Re: [UUPoly-L] Google Knol Article for Polyamory

[Wishful Thinking <third_edition@live.com>]

To my mind, there is a fundamental difference between swinging and polyamory (actually, I feel there are a number of differences). Otherwise, we would just all call ourselves swingers or polyamorists. But we don't. We use these different terms because they point to different content. And since there doesn't seem to be any credentialing authority for swinging or polyamory to authoritatively define the difference(s), I suppose we are each a bit self styled in how we define these differences. 
 
So, among my self styled differences between swinging and polyamory is this: while both can be responsible non-monogamy, polyamory actively extends its definition of non-monogamy to relational realms beyond physical sexuality. That is not to say that swingers can't extend their relationships beyond physical sexuality, but that such extension is not inherent in the definition of swinging. Could one have a polyamorous relationship without it being physically sexual ... I suppose it is possible. Could one have a swinging relationship without it being physically sexual ... somehow I just don't see it. To my mind, it is this difference that makes polyamory both so much more risky and so much more rewarding. Please understand, I don't intend to suggest that one is morally superior or "better" than the other ... but I do believe they are fundamentally different. 
 
Best - Wishful> From: jim@swankin-turner.com> To: uupoly-l@uupa.org> Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 06:02:44 -0400> Subject: Re: [UUPoly-L] Google Knol Article for Polyamory> > Chuck,> > My sentiments exactly. It seems to me that there is a whole lot in DC> area swinging that my poly friends there would appreciate. Unfortunately> much if not most of it seems to go essentially unexplored. I am afraid> that sentiments like those in the Knol article--which I sometimes hear> expressed by some here--is part of the reason. My biggest concern is> that self styled swingers and self styled polyamorists have so many> fundamentals in common that to focus on their alledged differences mutes> their core message making it more difficult for either one to move--in> the words of the Knol article--"towards mainstream acceptance."> > Thanks again for your comments.> > Jim Turner> > > > > -----Original Message-----> From: uupoly-l-bounces+jim=swankin-turner.com@uupa.org [mailto:uupoly-l-bounces+jim=swankin-turner.com@uupa.org] On Behalf Of CWLee> Sent: Monday, August 04, 2008 12:22 AM> To: uupoly-l@uupa.org> Subject: Re: [UUPoly-L] Google Knol Article for Polyamory> > > Jim,> > Thanks for the clarification.> > (I'm so behind the times that I don't know what is meant by a "Google Knol Article". Google and article I understand, but "Knol" is not part of my vocabulary.)> > The statements: "Swinging, specifically, is recreational sex with no emotion tied to it. The swinging community usually has rules against forming tight emotional relationships with others with which you swing." are so contrary to my decades of swinging/poly experiences that I have to discount the author completely. Now I know YOU are not the author. :-)> > Best regards to all, Chuck Lee.> > ===========================> > ----- Original Message -----> From: "Jim Turner" <jim@swankin-turner.com>> To: <uupoly-l@uupa.org>> Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2008 8:22 PM> Subject: Re: [UUPoly-L] Google Knol Article for Polyamory> > > > Chuck,> >> > Sorry to be misleading. The material about swinging> > presented is quoted from> >> > "There has been a Google Knol article created for Polyamory.> > http://knol.google.com/k/james-oneill/polyamory/3czmgkncteg8o/2#";> >> > I foolishly thought that the subject line of my email would connect> > the material quoted from that article to my question "thoughts?"> >> > I appriciate your comments.> >> > Jim> >> >> > ________________________________________> > From: uupoly-l-bounces+jim=swankin-turner.com@uupa.org> > [uupoly-l-bounces+jim=swankin-turner.com@uupa.org] On Behalf Of CWLee> > [cwlee@post.harvard.edu]> > Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2008 6:03 PM> > To: uupoly-l@uupa.org> > Subject: Re: [UUPoly-L] Google Knol Article for Polyamory> >> > "Jim Turner" <jim@swankin-turner.com> wrote:> >> >> Swinging is not polyamory and this subject is many times a sore spot> >> when poly people are speaking with non-polys about what polyamory is.> >> Swinging, specifically, is recreational sex with no emotion tied to> >> it. The swinging community usually has rules against forming tight> >> emotional relationships with others with which you swing.> >> Sometimes people who swing often tire of sex for the pleasure of sex> >> and wish a more emotional connection with those they share such> >> intimate experience with, and find themselves drifting away from> >> swinging and into the wonderful and challenging world polyamory.> >> >> This is all not to say that polyamorists cannot also be swingers,> >> they can, but both are circles are usually kept separate, not only> >> because of philosophical differences, but because swinging has such a> >> negative connotation associated with it from its '70's origination.> >> Contemporary thought is that swinging is wrong and immoral;> >> stigmatized by a puritanical social majority and is something that is> >> wanted to be avoided as a comparison with polyamory while polyamory> >> is working towards mainstream acceptance.> >> >> You could have an Open Triad where the relationship agreement states> >> that swinging is OK, and one or more of the participants engages in> >> swinging. Their specific (Open> >> Triad) relationship would still be polyamorous, but the relationship> >> with the swinging partners would not be.> >> >> Thoughts?> >> > My thought is that if you had prefaced your comments with something> > like "in my opinion," or "in my own experience"> > then you would have sounded like a reasonable person sharing his own> > views and experience. But, since you provide no substantiation for> > your dogmantic statements, you sound to me more like a right- or> > left-wing fanatic 100% convinced that his view is the only acceptable> > one and must not be questioned.> >> > You might consider working on your presentation style, depending on> > how you want readers to perceive you.> >> > Best regards to all, Chuck Lee.> > ----------> > CWLee> > Former slayer of dragons; practice now limited to sacred cows.> > Believing we should hire for quality, not quotas, and promote for> > performance, not preferences.> > _______________________________________________> 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> > _______________________________________________> 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
_________________________________________________________________
Reveal your inner athlete and share it with friends on Windows Live.
http://revealyourinnerathlete.windowslive.com?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WLYIA_whichathlete_us