multiple relationships
Mary Malmros
In article <19970325000...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
BDewsbury <bdew...@aol.com> wrote:
>First i'd like to introduce myself: My name is Bill and i've been on the
>newsgroup for awhile but i haven't really participated. Me and my
>girlfriend Rachel have been in a poly relationship for a year and a half
>and things have been only getting better.
>
>I would like to ask everyone some questions:
>
>Is there anyone on this newsgroup that have multiple(more than triad)
>relationships?
>
>I have been told that this type of relationship is very common but from
>what i've read here maybe i'm mistaken.
Based on the juxtaposition with the word "triad", I'm guessing you are using
the term "multiple relationshps" in a way that's slightly different from the
way that most people here use it: specifically, you're using it to refer to
an arrangement of multiple people wherein everyone has a sexual/romantic
relationship with everyone else. I would guess that that sort of a multiple
relationship is _not_ very common, especially when the numbers of people get
greater than four. Why? Simple. Regardless of how open you are to the
possibility of such things, the _likelihood_ that four (or more) people will
all be sexually/romantically attracted to each other is fairly small, and
gets smaller for larger values of n.
>Also: Why is it so hard to find people who actually accept the poly
>lifestyle?We have talked to many people and all say" that sounds great but
>i couldn't do it" but yet they will turn around and see other people
>behind their SO back. Maybe i'm wrong but this makes no sense, if you love
>both people why not let them both at least know each other.
You know the answer: because, for most people, cheating is both simpler and
easier in the short term, and because they don't think that there IS a "long
term" with more than one partner.
--
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Mary Malmros Very Small Being mal...@shore.net
The Tree of Liberty is fed with the blood of the Program/Project Matrix.
Mamabear
Hi--
In article <19970325000...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
bdew...@aol.com (BDewsbury) wrote:
<...greeting snipped, but hello :>...>
> Is there anyone on this newsgroup that have multiple(more than triad)
> relationships?
We're a quad, but of rather recent origin; up until a couple months ago,
we were a triad.
>
> Also: Why is it so hard to find people who actually accept the poly
> lifestyle?We have talked to many people and all say" that sounds great but
> i couldn't do it" but yet they will turn around and see other people
> behind their SO back. Maybe i'm wrong but this makes no sense, if you love
> both people why not let them both at least know each other.
Oh, it does make sense, just of a very unpleasant kind. As far as I'm
concerned, someone who cheats like that (ie, lying to one or both) not
only doesn't love both of the people involved, they don't love *either*.
There's no accepting of responsibility in the relationship(s), no sharing.
To me (and I'm sure someone will want to blast me on this one, but save
your breath out there), that kind of cheating is someone who wants freebie
sex, not loving relationships. That's why they can say they couldn't be
poly, then turn around and behave that way.
MB
--
"We've got to dance and be in love"
--Lenny Kravitz
***
Visit the Bear's Den
http://people.delphi.com/bearclan
BDewsbury
First i'd like to introduce myself: My name is Bill and i've been on the
newsgroup for awhile but i haven't really participated. Me and my
girlfriend Rachel have been in a poly relationship for a year and a half
and things have been only getting better.
I would like to ask everyone some questions:
Is there anyone on this newsgroup that have multiple(more than triad)
relationships?
I have been told that this type of relationship is very common but from
what i've read here maybe i'm mistaken.
Also: Why is it so hard to find people who actually accept the poly
lifestyle?We have talked to many people and all say" that sounds great but
i couldn't do it" but yet they will turn around and see other people
behind their SO back. Maybe i'm wrong but this makes no sense, if you love
both people why not let them both at least know each other.
We hope to see lots of people at POLYCON II in Ottawa.
BDewsbury and RYoung
bdew...@aol.com
Scott Hutchinson
BDewsbury (bdew...@aol.com) writes:
> We hope to see lots of people at POLYCON II in Ottawa.
When is this going to be?
Animal
--
Tick: "Evil is afoot!"
Arthur: "Really, that's very philosophical, Tick. A foot? I've always
envisioned evil as a dark brooding shape with squinty eyes..."
SWhelan
Scott Hutchinson <co...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in article
<5h8g08$2...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>...
>
> BDewsbury (bdew...@aol.com) writes:
>
> > We hope to see lots of people at POLYCON II in Ottawa.
>
> When is this going to be?
>
> Animal
What an excellent question! :-)
And the answer is: Alt.Polycon II is in August 22, 23 and 24th. That's a
Friday through Sunday. The format will be similar to Alt.Polycon I, in that
there will
be a few things organized for Friday, a packed day on Saturday and a short
morning Sunday followed by a brunch and lots of free time to enjoy the
city.
Registration details:
ALT.POLYCON 2 REGISTRATION INFO:
COST: $60/Cdn per person if you book before June 1, 1997.
Price includes conference sessions, Sunday Brunch,
(and some extra surprise goodies!)
$75/Cdn for onsite/late registration.
Payment must be sent as a Postal Money Order in
Canadian Dollars. No personal checks please.
(The banks charge FAR too much to clear a personal
check from the US.)
Registration form at the end of this message, or at:
http://www.intranet.ca/~nataliep/polycon2.html
Happy Polycon Hugs from your concom: (Rascal, Stef W., Natalie)
Rascal - ras...@magi.com
Natalie - nata...@intranet.ca
Stef - ste...@ottawa.com aka Fiaran - fia...@earthling.net
---------------------- Registration Form ---------------------------------
Names of people Attending: Email Addresses:
__________________________________ _________________________________
__________________________________ _________________________________
__________________________________ _________________________________
__________________________________ _________________________________
__________________________________ _________________________________
__________________________________ _________________________________
__________________________________ _________________________________
Will you be bringing children? (Y/N)
If so, are you interested in finding out more about childsitting? (Y/N)
If you are interested in child sitting, what are the ages of
the children:______________
Please indicate if you would like to volunteer to help with
Alt.Polycon in any of the following areas:
___Planning
___Scheduling
___Setup
___Cleanup
___Registration
___Anywhere I/We can
Where are you planning to stay? (i.e. Market Square Inn, Camping, Hostel,
etc.)
___________________________________________________________
Comments/Questions?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
email the above form to nata...@intranet.ca, or ras...@magi.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Send your Canadian Postal Money Order for Registration to :
Darren Toop
414 Leighton Terrace
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
K1Z 6J6
(No personal checks please!)
______________________________________________________________________
There you go! (hopefully!)
Fiaran
Catherine Harper
On 25 Mar 1997, BDewsbury wrote:
> Is there anyone on this newsgroup that have multiple(more than triad)
> relationships?
>
> I have been told that this type of relationship is very common but from
> what i've read here maybe i'm mistaken.
What do you count? I'm currently only sleeping with (and I'm picking this
just in terms of it being the most straightforward measure) two people.
One of them is also only sleeping with two people (me and the other) one
is sleeping with three, and one of her lovers has other lovers as well
though I'd have to go and double check with him to see who is current at
the moment. So things are pretty stodgy in my neck of the woods, maybe...
(And all this is a snapshot -- while things have been in more or less this
configuration for a bit... well, you never know. When I feel like having
fits of spring fever, I wonder if the adorable long time friend of mine
who has recently discovered her bisexuality is flirting with me, and if so
if I am flirting back... I've alerted my other lovers to the possibility,
but I don't really know if it's going anywhere.)
Catherine
--
bikerbabe in black leather
>newsgroup for awhile but i haven't really participated. Me and my
>girlfriend Rachel have been in a poly relationship for a year and a half
>and things have been only getting better.
Who's your other partner(s)? I ask simply because you refer only to
one SO yet say you're in a poly relationship.
>Is there anyone on this newsgroup that have multiple(more than triad)
>relationships?
I'm going to presume from your phrasing that you you are talking about
more than two other close relationships with which you are directly
involved on a day to day basis. Because I have two very significant
relationships, and several friends who are lovers as well.
>I have been told that this type of relationship is very common but from
>what i've read here maybe i'm mistaken.
Common? I personally know of no more than 3 person primary relationships. I
know of several more than three person relationships similar to mine.
>Also: Why is it so hard to find people who actually accept the poly
>lifestyle?We have talked to many people and all say" that sounds great but
>i couldn't do it" but yet they will turn around and see other people
>behind their SO back. Maybe i'm wrong but this makes no sense, if you love
>both people why not let them both at least know each other.
>
Maybe because the general unwashed masses fit cheating into their
paradigm of how relationships work? Poly doesn't in any way fit that
paradigm.
I usually don't get into poly much with other people. Most of the
people around me know about my various relationships, but unless they
care to ask I usually don't go into more depth.
I'm wary of people who like poly in principle but who have little
experience to back it up, I've been burned several times to varying
degrees by such folks getting involved with them.
It's difficult to get people to make a radical change to their
paradigm about how the world works around them. I decided that trying
to confront them head on used a lot of my energy for little gain. Now
I try to set a good example and to work it into their subconscious
where they can accept and mold it into their worldview much more
easily. I feel I make a lot more gain with people and I'm happier
with myself.
--
Anmar Mirza #Chief of Tranquility#I'm a cheap date, but an expensive pet.
EMT-D TBTW10#Base, Lawrence Co. #How many vegetables die for a glass of V8?
N9ISY (tech)#Somewhere out on the#Have sawmill, will travel.
EOL DoD#1147#Mirza Ranch.#http://copper.ucs.indiana.edu/~amirza/home.html
Thida Cornes
bikerbabe in black leather wrote:
[snip]
> I'm wary of people who like poly in principle but who have little
> experience to back it up, I've been burned several times to varying
> degrees by such folks getting involved with them.
>
> It's difficult to get people to make a radical change to their
> paradigm about how the world works around them. I decided that trying
> to confront them head on used a lot of my energy for little gain. Now
> I try to set a good example and to work it into their subconscious
> where they can accept and mold it into their worldview much more
> easily. I feel I make a lot more gain with people and I'm happier
> with myself.
While I can understand this viewpoint, because after all, no-one likes
getting hurt, I don't think it's particularly fair. No doubt it's
partially because I've heard too often from lesbians, 'well, some bi
woman horribly hurt me, so I won't get involved with bi women again'.
I wouldn't be poly today if someone hadn't been willing to say 'okay
you're new to all this, but I'm willing to take a chance that you're not
going to change your mind, and that the mistakes you make aren't going
to hurt me too badly'. Now admittedly said person had known me for 10
years. And I probably wouldn't recommend getting involved with someone
who is new to polyamory AND you don't really know that well.
--
To reply by email, please remove the spam from my email address.
Thida Cornes Email: th...@mandalay.org
http://www.mandalay.org/
Don't crack up, bend your brain, see both sides, throw off your mental
chains. -Howard Jones
"There's nothing wrong with me; therefore there must be something wrong
with the universe." - Dr. Beverly Crusher, Star Trek the Next
Generation
Angeline Kantola
In article <5h9qft$5...@dismay.ucs.indiana.edu>,
bikerbabe in black leather <ami...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
>I'm wary of people who like poly in principle but who have little
>experience to back it up, I've been burned several times to varying
>degrees by such folks getting involved with them.
Y'know, I was wondering if I was the only one who felt a bit
suspicious of the Poly On Principle. It's easy to get caught up
in how delightful it'd be to have more than one lover, and to
overlook that the compromises inherent in *any* relationship
increase in number and complexity as N gets bigger than 2...
(Shrug) Thida's got a point about not writing every one of them
off because of sour experiences with a few. I mean, how are
they supposed to *get* experience otherwise? Even so, 'poly
on principle', like 'bi-curious female', may well be translated
to mean 'proceed with caution'.
Cheers,
Angie
who's secondary to her secondary,
and who's been burned by straight girls before.
Steve Pope
kan...@u.washington.edu (Angeline Kantola) writes:
>Y'know, I was wondering if I was the only one who felt a bit
>suspicious of the Poly On Principle. It's easy to get caught up
>in how delightful it'd be to have more than one lover, and to
>overlook that the compromises inherent in *any* relationship
>increase in number and complexity as N gets bigger than 2...
If I read you correctly, I disagree with this last statement.
I don't feel that multiple relationships are inherently
more compromising than a single 2-person relationship. (In fact
one could argue that limiting one's relationships to a single
2-person relationship involves more compromises than other
configurations.)
"Different" compromises for N bigger than 2 might be more accurate.
Steve
Mary Malmros
In article <33396B...@spammandalay.org>,
>> experience to back it up, I've been burned several times to varying
>> degrees by such folks getting involved with them.
>>
>> paradigm about how the world works around them. I decided that trying
>> to confront them head on used a lot of my energy for little gain. Now
>> I try to set a good example and to work it into their subconscious
>> where they can accept and mold it into their worldview much more
>> easily. I feel I make a lot more gain with people and I'm happier
>> with myself.
>
>While I can understand this viewpoint, because after all, no-one likes
>getting hurt, I don't think it's particularly fair. No doubt it's
>partially because I've heard too often from lesbians, 'well, some bi
>woman horribly hurt me, so I won't get involved with bi women again'.
Hrm. Well, while I certainly am not about to argue with your feelings that
you weren't treated fairly, I wonder how much "fair" has to do, or should
have to do, with who people choose as their partners. To me, fairness
connotes a reasonable expectation of how people ought to behave -- and I
don't think there ARE any reasonable expectations WRT whether people will
get involved with you. In some ways, I find it quite disturbing to have the
concept of "fairness" associated with choices of relationship partners at
all. If I don't want to marry outside my religion -- as many people do not
-- am I not being "fair"? If I don't want to have a primary partner who's
twenty years older than I am, am I not being "fair"? Am I behaving
unreasonably? Or is it reasonable to allow me my quirks, needs, and
preferences?
The Lorax
On 26 Mar 1997, bikerbabe in black leather wrote:
> In article <19970325000...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
> BDewsbury <bdew...@aol.com> wrote:
> >First i'd like to introduce myself: My name is Bill and i've been on the
> >newsgroup for awhile but i haven't really participated. Me and my
> >girlfriend Rachel have been in a poly relationship for a year and a half
> >and things have been only getting better.
I haven't been able to keep up with my newsgroups the last couple
weeks so I missed your original post but welcome.
> >Also: Why is it so hard to find people who actually accept the poly
> >lifestyle?We have talked to many people and all say" that sounds great but
> >i couldn't do it" but yet they will turn around and see other people
> >behind their SO back. Maybe i'm wrong but this makes no sense, if you love
> >both people why not let them both at least know each other.
>
> Maybe because the general unwashed masses fit cheating into their
> paradigm of how relationships work? Poly doesn't in any way fit that
> paradigm.
I've wondered about this also, and I think this analysis is pretty
much correct. There have been two women who I asked out that were
interested in my spending the night with them even though they knew I was
involved with someone *but* after they found out she was okay with me
having sex with them as long as she got to meet them they were no longer
interested. One of them just kept saying that was "too wierd" and I never
heard from her again after that. I think in these cases it might have
been that they were interested in me when they thought I was cheating
because then they had a chance to steal me away and believed that by some
miricle I could then be forever faithful to them and never look at another
women. I think they saw it as a competition that they could win an
exclusive relationship with me but couldn't handle the idea of sharing.
> I'm wary of people who like poly in principle but who have little
> experience to back it up, I've been burned several times to varying
> degrees by such folks getting involved with them.
Hmmm, this sounds like the old catch 22 at job interviews. "We can't
hire you because you don't have any experience" but how can anyone get
experience? Yes, there is a good chance of getting burned by people new
to it and not clear and comfortable with everything involved, but I don't
think that all of these people should be excluded out of hand. Sometimes
you need to take chances to find the treasures. :)
"UNLESS someone like you cares a whole awful lot
Nothing's going to get better. It's not."
-- The Onceler --
bearpaw
mal...@shore.net (Mary Malmros) writes:
> ...
