Guru falls
- Thread starter redpepper
- Start date
SEASONEDpolyAgain
Well-known member
No expert can tell how credible a story is by reading it. You're being really silly now and if anything, it pointing out more reasons to disbelieve the women. You're not helping anyone.
Why would you leave this as hearsay without a link to these credentialed opinions?
Because most of these are in facebook groups that aren't linkable. When I have time, I can link to a cut and pasted assessment that's on a reddit thread about this.
Also Probably Poly has done a podcast that's an interesting analysis of the whole thing and probably worth listening to.
I'm curious what expertise you have in abuse to make the assertion that written words cannot be taken into consideration by experts in the subject.
Honestly, I doubt any evidence would shift your bias, so your opinion is duly noted and given the weight it deserves.
SEASONEDpolyAgain
Well-known member
That's the point! Nobody can assess the credibility of any of the accusations, largely because we have no actual accounts from the people involved. Despite this, we are being asked to behave as if we have credible evidence that FV is abusive and credible evidence that the women have been abused by him.
The first many of us heard of this (as I for one have never read any of his books or anything other than some of the pages on More Than 2 website) is this thing by the survivors pod. We heard that FV has abused his nesting partners (who he accused of being abusive) but we cannot read accounts of this abuse, we must just believe the women because they are women. For many, this wasn't correcting a false idea that Eve was abusive and FV wasn't, I wasn't aware of any abuse between the pair or even that they were once a couple until this public post by the pod.
That's why I found it so interesting. It's absolutely bizarre.
You appear to be changing the goalposts there. This is what you said:
I asked what expertise you had in the topic to make such an assertion that *no* expert in the field of abuse would be able to make assessments based upon written accounts. Not about how much information any party has.
You also appear to be assuming that the experts I'm talking about haven't read the written the accounts that have been collected. That's not the case. One of the members of the pod clearly states in their bio the expertise they have on abuse and has commented on this in the capacity of her experience working in partner violence cases. Feel free to dismiss this as not credible because *you* haven't seen what she has. You can always accuse her of lying and report her to the appropriate oversight organisations if you feel her coming forward with this amounts to slander of FV. In fact, if you truly believe she isn't credible, you really *should* do that.
No. We heard that *three* of FV's nesting partners (which seems to account for *all* of his past nesting partners) have come forward with stories of abuse and harm that include behaviours such as gaslighting and financial exploitation among other things. FV has accused *one* of these people of being abusive to him. He has not made any allegations of abuse about any of the others. Your interpretation of the facts that have been laid out so far seem to be indicating a biased view.
"because they are women"? Now you're just being silly. Really, you're not doing your appearance of rationality any favors here.
That's fine. For many others (most of whom don't have much to do with this board) there is a very different perspective. And given that he's given talks about his experiences of abuse at national poly conferences, it could very well be that this isn't as relevant to you as it is to others. It's interesting that for knowing so little of this, you're so willing to come to the defence of FV and make assessments of this process as if you know more than you do.
Sure.
YouAreHere
Well-known member
Not liking the quoting system here, but I'm too lazy at the moment to go back and edit my comment in. My question was with respect to the pod's intent for making this public. They've stated the survivors aren't ready to speak yet, but they want to be heard. There's one way to solve that, and it would help make this process a whole lot clearer.
Yes, Franklin's voice is being heard, and that's his right. Until OTHER voices are being heard, he's being asked to step back and silence that voice, no? This isn't letting both sides be heard, this is shutting down one side of an argument with the promise that the other side is coming. If there is a voice we don't like, or don't think is correct, or yes, is even harmful, I don't believe silencing that voice is the right answer. It needs to be countered. The other voices need to be heard without silencing the dissenting voice.
Again, my question was about the pod's intent in going public without more behind it. Do they want us to look more critically at his work, listen more skeptically to his words? Just know that something is coming?
