tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4427538608110635294.post1814814304679590706..comments2023-08-09T03:21:13.354-05:00Comments on Letters from Gehenna: The World on a Slant: Asking the Wrong QuestionsDw3t-Hthrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11584245136407694660noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4427538608110635294.post-30195813347411294342010-04-04T22:20:38.070-05:002010-04-04T22:20:38.070-05:00I can't believe people make such rude comments...I can't believe people make such rude comments! I have only ever wondered how one can deal with the stress/nervousness of starting a new relationship with an added layer of "is X going to freak out when I ask if he/she is interested?" if you want to start something with someone more or less outside of poly social circles. That must be nerve-wracking.<br /><br /><br />Orlando: I am reminded of Lois McMaster Bujold's books, in which citizens of the planet Beta wear earrings designating their "status"- <br />"single, uninterested," <br />"single, seeking male for long term", <br />"in a relationship, not looking" "in a relationship, looking for short term with male/female/hermaphrodite" etc.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4427538608110635294.post-9177781231390035802009-12-01T04:26:41.299-05:002009-12-01T04:26:41.299-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4427538608110635294.post-14161545837000706622009-07-24T00:42:08.515-05:002009-07-24T00:42:08.515-05:00Not in the context "Do you all sleep in the s...Not in the context "Do you all sleep in the same bed", but for "you all" in general, this is my datapoint:<br /><br />When I'm counting "you all", I tend to count the five of us locals in one layer, and then you and your husbands and their wife in a second, sort of cousin-like layer outside that for a total of nine. I don't count your secondary partner unless I'm using dotted lines.<br /><br />I am fine with "you all" meaning the five of us, but it bugs me when people say it and mean the three of us that live together because that's not all. There's an exception for clear living-together-related contexts, though, because then it's a meaningful grouping again.Tiger Spothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03607573865760331775noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4427538608110635294.post-13519847507584133362009-07-21T15:27:26.450-05:002009-07-21T15:27:26.450-05:00Exactly. My secondary relationship is good as it ...Exactly. My secondary relationship is good <i>as it is</i>, it doesn't need to be translated into a form where it doesn't work in the name of "egalitarianism". It is right and correct and good and not some sort of second-class thing just because it's not the sort of relationship that has the happily-ever-after fairy tale shit in it (though now I want to take that notion and throw it into one of our collaborative projects just for the hell of it).Dw3t-Hthrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11584245136407694660noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4427538608110635294.post-66786553143905714042009-07-21T12:18:42.791-05:002009-07-21T12:18:42.791-05:00I think egalitarianism is another place where many...I think egalitarianism is another place where many people have a lot of misconceptions. Because in most egalitarian societies, someone who was an expert in, say, gathering asparagus, would have more influence in the gathering of asparagus than other people. In another season, when processing acorns was more relevant, the person who knew the most about that would have more influence. Egalitarianism (in practice rather than definition) isn't the same as equality; it's a shifting flow of influence and prominence, with its own checks and balances.<br /><br />I also just get really annoyed with the idea that a relationship categorized differently (for instance a relationship considered less permanent, with less time shared) is somehow 'less' than a more permanent relationship with more time shared. The fact that the first is transitory can be just as valuable and precious as the permanence of the second.Ranathttp://beyondthehills.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4427538608110635294.post-48350459316474446522009-07-20T17:02:36.448-05:002009-07-20T17:02:36.448-05:00"Legacy code" is me being a giant nerd -..."Legacy code" is me being a giant nerd - it's the stuff that was written for the version of the program that was released four years ago and nobody's removed, which may or may not be why it's crashing in this version.<br /><br />So every self-righteous poly person who's going on about how people haven't "overcome their social indoctrination towards monogamy" is basically, in my version of nerdspeak, complaining about other people's legacy code.