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

["Faith Always" <heryn@hotmail.com>]

  Dear Tara,

  My first response was that "ethical" is always relative, as anyone who has
  studied even a 101 class will know. It is not 'ethical' by U.S. standards
  to committ canabalism, for instance, but perfectly ethical in other
  societies(even 'right' as you are honoring your enemy by eating them!). 
  My second thought was that it is not hard at all for me to understand how
  simplicity and negotiation/processing can co-exist and actually, unless
  one is a hermit, they must!

  On beginning another re-read, I am insulted by the "curiosity' of a
  serious treatment of responsible non-monogamy....who is this person to
  judge what can be treated seriously except in his or her own mind? Perhaps
  such rudeness would not have occurred if the time had been taken to read
  the website ;-)

  Going on, I'm wondering how old that 'report' is from San Francisco and
  wanted additionally to point out, that reports use 'samples' of people,
  not entire groups. These samples of people are also the only ones who have
  agreed to answer the questions. I am certain that since the rest of the
  men in the city of San Francisco were not in the study, that lending so
  much weight to it's credence is neither wise nor prudent.

  Next, I do not know of any of my friends or family who truely  are
  monogamous, who feel that this monogamy feels "intensely false" at any
  time. I do know plenty of swingers and poly people who felt that way
  before they realized there were other options.

  I agree that it is not a coincidence that many( I would NOT say most)
  religious texts warn against "sexual indulgence". Please note that all the
  texts that do so, that I am aware of, were created after the rise of
  Patriarchy and used their texts to control the masses, control women and
  children and keep men in power. Prior to that, most religions celebrated
  sexual relations, even as part of the religious rituals between religious
  leaders and followers!

  "I think pleasure combined with discerment knows the answer"? Again, BEING
  JUDGEMENTAL OF OTHERS, which I thought the Friends were very concerned
  about not being. This person's feelings and actions in his/her own life
  are simply that...his/her OWN. I am not 'own'ed by anyone else, therefore
  although I may take their feelings into account, I am not required to do
  so. I must 'own' my feelings and be respectful of another's feelings
  whether I agree or not. I must also not judge their actions for I do not
  know their cause, though I do know I am not important enough to BE that
  cause usually. It may be a childhood trauma triggered or beliefs ingrained
  without real thought, etc...no matter, not mine to judge.

  Lastly, experiments in the 60's(or earlier) and on, have only shown how
  difficult it is to separate the mind and body in this human experience,
  IMHO. Few seem to be able to manage it.

  Cordially, Faith

   

  When you begin to touch your heart or let your heart be touched, you begin
  to discover that it's bottomless, that it doesn't have any resolution,
  that this heart is huge, vast, and limitless. You begin to discover how
  much warmth and gentleness is there, as well as how much space.
                        -Pema Chodron
  From: Tara_Affinity <TARA_AFFINITY@YAHOO.COM>
  Reply-To: uupoly-l@uupa.org
  To: sc07e@yahoogroups.com,
  spiritualpolyamory@yahoogroups.com,        uupoly-l@uupa.org
  Subject: [UUPoly-L] A "Friendly" inquiry into polyamory...How might
  yourespond to all or part of this?
  Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 07:18:43 -0700 (PDT)
  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

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------

  i'm making a difference. Make every IM count for the cause of your choice.
  Join Now.