monogamists: threat, or menace?

[Ravenscroft]

(Before anyone complains about the title, please note that it's an old joke within science fiction fandom, wherein someone offers up something they don't like as a choice between two flavors of BAD... then claims objectivity for showing "both sides." )

This has been relocated, a shard from a shard.

when you draw comparisons...and I'm wanting some thought exchange with you on this subject, because I get the feeling you don't judge all monofolk so harshly...

Basically it's treatment of those who would step forward as allies...as though no matter what THEY think, they are the enemy.

I don't like that. So I do think we should try to at least be decent to the monofolk who come here to explore ideas fairly and understand what poly is about. Am I wrong?

No, not wrong at all, & I'm glad you raised that point. (Oh, gods, I'm starting to sound like a politician...!! But, really, it's all groovy. )

See, you said it yourself -- there is a divide. Let's take rabid monogamism, which you ably describe:

When a poly article gets posted on FB and I see the comments not from my own friends but from the public in general on that article, and so many are pearl clutchers who are disgusted with:
"selfish"
"shallow"
"don't know what love is"
"can't commit"
"hedonistic"
"slutty"
ETC...which they assume polyfolk are, nevermind how we must certainly be destroying society and harming the children (because obviously we have orgies in the living room during Saturday morning cartoons and Fruit Loops.)

Yeah, I'm gonna make fun of those assholes.

EXACTLY!! But here's how I see the breakdown --

Firstly, let's consider that we've all seen disgreements arise simply from semantic problems, where polyamory is alternately presented as a practice, as a worldview, & as a belief system. Any given "poly" person might fit one or any two or all three of those labels. Going to the handiest example, I have gone through periods of quiet celibacy, yet I remain poly in mind & heart. There are certainly people who CLAIM to be poly, talk a GREAT game, & totally SUCK at it, treating it like a blend of swinging & cheating. And there are people who seem to have the right heart to be happily poly, but they're mired in fear of doing something wrong & so cannot get the experience in order to ask the questions, & can't ask the questions without the experience.

With all that in mind, it's pretty much guaranteed that monogamy exhibits identical problems.

Monogamism is a cult of privilege. Monogamy is everywhere supported by State & society, sanctified, propagandized.

Any variants or alternatives are (as you just said) held of as weird, immoral, dangerous, reprehensible, socially destructive, abusive.

At best, according to Monogamism, polyamory -- by which I mean "small-case polyamory" with its demands for rigorous self-examination & constant effort at an overwhelming degree of clear communication & gleeful problem-solving -- is only allowable for two things.

1. entertainment & ridicule
2. a safety valve

Look at how polyfolk get all giddy when yet another fly-by-night production company floats the idea of DOING A SHOW because it's a quick buck for them & a possible midseason ratings boost for some struggling cable network. We are a commodity to be used & discarded like a bargain-bin condom.

But it's #2 that's outright pernicious. How often has this site seen some variant on

We've been married five years, together almost six. The spark was starting to go out of our mariage, and we don't want to be seen as weird so we don't want to try swinging. So we decided we should open up our marriage and be poly. We are hoping for help in find our soul-mate and marying her before spring. Any help appreciatd -- thanks!!

Why bother learning how to be a LOVER or a FRIEND or a PARTNER, how to communicate or plan or dream, when all you need to do is order a new strap-on dildo... in this case "become poly"?

But I'm thinking it isn't fair to say, "monos" when you mean...those people. Since a person happily living as a mono but open minded enough to contemplate poly, for themselves, a loved one, etc and coming here for some support, should be welcomed.

And they ARE welcomed!!! But "welcoming" someone does NOT (to my mind at least) giving them MORE consideration than we give to polyfolk. I mean, ONE FREAKIN THREAD (& an OLD one at that) was dredged up with the implication that this SITE is somehow a dark den of evil Anti-Monogamists.

And (okay, for about the hundredth time) a major component of polyamory is clear communication, therefore (IMNSHO) someone who comes to a polyamory site OUGHT to take a few swings at -- sing it with me! -- clear communication.

That means that it is NOT up to others to barge in & demand protections for which individual monogamists have not themselves asked. To protect the felings of such theoretical persons manages to denigrate both polyfolk (as it begins from the assumption we tend to be inherently mean-spirited) AND monofolk (as it begins from the assumption they are too weak or stupid to stand up for themselves).

