|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Aug 02, 2009 6:44 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 5:54 am
"There is an element of sacrifice in a committed relationship and that sacrifice is not meant to weaken the relationship, but rather make it stronger. The whole point is that the sacrifice is not one-sided. You're supposed to be in this thing together. "
But what's the point of the sacrifice if either or both of you is miserable? Isn't a relationship supposed to help enhance the people within it? What's so enhancing and noble about lopping off a piece of yourself unnecessarily?
"When you get to the point in your relationship where you both want to be exclusive, the exclusivity is not just a term, it's supposed to directly relate to you, your heart and your body. "
Commitment does not equal exclusivity. Just because a relationship is exclusive doesn't automatically make it committed, nor does being committed automatically make it exclusive. It's about being commited to the relationship rules and boundaries that work to preserve the relatioship for the mutual benefit of all involved. Nor are polyamorous or open/swinging relationships about jumping every piece of tail that walks past.
I dunno. The beginning seemed really good a 'not for me but hey it's working for people!' kind of thing and then somewhere in the middle I saw a lean towards the author thining it was something bad and wrong- which was a disappointment after the first bit of the article. The note that was especially dispairing for me was the "...I guess." at the end. It seemed like an attempt to sound like someone who was nonjudgmental about the subject because, hey, what works for you isn't the same as what works for me and vice versa... but putting the "I guess" at the end of the bit about being different doesn't make it wrong puts a sour taste in my mouth as it seems as though the author is either lying to themselves or trying to be more open than they feel on the subject (if one disagrees I'd rather it not be partially veiled) or trying to appease the reader, which isn't really much better.
Eh, but overall I find it a mediocre article with a bit of passive-aggressiveness tossed in.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 7:31 am
Yeah, from my limited perspective at least, I agree with you there Mame.
Heh... before the article even begins it's cast in a certain light: "Open relationships are fascinating to outsiders, many of whom can't imagine being in one."
lol Facepalm indeed. Even if you ignore the obvious associations between terms and the profiling it entirely in terms of it being not considerable by established society, it's still a heading which strikes me as entirely vapid and what ignorant or straightjacketed people already probably think and are aware of...
I actually stopped reading at "That's not commitment, its convenience. In fact, it's just dating. You're married, but there are middle school kids in more committed relationships than yours", though confused That part kind of made me sick.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 08, 2009 12:21 am
My favorite part is after she's gone on about how uncommitted poly people are (hello? we're not afraid of commitment, we like it so much we can't stop committing to people! xp ), and she's talking about how wonderful commitment is, she says,
When I'm with someone and we've decided to be committed, to me that means, "OK, you can look (he's going to anyway), but don't you dare touch. If you do I'll make sure you regret it."
So wait, is commitment about love, sacrifice, or threatening your partner? I'm confused.
Anyway, overall, I found the article offensive. But whatever, that's how a lot of people out there feel, and there's no stopping people being clueless.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 08, 2009 1:40 am
Looking around on the site it seems as if the author usually takes the same approach on other topics as well. She's a cynic at heart it would seem, and gathers her reading audience with sarcasm and a hint of "it's ok as long as...".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 08, 2009 6:39 am
Did anyone look at some of the comments that basically say poly people should try to act more normal so people will accept them? o.o
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 09, 2009 9:15 am
I didn't read too much of the comments actually
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 11, 2009 8:47 am
Yeah, I saw that and thought it was pretty BS honestly. Sure, there are some fringey people who would stand out in a crowd who are poly... but then again I've had handfuls of friends catch me completely off guard that they are in a poly relationship or were interested in poly because of just how "normal" they seemed.
I think the person posting this may be too involved with the beauty myth out there because she's saying most people who are featured on poly things are either unattractive or strange. We don't have a certain look, and anyone willing to speak up about their lifestyle has free reign to do so. I'm not going to force a stereotypically beautiful triad out into the open if they don't want to be just because they seem more normal than someone else.
Besides people have to realise that looks don't have a damn thing to do with anything orientation or relationship congfiguration wise. Just as not all Trekkies are either underweight with pocket protectors and glasses or overweight with their bellies hanging out of their shirts and stains all over them >.< It's a stereotype, nothing more. Besides there are plenty of very stereotypically beautiful people advocating polyamory, by saying only stereotypically unattractive people are doing so is just not doing your research.
*shakes head* Ah well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
