Re: [UUPoly-L] But Seriously Folks... (was: Polyamory vs. Swinging)

["CatDeville" <catdeville@cox.net>]

Ron said: 
<<what? ... it must be an even year, again!
LOL  
I remember triples had a regularly occuring
poly vs swinging thread.
it eventually and usually degenerated to 'us vs them'.>>

Well, for *some* folks it degenerates into "us vs. them" because some folks
don't comprehend that wanting clear definitions for something which is "me"
vs. "not me" is not the same as saying that the definition which is "me" is
"right" and the definition which is "not me" is "wrong".  That's the whole
problem with using the vs. in the first thing.  "Versus" connotes an
adversarial position.  Saying that I don't stand in the same circle on a
Venn diagram as you do is not adversarial... it's just a geographical
difference and value shouldn't be added to it any more than it should be
added to the fact that you're in Atlanta and I'm in San Diego. (We could
draw a Venn Diagram of that as well, and we'd be standing in overlapping
circles, and our circles would overlap at the point that said "People living
in the South of the United States".  But the fact that we both live in the
South (still) doesn't mean that I'm in Atlanta, or that you're in San Diego.
;-) 

<<Anyway: opinion,>>

Which I'm going to disagree with, based on my own, extensive experience as
someone who identifies as polyamorous, and as a student of both history and
sociology.  And I feel safe holding a different opinion because I believe we
love and respect each other enough to allow for that:

<<Swinging 'began' as a result of the repression
associated with McCarthyism in the 50s...>>

This is all a really questionable oversimplification, both of what
"swinging" and "polyamory" are and what the history of non-monogamy in our
country. 

While the "social club" lifestyle may have had it's roots in this
repression, non-monogamy and the many different styles of non-monogamy which
arise from it have a history much farther back than the 50s.  Trying to get
you through even a little of that history would not only take up much more
time than is appropriate in this forum, it would be arrogant on my part.
Much more versed academicians than myself have already done that pretty
well.  (Rhea Tannhill comes to mind) 

And even in the 50s and 60s, the "free love" movement from which the
polyamorous movement sprang had very different roots than the "social club"
lifestyle movement... they grew out of different cultures and from very
different motivations.  Did they intersect a lot.  Yes.  Especially the more
that they evolved (and a good, deep sociological examination of this will
show that they did so the more that the classist structure from which they
sprang began to blur... but the socio-economic differences in the two
movements is also deeper than I want to go.)

That said, on behalf of the "'let's make up a word with both Greek -and-
Latin roots:'polyamory krewe"... let me say that it's a mischaracterization
to see the coining of polyamory as "came(ing) up with a different sound-bite
to describe what we are doing/attempting" in the context of equating it with
what the "Swingers"/"Social Club Community" was attempting.  I know one of
the two people who, synchronistically (without knowing each other) form the
so called "krewe" personally (if not quite Biblically) and the other I know
from several years of correspondence, and in neither case were they trying
to define what the Swinging Community (as a lifestyle community) "are
doing/attempting".  And while neither of them intended to *exclude* swinging
from polyamory (one can, as has been pointed out, "swing" while also being
in relationship and loving those that zie is "swinging" with), they *did*
intend to differentiate the two *actions* or *lifestyles*.  

Polyamory is a different word because we *needed* a different word.
"Swinging" doesn't define those of us who identify as polyamorous because we
*love* more than one person... polyamory does.  Polyamory doesn't define
those who like to have recreational sex with more than one person without
emotional involvement or who enjoy "wife swapping" with strangers.
"Swinging" does.  

So we come down to the fact, again, that the word "polyamory" was coined to
differentiate a *type* of relating ("loving more than one") from another
*type* of relating ("having recreational sex with more than one".)  The fact
that these two words mean different things does not mean that those two
different things are mutually exclusive, that any one individual cannot
practice both, identify with either and/or both as lifestyle choices or feel
in harmony with other individuals in communities comprised of other
individuals who also identify with one or the other as a lifestyle choice.
It also does not imply a value judgment on either activity (*individuals*
may place those value judgments on them... which is appropriate... but the
*definitions* do not provide inherent value connotations.)  

Labels are sticky things.  If you use them, you're have to either accept
some self imposed limitations on them or you're going to have to accept the
fact that you will never be clearly understood.  If I offer you a piece of
fruit, would you enjoy it? Perhaps. But what if you hate citrus fruit and
what I'm offering is an orange, or a lemon or a lime?  OH!  So you *like*
oranges, you only hate *tart* citrus fruit and you would accept the orange,
but not the lemon or lime.  All pieces of fruit are not the same, even if
they are of "equal" value when it comes to being "food".  An orange is not
an apple, but neither is it a lemon, a lime or a grapefruit, even though all
of the latter are also citrus fruits.  

Words have meanings. The word "polyamory" has both denotative and
connotative meanings which differ from "swinging".  If you let go of the
idea that implies that this makes one *inherently* better or lesser than the
other, then perhaps we'd have less of an "us vs. them" dichotomy and more of
an acceptance of IDIC (infinite diversity, infinite combination), even when
we *don't* enjoy citrus fruit... or having sex with strangers at parties
without any emotional connection.

Cat, <=== who is in San Diego, and in the South, but who isn't in the same
place as Ron, who is in Atlanta, and thus shares things in common with Ron,
without being the *same* as Ron.  


_______________________________________________
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