I've seen how people are reacting. I've seen people on Cunning Minx's Facebook thread take HER to task for daring to say that she is supporting the people on both sides of this issue. I've seen people say good, he's an asshole anyway (paraphrased). If the intent was to get the Court of Public Opinion moving, then they did a good job. But using the promise of a story with no evidence behind it to tear down someone's public-facing persona and possibly career seems pretty abusive on its own merits.
I haven't really followed Franklin all that much lately. I certainly don't consider myself a fan (anyone who's Poly - Franklin - and goes on Poly Weekly to talk about what *monogamous people* are thinking in mono/poly relationships really pisses me off, TBH). But I'm taking both sides with a grain of salt right now. And to answer your question (even though it didn't answer mine), we should ALL be critical of the things we read or hear. We should ALL dig in a bit deeper for more information.
Again, a rather provoking statement with nothing to back it up. Who are these people? Are these the people listed in the survivor pod, or others? What are these stories? Why is Franklin not credible? Why is being critical of your words not acceptable while being critical of Franklin's is encouraged?
I'm waiting until more information comes out. This current process just seems to be intent on pushing emotional hot-buttons at the moment.
Edited to add that it was brought to my attention that Seinneann is not part of the pod, as I had assumed. My apologies for the mistake.
Last edited:
SEASONEDpolyAgain
Well-known member
I think in your fervent desperation to have a point, you're missing the point. From the start of this thread, my point was that there is no accounts for us to assess credibility. However, we are expected to believe the accusations by the pod are credible while disbelieving his. One of the pod suggested one or more times that the fact they are women makes the story credible or somehow adds to the weight of the story. Go back and look. If you're asking what type of expert would be able to tell whether a story is true by reading it, I'll say again that NO EXPERT CAN AND NO REAL EXPERT WOULD CLAIM THEY CAN. Shall I tell you the type of expert who would claim they can? The same type of expert who would write a book telling people how they should conduct their relationships.
Look, I get that it's really popular to call yourself an expert because you've got a degree or read a few books. You might have even written something all by yourself. But no, that doesn't give you magic powers to remove yourself as a bias in an investigation or magically see through written words and tell whether they are fact or fiction.
Actually, the pod have said that he has accused all these women of abuse. Either to Eve or in his work. Some just by mere references to a relationship he was in to illustrate his answer.
It's interesting that the people for whom FV is a guru haven't thought to themselves that championing these people is part of why you're so surprised when they turn out to be less than perfect. This issue was thrust upon poly people in all of their online spaces because some people are arrogant enough to believe FV and Co are role models for everyone. It's a very particularly subset of poly people who read self help books and go to conferences that have revered them that way.
On a side note, why? Do you think you need to be part of the group to speak about such things? It is somewhat common attitude, but i find it weird, i mean, the whole field of psychology is basically speaking about other people's experiences or even inner thought process. And in a way, sociology, too.
Well, while i get your point, technically a written story supplemented with, idk, logs or letters written on paper... okay, no one does that anymore. But, still, it's possible.
Last edited:
YouAreHere
Well-known member
Which can be fine if it's surrounded by other data, studies, etc. and is done formally.
This was really more of an interview on a podcast. The focus of the episode was on mono/poly relationships, and from my recollection, Franklin was asked how monogamous people (as a whole) feel in these relationships. Nobody from the show found or asked an actual monogamous person in such a relationship (or found a polycule which includes mono folks to interview all of them). I'm not thrilled with Minx's role in that, either, to be fair.
For Franklin to presume to speak for a group to which he doesn't belong (and by his own admission, has never belonged) irritates me. But that's me.
I'm really not this cranky all the time, I swear! lol...
For Franklin to presume to speak for a group to which he doesn't belong (and by his own admission, has never belonged) irritates me. But that's me.
Totally. It's like whitesplaining or mansplaining: polysplaining is a thing. I mean, I'm not mono or POC, but I can relate.