>get involved with you. In some ways, I find it quite disturbing to have the
>concept of "fairness" associated with choices of relationship partners at
>all. If I don't want to marry outside my religion -- as many people do not
>-- am I not being "fair"? If I don't want to have a primary partner who's
>twenty years older than I am, am I not being "fair"? Am I behaving
>unreasonably? Or is it reasonable to allow me my quirks, needs, and
>preferences?
IMHO: (1) insufficient data, (2) insufficient data, (3) insufficient
data, (4) maybe, probably, yes. :->
I dislike the word fair -- and I'll spare people the rant today, but
suffice it to say that I believe it's almost as mis-used as the word
"love" -- but I think it's "fair" if such things are preferences and
"unfair" if they are prejudices.
And, yeah, telling the difference can be tough.
I'm a bisexual man who tends to be more often attracted to women.
*Part* of that is, I think, a simple(?) asthetic preference. But
part of it is also, undoubtedly, prejudice based on sexism and
heterosexism. The former, IMHO, is "fair", the latter is "unfair".
Seperating the two is difficult, to put it mildly -- I've been
tinkering with this one on and off for a couple of decades.
Hopefully, someday, it'll pay off.
Bearpaw
+---------- Bearpaw MacDonald bea...@world.std.com ----------+
| http://world.std.com/~bearpaw/ |
| "You can believe anything you want. The universe is not obliged |
\ to keep a straight face." -- Solomon Short /
Thida Cornes
Yah, I've got to agree with you they're different and probably not
greater. However I think poly relationships are arguably more complex.
> > Even so, 'poly on principle', like 'bi-curious female', may well be
> > translated to mean 'proceed with caution'.
Well, I agree with this too.
Thida who's feeling agreeable this morning
bikerbabe in black leather
In article <333AA7...@spammandalay.org>,
Thida Cornes <th...@spammandalay.org> wrote:
>Steve Pope wrote:
>>
>> If I read you correctly, I disagree with this last statement.
>> I don't feel that multiple relationships are inherently
>> more compromising than a single 2-person relationship. (In fact
>> one could argue that limiting one's relationships to a single
>> 2-person relationship involves more compromises than other
>> configurations.)
>>
>> "Different" compromises for N bigger than 2 might be more accurate.
>
>Yah, I've got to agree with you they're different and probably not
>greater. However I think poly relationships are arguably more complex.
I'll disagree with you and agree with Steve. IMHO, of course, my poly
relationships have had about the same level of day to day care and
compromise as have my mono ones, but the complexity has been much
less. Of course, that may have as much to do with my style of
relationships than the fact that they're poly.
About the only thing I've run into complexity wise that was
significantly more was scheduling, because not only do my activities
and hobbies have a priority, but there is more than one other person
who has a high priority up there too for time, with their own
different schedules.
Thida Cornes
Mary Malmros wrote:
>
> In article <33396B...@spammandalay.org>,> >[snip]
> >> I'm wary of people who like poly in principle but who have little
> >> experience to back it up, I've been burned several times to varying
> >> degrees by such folks getting involved with them.
> >>
> >> paradigm about how the world works around them. I decided that trying
> >> to confront them head on used a lot of my energy for little gain. Now
> >> I try to set a good example and to work it into their subconscious
> >> where they can accept and mold it into their worldview much more
> >> easily. I feel I make a lot more gain with people and I'm happier
> >> with myself.
> >
> >While I can understand this viewpoint, because after all, no-one likes
> >getting hurt, I don't think it's particularly fair. No doubt it's
> >partially because I've heard too often from lesbians, 'well, some bi
> >woman horribly hurt me, so I won't get involved with bi women again'.
>
> Hrm. Well, while I certainly am not about to argue with your feelings that
> you weren't treated fairly, I wonder how much "fair" has to do, or should
> have to do, with who people choose as their partners. To me, fairness
> connotes a reasonable expectation of how people ought to behave -- and I
> don't think there ARE any reasonable expectations WRT whether people will
> concept of "fairness" associated with choices of relationship partners at
> all. If I don't want to marry outside my religion -- as many people do not
> -- am I not being "fair"? If I don't want to have a primary partner who's
> twenty years older than I am, am I not being "fair"? Am I behaving
> unreasonably? Or is it reasonable to allow me my quirks, needs, and
> preferences?
>
romantic relationships, nor am I arguing for impartiality. However I
think impartiality is different than being fair in this context. To me,
being fair is not apriori excluding someone based on something that does
not reflect your needs and desires. Someone's religious beliefs will
most likely have a profound effect on your romantic relationships. If
you have a fetish for red hair or youth or whatever, then that too will
affect your relationship. However I'd argue if someone is willing and
able, then their experience or lack thereof with a certain behaviour
will not apriori prevent you from having a successful relationship.
Stef Jones
BDewsbury <bdew...@aol.com> wrote:
>First i'd like to introduce myself: My name is Bill and i've been on the
>newsgroup for awhile but i haven't really participated. Me and my
>girlfriend Rachel have been in a poly relationship for a year and a half
>and things have been only getting better.
>
>I would like to ask everyone some questions:
>
>Is there anyone on this newsgroup that have multiple(more than triad)
>relationships?
I have relationships with six people. One is a primary relationship and the
others are romantic/sexual friendships.
>Also: Why is it so hard to find people who actually accept the poly
>lifestyle?We have talked to many people and all say" that sounds great but
>i couldn't do it" but yet they will turn around and see other people
>behind their SO back. Maybe i'm wrong but this makes no sense, if you love
>both people why not let them both at least know each other.
There is very little cultural support for the *honesty* required in making
sure your partners know about each other and are comfortable with the
arrangement. It's not the "seeing others" part that's hard, it's the
working out a reasonable, fair arrangement with everybody aboveboard.
Obviously, I think it's worth the effort! :-)
--
Stef ** rational/scientific/philosophical/mystical/magical/kitty **
** st...@cat-and-dragon.com <*> http://www.bayarea.net/~stef **
--------------------------------------------------------
Try Softer
A young boy traveled across Japan to the school of a famous martial artist.
When he arrived at the dojo he was given an audience by the sensei. "What
do you wish from me?" the master asked. "I wish to be your student and
become the finest karateka in the land" the boy replied. "How long must I
study?" "Ten years at least" the master answered. "Ten years is a long
time," said the boy. "What if I studied twice as hard as all your other
students?" "Twenty years" replied the master. "Twenty years! What if I
practice day and night with all my effort?" "Thirty years" was the master's
reply. "How is it that each time I say I will work harder, you tell me it
will take longer?" the boy asked. "The answer is clear. When one eye is
fixed upon your destination, there is only one eye left with which to find
the way." (Unknown)
Stef Jones
Angeline Kantola <kan...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>In article <5h9qft$5...@dismay.ucs.indiana.edu>,
>bikerbabe in black leather <ami...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
>>I'm wary of people who like poly in principle but who have little
>>experience to back it up, I've been burned several times to varying
>>degrees by such folks getting involved with them.
>Y'know, I was wondering if I was the only one who felt a bit
>suspicious of the Poly On Principle. It's easy to get caught up
>in how delightful it'd be to have more than one lover, and to
>overlook that the compromises inherent in *any* relationship
>increase in number and complexity as N gets bigger than 2...
>
>(Shrug) Thida's got a point about not writing every one of them
>off because of sour experiences with a few. I mean, how are
>they supposed to *get* experience otherwise? Even so, 'poly
>on principle', like 'bi-curious female', may well be translated
>to mean 'proceed with caution'.
When my primary partner and I first got together, we were both
poly-in-principle -- well, we were both seeing other people, but we
considered ourselves friends and didn't talk much about the others we were
seeing. When we went to considering ourselves primary and poly-in-practice,
we had a lot of problems that took us a couple of years to work out.
So yeah, "proceed with caution" is a good idea. Still, both of us have had
poly relationships with others who were inexperienced with poly and we've
ended up doing mostly OK. Some of those relationships broke up, but usually
for reasons unrelated to poly.
--
Stef ** rational/scientific/philosophical/mystical/magical/kitty **
** st...@cat-and-dragon.com <*> http://www.bayarea.net/~stef **
--------------------------------------------------------
I'm a bi poly switch, and I might have sex with you if you figure out a way
to make me immortal. Otherwise I don't have time. -- SFJ
*sunbird*
In article <5h9qft$5...@dismay.ucs.indiana.edu>
ami...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (bikerbabe in black leather) wrote:
> I'm wary of people who like poly in principle but who have little
> experience to back it up, I've been burned several times to varying
> degrees by such folks getting involved with them.
there's always a first time, tho, eh?
> It's difficult to get people to make a radical change to their
> paradigm about how the world works around them. I decided that trying
> to confront them head on used a lot of my energy for little gain. Now
> I try to set a good example and to work it into their subconscious
> where they can accept and mold it into their worldview much more
> easily. I feel I make a lot more gain with people and I'm happier
> with myself.
work into the subconcious how? just by having them experience it
by virtue of knowing you? or is there a more active approach to
take?
sunbird
Thida Cornes
> >concept of "fairness" associated with choices of relationship partners at
> >all. If I don't want to marry outside my religion -- as many people do not
> >-- am I not being "fair"? If I don't want to have a primary partner who's
> >twenty years older than I am, am I not being "fair"? Am I behaving
> >unreasonably? Or is it reasonable to allow me my quirks, needs, and
> >preferences?
>
> data, (4) maybe, probably, yes. :->
>
> I dislike the word fair -- and I'll spare people the rant today, but
> suffice it to say that I believe it's almost as mis-used as the word
> "love" -- but I think it's "fair" if such things are preferences and
> "unfair" if they are prejudices.
>
> And, yeah, telling the difference can be tough.
I just realised an important point. When I wrote about fair, I'm only
concerned about being fair to oneself.
Mary Malmros
In article <E7pHn...@world.std.com>, bearpaw <bea...@world.std.com> wrote:
>mal...@shore.net (Mary Malmros) writes:
>> ...
>>get involved with you. In some ways, I find it quite disturbing to have the
>>concept of "fairness" associated with choices of relationship partners at
>>all. If I don't want to marry outside my religion -- as many people do not
>>-- am I not being "fair"? If I don't want to have a primary partner who's
>>twenty years older than I am, am I not being "fair"? Am I behaving
>>unreasonably? Or is it reasonable to allow me my quirks, needs, and
>>preferences?
>
>IMHO: (1) insufficient data, (2) insufficient data, (3) insufficient
>data, (4) maybe, probably, yes. :->
What would be sufficient data? Knowledge of what my religion is? Or of how
old I am?
>I dislike the word fair -- and I'll spare people the rant today, but
>suffice it to say that I believe it's almost as mis-used as the word
>"love" -- but I think it's "fair" if such things are preferences and
>"unfair" if they are prejudices.
>
>And, yeah, telling the difference can be tough.
But, getting back to what I said about what "fairness" connotes to me -- I
always have this feeling that "fairness" connotes an expectation of
reasonable behavior. And I just do not think that there ARE any reasonable
expectations WRT who someone chooses as a relationship partner, whether it's
the result of prejudice or prefernece.
Mary Malmros
In article <333B1C...@spammandalay.org>,
Thida Cornes <th...@spammandalay.org> wrote:
>bearpaw wrote:
>>
>> mal...@shore.net (Mary Malmros) writes:
>> > ...
>> >get involved with you. In some ways, I find it quite disturbing to have the
>> >concept of "fairness" associated with choices of relationship partners at
>> >all. If I don't want to marry outside my religion -- as many people do not
>> >-- am I not being "fair"? If I don't want to have a primary partner who's
>> >twenty years older than I am, am I not being "fair"? Am I behaving
>> >unreasonably? Or is it reasonable to allow me my quirks, needs, and
>> >preferences?
>>
>> IMHO: (1) insufficient data, (2) insufficient data, (3) insufficient
>> data, (4) maybe, probably, yes. :->
>>
>> suffice it to say that I believe it's almost as mis-used as the word
>> "love" -- but I think it's "fair" if such things are preferences and
>> "unfair" if they are prejudices.
>>
>> And, yeah, telling the difference can be tough.
>
>concerned about being fair to oneself.
Ah, okay, big difference WRT what I was thinking about "fair" -- I was
thinking about it stritly in relation to one's behavior towards others.
Maenad
Somebody (recursion and a randomly carnivorous
server have tripped me up here) wrote:
>>...'poly on principle', like 'bi-curious female', may
>>well be translated to mean 'proceed with caution'.
Hear, hear. Before I start agreeing, I suppose I must
admit that I started out as a poly-on-principle sort. I
knew little about it and was unsure if I could handle
it. It was only after I started living it -- being as neurotic
and whiny as possible about every step <G> -- that I
realized the trouble with my previous relationships
was that I couldn't handle MONO.
That said, what I've seen a lot of in my own relationships
and those of my friends is partners who say they are
interested in or willing to try poly, or who say they are
poly, but what they really mean is either:
(1) I don't mind you fucking other people until we
Fall In Love, and then I expect you to drop all
that and have a SERIOUS relationship with me
(ie mono); or
(2) I will refuse to honor any agreements except
when there is nothing in particular going on that
would make it necessary to activate them, but I
will build up resentment toward you for fucking
and loving other people, even if you do it in a way
consistent with every agreement I've asked you
to keep.
Perhaps the kind of problems I describe in the
previous paragraphs can be worked out, but IME
more than one party in a partnership with such
problems has to want to work it out AND be
comfortable with doing that in a way that
considers polyamory the desired model in
which to work it out (as opposed to monogamy
and/or uninvolved opportunistic sex with lots
of friends).
My solution to all this now is to "risk" closeness
only with partners who have both of two major
qualifications: They have been living poly for
a while before they knew me; And they already
have at least one other important ongoing
relationship in their lives. No more singles or
newbies for me, thanks. ;-)
Love,
Lydia
rg
Thida Cornes <th...@spammandalay.org> wrote:
>bikerbabe in black leather wrote:
>[snip]
>> I'm wary of people who like poly in principle but who have little
>> experience to back it up, I've been burned several times to varying
>> degrees by such folks getting involved with them.
snip
>I wouldn't be poly today if someone hadn't been willing to say 'okay
>you're new to all this, but I'm willing to take a chance that you're not
>going to change your mind, and that the mistakes you make aren't going
>to hurt me too badly'. Now admittedly said person had known me for 10
>years. And I probably wouldn't recommend getting involved with someone
>who is new to polyamory AND you don't really know that well.
When I met G she'd never encountered the concept of polyamory, had had
a marriage where hubby had cheated on her (left him when he added
beating to his repertoire), and a male friend of long standing who
wrote off their friendship when she started dating me because he
assumed I'd be jealous and offended by his existence.
I was up front with being poly, and told her I wouldn't even try to
change that; but that I wouldn't start with anyone new until she was
comfortable with it. (Later, I changed the promise to "gave poly her
blessing").
Its been a wonderful relationship for 7 years, and shows no sign of
ever being anything else.
I don't know what this means besides YMMV. Or, maybe 'relationships
involve risk, and sometimes one gets lucky'
Ron
Maenad
John Ullman <jul...@wolfenet.com> wrote:
>...I have fallen in love with at least three
>people immediately upon meeting them, who
>continue to be wonderful partners in my life.
>I think at least two of them could be construed
>as newbies to poly, and I am very glad I took
>the risk...aren't you?
Yes, indeed. In one case in particular, I'm both glad
and incredibly lucky. As you know. Don't you? I
suspect you do. (By the way, you might want to
rub some triple-antibiotic cream into those cuts
on your chest this morning.) (Ahem.)
Your points are good, sweet man. And I strongly
suspect that I won't go to my grave as a very old
woman without ever again having taken such
risks. For now, however, I think I'll just concentrate
on healing. By doing this now, I expect someday
to become strong enough again to consciously take
on situations with strong potential for hurt as well as
reward -- as I've done in the past, with mixed results.
Succubus love,
Lydia
John Ullman
Another thought about newbies and singles...It is a lot easier now to give
newbies a sense that poly works by bringing them to a Poly Potluck or
brunch, than by just telling them about it. Having a well developed
community to "show off" is a great way to validate poly as a practical
technology rather than a theoretical construct that is not easily
believable.
