"Welcome to ask"

[Mr. Tweedy]

As for polyamory: I'm not pushing it as a cause.  When the word comes up, it's usually because I like to promote Minx's podcast when I mention her; that's what podcasters do.  (I'm also "Steve Eley of Escape Pod" when friends talk about me in their podcasts.)  Anyone who really wants my perspective on it is welcome to ask, either privately or in a Gallimaufry thread.

I have no interest at all in debating whether monogamy is better than polyamory.  Such a debate would be completely futile, since we'd have to define what "better" means in the context and for that we'd have to establish the purpose and meaning of life and to do that we'd need to decide whether or not this God person has anything to do with it, and that whole process probably isn't going to get very far off the ground in this format.  If anyone is ever in Bourbonnais and wants to discuss Life, the Universe and Everything, there's this cool coffee house called Moon Monkey we can go to.  I'll buy you a Nutty Chimp.

But I am curious to hear Steve's perspective.  Steve, you offered, so I'm asking.  What's your take?

[SFEley]

I have no interest at all in debating whether monogamy is better than polyamory.

Nor do I, but for different reasons.  I don't think the question can be addressed in the abstract; in the concrete, you'd have to ask "For whom?"

Different relationship structures work better or worse for different people.  I believe there are intrinsically monogamous people, who genuinely have eyes for no one else; and I believe there are intrinsically polyamorous people, who are happiest at the center of a loving network of people.  Most people are probably either somewhere in the middle or adapt themselves to culture and circumstance.

(Actually, to be cynical for a moment, most people are bad at both.  The majority of people who swear themselves to monogamy fail at it, through divorce and/or cheating.  However, those people wouldn't be any better at poly unless they changed their habits and perspective.   On the other side, the poly community has plenty of people who call themselves poly when all they really mean is "I'd like to have sex with a lot of people and be able to call myself ethical and enlightened for it."  I don't have much respect for that.  I think part of the problem is poor relationship education and a lack of good relationship models in culture.  But I digress.)

But I am curious to hear Steve's perspective.  Steve, you offered, so I'm asking.  What's your take?

Okay.  I have a couple of 'takes' here.  My take on polyamory in general is simply this: If individuals are capable of romantic love for others (and I believe we are) then we are capable of loving more than one person at a time.  It doesn't mean we have to; but we can, and we can be pragmatic and ethical about it.  It doesn't really matter if you're with one person, or two, or twelve; if you're honest, you communicate, and you're open to other people's needs, you'll probably be happy and make other people happy.  If you're not, you probably won't.  More people does make some things more complicated -- but that's just a matter of degree.  Monogamous couples still get jealous, have scheduling issues, don't always talk about what they need, etc.

That's general principle.  My take on me and my situation is this:

Anna and I have been 'poly in principle' for many years.  When we met in college, one of the reasons she stayed with me over the other people she was dating was because I was the one who didn't insist she date only me.  Since then, throughout our engagement and into our marriage, we've both had a few starts at relationships (her more than me -- hey, she's cuter) which never went far for various reasons.  It's not exactly an open marriage; we can't just do whatever we want with other people.  But we talk with each other and we're honest with each other, and when one of us really likes somebody else, we talk about it.  It doesn't happen often.

I met Minx in Chicago in March.  We'd corresponded in e-mail before -- she'd been asking to read a story for Escape Pod for a long time, and eventually did with EP091: The Acid Test.  In e-mail she said that if I was ever in Chicago we should do lunch.  As it happens, I was going up for Scott Janssen's and Deborah Green's wedding reception (Scott's our submissions editor, and Deb's read a bunch of stories for us; both are dear friends).  So we had lunch...and it became a long lunch...and that ended with us cuddling in my room and talking for a few more hours.  I knew that cuddling and kissing was as much as I could do without checking in with Anna.  Which I did, as soon as I got home, and she was fine.

For more on that initial meeting, including my emotional reaction to it, listen to Thing One.  I recorded it specifically for Minx, but phrased it so that it could be made public as well.  It'll give you a pretty good sense of where my head was.  Thing Two has a bit more about me and Anna.

Since then Minx and I have been together several times, had a couple of other occasions when we were supposed to be together but weren't, and we've had a lot of ups and downs.  She's still recovering from a terribly bad break-up of a years-long relationship, and that left some trust issues that we had to work through.  Trust in me, sure, but even bigger was trust in Anna to welcome her into the relationship.  The two of them have had strong challenges in getting to accept each other's communication styles, and both did things with good intentions that hurt the other.  They've been working through it: because they really do like each other, and also because they know it's important to me. 

Meanwhile, Anna and I are closer than ever.  My being attracted to Minx, and eventually falling in love with her, doesn't diminish my love or attraction for my wife.  She knows that.  There was no hole in my life before; this is something new that adds to what was already there.  Minx doesn't want to threaten my relationship with Anna; but honestly, she couldn't if she tried.  To use a poly label that I dislike but is strictly accurate, Anna's my primary.  If Anna didn't want my relationship with Minx to happen, it wouldn't happen.  She's happy for it to happen because she sees how happy it makes me. 

It works because everybody's honest with each other and because everybody wants what makes the others happy.  If Anna found someone else who made her happy, who didn't make her love me any less, I'd feel the same way.  Minx has come close once or twice and I've supported her.  She wants a relationship that's more local to her; and if it makes her happier and relaxed, I want her to have one too.  For that matter, I had a third relationship for a while: another podcaster I met at Balticon whom I won't name here.  (Her nickname in my LiveJournal is The Paper, because of the anime series we've been watching together.)  She came to Atlanta a few weeks ago, we explored things together, and decided we worked better as close friends.  Anna likes her too.

Is it complicated?  Hell yes.  Does it take a lot of time and energy?  Hell yes.  Has it had an impact on my work productivity, or on the Escape Pod slushpile?  ...No comment.

