[UUPoly-L] Re: UUPoly-L Digest, Vol 17, Issue 18

["kit of the furry heads" <rawk.yer.socks.off@gmail.com>]

Thomas Anderson said...

If "Polyamory" as a movement is to mean anything really (IMnsHO) the
> focus needs to be on Responsible Non-monogamy Between Consenting
> Adults. That means that, yeah, it includes "swingers" (if they are
> being upfront and honest), it includes us "bad as monogamy" folks, it
> includes FLDS folks (when all partners are adults). Anything else is
> both exclusionary and an excuse to justify why your lifestyle choices
> are better than other peoples.


Polygyny (and I guess polyandry would though this is much more rare) as a
social institution makes me uncomfortable. If individuals choose polygyny as
a personal model for their relationships, that is fine, but when a community
decides that it is okay for men to have multiple female partners but it is
not acceptable for female partners to do the same, that sounds a lot like
systematic control and ownership of female sexuality in that community...and
so I have a lot harder time wanting to include them as a group whose rights
I want to defend, even if they stopped with the child bride thing.