Re: [UUPoly-L] A "Friendly" inquiry into polyamory...How might you respond to all or part of this?

[Bitsy <darthbitsy@yahoo.com>]

These are my comments, I?m afraid they are rather simple, but I hope they might be useful.

?I'm curious to read a serious treatment of responsible non-monogamy. I've read the Ethical Slut
by Easton and Liszt and a bit on Poly-Fidelity but was dissappointed that they offer no rigorous
philosophical or theological examination of how they are applying the term "ethical." The degree
of negotiation and rather painful psychological processing described by Easton and Liszt that
accompanies each relationship would seem to create enormous scheduling difficulties and a strain
on the testimony of simplicity.?

I feel like you have two disjointed ideas here, and fail to see where you link them together.  

First: I think you right, the Ethical Slut is not a ?serious philosophical or theological?
treatment of ethics.  It was never intended to be, so to judge it on that charge would be very
unfair.  They may well be ?serious philosophical or theological? treatment of the ethics of
non-monogamy out there, but, honestly, I avoid taking philosophy in college for a reason.  Maybe
someone else can point you to it.  It is not something I desire to read.  There is a colloquial
understanding of the being ethical: behaving in way that is contestant with a groups customs that
people behaving in line with the groups values.  I think they do show customs that will keep
people behaving in line with there groups values.  I have plenty of issues with ?The Ethical
Slut,? and this may be tangentially related.  But ?The Ethical Slut? is not the be all and end all
of what Polyamory is or could be.

Second: I don?t quite see what your charge against scheduling difficulties has to do with the lack
of ?serious philosophical or theological? treatment of the ethics.  I don?t know what you see as
simplicity, but I find that I have much more trouble trying to balance my job and my time for me
then I do my relationships.  They may be a complication, but are no more then my desires to become
a better dancer, train in Aikido, be social with groups of people who I like, spend time with
friends, do my job, and peruse things I intellectually enjoy.  Sure if I could choose to devote my
life solely to anyone of these things, Aikido, or perhaps my job, it would be much simpler.  But I
think I would lack so much it wouldn?t be worth it.  (The other augment is then to cut one of
these things out, which I could do, but I don?t think it is fair to say it should be one of my
boyfriends over dancing.  I?d take my boyfriends over most things.)




?I am also interested in how polyamorous folks deal with the facts concerning health issues since
having multiple partners is a well-documented risk factor for anogenital cancers and all STIs.
This creates problems not just in terms of personal health issues but also public health issues
which runs into the testimonies on community.?

People should make safe sex choices.  No one is going to disagree with you.  I think this fits
with the aforementioned being ethical.

?There seems to be very little serious scholarship on the issue. At the last SSSS (Society for the
 Scientific Study of Sexuality) meeting, one of the plenary speakers (from Columbia University)
noted that no one wanted to find evidence of successful polyamory more than he, but he was sorry
to report that after thirty years of research he was unable to report success. At the same
conference there was a report on a San Francisco project regarding men who have sex with men. In
this group, it appears that they are able to negotiate the psychological aspects quite well but
are failing to report to their primary partners when they do not using safer sex practices with
others. This contributes to rising HIV rates in this group.?

I?m sorry there has been little serious scholarship.  That means that no one has found anything on
polyamory (what does success mean) one way or the other.  What have people found on monogamy? 
(I?m going to guess, because there is need of something to contrast monogamy too, there has not
been serious scholarship on it either.)  ?Absence of proof is not proof of absence.?

I?m not really sure how to respond about the men who can?t talk about their lack of safe sex.

?I don't think anyone could disagree with our fundamental capacity to love more than one deeply.
Our spiritual destiny seems to be exactly that--to love all by seeing that we all share that of
God. Our sexuality can never truly stand apart from our spirituality because it is all One. Sexual
 monogamy may feel intensely false at some times but I think there is great value in sitting in
the discomfort of limitations, praying for guidance and remaining aware of the body, the heart,
the mind and the spirit.?

I agree that is vaule in limitations.  That?s why some people who wish to be more spiritual take
vows of poverty.  Being an aesthetic has vaule.  But, I think you might agree, that does not mean
that aestheticism is the right path for all people.  Similarly, celibacy is a prescribed path.  Do
you feel that this is the right path for all?

?I don't think it is a coincidence that most religious texts warn against sexual indulgence,
because its just too easy to loose awareness and do what the limbic system is programmed to do. I
think that it is very useful advice if one's primary goal is spiritual development. That said,
sexual openess may aid in one's spiritual path to be liberated from a false self system that
imports dogmatic restraints without examining them or having the fortitude to stay present and
aware of their sexuality. It may be possible to accomplish all of that within the context of a
monogamous relationship or it may not but I think pleasure combined with discernment knows the
answer. But having broken through that illusion, don't we move on? I always felt that that was
what Osho's experiment in the 80's were all about--to get past sexuality to deeper matters of
enlightenment by going through it, not to stay there.?

