I fear that the OP's thread has perhaps been high jacked - and I apologize if so - nevertheless, I feel that I must reply to such a detailed response to my last post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Al99:
My intention was to point out to the OP that she needn't be bothered by any of these issues if they were concerning to her.
And Ravenscroft's response:
Apologies... but that statement on the face of it runs really close to "you aren't really feeling what you're feeling" so I have to disagree.
The intention of the statement was in no way intended to discount anyone's feelings. The point was to say that for one to practice poly, they should not assume that they need to abide by others' ideas of how to do so - if they are not comfortable with those ideas. My belief is that there is great value in studying the concepts that exist in the poly culture (books, forums, podcasts, web articles, etc) - there is a lot to be learned and the opinions expressed do make for excellent food for thought and discussion points - but one is obviously not bound by them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Al99
These issues are just opinions about the best way to practice poly - but they are just that - opinions - neither right nor wrong - or necessary to be polyamorous.
And Ravenscroft's response:
Yes, truly. Mere opinion. Based upon decades of experience.
Agreed - and I have posted in this thread and elsewhere that I think there is great value in considering the opinions, experiences, and conclusions of experienced poly folks - but they are not rules or gospel truth - and one is not bound by them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Al99
The commonly accepted definition of poly is above
And Ravenscroft's response:
Apologies again... no. There is NO such definition. I'm willing to provide at leat five others that are similar but vary significantly. (Veaux is NOT God.)
I could not agree more with your last comment - I found Veaux's writing in "More Than Two" to be overly verbose and ponderous, and the tone condescending and dogmatic (nevertheless, there is a lot of great content in the book - that provides a lot of excellent viewpoints to consider - as well as discussion points for poly conversations. It probably should be considered a "must read" for those who choose to practice poly - in spite of its significant flaws).
And yes, there are a number of similar definitions available - my point was to define polyamory in my post - and to differentiate that from the culture that has grown up around it. I chose the one on Veaux's web site because he is so well respected in the poly community - and because the definition he uses is from the Oxford dictionary. It seems to me that the major points are that poly is about multiple partners in loving relationships (and we can add, by implication, the desire or openness to do so) and the knowledge and consent of all involved - and those were covered. It was those major points and not the exact wording that were my intent to convey.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Al99
there is no one right way to do poly
And Ravenscroft's response:
True enough. And there are thousands of ways to do it wrong. The paths to avoid wrongness are few.
Seems awfully subjective to me - and who is to judge if it is the right way or the wrong way? It does seem to me that what is "the wrong way" for some, might be "the right way for others" - and what their individual value judgments and orientation entail.
And best wishes on that. The transition from mono/poly to poly/poly has broken up more than a few dyads.
Yeah, still gnawing on that one - and the advice from the more experienced is always appreciated. Al