Is it about the sex?  Definitely not.  That's a long story that I'm not going to tell here, but suffice to say that if I simply wanted to have sex with more women this would have been very, very not worth the effort and drama.  I didn't have sex with Minx when we first met.  Nor the next time, nor in the next several months...  All I'll say is that I'm not doing anything Anna doesn't know about and feel comfort with.  (Nor is Minx doing anything with anybody else that I don't know about and feel comfort with.)

So what's it about, then?  It's about someone whom I got to like, and then love.  It's about Having Fun.  It's about a life that's just that much richer because someone else is in it.  It's about feeling wanted, it's about that twitterpated feeling you get when somebody new flips your insides out, it's about conversations, it's about caring.  It's about feeling really, really good when everybody is together and sharing and having a good time.  This moment at Dragon*Con had me feeling on top of the universe -- not primarily out of ego (though I won't deny we all had fun showing off), but because I could feel so much love and I was in the center of it:



Ultimately, it's because I can.  I can love both of these women, and people feel good and don't get hurt.

So why wouldn't I?

[FNH]

I'll buy you a Nutty Chimp.

I assume that's not an Insane Simian, but have no idea what it really is.  Is there a link/explanation forthcoming?

[wherethewild]

Meanwhile, Anna and I are closer than ever.  My being attracted to Minx, and eventually falling in love with her, doesn't diminish my love or attraction for my wife.  She knows that.  There was no hole in my life before; this is something new that adds to what was already there.  Minx doesn't want to threaten my relationship with Anna; but honestly, she couldn't if she tried.  To use a poly label that I dislike but is strictly accurate, Anna's my primary.  If Anna didn't want my relationship with Minx to happen, it wouldn't happen.  She's happy for it to happen because she sees how happy it makes me. 

I´m curious, because I´ve seen this happen to two long term poly relationships I knew (both over 10 years with their primary): at somepoint the emphasis shifted and the primary became secondary. In both cases this lead to the end of the primary relationship. Isn´t that a concern? That at some point your desire to spend time with Minx outweighs your desire to spend time with Anna? And how does that then work in a poly format? Obviously in a monogamy that leads to the end of a relationship, but in a poly... would Anna be willing to play second fiddle, so to speak, from then on? Or would you have to agree to leave Minx?

Man, I have enough trouble ensuring communication works in a monogamy (albeit, with a real language issue). I think I´d pop a blood vessel trying to deal with multiple ones.

[Mr. Tweedy]

I'll buy you a Nutty Chimp.

I assume that's not an Insane Simian, but have no idea what it really is.  Is there a link/explanation forthcoming?

It's a kind of cappuccino.  They stick amaretto and and hazelnut flavors in it, with a little bit of cacao, I think.  And something else...  It's pretty nutty and really yummy.

---------------------

I now see that debate here would be futile for more reasons than the one I mentioned.  More reason not to go there.

I want to clarify, though, to make sure I get what you're saying: Basically, you've got a "primary" relationship, and all other relationships are well and good provided the primary is cool with them.  The only firm rule is that all parties must be 100% honest with each other.

Is that right?

[SFEley]

I´m curious, because I´ve seen this happen to two long term poly relationships I knew (both over 10 years with their primary): at somepoint the emphasis shifted and the primary became secondary. In both cases this lead to the end of the primary relationship. Isn´t that a concern? That at some point your desire to spend time with Minx outweighs your desire to spend time with Anna? And how does that then work in a poly format? Obviously in a monogamy that leads to the end of a relationship, but in a poly... would Anna be willing to play second fiddle, so to speak, from then on? Or would you have to agree to leave Minx?

Well, first, I don't see that as even possible under present circumstances for practical reasons.  Minx is a long-distance relationship for me; she's in Chicago, I'm in Atlanta.  We're lucky to be seeing each other a few times this year.  (Well, lucky and grateful for Airtran sales.)  The rest of the time it's phone and Skype. 

I'm with Anna every day.  She lives with me.  We're raising our child.  She's the one I cuddle up with in bed at night.  I'm closer to Anna than I could be to Minx for all these reasons and more.  Anna and I really understand each other, and our love is stronger for it.

I'm not going to be absolute about the future.  Yes, it's possible that all three of us might end up living in the same city someday -- although nobody's seriously looking at it as a priority right now.  If Minx moves any time soon it'll be for career reasons; she's not looking at Atlanta any more than other cities.  If she did live nearby?  I'd probably see her a lot more, sure.  I'd also hope all three of us would do things more.  I'd try to make sure Anna didn't feel neglected.

Might my affections and my priorities change?  I don't know.  I can't honestly say "No, never" -- I can only say I don't see it happening right now.  How would we deal with it if that happened?  I don't know.  Since it isn't happening right now, I don't consider it important to plan ahead for that situation.

Man, I have enough trouble ensuring communication works in a monogamy (albeit, with a real language issue). I think I´d pop a blood vessel trying to deal with multiple ones.

Heh.  I do think that's one of the reasons it works for us -- Minx and I are both hardcore communicators.  I'm about as open with my feelings as any man's ever been; it's getting me to shut up about them that's the problem.  (See above.)  >8->  Anna's a bit more of an introvert, but she does make it known when she's okay and when she has a problem with things.  I won't say there's been no tension, but everybody's working through it.

[SFEley]

I want to clarify, though, to make sure I get what you're saying: Basically, you've got a "primary" relationship, and all other relationships are well and good provided the primary is cool with them.  The only firm rule is that all parties must be 100% honest with each other.

Is that right?

That's a bit simplified, but yes, I'd have to say it's a fair distillation of the situation for us at the present time.  I don't particularly like the primary/secondary jargon (I don't know many poly people who really like it), but sometimes it's accurate, and this is one such case.  There are other poly configurations that work for other people, of course.

Having affirmed that, I'm curious as to what you're thinking.

[Mr. Tweedy]

Having affirmed that, I'm curious as to what you're thinking.

Nothing in particular.  I just want to know what you're thinking.  I think it's valuable to understand diverse viewpoints.  It helps me to better understand people in general.  (And I hope to–someday in the distant and extremely hypothetical future–write some books, and I figure getting into people's heads will result in better characters.)

