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

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

OK... been trying to stay out of this one, but now I can't {sigh!} 

John Ullman said: 
<<Yes, poly and swinging are certainly not mutually exclusive, and I 
certainly have done both, and made some great, long term poly friends 
at swing events.

I of watched the poly vs swinger issue go on for decades now, and I 
think it is often poorly articulated. Here is what I think gets lost 
in the flames:>>

As have I :) ; As you know.  And I would agree that often it is poorly
articulated, but I can't agree with most of what you say below.

<<1. Some people can't differentiate between and abstract concept and 
real, diverse,  human behavior. >>

And some of us can differentiate between abstract concept and real, diverse
human behavior very well thank you, without, at the same time, relegating
semantic differences to the "doesn't matter" pile.  Some of us understand
the socio-psychological facts demonstrate that there are connections between
how we speak, how we think and how we behave. 

At the same time:
<<The concept of swinging is 
recreational sex without emotional attachment. >>

And here's where I think that the problem may start.  Swinging may have
originally been defined as "recreational sex without emotional attachment",
but I believe that as the "social club" movement advanced and evolved, that
they have learned, as you point out, that social interaction doesn't happen
in an emotional vacuum.  If it does, it's extremely unhealthy. So I think
that the first step in this debate is to acknowledge that his is a very
'fundamentalist' definition of swinging, and one that (perhaps - I can't
speak for the swinging community) most swingers would not accept as being
true (although it has been my experience that there are still swingers out
there who treat it as true.)  I think that a much more serviceable
definition is to say that, "swinging connotes that the focus is on
recreational sex" and leave it at that.  That's pretty much how I've always
defined the difference between swinging and polyamory...
	Swinging connotes that the focus is on recreational sex...
	Polyamory connotes that he focus is on relationships...
	The two are intersecting subsets... some swingers have poly
relationships, and some polyamorous people swing.  Self identity generally
depends on where the individuals primary relationship focus is. 

<<
2. I consider the "I am not a swinger" or "poly relationships don't 
have to be sexual" polys to be suffering from internalized 
polyphobia. By that I mean that the sex negativity of the culture is 
so oppressive to them that they don't want other people to think they 
are hedonists or sex fiends or something, so they try to dumb down 
the concept of polyamory.>>

What an unwarranted, unsupportable and insultingly *judgmental*
characteriazation. Which is ironic, seeing where this conversation began. 

Guess I'm just a repressed, hung up chick where you're concerned then,
because I'm one of the "I'm not a swinger" and "poly relationships don't
have to be sexual" polys.  And while I'm not a hedonist or a sex fiend, and
definitely don't want people to think of me that way, that's got nothing to
do with being sex negative, or societal pressures.  I was "doing poly" *WAY*
before I ever learned I had any societal support out there.  It's just that
the way that I do relationships (and I *do* do relationships, and I don't do
casual sex) is that relationship is significantly more important to me than
sex is.  Sex is not for me just a primal force (although the primal force
can certainly be enjoyable), it's multi-dimensional and ranges from the
expression of my emotional love for another person(s) to a sacred act of
worship and magick. 

So, I'm sorry, the fact that I don't see sex the same way that you do, John
does not mean that I'm internalizing polyphobia.  That's like saying that
all straight people are homophobic by virtue of the fact that they're
straight.  That's just a *little* over the top. 

<<3. The word polyamory was designed to be a label for our kind of 
sexual relationships. Morning Golry Zell, who coined the phrase, and 
those of us who were early adopters, were looking for a word to mean 
the concept of "multiple, consensual, concurrent, sexual, loving 
relationships.">>

And MG and OZ have both said, "the term is poly*amory*, not poly*fuckery*...
if we'd meant polyfuckery we'd have said so." (or some variation thereof, as
you quoted below.) 

The focus is on loving relationships, not on sex. And just as a marriage
doesn't stop being a marriage if the couple is celibate for a time, a poly
person doesn't become less poly because they're celibate for a time, nor is
a relationship any less poly if the people involved have decided that sex
between them is not currently appropriate or advisable.

