Reading ‘Love’s Not Color Blind’

sunray

New member
In case you haven’t heard, Kevin Patterson’s book on race and representation in polyamorous communities, “Love’s Not Color Blind” has just been released! I got my copy in the mail yesterday and am reading it now. Starting this thread as a place to share thoughts; if you’re reading it too, please chime in!
 
Hey, Ravenscroft, I intend to write up a book review at some point in the next two weeks and post it on this thread. Would do it sooner, but my health (and the fact that my LDR is visiting for a week starting tomorrow) is standing in the way!

In a nutshell, Patterson’s book highlights some of the ways in which America’s institutionalized racism intersects with the experiences of people of color in alternative communities (and the poly community in particular). His take is, if your group or organization isn’t actively working to be inclusive, it’s passively exclusionary. And he addresses parts of the book to a white audience, and parts to a POC audience... overall, it’s an engaging and quick but thought provoking read.
 
Ravenscroft, I find it really annoying when people post a link with no context or description. However, the description of the book is sufficient to grasp the topic. You could have just googled the book - or god forbid - read the description on the podcast to find out more. Sunray was kind enough to provide more details but you should have done the work yourself instead of demanding someone do it for you.
 
A question for any Mods passing by: is this something that would be even better filed under Press and media coverage?
________________

Patterson's concept is interesting... but then, I've read a whole lot of sociological studies about human sexuality that would bore most people into a coma in the first hundred words, yet give brilliant insights into polyamory.

I contrast those to the books that appear to take advantage of some trend or passing fad, generally by telling recent adopters how wonderful & unique & special they are for hopping onto the bandwagon.

The book seems to be getting the hype of the latter, yet is closer to the former. So, I'm getting the feeling this might be a fantastic discussion starter, yet NOT the sort of thing that should be read by everyone (much less wind up being waved around as some new Holy Book).

As one early Amazon reviewer says,
this book was not written for novices. This is not a polyamory 101 book, it’s a more in depth sociological approach to the issue of racial homogeneity within the Ethical Non-Monogamy (ENM) community.

That being said, this book should not be written off as being exclusively for the polyamorous world. It addresses the problems hindering diversity (of race, gender, sexual orientation, class, mental and physical health, etc.) in alternative spaces with an eye toward universal truths such as barriers to entry, tokenism, forced ambassadorship and fetishization.

The writing style is decidedly informal; so it reads in a very conversational, idiomatic tone. Some readers may appreciate this and others might find it too informal. Personally, I enjoyed the overall relaxed feel of the book.
I would recommend Love’s Not Colorblind to those who are looking for reasons why there are so few people of color at their events and in their community networks... and seeking to remedy that issue.
There's the yellow flags: there's no such thing as an ENM "community" or a polyamory "community."

The Amazon listing says
The issues that make monogamous dating daunting for people of color—shaming and exclusion by white partners, being fetishized, having realities of everyday racism ignored—occur in polyamorous relationships too, and trying “not to see race” only makes it worse. To make polyamorous communities inclusive, we must all acknowledge our part in perpetuating racism and listen to people of color. Love's Not Color Blind puts forward the framework—through research, anecdotal testimony, and analogy—for understanding, identifying, and confronting racism within polyamorous communities.
Lots of places already for some serious discussion... which I really don't think will happen easily, or continue on for long once begun.

The title does seem to say that "color blind" IS NOT an automatic good. The blurb actually says that it is in fact BAD. That could be Debate Topic #1 even without touching the book.

For decades, I've raised the issue of "overwhelming whiteness" in deviant subcultures, & generally been met with shocked denial (even outright hostility) by the overwhelmingly white people. :rolleyes: While not reaching a torches-&-pitchforks level on THIS site :))), my airing the topic certainly has not been popular. Four months ago, I went into detail about race/diversity issues in a deep critique of Elizabeth Sheff & various "activists" who profit from us without actually fixing a damned thing. At the end, I say
The question of race bias is valid, perhaps even vital. After all, by not being as diverse as possible, we the polyamorous impoverish ourselves intellectually, and certainly run the risk of the sort of “echo chamber” we’ve seen arise on so-called social media in recent years.

Furthermore, nonwhites tend to have less education and lower incomes, and in partial result less social mobility and more vulnerability to pressure from their social circles to hew to some sort of “normalcy.” When we speak of “polyamory,” we likely ought to feel chagrin if we don’t take those facts into account.

But does that make us inherently “privileged”? No. Is there any demonstrated validity to Dr Elisabeth Sheff damning polyamorists (and “kinksters”!!) as inherently “racist”? Oh, hell, no.
To repeat, I distrust "activists" who profit from a subculture's problems. They are "guilty 'til proved innocent."

Sheff is an activist, & will still happily tell you to stop being such a privileged white dick.

And Sheff likes Patterson.

Patterson has an Indiegogo campaign to support his book tour, which apparently can't manage it on book sales & speaking fees & teaching sessions:
This book-signing event comes bundled with a workshop on intersectional polyamory + a personally-driven discussion/Q&A on how race can impact polyamory on both individual and community levels

He's an activist. "He is the creator of the Poly Role Models project." I'll be happy to see him make a good case.
 
I dunno. Someone brought this up in the Seattle community. It turned out we were all racist because she didn't like being around white people. Didn't make much sense to me.
 
...if your group or organization isn’t actively working to be inclusive, it’s passively exclusionary.

This is balderdash. It's predicated on the false premise that every group and every person comes from an ill informed, blind, fearfully homogenous background and that premise is in and of itself enormously prejudicial thinking. There are many groups, formal and informal, that have a naturally inclusive and welcoming vibe. This is like saying that unless a man is always actively working to be respectful of women, he is a predator. Many men are simply good guys and are respectful to everyone - no "active working" necessary. This trope about the necessity to be actively inclusive often leads to the exact opposite experience. It's why I said no to the proposal that we add an LGBTQ+ section to the forum. There are millions of people of countlessly diverse backgrounds who are living in natural appreciation of one another. I see it all the time in the teenagers around here and they are not "actively working to be inclusive," they just are.
 
Well said, Karen, and reflective of my own thoughts as well. Al

..if your group or organization isn’t actively working to be inclusive, it’s passively exclusionary.

This is balderdash. It's predicated on the false premise that every group and every person comes from an ill informed, blind, fearfully homogenous background and that premise is in and of itself enormously prejudicial thinking. There are many groups, formal and informal, that have a naturally inclusive and welcoming vibe. This is like saying that unless a man is always actively working to be respectful of women, he is a predator. Many men are simply good guys and are respectful to everyone - no "active working" necessary. This trope about the necessity to be actively inclusive often leads to the exact opposite experience. It's why I said no to the proposal that we add an LGBTQ+ section to the forum. There are millions of people of countlessly diverse backgrounds who are living in natural appreciation of one another. I see it all the time in the teenagers around here and they are not "actively working to be inclusive," they just are.
 
Back
Top