TBH, going by that thought, Minx is worse here, since it was her question and her podcast. And yes, i get this feeling of irritation, but not as a principle (speaking for other people). In this case: "Franklin was asked how monogamous people (as a whole) feel in these relationships", given the question is about the group not any particular individual, i don't think beign mono or poly gives any special insight. These groups are varied internally, so actually a mono person might go into typical mind fallacy and think that their own attitude is more common among other monos that it is. IMO, the gist is whether the description is accurate, not if it's coming from experience. But i digress...Which can be fine if it's surrounded by other data, studies, etc. and is done formally.
This was really more of an interview on a podcast. The focus of the episode was on mono/poly relationships, and from my recollection, Franklin was asked how monogamous people (as a whole) feel in these relationships. Nobody from the show found or asked an actual monogamous person in such a relationship (or found a polycule which includes mono folks to interview all of them). I'm not thrilled with Minx's role in that, either, to be fair.
For Franklin to presume to speak for a group to which he doesn't belong (and by his own admission, has never belonged) irritates me. But that's me.
I'm really not this cranky all the time, I swear! lol...
Did Veaux at least say that he *thinks* mono perceive this or that way or was it in authoritative voice?
YouAreHere
Well-known member
Then I still believe a monogamous person's insight here would still be valuable (and more than one mono person's would be even better), especially if their feelings within the relationship structure(s) differ. And yes, I do agree that this is more Minx's responsibility with picking out the interviewees and the topics.
That, I don't remember. Unfortunately, I'm having trouble digging up the podcast right now... I think I'm remembering it being more recent than it must have been.
Edited to add: this may be it, but I can't listen right now: http://polyweekly.com/pw-463-the-game-changer/
Last edited:
vinsanity0
Active member
Classic example of the Appeal to Authority Fallacy in this thread.
Nobody in this thread has defended Veaux.
Are there any links to these "extensive writings" in which Veaux alleges abuse by Rickert?
Why would this affect the book "More Than Two" in any way? Either you agree with the book or you don't. Or maybe you only agree with parts of it. My point is nothing in the book has changed. Why would somebody's assessment of it change?
I'm not familiar with Veaux's lecture on abuse. Was there anything in it that is considered incorrect?
There are a lot of buzzwords in this conversation. The meanings aren't always clear.
/random thoughts
Nobody in this thread has defended Veaux.
Are there any links to these "extensive writings" in which Veaux alleges abuse by Rickert?
Why would this affect the book "More Than Two" in any way? Either you agree with the book or you don't. Or maybe you only agree with parts of it. My point is nothing in the book has changed. Why would somebody's assessment of it change?
I'm not familiar with Veaux's lecture on abuse. Was there anything in it that is considered incorrect?
There are a lot of buzzwords in this conversation. The meanings aren't always clear.
/random thoughts
I googled that, and it sounds like it's the kissing cousin of "begs the question"/circular argument. /randomthoughthijack
As far as i know, there is that very short, 100 words or something, first quora reply by Veaux.
Well, perhaps there are blogs or livejournals or whatever where this went on, but googling digs up nothing.
Or the book, Game Changer, which got criticized by beign one-sided account? Account with which some/most people portrayed there apparently don't agree with?
I'm so glad you brought that up.
The reason why someone's assessment of the book would change is because the two people who wrote it can't seem to apply their own advice to their own relationship. Kind of like the blind leading the blind.
The reason I'm glad you brought that up is because I was reading one of the reddit threads:
https://old.reddit.com/r/polyamory/...and_shadow_polyamorys_metoo_franklin/egb00mt/
where it says that (tl;dr) people shouldn't boycott the book because it will only hurt Eve financially. So like, even though these people talk the talk but don't walk the walk, we're all supposed to purchase their product because #this and #that. Heck, I bought MTT *and* TGC on Kindle just so I could read them and form my own opinion, years ago, before this clusterfuck even hit the fan. I should ask for my money *back*.
