Re: [UUPoly-L] Oh no! Another poly/swinger post!

[bear@pagansexcult.org]

On Mon, 4 Dec 2006, Laura Stewart wrote:

> I find your post to be using the term "Swinger" essentially as a slur,
> because you're essentially defining the term as applying to all of
> these negative things, not actually to some more identity-related item
> like "commitment, emotional depth, romantic connection, communication,
> honesty, casual sex or their opposites."

I do not think that's what she was doing.  She's reporting
her impressions based on actual, non-theoretical
interactions with people who identified *themselves* as
swingers.  (Check me if I'm wrong here, Joani).

As far as I'm concerned that's worlds ahead of those who
deal with the issue only in theory.

The fact is that the 'distinction' between polys and
swingers is as far as I can tell purely social; there is a
set of people who self-identify as swingers, and a different
set who self-identify as poly.  Note that it doesn't matter
what *we* call a particular behavior pattern; the social
group within which that behavior happens interprets it
according to its own rules and attaches to it its own
rubric.

The different social communities that have grown up around
the two words have some different social conventions
regarding a lot of stuff that has nothing to do with
relationship style, as well as a different social context
for relationships.  Whatever kind of 'relationship' behavior
you are looking for, you can find people in both communities
who do it.  But the distributions and odds and sometimes the
expectations and interpretations of that behavior are
different.

                                Bear