(no subject)
Nov. 5th, 2002 10:37 amFrom a polyamory mailing list:
> > Would you say that you are definitely open
> > to polyfidelity?
>
> I'm not. For me, polyfidelity is just like
> monogamy. Except with more people.
> > Would you say that you are definitely open
> > to polyfidelity?
>
> I'm not. For me, polyfidelity is just like
> monogamy. Except with more people.
no subject
Date: 2002-11-05 11:20 am (UTC)On the one hand, I totally agree with the logical content of the statement.
On the other hand - it's tweaking my angst at the sfbay-poly community overwhelming feel of "being poly means out-looking-for-more-people-to-have-sex-with and if you disagree it's because you're being repressed or hypocritical and need to get over yourself" - which I disagree with.
no subject
Date: 2002-11-05 12:02 pm (UTC)Don't get me wrong, I think predator mode is a fine thing. Prowling for new partners, hey, whatever floats your boat.
But I think that attitude tends to focus on the NRE instead of simply building on what you currently have. There is a lot to be said for building on what you currently have instead of actively prowling.
Okay, off my soapbox and back to work. ;-)
no subject
Date: 2002-11-05 12:21 pm (UTC)So - I guess that puts me in a constant predator mode, but on a different vector.
the implementation is different for each of us. And for a bunch of people to whom "Your Kink is Okay" is a common model - why isn't this one? I'm often surprised at how not-the-mainstream-poly-model my model is.
no subject
Date: 2002-11-05 12:24 pm (UTC)Yup. It says a lot about the person who posted it (I'm never sure if I should name these people -- they are on a public mailing list, but still...).
I can definitely sympathize with the idea of being poly, finding a strong primary and just pretty much settling down with them. I've done that once for a couple of years. I can imagine doing the same with two or more people, though (as in the case with only one) it would have to be the right two or three people.