Re: [UUPoly-L] Too many circles, etc.

["David VanHorn" <dvanhorn@microbrix.com>]

On 12/5/06, David Hall <airsafe1@comcast.net> wrote:
> Think for a moment if poly meant only close friendships without sex. Why
> would our culture give a damn?


Well, I don't do it for them to give a damn about, I do it because it's what
feels right, and serves us.  Honestly, I'd LOVE for poly to become a total
non-issue with everyone.
The same way that you don't hear "Oh, look at them, they're MONOGAMOUS"  :)


It is only because we have sex with more than
> one at a time that we are condemned, and thus have support groups, lists,
> magazines and organizations to educate others and comfort each other.


Yes, the "normals" seem to get their panties in a bunch over this one point,
and miss the whole rest of poly. They sometimes only seem to see this one
point.

I do not need these things to explain why I have a lot of close, platonic
> friends. Nobody else cares who I have lunch or dinner with, only who I
> have
> sex with. Polys (and swingers and cheaters) are dangerous only because of
> the sex. So John is very correct, as usual.


Were we still monogamous, I think that lori would have problems with the
level of intimacy that I share with J and K, regardless of the sex.   We
both understood that to be forbidden by our old rules.