Twenty years ago, it was very hard to give a new person a sense of reality
about poly. "It's OK, we have an open marriage." was right up there with
"The check's in the mail" and "I won't come in your mouth."
John U
John Ullman
On Fri, 28 Mar 1997, Maenad wrote:
> My solution to all this now is to "risk" closeness
> only with partners who have both of two major
> qualifications: They have been living poly for
> a while before they knew me; And they already
> have at least one other important ongoing
> relationship in their lives. No more singles or
> newbies for me, thanks. ;-)
> Love,
> Lydia
>
I don't know why, but Lydia, your post brings to mind the words of a
favorite married, poly love of mine in Salt Lake City in the mid '70's.
Every time she would break up with a single guy she would say "No more
Single Guys" and every time she would break up with a married guy she
would say "No more married guys."
I do agree with you, however that newbies or wannabees should be handled
with kid gloves. If possible heavy duty emotional involvement shouldn't
happen immediately. We were all newbies at one time or another, however, so
someone took a chance on us...I have fallen in love with at least three
people immediately upon meeting them, who continue to be wonderful
partners in my life. I think at least two of them could be construed as
newbies to poly, and I am very glad I took the risk...aren't you?
As far as singles go, yes there are lots of problems, because they often
treat polys as a sidetrack until their mainline comes. Some of our friends
are "single", if you stop to think about it, like S for example, who has
no current SO. But she has been part of the network for so long she may
not feel single to us. (It is pretty clear that not having a primary feels
single to her, however...)
John U
Joe Helfrich
Maenad (mae...@aa.net) wrote:
: My solution to all this now is to "risk" closeness
: only with partners who have both of two major
: qualifications: They have been living poly for
: a while before they knew me; And they already
: have at least one other important ongoing
: relationship in their lives. No more singles or
: newbies for me, thanks. ;-)
OK, I'm now officially miffed.
Stacey and I consider ourselves poly, even though our one real attempt at
a poly relationship ended rather messily. (The other guy couldn't get
over hisknee jerk fundamentalist christian response.) Stacey considered
herself poly for a long while before she met me, but we've never had
anything other then that one week mess and a brief bit of dating on her
part.
Are we newbies?
Yes, I recognize that this is a personal choice and well within your
rights to make that decision. Skip that lecture and I'll skip the "don't
decide who you won't fall in love with before you meet them" lecture. :)
But I must admit the trend expressed in this thread is a bit more then
annoying.
Joe
Joe Helfrich, Managing Editor, CPI | Space! Our final hope/throw the drowning
j...@dimensional.com | man a rope/the choice is for us to say/
http://www.dimensional.com/~jbh | completely change or fade away.
...we can't just sit back and wait for a happy ending.
Terrin
The trend here seems to be to not give newbies a chance, or at least
be ready to get hurt if you do. So my question is, what advice can you
give a newbie to help lessen the risk? Especially if the newbie seems
serious.
My wife and I are newbies as is the person we are trying to convert.
Right now, its my opinion that it is better to try than to never know what
could have been. BTW, does anyone have some good advice for three
newbies who are trying to make a stab at being poly? I'm sure there are
many pitfalls we just do not forsee.
Terrin
Maenad
j...@dimensional.com (Joe Helfrich) wrote:
>OK, I'm now officially miffed.
Uh-oh. Didn't mean to do that.
>...we've never had anything other then that one week
>mess and a brief bit of dating on her part.
>Are we newbies?
Yes, but I don't think that's grounds for beheading.
(Of you or of me.) I do think it's grounds for caution
on my part as well as yours.
And yes of course I have been, am, and will be a newbie
myself in many ways. I know there is a certain intensity as
well as uncertainty when dealing with a newbie to anything.
And of course I acknowledge that I wouldn't be who I am if
somebody hadn't been willing to court me and tolerate my
whininess and neurotic stumbling about when I was a poly
newbie (and yes I sometimes still am whiny and neurotic
when on unexplored ground). I acknowledge my life would
be different and less fulfilling if nobody had been willing to
hit me really hard for a really long time with a really big
flogger when I'd never bottomed that hard. Or if nobody
had given me my first job in publishing before I knew what
came first, the caret or the stick. Or... etc.
I'm also glad that more experienced folks who KNEW they
didn't have the energy just then to replace anything I
might break or trip over during my process of discovery
said, "No, thanks, but maybe some other time."
As for single folks, I know perfectly well that it is beyond
my capacity at this time to give one more person my
primary-quality time and attention. So I avoid singles
because when we fall in love, I will not be able to give
what they want and deserve, and they do not have other
sources for it in their lives. Given my limitations, that
would set up the relationship, and each of us, for
failure and hurt. Why would I do that to somebody I
care for or wish to care for?
Which are things I did not know about myself when
I myself was a newbie... and other newbies will have
similar lessons to learn.
I spent my first poly years in a relationship with
somebody who had a broken wing. I didn't have
enough wind, ultimately, to tuck under his good
wing and help him really fly on his own. I did not
have the self-knowledge or experience with poly
to understand that when he said "poly" it meant
something completely different from what I mean
when I say "poly." His idea of "commitment" was
also completely different from mine. Neither of us,
as it turned out, could satisfy the other's needs.
For not knowing any of that sooner, I am truly sorry.
We both got hurt. As the stronger partner (I think),
I blame myself for not figuring it out sooner.
>...the "don't decide who you won't fall in love with
>before you meet them" lecture. ...
But it's because I WILL fall in love that I avoid singles
and newbies! I think it's more loving and responsible
not to set myself up to hurt people OR be hurt by them,
when I can avoid it. Been there, done that, got the tattoo.
(Quite literally.)
Love,
Lydia
Sharon Fisher
John Ullman <jul...@wolfenet.com> writes:
>I don't know why, but Lydia, your post brings to mind the words of a
>favorite married, poly love of mine in Salt Lake City in the mid '70's.
>Every time she would break up with a single guy she would say "No more
>Single Guys" and every time she would break up with a married guy she
>would say "No more married guys."
Right now, we're saying, "No wingnuts." :-)
>I do agree with you, however that newbies or wannabees should be handled
>with kid gloves. If possible heavy duty emotional involvement shouldn't
>happen immediately. We were all newbies at one time or another, however, so
>someone took a chance on us...I have fallen in love with at least three
>people immediately upon meeting them, who continue to be wonderful
>partners in my life. I think at least two of them could be construed as
>newbies to poly, and I am very glad I took the risk...aren't you?
I think we're all newbies with each other, regardless of what
experiences we might have had in the past with other people.
Mary Malmros
In article <01bc3d66$084aa740$168c...@greenehw.iquest.com>,
Terrin <gree...@iquest.com> wrote:
>
>
> The trend here seems to be to not give newbies a chance, or at least
>be ready to get hurt if you do.
Caution: be wary of extrapolating a trend from a few data points.
>So my question is, what advice can you
>give a newbie to help lessen the risk? Especially if the newbie seems
>serious.
I don't think I _can_ give a newbie any advice to lessen the risk to me, and
maybe not to them either. Why? Because all the advice I could give is
derived from experiences that they haven't had yet and in language that they
don't know yet. A newbie may understand theory just fine, but some newbies
-- in this as in anything -- will stubbornly refuse to accept the experience
of someone else when it contradicts theory. "I don't accept that you
can't..." "There's no reason why it's not possible to..." etc.
> My wife and I are newbies as is the person we are trying to convert.
>Right now, its my opinion that it is better to try than to never know what
>could have been. BTW, does anyone have some good advice for three
>newbies who are trying to make a stab at being poly? I'm sure there are
>many pitfalls we just do not forsee.
Nobody can give you advice that will enable you to avoid all the pitfalls.
As I said above, you probably don't yet have experience to understand some
of the pitfalls. Furthermore, you will probably not believe that some of
them are pitfalls, i.e., that they're mistakes or problems that you'd be
prone to. I guess the only advice I could really give is that theory's one
hting, practice is another, and you'll avoid a lot of grief and heartache if
you don't try to make real life conform to theory.
bikerbabe in black leather
In article <01bc3d66$084aa740$168c...@greenehw.iquest.com>,
Terrin <gree...@iquest.com> wrote:
>
>
> The trend here seems to be to not give newbies a chance, or at least
>give a newbie to help lessen the risk? Especially if the newbie seems
>serious.
Not necessarily so. Only one person has outright stated that they
would not get involved with a newbie. The rest of us (myself in
particular) seem to have been saying that we plan on approaching such
situations with caution.
Advice? To say that communications is the key seems trite to me as
well as unrealistic. In several of my bad experiences, there was lots
of communications, but not much of it was the type that comes from
knowing oneself.
A common pitfall (and I am way guilty of this myself) is to want
something so much, that you try to force yourself into doing something
you aren't really comfortable with, or that want will blind you
towards what is going on. When one or more of the parties is
undergoing this, communications can be extraordinarily difficult.
I'd say the advice I would give would be to cast a critical eye
towards anything which seems to be a dream come true, especially in
the early stages. Try to not make commitments or make major plans until
time has born out that it's not just new relationship energy
overcoming the parties involved.
KelFay
On 30 Mar 1997, Joe Helfrich wrote:
> Maenad (mae...@aa.net) wrote:
> : My solution to all this now is to "risk" closeness
> : only with partners who have both of two major
> : qualifications: They have been living poly for
> : a while before they knew me; And they already
> : have at least one other important ongoing
> : relationship in their lives. No more singles or
> : newbies for me, thanks. ;-)
>
> OK, I'm now officially miffed.
>
> Stacey and I consider ourselves poly, even though our one real attempt at
> a poly relationship ended rather messily. (The other guy couldn't get
> over hisknee jerk fundamentalist christian response.) Stacey considered
> herself poly for a long while before she met me, but we've never had
> anything other then that one week mess and a brief bit of dating on her
> part.
>
> Are we newbies?
>
> Yes, I recognize that this is a personal choice and well within your
> rights to make that decision. Skip that lecture and I'll skip the "don't
> decide who you won't fall in love with before you meet them" lecture. :)
> But I must admit the trend expressed in this thread is a bit more then
> annoying.
Annoying or not, it seems to be a fair and logical assumption that persons
demonstrating prior successful poly living are a much lower risk for
certain kinds of problems than persons embracing the idea but without any
real experience. I don't see anything horrible about a person realizing
that a set of circumstances has historically not worked out well for zir.
- Kelly
Gary Farber
In <slfE7w...@netcom.com> Sharon Fisher <s...@netcom.com> wrote:
[. . .]
: I think we're all newbies with each other, regardless of what
: experiences we might have had in the past with other people.
I just wanted to highlight this extremely wise remark.
--
-- Gary Farber gfa...@panix.com
Copyright 1997 Brooklyn, NY, USA
Akien MacIain
Sharon Fisher wrote:
[...]
> I think we're all newbies with each other, regardless of what
> experiences we might have had in the past with other people.
I don't know about the rest of you, but I often feel like a newbie when
dealing with myself. So much to learn...
--
------------------------------------------------
ADDRESS IN HEADER MAY BE BOGUS TO FIGHT SPAM
Email me at mailto:aki...@weirdness.com
Akien MacIain http://www.majornet.com/~akienm
Filosifer, Parent, Pagan, Amateur Neurochemist
Views expressed not necessarly those of anybody.
Even me.
------------------------------------------------
Libris Solar
Please don't be too wary of us. We have to start somewhere. From what I've
been reading on this newsgroup, there are many of us who consider
themselves polyamorous but are seeking advice, reading theses posts and
learning more about ouselves and what we are before acting out what be we
believe may possibly be true about ourselves.
It is scary realizing that your world view regarding human intimacy has
changed so drastically and for some of us, permanently. We know that what
we have become is not generally accepted by the outside world, so to
speak, and are (some of us) in a transitional stage which may likely
require some dramatic changes our partners may or may not be able to help
us through.
libris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
On 26 Mar 1997, bikerbabe in black leather wrote:
> In article <19970325000...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
> BDewsbury <bdew...@aol.com> wrote:
> >First i'd like to introduce myself: My name is Bill and i've been on the
> >newsgroup for awhile but i haven't really participated. Me and my
> >girlfriend Rachel have been in a poly relationship for a year and a half
> >and things have been only getting better.
>
> Who's your other partner(s)? I ask simply because you refer only to
> one SO yet say you're in a poly relationship.
>
> >Is there anyone on this newsgroup that have multiple(more than triad)
> >relationships?
>
> I'm going to presume from your phrasing that you you are talking about
> more than two other close relationships with which you are directly
> involved on a day to day basis. Because I have two very significant
> relationships, and several friends who are lovers as well.
>
> >I have been told that this type of relationship is very common but from
> >what i've read here maybe i'm mistaken.
>
> Common? I personally know of no more than 3 person primary relationships. I
> know of several more than three person relationships similar to mine.
>
> >Also: Why is it so hard to find people who actually accept the poly
> >lifestyle?We have talked to many people and all say" that sounds great but
> >i couldn't do it" but yet they will turn around and see other people
> >behind their SO back. Maybe i'm wrong but this makes no sense, if you love
> >both people why not let them both at least know each other.
> >
>
> Maybe because the general unwashed masses fit cheating into their
> paradigm of how relationships work? Poly doesn't in any way fit that
> paradigm.
>
> I usually don't get into poly much with other people. Most of the
> people around me know about my various relationships, but unless they
> care to ask I usually don't go into more depth.
>
> I'm wary of people who like poly in principle but who have little
> experience to back it up, I've been burned several times to varying
> degrees by such folks getting involved with them.
>
> It's difficult to get people to make a radical change to their
> paradigm about how the world works around them. I decided that trying
> to confront them head on used a lot of my energy for little gain. Now
> I try to set a good example and to work it into their subconscious
> where they can accept and mold it into their worldview much more
> easily. I feel I make a lot more gain with people and I'm happier
> with myself.
>
Tom Lentz
>> The trend here seems to be to not give newbies a chance, or at least
>>be ready to get hurt if you do.
>
>
>>give a newbie to help lessen the risk? Especially if the newbie seems
>>serious.
>
and
>maybe not to them either. Why? Because all the advice I could give is
>derived from experiences that they haven't had yet and in language that
they
>don't know yet. A newbie may understand theory just fine, but some
You may have a good point there, but perhaps I do have a small bit of
advice. "Know what you want, what everyone else wants, and communicate
it." Poly relationships can take many forms, and everyone involved
should agree what form they want the "alliance" to take, or at the least
they should agree that they don't know and will work it out as it goes.
For example, are you looking to start a poly relationship where everyone
lives together as a big happy family? Or are you looking for a secondary
for yourself, which you don't ever plan on getting to the living together
stage? Are you looking for a commitment (polyfidelity) or just to date,
romance with, and have fun (polyamory)?
Me and my SO are newbies to this poly scene too, we know generally what
we want to end up with, but we've agreed to just get some experience at
this whole lifestyle first before we can be able to pin it down exactly.
Tom.
Libris Solar
Perhaps the human paradigm has fractured the human ability to communicate
so severely that most humans would sleep with another secretly because
there is no avenue of the commincation of change. Values change, beliefs
change, world views change, sex oriented behaviors change.
We have so many ways of comfortably communicating about things we accept
openly between ourselves but the communication of changing is a
frightening thing for many humans. It requires trust I think, sincerity,
no less committment than a marriage (honor, truthfulness, etc.) if
changing to polyamory, patience and time to reflect on newly formed
understandings. It does not seem like something many of us do.
At least not many I have ever been able to find.