An absurd and extremely dorky analogy strikes me, but I'm just going to type is out and you all can go ahead and laugh derisively or scratch your heads in confusion: When you're playing Starcraft, it's good to get the "fog of war" off as much of the map as possible, even if you have no particular plans to colonize a given area.  It's beneficial simply to know what's out there.

[FNH]

I'm bemused and befuddled.  I hear/read what your saying but really I must be adding some unwritten sub text.  I cant truely understand the mindset, I keep seeing whats not being said.

As I see it :

[opinion]
You seem to have a relationship of planned pain.  At some point you intend to give love to another.  That can not but subtract it from your wife.  Unless you have clear and deliniated times when you dont give love to your wife.  If that were the case you would have times at which you could love another without the subtraction.  Every moment spent loving another takes away from your "primary" ( as you said, an unpleasant term ). 

It seems to me rather hurtful to tell someone you love them, provided no-one else takes that love away.  I dont see how that can not be unpleasant.

I'm sure you can "talk" your way through (thru) the issues, that sort of thing happens in a standard relationship, someone gets hurt/misunderstood, and you talk your way through it.  Yet if you do anything that raises or causes the problem, is that not selfish?
[/opinion]

I'm not trying to be imflammatory or hurtful, just express my point of view.

[SFEley]

You seem to have a relationship of planned pain.  At some point you intend to give love to another.  That can not but subtract it from your wife.  Unless you have clear and deliniated times when you dont give love to your wife.

That right there is your fallacy.  Love isn't a zero-sum game.  It's not a finite resource in that sense at all.

People love more than one person all the time.  Anna and I have a child.  You've heard me talk about Alex before.  I love him.  Let's say we had a second child.  Would loving that second child subtract from my love for Alex?  Is it "planned pain" to have more than one child?  Would I have to schedule clear and delineated times in which I didn't love Alex so that I could love the younger kid?

Do you really think that's how love works?  When people get married, do they have to stop loving their parents?  If they love their pets, does that diminish love for other people? 

If you're going to say "That's different, those are different kinds of love" -- then the burden is on you to explain what's different between those cases and this one. 

It seems to me rather hurtful to tell someone you love them, provided no-one else takes that love away.  I dont see how that can not be unpleasant.

But no one's saying that.  I love Anna and I love Minx.  There's no contradiction here.  When I started loving Minx, I didn't love Anna any less.  There was simply more love in total.

Does that make sense?

[SFEley]

An absurd and extremely dorky analogy strikes me, but I'm just going to type is out and you all can go ahead and laugh derisively or scratch your heads in confusion: When you're playing Starcraft, it's good to get the "fog of war" off as much of the map as possible, even if you have no particular plans to colonize a given area.  It's beneficial simply to know what's out there.

Actually, that's a wonderful analogy.  Good on you.

[FNH]

Does that make sense?

No, not to me.  Your being clear and explaining your viewpoint very well.  I hope I've been as clear about my viewpoint.

Yet your viewpoint is so foreign to me, your assumptions so removed from my own, and I assume your experience so removed from mine, that this "twain" shall never meet.

I wish you happiness.

[Bdoomed]

well, FNH, i may be wrong but i think that those who take up polyamory have a different mindset from us who only think of monogamy.  Its different for them, easier to see love as infinate and able to really love more than one person.  I can easily see how Steve can love both his wife and Minx.  Its like he said, loving two people is just like loving your child, your parents, your dog.  You get a new dog, you love it.  you have another child, you love him/her.  you find someone else to love, you love them too.  Just because you got a new dog doesnt mean you have to stop loving your old dog, or love it less.  Sure there's the initial 'newness' of the dog/child/lover, but after a while that 'newness' love dies down and you love everyone the same.

Also, i believe people who are polyamorous are most likely more open to these kinds of things.  Anna probably takes the idea of Steve meeting someone new much more easily because she knows what its like.  For those of us who dont know what its like, we would probably get jeleous incredibly easily.  I know that I, for one, would probably get jeleous and fast.  its most likely not for me, probably not for you either, FNH, from what your sayin

But hey, live and let live.  Im happy for you Steve, as long as it never interferes with you releasing Escape Pod on time, that is.


by the way, LOVED the Starcraft analogy!

[Mr. Tweedy]

by the way, LOVED the Starcraft analogy!

This is one of the reasons why talking to people here is more fun than talking to people at my office.

"Eh?  What's Starcraft?  Isn't that a kind of boat?"

[Bdoomed]

yea... at Coldstone, one of the Muzak songs we have starts off doo doo dOO, doo doo DOO (tune of the original zelda theme) and it keeps repeating those first few notes, but then it goes onto some random bad song.  Anyways it does those first few zelda notes and EVERY time i want it go finish the damn theme!  its painful, so i have to finish it myself.  anyways only 2 or 3 people get it, and only kind of get it.  my best friends dont see why im pissed at that song, because they dont play zelda

anyways... that was off topic! yay!

[Rachel Swirsky]

  The majority of people who swear themselves to monogamy fail at it, through divorce and/or cheating

I don't necessarily consider divorce to be failure at monogamy. Anthropologists have known for a long time that while our society claims to practice monogamy, what we actually practice is serial monogamy. I don't really see a problem with that.

FTR, I agree that there may be an inherent dimension to polyamory or monogamy. A friend of mine posed that it's like the kinsey scale. You have people who are totally monogamous, people who are totally polyamorous, people who are curious in either direction, and people who can be happy either way.

Personally, I'm as monogamous vanilla as they come -- when I'm living with my male partner, I don't even find myself attracted to other men. But I don't think that's superior or anything. It's convenient for this society, sure, but not superior.

[Mr. Tweedy]

I don't have scientific evidence for this (and I'm not sure that it would be possible to collect any), but I don't think that people are inherently anything.  I think we are ultimately what we choose to be.

