Re: [UUPoly-L] Group newbie: books/resources about polyamory?

["licorice gumdrop" <licorice.gumdrop@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 11:17 PM, Catherine Deville <catdeville@cox.net>wrote:

>
> In other words, licorice gumdrop doesn't agree with it, therefore his
> opinion is that it's "replete with bias...", etc.  Which doesn't mean that
> it's not a good resource.


no, it means that licorice gumdrop was replying from a mobile device and
didn't have the resources at her fingertips to detail the problems she sees
with the knol.

The bias I see in the way the article is written is that it has a smug
superiority, as though the author feels that poly people are somehow more
evolved, with better relationship skills, or party to some secret
relationship-handling knowledge and ability that people non-poly people
lack.   It also makes sweeping generalizations, such as "polys define..."
and "polyamory requires..."   The only thing I think that can safely be said
about poly people or poly relationships is that you shouldn't generalize.


The knol also suffers, I believe, from a lack of focus.  Is it meant to be a
backgrounder on the theoretical aspects of polyamorous relationships, or a
source for practical advice on conducting a poly lifestyle?  It repeatedly
inserts technical advice on specifics (such as putting agreements into
writing) into broader discussions of theory (such as what constitutes
"cheating"), confusing theoretical principles with practical actions.

I have no idea if the knol was written by an "early adopter" or a "jumper on
the bandwagon," but here are some of the specific textual problems i see
with it:

from paragraph 3:

Successful polyamorous relationships generally require a high level of
self-awareness, honesty (especially with oneself), introspection,
self-security, and communication among all concerned. Polyamory is not for
the faint of heart or wussies.

The wording of this paragraph suggests that those traits are somehow unique
to a successful poly relationship, when in fact, they're a good rule of
thumb for any relationship, not only poly ones.  And unfortunately, even if
the people involved share all those wonderful traits, they don't guarantee a
successful relationship of any sort.

The final sentence, "polyamory is not for the faint of heart or wussies"
sets up poly as some sort of exclusive club, which I don't feel is
particularly helpful for people trying to learn about it.  Nor does it help
to imply that non-poly relationships are 'for' the faint of heart or
"wussies."

Also, if I really wanted to nitpick, I'd have to ask, "how is a 'successful'
relationship being defined, anyway?"  For some, longevity may equal success,
no matter how happy or miserable the participants are.  For others, success
may lie in the ability to integrate new partners into existing relationship
paradigms with a minimum amount of disruption.  Or it may be something else
completely.

>From the "forms of polyamory" section:

The commonest poly formation is probably the 'vee' (three people with two of
them not romantically involved);

This is a completely unfounded (and at least, unfootnoted) assertion.  Fact
is, we don't know what the "commonest poly formation" is.  Until there's
robust sociological research investigating the contours of poly
relationships, statements like this can only be based in anecdotal evidence.
 And the plural of anecdote is not data.

The entire cheating/adultery section, IMO, is problematic, as it attempts to
defines cheating in the poly context.

Polyamory requires informed consent and knowledge from all parties involved
-- and, experience shows, consistently high integrity overall.

This raises many questions in my mind.  Where is this standards board
setting out what polyamory requires?  Whose experience shows that
"consistently high integrity" is needed, and how is it being defined?  The
wording also suggests that poly people have "higher integrity" than non-poly
people, which I think is a crock.

>From the section on swinging:

... the two circles tend to be different in terms of sociology, class,
philosophy, and intellectual background ...

This really raised my eyebrows.  I'd love to see the author back this
assertion up with an explanation of the socioeconomic, philosophical, and
intellectual differences between polys and swingers.

Anyhoo, I hope that helps clear things up as to my objections to the knol.

Rgds,

  J.