Re: [UUPoly-L] UUPoly-L Digest, Vol 47, Issue 5
I am relatively new to poly,
I was a married cheater, later to become a swinger, later wanting to become polygamous, and now wanting to become (after hearing the term 3 months ago) a poly fidelity person with multiple females.
I am happily married and we may seek a divorce so all the females will be on equal footing.
The SO thing sounds like it could become a rank and file thing and equality sounds much better.
Am I different or do I have only a different perspective? I have been going to UU for a couple of months and have not encountered other polies yet, I have enjoyed myself there so far and like what I've seen.
I would love to hear comments.
Darrell
--- On Mon, 8/4/08, uupoly-l-request@uupa.org <uupoly-l-request@uupa.org> wrote:
From: uupoly-l-request@uupa.org <uupoly-l-request@uupa.org>
Subject: UUPoly-L Digest, Vol 47, Issue 5
To: uupoly-l@uupa.org
Date: Monday, August 4, 2008, 11:16 AM
Send UUPoly-L mailing list submissions to
uupoly-l@uupa.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://www.uupa.org/mailman/listinfo/uupoly-l
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
uupoly-l-request@uupa.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
uupoly-l-owner@uupa.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of UUPoly-L digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Google Knol Article for Polyamory (Anita Wagner)
2. Large Midwestern UU Church 500 to 1000 members (paul)
3. Re: Short Conversation With UU Minister in a Major Midwestern
City About Polyamory (Anita Wagner)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 08:04:50 -0700 (PDT)
From: Anita Wagner <imapolygirl@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [UUPoly-L] Google Knol Article for Polyamory
To: uupoly-l@uupa.org
Message-ID: <331770.55570.qm@web51704.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
John U wrote:
"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:"
I get where you are coming from on this, John.??From what I've seen/read,
the relatively few people who insist that their non-sexual relationship is a
poly relationship are generally thinking of (and perhaps confused by) the fact
that they have romantic, emotionally intimate feelings for more than one person
at a time, but do not have sex with one or more of their partners for whatever
reason.?? I've heard this from people who due to physical infirmity
can't have sex but would if they could.? I'd be hard pressed to tell
them their relationship isn't poly.?
And, of course, there are exceptions to everything.?
A bit more prevalent are those who consider their close, emotionally intimate
relationships with the partner(s) of their SO to be poly relationships, even
though they don't have sex.? It gets even murkier when partners in a V
relationship live together and the two points of the V aren't bisexual but
share hearth and home, budget, income, childrearing, etc.?
I'm not arguing with you at all, just sharing some observations.
"polyammery -? incessantly talking about polyamory, but not doing it
hollypoly - how cinema stars have multiple partners, not to be
confused with polywood
polywood - multiple partners with erections
polyummery - having really gorgeous multiple partners
polylaundry - many people washing their clothes together and having
sex while they dry
polypygmyous - having many small partners
polypigamous - having more partners than you can handle
polyestery - John Water's multiple partners
polysaturated - having no room for more partners (from Fritz Neumann)
polyagony - Polyamory gone bad (from Nan Wise)
and, of course, Oberon Zell's retort when someone asked if polyamory
were just about sex, he said, 'If it were just about sex we would
have called it polyfuckery.'"
Thanks for reposting this - it's hilarious and I welcome a good laugh
whenever I can get it.?
Smiles,
Anita
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 08:15:28 -0700 (PDT)
From: paul <paul3421602001@yahoo.com>
Subject: [UUPoly-L] Large Midwestern UU Church 500 to 1000 members
To: uupoly-l@uupa.org
Message-ID: <634885.79940.qm@web55603.mail.re4.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Clarification on my previous post about a UUPA friendly church
and my coming out to the minister (a Poly friendly minister but
a?stranger to me) of a my former UU Church where I belonged for 4 years
around 30 years ago.
The minister meant that the two Poly family units were active on the
Board. He was not referring to their financial contributions in any way.
