It is very hard to find a single sentence in their voluminous screeds in
this thread that are worth even a comment. Just a stream of anger and hatred.
One wonders where it all comes from.
jimbat
John Palmer
wrote:
>In article <364daac7...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
>jpal...@ix.netcom.com (John Palmer) wrote:
>
>>
>> I think it's more the deceptiveness that set people off. "We're
>> a swing club. . . oh, but please don't call us that, even though we
>> give no indication of understanding polyamory; call us a polyamory
>> club!"
>
>What deceptiveness? Is it deception to refer to a photocopy as a Xerox?
Depends. If I ask "was this made with a Xerox copier?" and you
say "Yes, it's a xerox" (i.e., "it is a photocopy, and the term
"xerox" has fallen into common usage to mean "any photocopy") it's
deceptive.
>I'm not aware that Polyamory is trademarked, or that any particular set
>of people get to decide who gets to call themselves polyamorous and who
>doesn't.
If someone posted a message saying "New poly group forming!
Couples only, no adulterers allowed; if we find our you're fooling
around with a person besides your legally married spouse, you're going
to be kicked out!" you couldn't call it a polyamorous group by any
meaningful definition.
--
"Everything I needed to know in life, I learned in
kindergarten. Like: morality must exist beyond the
purview of a deity if morality is to have a meaning
beyond tyranny.
Amazon
<72male$pe3$1...@excalibur.gooroos.com>...
> since i don't go to public events to fuck total
stran-
> gers, i can't draw on any personal experience
with
> gender balance -- i would imagine as long as i
got to
> fuck, i'd be fine. if not, then i'd probably
not go
> anymore. i've never had a problem finding
willing
> partners for the times when i did want sex, and,
as
> i stated here before, i see nothing wrong with
paying
> for it, if one can't access a partner who does
it for
> the mutual pleasure at the time. for me fucking
a
> total stranger at a swing club would be pretty
much
> identical to fucking a prostitute, tho i'd
probably
> slightly prefer the pro.
>
I have gone to swing clubs when all I was
interested in was sex and I could not access a
partner for mutual pleasure. It *was* a place to
access a partner. Would I prefer a pro? Probably.
But they are just as unaccessable (or I just don't
know where to find a male prostitute I can trust).
> maybe, if the events are so prone to overload by
des-
> perate single men there is something else wrong
with
> them. i don't recognize such men from my
personal
> circles, tho i have no doubt that uncouth twits
are
> in abundance out there. one more reason not to
go to
> public sex events, IMO, but to reserve one's
sexual
> encounters for private gatherings.
The swing club I belonged to had a procedure set
up to ensure the patrons were what they appeared
to be - and not loaded with "desperate single
men". It was a place where ethical people could go
to enjoy sexual activities and develop friendships
with others who enjoyed recreational sex. There
were some polyamorists there, who were also
swingers, but not all the swingers were
polyamorists.
(Please don't start a thread about "desperate
single men" vs. "ethical people". I did not mean
to imply that desperation = unethical.)
>
> you later talk about the results of charging,
which
> are pretty much what i would have expected --
it's a
> totally non-sensical notion that making somebody
pay
> more would attract a better quality of man; it
just
> attracts a more wealthy type of man. i've seen
that
> enough in other avenues. money does not
miraculously
> imbue the carrier with couth and social graces.
>
The men don't pay more so that they could get a
better quality of men - the women were admitted
free to encourage more women. The quality of both
the men and the women was assured by the initial
screening process. And if, in the course of any
one party, someone displayed characteristics or
behaviors which were offensive, they were asked to
leave. This did not happen often, and they did not
get back in.
Another way balance was achieved was at certain
designated parties, a single man could only attend
if a woman "sponsored" him, and a woman could only
sponsor up to two men. This assured not only
balance, but quality. The other parties were open
to all members, and there usually was a ratio of
about 6-8 men for every woman. (Some women *loved*
this.) And some of those men appeared a little
desperate, but I think it was more from the
competition for the fewer women than because they
were desperate for sex in general. When these same
men were at one of the restricted parties, they
were a lot more at ease - did not give off an air
of desperation.
> i'm not fond of all-men and all-women meetings
for
> the purpose of discussing relationships; i think
> it's silly. for whatever little good it might
do
> some people who feel magically safer among
members
> of the same sex (as if no members of their sex
were
> ever abusive), i think it perpetuates dumb
stereo-
> types. i prefer mixed groups so much that i
don't
> even participate in same-sex groups anymore.
>
It is not a matter of feeling "magically safer" in
same sex groups; it is the common bond that makes
it feel more comfortable. And of course, there are
both abusive women and abusive men. There are
abusive gays, lesbians, transgendereds, bi's, etc
etc etc.
> groups based on a shared sexual orientation make
a
> bit more sense; at least now we're talking some-
> thing slightly more tangible, because gays _do_
> have some common issues (i dispute that all
women
> or all men have the same issues). the more one
> narrows the membership of a group, the more
sense
> it makes to me. gender is too broad.
I dispute that all gays have the same issues. They
*do* have many of the same issues, but so do all
women or all men.
> so if a group of gay poly men was to meet for
the
> purpose of discussing their poly relationships,
i
> would probably not be bothered much, tho i'd be
> surprised if they excluded lesbians, and i'd be
> sad if they excluded hets who live in
polyamorous
> relationships with gays or lesbians. it
wouldn't
> make sense to me to exclude those people,
they're
> involved in the same types of relationships.
>
It sounds like your opinions of who has common
issues are the only right opinions. They *are* the
only right opinions for *you*, but not necessarily
for everyone else. You seem to be creating your
own stereotypes. I do not intend this to be a
flame; only my take on what you ar saying.
BTW, I am no longer a swinger, but I am definitley
poly.
Amazon mar...@massed.net
who rarely gets this embroiled in a discussion
piranha
Amazon <mar...@massed.net> wrote:
>
>I have gone to swing clubs when all I was
>interested in was sex and I could not access a
>partner for mutual pleasure. It *was* a place to
>access a partner. Would I prefer a pro? Probably.
interesting. so we don't disagree on that account.
>But they are just as unaccessable (or I just don't
>know where to find a male prostitute I can trust).
and you would trust a stranger at a swing club if
there was no screening but charging the man more
money?
from what else you said, that sounds doubtful --
you rely rather on other assurances. btw, how
much have you researched the male prostitute issue?
i wouldn't be too sure that they're inaccessible,
and i don't see why they should be inherently less
trustworthy. after all, they have something to
lose (a repeat customer in case of satisfaction).
personally i prefer fuckbuddies over swinging stran-
gers or prostitutes. that removes pretty much most
of the trust problems that i have with those people.