I agree, moderation of most things is the best for most people.  However, the holy people thought
out history have not been moderate, weather aesthetics, people who see visions, or the profits of
the old testament.  The one problem I have with this paragraph is you reduce polyamorous
relationships down to ?you can have sex when ever and with whom ever you want.?  This is not true
of any of the relationship I have seen.  Perhaps even, they involve more self control then
monogamous ones because there is no longer a simple rule.  Still, I?m not going to laud self
control for its own sake, nor the lack of.  It the propose it is being applied to.

Perhaps, as I didn?t add much, I would have been more informative to simply talk about how much I
love my partners, and how wonderful it is to be with them.  To share how we make our relationship
work, and how it is not a threat to you relationship.  But, that for another time.

Bitsy

--- Tara_Affinity <tara_affinity@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Dear Folks:
> 
> As a "polyQuaker", I'm also on a Quaker Spirituality and Sexuality discussion list, where
> integration of our spirituality and sexuality is intended to be the theme.  Recently someone
> published some "queries" perportedly intended to provoke inner searching, but they seem more
> like opinions disquised with question marks...opinions that lean toward hetero-monogamy.  I
> offered a little bit about how the "queries" do in some ways, and not in others, speak to
> non-hetero orientation and ethical non-monogamy/polyamory/polyfidelity.  In response I received
> the following inquiry, and would like to hear from others as to how they respond to all or part
> of what in presented by the inquirer.  This would support my activism within the Friends
> community, toward gaining understanding for polyamorous relationing, as well as maybe supporting
> some of the campers who are currently "mulling" polyamory for themselves. 
> 
> Tara, 
> I'm sorry I haven't had time to read through your website, perhaps you cover all of my questions
> there. I think they may be some the same questions that would arise when bringing polyamory to
> Meetings "so that they can grow in understanding. " 
> 
> I'm curious to read a serious treatment of responsible non-monogamy. I've read the Ethical Slut
> by Easton and Liszt and a bit on Poly-Fidelity but was dissappointed that they offer no rigorous
> philosophical or theological examination of how they are applying the term "ethical." The degree
> of negotiation and rather painful psychological processing described by Easton and Liszt that
> accompanies each relationship would seem to create enormous scheduling difficulties and a strain
> on the testimony of simplicity. I am also interested in how polyamorous folks deal with the
> facts concerning health issues since having multiple partners is a well-documented risk factor
> for anogenital cancers and all STIs. This creates problems not just in terms of personal health
> issues but also public health issues which runs into the testimonies on community.
> 
> There seems to be very little serious scholarship on the issue. At the last SSSS (Society for
> the Scientific Study of Sexuality) meeting, one of the plenary speakers (from Columbia
> University) noted that no one wanted to find evidence of successful polyamory more than he, but
> he was sorry to report that after thirty years of research he was unable to report success. At
> the same conference there was a report on a San Francisco project regarding men who have sex
> with men. In this group, it appears that they are able to negotiate the psychological aspects
> quite well but are failing to report to their primary partners when they do not using safer sex
> practices with others. This contributes to rising HIV rates in this group.
> 
> I don't think anyone could disagree with our fundamental capacity to love more than one deeply.
> Our spiritual destiny seems to be exactly that--to love all by seeing that we all share that of
> God. Our sexuality can never truly stand apart from our spirituality because it is all One.
> Sexual monogamy may feel intensely false at some times but I think there is great value in
> sitting in the discomfort of limitations, praying for guidance and remaining aware of the body,
> the heart, the mind and the spirit. 
> 
> I don't think it is a coincidence that most religious texts warn against sexual indulgence,
> because its just too easy to loose awareness and do what the limbic system is programmed to do.
> I think that it is very useful advice if one's primary goal is spiritual development. That said,
> sexual openess may aid in one's spiritual path to be liberated from a false self system that
> imports dogmatic restraints without examining them or having the fortitude to stay present and
> aware of their sexuality. It may be possible to accomplish all of that within the context of a
> monogamous relationship or it may not but I think pleasure combined with discernment knows the
> answer. But having broken through that illusion, don't we move on? I always felt that that was
> what Osho's experiment in the 80's were all about--to get past sexuality to deeper matters of
> enlightenment by going through it, not to stay there.
> 
> The hardest part of being on this list serv is the conflulence of trying to talk about
> everything all at once because both sex and God open me up to vast spaces. I hope I've been
> clear and respectful, that was my intention.
> 
>  - D
> ....
> 
> Your thoughts?
> 
> Love and Light:  Tara 
> (in Lancaster PA)
>  
> Tara's page - http://360.yahoo.com/tara_affinity - a sacred living, sex-/poly-positive
> exploration
> Meet Up organizer for Lancaster Poly-Tantra - http://tantric.meetup.com/14/ 
> Yahoo Group owner/moderator for Lancaster Poly-Tantra - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LAPTN
> PolyQuakers co-moderator  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/polyquakers/
> 
> 
>        
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
> Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story. Play Sims Stories at
> Yahoo! Games.
> http://sims.yahoo.com/  
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> 



       
____________________________________________________________________________________
Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story. Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games.
http://sims.yahoo.com/