Re: [UUPoly-L] Identity Polytics.

["Kelly Cookson" <kc62301@hotmail.com>]

> 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.

It is my understanding that most polyamorists want to build greater social 
acceptance of sexually non-monogamous relationships.

The idea of "social acceptance" varies, but not a lot. Social acceptance 
usually includes less discrimination, decriminalization, and legalization. 
It can also include a sense of feeling less afraid to tell friends and 
family about it.

The idea of "sexually non-monogamous relationships" also varies, but even 
here common themes emerge. Sexual non-monogamy includes relationships 
between consenting adults who have approximate equality. It includes open 
couples, open marriages, group relationships, group marriages, and intimate 
networks. It doesn't include cheating, child brides, or harems of slaves 
owned by a rich member of a royal court.

It is also my understanding that polyamorists want to help other 
polyamorists deal with the issues that come up in their lifestyles.

The "issues" that arise can vary greatly from relationship to relationship. 
Yet, some issues are experienced by a lot of people in sexually 
non-monogamous relationships. It can be nice to get some support from people 
who have experienced something similar or at least sympathize with your 
situation.

So, I think the polyamory movement does have two general agendas, despite 
the unique and diverse people involved in the movement. It seeks greater 
social support for sexually-nonmonogamous relationships. It seeks to provide 
support other polyamorists in dealing with lifestyle issues. Certainly not 
ALL polyamorists would agree. But I believe a lot do. Why are you here on 
the UUPA list?

Maybe I'm wrong. I've been wrong before. I'll be wrong in the future. I'm 
just calling it as I see it.

> 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.

I understand what you're saying. In order for there to be an X literature, 
there has to be a central organization that can set policies, take 
positions, and otherwise control what is written about X. And you admit that 
by this definition there can be no American literature, no Gay literature, 
and so forth.

I was using the term polyamorous literature in the sense of American 
literature, Gay literature, Bisexual literature, and so on. I think it is 
meaningful to talk about literature in this way. But, we can agree to 
disagree and let people decide for themselves on this point.

> > 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.

I agree. I'm not saying all polyamorists believe all the ideas I mentioned. 
I'm saying you can find these ideas in the writings about polyamory. When I 
am labeled as a polyamorist, I am associated with those ideas. I'm not 
trying to define what is and isn't the philosophy of polyamory. I'm trying 
to point out the kinds of associations that can come with the label of 
polyamorist. I'm talking about how people perceive me as a consequence of 
being so labeled.

Thoughtful polyamorists like yourselves are careful. But non-poly folks may 
not share your insights and assume whatever they read about polyamory 
describes me. "Hey, isn't Kelly into that polyamory stuff? Check out this 
article on polyamory." And polyamorists can assume I share their beliefs 
because they consider me polyamorist. Here's an example: I was talking with 
a self-identified polyamorist about the concept of jealousy in the O'Neills' 
book, Open Marriage. I said the O'Neill's believe jealousy reflects 
insecurity and possessiveness we acquire from socially learned ideas about 
monogamy. He agreed. He was really suprised that I didn't agree. Jealousy 
appears in every known culture, and jealousy appears in infants as young as 
6 months old. There's more to jealousy than social learning about monogamy. 
(Another story...) The point is, because he considered me a polyamorist, he 
assumed I would agree with ideas in books about polyamory such as Open 
Marriage.

I really hope people don't mind this debate. I am a guest of a Poly list, 
after all. I'm just looking for some well-informed and intelligent arguments 
on some ideas, and this is the best Poly list I know for well-informed and 
intelligent arguments.

:-)
Kelly

_________________________________________________________________
Make every IM count. Download Messenger and join the i?m Initiative now. 
It?s free. http://im.live.com/messenger/im/home/?source=TAGHM_June07