>The swing club I belonged to had a procedure set
>up to ensure the patrons were what they appeared
>to be - and not loaded with "desperate single
>men".
i'd be curious what that procedure was. i've heard
of some, which seemed to me nothing but window dres-
sing. i think i like the referral idea best, and i
also like the idea of punishing bad behaviour, ra-
ther than prejudging somebody single and make as
untrustworthy by definition (which i have seen, and
which just ticks me off).
>It was a place where ethical people could go
>to enjoy sexual activities and develop friendships
>with others who enjoyed recreational sex.
you seem to think i have a problem with that. i've
already said i don't. i have problems with the lip
service this "FRIENDS" group pays to what they call
polyamory, while they really sound like a badly or-
ganized swing club.
>(Please don't start a thread about "desperate
>single men" vs. "ethical people". I did not mean
>to imply that desperation = unethical.)
didn't think you did. but dave is well-known here,
and he's said spewed zingers about single men you
probably wouldn't believe. i am simply annoyed at
this persistent notion that women are safe, but
men who have a female partner are safe, but men
who are single, or have a male partner can't be
trusted. i find it a ludicrous prejudice.
>The men don't pay more so that they could get a
>better quality of men - the women were admitted
>free to encourage more women.
you know, i have a hard time seeing how paying $25
less would encourage me to prefer one swing club
over the other, were i a woman interested in swing
clubs. i'd go where i'd like the atmosphere and
the people best. maybe i am not materialistic
enough, but when selecting sexual partners, it's
not terribly relevant (within a certain range) how
much i have to _pay_. i'd gladly pay more for a
superior experience.
and no amount of money saved would encourage me to
try a swing club if i wasn't already interested in
swinging. from what janet described, it's not the
money that encourages women in the bay area, it
seem to be the positive experiences.
>The quality of both
>the men and the women was assured by the initial
>screening process. And if, in the course of any
>one party, someone displayed characteristics or
>behaviors which were offensive, they were asked to
>leave. This did not happen often, and they did not
>get back in.
assuming the screening process wasn't just hand-
waving, this is pretty much the way i'd do it, yes.
did you notice the lack of any such screening pro-
cess on the part of the "FRIENDS"? i did. i ima-
gine all it consists of is the person at the end
of the cellphone thinking to zirself "well, does
this one sound cool?" sorry, that's not what i'd
call a screening process.
>It is not a matter of feeling "magically safer" in
>same sex groups; it is the common bond that makes
>it feel more comfortable.
the way janet worded it made it sound to me as if
safety was an issue (i think she even used the
word "safe").
as should be obvious from what i wrote i don't see
any such common bond at the level of gender, not
when it comes to relationship issues. if women
want to meet to discuss menopause, hell, yes, but
the john grayish notion that women are from venus
and men are from mars is bunk IMO. and even when
discussing menopause, i can easily imagine some
men who're going thru it with a beloved being more
knowledgable and interested than women who're a
long way from menopause. i am certainly happy
that the better childbearing classes these days
no longer discriminate by sex/gender.
>I dispute that all gays have the same issues.
in north america?
they all live in a hetero-centric, slightly homo-
phobic society. they are not allowed to marry
a partner of the same sex. i didn't say they had
a lot in common, in fact i am certain that i said
no large set based on a single distinguishing
characteristic will automatically have a lot in
common when it comes to relationships.
>They
>*do* have many of the same issues, but so do all
>women or all men.
do tell.
Stef Maruch
>piranha wrote in message <72k1oh$kfc$1...@excalibur.gooroos.com>...
>>In article <364CDB09...@earthlink.net>,
>>Janet Hardy <ver...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>Because their post wasn't a personal ad, was no more a commercial ad than
>>>many others that get posted here without question,
>>
>> you totally missed the "membership" fee where men get a
>> discount for bringing a woman? and that the fee was a
>> tad high for sitting in a meeting room for a couple of
>> hours, talking about "polyamory"?
>
>I paid about that much last year so that my partner and I could sit in a
>meeting room in Oakland doing exactly that. A lot of you were there. A few
>of you were running the event.
The membership fee for alt.polycon is the same for men and women and
there is no discount for bringing other people. It has traditionally
paid for hotel function space, a hospitality suite, a meal, and snacks
throughout a weekend. If alt.polycon makes a profit, the money has
gone to the next alt.polycon and to a fund for helping people attend
alt.polycon.
That's not the same thing as a fee imposed on men only for a group that
gets together for an evening to have "g-spot massage". I'm kind of
surprised that you would stoop to the tactic of claiming the two events
are the same thing.
I've been to my share of playparties, for profit and not for profit.
They're great. I would find it silly, annoying, and hypocritical if
they advertised on alt.polyamory as "polyamory groups." I mean, really,
aren't they going to get more like-minded people to attend if they
advertise what they really are?
Dave mentioned they're being attacked in alt.swingers for the same
reason. Isn't that a good indicator that calling themselves a polyamory
group isn't going to be the great equalizer that they want?
However, frankly, the ad didn't even ping my radar until the group that
posted it started attacking its critics in an immature way. "So-and-so
criticized us and come to our web page and see." Please!
>I see a very similar sort of discrimination going on here, except it's
>based on being Our Sort Of People -- e.g., pagan college-educated
>SCAish bisexual science-fiction-reading netfolk who work in high-tech,
>who I suspect constitute a clear majority of posters to alt.poly. Since
>I fit only a couple of those categories, *I* feel less than totally
>welcome here.
Yes, alt.polyamory is discriminatory.
>If that's really the sort of newsgroup you want, where we all pat each
>other on the back and tell each other how groovy and inclusive we are,
>okey-doke.
The sort of newsgroup I want is one in which we pat each other on the back
and tell each other how groovy we are, but we don't pretend we're inclusive
of everybody. We're inclusive of N-somes and queers and men and women
but not of swing clubs.
>Me, I'd rather learn from those who *aren't* the same as
>me, who may have come up with ideas and solutions I haven't tried yet.
Cool. But right now it seems to me that you don't actually want to learn
from those who aren't the same as you, but tell them how you're the only
one who realizes they're actually snobby and narrow minded, and complain
about how you don't feel like you belong.
>> if it's a poly gathering, there is no
>> need whatsoever to say "hets only, and bi women", and to charge
>> more for single men. there is no need to have a pretty close gender
>> balance. we get together to talk about poly stuff. i don't care
>> whether the folks i'm talking to are of the correct gender or the
>> appropriate sexual orientation.
>
>Really? You'd feel comfortable talking about your innermost poly
>problems in a group of ten men in which you were the only woman?
