From: webber@world.std.com (Robert D Webber)
Subject: Re: poly-wired?
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 21:50:06 GMT

In article <MUFFY.92Aug16194744@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>In article <Bt2zCq.GKp@world.std.com> webber@world.std.com (Robert D Webber) writes:
>>In article <ZEN.92Aug10193530@death.corp.sun.com> zen@death.corp.sun.com (d) writes:
>>>
>>>In article <1992Aug10.211702.22086@latcs1.lat.oz.au> woodhous@latcs2.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse) writes:
>>>> [...] Monogamy is about declaring to
>>>> a partner "No matter how much you love me, you are *not allowed* to love
>>>> anyone else without getting in heaps of trouble and probably breaking
>>>> up with me". Not a very loving thing to say, is it?
>>>  To some people it's about the most loving thing you can say to another
>>>person.  [And many religions say that anything but monogamy is against
>>>their [Gg]od{ess}(s).]
>>I guess I'm about to make another one of those nasty value judgements,
>>but any religion or moral system that ignores the basic idea that one
>>should do unto others as one would have them do unto one isn't, IMHO,
>>particularly moral.  In this case, if a system says that freedom for
>>me should be important but not freedom for my partner (or happiness
>>for me but not happiness for my partner), its practitioners have
>>_already_ stuck themselves where the sun don't shine, and may well
>>have folded themselves until they were all points into the bargain.
>
>However, this is not at all what the religions are doing.  Most of the
>religions I know of put the same restrictions on both partners.  What
>religion(s) did you have in mind, here?

That's a pretty sweeping statement: the example that springs to mind
is the religion of my great-grandfather, (Brethren of the Plymouth
Landing, a christian sect) which seems to have been willing to hold
that his happiness was extremely important but that his wife's wasn't.
Then there are religions like the Latter Day Saints which (I believe)
approve multi-spouses for the male but not the female.

In any case, my intended point was that a religion that says, "You
must act in such and such a way," only cares about the happiness
of those who can be happy acting that way.  Sure, the Anglican church
might disapprove equally of "adultery" for both me and my wife, but
what if my wife is happy with monoamorous but not possessive and I'm
polyamorousness and not happy being monoamorous?  Whatever the intention,
applying that rule evenly to everybody results in my unhappiness.

>>>  I'm pro-poly myself, but I think it's unwise to condemn others when
>>>they disagree with your theories of life, loving, freedom, and
>>>happiness.  I'd say the same (and do) to those darn mono-types hyping
>>>their way of thought.
>>I'm glad to read that.  I don't know how you're able to keep up with
>>chiding all the novelists, songwriters, screenplay, play, and short
>>story authors, politicians, advertising copy writers, the Pope, and
>>parents telling their children how the world works.
>
>Ummm...I think you're going a little overboard here.  I, and d, will say
>this to monoamorous people that we are having a discussion with, not
>everyone in the world.  No more do we say that polyamory is not the only
>way to be to every polyamorous person in the world.

That _was_ intended as iron (maybe even hyperbole) so it was of course
overboard.  My point is that it's hard to hold the thought that
polyamory is a reasonable option in the face of society's pressure
to think otherwise.  I think that saying that one is even-handed in
criticizing both camps is rather beside the point at this stage.
In an ideal world one would want to discourage both extremes, but
I think that in this world it's as well to have extremists in polyamory
if only as beacons and landmarks.  Incidentally, poly-supremists often
annoy me a great deal, but I've never thought I needed to tell them
that they ought to realize that some people consider monoamory superior,
since they can hardly escape seeing that attitude all around them.

>I firmly believe that the way to change the world is to express good (my
>judgement, obviously) ideas, particularly in response to bad ones.[...]

Agreed.

>However, there is only so much time and opportunity, so I work on
>changing the people around me, which consists of my friends and the
>people on the net.  I seem to have more of an effect that way than
>writing off to millions of people who probably won't even read what I
>write (of course, I have that problem on the net, too...*grin*...but at
>least I only have to write *one* article to reach thousands of people,
>one or two of whom might actually be caused to *think* by it...
>*SMILE*...it's so great when that happens).

Okay, but I still think it's more worth working on changing the minds of
monoamorous people who don't think polyamory is an alternative than
the other way around.

>>The monoamorous
>>types sure outnumber the polyamorous types on this planet of clowns
>>(in wet shoes), so if you're striving for a balanced approach you'd
>>be better off focussing your attention on them: not only are there
>>more of them, they don't even consider _our_ theories to be viable,
>
>Well, of course, that isn't really true.  I know many monogamous/
>monoamorous people who accept "our" theories as viable but do not choose
>to live that way.

How about this: not only are there more monoamorous people in our
local society, there are probably more of them who believe that polyamory
is a reasonable alternative than there are polyamorous people in total.
That is, of course, an assertion without evidence, but I believe that
it is true.  What do you think?

>>while _we_ are willing to live and let live with the monoamorous
>>types so long as they don't take our children from our custody,
>>damn us into their [Hh]ell(s) (and try to speed us on our way there).
>
>Well, I also know some polyamorous people who are vehemently against
>monogamy.  I think polyamory is great, but it doesn't make us any better
>or worse than other people...it doesn't make us more tolerant, in
>particular.  It's interesting how it seems to happen in oppressed
>groups...some people *do* learn tolerance from their oppression, but a
>lot of people are simply oppressive right back, justifying themselves by
>saying that the other people aren't tolerant of them, so why should they
>be tolerant?

I don't know of _any_ polyamorous people who would make monoamory a
crime punishable by death or even a sin, though some might find
it repugnant.  I guess I've known a few who've said that "nuclear
family" types shouldn't be allowed to keep their children.  My impression
has been that those people I've known with that attitude felt pretty
badly hurt by their "oppressors," a feeling which seems to be related to a
desire to oppress back in other groups, as well.

>Muffy

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.