I think of the fact that I want so badly for racial equality and an end to discrimination in my country. And the concept to me that minorities would (and do) bash "white people" to include me, and describe ALL as, well, racist to the degree of being perfectly fine with all of the horrors and injustices against them...

I'm sorry, but that is wrong. I want to be your friend, please don't lump me in with skinheads and KKK, alright? Now I'm sure some do...but ya know, I really would prefer they didn't.

How about LGBTQ folks, on boards relative to that, bashing straights as though every person who prefers to shag the opposite gender is basically a Bible thumping southern right wing extremist right outta Duck Dynasty, how about that? I'm ~mostly~ straight, and I marched in a Pride parade not long back, and I would really rather not be lumped in with people who are hateful.

You clearly don't know the sorts of queerfolk I've met over the years. Not so long ago, a lesbian friend was just back from a major Radical Faerie gathering she helped organize. She was exhausted & energized & practically glowing... until she mentioned one clicque. She's a cutie, very femme, but she went silent for a moment & a truly dark look came into her eyes. In a low voice, she said, "if I get called FISH just one more time, there's gonna be blood." As in, females are nothing but funky-smelling second rate fags. And I won't even start on the number of times I've heard the non-6 world derided as "breeders."

On the other hand, is there anything really WRONG with this? Sure, it sucks to be stuffed in the same box with Jerry Falwell , but what right do we have to DEPRIVE each other of our indignation at the slights & attacks that we or our peers have suffered?

How many people on this site have made a concerted efort to run around to monogamistic sites & tell them in great detail how their lifestyle is likely nothing but a big stack of lies?

None? Hmm. How many have done it a hundred times? a dozen? twice? once?

Okay, going full circle here --

it's treatment of those who would step forward as allies...as though no matter what THEY think, they are the enemy.

Look at how many of us freely derogate those who insist upon their right to hide behind the couple front, a.k.a. couple privilege. Many times, they aren't calmly informed, but immediately sneered at, derided, ridiculed.

Monogamists show up here & implicitly demand the right to hide behind Monogamism. I have long believed that almost all people seeking closed FMF triads are not monofolk wishing to be polyfolk, but rather hewing close to strict Monogamism by stretching the borders just a teeeeensy li'l bit, making a "three-way marriage" yet very often maintaining the core sanctity of the "real" couple (because it's a core tenet of Monogamism that only couples are real).

Many words back, I said MONOGAMY EXHIBITS IDENTICAL PROBLEMS to polyamory. And how do we fix those? We ask questions -- of each other, & (most importantly) of ourselves.

Every time a monogamist says "I'm monogamous," he is inherently ready (whether intentionally or reflexively) to duck behind the voluminous skirts of Mother Church. Nothing at all wrong with that... in a roomful of monofolk.

Here, in a place fundamentally for polyfolk, it's saying one of two things:

• I'm monogamous & I would like to change
• I'm monogamous -- don't question my faith

Well, that's a start. Back to mowing.

 

[RichardInTN]

monogamists: threat, or menace?

Yes. Both.

 

[Ravenscroft]

Oh, darnit, I didn't clarify... well, inroads at least.

As with "polyamory," we do need to differentiate between

• "I am happy & fulfilled with one love" or "one sex partner"
• "I am in a mutually exclusive relationship"
• "one-person-per-person is the best way to do things"
• "monogamy is the ONLY way to do things"

That list is surely NOT exhaustive.

I differentiate between monogamists (many of whom seem to be pleased with their lives, & I say bless 'em) & Monogamism, the enculturated mindset that "one man, one woman, forever" is the Only Right Way, & therefore that any alternatives are a direct attack upon the primacy of Mother Church. Monogamism is The Ministry of Love (or at least that's how its acolytes speak) as Orwell would've envisioned.

I won't say that I am a proponent of monogamy, but I see no good reason that emotionally healthy monogamy cannot exist. The mindset & its practitioners certainly deserve aid & comfort from ANY reasonable person, poly or whatever.

However, I make some critical distinctions. Firstly, there's practical monogamy versus Romantic monogamy. In the former, people are able to examine what they are doing, what they've done, & what they want to do in a calm & logical manner, & take steps to make the relationship & their life together work as happily as possible.

Certainly, who but a crazed fanatic can argue against that?

By contrast, in order to merely keep moving along, Romantic monogamy requires MANY leaps of "faith" on a regular basis even after trust has been egregiously violated. This is apparently in the Apostles' Creed of Monogamism; heathens aren't allowed to question it... & True Believers aren't either.