For myself, I can imagine living any orientation or lifestyle.  I believe I could be gay or bi or poly, or whatever, with a little bit of practice at any of those things.  I honestly cannot conceive any sexual act that would be impossible for my psychology to embrace.  But I choose to be monogamous.  The choice sometimes means following my impulses and doing what feels good, and sometimes it means denying my impulses and not doing what might feel good.

Monogamy is not something that I practice because I feel a compulsion towards it, or because options other than monogamy gross me out.  It's the behavior I choose, which is not the same as saying it is the behavior to which I feel most inclined.

...I guess that was related to the palimpsest's "happy either way" comment, in an indirect way.

[Rachel Swirsky]

...I guess that was related to the palimpsest's "happy either way" comment, in an indirect way.

Well, that's cool.

I feel relatively similar. My sexuality is flexible enough that I could be lesbian, bisexual, or het. Do I choose to have heterosexual instead of homosexual relationships? Probably. It's easier not to have to deal with prejudice for one thing. And I'm certainly not immune to social messages that privilege heterosexuality over homosexuality. I don't think it's a coincidence that when I'm looking for a long-term partner, I look at men, and when I'm looking for people to while time away with, I prefer women.

However, not everyone feels the way we do. There are people who really aren't attracted to members of the same sex, or to members of the opposite sex. How can you erase their experience so glibly by insisting that they must be like you?

[wakela]

I met a polyamorous guy at Worldcon last week.  Also, I may have dated a poly girl in high school who I had met her at a con.  Does the fan community have a disproportionately high number of poly folk?

Other possibilities:
- Most of the new people I meet are fans.
- Fans are more willing to talk about it (with other fans at least).

[eytanz]

My guess is that there's an overlap in demographics - in my experience, most polyamorous people I know are middle class, high-school or college educated, and in their 20s or 30s. I haven't been to many cons but from what I see online, those are the main con demongraphics as well.

[SFEley]

Also, i believe people who are polyamorous are most likely more open to these kinds of things.  Anna probably takes the idea of Steve meeting someone new much more easily because she knows what its like.  For those of us who dont know what its like, we would probably get jeleous incredibly easily.  I know that I, for one, would probably get jeleous and fast.  its most likely not for me, probably not for you either, FNH, from what your sayin

Jealousy is certainly an issue.  It would be a lie to say that Anna's had no concerns or trepidations at any time.  I've also had jealousy because I know Minx is trying to date people in the Chicago area.  I tend to feel threatened more by possibilities than facts.  (What if she no longer has time for me?  What if she finds someone who does everything for her that I do, but better?  Etc.)

So yeah, it exists.  But that doesn't mean it has to control people, or ruin relationships.  The thing I do when I feel jealous is to try to figure out why I feel jealous, and then decide if it's something better dealt with on my own or if it's worth telling someone else "No, don't do that."  In the case of Minx dating other people -- that's really my problem to deal with, not hers, because it's reasonable behavior on her part and my jealousy's more about insecurity than actual injuries.  If she ever got into a situation that I thought was bad for her or bad for me, I'd tell her.  I can't stop her from anything; she doesn't need my permission to do things.  We haven't established that sort of agreement.  But she does check in with me, and she cares about how I respond to things.

(In practice, the few times she has gotten intimate with other people, I've been very happy for her.  I knew enough about the people to know it was a good situation, I knew it'd make her happier and more relaxed, and I knew it wouldn't hurt what we have.)

But hey, live and let live.  Im happy for you Steve, as long as it never interferes with you releasing Escape Pod on time, that is.

Heh.  Speaking of...  I better get back to sound editing.

[Rachel Swirsky]

my jealousy's more about insecurity than actual injuries

Totally. When I was in college, a guy wanted my boyfriend & I to join him in a poly relationship. I thought about it and realized I was waaaay too insecure to handle it. (In retrospect, I'm really glad we didn't agree anyway, as the guy was periodically suicidal and I think he wanted us to be his rescue, which is never a good situation.)

Kudos to those of you who can wrestle with that, and get past it.

[SFEley]

I don't have scientific evidence for this (and I'm not sure that it would be possible to collect any), but I don't think that people are inherently anything.  I think we are ultimately what we choose to be.

I'd like to echo and amplify the end of Palimpsest's response here.  You may be ultimately what you choose to be, and I think that's swell.  I'm moderately skeptical about your flexibility unless you've actually tried some of these things, but whatever.  That's your business.  I will not argue with you about your inner self; you know more about you than I do.

But generalizing that perspective isn't just poor reasoning, it's actively oppressive and sometimes dangerous.  I've seen marriages torn up by mono/poly conflicts, and nobody's happier for it.  I've known of parents losing custody and visitation rights to their children because the courts won't tolerate a polyamorous lifestyle.  I've known people on the brink of suicide because they were gay in situations where being gay was intolerable.  They didn't want to be gay; it made them miserable.  Sometimes people destroy themselves over it. 

And you're saying they choose this?  They choose to feel things in absolute contradiction to the lives and cultures they're living in, and ruin their own lives?  Without knowing anything about how other people feel, just how you feel, you can declare this as a universal fact?  And tell us that all this suffering is based on whim?

...

Having taken a moment to breathe, I will refrain from a highly emotional response, and simply say "I disagree."

[SFEley]

I met a polyamorous guy at Worldcon last week.  Also, I may have dated a poly girl in high school who I had met her at a con.  Does the fan community have a disproportionately high number of poly folk?

Yes.  There's a huge amount of crossover between polyamorous people, SF fans, Pagans, gamers, kinky/BDSM people, LBGT, etc.  It's a vast Venn diagram of (mostly) white middle-class tech-savvy nonconformity.  >8->

In the ironic center of that diagram, you have the BiPolyPaganGeek community.  Actually, the fully expanded name is the "Bi Poly Kinky Pagan Gamer Geek" community, but LiveJournal wouldn't let them pick a handle that long.

