Okay, so I just spent a too-brief two days hanging out with a former (& possible future again) partner & her current primary, who is a language expert (semantics & linguistics) & we had waaay fun chattering about music &
metacommunication. I'm still kinda stoked.
Failed how? I think Opalescent mentioned that she encouraged the poster to search for existing topics.
Again: previous posts are all that I refer to. For instance:
It's perfectly fine to revive old threads here, and we do encourage that.
However, it's better to revive them by adding something to the conversation -- not just a complaint that the thread doesn't meet expectations. What is the purpose in that?
Going around to this thread and that thread only to post, "I wanted to like this thread but it sucks" isn't very useful!
It's not always framed as "mono people suck," and the feeling still makes one feel "less than."
Let's posit that people who show up on this site are (1) adults in at least some senses of the word & (2) of at least moderate intelligence. Given those presuppositions, then maybe they could
explain what specific perceived jabs have hurt their feelings. See, from there, perhaps a
discussion might ensue.
Anyone who relies on heavy sarcasm should realize that it may not work with every audience.
FWIW, I do not
rely upon sarcasm of ANY weight or thickness. I'm told it's a defense mechanism when faced with manipulative or passive-aggressive tics.
Someone saying that something is offensive doesn't mean they're trying quash your speech, unless they're actually TRYING to quash your speech.
Hmm... no. That essentially saying "you aren't allowed to demonstrate that something is obstructive until you first demonstrate that it's obstructive." And, further, it sets up visiting monogamists as a special class deserving a degree of wariness which polyamorists are not afforded -- which, really, we don't give each other, possibly because it intentionally
restricts communication.
some of these "delusions" aren't limited to monogamy.
While true enough on the surface, the fact is that much of these errors are functionally
enshrined in monogamy, presented as
necessary & in fact
inarguable. To merely examine these fundamental mistakes is to risk being accused of being "anti-marriage" or even
hating monogamists.
Poly support doesn't have to mean denigrating monogamy. ...being dismissive of monogamy as a whole.
No, that too is spurious. Heaving an occasional disgusted sigh about the failures of monogamistic superstition is nothing anywhere near "denigrating monogamy." And (
ibid.) dredging up a hoary thread with a few
in it is itself low-level trolling.
Now, with all THAT said, I think it'd be instructive if someone were to actually
present some of those cobwebby "anti-monogamy" statements, so that they might be discussed, & perhaps dismissed. Possibly those who feel they've been maligned could give some examples.