Heathens enjoy finding reason to have faith (& trust & hopes & dreams) but expect verifiable results, or at least something that doesn't look like being enablers, giving cash to an addict for the assurance "I'm gonna get clean tomorrow."

In monogamy, any sexual or emotional contacts outside the couple are banned -- well, except for kids... & grandkids... & parents... & siblings... & uncles/aunts... & close friends... & fellow True Believers, & a whole slate of others. Though monogamists will tell you that "love" is something VERY easy to describe, to observe, to weigh & judge, they readily tie themselves in semantic knots trying to tell the heathens how it's a GOOD & perhaps NECESSARY thing to feel "love" for a LOT of people... but BAD for heathens to love TWO.

Yet sexual contact outside of the sanctified couple, while explicitly banned (with all sorts of dire consequences recited as Monogamist litany), is commonplace, & even accepted de rigeur. In 1994, Edward Laumann led a study that updated some of the Kinsey studies. Among other things, they found that in more recent years only eek 25% of married men had had postnuptial sex with someone other than The Wife; about 15% of married women did the same.



So... that's to say that of men who are married -- which Monogamism has brainwashed us into presuming that they're monogamous (& therefore Monogamist ) -- fully ONE IN FOUR are lying, deceitful, treacherous weasels, as is Monogamism collectively for claiming that these subversive deviants are & have always been True Believers.

(FFI: the findings were published as The Social Organization of Sexuality.)

(Interestingly, one article on the study blandly says "more than 80% of subjects had one or no sexual partners in the previous year"... then swiftly turns aside from stating the obvious corollary: almost 20% of subjects had had two or more sex partners. Now I'm gonna HAVE to buy the book...)

 

[Spork]

I think we're in the business of making the same point here.

(Also, I wish I had your passion for citing sources. Writing college papers would not make me want to stab somebody if I did. I prefer to just take my own thoughts and crunch them up into a lovely bowl of word-crumbs and fling them at the screen; being asked to fortify them with the thoughts and studies of others upsets me.)

But back to the subject. So, that was my primary point, the difference between monogamy, and Monogamy. Individuals with individual brains and situations and lives going on, who show up here, or in real life, or anywhere, and you have this CONVERSATION with. Versus representatives of a Mob of belief, who show up simply to defend their groupthink. Or worse, the mean spirited who show up just to cause a scene or hurt feelings (trolls.)

I'd say that the people who called your friend "fish" were engaging in both groupthink and mean-spiritedness (in person trolling.) The groupthink aspect is that they seemed to feel they'd get cool points with their chosen band if they expressed mean sentiments to outsiders.

I lament when an oppressed minority issues unwarranted attacks against friendly majority members who are choosing to be part of the end of hate. It's a general concept here. When majority members do everything they know how, to stop being narrow minded, judgmental, bigoted, discriminatory...and extend that hand of peace and humanity and fellowship to people in a minority group...and the minority member responds with a huff and slapping the hand away and nursing their grievances and wounds... It keeps the barriers to peace and understanding firmly in place. It ensures that the groups will continue to be in perceived opposition.

I'd love to see human society evolve to a place where we don't need to have enemies anymore. I do my best to be the change I want to see. It's all I know how to do. But I can't do it on behalf of anyone but myself.

So when I talk smack about Monogamists, I am pointing to those who are defending the walls of their establishment fortress from scary, scary Outsiders. I'm not talking about individual people who prefer one romantic partner to love at any particular time.

And frankly I see things to scoff at in the attitudes of some of the Polyamory community I have known. When I mentioned that I could see myself living mono again with Zen, I had one group leader, an old established member of the poly and kink communities, actually say to me, dismissively, "Now that you've been poly, you'll never be satisfied with monogamy. You shouldn't even try. Your needs won't be met." I believe I detected a faint scent of bitterness that I might never be willing to engage in play or sex with this person or any of her partners...actually...but the comment struck me as completely silly and incredibly presumptuous. MY LIFE. My choices. I didn't get involved in polyamory so that I could join your elite social club. Scoff, scoff.

 

[Ravenscroft]

Someone pointed out to me that user:River has brought up the Monogamist / Monogamism thing previously.

Back then, I was a lurker, only dabbled in the threads from time to time, & had never seen ANY of those discussions. I figured I was just dancing fast as I can & making up terms on-the-fly that I needed. So, I stand amended, if not entirely corrected.