[Mr. Tweedy]

I don't want to debate this either, but I have some comments:

And you're saying they choose this?  They choose to feel things in absolute contradiction to the lives and cultures they're living in, and ruin their own lives?  Without knowing anything about how other people feel, just how you feel, you can declare this as a universal fact?  And tell us that all this suffering is based on whim?

On whim?  No.  Not at all.

I say people choose, but that does not imply that all choices are easy, straightforward, simple, understandable to outsiders or even transparent to the chooser.  Many times people don't think they have a choice.  Many people don't understand how to choose.  That applies to all spheres of life, not just sexuality.

I get the idea that you assume I look down with judgement upon people who do what I call sin: Well, they made the wrong choice didn't they?  They should have chosen better.  No.  Everyone has a story, and everyone has reasons why they make their choices, good or bad, and those stories need to be understood and respected.

This example is not directly related, but it's handy: Sundial Brigade.  Antonio makes a disastrously bad choice.  Was it because he's a worthless person?  No.  Was it because he likes killing innocent people?  No.  Does he deserve compassion?  Hell yes.  The dude needs a hug, and he needs someone to actually give a shit about how he got where he is.

I don't know if I can make you understand what I mean in this space, but if you think I'm being flippant, you're not getting me.  If you think I'm saying that everyone who is gay became so on a whim because they thought it sounded fun, you're not getting me.  And if you think my talk about choice is to make me feel good about having made better choices than other people, you're about 180º off.

However, not everyone feels the way we do. There are people who really aren't attracted to members of the same sex, or to members of the opposite sex. How can you erase their experience so glibly by insisting that they must be like you?

I don't deny your statement, I erase no experience, I'm not being glib and I don't insist on anything.  And why would I want anyone to be like me?  Do you suppose I consider the feelings I mentioned to be virtuous?

...I don't think either of you is likely to understand what I mean, so I think I'll retire to my dank little lair for a while.

[wakela]

Yes.  There's a huge amount of crossover between polyamorous people, SF fans, Pagans, gamers, kinky/BDSM people, LBGT, etc.  It's a vast Venn diagram of (mostly) white middle-class tech-savvy nonconformity.  >8->

And yet you can add "virgins" to the list.  Also, I haven't met a lot of homosexuals in the fan community, but I agree there are plenty of bis.  I don't think I will generate too much controversy with the opinion that fandom tends to be pretty inclusive and tends to attract those that feel left out of mainstream society. 

Race is clearly and non-personal choice issue, and I think sexual orientation is too.  Polyamory, and BDSM is a little more choisey, I think.  You can't choose if you are into it or not, but you can choose to try it, and then stick with it if it's your thing.   In general, I don't think straight people try gayness out to see if they like it.  It's a good idea to get clear the fog of war, and if you find a nice, strategic place you can try to set up a base there.  Maybe it works, maybe not.  But once the game starts you can't chose if you are the zerg, humans, or protoss.   (hold on while I nominate Tweedy for the Hugo for Best Metaphor).

So it seems that while the fandom community attracts those who find themselves outside the mainstream by choice, those that were born there stay away.  Then again, there are also a lot of disabled people...

I'm just thinking as I'm writing, so feel free to blow my theories out of the water (with a nuke, carrier, or a million hydrolisks). 

[ajames]

...I don't think either of you is likely to understand what I mean, so I think I'll retire to my dank little lair for a while.

Funny, I thought someone named Mr. Tweedy would retire to a cage, with a sweet elderly woman in her rocking chair nearby, and a cat named Sylvester peeking in the window.

I think I get what you are saying, Mr. Tweedy, maybe.  However, in the context of this debate, and it is an ongoing debate, fine distinctions about choice are going to be overlooked by most people.  And to make a statement that everyone has a choice about their sexual orientation is going to be interpreted as meaning that, more or less, it is a conscious, rational choice one can make, a choice that can be made without undue hardship, or at least too much hardship, perhaps no more difficult than quitting smoking [as an ex-smoker I realize this is not a simple choice, either, but having done it, and knowing many others who have, I know it can be done].

And as to that understanding of choice, well, I think Steve's comments nailed it.

But this discussion is not one I really want to enter, nor the discussion on monogamy and polyamory, other than to say, wow, Steve, that is totally not how I pictured you in my mind's eye!  [I'm referring to the picture you posted in this thread].  Funny how we make mental images based upon a voice and what the voice says, and in this case posts I have read, too, and how incongruous the image and real life can be!

[Mr. Tweedy]

Funny, I thought someone named Mr. Tweedy would retire to a cage, with a sweet elderly woman in her rocking chair nearby, and a cat named Sylvester peeking in the window.

No, it's a lair.  It's not really a very cool lair, though.  It hasn't got any piles of skulls or unholy relics.  Actually it's more of a basement...  It is dank, though.  That's something.  

Mr. Tweedy

[Listener]

Do you think some of the pushback against the poly lifestyle comes from...?

* Misconceptions -- it does not necessarily equal true that people in poly relationships all have sex at the same time.  In fact, that's a very personal question I'm not going to ask.  But posit that just because a three-person poly relationship can have up to four possible pairings doesn't necessarily mean that Man 1 sleeps with Woman 1 and Woman 2 at the same time.  In fact, it wouldn't surprise me (and again I'm stabbing in the dark here, being mono) if in fact sex != 3 participants in most poly relationships.  After all, what Steve talks about a lot is love, not sex. 

* Jealousy -- because of above misconceptions, people "stuck" in mono relationships but wondering about poly may be thinking "hey, two men/women at the same time!  Awesome!"  Look, IMO if you're going to want to boink two people at a time, do that.  If you're going to love two people at a time, do that.  If you can do both at the same time, more power to you.  But (possible TMI) I'd rather personally devote all my energy in the bedroom to a single partner, rather than having to subdivide, and honestly, some women (I'm a guy, so I can't speak for the other side here) really need 100% attention to have the most robust sexual experience possible (end possible TMI).

Having followed this thread for a while, and the other discussion it spawned from in the EP122 comment thread, I think I understand what Steve is saying -- he loves both Anna and Minx.  And he is apparently capable of doing so, and they of loving him at the same time while not forcing him into an exclusive situation.  I think that's great.  It's not my thing, but it's great.

