From: webber@world.std.com (Robert D Webber)
Subject: Re: Monogamy manifestos
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 15:37:42 GMT

In article <1992Aug16.051922.5107@latcs1.lat.oz.au> woodhous@latcs2.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse) writes:
[...]
>   I don't actually have an objection to monogamy is this context, providing
>both parties are give full informed consent. I may at times sound very
>Poly-supremist, but I'm not ranting and raving about the never-ending evils
>of monogamy. *If* it's what people want, then by all means.

I don't think you've ever posted anything to this group that could honestly
be said to be "poly-supremist."  "Choice-supremist" or "Option-supremist"
maybe, and perhaps tinged with, "This works for me, I wish more people
would try it," but I can't imagine you behind people prodding them
along the Poly-path with your, er, pitch-fork against their wills.

>   I *do* however entertain doubts as to how often *informed* consent *is*
>provided for monogamy. (Not saying this applies in your case, John!). I
>strongly suspect that for many people, their attitudes to monogamy are
>largely inherited without being examined. Of course this may well be true
>about *any* attitude, but I've a gut feeling it happens more in this domain.

The culture we're immersed in from birth is pretty much Mono-supremist,
isn't it?  (Incidentally, if you're bisexual and polyamorous, doesn't
that make you stereo-sexual or something?)  Even people who examine
their assumptions about these things may find themselves reacting with,
"Oh, I could never try that!  It just wouldn't work for me!"  For some,
that's probably not true, but polyamorousness is linked to scare words
and hate words like "slut" and "adultery" and "family values."

>   I remember earlier this year on Bisexu-L, during all the discussions on
>monogamy, someone wrote about being very disturbed that (for example) a
>murderer, when asked in court why they did it, replied "because my partner
>was cheating on me", and that's considered an answer. No-one asks, "so,
>you have such strong feelings about monogamy that your immediate response
>was to murder someone" or anything like that. It's not questioned, *everyone*
>knows what they mean. The jurors nod in agreement - they know how *they'd*
>feel about it. It's such a dangerous default. I'd like a "jealousy" defense
>to be considered in the same class as the "Twinkie defense" : ie. a pretty
>lame legal trick.
>
>   It would make a bit more sense if the person the partner "cheated" with
>was the one murdered, but usually it's the "cheating" one. And once again,
>very few people question the sanity of murdering the one you love in the
>name (supposedly) of love.

I think it's not supposed to be sane, just an understandable insanity.
Sort of like, "I had to mug that person, I was raised a disadvantaged
youth."

>   Sorry folks, lots of strong feelings about these issues. I'm *not*
>equating these values automatically to anyone who's monogamous.
>
[...]
>Joe.
>
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.