However, River defined the Ism as a negative akin to "racism," & I went with the parallel to monolithic religion (Catholicism, etc.), implying that Monogamists are the True Believers, & monogamists the lay practitioners.
________________

And while I'm here, I further clarify:

• not all monogamous people are monogamists
• not all monogamists are Monogamist
• there's plenty of staunch Monogamists whose actions prove they are twofaced liars

________________

So, that was my primary point, the difference between monogamy, and Monogamy.

I entirely agree with this dichotomy, & have only one small cavil -- seems to me there are

• staunch Monogamists, who feel the need to confront The Enemy at every opportunity that they believe they can win (including seeking out forums where they know their "opinion" -- falsely socalled because they've put no reason into its creation -- will be protected from proper damning criticism under the faux liberality of "hearing all sides," something THEY would most certainly never countenance.
• those who parrot Monogamist litany but don't consciously believe it, often realise (however vaguely) that it is at best a rickety edifice, & sometimes feel the need to discuss these doubts with someone who's not a self-blinded True Believer, but they may not yet have the ability to phrase the questions they feel pressed to ask (which, btw, is why I feel there OUGHT to be an explicit moratorium on criticising new members for subpar written-English skills)
• the ones who are products of a Monogamist culture, & "belong to it" much as people out here in rurality join the local Lutheran church not because they have any particular adherence to that Synod or even that version of religion, but because it's the only church within 50 miles & they've gone to Sunday-morning services all their lives.
• while maybe not a separate category, there's those who see polyamory as a great place to be hugely self-serving, one moment demanding general sanctity for the "rights" & trappings of Monogamism, & the next pissing upon their own supposedly immutable permanences.

In that last grouping, I place unicorn hunters & in fact many of the "looking" couples & singles (as "guilty 'til proved innocent").

I lament when an oppressed minority issues unwarranted attacks against friendly majority members who are choosing to be part of the end of hate.

I was in college 1976-1987 (two significant gaps, then a double major & halfway to a masters, fwiw), & was on the edges of much activity about rights: South Africa, AIM, La Raza, UFW boycotts, gay/lez, & so on.

In each of these cases, those most directly affected always had a cadre that was (at best) suspicious of outsiders -- that is, of people who wouldn't directly & obviously benefit from expanded rights -- getting too close too quickly.

An example. Back in 1980, in Minneapolis, dykes in general didn't associate with fags (& there was some blatant misogyny in return), both camps were openly suspicious of bisexuals (as either "indecisive" or expecting "straight privilege" or both), none was amused by those who claimed to "queer," transpeople (who rapidly tired of being an unpaid sideshow act) were widely assumed to be drag queens... well, you get the idea.

IMNSHO, they all had every justification for this: if there's too much inclusiveness, then the next thing you know, you're diluting the mission & undercutting the effort. When a racial group is demanding proper recognition of their rights, there's lack of strength when those in power look down from their lofty seats & can see only a few faces of those supposedly represented.

The key is coalition. The effort is much stronger if it stays in sharp focus AND brings in a separate "friends of" organization. There's a huge difference between building bridges, & trying to create a homogenous mass by cramming everyone with any vague association into one room. Those most affected assuredly DO NOT want someone speaking on their behalf who does not understand at first hand what is required to live the lifestyle -- having a good heart is NOT enough, by a long shot, & having read a book or two isn't a significant improvement.

One of the most prominent groups for the rights of nonheterosexuals was the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, now called just GLAAD. But that was founded mid-'80s, & was predated by Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG). They have clearly separate missions & memberships; this results in increased strength & reach, rather than watering down one group so that everyone can feel welcome & useful.

In short: yeah, the "door to polyamory" should ALWAYS be left open for anyone brave enough to walk into the brawl, but nobody should expect special protections for delicate sensibilities -- this is Animal House.

I feel that I've been much happier being poly than I ever could have with enforced monogamy (that is, Monogamism). It is most assuredly NOT mere "nursing grievances and wounds" that leads me to attempt holding Monogamism outside the boundaries -- I have walked in their shoes, & vanishing few of them have walked in mine. The tiny minority that claims it wants to do so is generally dragging along Monogamist baggage that's burdened them for so long they're unaware that they COULD let go of it.

(Go watch The Mission. I beieve in my heart that, like Rodrigo Mendoza, they can't proceed otherwise.)

