Re: [UUPoly-L] Identity Polytics.

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

> 
> On 6/1/07, Kelly Cookson <kc62301@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > When is a polyamorist not a polyamorist?
> >
> > I used to call myself a polyamorist. Now I don't. But I recently had a
> > polyamorist tell me I fit the definition of a polyamorist whether or not I
> > wanted to call myself one.
> >
> > When someone labels me a polyamorist, the label associates me with other
> > people who call themselves polyamorists and with ideas expressed in
> > polyamorist literature.
> >
> > Very different people with very different agendas call themselves
> > polyamorists. I'm not sure I want to be associated with the in-your-face
> > activist who wants to get rid of monogamous marriage or take away the legal
> > status of marriage. I disagree with the approach. I disagree with the
> > agenda.

Would you stop calling yourself an American because it would associate you with
other people who also call themselves Americans, and express ideas of what
*they* think are "American" values that you are not comfortable with?  Would
you not call yourself a man (or a woman), because some men (or women) advocate
things that you disagree with?  I know gay people who don't believe that gays
should be allowed to marry-- but that doesn't make them not gay.  

There is no polyamorist agenda.  There are people who are polyamorous that have
agendas-- and the range of those agendas is about as broad as you can imagine.
But, as Laura and others pointed out, it is a term that is in the OED and other
dictionaries, and it means the practice or belief in having more than one
sexual/romantic relationship openly.  That is the most common use of the term,
and there is no other common term that describes that situation accurately.

Having said that, when I am in a context where the word "polyamory" is likely
to be unfamiliar, I will often just say that I am in an "open" relationship;
that usually gets enough of the concept across as is needed.  If you are more
comfortable using that term, there's no reason not to-- but it would be
misleading to deny that you are polyamorous if someone uses the term to
describe you.

> >
> > I also disagree with ideas that often appear in polyamorist literature. 

There is no "polyamorist" literature; there are only polyamorous people who
have opinions.  There is no central organization that can set policy, take
positions, etc.  There can be Republican literature, Roman Catholic literature,
even Realtor (TM) literature.  But there isn't "American" literature, "male"
literature, or (for that matter) "gay" literature.

> > For
> > example, I disagree with the idea of unlimited love. Love to me means being
> > available--offering my attention, my time, my energy, and my emotional
> > support--when my loved ones need me. My attention, my time, my energy, and
> > my ability to emotionally support others is limited. I can certainly love
> > more than one adult. But the more adults I love, the less each of those
> > adults gets of my attention, time, energy, and emotional support. 

I don't think you would find many, if any, polyfolk who would disagree with
what you just said.   When people say that love is unlimited, they are saying
there is no *specific* limit on the number of people you can love.  The phrase
that I hear from folks who talk about "love without limits" is "Love is
infinite; time is not."

> >Other
> > ideas I have seen in polyamorist literature that I think are incorrect:
> > jealousy is a result of socially learned ideas about monogamy; jealousy
> > means you are insecure and possessive; monogamy is unnatural; sexual
> > monogamy is rare in humans; monogamy is the product of christianity or
> > capitalism.

They are opinions that some polyfolk hold, and others reject, and still others
who haven't bothered to think about it at all.  None of these are defining
polyamorous issues.  There are Caucasians who hold many views I find
repugnant-- even, or especially, about being Caucasian; but that doesn't mean
that I'm not a Caucasian.

> > Finally, the distinction between swinging and polyamory has never sat well
> > with me. Some people agree with the distinction. Other's don't. It's like a
> > religious faith in that you can argue about it all day long and no one will
> > change their minds about it. I have both swinging-type and polyamorous-type
> > extramarital encounters. 

<grin>  You start by saying you don't like the distinction between swinging &
polyamory, then you say you have both kinds...

Oh, well.  They are just words.  When most people talk about polyamory, they
are referring to sexual relationships that have significant dimensions beyond
the sexual.  Swinging usually refers to sexual recreation-- that is, sexual
experiences not in the context of a larger ongoing relationship.  Do some
polyfolk have recreational sex?  Sure.  Do some swingers have long-term, deeply
intertwined relationships with some of their sexual playmates?  Sure.  

Like most words, they have a range of meanings depending on context.  I'm
someone who is poly, regardless of whether I have any relationships at all.
For some other folks, poly is what they do sometimes, not what they are.   So
some swingers also have poly relationships; some polyfolk also swing.  A lover
of mine who was part of the swinging community for decades before she ever
heard of polyamory had deep and extensive connections with her swing partners:
they vacationed together, hung out together, were godparents for each others'
children, etc.  To her, that was swinging.  These days, she usually identifies
as poly, but is just as comfortable calling herself a swinger.  And when
someone says, "But I thought swingers aren't involved with each other except
sexually", she replies, "Oh, you're talking about the aerobics crowd."  <grin>

> > Some of my extramarital encounters have involved
> > one-night stands or casual play with no attachmemts. My other extramarital
> > encounters have involved close friendships and loving relationships along
> > with the sex. If I call myself a polyamorist, or if I call myself a
> > swinger, the single label leaves out half of who I am.

If you call yourself a Buddhist, that leaves out that you're American.  IF you
call yourself American, that leaves out that you are male.  If you call
yourself "male", that leaves out that you are a Libertarian (or whatever).  NO
one label ever describes anyone accurately.

> > So...
> >
> > Am I a polyamorist because my lifestyle fits the definition of polyamory
> > (at least sometimes), 

You are not a "polyamorist", if by that you mean an *advocate* of polyamory
(the term "polyamorist" implies that there is such a thing as "polyamorism",
which would be a belief structure or value system.)  You *are* polyamorous; the
word accurately describes your behavior (at least sometimes).  

> > or am I not a polyamorist because I choose not to identify
> > myself as such (for the reasons above)?

I don't know anyone who uses the term polyamorist; as I mentioned above, it
would imply advocacy of a cause or principle.  Even my spell-checker is happy
with polyamory and polyamorous, but flags "polyamorist"!  <grin>

However, whether you call yourself polyamorous or not doesn't change the fact
that your behavior fits the definition; so if I stop calling myself or refuse
to identify as Caucasian (which many people did in the 60's and 70's), it
doesn't change the color of my skin, where my ancestors came from, or whether I
am in fact Caucasian.


Michael Rios

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.6/828 - Release Date: 6/1/2007 11:22
AM