[UUPoly-L] In favor of sex, it expresses opposition to evil. (was: Poly Def)

[bear@pagansexcult.org]

On Tue, 5 Dec 2006, John Ullman wrote:


> 4. Frankly, I think that the urge to take the sexual component out of
> polyamory is giving in to the very sex-negative culture that gives us
> such a pain in the butt. Admittedly mono culture is so unfucked that
> even platonic friendships sometimes provoke jealousy, but of all the
> components of polyamory, sexual is where the rubber hits the -
> oooops! bad metaphor, maybe - well, you know what I mean. Oprha and
> Dr. Phil don't do a lot of shows about platonic relationships.

I'm putting this first because I think it's the most
important point.  I agree heartily.  If people want to
de-emphasize sex because they're afraid of clashing with the
ruling death-cult mentality, then I say to them that we
don't *just* want to clash with it; it is our intent (mine
anyway) to *annihilate* it.

<begin rant; picture me with eyes a little too bright
and voice a little too intense....>

It doesn't happen in a single lifetime.  It's been going on
for generations, a slow tearing-down of the death-cults, and
if our children or grandchildren or even
ten-generations-great grandchildren are to live freer of
that mentality than us, then it falls to us to continue the
work.

I know "death cult" is inflammatory, so I'll explain.  A
religion whose main promise to its adherents requires death
before that promise can be fulfilled. A religion that
celebrates a series of gruesome murders of martyrs and whose
savior's main attribute was to suffer exactly such a
gruesome murder and then RISE FROM THE DEAD.  A religion
that denigrates and denies human beings in their most
godlike and ecstatic moment, when the power of divine
creation itself flows through them -- ie, when they are
having sex -- as being in violent opposition to itself.  A
religion whose God is said to have cursed entire genders,
succeeding generations and tribes for individual acts of one
of their ancestors.  A religion whose God is said to have
once already destroyed all human life save a single family,
and to have once demanded that a parent be prepared to slay
his own offspring.  A religion that teaches that all human
beings are doomed to suffer eternal torment (again, after
death) because they have sexual desire (as in, original
"sin"). And that this eternal suffering is somehow "good."
A religion whose adherents believe that the end of the world
is coming and in some cases act to hasten the date of
"Armageddon" because it marks the beginning of the "rule of
christ on earth."  A religion descended from the teachings
of the Manichaeans (via Augustine and others) who believed
that the world was horrible and that sex was sinful because
it risked trapping another soul in this horrible world, and
that eternal happiness would result only from total
extinction.

People ask why I oppose Christianity; I say it is because I
oppose evil in any form.  Even though it's mainstreamed and
mellowed a lot in the reformation and centuries following,
and even though lots of christians are in fact good people,
Christianity and its sister religions such as Islam still
contain both the seeds and the flowering fruit of the purest
evil remaining in this world.

Now, all this is my opinion, and more than a little ranty,
but if someone's intent in removing sex from the definition
of polyamory is to do *less* to oppose that worldview, then
I have a problem with that intent.

<rant over; return to normal tone of voice>

> On a list a few years ago, the same thread started, believe it or
> not, maybe it was even this list, and someone emailed Morning Glory
> and got this reply:


Dude, the word is way bigger than one person's idea of it
now.

Even if she's one of the (several) people who thought of the word,
other people are *using* it now, and lots of them have never
heard of her.  The people who are using the word mean things
when they say it.  You can't ask Morning Glory Zell what it
is that other people who don't know her mean.  Well, you can
ask, but what's the point?

> 1. For clear communication it is necessary to agree on what words
> mean.

Okay, I'll agree to that principle; but this doesn't much
imply anything about agreeing to any particular definition
of the word.

> 2. We have a perfectly good word for non-sexual love between
> unrelated adults: platonic.

Agreed on that too; but apparently some of the people doing
platonic relationships find the word belittling, since it's
normally used to negate the *significance* of a relationship
rather than the *sexuality* of the relationship.  I think
the word needs to be reclaimed, myself; one of my romantic
relationships is at this point non-sexual, so maybe I ought
to be the one to start and take the plunge.  "Hi.  I'm poly.
I am in two long-term committed relationships right now.
One of those relationships is platonic."


                        Bear