Re: [UUPoly-L] Identity Polytics.

["Catherine Deville" <catdeville@cox.net>]

Kelly said:

<<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.>>

Actually, "sexually non-monogamous relationships" *do* include cheating,
child brides, and harems of slaves owned by a rich member of a royal court.
The common terms used to differentiate what you're referring to as "sexually
non-monogamous relationships" from these other relationships are "consent"
and "responsibility".  The common phrase usually used to mean consensual,
responsible "sexually non-monogamous relationships" is responsible
non-monogamy. 

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

You know, I'm with Earth Father here - "polyamorist" is a term that you've
apparently just coined, apparently to mean members of the poly movement.
While I do believe that there is a generalized poly movement, it's not
unified and it doesn't have a unified agenda.  So it's really a null
argument to try and debate the many different issues that you bring up which
you assume that "polyamorists" support, when the movement, as a movement, is
not that unified, and when no one in the movement seems to have heard of or
claimed the term you've coined.

Polyfolk coined the term "polyfolk" quite a while back to refer to
polyamorous people as a group, and it's been in common usage for more than a
decade now, but until today I don't think I've ever seen anyone use the term
polyamorist, and as a polyamorous person who *is* politically active and
part of the erstwhile, generalized 'poly movement', I don't accept that
label either, as with it you're implying a much larger agenda than the poly
movement, as a movement, actually *has*.  Because as a movement, what I see
polyfolk unified about is acceptance and non-discrimination, (and as a tool
towards acceptance and non-discrimination, education - but that gets sticky,
since we get divided about what to educate folks on from definitions on up)
and that's about it.  But then doesn't pretty much everyone want to be
accepted and not discriminated against for who they are and the choices they
make?  How does that make polyfolk any different from anyone else?

As for helping other polyfolk deal with issues that come up in their
lifestyles - well, some of us do want to do that(one might safely assume
that the majority of those who join these types of lists do, I think), but
then again many of us don't have any interest at all in doing anything but
living our lives and being left alone to do it.  I don't' think that you can
assume that most polyfolk want to help other polyfolk deal with issues that
come up in their lifestyles anymore than you can assume that all
monogamously married folks want to be marriage counselors.  

<<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?>>

First, you're arguing a different point here than you began with.  Now
you're saying that the polyamorist agenda is simply non-discrimination and
social support, which is pretty much the agenda of any SIG as far as I can
see, whereas you originally trotted out a long list of specialized agendas
that are not general to the movement, and stated that your hesitancy to
claim the polyamorist label had to do with those agendas.  So, which is it?
Does this erstwhile movement have a broad, loose, general agenda (or are you
saying that you *don't* support that general agenda of non-discrimination
and social support?  That you want to be discriminated against and alone?)
Or are you trying to pin us with some shadow agenda that doesn't exist so
that you can debate it and this new term you've come up with? 

Secondly, if there were a "polyamorist" movement, the UUPA is definitively
*not* part of that "polyamorist movement."  In fact, if you'll read their
mission statement, you'll see that they are specifically *not* part of a
political movement at all, their "agenda" is education and ministry and
doesn't contain the more radical ideas you attributed to the "polyamorist
movement" in your first post.  Indeed, their board members have repeatedly
stated in this forum that the reason that the UUPA does not support specific
political agendas (such as, for example, getting into the political argument
of legalizing or decriminalizing poly marriage/unions) is because it is
outside their venue, which is education on behalf of and ministry to UU poly
families.  (and, in point of fact, from a personal perspective, this is why
I support the UUPA with my participation on the list and would do so
actively within my congregation if I attended church, but do *not* do so
with my dollars by becoming a paid member - as I tend to direct my limited
monetary resources towards groups more *politically* active when it comes to
social justice issues.) 

So hopefully people understand this and are *not* on the UUPA list because
they're interested in advancing the "polyamorist movement", as this isn't
the place for that.  It *is* the place, however, to gain support from and
offer support to other UU polyfolk, and to talk about how to educate our UU
congregations to who we are and are not (which includes debates of who we
are, and are not, as a group), and to try and support a ministry of
spiritual wholeness within the UU church which embraces us as holistic
individuals, including our sexual and sexualoving relationship styles.

<<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. >>

OK - I want to know *who* is "labeling" you as a "polyamorist"?  Who,
besides you, is even using the term?  I did a search on the term and this is
what I found: 
		
		There *was* a Polyamorist PAC that tried to organize
sometime between 1998-2002 (their web site
http://www.liberated.net/polyamoristpac/ says that they're currently
inactive) but who I've never even heard of until now.
		
		There are a couple of individual blogs that seem to use the
term to just generally mean a polyamorous person.

		And then there are the anti-polyamorist web sites, primarily
Christian Right hate & fear sites that are using the term much like they use
the "gay agenda" as a scare tactic.  (Oh, and OMG! A thread on Fox's Hannity
web site - RUN!) 

		And whoever set up the html for the Polyamory Society's web
pages seems to have used it in the Title line on the "Self Improvement
Program" of their web pages, even though the term doesn't appear in the
title of that section nor, as far as my search could find, in any of the
articles themselves. 

So, I'm curious - just *who*, besides you, is labeling you as a
"polyamorist"?

But to come back to your original question ... *no* I do not believe that
anyone has the right to force identification on you and *yes* I do believe
in your right to self identify.  I, for example, identify as bisexual, but I
dislike the term queer.  I'm a dominant and part of the BDSM community, but
don't identify with the "kinky" label.  One gets to choose one's own labels,
and yes, sometimes that means you have to clarify to others who are a bit
less informed about what labels you identify with and why.  But labels only
tell us so much, and aren't really useful beyond giving us a cursory
understanding, and anyone with any depth, wisdom or maturity should
understand that by now.  No matter how we identify, we're still all
individuals, and "community" doesn't mean the same thing as "conformist". 

NT, 
Cat