Utopian

Yeah, good point about the persecution a child might suffer at school and whatnot if he/she has an unconventional set of parents. For example, kids can be really cruel in terms of bullying/making fun of the one kid who sticks out for some reason. And then there's the silent disapproval that child will observe in the adults who find out about his/her parents. He/she will just know that "it may be okay at home, but the whole rest of the world says it's wrong." And here's a kicker: What if judgmental adults find a legal way to take the child away from his/her parents? Then he/she ends up in the foster home system and that can really be a recipe for disaster.

Adults who practice polyamory stand to suffer persecution themselves if other adults find out about it. But their kids can easily suffer the worst of it. So, do parents have an obligation to their kids to be a straight couple (with no hanky-panky on the side)? I'm not sure how to answer that question.

[continued below]

Having kids is always such a complicated job, even for "normal" parents.

Re: benefit-based belief ... for me personally, it does affect my conscience/peace of mind to know I am honestly analyzing the data and adhering to the truth as closely as I can. But for others (my one friend in particular), it is important to tend to the happiness/peace of mind of one's family. So what does one do when one's beliefs cause one's family to be worried and distressed? It's a little like the parenting question. Does one stick to acting polyamorously because one believes in it, or does one pretend to be monogamous for the sake of the social well-being of one's kids? Benefit-based parenting, you could call it.

Tangled riddles ...

Re: poly and kids ... of the few studies I've heard about (often conducted by monogamy-oriented researchers), the conclusion always seems to be that the number of parents (be it one, two, or more) doesn't affect the kids much. Instead, the kids are affected by how well the adults get along (example and household ambience), and by how well, sensibly, and consistently the kids themselves are treated. In short, most kids seemed to be focused on, "How does this affect me personally," more than they are, "Is polyamory morally okay and how do I feel about that?"

I've heard even less about how poly kids "turn out." But I've heard anecdotal info here and there, and so far it seems like a poly child is as likely to grow up to be monogamous as he/she is polyamorous. Kind of the same principle of how we don't necessarily expect the (adopted) child of a gay couple to grow up to be gay.

[continued below]

Ah yes, free will. We are in agreement that behavior is the sum of personality plus environment (and by personality I basically mean genetics). In the meantime, others struggle and argue about free will, even atheists. One of my friends made the interesting remark that he wanted to base his belief on the benefits of the belief, and wondered what he gained by rejecting the belief in free will. To some extent I think believing in the truth is its own benefit, but besides that, less tendency to have outrage against "the bad guys" was about all I could offer him.

[continued below]

I suppose the haves and the have-nots have grown comfortable with their habitual frames of mind. Change is never comfortable and requires a certain amount of conscious incentive. Sometimes haves and have-nots seem to be unconscious of the divide between them. The haves take their little problems and the have-nots take their big problems and everyone concludes, "Well we all have our problems, so I guess we're all alike."

Well there you have it, my thoughts for now.

Heh, well when I say 4-5 month sunny season I don't mean 4-5 months of nothing but Sun. They still get some rain, even then. But as I said, not enough to rescue their poor lawns (unless they water them).

Wow, something was eating away at your old boss. Sorry to hear he did himself.

[continued below]

Re: "'Right to privelage?' How so?"

Well, as an example, let's say a married couple has several kids and they are dating a single person with no kids. Everyone has to work around the kids to some extent, so you could call this "couple privelage" for the married couple in that they get first say in how to make sure their kids are taken care of.

On the other hand, it's not so black and white when a married couple says, "Well we've been together for many years, and we feel nervous about trying anything polyamorous. Therefore we have a right to tend to each other's insecurities first and foremost, and the new person we're dating just needs to understand that and suck it up." Sort of like saying, "We kind of want to act as if we're monogamous, even while we're dating a third person." Which is a case where I probably wouldn't agree that they had any rights to couple privelage. The third person is putting themselves out on a limb as well, after all.

Re: unicorns ... as it turns out, "unicorn hunters" are fairly common on this site. They emerge as M/F hetero/bi couples fresh onto the scene of polyamory and eager to find the perfect single/childless lady to "complete their family." Unfortunately, this new lady of theirs (the unicorn) often gets the second class treatment. She's expected to capitulate to all of the "married couple's needs/rules/choices," and quiet her own voice. She's expected to be in love with both married partners equally, and to not fall in love with anyone else. In between lots of hot threesome sex (except when they tell her to put a indefinite moratorium on said sex so they can "work on each other"), she's expected to do their household chores and tend their kids. And she'll always be their "dirty little secret," never to be revealed to family or invited to family functions.

[continued below]

It's an existing source of annoyance/frustration among many Polyamory.com members that they try to warn such unicorn hunters that their set-up probably won't end well. Sure you can argue that the married/established couple has more "right to privelage," but come on, you can't carry it that far. Anyway, Dirtclustit thinks Polyamory.com carries it too far; that there are many "unicorn seekers" who are flexible and innocent of making all these unfair demands.