I myself am, to this day, self-declared as polyamorous by nature and not
yet by experience so I am currently studying society's entrenchment in
traditional relationships to better understand why humans bond themselves
so powerfully to destrucive relationship paradigms like possessive monogamy
And that is said with the understanding that monagamy certainly works for
some humans.
libris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
On 24 Mar 1997, Mary Malmros wrote:
> In article <19970325000...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
> BDewsbury <bdew...@aol.com> wrote:
> >Also: Why is it so hard to find people who actually accept the poly
> >lifestyle?We have talked to many people and all say" that sounds great but
> >i couldn't do it" but yet they will turn around and see other people
> >behind their SO back. Maybe i'm wrong but this makes no sense, if you love
> >both people why not let them both at least know each other.
>
> You know the answer: because, for most people, cheating is both simpler and
> easier in the short term, and because they don't think that there IS a "long
> term" with more than one partner.
John Ullman
Read "Loving More" by Deborah Anapohl, and anything you can about
communications for couples, which you can extrapolate to threesomes, etc.
On 30 Mar 1997, Terrin wrote:
>
> The trend here seems to be to not give newbies a chance, or at least
> be ready to get hurt if you do. So my question is, what advice can you
> give a newbie to help lessen the risk? Especially if the newbie seems
> serious.
As I read Lydia's original post, it had to do with her, personally, not
having the emotional resource to *take* a chance with newbies. It did not
say she would withold a chance from you to try poly with whoever you want
to... (Some of us who should really know better twitted Lydia a tad for
her comments, and as soon as my slashed chest heals, I will attempt an
apology...)
> My wife and I are newbies as is the person we are trying to convert.
> Right now, its my opinion that it is better to try than to never know what
> could have been. BTW, does anyone have some good advice for three
> newbies who are trying to make a stab at being poly? I'm sure there are
> many pitfalls we just do not forsee.
>
> Terrin
>
>
The Lorax
On 30 Mar 1997, Joe Helfrich wrote:
> Maenad (mae...@aa.net) wrote:
> : My solution to all this now is to "risk" closeness
> : only with partners who have both of two major
> : qualifications: They have been living poly for
> : a while before they knew me; And they already
> : have at least one other important ongoing
> : relationship in their lives. No more singles or
> : newbies for me, thanks. ;-)
>
> OK, I'm now officially miffed.
>
> Stacey and I consider ourselves poly, even though our one real attempt at
> a poly relationship ended rather messily. (The other guy couldn't get
> over hisknee jerk fundamentalist christian response.) Stacey considered
> herself poly for a long while before she met me, but we've never had
> anything other then that one week mess and a brief bit of dating on her
> part.
By a show of hands, how many have noticed the double standard of
wanting poly accepted by the mainstream, complaining that id doesn't seem
to be growing very fast, and at the same time refuse to let newcomers
into it until after they have previous experience?
Thank you.
Live your beliefs
Believe in your life
<Lo...@pconline.com>
St. Paul, Minnesota
jen kilmer
[takes a deep breath]
[clears throat]
Well, it looks like I'm embarking on "deeper level of poly"
myself these days - I've taken up with a married woman ;-)
[glance around, wondering if she's lurking. . .]
Before I was dating other singles, who all knew I was
seeing other people and that I didn't necessary need
to winnow down to The One. But, it was easy for them or
other friends to say, "oh, you'll come around".
Something tells me things will be different if this
new relationship continues as it has (which is what
*I* hope will happen ;-)
Terrin <gree...@iquest.com> wrote ...
| My wife and I are newbies as is the person we are trying to convert.
"Convert" is an interesting turn of phrase . . . tho I don't
know if you chose it deliberately. Brings back my days in
Evangelism Explosion (JW's ain't the only door-to-door
preachers around).
--
jen kilmer -=- http://www.aa.net/~jenk -=- iccd testing
the views expressed in this message are my own and
are not necessarily those of microsoft corporation.
Terrin
Tom Lentz <tle...@teknon.com> wrote in article <33400...@news.ior.com>...
> You may have a good point there, but perhaps I do have a small bit of
> advice. "Know what you want, what everyone else wants, and communicate
> it." Poly relationships can take many forms, and everyone involved
> should agree what form they want the "alliance" to take, or at the least
> they should agree that they don't know and will work it out as it goes.
>
> For example, are you looking to start a poly relationship where everyone
> lives together as a big happy family? Or are you looking for a secondary
> for yourself, which you don't ever plan on getting to the living together
> stage? Are you looking for a commitment (polyfidelity) or just to date,
> romance with, and have fun (polyamory)?
>
> Me and my SO are newbies to this poly scene too, we know generally what
> we want to end up with, but we've agreed to just get some experience at
> this whole lifestyle first before we can be able to pin it down exactly.
>
> Tom.
>
Believe it or not, I have found quite a bit a good advice and identified
a few things NOT to do just by hanging around on this NG. In my situation,
we are taking things very slowly, trying to "feel" each other out and see
just what everyone does want. I am very aware of my own feelings and
tendencies, and have good communication with my SO. I am still trying to
get the third party to open up a little more, but it takes time, and
fortunately I do have some experience there.
Anyway, Tom's post made me start wondering what sort of poly
relationships are most common. What we are interested in right now is just
dating and having fun. My SO and I wouldn't mind it developing into a
polyfidelity situation, but we aren't going to hold any illusions. I
personally would find it easier to get into a more comittment oriented
relationship than an open one. Jealousy being one of my downfalls (I am
MUCH better than I used to be).
Terrin
barbara trumpinski
mae...@aa.net (Maenad) writes:
someone else wrote:
>>>...'poly on principle', like 'bi-curious female', may
>>>well be translated to mean 'proceed with caution'.
>Hear, hear. Before I start agreeing, I suppose I must
>admit that I started out as a poly-on-principle sort. I
>knew little about it and was unsure if I could handle
>it. It was only after I started living it -- being as neurotic
>and whiny as possible about every step <G> -- that I
>realized the trouble with my previous relationships
>was that I couldn't handle MONO.
>
well, i know i can't handle mono, but so far i am having a hell of a
time trying to be poly and it's my own damn fault. i can handle the
concept of ME having multiple loves (hell, that has always been my
ideal state). when my loves have other loves, i freak out. 'how can
i compete?' 'why should s/he love me when someone better is
available?' 'well, i'm obviously going to get left, so i'd best push
hir away.' you know the rap. so i am whiny and bitchy and insecure
and totally unfair to my loves and the loves of my loves....
...and the only one who loses is me.
i have finally realized that this is a totally stupid way to approach
the best thing that has ever happened to me and after i had one last
hysterical fit last night i am happy to announce that i have lanced
the boil on my soul and all the pain and anger has drained out and i
am healing (great metaphor, non?) my soul is still a little tender,
but i will be whole and healthy soon.
kitten
--
kit...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu barbara trumpinski
/\ /\ smotu "my life's a soap opera, isn't yours?"
{=.=} "member of a love tessaract" 'shared pain is lessened,
~ shared joy is increased; thus do we refute entropy.'
barbara trumpinski
>> The trend here seems to be to not give newbies a chance, or at least
>>be ready to get hurt if you do.
>Caution: be wary of extrapolating a trend from a few data points.
>>So my question is, what advice can you
>>give a newbie to help lessen the risk? Especially if the newbie seems
>>serious.
>I don't think I _can_ give a newbie any advice to lessen the risk to me, and
>maybe not to them either. Why? Because all the advice I could give is
>derived from experiences that they haven't had yet and in language that they
>don't know yet. A newbie may understand theory just fine, but some newbies
>-- in this as in anything -- will stubbornly refuse to accept the experience
>of someone else when it contradicts theory. "I don't accept that you
>can't..." "There's no reason why it's not possible to..." etc.
and you know what, mary....even people who have been poly for a long
time (in theory and practice) screw up now and again and someone gets
hurt. it happened to t.c. when the woman who encouraged both of us to
be poly and have a relationship with her fell apart and nearly trashed
us in the process.
i have been doing the 'insecure and crazy' thing to the point of
really hurting sean...
you know....shit happens. it's important to give people a chance to
learn ....
Pat Beal
This whole thread seems to be more about personalities than relationships. Big
risks leading to big rewards or big hurts. Smaller risks may be safer but may
not be as rewarding. This is true no matter what the personality of the other
person. Mix and match can both work or not. Single or married, new or
experienced, what matters is to find the best way to express the loving. I
have a great big love in me for a woman who very unpoly. She is having a
difficult time even establishing her relationship with the man whose ring she
has accepted. She is still establishing her love for herself. She knows how I
feel and gets the loving. I'd like it to look different but if I put energy in
the desire for her to do something different, I'd be manipulating her instead
of loving her. She recently told me to keep in touch after her planned move
out of state with her SO and to let her know how our plans for a communal
residence are doing. I'm holding out hope that she could join us but am not
holding my breath.
It works best for me to put more energy into the loving than the desire or the
expectation and to not put people into categories. The expression of loving
that works best is the one that is heartfelt rather than mindfelt or centered
in the genitals. Of course the big trick is to really line up action with the
idea. Falling head over heals is much easier. One of the nicest thing about
poly is that it helps me practice. Another nice thing is that I really know
that the last disappointment was NOT my missed chance at the only great Love
of my life.
Pat
bikerbabe in black leather
In article <5hr3u6$1c9a$1...@piglet.cc.uic.edu>,
Pat Beal <*pat...@uic.edu*> wrote:
>This whole thread seems to be more about personalities than relationships. Big
>risks leading to big rewards or big hurts. Smaller risks may be safer but may
>not be as rewarding. This is true no matter what the personality of the other
I'd have to disagree with this statement. I would say that with
regard to relationships, smaller risks are just as, or more, likely
to pay off big than bigger risks. All you are doing is stacking the
odds in your favor. Relationships *aren't* a blind crapshoot.
To do things which increase my odds of a particular relationship
turning out great from say one in a hundred to one in three, is not
hindering me in any way.
Steve Pope
mal...@shore.net (Mary Malmros) writes,
> Terrin <gree...@iquest.com> wrote:
>> So my question is, what advice can you
>> give a newbie to help lessen the risk? Especially if the newbie
>> seems serious.
> I don't think I _can_ give a newbie any advice to lessen the
> risk to me, and maybe not to them either. Why? Because all the
> advice I could give is derived from experiences that they haven't
> had yet and in language that they don't know yet. A newbie may
> understand theory just fine, but some newbies -- in this as in
> anything -- will stubbornly refuse to accept the experience of
> someone else when it contradicts theory.
But it works both ways. One can become colored by experiences
so as to become closed to possibilities to which a "newbie" (and
I hate using that term in this context) might be open.
If one believes the theory that polyness is close to the natural
human state, whereas monogamy is a socially-induced aberration,
one may even conclude that life experiences can work *against*
one's ability to function as poly, under the assumption that
these experiences on average tend to draw one away from one's
natural inclinations and closer to the artificial norm.
I particularly think that more than a few people react
to certain experiences in a way that makes them
jaded and skeptical about love, love relationships, love
triangles, etc. So they may be no longer "newbies" but does
this background make them "better" polyamorists?
I think for the vast majority of poly situations, the idea
that "newbieness" is somehow a disqualifier, or even a
warning flag, really doesn't apply. I can think of other
situations where it is more relevant; for example, if one is
seeking a purely no-strings sexual encounter, then selecting
a partner with very little sexual experience might not be
wise; but I have troubler seeling lots of relevance to most
poly relationships.
Steve
bikerbabe in black leather
In article <5hrnds$q...@agate.berkeley.edu>,
Steve Pope <s...@ozark.EECS.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
>to certain experiences in a way that makes them
>jaded and skeptical about love, love relationships, love
>triangles, etc. So they may be no longer "newbies" but does
>this background make them "better" polyamorists?
>
>I think for the vast majority of poly situations, the idea
>that "newbieness" is somehow a disqualifier, or even a
>warning flag, really doesn't apply. I can think of other
In the case of this particular thread, however, it was started by
talking about folks who like the idea of poly but have had no
practical experience with it. Be that practical experience swinging,
dating more than one person, or whatever.
For someone who is poly experienced, it is good to use caution when
entering into a situation with a newbie, just as it would be for
someone who was entering into a situation with a virgin, or someone's
first MOTSS experience, or whatever. Especially if you recognize
within yourself that you may not have the patience or energy to deal
with that person's working through whatever they need to work through.
It's a personal decision and as such, no one should be faulted for
making it, "unfair" as it is to newbies.
I have no idea why several folks have viewed this as a "trash the
newbies" thread, it certainly hasn't seemed that way to me. When I'm
starting something new I recognize that I'll need extra patience and
understanding from those who are more experienced than I, and if
someone doesn't have the time, energy, or patience to deal with me I
appreciate them recognizing it within themselves rather than taking it
out on me by being impatient or abrupt with me.
Steve Pope
mal...@shore.net (Mary Malmros) writes:
> bearpaw <bea...@world.std.com> wrote:
>> mal...@shore.net (Mary Malmros) writes:
>>> If I don't want to marry outside my religion -- as many
>>> people do not -- am I not being "fair"? If I don't want to have
>>> a primary partner who's twenty years older than I am, am I not
>>> being "fair"? Am I behaving unreasonably?
>> IMHO: (1) insufficient data, (2) insufficient data, (3) insufficient
>> data, (4) maybe, probably, yes. :->
> But, getting back to what I said about what "fairness" connotes
> to me -- I always have this feeling that "fairness" connotes an
> expectation of reasonable behavior. And I just do not think that
> there ARE any reasonable expectations WRT who someone chooses as
> a relationship partner, whether it's the result of prejudice or
> prefernece.
I agree with Mary on this one. I don't think fairness
enteres into partner-selection issues until after some
sort of expectation has already been created. It would generally
be unfair to, say, end a relationship with somebody because
of their age, religion, and so forth. But I do not feel
compelled to be blind to (for example) religion when deciding
whom I might get involved in. OTOH if I had already started
flirting with the person, then suddenly find they harbor a religious
belief I find totally incompatible, then it's a teensy bit
unfair to break off the flirtation because of that. But it
would be even more unfair to let that incompatibility simmer
and allow a doomed relationship to nonetheless continue.
Steve
Mean Green Dancing Machine
In article <5hrtuk$1...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>,
barbara trumpinski <kit...@staff.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
>i have finally realized that this is a totally stupid way to approach
>the best thing that has ever happened to me and after i had one last
>hysterical fit last night i am happy to announce that i have lanced
>the boil on my soul and all the pain and anger has drained out and i
>am healing (great metaphor, non?) my soul is still a little tender,
>but i will be whole and healthy soon.
I think you just guaranteed another fit next week. You do remember your
.sig, don't you?
> "my life's a soap opera, isn't yours?"
--
--- Aahz (@netcom.com)
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 <*> http://www.bayarea.net/~aahz
Androgynous poly kinky vanilla queer het
"Why do you like my boyfriend to tie you up and beat me.?"
-- ELIZA generates a poly moment
Maenad
kit...@staff.uiuc.edu (barbara trumpinski) wrote:
>well, i know i can't handle mono, but so far i am having
>a hell of a time trying to be poly and it's my own damn
>fault. ...
>...after i had one last hysterical fit last night i am happy
>to announce that i have lanced the boil on my soul and
>all the pain and anger has drained out and i am healing...
Kitten, please give yourself a break! I'd like every poly
who has been doing this for a while and who has never
freaked and who can always cope with everything their
partners expect them to cope with, to raise their hands.
See those people with their hands raised? They're liars!
I freak about different things than you freak about. And
you and I don't freak about the same things as John or
Stef or Thida or Aahz... but we all freak.
My idea of poly heaven is to find n partners who can hear
and agree to what I absolutely positively baseline need
without putting their own needs on hold. These n partners
will also be good at understanding and articulating their
own needs, and I will be able to agree to what they need
without putting my needs on hold. (If I can have this, the
n partners don't even have to be microbiologists and
have sweet round bellies, although I wouldn't mind.)
In the meantime, while we figure this out and dream of it
and work hard to get it... sometimes we freak.
Heck, that's the one thing you CAN count on!
