Re: [UUPoly-L] Tiger "poly"?? (was: Poly in the news)

"Moonstorm Erosong" <mnstrm@erosong.net> · Sat, 27 Feb 2010 18:14:40 -0000

Desmond, philosophically I agree with you, and from what I can tell from the
news, you may well be right about Tiger Woods and his attitudes.

However, I think it's worthwhile to realize that there are a lot of
currently well-functioning polyamorists who have at one point or other in
their lives gone through an adulterous phase.  Many of us went through a
period in which we thought of ourselves as "failed monogamists," and were
greatly relieved to find that there was an alternative philosophical context
in which to hold our tendency toward having multiple simultaneous romantic
relationships.  The philosophical discovery of polyamory is often a
salvation for these people, although it doesn't always result in the
salvation of their adulterous marriages.  A few such people probably succeed
in negotiating truly polyamorous arrangements with their current spouses,
but I suspect most have wound up having to end those monogamous marriages
and move on to a new poly relationship.

By the way, as a side note:  Is it just me or does the current rash of
laughable sex scandals amongst celebrities (politicians particularly) seem
to indicate that men of power are getting more and more incompetent at
concealing adulterous relationships?

Blessings,

'Storm

-----Original Message-----
From: uupoly-l-bounces+mnstrm=erosong.net@uupa.org
[mailto:uupoly-l-bounces+mnstrm=erosong.net@uupa.org] On Behalf Of Desmond
Ravenstone
Sent: Friday, February 26, 2010 5:31 PM
To: uupoly-l@uupa.org
Subject: [UUPoly-L] Tiger "poly"?? (was: Poly in the news)

Frankly, I think trying to recruit celebrities who cheat on their spouse
into the poly camp is like trying to turn an alcoholic into a wine
connoisseur.

Polyamory and monogamy are both about responsibility and integrity.  Poly is
about much more than "having more than one partner," just as monogamy is
about much more than "having only one partner."

I've often said that it says much about our society that we have no word for
what I half-jokingly call "monogamous promiscuity" -- that is, engaging in
an empty and indiscriminate relationship with a single person, instead of
being more mindful about the quality of our relationships.

Everything I've read about Tiger's dalliances indicates a rather empty,
uncaring approach towards his partners.  It seemed he relished the thrill of
the hunt, the sense of conquest -- but not much more.  Hardly a prime
candidate for polyamory, or any other paradigm of responsible relating.

Desmond Ravenstone

"What you call sin, I call the great spirit of love, which takes a thousand
forms..."

http://ravenstonesreflections.blogspot.com
http://www.myspace.com/desmond_ravenstone

--- On Fri, 2/26/10, Cynthia Armistead <cyn@technomom.com> wrote:

> From: Cynthia Armistead <cyn@technomom.com>
> Subject: Re: [UUPoly-L] Poly in the news
> To: uupoly-l@uupa.org
> Date: Friday, February 26, 2010, 7:54 PM
> GAH - get it off! Geit it off! I
> don't want to be associated with Raelians!
> Oooooo!
> 
> I have so many problems with Vorlihon's "open letter" (aka
> "grab for media
> attention") that it's hard to know where to start. For one
> thing, current
> usage generally uses the term adultery, as opposed to
> fornication or
> extramarital sex or some other term, to carry negative
> connotations, like
> this definition from Princeton's WordNetWeb: extramarital
> sex that willfully
> and maliciously interferes with marriage relations
> *"adultery is often cited
> as grounds for divorce" (
> http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=adultery)*.
> Volihon's claim
> that it is "natural" is ridiculous - most of the people I
> know do NOT engage
> in adultery, whether nor not they engage in extramarital
> sex.
> 
> The remarks about Elin Nordegren being jealous are way out
> of line. We don't
> know if or how jealous she is, but it's clear that her
> trust has been
> violated.
> 
> I definitely agree with Gordon that Woods failed in terms
> of having "done
> responsibly" by anyone. His wife and at least some of his
> lovers have been
> hurt. The scrutiny surrounding him does not in any way
> preclude honesty.
> 
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 5:10 PM, Stacey Greenstein
<stacey.nj@gmail.com>wrote:
> 
> > Yes, but how much of that is because he didn't have
> the support (or
> > knowledge/understanding) to do poly responsibly? Did
> he only have the
> > societally accepted choices: Be monogamous, or cheat.
> That's what society
> > teaches. Had he had the support of a poly-positive
> community, would he have
> > made different choices? If he wouldn't have done
> anything different, he's a
> > cheater. If he would have done differently, he's a
> struggling poly. IMHO.
> >
> 
> Nonsense. I don't know anyone who has had the support of a
> poly-positive
> community, yet I know people who have "done" poly
> responsibly. How do you
> explain these people? How do you explain me, and presumably
> you, and however
> many people are here with us? I'm sure none of us can lay
> claim to
> perfection, but unless someone hails from a paradise that I
> don't know
> about, we're all living in a real world that is holding
> onto a  monogamous
> ideal that works out to serial monogamy most of the time.
> 
> >
> > I wonder how many famous-like people who come out
> publicly and say they
> > "cheated" on their spouse, do it only because the
> public found out they had
> > these extra relationships, and how many actually had
> reasonable poly
> > relationships that they had to keep quiet from their
> peers because
> > educating
> > their peers would take too much away from the other
> work they had to do.
> > Can
> > a politician or a sports figure or an actor have a
> chance at a successful
> > poly relationship in today's social climate, and have
> that relationship
> > found out by the public, and have that relationship
> and their career
> > survive? It's questions like these that give me some
> degree of sympathy for
> > these outed "cheaters".
> >
> 
> How many of us have access to the resources those
> famous-like people have?
> It isn't that I want to live their lives, because I really
> wouldn't be
> willing to trade my privacy for material wealth - BUT most
> of the made their
> choices and fought to get where they are. I'm not about to
> pity them. They
> can afford travel to see LDRs much more easily than most of
> us, to note just
> one little detail that comes to mind!
> 
> I figure that if Tiger Woods is a "struggling poly" he's a
> reasonably smart
> guy, and at any point in time he could have done a little
> research on how to
> deal with multiple relationships. If he did so, he would
> have found one of
> the many, many web sites about polyamory. We would have
> been here for him,
> right? It's so easy to set up an anonymous-enough email
> account that he
> could have done it at any time. Heck - he has enough money
> that he could
> have bought the closest thing to true anonymity you can get
> (although I
> figure he would have been better off to just get a gmail
> account and keep it
> low key).
> 
> As far as we know, he didn't do that. It's unlikely that
> we'll ever know,
> though. That's one reason I've mostly ignore the whole
> Tiger Woods
> kerfluffle, other than vaguely thinking that this must
> really be horrible
> for his wife and kids.
> 
> Cyn
> http://technomom.com/
> _______________________________________________
> 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