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

[Wishful Thinking <third_edition@live.com>]

I will not rant by restating what Alan, Anita, and Catherine have said (particularly since they have said it more eloquently and precisely than I could have hoped to express it myself). I do want to add a few comments of my own to theirs.
 
 
> 1. Some people can't differentiate between and abstract concept and > real, diverse, human behavior. The concept of swinging is > recreational sex without emotional attachment. But anyone who has > gone to a particular swing group over time knows that great > friendships develop, people do care if members fall ill, people get > together for dancing, motorcycle rides, etc outside the club, etc. > Does anyone want to play god and tell us that none of this emotional > bonding ever rises to the level of "love?"
 
 
I found it interesting that you used a highly abstracted summation of your own experience to illustrate the differences between "abstract concept and real, diverse human behavior." You have generalized (abstracted) your experiences so much that meaningful differences have been lost. I believe there are useful distinctions between "polyamory" and "swinging" and I do not want to see them generalized away.
 
> 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.
 
I would like to believe you are simply sharing an area of your life where you feel the need to drop walls and expand your horizons. However, that is not the way your comments felt to me. They felt manipulative and controlling. 
 
 
> 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 I sincerely thank her for coining it. Obviously she must have felt there was some need for a term other than swinging and early adopters must have adopted it because they shared her feeling. Be that as it may, language is dynamic, evolutionary. Since I was not present when it was coined and I have not made an investigation of the circumstances surrounding its coinage, I am unqualified to speak to what she intended. My interest is in how it is used now. If, now, it actually does mean the same as swinging ... then retire it. Under such circumstance it would be useless ... worse, confusing. It would be time to coin a new term. However, if it is a term that here and now points to a reality that is substantially different than swinging, then allow that useful distinction, and the reality to which it points, to stand.
 
Best - Wishful
 
_________________________________________________________________
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