<br /><br />One of the forms of this that I've seen come up is complaining about primary/secondary stuff in terms of "people who have their primary couple relationship and relegate everything to second-class status", in which the complainers who talk about 'not overcoming social indoctrination' are saying that the couple with their exclusive agreements on whatever they make their primary-ness out of hasn't overcome indoctrination-into-monogamy and needs to.<br /><br />When I was young and fucking things up, one of my problems was that every relationship I had <i>had</i> to turn into a Very Serious Relationship Like Marriage And Everything. I broke a few that way, some pretty badly. When I finally said, "Okay, I'm going to do something <i>different</i> here" and basically reinvented the concept of secondary relationships for myself - and thus developed heirarchy - I stopped breaking things by trying to force them into this faux-egalitarian model that doesn't actually work for all relationships.Dw3t-Hthrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11584245136407694660noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4427538608110635294.post-67012658322499051702009-07-20T16:47:28.205-05:002009-07-20T16:47:28.205-05:00@Dw3t - Hierarchy as in the primary, secondary, te...@Dw3t - Hierarchy as in the primary, secondary, tertiary relationships model of polyamory? So for you, differences in your relationships are marked by whether they're marriages? I'm interested in this legacy code concept. Is this a term that gets batted about or is it yours?Ranathttp://beyondthehills.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4427538608110635294.post-84825142203728811002009-07-20T03:13:49.314-05:002009-07-20T03:13:49.314-05:00Ranat - I think to a lot of people they're fig...Ranat - I think to a lot of people they're figuring on one form, though ... a lot of them aren't in agreement about what that form actually is, if you look at what they <i>say</i>.<br /><br />I'm always amused when I run into polyfolks who are all, "Heirarchical polyamory is proof that some people haven't gotten over their monogamous upbringing and are still carrying legacy code!" (more or less). My problem with legacy code wasn't 'there is only one real relationship', it was 'all relationships end in marriage' - so I fixed it with heirarchy.<br /><br />Seraph - I'm glad that I'm handing out useful perspective. I hope that it's mostly, "People do it different, y'know", but part of the point in writing from my own little slanted world is to ... there's a reason one of my tags is 'visibility'.<br /><br />Wow, that was a broken set of sentences.Dw3t-Hthrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11584245136407694660noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4427538608110635294.post-13283495464199245122009-07-18T18:58:19.758-05:002009-07-18T18:58:19.758-05:00I have to say, thank you, for posts like this.
Yo...I have to say, thank you, for posts like this.<br /><br />Your generosity in posting your thoughts on things like poly relationships, kink, and pagan faiths has helped me form clearer ideas of how to interact with people who practice them irl--what questions not to ask, what assumptions are particularly unfair, etc.<br /><br />So really, thanks. I learn a lot from your blog.Seraphhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11931043303622096862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4427538608110635294.post-83061826411635404312009-07-18T13:20:43.835-05:002009-07-18T13:20:43.835-05:00The examples you give really go to show how the di...The examples you give really go to show how the diversity of expression of polyamory and non-monogamy can get completely ignored. Maybe to some people 'polyamory' implies one relationship form, rather than being an umbrella term for an infinite number of forms.Ranathttp://beyondthehills.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4427538608110635294.post-86166726282747501712009-07-17T09:22:44.250-05:002009-07-17T09:22:44.250-05:00It's not the only topic that draws the really ...It's not the only topic that draws the really nutty questions out of the woodwork, but it's a good example. Thanks for this....kadierahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03303473037288003918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4427538608110635294.post-86707439214202436862009-07-17T08:43:56.187-05:002009-07-17T08:43:56.187-05:00Thank you for this.
I often have to deal with th...Thank you for this. <br /><br />I often have to deal with the same questions, and you made me laugh with some of these responses. <br /><br />Namaste.Tirani Starpathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14203827279169857971noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4427538608110635294.post-21422286470046262462009-07-17T07:42:10.749-05:002009-07-17T07:42:10.749-05:00In the future, this will all be simplified. Our i...In the future, this will all be simplified. Our iPhone implants will broadcast a little list of our bullshit assumptions to everyone within range, before we start having a conversation. Or run screaming...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com