But then, upon reflection... there are two women in my life besides my wife that I love.  A lot.  One is married, the other is single but lives 7 hours away by car.  I would never go to them -- or to my wife -- and suggest a poly relationship, partly because I don't want to share my wife should she want to add another love of her own (if she has one) but mostly because I love these two women the way I do, I don't want to take any chances at changing that.

So yeah, I'm mono.  My choice, probably influenced by my upbringing.  But like anyone else who has an "alternative" lifestyle, I think the majority of at least semi-intelligent people, though silent in their opinion, are perfectly willing to say "okay, as long as you don't force your opinion on me in a way I cannot choose to avoid, I will accept that you are this way and I am a different way".  Unfortunately, the vocal minority tends to rule, which is why we have people like Fred Phelps.  (I actually did a research paper on this phenomenon.)

[Chodon]

One question about poly-amorous relationships: how do you deal with some of the issues that go along with sex (pregnancy, disease, etc).  If you don't know who some of your lovers are with how can you know you are being safe. 

I'm familiar with some of the tools at one's disposal, but none of them are 100%, and less than 100% safety when it comes to the consequences wouldn't be good enough for me.

Also, how is this issue addressed with your children?  I would think this would be confusing to kids since it's most likely different than their friends' families.

I have to say I am all for one's right to practice whatever they want in their bedroom, but it seems to me that polyamory just adds a lot of un-needed drama.  My wife is all I'm ever going to need, and I wouldn't ever want to take the chance of hurting her with the drama that could come along.  I suppose it's like playing Starcraft and knowing you have all the resources you could ever need right next to your base.  Why would you ever leave?

[SFEley]

Not a lot of time today -- this week's EP is having more technical problems than any in a long time, so I'm still wrestling with getting the reading edited.  But a few thoughts while I take a break with the headphones off:

I say people choose, but that does not imply that all choices are easy, straightforward, simple, understandable to outsiders or even transparent to the chooser.  Many times people don't think they have a choice.  Many people don't understand how to choose.  That applies to all spheres of life, not just sexuality.

We may be down to semantics here.  To me your qualifiers are pushing the word "choice" nearly to the breaking point.  But that's going astray.  So I'll drop it and go astray in another direction.

Did I think you were being glib?  Yes, I did.  You give that impression a lot, Mr. Tweedy, whether you mean to or not.  You frequently sound as if you have All the Answers -- and, yes, to me at least, that does come off self-righteous.

I'm telling you this because you sound as if you genuinely don't mean to.  You do have unusual virtues in that you actually listen, and I've observed you to adapt your opinions and viewpoints based on other people's, so I don't think you're a bad guy.  I like you and I'm glad you're here.  (Proof: when people really seem dumb to me, I don't quote their feedback in the outros.  And I've quoted you by name several times.)  >8->  If anything, you just sound to me like you're an intelligent guy in your twenties.  I was far more pretentious and assumed far more omniscience in my twenties than you do.

If you really want to learn more about people, the best way is to ask questions and express a real interest.  You did that to start this thread off, and it was cool.  It's been a good discussion, at least IMO.  It's when you fall back to telling people how things are -- especially when you tell them how things are for them, not just you -- that discussion turns into argument.  You probably don't have a better understanding of the universe than everybody else; and even if you do, a book or a podcast might be a better place to present that than peer-based conversation.

...I don't think either of you is likely to understand what I mean, so I think I'll retire to my dank little lair for a while.

I'm not encouraging you to retire to your lair.  Your participation here adds a lot of energy to the boards, and viewpoints that the rest of us don't have.  I think it's cool.  I don't think your ideas and beliefs are less valid than anyone else's, as a personal philosophy at least, and I like hearing about them.  I'll only speak for me here: it's just your presentation style that puts me off, and only sometimes.  Be a little less about the stone tablets and a little more about "This works for me."


(This, by the way, is me communicating my feelings and perceptions, hoping that it will help with conflict resolution, because I care about our relationship.  This is how I do poly, too.  >8->  I've only been called a "presumptuous little prick" once for it, and I fully deserved it that time.  If I deserve it this time, feel free to tell me.)

[SFEley]

* Misconceptions -- it does not necessarily equal true that people in poly relationships all have sex at the same time.  In fact, that's a very personal question I'm not going to ask.

Heck, I'll answer it.  Threesomes are great.  I remember the last time I had one.  In 1998.  >8->  (Tequila's great too.  That is not a non sequitur.)

But then, upon reflection... there are two women in my life besides my wife that I love.  A lot.  One is married, the other is single but lives 7 hours away by car.  I would never go to them -- or to my wife -- and suggest a poly relationship, partly because I don't want to share my wife should she want to add another love of her own (if she has one) but mostly because I love these two women the way I do, I don't want to take any chances at changing that.

That makes a lot of sense.  You've put me in mind of my best friend R -- for anyone who reads my LiveJournal, she's the Immaculate Mistress who makes me clean up my house.  >8->  I've had a crush on R for many years; since we met in college.  She knows this.  She's also very poly, and is currently in close relationships with a large number of men and a couple of women.  In fact, at various times she's dated most of my social circle.  Most of the folks who come to my house on Saturday nights for Scotch and Doctor Who have been close with her.  I joke all the time that my social life exists primarily to facilitate R's sex life.  (Oh, and her husband is in relationships with some of the same people.)

But except for some weak attempts very early on, we've never seriously tried to date.  At this point I don't think I'd be romantic with her if I could be, despite my attraction.  She's much better for me as a best friend: she's the one who gives me perspective when I'm stressed about Minx or Anna, and listens to me on everything else in my life, and I do the same for her.  Heck, she's given me tips on kissing.  We do love each other, and we've said so, but I wouldn't want to risk some of the best parts of our friendship by bringing her so close that we don't have perspective. 

