Re: [UUPoly-L] UUPoly-L Digest, Vol 27, Issue 8

Dennis K <marxred@yahoo.com> · Tue, 05 Dec 2006 02:32:13 -0000

just a question to the group.  why was my post referred to as "spam"?
  dennis

uupoly-l-request@uupa.org wrote:
  Send UUPoly-L mailing list submissions to
uupoly-l@uupa.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://www.uupa.org/mailman/listinfo/uupoly-l
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
uupoly-l-request@uupa.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
uupoly-l-owner@uupa.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of UUPoly-L digest..."

Today's Topics:

1. Re: I like Laura's idea (Desmond Ravenstone)
2. Re: definitions again; my 2 cents (John Ullman)
3. Re: I like Laura's idea (Laura Stewart)
4. ***SPAM*** hello friends (Dennis K)
5. Re: Welcoming (Valerie White)
6. Re: What percentage of the poly community is UU? (Valerie White)
7. Re: What percentage of the poly community is UU? (Valerie White)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2006 13:32:14 -0500 (EST)
From: "Desmond Ravenstone" 
Subject: Re: [UUPoly-L] I like Laura's idea
To: 
Message-ID:
<20061203133214.HM.0000000000003L2@gentlemonster.bos-mail-wwl22.lycos.com>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

I would see a triangle with complete monogamy on one tip, polyfidelity

on one tip, and strich strangers-only swinging on one tip. (This

would leave out cheating and dishonest relationships in general.) One

side would essentially measure the relationship's openness to

additional love, and one side the relationship's openness to aditional

sex.

Keep in mind there are also asexual people and others who prefer to not
have this type of relationship. Just to make things more confusing!

Desmond Ravenstone

**********

LOOK FOR MY BOOKS ON http://www.lulu.com/gentlemonster

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Lycos Cinema : Catch up with your friends and see free movies online -
watch, chat & connect now >> http://cinema.lycos.com

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2006 12:29:15 -0800
From: John Ullman 
Subject: Re: [UUPoly-L] definitions again; my 2 cents
To: uupoly-l@uupa.org
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20061203121705.04f182a8@earthlink.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

Fantine wrote: (On 08:12 PM 12/2/2006)
>A person who chooses not to
>have polyamorous relationships, who is in partnership
>with someone who does, may be considered monogamous and
>poly-friendly, but in my book, is not polyamorous.

I think it is really worth while to talk about what differentiates 
polyamory from other multiple partner styles in a formal, theoretical 
sense. I think it helps us figure out what works and what doesn't and 
can give us the courage to try different relationship structures.

What I think is not only not useful, but destructive to our 
conversation, is to talk about who is or isn't polyamorous. In 
colloquial speech many of us, myself included, use "I am polyamorous" 
when we really mean "I have polyamorous relationships." This is like 
"I am a guitarist" which can be true even if one also plays the 
trumpet, and you can certainly say it even when you are not playing 
the guitar, but is never taken to sum up everything one is in life.

If "I am polyamorous" is said in the same sense that "I am Christian" 
is said, then we can have communications breakdowns. I see polyamory 
as relationship technology, not as a moral/spiritual high ground. In 
a lot of the definition discussions, I think there are often people 
who get wigged out because they don't distinguish between an abstract 
model that is useful for discussion and some sort of metaphysical 
definition of ones essence.

John U

------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2006 13:44:50 -0700
From: "Laura Stewart" 
Subject: Re: [UUPoly-L] I like Laura's idea
To: uupoly-l@uupa.org
Message-ID:
<4ed327410612031244j478e6950neb36247ecaeef180@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

On 12/3/06, Desmond Ravenstone wrote:
> I would see a triangle with complete monogamy on one tip, polyfidelity
>
> on one tip, and strich strangers-only swinging on one tip. (This
>
> would leave out cheating and dishonest relationships in general.) One
>
> side would essentially measure the relationship's openness to
>
> additional love, and one side the relationship's openness to aditional
>
> sex.
>
> Keep in mind there are also asexual people and others who prefer to not
> have this type of relationship. Just to make things more confusing!
>
> Desmond Ravenstone

Those who choose not to have what type of relationship?

-Laura

------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2006 13:11:40 -0800 (PST)
From: Dennis K 
Subject: [UUPoly-L] ***SPAM*** hello friends
To: uupoly-l@uupa.org
Message-ID: <841438.80443.qm@web32013.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1

i must say that i have been enjoying this dialogue 
so very much!
every one of the contributers has added positively to the 
conversation and have done so with great respect to the 
other writers. 
donna and i are pretty new to the lifestyle. 
we have poly friends and swinger friends. friendships are 
made between people along the lines of mutual respect
of boundaries. laura summed it up so beautifully:

"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."

and bill! your tea analogy got me both laughing and 
nodding my head in agreement. thank you.

i feel that we as individuals must know ourselves and our
desires. we have been taught to live within the box that
society has created. for many of us, the box has been 
way too tight and constricting, and out of fear of rejection,
we have made do, accepting things defined as "normal".
donna and i had fantasies about a more "open" lifestyle, and
had fun with these fantasies in the privacy of our bedroom, 
before actually breaking out of the box of "normalcy".

and when we did, we found that we were not alone.

so, thank you all for this wonderful group.

peace, love and all that, 
dennis and donna

---------------------------------
Have a burning question? Go to Yahoo! Answers and get answers from real people who know.

------------------------------

Message: 5
Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 07:46:00 -0500
From: Valerie White 
Subject: Re: [UUPoly-L] Welcoming
To: uupoly-l@uupa.org
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20061204074439.03d95850@forevermail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

At 06:09 PM 11/30/2006, David Hall wrote:
>When my congregation was starting the WC process, I joined the committee and
>supported the process, but was not able to get poly as part of the effort.
>However, when we voted on a new bylaws statement of membership, it included
>the phrase "regardless of marital status" and I said, hey everybody is
>either married or not married, why not "regardless of relationship status"
>and it was approved without comment.

My home congregation did almost exactly the same thing . . . in the 
WC process, the WC committee wanted an affirmative non-discrimination 
statement in our bylaws, and I asked them to include "family 
structure" in the list and they did and it too passed without 
opposition or comment.

Valerie

------------------------------

Message: 6
Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 07:48:40 -0500
From: Valerie White 
Subject: Re: [UUPoly-L] What percentage of the poly community is UU?
To: uupoly-l@uupa.org
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20061204074720.03dd2e28@forevermail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

I've only asked an audience how many were UU or UU friendly once (at 
PolyLiving) and about a third raised their hands. One woman 
commented, as she raised her hand, "How can you not be UU 
friendly! I mean, they're like the Quakers!"

Valerie

------------------------------

Message: 7
Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 07:57:22 -0500
From: Valerie White 
Subject: Re: [UUPoly-L] What percentage of the poly community is UU?
To: uupoly-l@uupa.org
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20061204075603.03d78a28@forevermail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

At 04:01 PM 12/1/2006, you wrote:
>I vote purple, personally. :) But that's just me. Red is second choice.
>:) Blue is pretty, too....ooooh, all the pretty colors.
>
>M

I vote for pearlescent or maybe opalescent . . . a shimmering mix 
that changes depending on your point of view or the mood of the 
moment and the nature of the onlookers.

Valerie 

------------------------------

_______________________________________________
The UUPoly-L mailing list has public archives.
Please keep that in mind when deciding how much to reveal about yourself.
UUPoly-L mailing list
UUPoly-L@uupa.org
http://www.uupa.org/mailman/listinfo/uupoly-l

End of UUPoly-L Digest, Vol 27, Issue 8
***************************************

---------------------------------
Check out the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster.