Lets start a revolution

MindfulAgony - I don't believe I've seen your posts before. I like them. I would like to meet you someday, I sense some common energy here.

This is ridiculous.

I've been noticing a slight pattern in a few threads that I find unsettling, and that pattern is ill communication followed by harsh words, which leads to upset members, and, bringing up the rear, a bad vibe.

Frankly, I don't like it.

I was inactive here for something like 6 months and almost deleted my account becuase of that kind of stuff. I don't post much these days for the same reason.


I read this whole thing, front to back, in one sitting. Quite an exercise. And interesting, too. It has managed to turn into something quite meaningful if you look.

I wouldn't mid a bit more "revolutionary" fire around here, lol. But too many revolutions start with fire and end up with ashes. So kudos to the many voices of reason here as well.
 

LovingRadiance

Active member
I agree hma.
We need a fire, that will continue to burn, not one that leaves us homeless with ashes. :)

So.... how do we get that a going? I'm game to work on it....


;)
 

disillusioned

New member
First we need to agree about what we are promoting exactly... I suggest we look at it not as promoting "poly" or any other specific type of relationship, but rather promoting the general idea that monogamy is WRONG, just kidding... promoting the idea that monogamy should not be considered the "default" arrangement underlining relationships but rather one option out of many, and that monogamy should not be granted any legal or social advantage over other arrangements. (yea right... good luck to us... but, if we don't try...)

English is not my first language so you need to work on the wording...
 
Frankly, if English isn't your first language, American kids should go to whatever school taught you. Because if not for your several statements to the effect that English isn't your first language, nobody here would have known. Your north american English is better than the vast majority of people who live here, not kidding. A few spelling and grammatical errors, sure - but again - fewer than most native speakers. The only one that really jumped out at me at all was you use of "plane" instead of "plain" in one of your first posts.

Basically, what dis has postulated is pretty close to how I'd put it, right down to the sarcastic joke, lol.
 

LovingRadiance

Active member
First we need to agree about what we are promoting exactly... I suggest we look at it not as promoting "poly" or any other specific type of relationship, but rather promoting the general idea that monogamy is WRONG, just kidding... promoting the idea that monogamy should not be considered the "default" arrangement underlining relationships but rather one option out of many, and that monogamy should not be granted any legal or social advantage over other arrangements. (yea right... good luck to us... but, if we don't try...)

English is not my first language so you need to work on the wording...

Hysterically funny (the last post before this one of mine-where you said too much tv).

Anyway, your English is very good. Maybe you could get a job teaching English to us Americans? ;)

I completely agree with the above quoted statement! I'm ALL FOR that as a goal! :)
 

disillusioned

New member
Hi,

1) Establish an association of all the "poly" "open" "swing" etc organizations / clubs - something like "World Federation of Non-Monogamous ... something"

2) Collect the contact information, address etc for each and every club / organization on the planet.

3) Put these addresses on a mailing list and inform everybody that they just joined the WFNM... and they can leave if they want by opting out.

4) Establish a website, make a monthly newsletter with news, new literature, etc, write a manifest (a long one, and a shorter one), a "how to" start a club locally, etc etc.

5) Fundraise.

6) A year later, organize a WFNM "awareness day" and proclaim it an international awareness for yada yada yada. Organize a demonstration in DC, Los Angles, London and a few other places and demand equal rights, etc.

7) Some of us will be invited to Good Morning America, etc, the national / international press will cover it, people will start talking about it, students around the world will write more about the subjects, more books, research, the topic will become "mainstream".

8) More people will start to talk about it, more people will "come out". Traffic to the website will explode new clubs and organizations will pop up everywhere.

(here start the humorous part)

9) 20 years down the road, the number of marriages will fall by 20% and birthrate by 35%. Historians will declare that as the end of the western civilization.

10) The CIA will put many of us on their watch list because they will be "tipped off" by the far right that we are Al Qaeda operatives. I will suffer a terrible "car accident" but all of you will know what really happened.

(end of humorous part)

I'm of course the last person who can pull this off... I see many of you run blogs and are heavily involved already, maybe you can divert some of your allocated time for this cause.

And the rest, as they say, is history.
 

River

Active member
Dis..., et al,

Anyone working in this sort of direction should be familiar with existing organizations (and their history, efforts) and institutions, which already exist both nationally (in various nations) and internationally. Googling will turn them up. Try the search term "non-monogamy"
 

ladyintricate

New member
I average more than 25 times a month with Maca, and that's been pretty consistent throughout our 12 year marriage barring times when there was medical problems inhibiting it... :rolleyes:

Wow! Where do you get your energy!? ;)
 

MonoVCPHG

New member
Why would we want to deny any legal advantage or "special" treatment to those who practice monogamy? The vast majority of modern civilization practices monogamy. To me this rings of the same train of thought that there should be no "personal possessions" that is held by some anarchist friends I have. If people chose to live outside of the norm then they shouldn't begrudge the benefits to those who do. Stop expecting people to give up things and figure out ways to get them for yourself if you are jealous of them...that's like trying to tear down a neighbor's house to achieve parity instead of building up our own.
 

MonoVCPHG

New member
Just so everyone understands why I am often so hard on strategies or aproaches to promoting poly or non-monogamy in general; I have been living this life successfully as a mono for over two years...if your strategies trigger me imagine what those without my experience will react like?

Just saying.
 

SourGirl

Member
Why would we want to deny any legal advantage or "special" treatment to those who practice monogamy? The vast majority of modern civilization practices monogamy. To me this rings of the same train of thought that there should be no "personal possessions" that is held by some anarchist friends I have. If people chose to live outside of the norm then they shouldn't begrudge the benefits to those who do. Stop expecting people to give up things and figure out ways to get them for yourself if you are jealous of them...that's like trying to tear down a neighbor's house to achieve parity instead of building up our own.

..This.
 
Who said anything about denying monogamous couples anything (other than in jest)? We're talking about allowing poly folk the SAME advantages that "traditional" relationships enjoy.

For instance, if Lana stays with us and "marries" us in the current political and legal landscape, it would be a strictly ceremonial thing, not legally recognized. While that's fine in many ways, she could never file as "married" for taxes, couldn't get family health benefits, etc on so on and so forth.

Same thing gays have been after for so long. Don't deny anyone what they have now, but why does the legal system get to sy that because two people are the same gender, they can't have those same legaal benefits? Or because 3 or 4 people choose to intermarry, only 2 of them get to have it legally recognized?

And don't start the old "people would abuse it" BS. Mail order brides and a dozen other forms of marriage for convenience are already long standing "traditions", lol.
 

LovingRadiance

Active member
Wow! Where do you get your energy!? ;)

He's hot.
Seriously-he's totally sexy. It's impossible not to get worked up. Even when we're fighting or having such major problems we're talking about possible divorce, I can't NOT get turned on looking at him or smelling him. He's just so fucking sexy.
 

LovingRadiance

Active member
Why would we want to deny any legal advantage or "special" treatment to those who practice monogamy? The vast majority of modern civilization practices monogamy. To me this rings of the same train of thought that there should be no "personal possessions" that is held by some anarchist friends I have. If people chose to live outside of the norm then they shouldn't begrudge the benefits to those who do. Stop expecting people to give up things and figure out ways to get them for yourself if you are jealous of them...that's like trying to tear down a neighbor's house to achieve parity instead of building up our own.

I am totally for taking the time to create MORE privileges across the board, not taking away. I treasure the privileges I share with Maca. I just wish I could ALSO share them with GG...

More later, there's a drama here, I really can't focus well enough to get through the list. I'm sorry.
 

MonoVCPHG

New member
The monogamous agreements that people enter into, and are recognized for the purposes of benefits, have one thing that poly will need to compensate for; stability. No one can expect government or employers to try to keep up the fluidity of relationships even seen on this forum. The administrative burden of paperwork to assign and de-assign benefits would be ridiculous in many cases. One day you could be together..the next you are not...the next day you are. The paperwork and criteria to qualify for benefits are extensive and limiting for a reason; to create a benchmark of commitment and longetivity to recognized couples. When poly can come up with some way and agreed upon idea of what avalid relationship entails, thenwe can lobby for rights and benefits. This community is defined to broadly and without enough criteria to have relationships recognized legally or by employers. Unfortunately some people will get left out of any description that will be sufficient to legitimately seek recognition. How do we handle that?
 
In NV, it is entirely possible for me to marry, divorce, and remarry between 6 and 12 times a year, depending on how you read the law. :shrug:

The government and other agencies

A. - shouldn't be so involved anyway

B. - should cater to the peoplel however complex that might be,

C. - shouldn't cater to only certain people for beurocrocies sake,

D. - should define things insofar as they must only insofar as the people want, and not by the definitions only some of the people want.

At least, that's how many Americans would see it, LMAO.
 

MonoVCPHG

New member
If you don't want the government involved that is fair enough...but don't ask it for benefits. If you are asking for something tangible you should be prepared to offer something tangible....the revolution is wasting it's time if it refuses to pin things down. The system isn't going anywhere soon because it is driven by the vast bulk of society; learn to work within it because changing it is highly unlikely (hippy movement serves as a good example). if you can't convince me good luck with the rest of society..the refusal to establish criteria for valid poly relationships is why I can't find any hope for legal recognition beyond asking for freedom from persecution. Freedom from persecution does not cost anything and therefore does not require a strict definition. Things like benefits and employee privileges do; it is only resonable that to take something that has value and an affect on the operating costs of governments and employers should come with a criteria for validity.
In Canada,at least in BC, you need to be separated for at least a year before filing for divorce. Relationship status is taken very seriously. I think it is good to have solid criteria to be recognized as a valid benefit deserving relationship because everyone is paying into these things: they have a right to decide how that money is spent.
 

RobFire

New member
Um, Wow?

I agree on some of your points disillusioned, mainly that:


  1. Human behavior is, by virtue of a very deep biological imperative, driven to procreate, and usually not monogamously.
  2. The traditional sanctioned monogamous marriage model has some fairly dismal statistical success
  3. Our current society is almost pathologically driven to promote an ideal that, at least for many, maybe a majority, will not have great results
However, there are other deep biological imperatives that play into the equation:

  1. Humans are behaviorally greedy when it comes to resources, which is also a good primitive survival instinct. When extended to relationships, that can lead to a sometimes overwhelming possessive drive that can heartily interfere with a poly lifestyle.
  2. As a species that owes survival more to intellectual means rather than more primitive methods, we have for better or worse risen to a level where the ability to control our sexual whims separates us from other species.
  3. That great intellectual superiority we have over other species comes along with a lot of baggage, like insecurity, rational and irrational fear, complex emotional responses and a host of other nuances.

Yes, most long time married couples are not as sexually active as when they first met. There are measurable chemical changes that occur between infatuation (NRE) and long term bonding (My Luvy Soulmate). This does not discount the very real, and most valuable long term bonding, as that cannot be measures with the number of times a couple jumps in the sack.

It is quite understandable that many couples yern for that long term bonding, and seek to protect it against disruptive new influences.

When the danger to that long term bonding is perceived as being too much a risk to dally with new infatuations (NRE), some are quite happy to stay the safe road and remain monogamous. Those fancy, exotic brain chemicals that course through the cortex when we do the mating dance can be *awfully* disruptive, and cause better sense to exit stage left.

Bottom line, it's all a big balancing act, and not everyone falls on the same side of the tightrope. there's really no right or wrong about it.
 

NeonKaos

Custodian
The problem with "revolutions" is that sometimes people get what they want and then they don't know what to do with it.


This PSA brought to you by the Department of Retrospective Pessimism.
 
Top