Re: [UUPoly-L] What do YOU think?

Cynthia Armistead <cyn@technomom.com> · Mon, 17 Nov 2008 02:23:40 -0000

Michael Paprocki wrote:
I have been telling a woman friend (not a "girlfriend") about my Poly orientation and feelings.
She seems to be understanding slowly and though she says it's not for her, she accepts it for me.
And that's all okay.
One of the ideas I have been toying with, and which I have told to her, is that:
I thought that being sensitive and compassionate and caring yielded ones being more likely to be polyamorous.
And, being polyamorous resulted in ones being more sensitive and compassionate and caring.

I don't really agree. I see polyamory as one of the many, equally 
legitimate ways to be in relationship to others. It is an indication 
that its practitioners are more "advanced" in any way, or that 
monogamous people are any less sensitive, compassionate or caring. In 
the same way, homosexuality, heterosexuality, and bisexuality are 
equally valid, with none of them being "better" in any way than the others.
Personally, I've known wonderfully compassionate people who are 
monogamous, and some fairly nasty, narcissistic people who are 
polyamorous. Of course, I've known unpleasant monogamous people and 
wonderful poly folk as well. I don't think it is reasonable to make 
assumptions about people's characters based on whether or not they are 
polyamorous.
P.S. Did I spell arguements/arguments correctly? Do I need to use my dictionary more? I didn't say we were smarter. Should I? (chuckle) How about ones/one's?

It's "arguments," but you're perfectly understandable, so I wouldn't 
worry about it overmuch :-)
Namaste,
Cyn
--

"It is what you read when you don't have to that determines what you 
will be when you can't help it." Oscar Wilde

http://technomom.com/ - http://fibrantliving.com/

http://cynthiaarmistead.com/ - http://cyberstalked.org/

http://paganparents.com/ - http://academycaritas.com/

http://heartsonghandicrafts.com/ - http://housefireheart.com/