You're missing a good deal of the point. The poly gatherings I have
attended aren't like that. They are reasonably gender balanced without
special effort being made. Probably precisely because people don't
believe they are going going to get laid at the event.
>And perhaps it *is* true that their events include the possibility, or
>even the likelihood, of sex. So what? What on earth is wrong with the
>idea of friendly recreational sex? And how would you suggest that a
>mixed-gender group that wants to promote such sex make it feel safe for
>the women there?
I don't care if they have sex swinging from the chandeliers, and I don't
care how they make it safe; the point is that it's not really a poly
event and if they advertise it as such, they will confuse and annoy
people.
>So poly, by your definition, is all talk, no action? Seems to me I
>remember some posts in the wake of the last alt.polycon that would
>indicate otherwise...
Public poly events generally do not include sex as part of the agenda.
If people attending the event want to get together and have sex on their
own, of course that's fine. But I simply haven't heard of any public
poly event that has included public sex or play the way a play party or
swing party does. I do know of poly people who have sex parties, but
they call them sex parties, not poly events.
--
Stef ** rational/scientific/philosophical/mystical/magical/kitty **
** st...@cat-and-dragon.com <*> http://www.bayarea.net/~stef **
--------------------------------------------------------
Graduate school is where you learn to call a spade a leveraged
tactile-feedback geomass delivery system. -- Martha Koester
Jim Roberts
completely misses her original point.
Stef Maruch wrote:
[...]
>
> I've been to my share of playparties, for profit and not for profit.
> They're great. I would find it silly, annoying, and hypocritical if
> they advertised on alt.polyamory as "polyamory groups." I mean, really,
> aren't they going to get more like-minded people to attend if they
> advertise what they really are?
>
> Dave mentioned they're being attacked in alt.swingers for the same
> reason. Isn't that a good indicator that calling themselves a polyamory
> group isn't going to be the great equalizer that they want?
>
You seem to know what they think. How's that?
>
> However, frankly, the ad didn't even ping my radar until the group that
> posted it started attacking its critics in an immature way. "So-and-so
> criticized us and come to our web page and see." Please!
>
The *really* immature posts have been from a few of the most prolific posters to
*this* newsgroup. Criticize *them*.
[...]
>
> Yes, alt.polyamory is discriminatory.
I indict the FAQs for false advertising.
>
> Jane: >Me, I'd rather learn from those who *aren't* the same as
> >me, who may have come up with ideas and solutions I haven't tried yet.
>
> Cool. But right now it seems to me that you don't actually want to learn
> from those who aren't the same as you, but tell them how you're the only
> one who realizes they're actually snobby and narrow minded, and complain
> about how you don't feel like you belong.
>
No, it is you and your buddies who aren't paying attention to the actual content
of posts, but responding to fancied interpretations that can give you a
self-perceived leg up in the "debate". That betrays a degree of intellectual
dishonesty. Those who can read are not fooled.
> Jane:>
> >Really? You'd feel comfortable talking about your innermost poly
> >problems in a group of ten men in which you were the only woman?
>
> You're missing a good deal of the point. The poly gatherings I have
> attended aren't like that. They are reasonably gender balanced without
> special effort being made. Probably precisely because people don't
> believe they are going going to get laid at the event.
>
No she's just responding to what you wrote. Now you try to change the game and
blame her for misinterpreting *you*. =>>Thou Shalt Not Make Ex Post Facto
Posts.<<= Read your *own* post!
[remainder of the post deleted, since it goes haywire at this point]
jimbat
Janet Hardy
piranha wrote in message <72m6rd$nj6$1...@excalibur.gooroos.com>...
>In article <36510dee...@news.primenet.com>,
>Dave in Phoenix <dav...@primenet.com> wrote:
>>pir...@gooroos.com (piranha) wrote:
>>> folks i'm talking to are of the correct gender or the
>>> appropriate sexual orientation.
>>
>>You are trying to redefine poly based on your interests.
>
> i'm not trying to redefine anything; i'm simply much more
> familiar with poly culture than you are.
Ah, the old circular-definition trick: poly culture is what poly people do,
and poly people are people who partake of poly culture.
Verdant
Vincent
Bostick) wrote:
> > I don't swing myself, and I haven't much enjoyed the vibe at the swing
events
> > I've attended. But I don't think it's any great surprise to anyone
here that I
> > find the boundary between polyamory and swinging to be a very soft one,
> and that
> > I think ethical swingers should have their own welcome place in the
polyamory
> > tent.
>
> I couldn't have said it better myself.
>
> Unfortunately, saying it better doesn't ever seem to change anyone's
> minds. I've given up trying. But I still think Janet is right.
>
> I've been doing my relationship thing now for coming up on twenty years,
> long before alt.polyamory was even a gleam in Jennifer Wesp's eye. I
> have been at times a very enthusiastic poster to the group, but I've
> always been a bit bugged by one ongoing current in the group that seems
> to construct polyamory in a conformist and fairly restrictive manner.
>
> buying into them, we are letting mundane misperception of polyamory
> shape who we are every bit as much as if we accepted the judgements that
> we are cheaters or swingers, and swung or cheated in response.
>
> polyamoritude will reconstruct things again so that my relationship
> thing, the one I've been doing for just about two decades, isn't
> *really* polyamory after all. And you know what? If it happens, I'm
> not going to change my relationship thing around to speak of, but just
> drop out of the polyamory community, or at least that part of it that
> is dominated by the arbiters of polyamoritude.
Oh, come on... quit whining.
Yes it's an arbitrary distinction, but, as far as I can tell, it's being
applied in a useful way. The *idea* is that this is a discussion of
polyamorous relationships... As in emotional attachment, and sexual
attachment, and all the issues that come up within that context.
All that I see people really objecting too is those who are just looking
for sexual thrills -> lots of experiences, lots of people, no commitment.
People who don't need to continue relationships. It's not that doing these
things, it's just that it involves a different set of issues, and that's
not what we're trying to talk about here.
And, besides, who gives a *(&^ what you're doing yourself.... this is just
a newsgroup, to talk about poly issues and experiences. That's it. I think
that the label "polyamory" is just an attempt to define things a little so
that people can see "oh, I fit that" or "oh, I don't fit that", and given
how general the definition is, I don't see why you don't, at least partly,
fit the definition anyways.
Cheers,
Vincent
Cally Soukup
> In article <72kdbs$7g0$1...@ash.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> Janet Hardy <ver...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>I see a very similar sort of discrimination going on here, except it's based
>>on being Our Sort Of People -- e.g., pagan college-educated SCAish bisexual
>>science-fiction-reading netfolk who work in high-tech, who I suspect
>>constitute a clear majority of posters to alt.poly. Since I fit only a
>>couple of those categories, *I* feel less than totally welcome here.