I read in one of the many linked references related to this, something about how the girl called "Amber" in TGC is one of the 3 "survivor" nesting-partners in this...situation. In the thing that I read, it says that when Eve first got serious with Frank (no one minds if we call him "Frank", right? Or would "Frankie" be better?), Frank/Frankie/Eve/Evie/whatever/whateverie... excuse me. What was I saying?
I read that when Frank & Eve got together, he told her that he was still involved with Amber Gamechanger. But it turned out that they had been broken up for a while, and that Amber Gamechanger was unpleasantly surprised to learn that Frank was telling Eve that they were still together. AG simply considered their relationship to be "good friends". Since then, AG has decided that her relationship with FV, too, was actually "abusive", and she has joined forces with the other "survivors".
Thus, I ask myself out loud before the forum, how does one consider oneself "good friends" with someone who abused them so? I mean, it sounds like AG had moved on with her life, and it didn't even occur that she had "survived" anything until later. So what did FV do to her? Get in a time machine and go back in time and abuse her, then write a book and leave that part out?
Unfortunately, I don't have a link to where I read this *on me*, but it was in one of the links in the self-education packet provided by the pod. I'm sure it can be found easily. I might be getting one or two nuances incorrect, but I am legit not making this shit up all by myself...
Last edited:
Let's call him Franek
You mean this collection of links?
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1IIZtz6HyI-bRZs26DwNTWwYtQ_l5R4Il9zj2PKEflas/edit#gid=0
Well, i'm not particularly weirded out by the fact Franklin and Amber had different ideas about what is between them after she completely concentrated on that age science stuff. These things happen when people go their own way instead of officially breaking up or something. I didn't get the impression Amber is one of the six, though, and that she was surprised, but more indifferently, not unpleasantly (all from the last month articles)
But, when it comes to your question, i don't have a problem imagining that. Reinterpretation of past events is normal thing, and yeah, abused people can think they weren't abused until something makes them think they were. Or vice versa, i vaguely remember some study about surprisingly high percentage of men abused (with legal consequences) sexually as children not considering (or even forgetting?) the events as abuse. So, this part sounds normal to me.
You mean this collection of links?
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1IIZtz6HyI-bRZs26DwNTWwYtQ_l5R4Il9zj2PKEflas/edit#gid=0
Well, i'm not particularly weirded out by the fact Franklin and Amber had different ideas about what is between them after she completely concentrated on that age science stuff. These things happen when people go their own way instead of officially breaking up or something. I didn't get the impression Amber is one of the six, though, and that she was surprised, but more indifferently, not unpleasantly (all from the last month articles)
But, when it comes to your question, i don't have a problem imagining that. Reinterpretation of past events is normal thing, and yeah, abused people can think they weren't abused until something makes them think they were. Or vice versa, i vaguely remember some study about surprisingly high percentage of men abused (with legal consequences) sexually as children not considering (or even forgetting?) the events as abuse. So, this part sounds normal to me.
Okay, thank you for the serious answer even though I asked the question in a sort of tongue-in-cheek way.
When I was a little kid in first or second grade, in the 1970s, there was an overzealous school nurse who called for a complete investigation of my parents for child abuse, particularly against my father for child sexual abuse. I was not sexually abused by my father, or by anyone as a child, that I can recall. Yet throughout my life, I have had encounters with so-called "professionals" where they try to "uncover" or get me to "admit" that I have been raped or molested. And the more I'd "refuse to admit" it, they'd write something down to the effect that I'm just "not ready to face" "what happened".
So I do know another side of this: the mental health industry is a *business*, and it needs *consumers* to stay in business. I don't mean that the whole mental health industry is evil and coercive, just that like any other business, it has its salespeople, and to a certain extent, *requires* a constant supply of victims/survivors to purchase its products.
Thus, it seems plausible to me that maybe Amber Gamechanger was gaslighted... by *someone*