Re: [UUPoly-L] Fidelity Bashing [was Re: Promiscuity Bashing]

[John Ullman <jsu627@earthlink.net>]

Anita Wagner wrote:           (On 10:35 AM 2/23/2006)
> Which I imagine was John's point when he said that without one night
> stands one is celebate.  I can understand how it might be confusing
> when said in that fashion, but I imagine what he means as that every
> time we have sex for the first time with someone, there is always the
> risk that things won't go as one or both hope and that the
> interaction will end up being a one night stand because one or both
> don't wish to go any farther.

Well, yes, that's a fair paraphrasing. It's just not as funny as how 
I said it, IMHO.


> What irony that the subject of sex is so controversial even within
> our own commmunity.

I'm not sure this is ironic. We are all deeply effected by the sex 
negativity of our culture, and deal with it in different ways. Some 
of us deal with oppression by distancing ourselves from the 
oppressors. Others try to adopt enough of the oppressor's bad 
behavior to hope that their little idiosyncrasy will be accepted. 
Just look at the "for dyads only" gay marriage guys. I'm all for 
anyone being able to marry anyone they want, but I'm not interested 
in being oppressed to serve the interests of another minority. I see 
polys who make a big deal about how they aren't "promiscuous" in the 
same light. Trying to curry favor from the mainstream by bashing 
other minorities. As I recall, the definition of a promiscuous person 
is someone who is having more sex than I do.

John U