> sorry to hear that. i don't fit 3.5 out of the 7, and
> i feel fine here. it's, as usual, much morea question
> of common approach to me than of common interests (hob-
> bies/profession).
Let's see. Pagan? No. College-educated? 1/4. SCAish? No. Bi?
No. SF reading? Yes. Netfolk? Yes (by definition). Who work in
high-tech? Nope. And I'm not poly, I'm mono. And I still feel
comfortable here, have learned from this group, went to Alt.Polycon I
and had a great time (and didn't feel at all uncomfortable), and am
planning on going to AP4. Nobody ever told me I shouldn't be at AP1,
and nobody has been less than welcoming to me here, either. Well,
except for the occasional Clueless Newbie (tm) who thinks that Poly
Is More Evolved.
--
"I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend
to the death your right to say it." -- Beatrice Hall
Cally Soukup ma...@mcs.com
Mary Malmros
Janet Hardy <ver...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>Mary Malmros wrote in message <72l77f$3...@northshore.shore.net>...
>>In article <72kkho$on8$1...@cronkite.cygnus.com>,
>>Michael Snyder <msn...@cygnus.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>Seems to me you can get flamed around here for being
>>>"un-inclusive" toward gays, bis or people of other races.
>>>How come it's mainly het swingers whom we're not under any
>>>particular obligation to be inclusive to?
>>
>>How 'bout you sweep up after your strawman? Sexual orientation and
>>race have no bearing on whether one is or isn't polyamorous; a gay
>
>Even if it excludes people who are not of the same gender as the other
>attendees? How about if it excludes bisexuals?
Janet, this is a pattern for you: posting of disingenuous
questions that seem quite calculated to showcase yourself as
the absolutely most groovy cool sex positive and inclusive
being on the planet, and chastising people who point out
the silliness of what you're saying as being too narrowminded,
sex-negative, or exclusionary. There are, of course, perfectly
good answers to your questions, but I don't think you want to
hear those answers. They have been supplied to you, before
on other threads and elsewhere in this one.
I'm tired of this game. You can play by yourself if you want
to continue it. But think about it: anyone can define
where they're standing as the moral high ground (although it
generally takes a few head tricks to really pull it off).
Me, I'm enjoying life over here, where my feet are muddy, I
don't have to waste time explaining why it's silly to bring
a polo mallet to a baseball game, and there's mail from an
interesting somebody on line two.
--
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Mary Malmros Very Small Being mal...@shore.net
"They write books that contradict the rocks..."
Mary Malmros
>mal...@shore.net (Mary Malmros) writes:
>
>>How 'bout you sweep up after your strawman? Sexual orientation and
>>race have no bearing on whether one is or isn't polyamorous; a gay
>>swing club is not; and a swing club that claims to be all-inclusive,
>>but that betrays its het bias, is going to get justly flamed
>>for hypocrisy.
>
>Well, you've convinced me, for one, of the justice of your adversary's
>cause.
Well, gird your loins, buckaroo!
"Adversary". How silly. Sheesh. Much ado about NOTHING!
Daniel B. Holzman
That was the first clue, using the "waddles like a duck" measurement.
The seeming lack of any hint that relationships can involve more than
two people was the dead giveaway, though. Single-this and
Couple-that. What's it cost a triad to attend?
It's that cluelessness that really makes it clear that, whether what
they're doing is swinging or not, it ain't poly.
>Just like us they are primarily for heterosexual couples (or GENDER BALANCED
>to some extent singles) seeking LOVING FRIENDSHIPS (not recreational sex)
>based on honest relationships and sharing sexuality among those seeking
>loving real relationships.
Who is "us" in the above paragraph?
And if the point isn't sex, why do they, or "you" ("you" being whoever
"us" is) give a damn whether or not the group is sex-balanced?
>Does't sound at all like a swing club to me.... Swinging is recreational,
>non-emotional sex only. That is the definition of swinging.
Sez who?
siobhan
wrote:
>Or as my friend Nadja says, "I would do [BDSM] even if it got the Jesse
>Helms Seal of Approval."
I love this. I hope your friend won't mind if I steal it.
Siobhan
....Normal is what cuts off your sixth finger and your tail...
{http://www.interlog.com/~siobhan} sio...@interlog.com
I would do [BDSM] even if it got the Jesse Helms Seal
of Approval. ~Nadja
Janet Hardy
Mary Malmros wrote in message <72o630$f...@northshore.shore.net>...
>>Even if it excludes people who are not of the same gender as the other
>>attendees? How about if it excludes bisexuals?
>
>Janet, this is a pattern for you: posting of disingenuous
>questions that seem quite calculated to showcase yourself as
>the absolutely most groovy cool sex positive and inclusive
>being on the planet, and chastising people who point out
>the silliness of what you're saying as being too narrowminded,
>sex-negative, or exclusionary. There are, of course, perfectly
>good answers to your questions, but I don't think you want to
>hear those answers. They have been supplied to you, before
>on other threads and elsewhere in this one.
Different people have posted different answers. And I ask questions because
I'd rather engender debate than post dogmatic claptrap. If it makes you feel
insufficiently groovy, cool, sex-positive or inclusive, the problem may not
lie in me.
Verdant
Janet Hardy
Jjim wrote in message ...
>Perhaps a new newsgroup for people who can't tell the difference ( I
>certainly can) called alt.non-monogamy would be appropriate? Then those of
>us who DO differentiate can go on discussing issues in peace...
You can?
Committed couple with a friend who lives two thousand miles away but comes
once a year for a weekend of fun and sex? Poly or swinging?
Two couples who met at a swing party but now get together privately once a
month for group sex? Poly or swinging?
Eight women (some coupled, some single) who have been putting on sex parties
together every other weekend for the last year? Poly or swinging?
A committed couple in which A is in love with C, and B has occasional
just-for-fun sex with C? Poly or swinging?
These are not rhetorical questions. They're designed to point out that
between Classical Poly (long-term committed multiple-partner romantic
relationships) and Classical Swinging (one-night stands with strangers in a
group environment) lies a huge range of behaviors that are far more common
than either of the extremes. I suspect most of us here fall somewhere along
that spectrum, not all that close to either end.
Verdant
Jjim
>what most poly's also do. Sorry if sex is so offensive to some on this
>group but its part of AMORY which is romantic love .. but based on some
>level of emotion..love...very opposite of recreational sex of swinging. But
>both include responsible non-monogamous sexual relationships which can be
in
>private or done in a group setting. That has nothing to do with the
>definition of polyamory.
Wow! That's quite a tangle of words... are you saying that polyamory and
swinging ARE different, or that they ARE NOT?
