Re: [UUPoly-L] UUCA: welcoming congregation

["Laura Stewart" <lonelocust@gmail.com>]

On 12/1/06, JasmineGld@aol.com <JasmineGld@aol.com> wrote:
> In a message dated 12/1/2006 7:45:59 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> imapolygirl@yahoo.com writes:
>
>
> > If we had committed UU swingers who wanted to join
> > together with us in UUPoly advocacy, that approach
> > might be different, but we don't to my knowledge.
>
> Actually, we do have some list members who identify as swingers and have
> some interest in working with UUPoly advocacy, or at least some interest in
> keeping an eye on what poly UUs are doing and whether we extend to swingers the
> same respect we desire for polys.
>
> Laura Stewart <_lonelocust@gmail.com_ (mailto:lonelocust@gmail.com) > wrote:
> >  Educating people about the difference in swingers
> > and poly people is important.
>
> Easier said than done. There are a wide variety of ways in which to engage
> in polyamory, and there are also a wide variety of ways to engage in swinging.

True.  I was just meaning to explicitly acknowledge the fact that I'm
fine with the statements that are often made saying how polyamory is
not [just] about sex, and sometimes comparing it to swinging.  I think
it's important for people to present as clear a picture as possible
about their polyness.

> Depending on which of those ways a given person is talking about, poly and
> swinging might be completely different or virtually indistinguishable. And if
> the speaker and the listener have different ways in mind during the
> conversation, it can lead to miscommunication, hurt feelings, and damaged
> relationships.

And thus.. communication.  Explanation.  Dialogue.

> Anita writes:
> > 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.
>
> Directing the conversation back to polyamory is the safest response. As
> polys, our expertise, such as it is, is about polyamory. We have no expertise in
> swinging, and we should keep that limitation in mind.

That's not necessarily true of everyone.

> For this reason, I
> prefer  not to include, "which is a very different kind of non-monogamy," because
> (1) I  don't have enough expertise to speak about swinging and (2) I believe
> it's much  more complicated than this comment implies.

There are a thousand kinds of poly.  I usually distinguish "poly" from
"open", with "poly" meaning engaging in more than one serious
relationship at a time, and "open" meaning able to have casual dating
and/or casual sex outside of a committed relationship while being in a
committed relationship.  ("Swinging" is often used as a specific
subset of "open", so maybe it's not the best word for me to use at
all.  I used it rather than "open" because I think that "swinging" and
"poly" are used with less interchangeability than "open" and "poly" by
most people.)  Some people who only have one primary relationship and
are open call themselves "poly".  Some don't.  And of course some
people don't like labels like "poly", but that's another issue
altogether.

There are many different kinds of non-monogamy, as you said.  Whether
someone identifies as being a swinger, being poly, or being in an open
relationship, the truth is that without talking to that specific
person about the details of their relationships, one doesn't have any
expertise on that other person's relationship at all.

(Personally, I am in a committed triad which is also open.  I don't
really sleep around, because doing so doesn't interest me.  One of my
partners does like to sleep around.)

> If pressed, I will state
> that my  personal understanding of swinging is very limited, and return to
> "the  issue for UUs right now is polyamory."

I would have to say that the issue is accepting people, accepting
their natural inclinations, accepting their life choices, accepting
and celebrating their decisions and realizations about how they should
live their lives.

> Depending on context, I might point out that my academic understanding of
> swinging does not support the "those dirty swingers" comment. The reason is
> that I have some concerns about implied agreement if I don't respond at  all.

I'm afraid I don't quite follow what you're saying.  To rephrase my
main point with less rambling (and not rambling is a terribly
difficult thing for me), I think it's important for us to be very sure
to not lend legitimacy to our particular non-monogamy by explicitly or
implicitly villainizing other types of non-monogamy.

Also, thank you for your comments.

-Laura