I've talked to both MG (Morning Glory Zell-Ravenheart) and OZ (Oberon
Zell-Ravenheart) about this topic many times over the last decade or so, and
while both of them concur that the term was originally coined to define
"multiple, consensual, concurrent, sexualoving relationships", it was not
intended to exclude multiple, loving romantic relationships where sex was
not specifically a factor.  And they further clarified to the OED that it
was not intended to exclude swingers in loving relationships either: 

"The practice, state or ability of having more than one sexual loving
relationship at the same time, with the full knowledge and consent of all
partners involved. This term was meant to be inclusive, and in that context,
we have never intended to particularly exclude "swinging" per se, if
practitioners thereof wished to adopt the term and include themselves... The
two essential ingredients of the concept of polyamory are more than one; and
loving. That is, it is expected that the people in such relationships have a
loving emotional bond, are involved in each other's lives
multi-dimensionally, and care for each other. This term is not intended to
apply to merely casual recreational sex, anonymous orgies, one-night stands,
pick-ups, prostitution, "cheating," serial monogamy, or the popular
definition of swinging as "mate-swapping" parties." - Ravenhearts FAQ on
Polyamory

So, as you can see from their own clarification, "the two essential
ingredients of the concept of polyamory are more than one; and loving."  Sex
is *not* an "essential ingredient."  And the only swingers it excludes are
those who are not "involved in each other's lives multi-dimensionally"
and/or who "care for each other." So both of the folks who get on the
extreme end of the debate and try to exclude one or the other (either
swingers or platonic polys) are wrong. 

<<4. If anyone wants to take the sex out of poly, or describe similar 
but different kinds of relationships, they should come up with their 
own word, not misappropriate polyamory. Some suggestions below:>>

No one is taking sex out of polyamory... we're just saying that sex is *not*
the defining ingredient, nor is it even an "essential ingredient."  And it
wasn't just me that said that, it was MG, the person you just pointed to for
supporting your position. We don't *need* a new term.  Polyamory is an
umbrella term, and it suits us just fine, thanks... And when we do need a
new term, we generally coin one.  I was once in a poly-sibling relationship
(My nestmates, my husband and I at one point moved in together expecting
that it would potentially turn into a two couple quad, and co-parented and
were in all aspects a poly style family, except one... the chemistry didn't
work out to be sexual chemistry... it ended up being a sibling like
relationship, so I called it a poly-sibling relationship.  It was
polyamorous (as we were all poly and we had a loving relationship,) and we
were family, but we ended up without the romantic component.

I'm going to skip the other stuff as I'll assume it was an attempt at humor
and see it as not worth being addressed.  But in conclusion I have to say
this (once again, for good measure.) 

Not wanting to be defined as something I'm not, wanting to have clear
expectations and understanding is *not* the same as being judgmental,
against or "phobic" of the thing I am not and don't wish to be defined as.
The fact that I don't swing (I actually checked it out and found it wasn't
for me) doesn't mean that I think that swinging is wrong... anymore than I
think that liverwurst is "wrong", it's just "not to my taste."  The fact
that I don't do casual sex doesn't mean that I'm making a judgment statement
that those who do are "wrong", it's just not "right for me."  And the fact
that I choose not to be a hedonist, because my own ethics and values say
that there are many things more important than pleasure seeking, *is* a
value statement, but does not in any way imply that I think pleasure or sex
are wrong... just that they don't top my list of priorities.  The fact that
I choose to be discriminating about who I have sex with does not mean that
I'm sex negative... it simply means that I do have a sense of sexual ethics
which tell me that there are reasons why sex might be not be appropriate
with any specific person at any specific time. 

Assuming that "'I am not a swinger' or 'poly relationships don't 
have to be sexual' polys to be suffering from internalized 
polyphobia" or that they're sex negative reminds me of those guys who assume
that I'm a lesbian because I won't sleep with *them*.  Having discretion is
not the same thing as being repressed... and only people who have no
discretion seem to me to tend to interpret it that way. 

Never Thirst,
Cat