I personally lean towards evaluating situations on a case-by-case basis. What works for some, after all, doesn't work for others. It's admittedly easy to say, "One hetero guy and two bi women. Man, he's got some kind of alpha male thing going!" But you're right on target, we shouldn't tar them all with the same brush.

[continued below]

I was mildly surprised to hear about the "sweatshop underbelly" that exists in Britain. Actually we have a parallel in the United States; namely, the vast influx of Mexican immigrants (some legal, some not), who tend to do all the dirty, exhausting, poor-paying jobs that "caucasian Americans" can't be bothered with. So we definitely have a class system based on ethnicity. Some caucasians work side by side with the poor Mexicans though. We like to refer to them as "white trash." Sigh ...

Re: "Dishonesty and arrogance are the biggest dealbreakers for me, and those traits I imagine to be as alien to you as honesty and humility are to the Vatican."

Haha, add the LDS church office building in Salt Lake City to that list. I can vouch for my own honesty, , and I tend to have enough guilt complexes to stay pretty humble.

[continued below]

Re: "I'm not sure why one would opt for drizzle ..."

You know the odd thing is, I'm not sure why either. Something about the moments of Sun sneaking through the muted clouds, combined with the ambience of the city. Hard to explain.

To be fair, Seattle does have a 4-5 month sunny season where all the lawns turn brown because no one waters them. It's just that the rest of the year it's all drizzle (not much snow in the Winter, just more drizzle).

Anyway, that's my rants/observations for now.
Regards,
Kevin T.

Re: "I had to google Franklin Veaux. So what are these theories?"

It's complicated and I don't think I grasp it entirely. The general idea seems to be be that Franklin Veaux has many sock puppet profiles on many forums, which he uses to crusade against "unicorn hunters" (hetero/bi couples seeking a "hot bi babe"). What Veaux (reportedly) does is use his many different "personas" to re-iterate the same anti-unicorn-hunter opinion, thus making it look like many people agree with his view whereas it's his view alone. (Where Franklin Veaux gets the time/energy to manipulate that many sock puppet accounts, I couldn't tell you.) I think he (supposedly) also uses these sock puppet accounts to make himself appear to be more popular than he really is. Hey, no one said a conspiracy theory would be credible ...

Re: "Dirtclustit mentioned people who are unaware of their hate. I believe that's called projection."

Haha, I think the poor fellow is simply missing a few marbles.

[see below]

Re: "Hahaha! You? Hateful!? I can honestly say you seem to be one of the most patient and amicable people I've ever come across."

Glad I didn't offend ... Sometimes it's hard to walk the fine line between the many conflicting views out there.

Re: "So what's in Seattle that's coaxed you in?"

My older brother and his wife live there and we get along really well with those two. We also love the ambience of the place (social, political, yes, even the drizzly weather), and the fact that it has a sizeable poly population (and many poly meet-up groups to choose from). We've enjoyed lots of sunshine in New Mexico for many years, and believe we're ready for a change.

Re: "Good luck with the move!"

Thanks.

Sorry to hear you're losing your flat; hope you find a new one in a timely fashion.

Re: "How are things? It's been a while."

Things are well enough, I know it's been awhile. The time is getting nearer for me to move to Seattle-ish, but we have a condo that has to sell first.

Re: Dirtclustit ... you have to be aware that he's kind of a strange bird. He has some odd conspiracy theories (some really odd ones about Franklin Veaux, for example). I think he suspects a lot of people have "sock puppet" profiles. Heck, I was relieved to find out I wasn't on his list of suspects. I'm like you, one profile is all I can keep up with anyway.

Re: "I have no inclination to respond to messages by hateful people."

Hope I haven't come across as hateful, but I do apologize if I have. I normally try to be "Mr. Switzerland," but sometimes the viewpoints are just too divergent to make that possible.

Anyway, hope things are going well on your end of the pond, good to hear from you as always.

Re: "I don't think the question of whether religion should be preached in schools or whether church and state should be separate is complex."

Um no, that question is simple.

Shame we can't have an atheist ethnic group.

Re: "Hello mate! I saw this (actually I've not seen all of it yet) and thought of you. I know this is Evangelicals not LDS but same difference. Having said that I don't know if LDS are quite this mental."

Issues and questions about public (government-controlled) education are complex, but as far as the LDS church having something in common with the Evangelicals, that is certainly true. The LDS church uses a lot of guilt-tripping, personality deconstruction, and other conditioning/brainwashing techniques. These are directed at its members, but of course the LDS church also has a vigorous missionary program.

Hope it helps.

Re: "Yeah, I found a 200x200 but it's still only showing up on the group profile page and it seems that only one out of all the groups actually shows its picture in the group listing and that's gay,bi queer poly group. I wonder why."

That's odd. This type of problem is really over my head, so I suggest messaging one of the mods/admins at http://www.polyamory.com/forum/showgroups.php ... hopefully they can help clear it up.

Re: "Aw, my computer's fucked atm and this laptop doesn't have the necessaries to alter the pic to 200 by 200 pixels. It'll have to wait. "

Looks like you got it done after all -- woo hoo!

Re: "Oh, great choice btw! That was the one I was erring toward "