When majority members ... extend that hand of peace and humanity and fellowship to people in a minority group...and the minority member responds with a huff and slapping the hand away and ... It keeps the barriers to peace and understanding firmly in place.

Lofty ideals, surely, & I agree with the sentiment.

However, falsely premised. In this instance, anyone who so much as considers the potential to learn how to possibly step back & examine Monogamism in a cool & objective manner is thereby by definition a heretic & no longer a True Believer. Any with the temerity to "extend a hand of peace" to savages (that would be us) milling around the portcullis is being outright traitorous to Mother Church. Soon as they act in a friendly manner, they no longer represent "the other side" & are beyond the pale, q.e.d.

I really do wish that Monogamism was an actual organization, rather than a collective delusion that leaves it "without a soul to damn or a body to kick." It's like attacking heavy fog with a flyswatter.

So, if you know anyone who in any way can properly claim to representing "the other side," then PLEASE point them out!! They should be posting here on a regular basis -- if more than one, I'll be interested in reading their blog thread.

And frankly I see things to scoff at in the attitudes of some of the Polyamory community I have known.

I know exactly what you mean. I've been ridiculing the "social club" mindset since... well, actually, since THE ONLY term was polyfidelity, like 1983.

I raised hackles with the PEP (Loving More) membership by writing articles about how "group marriage" could benefit from minimizing (or even eliminating) the marriage part & all its accreted presuppositions.

For this, I was denounced in print as sex-addicted, as abusive (for advocating a chaotic lifestyle for others rather than the -- imaginary & Monogamist -- safety & stability of high-church Polyfidelity), & as PRAGMATIC of all things, likely because being practical & rational is anti-Romantic.

I take refuge in Mencken --

"There is always a well-known solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong."

"The final test of truth is ridicule. Very few dogmas have ever faced it and survived."

When someone gives you a nice neat pre-packaged "solution" for every ill, do the right thing -- laugh delightedly in their face until they leave you alone.

 

[Spork]

I just go through life trying to correct or confront anyone who feels that all people should be alike, and is uncomfortable when someone is not in some particular way.

This sort of business goes in all sorts of directions, and it's found in all sorts of places.

Not only the privileged Mother Church of the cis-straight-vanilla-mono-white bread-middle class Protestant suburban family with 2 kids a dog and a minivan...oh, no. If anything, I challenge conformist thinking when I find it among the supposed non-conformists even more. I feel like if we are truly trying to be the change we want to see, we've got to check ourselves carefully.

Frankly the BDSM saying "your kink is not my kink and that's ok" resonates so wonderfully and harmoniously with the philosophies I love...I can accept you, really really accept you, even acknowledging some pretty significant differences we have. (I'm actually really proud of myself. Needles freak me out and I hugged a woman with needles in her arm on Saturday because I was leaving and she's a dear friend...I managed to not wig out about it...it was great...but I'm still not letting anybody put a needle in me recreationally anytime in the forseeable...ever.)

So. When I talk about going mono with Zen. For me, this is "right now, being mono with him feels good and right, so I'm gonna do that." I'm not promising forever to him, and he knows it. I reserve the right to grow, adapt, evolve, possibly change my mind....but I also promise to be truthful about that, if it should happen. I've taken a lot of the ideologies of poly to heart. Today I am "saturated at one." He fulfills me. I fulfill him. We're good.

But I've got people, I swear, in my real life poly community who actually cannot believe that one would do poly and then voluntarily do mono again, especially when I am not shit-talking poly. I'm not saying "I tried it and it sucked." I'm not leaving one team and going back to another. I'm just saying what seems right for me in this time in my life, and what was perhaps too much. And I'm told, "You're poly. You will find that you can never be happy or satisfied with just one partner. You'll see."

Fucking really? How about you let me live and find my happy where I find it, mmkay? Wow.

So what's up with this? I think that it's a human thing to want others to be what we are and do what we do, so that we can feel validated. I quit smoking a week ago. I remember, when I would be smoking a cigarette and someone would be around who was a "former" smoker, and would fall off the wagon and ask to bum a cig from me. I happily handed them one, glad they were once again joining me in the damnation of our lungs. Now why in the hell would I be alright with damaging the resolve of someone who is trying to quit, in enabling them back into the deadly habit and addiction I've struggled to quit for years...? Because if they are smoking, on some level it's alright that I'm smoking. We're doing it together. Validation.