Best Regards,
Paul
----- Original Message ----
From: "uupoly-l-request@uupa.org" <uupoly-l-request@uupa.org>
To: uupoly-l@uupa.org
Sent: Sunday, August 3, 2008 11:23:15 PM
Subject: UUPoly-L Digest, Vol 47, Issue 3
Send UUPoly-L mailing list submissions to
??? uupoly-l@uupa.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
??? http://www.uupa.org/mailman/listinfo/uupoly-l
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
??? uupoly-l-request@uupa.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
??? uupoly-l-owner@uupa.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of UUPoly-L digest..."
Today's Topics:
? 1. Re: Google Knol Article for Polyamory (Jim Turner)
? 2. Short Conversation With UU Minister in a Major??? Midwestern
? ? ? City About Polyamory (paul)
? 3. Re: Google Knol Article for Polyamory (CWLee)
? 4. Re: Short Conversation With UU Minister in a Major??? Midwestern
? ? ? City About Polyamory (steve anderson)
? 5. Re: Short Conversation With UU Minister in a Major??? Midwestern
? ? ? City About Polyamory (Desmond Ravenstone)
? 6. Introduction (Connie Riley)
? 7. Re: Google Knol Article for Polyamory (Jim Turner)
? 8. Another introduction (Johnna L. Sturgeon)
? 9. Re: Google Knol Article for Polyamory (CWLee)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2008 13:15:30 -0400
From: Jim Turner <jim@swankin-turner.com>
Subject: Re: [UUPoly-L] Google Knol Article for Polyamory
To: "uupoly-l@uupa.org" <uupoly-l@uupa.org>
Message-ID:
??? <3226BD9EF06DC74D884B7EB9A3A4824E292EBC6EB1@MBX74.ad2.softcom.biz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Swinging
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?
-----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 licorice
gumdrop
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 5:03 PM
To: uupoly-l@uupa.org
Cc: uupoly-l@uupa.org
Subject: Re: [UUPoly-L] Google Knol Article for Polyamory
uff! that knol is certainly loaded with value judgments and normative
statements, particularly vis-?-vis swinging!
- jenny
On Jul 31, 2008, at 4:21 PM, "Poly Friend"
<Poly@ArionsHome.com> wrote:
> There has been a Google Knol article created for Polyamory.
>
> http://knol.google.com/k/james-oneill/polyamory/3czmgkncteg8o/2#
> _______________________________________________
> 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
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2008 12:18:51 -0700 (PDT)
From: paul <paul3421602001@yahoo.com>
Subject: [UUPoly-L] Short Conversation With UU Minister in a Major
??? Midwestern City About Polyamory
To: uupoly-l@uupa.org
Message-ID: <937169.19728.qm@web55604.mail.re4.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
I visited one of my former UU Churches today in a major Midwestern City.
I asked the minister (very GLBTQ friendly) whether he felt that?union
ceremonies for MFM FMF FFF? amd MMM family units would enhance the
acceptance of that Triad by their local UU church.? He felt instead that the
members
of two Poly Family units in his church were already accepted by other church
members of his church because of their major contributions to his church.
We might get similar responses from other ministers.
Paul
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2008 15:03:14 -0700
From: "CWLee" <cwlee@post.harvard.edu>
Subject: Re: [UUPoly-L] Google Knol Article for Polyamory
To: <uupoly-l@uupa.org>
Message-ID: <2D2A9631FBE74C978EBA799698317809@System4>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
??? reply-type=original
"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.
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2008 17:12:36 -0500
From: "steve anderson" <blitziod@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [UUPoly-L] Short Conversation With UU Minister in a Major
??? Midwestern City About Polyamory
To: uupoly-l@uupa.org
Message-ID:
??? <33c5546a0808031512k24a65a8bi38e0792452c8d463@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
so pay to play? give enough money and we are cool..kinda a sucky idea..but i
am willing...i mean i would pay a lot for acceptance..
On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 2:18 PM, paul <paul3421602001@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I visited one of my former UU Churches today in a major Midwestern City.
