[UUPoly-L] But Seriously Folks... (was: Polyamory vs. Swinging)

[John Ullman <jsu627@earthlink.net>]

I'm not a big fan of using continuums to describe relationship 
styles. It's sort of like trying to make a continuum of vegetables, 
like would it be tomato, beet, carrot, rutabaga, onion, daikon? Any 
model should do a few things to be useful. It should include all the 
available data (not just stereotypes)  and it should give us a way to 
make predictions or provide us with a framework to extend our knowledge.

In some ways I think using a continuum to describe mono, swinging, 
poly leads us to false conclusions. For example, it implies a (IMHO) 
false hierarchy of values:

mono = not bad
swinging = wicked good
poly = sinful wicked good (The New England value system)

Also, it implies that people adopt those practices in that order. In 
some cases it is true, but in mine it wasn't, I went mono, poly, 
swinging in my development as a sex positive person.

And perhaps worst of all, it implies that poly and swinging are 
mutually exclusive and/or people can do one or the other when in fact 
many of us do both. Not many real people closely resemble either the 
poly or the swing stereotypes.

I prefer to consider mono, swinging, poly as different relationship 
technologies, each appropriate for achieving different objectives. 
The same for sex. IMHO, the discussion should be how can mono, poly, 
swinging serve us and how can different kinds of sex serve us.

John U