So yeah.  I get where you're coming from.  If you're happy, and you're making other people happy, then that's as good as you could ask for.

[SFEley]

One question about poly-amorous relationships: how do you deal with some of the issues that go along with sex (pregnancy, disease, etc).  If you don't know who some of your lovers are with how can you know you are being safe.

First: same way everyone else does.  Practice safe sex, get tested, disclose if you have STDs, make responsible decisions.  We've done that.  Heck, anyone who wants my STD test results, let me know, I'll send you a URL.

And who says I don't know who my lovers are with?  Minx tells me what's going on in her life.  I do the same. She's also far more conservative about safe sex than I am, and I respect that.  This isn't wild anonymous orgies or anything. At least not the way we practice it.  (Some people do, and they also have means to be safe.)

I'm familiar with some of the tools at one's disposal, but none of them are 100%, and less than 100% safety when it comes to the consequences wouldn't be good enough for me.

The only way to be 100% safe is never to sleep with anyone, ever.  I'm satisfied with my risk/benefit analysis and with the trust I place in the people I'm close to.

Oh, and never share liquids with anyone.  I caught Herpes Type 1 (the oral kind) by sharing a drink with my two-year-old, who got it from school.  Pain in the ass.  But then, about 60% of the population already has it, and over 25% have Type 2 (the genital kind). 

Also, how is this issue addressed with your children?  I would think this would be confusing to kids since it's most likely different than their friends' families.

Alex has quite a crush on Minx, actually.  It's really cute.  For days after she visits he's poking his head into the guest bedroom saying "Minx!  Minx!  Minx?"  (I usually call her by her real name, but we tell Alex her name is Minx because it's funnier to hear him say it.)

Right now he's two, so explanation isn't really called for.  When he's older, I'll be up front and honest.  What else would I do?

I have to say I am all for one's right to practice whatever they want in their bedroom, but it seems to me that polyamory just adds a lot of un-needed drama.  My wife is all I'm ever going to need, and I wouldn't ever want to take the chance of hurting her with the drama that could come along.  I suppose it's like playing Starcraft and knowing you have all the resources you could ever need right next to your base.  Why would you ever leave?

Heh.  That's probably the far limit of the Starcraft analogy.  After that we get into hostile invading forces, and I luckily don't have a lot of that in my relationship.  >8-> 

When it comes to "needed" -- well, all relationships have drama.  Whether we "need" any sort of relationship at all is a somewhat more ethereal discussion.  Would my life be simpler with only one relationship?  Yes.  I've had that.  It's really really good.  But this is good too.  Don't know that I "need" any of this.  But I like loving both of them.  I wouldn't give it up.

[Rachel Swirsky]

People might want to bear in mind that there are like a kajillion different ways to practice polyamory. It's not standardized, because there are a lot of different needs and situations to consider. So the way Steve is practicing polyamory may not be the way that Samuel Delany practices polyamory or the way that Person XYZ practices polyamory.

(So, for instance, in poly relationship Y, the polyamorous group of 6 people may be closed, so there are no new disease vectors introduced, anymore than there are in monogamous relationships [one takes care to remind people here that adultery can be a huge disease vector in monogamous relationships, which has been a huge factor in Africa when adulterous husbands transmit HIV to chaste wives]. In poly relationship Z, any new partner may be vetted by spouses, and new people would do all the normal sexual testing that you'd do in a monogamous relationship. In poly relationship Alpha, everyone might be really lazy and never check and all avoid getting sick just by luck, just as happens with some monogamous people.)

Polyamory can totally cause a lot of drama. Of course, monogamy can too. We're used to the kinds of drama that monogamy causes -- for instance, the drama of adultery, or leaving an old love because you find a new one. We're not so used to the kinds of drama that polyamory causes because it's new, and we haven't seen them as much before.

When I was in college, I saw people practicing polyamory, and I went "OMG, they are so totally idiotic" -- because for the most part they were. Their relationships were disasters and they were hurting people right and left. One sweet friend of mine who was about 19 or 20 got invited into a relationship with a married couple in their 40s, who thought introducing her would solve their problem. Shockingly, it didn't. A marriage on the rocks with two people, was still a marriage on the rocks when they added someone naive and new. Babies don't work to heal old wounds, and neither do new sexual partners.

But what I was missing was that most of my monogamous friends -- including myself -- were totally idiotic about relationships, too. Our relationships were disasters. We were hurting people right and left. I could probably find a dozen stupid monogamist anecdotes to mirror the one above about polyamory.

I think polyamory is probably more prone to drama than monogamy *in our culture* because it's less understood. We have fewer rituals embedded in our culture for how to adapt to the problems when we come up. Polyamory is great because it's flexible and new, but it also means that there's less of a pool of experience to draw on when things go bad. Responsible polyamorists think a lot about the ethics of their actions, and try to minimize the drama that comes up.

However, I think sometimes polyamory is judged by an impossible standard -- one informed by confirmation bias. We monogamists assume that polyamory is laced by drama, so whenever we see some drama, we go "Oh, yep, there go those dramatic polyamorists." At the same time, we ignore the same stuff that's happening in monogamist communities, because it doesn't fit into the same narrative in our heads about what monogamy is.

(This is the way most stereotyping works. For instance, if you believe Asians are bad drivers, then your brain will notice when you see bad Asian drivers, and not when you see good Asian drivers or bad drivers of other races. It will put emphasis on the badly driving Asians and confirm to itself, "Yup, those Asians sure suck at driving.")

[Mr. Tweedy]

You probably don't have a better understanding of the universe than everybody else; and even if you do, a book or a podcast might be a better place to present that than peer-based conversation.

Oh, if only I had more time to write!  I'm slowly working on ditching this soul-sucking day job so I'll have a bit more time lying around.  As it is, it takes me weeks to pound a out a 5000 word draft, and I need to pound out about 10 to get them anywhere.  _(Sigh.)  Watch for "Veritium", "The Wold", "Truesilver", "Suicide Note", "Permanent Daylight" and the epic series "The Inner World," all appearing somewhere... someday... maybe.