> I asked the minister (very GLBTQ friendly) whether he felt that union
> ceremonies for MFM FMF FFF? amd MMM family units would enhance the
> acceptance of that Triad by their local UU church.? He felt instead that
> the members
> of two Poly Family units in his church were already accepted by other
> church
> members of his church because of their major contributions to his church.
> We might get similar responses from other ministers.
> Paul
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2008 15:33:17 -0700 (PDT)
From: Desmond Ravenstone <desmondravenstone@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [UUPoly-L] Short Conversation With UU Minister in a Major
??? Midwestern City About Polyamory
To: uupoly-l@uupa.org
Message-ID: <850035.21533.qm@web50506.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
"Major contributions" need not be financial.? They can be hands-on
volunteering, serving on committees and the governing board, etc.? Some of the
most valued members in my congregation are known for their service, not big
checks.
Desmond Ravenstone
********************
http://www.myspace.com/desmond_ravenstone
--- On Sun, 8/3/08, steve anderson <blitziod@gmail.com> wrote:
> From: steve anderson <blitziod@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [UUPoly-L] Short Conversation With UU Minister in a Major
Midwestern City About Polyamory
> To: uupoly-l@uupa.org
> Date: Sunday, August 3, 2008, 6:12 PM
> so pay to play? give enough money and we are cool..kinda a
> sucky idea..but i
> am willing...i mean i would pay a lot for acceptance..
>
> On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 2:18 PM, paul
> <paul3421602001@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I visited one of my former UU Churches today in a
> major Midwestern City.
> > I asked the minister (very GLBTQ friendly) whether he
> felt that union
> > ceremonies for MFM FMF FFF? amd MMM family units would
> enhance the
> > acceptance of that Triad by their local UU church.? He
> felt instead that
> > the members
> > of two Poly Family units in his church were already
> accepted by other
> > church
> > members of his church because of their major
> contributions to his church.
> > We might get similar responses from other ministers.
> > Paul
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
? ? ?
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2008 19:48:07 -0700 (PDT)
From: Connie Riley <connie23452@yahoo.com>
Subject: [UUPoly-L] Introduction
To: uupoly-l@uupa.org
Message-ID: <704939.37628.qm@web39203.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Hi!? I am new to the list and wanted to give a quick introduction.? It is nice
to see that there are other people open to different ways of doing things!? I am
a military wife who has been happily married for 16 years, and we have two
children.? A dear friend agreed to join our family about eight months ago.? So
to put a label on us I guess we are now what you would call a triad?? We are all
excited and happy, but nervous and a little bit scared because this is
unfamiliar territory.?
?
I?am excited to see that there are local chapters of UUPA forming, but
disappointed that there isn't one in our area yet.? We have just started
going to the UU church in our area, but we haven't really met anyone so
far.? We have been nervous about going together as a family, because the very
first Sunday we attended there was a couple from work who were also there.? The
military can be very harsh when dealing with people who have different sexual
tendencies, and so we don't know if it is really "safe" for all
three of us to go to the service and sit together and be seen...?
?
We would just really like to meet other families, especially families
with?children, who are different from the norm and who we can relate to.? We
don't want our children to feel like they are the only ones with
"weird" parents.? :-)? We are in the Norfolk, Virginia area.?
?
Thank you for listening!
?
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2008 23:22:52 -0400
From: Jim Turner <jim@swankin-turner.com>
Subject: Re: [UUPoly-L] Google Knol Article for Polyamory
To: "uupoly-l@uupa.org" <uupoly-l@uupa.org>
Message-ID:
??? <3226BD9EF06DC74D884B7EB9A3A4824E292EC059F4@MBX74.ad2.softcom.biz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
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
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Sun, 03 Aug 2008 23:28:13 -0400
From: "Johnna L. Sturgeon" <johnna.l.sturgeon@gmail.com>
Subject: [UUPoly-L] Another introduction
To: uupoly-l@uupa.org
Message-ID: <4896774D.5060505@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
I am also a new list member and decided now is as good a time as any to
introduce myself. I am a divorced mother of one and currently involved
in a serious relationship with a polyamorous, married man. My ex-husband
and I also considered ourselves polyamorous and during our 14-year
marriage had a couple of secondary relationships. My ex-husband and I
joined a local UU about 5-6 years ago, but I haven't attended much since
we split up because it just didn't feel like home to me anymore. During
the time we attended that church, we had no secondary relationships, so
there was never any reason to be open about poly. I am about to relocate
to the Chicago area to start a Ph.D. program and was considering looking
for a UU home there as well. I am venturing into very new territory
here, because though I have been in poly relationships before, this is
the first time my daughter has been old enough (14) to understand it.