Love,
Lydia
Mary Malmros
In article <Pine.LNX.3.91.970331...@newton.pconline.com>,
Lorax, I would like you, or anybody, to show me anywhere in this thread
where anyone has expressed an unwillingness to "let newcomers into it",
i.e., into being polyamorous. All that people have said is that either
a)they choose to not become involved with newcomers, or b)they proceed with
extreme caution in becoming involved with newcomers. You don't really have
an objection to other people conducting their relationships and making their
choices of partners as they see fit, do you? And, in support of your
"double standard" claim, what evidence do you have that those who have
expressed such cautions have also expressed a desire to have polyamory
accepted by the mainstream and/or have complained that polyamory doesn't
seem to be growing very fast?
It's easy to point to some kind of conspiracy, trend, or mass action as the
reason behind something that you don't like. The problem with that approach
is that it's almost never true. The means by which that you establish that
a trend really exists are pretty straightforward, if not easy. That's step
one; step two is showing causation or correlation. In this case, you need
to take both of those steps before you can really argue that a double
standard exists.
bikerbabe in black leather
posted, and mailed to lorax.
In article <5htmjo$8...@northshore.shore.net>,
Mary Malmros <mal...@shore.net> wrote:
>In article <Pine.LNX.3.91.970331...@newton.pconline.com>,
>The Lorax <lo...@pconline.com> wrote:
>>
>> By a show of hands, how many have noticed the double standard of
>>wanting poly accepted by the mainstream, complaining that id doesn't seem
>>to be growing very fast, and at the same time refuse to let newcomers
>>into it until after they have previous experience?
>
>Lorax, I would like you, or anybody, to show me anywhere in this thread
>where anyone has expressed an unwillingness to "let newcomers into it",
>i.e., into being polyamorous. All that people have said is that either
>a)they choose to not become involved with newcomers, or b)they proceed with
>extreme caution in becoming involved with newcomers. You don't really have
>an objection to other people conducting their relationships and making their
>choices of partners as they see fit, do you? And, in support of your
>"double standard" claim, what evidence do you have that those who have
>expressed such cautions have also expressed a desire to have polyamory
>accepted by the mainstream and/or have complained that polyamory doesn't
>seem to be growing very fast?
Well, Jennie? After reading the range of responses to this one
premise, including the multiple followups in which it was made
abundantly clear the intention, does the "not reading for content"
thing still have the same meaning?
How people can go from "I'll use caution with newbies", or "I'll be
wary of people who say they are interested in poly but who have no
practical experience" to "inexperienced folks are evil scum and have
no right to be bumping uglies with the enlightened" is beyond me.
As a whole, polyfolk (specifically not including Dave's definition of
poly) in general have been among some of the most accepting and
supportive of new folks than almost any other type of lifestyle out
there.
Anyone hear those silent, unmarked black helicopters outside? I hear
that if you make a hat out of aluminum foil that will protect your
head from the microwaves "they" are beaming in at you...
Mean Green Dancing Machine
In article <5hss8o$o...@Holly.aa.net>, Maenad <mae...@aa.net> wrote:
>
>Kitten, please give yourself a break! I'd like every poly
>who has been doing this for a while and who has never
>freaked and who can always cope with everything their
>partners expect them to cope with, to raise their hands.
>
>See those people with their hands raised? They're liars!
>
>I freak about different things than you freak about. And
>you and I don't freak about the same things as John or
>Stef or Thida or Aahz... but we all freak.
<ObAoL> Me too! </ObAoL>
Mean Green Dancing Machine
>could have been. BTW, does anyone have some good advice for three
>newbies who are trying to make a stab at being poly? I'm sure there are
>many pitfalls we just do not forsee.
Yes, but they're *your* pitfalls. ;-)
There are "standard" bits of advice that we in alt.polyamory tend to
hand out rather freely (and most of them are in the FAQs), but we do so
with the assumption that the people we're advising will use some good
judgement in applying the advice. Nothing we say fits all situations,
and the best description we see is a poor approximation of what's really
going on in your relationships.
Probably the most important advice is to not let NRE overwhelm y'all
into making decisions too quickly. You do have years ahead of you to
iron out the details.
Angeline Kantola
> By a show of hands, how many have noticed the double standard of
>wanting poly accepted by the mainstream, complaining that id doesn't seem
>to be growing very fast, and at the same time refuse to let newcomers
>into it until after they have previous experience?
For crying out loud. "Letting newcomers into it"? So far as I can tell,
polyamory is not a fraternal organization, complete with initiatory
rites and arcane symbolism.
I'm the one who started the 'poly in principle' subject header. I
advocated proceeding with caution, not just with newbies in general, but
in particular when getting involved with someone who thinks polyamory is
great but doesn't have any real life experience to back it up.
I come to this position based on two observations. First, most of the
people I know who made a philosophical commitment to polyamory outside of
the context any relationship appear to have difficulty sustaining even a
single relationship.
Second, intellectualizing about the assumptions and expectations of the
Standard Monogamy Model is a poor substitute for grappling with them in
real life. Here's my experience: When I met and fell in love with the man
I can most easily describe with the impoverished term 'secondary', I had
to learn to negotiate within the boundaries of *his* existing primary
relationship. The emotional risk was at times excruciating ("Am I being
taken advantage of by this seemingly wonderful guy? Is he being honest
about his agreements with his partner?", one of which is that said partner
doesn't want to know about his other, out of town relationships. I mean,
talk about red flags.) and all the intellectualizing in the world didn't
make it better. Corroboration from mutual acquaintances--and eventually,
his partner herself--did. Two years later we're going strong. In some
sense this love relationship presented itself like the polyamory dream
come true: our eyes met across a crowded room, I fell laughing into his
arms, we were inseparable all weekend and continued impassioned across the
miles thereafter. All this, *and* we got to keep our primary
relationships, too! But in order to live this dream, I had to work through
a lot of trust and fear issues that I strongly suspect are common to many
multiple-partner relationships...but which would have scared me off, but
good, if I'd had a preconceived notion of how My Dream Polyamorous
Relationship was supposed to come about. (As it was, I was thrice shy
about polyamory, having been bitten twice by the Philosophically
Polyamorous. See point the first. All I knew was that I fell and fell HARD
for this other guy, and I wanted so badly to make it work. Happily, it
has.)
Maybe the concept of inititatory rites does work, then ;) But seriously, I
think it's more like what Aahz suggested... I want to know that someone
has been there and done that, and gotten some portion of self-knowledge
from the experience.
Cheers,
Angie
Bernadette Bosky
In article <Pine.LNX.3.91.970331...@newton.pconline.com>,
The Lorax <lo...@pconline.com> wrote:
> By a show of hands, how many have noticed the double standard of
>wanting poly accepted by the mainstream, complaining that id doesn't seem
>to be growing very fast, and at the same time refuse to let newcomers
>into it until after they have previous experience?
>
*acceptance* of polyamory, not necessarily the number of people in poly
relationships. I mean, my assumption is that that would grow as the
acceptance does, and that would be neat, but I'm concerned with changing
societal attitudes, not recruiting.
I'm absolutely neutral on the question of newbies, but I felt
strongly enough to check in on the other part.
Bernadette Bosky
Terrin
I apologize here. I was the first one to use the word trend. It was a
poor choice of wording. I do see many polys saying that one should proceed
with caution with newbies if you choose to proceed at all.
Terrin
Steve Pope
**jenn...@mail.idt.net** writes:
> The Lorax <lo...@pconline.com>
>> By a show of hands, how many have noticed the double standard
>> of wanting poly accepted by the mainstream, complaining that id
>> doesn't seem to be growing very fast, and at the same time refuse
>> to let newcomers into it until after they have previous
>> experience?
> No, no, no, and .... no.
> I understood what Lydia was saying. She wasn't saying newcomers
> weren't welcome so much as saying she didn't have the energy for them
> right now.
But your statement still embodies the assumption that "newbies"
require more energy, and are therefore less desirable, and therefore
you are participating in the trend towards making polyamory
and/or this newsgroup unwelcoming to new people.
So, you haven't managed to refute Lorax's observation, at
least in my mind.
>There are times in our lives when we just *don't have the energy* to
>teach someone from the start.
Yes, but what does this have to do with polyamory?
Steve
Thida Cornes
Maenad wrote:
>
> kit...@staff.uiuc.edu (barbara trumpinski) wrote:
>
> >well, i know i can't handle mono, but so far i am having
> >a hell of a time trying to be poly and it's my own damn
> >fault. ...
> >...after i had one last hysterical fit last night i am happy
> >to announce that i have lanced the boil on my soul and
> >all the pain and anger has drained out and i am healing...
>
> who has been doing this for a while and who has never
> freaked and who can always cope with everything their
> partners expect them to cope with, to raise their hands.
>
> See those people with their hands raised? They're liars!
>
> I freak about different things than you freak about. And
> you and I don't freak about the same things as John or
> Stef or Thida or Aahz... but we all freak.
Actually I never freak out. And someday soon they're going to find me a
nice little padded cell for me far far away....
> My idea of poly heaven is to find n partners who can hear
> and agree to what I absolutely positively baseline need
> without putting their own needs on hold. These n partners
> will also be good at understanding and articulating their
> own needs, and I will be able to agree to what they need
> without putting my needs on hold. (If I can have this, the
> n partners don't even have to be microbiologists and
> have sweet round bellies, although I wouldn't mind.)
This is one of the greatest and hardest things for me to do in a
relationship. Like many women before me, I was taught that my needs
should always put on hold for my partner's. In fact one of my lovers
seems to find it necessary to sometimes state with great vehemence "Are
you just doing this for me? Because I'd *hate* that!" Zie says he
subscribes to the 'me me me' mantra and I should too. It's funny to
repeat 'me me me' over and over again, but sometimes I find it quite
helpful. I'm also struggling with the block I have that any need I have
has to be rational and completely explainable in order for me to even
ask for it to be met.
> In the meantime, while we figure this out and dream of it
> and work hard to get it... sometimes we freak.
>
> Heck, that's the one thing you CAN count on!
True!
--
To reply by email, please remove the spam from my email address.
Thida Cornes Email: th...@mandalay.org
http://www.mandalay.org/
Don't crack up, bend your brain, see both sides, throw off your mental
chains. -Howard Jones
"There's nothing wrong with me; therefore there must be something wrong
with the universe." - Dr. Beverly Crusher, Star Trek the Next
Generation
bearpaw
Sounds like good advice.
If I was starting a relationship with someone who'd never had any type
of relationship before, I'd proceed with caution, if I proceeded at all.
If I was starting a relationship with someone who'd never had a
relationship with someone of my gender, I'd proceed with caution, if
I proceeded at all.
If I was starting a relationship with someone who'd never had a
relationship with someone of my general cultural background, I'd
proceed with caution, if I proceeded at all.
Polyamorous relationships are sufficiently different from what most
people have experience with that proceeding with caution is a good
idea.
And -- with one possible exception that I've seen -- most folks here
are carefully emphasizing the "proceed with caution", rather than
saying "don't do it". But the latter seems to be what you are
reacting to. (And that one exception clearly said that *s/he*
wouldn't get involved with folks new to poly anymore, not that
*no-one* should. Big difference, even if s/he sticks to that.)
Bearpaw
+---------- Bearpaw MacDonald bea...@world.std.com ----------+
| http://world.std.com/~bearpaw/ |
| "You can believe anything you want. The universe is not obliged |
\ to keep a straight face." -- Solomon Short /
Mean Green Dancing Machine
>wanting poly accepted by the mainstream, complaining that id doesn't seem
>to be growing very fast, and at the same time refuse to let newcomers
>into it until after they have previous experience?
Let me give you an analogy: suppose that you are a master-class chess
player, and you haven't played chess with any newbies for years.
Wouldn't you expect it to be a bit difficult if you suddenly had to
a) start teaching the basic rules? ("Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot about that
rule.")
b) remember to not just jump down the throat of every single mistake and
beat the other person into submission?
Or might you just want to say, "No thanks, I'm not very good at teaching
people chess; let me introduce you to some of my other friends."?
Mary Malmros
In article <5huct0$3...@agate.berkeley.edu>,
Steve Pope <s...@ozark.EECS.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
>**jenn...@mail.idt.net** writes:
>
>> The Lorax <lo...@pconline.com>
>
>>> of wanting poly accepted by the mainstream, complaining that id
>>> doesn't seem to be growing very fast, and at the same time refuse
>>> to let newcomers into it until after they have previous
>>> experience?
>
>
>> I understood what Lydia was saying. She wasn't saying newcomers
>> weren't welcome so much as saying she didn't have the energy for them
>> right now.
>
>But your statement still embodies the assumption that "newbies"
>require more energy, and are therefore less desirable, and therefore
>you are participating in the trend towards making polyamory
>and/or this newsgroup unwelcoming to new people.
"Participating in the trend"? Come ON. This is who we, AS INDIVIDUALS,
choose to have relationships with! You might as well say that, by having
relationship with women and not men, I'm participating in the trend towards
making it harder for men to have relationships. And that is simply absurd.
If I choose not to have relationships with people new to polyamory, I'm not
"making polyamory...unwelcoming to new people". I'm not doing ANYTHING
about whether they can be polyamorous. They just can't be polyamorous with
ME. And I refuse to accept this absurd guilt-trip that I'm "making
polyamory unwelcoming" to them, or that I do or should have ANY
responsibility for changing my relationship choices because you don't like
the shape of a trend that you claim to see.
--
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Mary Malmros Very Small Being mal...@shore.net
*** WARNING: REPLY-TO ADDRESS IS BOGUS TO FOIL SPAM ***
barbara trumpinski
**jenn...@mail.idt.net** (Jenner) writes:
>On 1 Apr 1997 21:16:04 GMT, kit...@staff.uiuc.edu (barbara
>trumpinski) wrote:
>: well, i know i can't handle mono, but so far i am having a hell of a
>: concept of ME having multiple loves (hell, that has always been my
>: ideal state). when my loves have other loves, i freak out. 'how can
>: i compete?' 'why should s/he love me when someone better is
>: available?' 'well, i'm obviously going to get left, so i'd best push
>: hir away.' you know the rap. so i am whiny and bitchy and insecure
>: and totally unfair to my loves and the loves of my loves....
>:
>: ...and the only one who loses is me.
>Please don't take this the wrong way. You have taken responsibility
>for your own actions in your post. I commend that attitude.
>It is good to understand that you will lose, eventually. However, you
>aren't the only one who loses. Please don't forget that.
>I cannot forget it.
good point, and i appreciate it. i am pleased to announce that april
is now two days old and the WORST thing i have done is to assume that
one of my partners was going out on a date tonight and mentioning it
to his girlfriend before he had asked her.
barbara trumpinski
aa...@netcom.com (Mean Green Dancing Machine) writes:
>barbara trumpinski <kit...@staff.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>>i have finally realized that this is a totally stupid way to approach
>>hysterical fit last night i am happy to announce that i have lanced
>>the boil on my soul and all the pain and anger has drained out and i
>>but i will be whole and healthy soon.
>I think you just guaranteed another fit next week. You do remember your
>.sig, don't you?
>> "my life's a soap opera, isn't yours?"
thanks, aahz....i just kittened pepsi all over my desk.
hugs,
Mean Green Dancing Machine
In article <5huhmv$h...@northshore.shore.net>,
Mary Malmros <na...@shore.net> wrote:
>In article <5huct0$3...@agate.berkeley.edu>,
>Steve Pope <s...@ozark.EECS.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
>>
>>But your statement still embodies the assumption that "newbies"
>>require more energy, and are therefore less desirable, and therefore
>>you are participating in the trend towards making polyamory
>>and/or this newsgroup unwelcoming to new people.
>
>"Participating in the trend"? Come ON. This is who we, AS
>INDIVIDUALS, choose to have relationships with! You might as well say
>that, by having relationship with women and not men, I'm participating
>in the trend towards making it harder for men to have relationships.