If they are different, then having different newsgroups is an appropriate
thing. And People who practice both should join both newsgroups rather than
trying to make the content and discussion the same in both.
Jjim
What's most interesting to me about that post you quoted is that
alt.swingers seems to have the exact same problems with the FRIENDS posting
that alt.poly does... Seems to me that fuzzying the definitions isn't
desirable to EITHER group.
Stef Maruch
>Just a comment that may be relevant:
>
>I've run into more than a couple polyamorists who believe that
>once you make the transition from "polyamory" to "polyamory
>events" you have already moved somewhat in the direction of
>swinging. The belief is there's a pretty big distinction between
>being poly in your relationships; and attending poly events,
>since in the latter scenario the expectation is that there is
>some incidence of flirting with new people, meeting potential new
>partners, and so forth. These are social activities that, like
>swinging, are compatible with, but not a necessary part of, being
>polyamorist.
Do they also believe that attending cocktail parties or religious events
moves you toward swinging? You can also flirt and meet people there.
--
Stef ** rational/scientific/philosophical/mystical/magical/kitty **
** st...@cat-and-dragon.com <*> http://www.bayarea.net/~stef **
--------------------------------------------------------
I suspect that some people's unwillingness to think for themselves is
based on an accurate appraisal of their abilities. -- Arthur D. Hlavaty
Dave in Phoenix
>But I simply haven't heard of any public
>poly event that has included public sex or play the way a play party or
>swing party does. I do know of poly people who have sex parties, but
>they call them sex parties, not poly events.
Your fantasy about what FRIENDS is doesn't match reality!
Since they were flamed so badly on the newsgroup they have no interest in
returning. Therefore I am posting some information which you can judge if
the flames were valid.
Report on Friends of Indianapolis Intro meeting Nov 15th
As Mike and Marsha said:
"It was better than church!
We met in a hotel suite and was standing room only."
Highlights of their report from Intro meeting:
November 15, 1998
Greetings From FRIENDS in Indianapolis!
Yesterday we had our first Introductory meeting of FRIENDS! There were 5
couples and 9 single males attending. Not a bad turn out for a first time
meeting.
At the meeting, we passed out over 30 pages of information [see attachment]
and held an open forum type meeting. Since this WAS our first time, we
wanted to see what was on people's minds and in their hearts. A lot of
thoughts were expressed and a lot of healing took place also.
Subjects discussed were Polyamory Vs Swinging, What The Bible Teaches About
Sex, What The Bible Doesn’t Teach About Sex and more. Needless to say, we
had a rich discussion on many topics. Much was discussed about
relationships, life, love, society and the various masks we are forced to
wear as we go through life.
Many people at the meeting, including ourselves, expressed the overall
feeling that what we had experienced was better than going to church. It
was much richer and wholesome and we didn't have to put on a special mask to
be there. Everyone was allowed to say what was on their mind.
Naturally, we had some who were skeptical about coming and even passed up
our meeting place and came back, up to three times, before getting up the
nerve to enter the hotel. Those same people stated afterwards that they
wouldn't have missed this experience for the world.
One gentleman who had earlier in the week expressed concern about our
purpose and legitimacy left our meeting last night saying that he will help
us in any way he possibly can and thanked us for letting him attend. He had
an eye opening experience and we are now in a growing friendship.
Mike & Marsha
posted by Dave in Phoenix
Dave, Liberated Christians, Phoenix AZ
Christian Poly Resource Center at http://www.libchrist.com
Promoting Intimacy & Other-Centered Loving Sexuality
Sybian for Maximum G-spot orgasms for womens pleasure and therapy.
Stef Maruch
>*snort* Huh, wuzzat? Oh.
[...]
>The shibboleths of this construction of polyamory appear to stem from
>an apparent need by many of us to distance ourselves from the usual
>mundane misperceptions of polyamory. "POLYAMORY ISN'T CHEATING!!!1!"
>leads to the obsession with absolute honesty in sexual matters, to
>the point where lying to a partner about a sexual encounter becomes a
>matter that dwarfs (say) lying to a partner about how much money is
>left in the savings account after having gone to Las Vegas for COMDEX.
>And "POLYAMORY ISN'T SWINGING!!!!1!11" generates the (to my mind)
>bizarre disdain for anything that hints at connection to or affinity
>with the swinging and "lifestyles" community.
>
>The truth of the matter is, these shibboleths are arbitrary. And in
>buying into them, we are letting mundane misperception of polyamory
>shape who we are every bit as much as if we accepted the judgements
>that we are cheaters or swingers, and swung or cheated in response.
Alan, your mattress psychoanalysis is a little weak. Next time, you
should wake up and go to the armchair first.
Now, either the Evil Ones Who Have Stolen The Word Polyamory have built
a definition that's arbitrary, or they have constructed a definition out
of their pathetic psychological need to seem Not Like the Normals.
It can't really be both ways.
I'll vote for arbitrary. Every subculture I've encountered has had
defining characteristics that make no logical sense. Some of the
characteristics make sense if you know some of the subculture's history,
and some make no sense; they're just the kinds of gnarls and warts that
appear on any organic structure.
The psychoanalysis doesn't work for me. I argue for honesty as part of
the definition of polyamory not to distinguish myself from Evil Cheaters
but because it was the part of doing multiple relationships that was the
hardest for me to wrap my mind around (coming from monogamy), and that
changed my life the most. And I don't think I'm the only one. I have
less experience with swinging than with hiding, so I am less wrapped up
in that argument. Talking about the differences between the cultures is
like trying to nail jello to the wall, but I think most of us can agree
that we are working with more than one flavor of jello. For me the
swing/poly thing doesn't have to do with a distaste for casual sex or a
distaste for sexism against males -- I do both, and I know other people
I'd call poly who do both.
>I'm always a little bit afraid (but not much) that the arbiters of
>polyamoritude will reconstruct things again so that my relationship
>thing, the one I've been doing for just about two decades, isn't
>*really* polyamory after all. And you know what? If it happens, I'm
>not going to change my relationship thing around to speak of, but just
>drop out of the polyamory community, or at least that part of it that
>is dominated by the arbiters of polyamoritude.
Or as my friend Nadja says, "I would do [BDSM] even if it got the Jesse
Helms Seal of Approval."
That's good. I certainly think it would be silly for anyone to change
their relationship thing for the sake of fitting into a subculture that
arose long after they started doing their relationship thing.
>*rolls over, pulls the covers over his head, and goes back to sleep*
--
Stef ** rational/scientific/philosophical/mystical/magical/kitty **
** st...@cat-and-dragon.com <*> http://www.bayarea.net/~stef **
--------------------------------------------------------
Procrustes would have loved the height-weight tables. Like his bed,
they are arbitrary, refusing to take into account the considerable and
natural variation in human body size and shape. And like his bed, they
have created unnecessary agony for those who do not "fit."
