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

["Earth Father" <earthfather@cfnc.us>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Hall

> 
> Think for a moment if poly meant only close friendships without sex. Why
> would our culture give a damn? 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.
> 
> 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. 

I think you would find that they care who you have breakfast with, whether or
not you had sex.

> Polys (and swingers and cheaters) are dangerous only because of
> the sex. 

I don't see the term polyamory as being driven by a need for common defense;
certainly Morning Glory's original article was characterized by celebration
rather than fear.

And if you read the advice columns, If I were married, having a relationship as
intense as many non-sexual poly relationships are (such as the one I have with
my co-parent) *would* be seen as dangerous, disruptive, or disturbing.

Extramarital sexual affairs have been winked at and tolerated by virtually
every part of the society; the tolerance is accorded as long as the
relationship does not affect the social stability of the people involved.  A
mistress is entirely acceptable as long as she knows her place, and doesn't
threaten the stability of the marriage.  Swingers have been around for more
than half a century, and are numbered in the millions, yet have raised
virtually no notice or alarm.

So having multiple sex partners is not really what is so threatening:  it is
the challenge to the dominant "building block" of the society, the monogamous
marriage.  The Supreme Court decriminalized virtually all sexual behavior among
consenting adults, and the fundamentalists barely made a peep.  But when a
state allows two gays *who are already living together* to marry, it creates a
virtual revolution at the polls.  And lots of polyfolk can tell you stories of
family or ministers who are horrified, not by their sexual practices, but by
the fact that they are openly acknowledged.  

It is the publicly acknowledged bonds (formal or informal), not the sex, that
is the trigger.

Michael Rios