Re: [UUPoly-L] UUCA: welcoming congregation

["Brigitte Fires" <brigittefires@gmail.com>]

**On 12/1/06, Anita Wagner <imapolygirl@yahoo.com> wrote:
If challenged about "those dirty swingers" , we can react neutrally and
point out that we aren't talking about swinging, we're talking about
polyamory. which is a very different kind of non-monogamy.**

I would argue this statement, only on the basis that "swinging" falls under
the umbrella of polyamory. It is one of the many flavors of poly, and IMO
should not be considered a point that anyone arguing FOR polyamory should be
reacting neutrally on or directing the conversation away from.

OTOH, the response as mentioned by Jasmine about redirecting the
conversation back to one's own expertise is probably best, whether
discussing swinging or polyfidelity or any other flavor of poly. I have only
bad experiences with groups practicing polyfidelity (or what I like to call
"PolyOmony") and would therefore not feel comfortable trying to defend that
lifestyle specifically. It's not my expertise, and therefore is a flavor of
poly I WOULD, if asked, respond neutrally to, if only out of respect for the
fact that defending it would leave a bad taste in my mouth.

FWIW: PolyOmony (which was originally a slipped-up mixture of polyamory and
monogamy) I now use for those groups which pretend to practice polyfidelity,
but do as well as those monogamous couples who are always cheating on each
other. Someone thought I meant polyomony was refering to the "ominous"
nature of the relationship, being that it was clearly doomed to fail in a
blaze of flaming drama, and so it became the term used for such a situation.
In this way I have been able to deparate the two in my mind, and remove some
of the negative feelings associated with groups who have a similar rulebook,
but actually follow it (sans drama for the sake of drama!) by using the term
polyfidelity.

And I know that my experiences were not typical, I understand that where
there is one group of people doing poly (of any flavor) 'wrong,' there are
dozens more doing it 'right.' As long as the arrangements are not hurting
anyone, I don't have much of an opinion WHAT anyone's rules are (unless I
want to join, of course). But at the very least I'll defend your right to
make them as your group sees fit, whether I agree with the rules or not.


Brigitte Fires