-- Glenn Gaesser
Stef Maruch
>>But I simply haven't heard of any public
>>poly event that has included public sex or play the way a play party or
>>swing party does. I do know of poly people who have sex parties, but
>>they call them sex parties, not poly events.
>
I said nothing about Friends in the post you responded to. But their ad
did mention g-spot massage. That is public sex in my book. Maybe no such
thing happened at their meeting, but if not, it was a mistake for them
to mention it.
Dave in Phoenix
>I said nothing about Friends in the post you responded to. But their ad
>did mention g-spot massage. That is public sex in my book. Maybe no such
>thing happened at their meeting, but if not, it was a mistake for them
>to mention it.
What is wrong with G spot massage as an "after hours" option to learn and
explore more women centered sexualtiy? That is not the main focus. Yes in
massage workshops I also may discuss G spot massage and demonstrate that if
someone is a willing volunteer. I think we need more sex education of the
public and everyone. But that just makes us those low life swingers in your
view... Women pleasuring G-spot massage isn't just recreational sport sex.
It is about wanting to pleasure someone you feel emotions with.
Here is the section of the FRIENDS report you are referring to that mentions
G spot massage that in your mind makes them nothing but swingers!
"AFTER HOURS: An introduction to new THINGS. These THINGS are all intended
to break down old mindsets that we have. We will discuss them and possibly
try them as time and guests permit. They include: The Stroking Community,
a group massage given to one person at a time, The Hug Circle, Hugs to
break down barriers and build closeness and friendships, Free Flow, a group
massage given to a lady that has a special need, G-Spot Massage, this needs
no explanation."
I guess such things have no place in polyamory?
Dave in Phoenix
>What's most interesting to me about that post you quoted is that
>alt.swingers seems to have the exact same problems with the FRIENDS posting
>that alt.poly does... Seems to me that fuzzying the definitions isn't
>desirable to EITHER group.
MISUNDERSTANDING....there was no attack against FRIENDS on alt.swinging.
The person that attacked has publically apoligized.
Someone attacked a post from Robin Lee coming from alt.poly thinking
incorrectly it was posted by friends. Yes, the sin is in the crossposting.
Here is the statement that made swingers attack FRIENDS when it was actually
from alt.polyamory!
>Ummm, we're poly. Not swingers. It's not a lifestyle. Fuck off.
>-Robin
It is not surprising that upset swingers! It was mistaken as coming from
FRIENDS which it clearly did not.
The flames have now been extinghished and apoligized for since they attacked
the wrong person - the attacks were against Robin not FRIENDS.
bikerbabe in black leather
>of sharing intimacy has a right to exclude from its ranks anyone with whom
>its members are not comfortable, WHATEVER MAY BE THEIR REASON FOR DOING
>SO.
No argument here.
> Yeah, the "Friends" appear to be hypocrites -- but so do a lot of
>their critics, who appear to be seeking to exclude them from alt.poly for
>no better reason than being themselves uncomfortable with them. And
Actually, I don't particularly want to exclude Mike and Marsha. What
I'd like them to not do (as I took the trouble to put down into word)
is to continue a trend whereby a subset of swingers who are looking
for a little more than just recreational sex breaks off and calls
themselves a poly group. Why would I like them to not do this?
Because I don't want, when people think of "poly group" to think
that it's nothing but a swingers group using yet another euphemism.
I've experienced both cultures from a variety of angles, and quite
frankly, they're not the same at all. Sure there's some overlap. But
that overlap isn't enough reason to coopt a term which to many has
come to be associated with a type of community. It doesn't matter to
which community this happens, most will react to try to prevent it.
Identity is important, and when someone tries to take over your
identity it is seen as a threat.
I'm sure people in The Lifestyle would have harsh things to say if we
started calling poly gatherings swinging gatherings, and equally
people who came to those meetings expecting one thing and finding
quite another will become disillusioned and it reflects badly on both
groups.
Regardless, I'd rather Mike and Marsha not post their commercial
advertisements to the group. I don't care if it's for a swing club,
or a self-help group, or whatever. They came in, not with the intent
to interact with the group, but to try to profit from it. I very
intensely dislike that. And that is what I'd like to see excluded
from here.
>alt.poly is not a private group but a public forum, one which can only
>benefit from a healthy diversity of viewpoints -- even irrational and
>prejudiced viewpoints (of which I'll admit to owning a few myself).
But they weren't sharing their viewpoints. They were advertising. I
suspect that by and large that is what got most people riled up.
I really hate it when people try to commercialize social situations by
playing on friendships. This is what I really hate about Amway and
similar ilk. If there's a hell, I hope there's a special place
reserved for the most egregious offenders.
--
Anmar Mirza #Chief of Tranquility#I'm a cheap date, but an expensive pet.
EMT-D TBTW10#Base, Lawrence Co. #Road rage is a nice term for "immature."
N9ISY (tech)#Somewhere out on the# Have sawmill, will travel.
EOL DoD#1147#Mirza Ranch.#http://php.indiana.edu/~amirza/home.html
Ryk
>Greetings From Indianapolis!
[etc. Gender Balance discuss the Bible Massage
Models/Volunteers, etc. ]
I'm Sorry Dave....... I don't want to do that anymore
Ryk
Ryk
>Why "should" I be "supportive of all forms of responsible non-monogamy"?
>For that matter, why "should" I be "against the rest of the monogamous
>world"?
>
>Honestly, I'm tired of being fellow-travelered.
Then I'll point out that this is one of the few areas where we agree,
and note that we would probably make an odd pair were we to travel
together ;-)
I too am tired of the argument that because I'm X, therefore I must be
in support of Y and Z, especially when voiced in this news group by
people who have never made a positive contribution. (That includes you
Dave, even if you have unified us in our disagreement over the
years....)
Ryk
Stef Maruch
>st...@netcom.com (Stef Maruch) wrote:
>>I said nothing about Friends in the post you responded to. But their ad
>>did mention g-spot massage. That is public sex in my book. Maybe no such
>>thing happened at their meeting, but if not, it was a mistake for them
>>to mention it.
>What is wrong with G spot massage as an "after hours" option to learn and
>explore more women centered sexualtiy? That is not the main focus. Yes in
>massage workshops I also may discuss G spot massage and demonstrate that if
>someone is a willing volunteer. I think we need more sex education of the
>public and everyone. But that just makes us those low life swingers in your
>view... Women pleasuring G-spot massage isn't just recreational sport sex.