>And that is simply absurd. If I choose not to have relationships
>with people new to polyamory, I'm not "making polyamory...unwelcoming
>to new people". I'm not doing ANYTHING about whether they can be
>polyamorous. They just can't be polyamorous with ME. And I refuse to
>accept this absurd guilt-trip that I'm "making polyamory unwelcoming"
>to them, or that I do or should have ANY responsibility for changing my
>relationship choices because you don't like the shape of a trend that
>you claim to see.
<ObAoL> Me too! </ObAoL>
Jenner
On 2 Apr 1997 21:32:30 GMT, kit...@staff.uiuc.edu (barbara
trumpinski) wrote:
: >: ...and the only one who loses is me.
:
: >Please don't take this the wrong way. You have taken responsibility
: >for your own actions in your post. I commend that attitude.
:
: >It is good to understand that you will lose, eventually. However, you
: >aren't the only one who loses. Please don't forget that.
:
: >I cannot forget it.
:
:
: good point, and i appreciate it.
I'm glad you took my post in the spirit it was intended.
: i am pleased to announce that april
: is now two days old and the WORST thing i have done is to assume that
: one of my partners was going out on a date tonight and mentioning it
: to his girlfriend before he had asked her.
"Could be worse. Could be raining." -- Igor
***
To reply by e-mail, remove the spam fodder (the **)
from my e-mail address.
http://shell.idt.net/~jenner29
***
Jenner
On Mon, 31 Mar 1997 08:58:07 -0600, The Lorax <lo...@pconline.com>
wrote:
: By a show of hands, how many have noticed the double standard of
: wanting poly accepted by the mainstream, complaining that id doesn't seem
: to be growing very fast, and at the same time refuse to let newcomers
: into it until after they have previous experience?
No, no, no, and .... no.
I understood what Lydia was saying. She wasn't saying newcomers
weren't welcome so much as saying she didn't have the energy for them
right now. I *know* Lydia and I think some of the people here are
getting offensensitive and putting words into her posts.
There are times in our lives when we just *don't have the energy* to
teach someone from the start. There are times when we just need a
break from mentoring, from always being the guide. It doesn't mean we
aren't mentors, or guides, just that we have other things that require
our energy.
Working through all the insecurities, the jealousies, the fears is
*damn hard work* at times.
Please forgive some of the people in our communities if they don't
always have the energy to tackle those issues on a continious basis.
Angeline Kantola
>My idea of poly heaven is to find n partners who can hear
>and agree to what I absolutely positively baseline need
>without putting their own needs on hold. These n partners
>will also be good at understanding and articulating their
>own needs, and I will be able to agree to what they need
>without putting my needs on hold. (If I can have this, the
>n partners don't even have to be microbiologists and
>have sweet round bellies, although I wouldn't mind.)
Oooh! Oooh! *Now* I'm raising my hand! Pant, pant.
(Hm, I guess this counts as a Public Display of Flirtation.
My apologies to the offended.)
>In the meantime, while we figure this out and dream of it
>and work hard to get it... sometimes we freak.
>
>Heck, that's the one thing you CAN count on!
Listen to the lady, Kitten--she knows whereof she speaks.
Cheers,
Angie
Thida Cornes
Mean Green Dancing Machine wrote:
>
> In article <5huhmv$h...@northshore.shore.net>,
> Mary Malmros <na...@shore.net> wrote:
> >In article <5huct0$3...@agate.berkeley.edu>,
> >Steve Pope <s...@ozark.EECS.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
> >>
> >>But your statement still embodies the assumption that "newbies"
> >>require more energy, and are therefore less desirable, and therefore
> >>you are participating in the trend towards making polyamory
> >>and/or this newsgroup unwelcoming to new people.
YMV but I suspect that in general someone new at something does require
more time and energy than someone who's done it before.
> >"Participating in the trend"? Come ON. This is who we, AS
> >INDIVIDUALS, choose to have relationships with! You might as well say
> >that, by having relationship with women and not men, I'm participating
> >in the trend towards making it harder for men to have relationships.
> >And that is simply absurd. If I choose not to have relationships
> >with people new to polyamory, I'm not "making polyamory...unwelcoming
> >to new people". I'm not doing ANYTHING about whether they can be
> >polyamorous. They just can't be polyamorous with ME. And I refuse to
> >accept this absurd guilt-trip that I'm "making polyamory unwelcoming"
> >to them, or that I do or should have ANY responsibility for changing my
> >relationship choices because you don't like the shape of a trend that
> >you claim to see.
>
> <ObAoL> Me too! </ObAoL>
> --
What does ObAoL mean?
And I find this ironic, because I personally felt welcomed here right
from the start, and I did not encounter one of the most unwelcoming
things of all that I have seen on other ngs: 'you are a newbie,
therefore you don't know anything, and are ignorant and stupid, and if
you don't qualify everything you say, we oldsters will assume you're
saying something stupid and ignorant'. And I actually heard a couple
people write that everyone is newbie at something. Gosh with talk like
that, the cabal(tm) that controls every post, every poly thought will
soon fall to pieces.
Mary Malmros
In article <5hv2i6$d...@agate.berkeley.edu>,
Steve Pope <s...@ozark.EECS.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
>Mary Malmros (mal...@shore.net) writes,
>
>>>>> By a show of hands, how many have noticed the double standard
>>>>> of wanting poly accepted by the mainstream, complaining that id
>>>>> doesn't seem to be growing very fast, and at the same time refuse
>>>>> to let newcomers into it until after they have previous
>>>>> experience?
>
>>>> weren't welcome so much as saying she didn't have the energy for
>>>> them right now.
>
>>> require more energy, and are therefore less desirable, and therefore
>>> you are participating in the trend towards making polyamory
>>> and/or this newsgroup unwelcoming to new people.
>
>> INDIVIDUALS, choose to have relationships with!
>
>individual (Lydia, and Jenner) stated that newbies, in general,
>require more "energy". In the first place, I question seriously
>whether this is true; and in the second place, these are indeed
>blanket statements being made -- not statements about individual
>partner preference. (IMO).
Got a dejanews on that? And even if they did say so, so what? You're the
one who said "...and therefore less desirable" -- no one else but you.
>> If I choose not to have relationships with people new to polyamory,
>> I'm not "making polyamory...unwelcoming to new people".
>
>No, but when a forum full of people develop and verbalize a common
>philosophy as to why such relations are less desirable, *then* they
>are making polyamory unwelcoming to new people.
WHEN they develop and verbalize such a common philosophy, THEN they are
doing as you say. And WHEN we all track down Bob, shoot him, skin him, and
hang him on the bumper, THEN we will have all earned the T-shirt that says,
"I helped kill Bob".
Let me know when we've developed and verbalized the common philosophy,
wouldja? My review copy must be stuck in some mail queue somewhere.
>> And I refuse to accept this absurd guilt-trip that I'm "making
>> polyamory unwelcoming" to them, or that I do or should have ANY
>> responsibility for changing my relationship choices because
>> you don't like the shape of a trend that you claim to see.
>
>I do not intend to lay a guilt trip on anyone; I'm mostly just
>saying that I do not see things the way several others here do.
That is evident.
The Lorax
On 2 Apr 1997, Mary Malmros wrote:
> The Lorax <lo...@pconline.com> wrote:
> > By a show of hands, how many have noticed the double standard of
> >wanting poly accepted by the mainstream, complaining that id doesn't seem
> >to be growing very fast, and at the same time refuse to let newcomers
> >into it until after they have previous experience?
>
> Lorax, I would like you, or anybody, to show me anywhere in this thread
> where anyone has expressed an unwillingness to "let newcomers into it",
> i.e., into being polyamorous. All that people have said is that either
> a)they choose to not become involved with newcomers, or b)they proceed with
> extreme caution in becoming involved with newcomers. You don't really have
Well if people refuse to even consider getting involved with
newcomers then how can newcomers ever get any experience so that people
might consider taking the chance of getting involved with them? Sorry
but you can't set up a catch 22 situation and claim everyone is welcome
once they meet impossible criteria. The ones who say they proceed with
caution I have no problem at all with.
"Sometimes it is best to be known by ones enemies."
-- Blitzwing --
<Lo...@pconline.com>
St. Paul, Minnesota
Jenner
On 1 Apr 1997 21:16:04 GMT, kit...@staff.uiuc.edu (barbara
trumpinski) wrote:
: well, i know i can't handle mono, but so far i am having a hell of a
: time trying to be poly and it's my own damn fault. i can handle the
: concept of ME having multiple loves (hell, that has always been my
: ideal state). when my loves have other loves, i freak out. 'how can
: i compete?' 'why should s/he love me when someone better is
: available?' 'well, i'm obviously going to get left, so i'd best push
: hir away.' you know the rap. so i am whiny and bitchy and insecure
: and totally unfair to my loves and the loves of my loves....
:
: ...and the only one who loses is me.
Please don't take this the wrong way. You have taken responsibility
for your own actions in your post. I commend that attitude.
It is good to understand that you will lose, eventually. However, you
aren't the only one who loses. Please don't forget that.
I cannot forget it.
: i have finally realized that this is a totally stupid way to approach
: the best thing that has ever happened to me and after i had one last
: hysterical fit last night i am happy to announce that i have lanced
: the boil on my soul and all the pain and anger has drained out and i
: am healing (great metaphor, non?) my soul is still a little tender,
: but i will be whole and healthy soon.
Good luck to you. Good luck to your partners.
Steve Pope
Mary Malmros (mal...@shore.net) writes,
>>>> By a show of hands, how many have noticed the double standard
>>>> of wanting poly accepted by the mainstream, complaining that id
>>>> doesn't seem to be growing very fast, and at the same time refuse
>>>> to let newcomers into it until after they have previous
>>>> experience?
>>> I understood what Lydia was saying. She wasn't saying newcomers
>>> weren't welcome so much as saying she didn't have the energy for
>>> them right now.
>> But your statement still embodies the assumption that "newbies"
>> require more energy, and are therefore less desirable, and therefore
>> you are participating in the trend towards making polyamory
>> and/or this newsgroup unwelcoming to new people.
> "Participating in the trend"? Come ON. This is who we, AS
> INDIVIDUALS, choose to have relationships with!
No; it was stated in more general terms. i.e., more than one
individual (Lydia, and Jenner) stated that newbies, in general,
require more "energy". In the first place, I question seriously
whether this is true; and in the second place, these are indeed
blanket statements being made -- not statements about individual
partner preference. (IMO).
> If I choose not to have relationships with people new to polyamory,
> I'm not "making polyamory...unwelcoming to new people".
No, but when a forum full of people develop and verbalize a common
philosophy as to why such relations are less desirable, *then* they
are making polyamory unwelcoming to new people.
> And I refuse to accept this absurd guilt-trip that I'm "making
> polyamory unwelcoming" to them, or that I do or should have ANY
> responsibility for changing my relationship choices because
> you don't like the shape of a trend that you claim to see.
I do not intend to lay a guilt trip on anyone; I'm mostly just
saying that I do not see things the way several others here do.
I do not think that polyamourous relations are among the
things that it makes a lot of difference whether you are a
so-called newbie. I do not think, on average, one engenders more
risk, expends more energy, etc. when one relates with
people without an extensive background.
Steve
Steve Pope
**jenn...@mail.idt.net** writes:
>: But your statement still embodies the assumption that "newbies"
>: require more energy,
>A newbie in *anything* requires more energy. It is the nature of
>newness.
Why? I consider this statement false. Can you back this up?
And can you tie it in with the topic of poly relationships?
>:and are therefore less desirable,
>I didn't say that, Steve. Please don't see more than is there.
You didn't say this, true. But you also didn't say "newbies require
more energy, but I find them equally desirable as prospective
partners". I haven't read a statement of this sort.
>: >There are times in our lives when we just *don't have the energy* to
>: >teach someone from the start.
>:
>: Yes, but what does this have to do with polyamory?
>
>Are you being clever, or trying for a major disagreement.
I'm saying that I disagree that these characterizations
of newbies and the energy they supposedly require
really are relevant to polyamory. I'm not being clever;
but I am saying that you are the one asserting a cause-and-effect
applies here, and since I am not seeing it, I'd like you to
explain it.
>Everyone is new at something, every moment of their lives. There is
>nothing wrong with that at all. The *point* is that not everyone is
>in a position to teach/mentor just as not everyone is in the position
>to learn something new on every subject.
Does a poly relationship between an inexperienced poly and an
experienced poly necessarily involve teaching/mentoring of
the inexperienced partner? I don't recall ever taking this
approach, myself. Maybe I've just been lucky, perhaps.
Steve
bikerbabe in black leather
In article <5hv375$e...@agate.berkeley.edu>,
Steve Pope <s...@ozark.EECS.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
>**jenn...@mail.idt.net** writes:
>>I didn't say that, Steve. Please don't see more than is there.
>
>You didn't say this, true. But you also didn't say "newbies require
>more energy, but I find them equally desirable as prospective
>partners". I haven't read a statement of this sort.
That's a tad ridiculous.
>
>>Everyone is new at something, every moment of their lives. There is
>>nothing wrong with that at all. The *point* is that not everyone is
>>in a position to teach/mentor just as not everyone is in the position
>>to learn something new on every subject.
>
>Does a poly relationship between an inexperienced poly and an
>experienced poly necessarily involve teaching/mentoring of
>the inexperienced partner? I don't recall ever taking this
>approach, myself. Maybe I've just been lucky, perhaps.
In some situations it does, some it doesn't. But at the *very* least,
it requires having patience with someone who is learning things that
you've known for so long that they seem intuitive. Some people can do
that easily, you describe yourself as that sort of person so count
yourself lucky. Darn few of the rest of us can do that as easily.
I've been involved in poly relationships where the other party(ies)
involved *wanted* me to be the teacher/mentor, and I have a real
problem with that kind of dynamic in my relationships, ie, I can't do
it. And no one here has made the statement that a newbie is incapable
of flowing smoothly right into a poly situation, I'm involved with
someone who did just that, despite however much one might want to read
that into what's been said.
Steve Pope
ami...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (bikerbabe in black leather) writes:
>Steve Pope <s...@ozark.EECS.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
>>Does a poly relationship between an inexperienced poly and an
>>experienced poly necessarily involve teaching/mentoring of
>>the inexperienced partner? I don't recall ever taking this
>>approach, myself. Maybe I've just been lucky, perhaps.
>In some situations it does, some it doesn't. But at the *very* least,
>it requires having patience with someone who is learning things that
>you've known for so long that they seem intuitive. Some people can do
>that easily, you describe yourself as that sort of person so count
>yourself lucky. Darn few of the rest of us can do that as easily.
>I've been involved in poly relationships where the other party(ies)
>involved *wanted* me to be the teacher/mentor, and I have a real
>problem with that kind of dynamic in my relationships, ie, I can't do
>it. And no one here has made the statement that a newbie is incapable
>of flowing smoothly right into a poly situation, I'm involved with
>someone who did just that, despite however much one might want to read
>that into what's been said.
Well, the above seems very sensible to me. If the thesis
put forth was along the lines of "I don't have the energy
for a relationship where I would be required to do a lot
of mentoring", that's quite a bit more reasonable than some
of the broader generalizations being made about newbies in
this thread.
Things that, in my mind, can contribute to not *needing*
to mentor someone: having lots of shared trust with them;
having a good appreciation and feeling for who they are,
at the core, as a person. These are things that are not
really dependent on whether they are experienced or inexperienced.
Steve
Angeline Kantola
In article <5huct0$3...@agate.berkeley.edu>,
Steve Pope <s...@ozark.EECS.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
>Yes, but what does this have to do with polyamory?
Steve, your disingenuousness is truly remarkable.
Perhaps you should read to the end of the post to which
your above statment replies.
Cheers,
Angie
bikerbabe in black leather
In article <5hv2i6$d...@agate.berkeley.edu>,
Steve Pope <s...@ozark.EECS.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
>Mary Malmros (mal...@shore.net) writes,
>
>> If I choose not to have relationships with people new to polyamory,
>> I'm not "making polyamory...unwelcoming to new people".