Monkey see, monkey do. Look around, what are the other monkeys doing? Do my activities conform, do I stand out? Am I safe in the monkey crowd? Oh, see, there is another monkey there doing the Thing, so I must be ok to do it.

It's that primitive drive to urge others to be "like" us, and I challenge the shit out of that, consciously, whenever I can.

I most certainly am not out to conduct my love life, something pretty core to my happiness, in any particular way just to lend validity to any lifestyle "team." Just as I would never choose to be monogamous with Zen simply to sanctify the institution of monogamy. I'd choose that because it worked well with my life structure and because it felt good and right.

Which is exactly the reasoning that would get me scorn from Monogamists, if I used it to justify polyamory. "You people just do whatever feels good." Well yeah, assuming it doesn't cause insurmountable life problems for anyone involved, and harms no one... Why exactly is that a problem?

 

[Ravenscroft]

Yah, having gone through long stretches with just one sexual partner, at no time have I stopped being polyamorous. I was busy, I had lots of creative stuff going on, not a whole lot of flex time, & I was satisfied (physically, emotionally, whatever) with my partner.

Maybe it's just a demonstration of Monogamisms perniciousness that supposed "radicals" automatically judge anyone who looks to stray from the PC norm to be reactionary, leaping back to the safety of the BIG herd.

How often do I have to hook up with a stranger before my Poly Cred expires? Nobody's ever been able to give me a timeframe here.

 

[Spork]

You know honestly, when it comes to a few of the ones in real life that have said certain things to me, I wonder if it's because they hoped that my poly meant maybe they would have an opportunity to hook up with me for play, sex, or something down the road in the future sometime.

With a couple of the ones I'm thinking of (from the fetish scene here) that opportunity simply would not have ever existed. I have not clearly stated that, but they have not clearly stated any intentions...but I get the feeling they're interested, y'know? And they gave me quite a bit of pushback when I mentioned I might not be actively doing poly for much longer.

 

[CTF]

While I think it's safe to say that there are zealots on both sides who would see the other as "evil", "selfish", and so on. It's important to note that most people really don't care until it gets personal. As a mono, do I care what consenting adults choose for their relationship models? No. But as it relates to my own, I do care.

Where I do take issue with some monogamists, is when one attempts to force their partner into staying together in an incompatible relationship. Even though I am monogamous, there was never a time where I forbade my wife to explore poly.

At the same time, there are poly folk who feel that it's the mono's duty to stick beside their partner in light of their new found identity. To be threatened with "if you love me, you'll be okay with this" is a manipulative & deplorable thing to tell someone.

We monos do get defensive when presented with those kinds of statements. I also find it extremely offensive when someone claims that monogamy is "unnatural". It's not... Neither is unnatural. When a poly person calls monogamy unnatural, it's no different than a straight person calling homosexuality/bisexuality unnatural.

We're not enemies, we're not menaces. We're people who have a different set of emotions regarding sex & love. That's all.

 

[YouAreHere]

My thoughts on this thread:
While I appreciate Spork's thoughtful commentary, I still find the language divisive. When the term "Big-M Monogamist" is used to mean the overzealous, self-righteous, judgmental twats versus "Small-m monogamists" who don't pull that crap and seem to be a-ok, over time it's still easy to get lazy, forget when to capitalize your 'M', and paint everyone with the same brush.

It's what Eve Rickert fell prey to just a few days ago:
https://twitter.com/everickert/status/769800858523410432

When you're co-author of a book that is quickly gaining the reputation as the "Poly Bible" and you come out with something like that, you risk alienating a whole shit-ton of people looking for guidance in their own relationships.

At its best, it's a conflation that just gets tiring after a while.

Ravenscroft, in the original thread, complained that offended people should use their words to explain what, in particular, offended them. Is it really that hard to use your words to say something like "overzealous monogamists," "Judgmental monogamists," or something of the sort? Relying on a capital M to make your point will certainly be lost on most of your readers, especially if they're not following this thread.

Again, I will respond to Ravenscroft in the same way I did on the original thread:

And they ARE welcomed!!! But "welcoming" someone does NOT (to my mind at least) giving them MORE consideration than we give to polyfolk.

I think all posters here should be welcomed and be given consideration, period (unless they're obvious trolls). I saw nothing that asked for MORE consideration, but I saw someone looking for JUST AS MUCH. Perhaps we see things differently.

 

[kdt26417]

Well said, CTF/YAH.