>It is about wanting to pleasure someone you feel emotions with.
I said nothing about low life swingers or about sex being wrong. In
the post you responded to, I said I have been to play parties. That's
basically swinging, so if I dumped on swingers it would be too
hypocritical even for me.
Why do you need to demonize everyone who disagrees with you about the
slightest thing?
I am making one very simple point:
If you post an ad about an event, and the event includes sex on the
agenda, many people are not going to think of it as a swinger event, not
a poly event. If you call it a poly event, you are going to confuse and
annoy people.
People in both alt.swingers and alt.polyamory are apparently flaming this
ad, so I think that provides ample evidence for my point.
I have NOT said the following:
Swingers are evil or low class
Sex is bad
Events that include sex are bad
People who attend events including sex are "nothing but swingers."
--
Stef ** rational/scientific/philosophical/mystical/magical/kitty **
** st...@cat-and-dragon.com <*> http://www.bayarea.net/~stef **
--------------------------------------------------------
Just as Eskimos have lots of different words for snow, the Scots
lots of different words for rain, so Americans have many words for
people deficient in social skills. -- Richard Treitel
Adam Wasserman
<ver...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Different people have posted different answers. And I ask questions because
>I'd rather engender debate than post dogmatic claptrap. If it makes you feel
>insufficiently groovy, cool, sex-positive or inclusive, the problem may not
>lie in me.
Earlier in the same thread she wrote:
>Because their post wasn't a personal ad, was no more a commercial ad than many
>others that get posted here without question, and was in keeping, AFAIK, with
>the group's charter -- except that it was posted by Nasty Icky Heterosexual
>Swingers instead of Cool Groovy Bisexual Polyamorists.
Perhaps Janet's mother was badly frightened by something Cool and
Groovy while she was pregnant with Janet.
Adam
--
Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.
- Phillip K. Dick
Jim Roberts
Ryk wrote:
> On 14 Nov 1998 19:19:45 -0500, mal...@shore.net (Mary Malmros) wrote:
>
> >Why "should" I be "supportive of all forms of responsible non-monogamy"?
> >For that matter, why "should" I be "against the rest of the monogamous
> >world"?
> >
> >Honestly, I'm tired of being fellow-travelered.
>
Of course, this isn't what Jane was saying, or anyone else for that matter.
It's just the Walrus's rant.
> Then I'll point out that this is one of the few areas where we agree,
> and note that we would probably make an odd pair were we to travel
> together ;-)
>
> I too am tired of the argument that because I'm X, therefore I must be
> in support of Y and Z, especially when voiced in this news group by
> people who have never made a positive contribution. (That includes you
> Dave, even if you have unified us in our disagreement over the
> years....)
>
> Ryk
And *you*? You've made a psoitive contribution by some objective standard?
Or you just like what you write? I would guess dave also like what he
writes, or he wouldn't write so much. But it seems to me that he has
contributed far more than you in the few months I've been reading this
group. He has a clearly articulated, though overstated, point of view, and
he contributes a lot of information and corrects a lot of misinformation. Do
you? He's not like the Guppy or the Walrus who howl like dogs when an
ambulance goes by, either in ignorance of what it is or just not caring.
jimbat
bearpaw
>
>bearpaw wrote in message ...
>>3) There is no valid rational reason that I have ever seen for limiting
>> membership of any polyamory support/social group to any particular
>> orientation.
>
>Would you feel that way about an all-male or all-female poly group?
Of course. Putting aside whether there might be any reason to have
a gender-limited poly support group, why would it make sense to limit
such a thing on the basis of orientation as well?
Bearpaw
--
bea...@world.std.com ~~ http://world.std.com/~bearpaw/
"I want to live in the neighborhood at the intersection of
Gandhi and Harvey Milk." - Rachel Chalmers
bearpaw
>
>bea...@world.std.com (bearpaw) wrote:
>>Gosh, some of us are not "inclusive" enough to refrain from commenting
>>on yet another example of heterocentric exclusion. My heart friggin'
>>bleeds. I don't have a narrow definition of polyamory, Davy ... I
>>have meaningful definitions of "inclusion" and "support".
>
>Just because a poly group seeks to be more exclusive to include only people
>that more naturally have something in common and because it would be
>unnatural for them to seek same sex intimate LOVING relationships
If the only point to your "support" group is to function as a
heterosexual meat market, well then, I suppose that makes a perverse
kind of sense. Amazingly enough, lots of us don't share that limited
view of how to "support" fellow polyamorous people.
>(heterosexuals wanting gender balance) does not EXCLUDE them from the
>definition of polyamory by any definition I've ever seen except what you
>WISH it would be.
>
>Forcing people of all sexual orientations and genders together is not a
>definition of polyamory...
Again with the "forcing" strawman, Dave? How old. How is "forcing"
them **apart** a "definition of polyamory"?
>seeking loving relationships is the definition and
>many because of the heterosexual orientation God gave them (not their fault
>they didn't choose it any more than gays do), they do not want loving
>relationships in a group with gays or lesbians, no matter how much they
>support gays and lesbians as we do.
Oh yeah, your classic "I'll support them as long as they stay the fuck
away from me". That's so darned supportive of you.
> ... [remaining repetitive blatherings deleted] ...
Bearpaw
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed
citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing
that ever has." - Margaret Mead
bearpaw
> ...
>The shibboleths of this construction of polyamory appear to stem from an
>apparent need by many of us to distance ourselves from the usual mundane
>misperceptions of polyamory. "POLYAMORY ISN'T CHEATING!!!1!" leads to
>where lying to a partner about a sexual encounter becomes a matter that
>dwarfs (say) lying to a partner about how much money is left in the
>savings account after having gone to Las Vegas for COMDEX. And
>"POLYAMORY ISN'T SWINGING!!!!1!11" generates the (to my mind) bizarre
>disdain for anything that hints at connection to or affinity with the
>swinging and "lifestyles" community.
POLYAMORY ISN'T STAMP-COLLECTING!!!!11!!
Quick, what do you read into *that*?
I've long thought that there was at least some overlap between
swinging and polyamory, and have often said as much even in contexts
where that opinion was less common -- yes, *common* -- than it is
here and now. But I do *not* equate the two things, and I don't
think it's so horribly neurotic to point out where somebody seems to
be -- unintentionally or not -- confusing them.
bearpaw
>jpal...@ix.netcom.com (John Palmer) wrote:
>> I think it's more the deceptiveness that set people off. "We're
>> a swing club. . . oh, but please don't call us that, even though we
>> give no indication of understanding polyamory; call us a polyamory
>> club!"
>
>What deceptiveness? Is it deception to refer to a photocopy as a Xerox?