>
>No, but when a forum full of people develop and verbalize a common
>philosophy as to why such relations are less desirable, *then* they
>are making polyamory unwelcoming to new people.
You're reaching here, Steve.
Steve Pope
kan...@u.washington.edu (Angeline Kantola) writes:
>Steve Pope <s...@ozark.EECS.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
>>Yes, but what does this have to do with polyamory?
>Steve, your disingenuousness is truly remarkable.
>Perhaps you should read to the end of the post to which
>your above statment replies.
I did. I did again, since you asked me nicely. The remainder of
jenner's post dwells on the disadvantages of being in a mentoring
position. As I've explained in a couple other posts, I have
serious doubts whether mentoring much figures into poly relations
in general; or into poly relations with inexperienced partners to
any unusual degree. I certainly doubt that mentoring is necessarily a
component of a relationship.
(Indeed, I seem to recall that when self-styled teachers/mentors
wander into alt.poly they tend to get flamed heavily, but I
digress.)
If it's "disingenous" for me to have doubts about what is
seen as an implicit correlation between polyamory and mentoring,
then so be it. I still have doubts.
>Cheers,
Likewise :)
>Angie
Steve
Steve Pope
kan...@u.washington.edu (Angeline Kantola) writes:
> I'm the one who started the 'poly in principle' subject header.
> I advocated proceeding with caution, not just with newbies in
> general, but in particular when getting involved with someone who
> thinks polyamory is great but doesn't have any real life
> experience to back it up.
> I come to this position based on two observations. First, most
> of the people I know who made a philosophical commitment to
> polyamory outside of the context any relationship appear to have
> difficulty sustaining even a single relationship.
So, you have a bias, with some justification, against
people who do not have a history of being in stable long-term
relationships.
> Second [..] When I met and fell in love with the man I can most
> easily describe with the impoverished term 'secondary', I had to
> learn to negotiate within the boundaries of *his* existing
> primary relationship. The emotional risk was at times
> excruciating ("Am I being taken advantage of by this seemingly
> wonderful guy? Is he being honest about his agreements with his
> partner?", one of which is that said partner doesn't want to know
> about his other, out of town relationships.
So, you also have a bias, with very good justification, against
people who are not authentically open with their partners.
I do not have much difficulty with the two perspectives you
describe above.
> But seriously, I think it's more like what Aahz suggested... I
> want to know that someone has been there and done that, and
> gotten some portion of self-knowledge from the experience.
Hmm. This thread strayed from your initial observations,
to generalities about newbies, but I find your initial
observations much more interesting.
Regarding observation number one: if the person does not have
a stable relationship history, that often means there is a
smaller chance that they will ultimately commit to a long term
relationship. But usually, this does not lessen my desire to
commit myself to them. Whether I do the latter has largely
to do with whether I feel truly in love with them, and whether
I feel they are fundamentally an honest, open, and good
person. I can't really see myself stopping short of offering
to conduct the relationship we'd both like to conduct, simply
because they've had some bad luck and other difficulties in
past relationships, or are simply inexperienced.
Regarding observation number two, the "don't tell" scenario: I've
never been in quite the situation you describe, so perhaps I'm
kind of unsure of how I'd react. But I don't think I'd say to
myself, "this person does not have the prior experience I seek in
a partner"; I would instead say "this person is not conducting
their present affairs in a way that I like". In this scenario,
experience level doesn't enter into it.
Steve
Angeline Kantola
(With stern countenance, and arms akimbo:) Steve, once again, you're not
using your reading skills.
In article <5hviib$k...@agate.berkeley.edu>,
Steve Pope <s...@ozark.EECS.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
>kan...@u.washington.edu (Angeline Kantola) writes:
>> I come to this position based on two observations. First, most
>> of the people I know who made a philosophical commitment to
>> polyamory outside of the context any relationship appear to have
>> difficulty sustaining even a single relationship.
>
>So, you have a bias, with some justification, against
>people who do not have a history of being in stable long-term
>relationships.
No, I have a particular bias against people who purport to have the
emotional skills and resources to manage more than one relationship,
without *any* supporting evidence to that effect.
>> Second [..] When I met and fell in love with the man I can most
>> easily describe with the impoverished term 'secondary', I had to
>> learn to negotiate within the boundaries of *his* existing
>> primary relationship. The emotional risk was at times
>> excruciating ("Am I being taken advantage of by this seemingly
>> wonderful guy? Is he being honest about his agreements with his
>> partner?", one of which is that said partner doesn't want to know
>> about his other, out of town relationships.
>
>So, you also have a bias, with very good justification, against
>people who are not authentically open with their partners.
No; once again, your selective reading has led to misinterpretation.
What I related in the above story was that I recognize--as I stated in my
original post on this subject--that relationships necessarily involve
compromise.
My generalization was: those inexperienced in polyamory may not have a
very realistic idea of the emotional implications of stepping away from
the Standard Monogamy Model, with its built-in expectations and
assumptions, to any of the many and varied (and wonderful!) relationships
within the bounds of 'polyamory'.
I then illustrated this point with an example from my own experience: the
difficult path leading to trust in this secondary relationship, when my
lover and his primary partner have an agreement very much different than
one I would accept. Remember, I got direct confirmation from her that
she's fine with him having other relationships, and he's not
'authentically open' with her *at her request*. Not how I do it with my #1
(or even my #2; we talk about his other relationships), but it works for
them, and has for 25 years.
>I do not have much difficulty with the two perspectives you
>describe above.
Of course not, because you've reinterpreted them to suit yourself.
Cheers,
Angie
Steve Pope
kan...@u.washington.edu (Angeline Kantola) writes:
> Steve Pope <s...@ozark.EECS.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
>>> I come to this position based on two observations. First, most
>>> of the people I know who made a philosophical commitment to
>>> polyamory outside of the context any relationship appear to have
>>> difficulty sustaining even a single relationship.
>>So, you have a bias, with some justification, against
>>people who do not have a history of being in stable long-term
>>relationships.
>No, I have a particular bias against people who purport to have the
>emotional skills and resources to manage more than one relationship,
>without *any* supporting evidence to that effect.
Okay, thanks for clarifying.
>>> Second [..] When I met and fell in love with the man I can most
>>> easily describe with the impoverished term 'secondary', I had to
>>> learn to negotiate within the boundaries of *his* existing
>>> primary relationship. The emotional risk was at times
>>> excruciating ("Am I being taken advantage of by this seemingly
>>> wonderful guy? Is he being honest about his agreements with his
>>> partner?", one of which is that said partner doesn't want to know
>>> about his other, out of town relationships.
>>So, you also have a bias, with very good justification, against
>>people who are not authentically open with their partners.
>No; once again, your selective reading has led to misinterpretation.
>What I related in the above story was that I recognize--as I
>stated in my original post on this subject--that relationships
>necessarily involve compromise.
A somewhat different point than the one I was getting at.
> My generalization was: those inexperienced in polyamory may not
> have a very realistic idea of the emotional implications of
> stepping away from the Standard Monogamy Model, with its built-in
> expectations and assumptions, to any of the many and varied (and
> wonderful!) relationships within the bounds of 'polyamory'.
As long as you recognize that this *is* a generalization; it
does not seem to stem very directly from the circumstances of
observation number two....
>>I do not have much difficulty with the two perspectives you
>>describe above.
>Of course not, because you've reinterpreted them to suit yourself.
Angie, I *still* do not have much difficulty with either
of these two perspectives, even after reading your clarifications.
(Did you expect me to now have a problem with your viewpoint?)
Your descriptions in this post make sense; however, I still do not
see where Situation number 2, in particular, provides any background
to the statements you've made about involvement with newbies.
Steve
bikerbabe in black leather
In article <33431B...@spammmandalay.org>,
>> <ObAoL> Me too! </ObAoL>
>> --
>
>What does ObAoL mean?
in the early daze of aol, you very often would get a clueless aol user
quote an entire post in which was a request to have someone send a file
or something ( a FAQ, GIF image, etc) and add "me too" to the end.
The humorous part was that often times several aol users (users from
other providers would too, but aol was by far the most common) would
cascade the "me toos" quoting the same entire long post.
Steve Pope
Mary Malmros (mal...@shore.net) writes,
>>No, but when a forum full of people develop and verbalize a common
>>philosophy as to why such relations are less desirable, *then* they
>>are making polyamory unwelcoming to new people.
>WHEN they develop and verbalize such a common philosophy, THEN
>they are doing as you say.
Right. I gather by this your position is that no such
common philosophy has been formed and verbalized.
>> I'm mostly just saying that I do not see things the way
>> several others here do.
> That is evident.
But saying that I see things differently from the way
several others here do would seem to come pretty close to
implying that those collective others have formed and verbalized
a common philosophy.
I think you're walking a pretty thin line here.
That being said, I think at some point a pile-on of similar
comments will have the effect that the group can look as though
it has a given slant, even if the people making those comments
have not actually coherently formed a collective opinion in that
direction. That seems to be the case here. For example I find
that when I dissect the statements made by Jenner, and by Angie,
in this thread, they are not really talking about newbieness
except very indirectly.
S.
Mary Malmros
In article <Pine.LNX.3.91.970402...@newton.pconline.com>,
The Lorax <lo...@pconline.com> wrote:
>On 2 Apr 1997, Mary Malmros wrote:
>
>> The Lorax <lo...@pconline.com> wrote:
>
>> >wanting poly accepted by the mainstream, complaining that id doesn't seem
>> >to be growing very fast, and at the same time refuse to let newcomers
>> >into it until after they have previous experience?
>>
>> where anyone has expressed an unwillingness to "let newcomers into it",
>> i.e., into being polyamorous. All that people have said is that either
>> a)they choose to not become involved with newcomers, or b)they proceed with
>> extreme caution in becoming involved with newcomers. You don't really have
>
> Well if people refuse to even consider getting involved with
>newcomers then how can newcomers ever get any experience so that people
>might consider taking the chance of getting involved with them?
Lorax, "people" as a mass don't do anything like "refuse to evenconsider
getting involved with newcomers". That is something that some individuals
do. IF I -- me, one person, individual -- "refuse to even consider getting
involved with newcomers" (and note, I haven't said that I do), I'm not
denying anyone the experience of polyamory. I'm just denying them the
experience of doing it with ME, one person, individual. Do you believe that
I owe newcomers that experience? Because if so, this is where we have a
fundamental disagreement, and there's really no point in continuing this
discussion.
>Sorry
>but you can't set up a catch 22 situation and claim everyone is welcome
>once they meet impossible criteria.
I, one person, individual do not have the power to set up a "catch 22
situation" such as you describe for anyone. I, one person, individual am
not their only relationship outlet. I don't stand at the Gates of Polyamory
and determine, through my relationship choices, who may and may not enter.
--
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Mary Malmros Very Small Being mal...@shore.net
*** WARNING: REPLY-TO ADDRESS IS BOGUS TO FOIL SPAM ***
I helped kill Bob and I got the t-shirt.
Steve Pope
Thida Cornes <th...@spammmandalay.org> writes:
> Steve Pope <s...@ozark.EECS.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
>> But your statement still embodies the assumption that "newbies"
>> require more energy, and are therefore less desirable, and therefore
>> you are participating in the trend towards making polyamory
>> and/or this newsgroup unwelcoming to new people.
> YMV but I suspect that in general someone new at something does
> require more time and energy than someone who's done it before.
I think the point in contention was whether newbies created
an unusual demand on their *partner's* energy, as opposed
to an unusual demand on their own energy.
Assuming I'm grasping the point in question correctly, I can think of
some analogies that suggest it isn't in general true.
I am a musician. If I am playing music with someone highly
experienced, they may well demand much more of my energy
than would a less experienced musician.
I am an engineer. If I am working on a project with someone who's
been in the industry 30 years, I might find that much more demanding
than working with a relatively new person.
But more importantly:
Whether I choose to become involved with somebody hinges
virtually entirely upon how I *feel* about them. Their
experience level at whatever is simply not going to figure into
it that much at all. YMMV, as you say, but the way I see
it, if you are seeking a short-term encounter of some
specific sort, then certainly experience counts for a lot;
but if you are seeking a long-term relationship, then it's
who the person is that really counts, not what they've done.
Just my personal viewpoint, of course.
Steve
Shannah Miller
In article <5hvelr$i...@agate.berkeley.edu>,
Steve Pope <s...@ozark.EECS.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
>
>I think the point in contention was whether newbies created
>an unusual demand on their *partner's* energy, as opposed
>to an unusual demand on their own energy.
>
>Assuming I'm grasping the point in question correctly, I can think of
>some analogies that suggest it isn't in general true.
>
>I am a musician. If I am playing music with someone highly
>experienced, they may well demand much more of my energy
>than would a less experienced musician.
>
who had some experience in the instrument than with someone who
doesn't even know the basics.
>I am an engineer. If I am working on a project with someone who's
>been in the industry 30 years, I might find that much more demanding
>than working with a relatively new person.
>
Honestly? Gosh, it would drive me bananas to have to explain to
someone "OK, now, this is the return key." When the screen has words
on it that say "Hit Return" or "Hit Enter", you press this little
key that has this funny bent arrow on it. AAauuuuggggghhh!
I'd rather be able to say "Let me know if there are any problems
with fsck. Otherwise, just restore, and I'll see you at lunch. Bye."
>But more importantly:
>
>Whether I choose to become involved with somebody hinges
>virtually entirely upon how I *feel* about them. Their
>experience level at whatever is simply not going to figure into
>it that much at all. YMMV, as you say, but the way I see
>it, if you are seeking a short-term encounter of some
>specific sort, then certainly experience counts for a lot;
>but if you are seeking a long-term relationship, then it's
>who the person is that really counts, not what they've done.
>
>Just my personal viewpoint, of course.
>
Er, well, okay, that's fine, but what about those of us who
might not agree? Is it okay for us to hold our "Just our
personal viewpoints"?
Shannah
P.S. I think that a lot of who a person is is reflected in
what they've done.
--
**********************************************************************
Shannah Miller sha...@nojunk.rahul.net
**********************************************************************
Shannah Miller
In article <5hv2i6$d...@agate.berkeley.edu>,
Steve Pope <s...@ozark.EECS.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
>
>No; it was stated in more general terms. i.e., more than one
>individual (Lydia, and Jenner) stated that newbies, in general,
>require more "energy". In the first place, I question seriously
>whether this is true; and in the second place, these are indeed
>blanket statements being made -- not statements about individual
>partner preference. (IMO).
>
and energy. If faced with a newbie with whom I shared a mutual
interest, I would find out whether or not they at least knew the
basics. If they didn't, I might well decide that I don't have
the time or energy to pursue it.
Heck, I have spent an incredible amount of time helping out a pair
of newbies lately, and it's not even my relationship! They just
happen to be friends. But they are going through things where I
can understand where they're coming from, and have some wisdom, I
hope, to offer. If they weren't already friends, though, there is
no way I could justify the time I've taken.
>
>No, but when a forum full of people develop and verbalize a common
>philosophy as to why such relations are less desirable, *then* they
>are making polyamory unwelcoming to new people.
>
When I get involved with a group that has a certain level of
expertise, and doesn't really want to have to spend a lot of time
bringing me up to speed, I just study up. I go read what I can
get my hands on, listen to what others are saying, and try to
bootstrap myself up past my "newbieness". I did this on rec.woodworking,
and now can turn beautiful bowls on my lathe without having had
to take a class.
>I do not intend to lay a guilt trip on anyone; I'm mostly just
>saying that I do not see things the way several others here do.
>I do not think that polyamourous relations are among the
>things that it makes a lot of difference whether you are a
>so-called newbie. I do not think, on average, one engenders more
>risk, expends more energy, etc. when one relates with
>people without an extensive background.
