View Single Post
Old 01-05-2010, 12:22 AM
Ravenesque Ravenesque is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 297

Originally Posted by YGirl View Post
They shouldn't discriminate against swingers or people with fuck-buddies either.

Perhaps they should discriminate against people with fuck-buddies ONLY if you don't "love" your fuck-buddy.

Don't think that I don't know where you're going with that. I don't know if you're playing devil's advocate or being serious but I do agree with the point. Trust me.

And I've made it several times. I was involved in a discussion where the most disdainful, conservative and sex-negative arguments were being made as to why swingers should be excluded and why swingers would not find resources among polyamorists. Again it is a matter of moralizing polyamory above other forms of non-monogamy. *makes grabby hands* "Oooh, swingers are the big bad. They're gonna come and try to fuck you when you don't want them to. While you're sleeping dear god *wails* while... you're... sleeping... Protect your children. Protect your ass. It will be Armageddon! Ahhh!!"

I find nothing wrong with someone fucking someone else for whatever reason, whether it is one fuck or several fuckings over time. Recreational fucking or fucking only within one set of guidelines. If they assert no emotional attachment *shrugs* I'd advocate sexual safety. I'd also advocate that they have the same rights as others. And I do think it could be a legitimate part of someone's polyamorous style. As it could be a part of someone's swinger style. It could be a part of someone's style in BDSM. Whatever.

Originally Posted by Ceoli View Post
Redpepper, I do get where you're coming from and appreciate that you need to make decisions to protect your family just as all of us have to do the same.

All I was saying is that the sex part is just an assumed part of the definition, that's all. It's a prejudicial view that polyamory is all about the sex. The thing is, regardless of the definition of the word, people are going to make those judgements. Rejecting the word doesn't prevent the judgements. That's why communication and explanation hold a lot more weight than which label is chosen. And you've been very clear and great about doing that. But rejecting labels can sometimes have the opposite of the intended effect in that it legitimizes the prejudice rather than addresses it. That's all I was getting at.
A prejudicial view of polyamory which houses a prejudiced view of sex. Sex = negative unless it be purified by the cleansing waters of love. Because love (what is love again? Someone bring me a definition ) is the reason having sex would not be some dirty rank thing. Sex-negative.

Originally Posted by redpepper View Post
I agree raven which is why I wanted to be invovled monthes ago in interveneing. I just didn't have time. There are some really amazing poly people invovled that are fully aware of the definition debate, I am sure they will do their best to represent everyone. I have to trust that right now.

Please be patient. I am finding my feet within all this along with realizing that my own BLOOD is a threat. I have never experienced this before and we are definitely working towards establishing ourselves so that we can fight back if need be. I can PM you with those details as I don't feel comfortable posting them, but until that happens I am unable to accept and trust others to the extent that I would want them to help. Its a pride thing and a time for me to pull my family together. Just incase.
I can tell you this my friend, when we get organized and we find out about what will happen in court I will be fighting tooth and nail if it means our protection and others including those who live poly differently. I would welcome any help then. Until then, please let me quietly prepare. I will use the term for poly that will protect us until I feel safe.

I would not tell you what you choose to do to protect your family is right or wrong. It is down to what feels right for you.

I just do not connect with an "every human for themselves" point of view and I don't ever suppose I will. I see myself as apart of the world. Interconnected. My actions affect others and their actions affect me. I got teary reading your post and I feel sad that that is the path you feel forced to take.

It seems to come down to a decision of whether it's worth it to protect some people at the expense of others.


Last edited by Ravenesque; 01-05-2010 at 12:25 AM.
Reply With Quote