Generally, no, but it generally *would be* deceptive to refer to a
non-Xerox photocopier as a Xerox photocopier if you're selling it.
The current bru-ha-ha was touched off by someone "selling" their
group as a poly group, though it *sounds* to *some* people like it
*may* be better described as a swing group than a poly group.
>I'm not aware that Polyamory is trademarked, or that any particular set
>of people get to decide who gets to call themselves polyamorous and who
>doesn't.
Whoever is practicing something and/or discussing the term(s) for
it gets to define it, and therefore "decide" in some vague way "who
gets to" use the term(s) and for what. This is news?
Mary Malmros
>abos...@netcom.com (Alan Bostick) writes:
>> ...
>>The shibboleths of this construction of polyamory appear to stem from an
>>apparent need by many of us to distance ourselves from the usual mundane
>>misperceptions of polyamory. "POLYAMORY ISN'T CHEATING!!!1!" leads to
>>the obsession with absolute honesty in sexual matters, to the point
>>where lying to a partner about a sexual encounter becomes a matter that
>>dwarfs (say) lying to a partner about how much money is left in the
>>savings account after having gone to Las Vegas for COMDEX. And
>>"POLYAMORY ISN'T SWINGING!!!!1!11" generates the (to my mind) bizarre
>>disdain for anything that hints at connection to or affinity with the
>>swinging and "lifestyles" community.
>> ...
>
>POLYAMORY ISN'T STAMP-COLLECTING!!!!11!!
>
>Quick, what do you read into *that*?
You're an exclusionary elitist, Bearpaw. And I bet you're also
a college-educated net-using science-fiction-reading bisexual, too.
You can't fool those of us who want this newsgroup to Be All That It
Can Be (to all people at all times for all purposes including stamp
collecting). We _know_ about your type.
Holly Wilper
>
> Holly Wilper wrote in message <364C46...@uiuc.edu>...
>
> >I don't know that anything is specifically said about swing clubs, but I
> >wonder if this add wouldn't come under the heading of "commercial
> >advertisement" anyway. Which, my limited knowledge of nettiquette says,
> >should be limited to the commercial newsgroups?
> >
> >After all, $50 or $100 per year for a group that seems to just get a
> >hotel room for meetings sounds pretty commercial to me.
>
> Gee, alt.polycon was $30 for only one weekend, and nobody bitched about
> that.
>
> Look, if the charter is written so as to specifically prohibit this kind of
> post, then I'd say you've got a legitimate beef. If not, then you're stuck
> trying to distinguish between poly group meetings and swing club meetings --
> a slope which innumerable threads of innumerable posts have shown to be
> oil-slicked Teflon.
>
It is a good point.
I can't speak for anyone else here but for me there is a difference
between charging for a meeting and charging for a conference.
Deborah Anapol's group does annual conferences and the ads for those
usually get posted here. They aren't things that I am interested in, and
I feel like the prices are a bit high. But they are yearly conferences
on a tangential topic, and conferences cost a lot of money to put on. I
have no problem with this.
I have seen ads in alt.poly for bisexuality conferences. Again, they ask
for money, they are putting on large expensive conferences. They are not
really relevant to alt.polyamory, but they are relevant to a non-trivial
part of the people here. They are posted once, for information. I have
no problem with that.
I would have no problem with a swing conference posting one
informational ad here a year. Again, this would be relevant to a
non-trivial number of the people here.
For annual conventions being advertised here, I would have problems with
a model train group. I would not have problems with a relationship
conference. I would have problems with a gardening club. I would not
with a safer sex organization. This is a group about sex and
relationships and those are pertenent to the group. We are talking about
single postings of information too, not daily postings of material.
I would have a problem with any group advertizing for meetings here and
charging "membership fees". I know that isn't particularly rational.
Somewhere it marks the difference between "for profit" and "not for
profit" in my book. A group that was asking each person to donate $5 for
that nights dinner or whatnot, fine. A group that was demanding a $50
annual fee to belong, that sounds too commercial to me. Hell, a group
that demanded the $5 would make me uncomfortable. (What sort of a
support group demands money?)
And I would feel that way even if it was a group about whom no one had
any "poly moral qualms". Even if they accepted everyone including purple
eyed martians with bad skin. Even if they only had deep discussions
about relevant matters. Even if I was a member of the group.
But it is a difficult line to draw sometimes, I understand that. I
understand also that it might be harder to draw if the group that you
feel is across the line is also a group that seems to be doing other
things that you (personally) don't approve of.
Nope, the charter doesn't address the issue, and I think that that is a
dearth in the charter, rather than people trying to say that it is okay
for poly groups and not for swing groups. At least for a non-trivial
subset of "people".
And, lest anyone think otherwise, I do not think that I am the end all
and be all of opinion on the matter, and this is presented to START
discussion, not to end it.
holly
fairest one
: piranha wrote in message <72k1oh$kfc$1...@excalibur.gooroos.com>...
[snip]
: if it's a poly gathering, there is no
:> need whatsoever to say "hets only, and bi women", and
:> to charge more for single men. there is no need to
:> have a pretty close gender balance. we get together
:> to talk about poly stuff. i don't care whether the
:> folks i'm talking to are of the correct gender or the
:> appropriate sexual orientation.
: Really? You'd feel comfortable talking about your innermost poly problems in
: a group of ten men in which you were the only woman?
not that i'm the fish, but yes i would probably feel comfortable in that
situation. depends on *which* ten men, of course, but if it were a group
of women it'd depend which women, too.
b.
Jim Roberts
Adam Wasserman wrote:
>
> Perhaps Janet's mother was badly frightened by something Cool and
> Groovy while she was pregnant with Janet.
>
> Adam
A stoopid and disgusting remark. Join the Guppy and the Walrus in the slime pit.
jimbat
Janet Hardy
bearpaw wrote in message ...
>>
>>Would you feel that way about an all-male or all-female poly group?
>
>Of course. Putting aside whether there might be any reason to have
>a gender-limited poly support group, why would it make sense to limit
>such a thing on the basis of orientation as well?
The main reason I can imagine is that many gay men feel uncomfortable in the
presence of women, and many lesbians feel uncomfortable in the presence of
men, so such groups might choose to limit attendance so that discussion
could feel safer and be more open.
Or it might be that the people in such a group believed that gay poly
culture and lesbian poly culture were sufficiently different from hetero- or
pansexual poly culture to merit their own separate discussions. (In the case
of gay male poly culture, I think they've got a case; I don't think it's
coincidence that we see virtually no postings here from the gay male
community.)
In either case, my personal opinion is that there's a valid case to be made
for exclusion. And why should my opinion matter anyway?
Verdant