Also, it's the first time I myself don't have a "primary"
relationship,
and soon the relationship I do have will be a long-distance one. My
daughter has not yet met my partner, but I have begun to explain to her
about the fact that he is married to someone else, that there are people
who believe it's possible and OK to love more than one person at once,
and that her dad and I both had other relationships during our marriage.
She didn't seem to be particularly fazed by that, which surprised me
honestly. If anyone is familiar with the UU congregations in the Chicago
area, I would be very grateful for any tips about which (if any) is
likely to be the most accepting of my preferences. Congregations that
are especially pagan-friendly would also be great since my daughter is
(at the moment) Wiccan. Of course, if there are any list members who
attend a Chicago-area UU that would be fabulous!
Johnna
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2008 21:21:46 -0700
From: "CWLee" <cwlee@post.harvard.edu>
Subject: Re: [UUPoly-L] Google Knol Article for Polyamory
To: <uupoly-l@uupa.org>
Message-ID: <739830EEB29546B8894FEF28094E6196@System4>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
??? reply-type=original
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
End of UUPoly-L Digest, Vol 47, Issue 3
***************************************
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 08:16:09 -0700 (PDT)
From: Anita Wagner <imapolygirl@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [UUPoly-L] Short Conversation With UU Minister in a Major
Midwestern City About Polyamory
To: uupoly-l@uupa.org
Message-ID: <203041.19744.qm@web51708.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
I'm one of those people.? Though I do contribute what I can financially, UU
culture (or at least the culture in my own UU church) is such that service to
the church is as highly regarded and expected as monetary contributions.? I
devote a lot of my spare time to polyamory activism and so may not have taken
the time to volunteer at church otherwise.? Hence, I'm secretary to our
church's board of trustees.
Anita
----- Original Message ----
From: Desmond Ravenstone <desmondravenstone@yahoo.com>
To: uupoly-l@uupa.org
Sent: Sunday, August 3, 2008 6:33:17 PM
Subject: Re: [UUPoly-L] Short Conversation With UU Minister in a Major
Midwestern City About Polyamory
"Major contributions" need not be financial.? They can be hands-on
volunteering, serving on committees and the governing board, etc.? Some of the
most valued members in my congregation are known for their service, not big
checks.
Desmond Ravenstone
********************
http://www.myspace.com/desmond_ravenstone
--- On Sun, 8/3/08, steve anderson <blitziod@gmail.com> wrote:
> From: steve anderson <blitziod@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [UUPoly-L] Short Conversation With UU Minister in a Major
Midwestern City About Polyamory
> To: uupoly-l@uupa.org
> Date: Sunday, August 3, 2008, 6:12 PM
> so pay to play? give enough money and we are cool..kinda a
> sucky idea..but i
> am willing...i mean i would pay a lot for acceptance..
>
> On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 2:18 PM, paul
> <paul3421602001@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I visited one of my former UU Churches today in a
> major Midwestern City.
> > I asked the minister (very GLBTQ friendly) whether he
> felt that union
> > ceremonies for MFM FMF FFF? amd MMM family units would
> enhance the
> > acceptance of that Triad by their local UU church.? He
> felt instead that
> > the members
> > of two Poly Family units in his church were already
> accepted by other
> > church
> > members of his church because of their major
> contributions to his church.
> > We might get similar responses from other ministers.
> > Paul
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
? ? ?
_______________________________________________
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
End of UUPoly-L Digest, Vol 47, Issue 5
***************************************
This archive was generated by a fusion of
Pipermail (Mailman edition) and
MHonArc.