From: webber@world.std.com (Robert D Webber)
Subject: Re: poly-wired?
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 15:49:50 GMT

In article <1992Aug16.081453.8022@latcs1.lat.oz.au> woodhous@latcs2.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse) writes:
>webber@world.std.com (Robert D Webber) writes:
>>zen@death.corp.sun.com (d) writes:
>>>woodhous@latcs2.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse) writes:
[...]
>   I suppose I can see how my statements could be taken that way, but really,
>the whole point of my style of polyamory (lest people think I'm claiming I
>have an exclusive handle on what it is to be Poly) is that it's about
>freedom, and choice, and growth. Relationships, I think, should *increase*
>the opportunities and experiences of one's life, not close doors in one's
>face.
>
[...]
>>about it...  I think the operative worlds in Joe's statement were
>>"want," "helping," and "encouraging."  My best guess is that what
>>he really _wants_ is for them to have enough choices so that they
>>can all be free and happy.
>
>   Yah. Thanks, Bob.

You're welcome, and I'm glad that I got that mostly right: lately
I've started to feel as if all I can do when I post is stick both
feet in my mouth and waltz around on my nether cheeks...

>   For a while, my partner at the time of my coming out as Poly didn't
>seem all that interested in other relationships. I felt quite obscurely
>guilty that *I* was "running around", while they sat at home watching TV
>or something. They had to reassure me many times that truly they didn't
>mind. 8->
>
>   Of course, these days they're almost as prolific with their partners
>as I am, and sometimes more so. But that's neither here nor there. 8->

Oh, I dunno: congratulations and hugs and happiness that someone you
love has developed more potential for self-realisation and happiness
at least partly thanks to you!  Seems like a positive change in the
world, something that anyone should be happy to have accomplished.

[...]
>   But even if I thought I *did* have The One True Answer, it sort of
>defeats the purpose of a path to freedom and integrity and self-reliance
>if I've got to push and shove people along it. Hell, it's more often than
>not the monogamous sorts who give me the lectures and sermons. Even when
>I point out that everyone involved in the situation *does* fully and
>informedly consent, and are really quite happy about it all, they still
>(generally) won't concede that It Might Not Actually Be Such A Bad Thing.

Probably because, as mr zen pointed out in another posting, many
religions don't think that what people choose is as important as what
they're told is right or wrong.  A lot of organized religion isn't
about choice: how can you choose against the innate structure of the
universe and be happy?

>>Do you have a problem with christians saying, "I am incredibly happy
>>and fulfilled since I saw the light; if you have any desire to explore
>>christianity I'd be more than happy to help and support you in your
>>explorations."
>
>   Well, I've never had one be that polite about it. 8->

I hope that you find a sufficiently polite christian some day: they
can be very warm and loving people.

>>I think I've tried what I think Joe is saying, and it
>>came down to helping and encouraging a lover to be involved with
>>another so that she would know that option was open to her.
>
>   Close enough. I think love is great. I think being in love is great.
>I don't want to be a reason for a love of mine *not* to feel these things
>with other people. I'd like to think I've helped them along the way to
>loving and being in love with others.

My one-sentence version left out details like the fact that she was
already interested and it seemed to be only a fear of my reactions
that was holding her back.  I think we're pretty much on the same
wavelength here: re-reading my post I see that could be interpreted
as pushing another to go out and find someone, which wasn't the case.

>   One of the warmest moments of my life was looking down at my bed, and
>seeing my sweetie and *their* sweetie asleep with their arms around each
>other, and knowing that they met each other through me. They were like
>those photos you see in shops where some kittens are all tangled up in
>each other. 8->
>
>Joe.

Gosh, you're a sentimental one, aren't you?  It suits you well...

Bob


-- 
Bob Webber, webber@world.std.com ===========================================
==========================================================  Laurie Anderson:
Our plan is to drop odd objects onto your country from the air.  And some
of these objects will be useful, and some of them will just be odd.