>
It's so easy to say that when you're coming from the less extensive
background. When I was working as a computer operator at HP, I
hated having people tell me that I wasn't qualified for jobs that I
knew I could do, because I "hadn't paid my dues". I now know what
that means, and that I really was not qualified for the jobs I thought
I was qualified for. I knew what to do during the average workday.
It was what to do when the shit hits the fan, if you'll pardon the
expression, that I didn't know, and that knowledge was why they
wanted experienced people in the job and paid them the big bucks.
Here's an example: Say you're at a clothing-optional retreat.
A woman who is not your date is making eyes at you. She pats
you on the butt. She suggests that the two of you go make hay
while the sun's shining. <wink wink nudge nudge>
What do you do?
If you think you can actually answer that question, you have just
demonstrated that there is at least one 2-hour conversation that
I would have to have with you that I would not have to have with
my primary, or with most of the poly people I can think of.
For someone who would like to make an easygoing connection, where
everyone knows the basic rules and just has to decide whether or
not "one eyed jacks are wild", having to have that 2-hour
conversation just isn't appealing, sorry.
I think poly can be very welcoming to newbies if they are willing
to take their time, avoid being predatory, read up, listen to what's
being said, and understand that it's not as easy as it looks.
Shannah
Mary Malmros
In article <5i0ujo$i...@samba.rahul.net>,
Shannah Miller <sha...@nojunk.rahul.net> wrote:
>In article <5hvelr$i...@agate.berkeley.edu>,
>Steve Pope <s...@ozark.EECS.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
>>
>>I think the point in contention was whether newbies created
>>an unusual demand on their *partner's* energy, as opposed
>>to an unusual demand on their own energy.
>>
>>Assuming I'm grasping the point in question correctly, I can think of
>>some analogies that suggest it isn't in general true.
>>
>>I am a musician. If I am playing music with someone highly
>>experienced, they may well demand much more of my energy
>>than would a less experienced musician.
>>
>Really? I would find it much easier to play a duet with someone
>who had some experience in the instrument than with someone who
>doesn't even know the basics.
I believe that Steve was talking not about someone who had an equal level of
experience, but who had a much higher level of experience. I know that when
I'm working with someone who's much more advanced than I am at whatever
we're doing, I get pushed more. For example, the times I went to jo class
and found that it was just me and my teacher were always much, much harder
than when I showed up and there were other students who were closer to my
level.
Thida Cornes
Steve Pope wrote:
>
> Thida Cornes <th...@spammmandalay.org> writes:
>
> > Steve Pope <s...@ozark.EECS.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
>
> >> But your statement still embodies the assumption that "newbies"
> >> require more energy, and are therefore less desirable, and therefore
> >> you are participating in the trend towards making polyamory
> >> and/or this newsgroup unwelcoming to new people.
>
> > YMV but I suspect that in general someone new at something does
> > require more time and energy than someone who's done it before.
>
> an unusual demand on their *partner's* energy, as opposed
> to an unusual demand on their own energy.
In a partnership, if one person is expending a lot of energy on
something, they're going to have less energy overall to devote to
working on the relationship, and the natural tendency of most people
whose partner is struggling is to try and help. I actually hate
mentoring in a romantic relationship, and fortunately the poly folks I'm
with have avoided doing so, but I think it's a common trap people fall
into.
> Assuming I'm grasping the point in question correctly, I can think of
> some analogies that suggest it isn't in general true.
>
> I am a musician. If I am playing music with someone highly
> experienced, they may well demand much more of my energy
> than would a less experienced musician.
And the more experienced musician will probably have to expend energy to
not leave the less experienced musician behind.
> I am an engineer. If I am working on a project with someone who's
> been in the industry 30 years, I might find that much more demanding
> than working with a relatively new person.
>
> But more importantly:
>
> Whether I choose to become involved with somebody hinges
> virtually entirely upon how I *feel* about them. Their
> experience level at whatever is simply not going to figure into
> it that much at all. YMMV, as you say, but the way I see
> it, if you are seeking a short-term encounter of some
> specific sort, then certainly experience counts for a lot;
> but if you are seeking a long-term relationship, then it's
> who the person is that really counts, not what they've done.
Sure, but that doesn't change the fact that in general newbies require
more energy. This is a theoretical discussion and YMV. We're talking
about people's _preferences_ and _biases_. As you may well know,
people's preferences or even stated biases about relationships may go
out the window if they met that special someone. I wrote in an another
thread that I'm not attracted to smokers, but I'll tell you now that if
someone came along who was suited to me in every other way except zie
smoked. Well, I might even say at first 'sorry I can't get involved
with you', and then I'd probably eat my words and it'd happen anyway.
> Just my personal viewpoint, of course.
Isn't usenet about stating one's own personal viewpoint?
Well, unless you have delusions of grandeur.
Steve Pope
sha...@nojunk.rahul.net (Shannah Miller) writes:
>>No; it was stated in more general terms. i.e., more than one
>>individual (Lydia, and Jenner) stated that newbies, in general,
>>require more "energy". In the first place, I question seriously
>>whether this is true; [..] when a forum full of people develop
>>and verbalize a common philosophy as to why such relations are
>>less desirable, *then* they are making polyamory unwelcoming to
>>new people.
>When I get involved with a group that has a certain level of
>expertise, and doesn't really want to have to spend a lot of time
>bringing me up to speed, I just study up. I go read what I can
>get my hands on, listen to what others are saying, and try to
>bootstrap myself up past my "newbieness". I did this on
>rec.woodworking, and now can turn beautiful bowls on my lathe
>without having had to take a class.
That's great, but presumably rec.woodworking folks _accurately_
describe the extent to which experience figures into
woodworking activity. And if the discussion on said topic
turned inaccurate, someone would step in to correct what
is being said.
>>I do not think that polyamourous relations are among the
>>things that it makes a lot of difference whether you are a
>>so-called newbie. I do not think, on average, one engenders more
>>risk, expends more energy, etc. when one relates with
>>people without an extensive background.
>It's so easy to say that when you're coming from the less extensive
>background.
Well, that is not where I am coming from. I don't want to turn
this discussion into a matter of who has the more extensive
credentials; suffice to say that I want to add my experiences to
what is being said. And let me add I am having the same
reaction as you, but from the other direction: some of the
comments being made about newbies are glib and plausible-sounding
but I have trouble believing they are based on enough experience
to form a statistical sample.
>Here's an example: Say you're at a clothing-optional retreat.
>A woman who is not your date is making eyes at you. She pats
>you on the butt. She suggests that the two of you go make hay
>while the sun's shining. <wink wink nudge nudge>
>What do you do?
>If you think you can actually answer that question, you have just
>demonstrated that there is at least one 2-hour conversation that
>I would have to have with you that I would not have to have with
>my primary, or with most of the poly people I can think of.
Are you saying if your primary thought he/she could answer that
question, an unpleasant two-hour conversation would be necessary?
Or are you suggesting that I haven't had the necessary two-hour
conversation with my partners? I'm not following you here.
>For someone who would like to make an easygoing connection, where
>everyone knows the basic rules and just has to decide whether or
>not "one eyed jacks are wild", having to have that 2-hour
>conversation just isn't appealing, sorry.
I think what you're driving at is that a newbie at a sex
party (or whatever), unversed in the norms of behavior, would
take up people's time. I'd agree with that. It's a fairly
limited subset of the situation under discussion though.
Steve
Akien MacIain
Steve Pope wrote:
> **jenn...@mail.idt.net** writes:
> >: But your statement still embodies the assumption that "newbies"
> >: require more energy,
> >A newbie in *anything* requires more energy. It is the nature of
> >newness.
> Why? I consider this statement false. Can you back this up?
> And can you tie it in with the topic of poly relationships?
seems to be a recipie for disaster around here), but in my own
experience newbies always take more energy.
I do a very specialized form of software engineering, and there aren't a
lot of other people doing what I do. So when we hire someone to do this,
they are almost always newbies, and I have to plan on spendiong energy
bringing them up to speed. Quick studies help, they minimize the energy
I have to spend, but the expenditure is still there.
I've initiated a few poly newbies (not because I dig on that, thats just
who they were). Some have been more energy, some haven't. One thought
she was a newbie, but she wasn't. I married her.
All that said, I do enjoy mentoring, so I do get something back.
P was a newbie and required a lot of energy and mentoring. Now she's
teaching me in other aspects of relationships.
what goes around comes around.
--
------------------------------------------------
ADDRESS IN HEADER MAY BE BOGUS TO FIGHT SPAM
Email me at mailto:aki...@weirdness.com
Akien MacIain http://www.majornet.com/~akienm
Filosifer, Parent, Pagan, Amateur Neurochemist
Views expressed not necessarily those of anybody.
Even me.
------------------------------------------------
Thida Cornes
Mary Malmros wrote:
[snip]
> I, one person, individual do not have the power to set up a "catch 22
> situation" such as you describe for anyone. I, one person, individual am
> not their only relationship outlet. I don't stand at the Gates of Polyamory
> and determine, through my relationship choices, who may and may not enter.
You're right. That's the job of the HBBC (Hot Bi Babe Conspiracy)
And now I'm going to bring out my valid stamp. It's a big old stamp
and pretty tough to wield, and I haven't used it for years, but it seems
to be needed now.
Oh behalf on the HBBC, I stamp newbie polyamorists everywhere as
VALID (and thus free to enter those pearly poly gates.)
There. I hope everyone feels better.
:^)
--
To reply by email, please remove the spam from my email address.
Thida Cornes Email: th...@mandalay.org
http://www.mandalay.org/
This post has been brought to you today by the letters V and N and the
number 1.
Steve Pope
Thida Cornes <th...@spammmandalay.org> replies to my post,
> I actually hate mentoring in a romantic relationship, and
> fortunately the poly folks I'm with have avoided doing so, but I
> think it's a common trap people fall into.
I'm with you on this one.
>> But more importantly:
>> Whether I choose to become involved with somebody hinges
>> virtually entirely upon how I *feel* about them. Their
>> experience level at whatever is simply not going to figure into
>> it that much at all. YMMV, as you say, but the way I see
>> it, if you are seeking a short-term encounter of some
>> specific sort, then certainly experience counts for a lot;
>> but if you are seeking a long-term relationship, then it's
>> who the person is that really counts, not what they've done.
> Sure, but that doesn't change the fact that in general newbies
> require more energy.
This use of the word "fact" bothers me a bit.
After reading this thread the past day or so, I'm beginning
to think that, in some cases, statements about how newbies
are a drain on a more experienced person's energy say
not very much about the characteristics of newbies, and quite
a bit about the particular approach the more experienced person
is taking towards the relationship.
>This is a theoretical discussion and YMV. We're talking
>about people's _preferences_ and _biases_. As you may well know,
>people's preferences or even stated biases about relationships may go
>out the window if they met that special someone.
I absolutely agree.
Steve
Akien MacIain
Shannah Miller wrote:
[...]
> Here's an example: Say you're at a clothing-optional retreat.
> A woman who is not your date is making eyes at you. She pats
> you on the butt. She suggests that the two of you go make hay
> while the sun's shining. <wink wink nudge nudge>
> What do you do?
> If you think you can actually answer that question, you have just
> demonstrated that there is at least one 2-hour conversation that
> I would have to have with you that I would not have to have with
> my primary, or with most of the poly people I can think of.
> everyone knows the basic rules and just has to decide whether or
> not "one eyed jacks are wild", having to have that 2-hour
> conversation just isn't appealing, sorry.
I'm not proud, despite my experience, I don't claim to be an expert at
anything.
That said, I don't get the above. What 2-hour conversation are you
talking about?
--
------------------------------------------------
ADDRESS IN HEADER MAY BE BOGUS TO FIGHT SPAM
Email me at mailto:aki...@weirdness.com
Akien MacIain http://www.majornet.com/~akienm
Filosifer, Parent, Pagan, Amateur Neurochemist
Views expressed not necessarily those of anybody.
Even me.
------------------------------------------------
.
Mary Malmros
In article <5i0grs$j...@agate.berkeley.edu>,>>>No, but when a forum full of people develop and verbalize a common
>>>philosophy as to why such relations are less desirable, *then* they
>>>are making polyamory unwelcoming to new people.
>
>>they are doing as you say.
>
>Right. I gather by this your position is that no such
>common philosophy has been formed and verbalized.
That is indeed what I believe. Why? Because I see no evidence that it is
so. If you feel otherwise, I'd like to know what evidence you see.
>>> I'm mostly just saying that I do not see things the way
>>> several others here do.
>
>> That is evident.
>
>But saying that I see things differently from the way
>several others here do would seem to come pretty close to
>implying that those collective others have formed and verbalized
>a common philosophy.
It doesn't even come remotely close to it, unless you're a reductionist of
the sort who divides the world into "me" and "everybody else", and is unable
to distinguish between other people.
>I think you're walking a pretty thin line here.
Er, uh, well, look down at your own feet, Steve.
>That being said, I think at some point a pile-on of similar
>comments will have the effect that the group can look as though
>it has a given slant, even if the people making those comments
>have not actually coherently formed a collective opinion in that
>direction. That seems to be the case here. For example I find
>that when I dissect the statements made by Jenner, and by Angie,
>in this thread, they are not really talking about newbieness
>except very indirectly.
Well, there ya go. I got up this morning, took a shower, and put on my
underwear. So did a lot of other people. But it sure as hell wasn't a
collective action.
Thida Cornes
Steve Pope wrote:
>
> Thida Cornes <th...@spammmandalay.org> replies to my post,
>
> > I actually hate mentoring in a romantic relationship, and
> > fortunately the poly folks I'm with have avoided doing so, but I
> > think it's a common trap people fall into.
>
> I'm with you on this one.
>
> >> But more importantly:
>
> >> Whether I choose to become involved with somebody hinges
> >> virtually entirely upon how I *feel* about them. Their
> >> experience level at whatever is simply not going to figure into
> >> it that much at all. YMMV, as you say, but the way I see
> >> it, if you are seeking a short-term encounter of some
> >> specific sort, then certainly experience counts for a lot;
> >> but if you are seeking a long-term relationship, then it's
> >> who the person is that really counts, not what they've done.
>
> > Sure, but that doesn't change the fact that in general newbies
> > require more energy.
>
> This use of the word "fact" bothers me a bit.
It's a fact of life for me. I usually use a less authoratative tone, but
I think the way my work and this thread has been going has encouraged my
latent bossiness. You are the first person I've ever encountered who
has said 'newbies don't take more energy'. I don't understand how your
experience can be different from what's generally accepted, but okay.
> After reading this thread the past day or so, I'm beginning
> to think that, in some cases, statements about how newbies
> are a drain on a more experienced person's energy say
> not very much about the characteristics of newbies, and quite
> a bit about the particular approach the more experienced person
> is taking towards the relationship.
I think if you don't accept the basic premise of the argument which is
that 'newbies in general require more energy' then yes, you're going to
feel this way. I will agree that the experienced person can handle the
newbie in a way that minimises the drain on zir energy. For myself, if
someone recognises that I'm about to fall into poly trap #237, I can
usually get myself out of it myself if they ask me the right question.
--
To reply by email, please remove the spam from my email address.
Thida Cornes Email: th...@mandalay.org
http://www.mandalay.org/
Don't crack up, bend your brain, see both sides, throw off your mental
The Lorax
On 3 Apr 1997, Shannah Miller wrote:
> When I get involved with a group that has a certain level of
> expertise, and doesn't really want to have to spend a lot of time
> bringing me up to speed, I just study up. I go read what I can
> get my hands on, listen to what others are saying, and try to
> bootstrap myself up past my "newbieness". I did this on rec.woodworking,
> and now can turn beautiful bowls on my lathe without having had
> to take a class.
What we were discussing was the attitude of not dealing with people
who don't have any real experience in poly. Not a matter of not studies,
but not having experience. So what if you had been told that you were
not allowed to approch the lathe until after you had alread produced
several bowls?
"Sometimes it is best to be known by ones enemies."
-- Blitzwing --
<Lo...@pconline.com>
St. Paul, Minnesota