I don't think your ideas and beliefs are less valid than anyone else's, as a personal philosophy at least, and I like hearing about them. [...]  Be a little less about the stone tablets and a little more about "This works for me."

You don't understand that my "personal philosophy" cannot exist as merely personal.  It's universality is an integral aspect of it, without which it would not exist.  ...And I would say yours is the same way, although you would not agree.

Maybe it will make more sense when my novel comes out in 2052.  Preorder now!

[Rachel Swirsky]

although you would not agree.

I'm not sure you necessarily understand relativism -- although there are really important differences between what Steve believes and what I believe, so I shouldn't be taken as speaking for him.

For instance, I believe in a universal morality, too -- it's just plain WRONG to enslave other people, to mutilate other people, to create systems that oppress people based on incidental factors, and so on. I believe that because I believe that system of morality can be derived from human behavior, thought, and suffering.

Within that, I'm going to make radically different distinctions than you do. For instance, I think you're immoral because you refuse to live and let live as regards homosexuality. Also, I would never want to dictate your religion, even though I think your interpretation of it is immoral -- but I might want to limit some of its public effects. For instance if you were a radical muslim who believed in infant female genital mutilation, which of course you're not, I would advocate for disallowing that until the infant is an adult & able to make her own decisions about entering the religion. (side note: of course there are many varieties of islam that don't practice FGM and find it anethema. there are also those that incorporate what is fundamentally a cultural practice into their religion.)

On the other hand, you and your partners could have all the sex you want in any way you want and announce it all you like, and I might roll my eyes and switch the TV channel as it were, but I wouldn't care on a moral level (as long as you weren't mutilating, enslaving, oppressing each other, etc.).

This is mostly a derail. I just wanted to make the point that it's not like liberals -- or atheists -- think nothing and no one is immoral.

--

I want to add, I don't mean this in a nasty way. I bear you no ill will, Mr. Tweedy. But if we're talking about applied systems of morality, I think some of your behaviors are immoral. I'm sure you think the same of mine. Fair 'nuff, but we can still talk and enjoy spec fic. Yay.

[Rigger]

Also, how is this issue addressed with your children?  I would think this would be confusing to kids since it's most likely different than their friends' families.

Alex has quite a crush on Minx, actually.  It's really cute.  For days after she visits he's poking his head into the guest bedroom saying "Minx!  Minx!  Minx?"  (I usually call her by her real name, but we tell Alex her name is Minx because it's funnier to hear him say it.)

Right now he's two, so explanation isn't really called for.  When he's older, I'll be up front and honest.  What else would I do?

I think people assume that children are more fragile than they really are. The last generation in the United States that I have seen start to enter their teen years honestly scare me. They do not have nearly the same level of sexual education (I knew what a condom was by the time I was 13), and they come across as spoiled children with little to no discipline. I realize this makes me sound like a crotchety old man, but the last time I went out to eat, kids seemed more interested in their hand held games than in interacting with anyone. It honestly shocked me.

But behavioral conditioning of human larva aside, honesty doesn't hurt. As I said before, I grew up in a poly environment; ironically enough it was a "Bi Poly Kinky Pagan Gamer Geek" sorta community. It was filled with brilliant minds, and fun people. In fact, it led me to a personal conclusion that all geeks are kinky, one way or another. Whether or not that assumption is correct, I cannot say. But shows like Lexx and Farscape only cement my perception.

When it comes to being raised in an environment like that, my friends (who also had poly parents) and I got to see a lot of things that helped me with our own personal relationships. We saw some of the nastiest breakups of poly couples. Horrible fights, and incredible levels of jealousy. Much to my amusement, it was always the same problem: lack of trust, and lack of communication. We learned a lot watching my parents and their friends try and make polyamory work; they made glaring mistakes in the dating and courtship process that taught me a lot about human nature and relationships.

On the other side of things, my friends who's parents were monogamous seemed to be downright clueless about how to be open and honest with another person. I could tell that their parents did not explain or communicate anything about relationships because theirs were "normal" and did not require any explanation. I personally felt happy that polyamorous parents took the time to explain how their love life was different from other families. Sexuality was not a taboo, but neither was it flaunted. It was simply part of who people were.

Now, I don't have the opinion that monogamous relationships are somehow less valid than polyamory, nor do I think that there is anything wrong with monogamous people, but I did see the difference in how my friends matured.

It sort of forces you to keep an open mind when you are growing up with poly parents in a poly community. You might come home one night to discover your best friend's mother is now a little closer to the family then she was a week ago.

[eytanz]

I met Minx in Chicago in March.  We'd corresponded in e-mail before -- she'd been asking to read a story for Escape Pod for a long time, and eventually did with EP091: The Acid Test.  In e-mail she said that if I was ever in Chicago we should do lunch.  As it happens, I was going up for Scott Janssen's and Deborah Green's wedding reception (Scott's our submissions editor, and Deb's read a bunch of stories for us; both are dear friends).  So we had lunch...and it became a long lunch...and that ended with us cuddling in my room and talking for a few more hours.  I knew that cuddling and kissing was as much as I could do without checking in with Anna.  Which I did, as soon as I got home, and she was fine.

Just as an example of how different people are different, it suddenly occured to me that I could never be in Anna's position here - while I'm just coming out a relationship (which ended for reasons that had nothing to do with any third person, except perhaps our parents), if my girlfriend would have been away at a conference or something, and she had a rough day and wanted to work out some tension and found some random person and fucked him, I wouldn't have cared much at all (assuming safe sex). If she would have met an acquintance and ended up cuddling and talking for several hours - I would have been insanely jealous.

[Mr. Tweedy]

For instance, I believe in a universal morality, too -- it's just plain WRONG to enslave other people, to mutilate other people, to create systems that oppress people based on incidental factors, and so on. I believe that because I believe that system of morality can be derived from human behavior, thought, and suffering.

Within that, I'm going to make radically different distinctions than you do. For instance, I think you're immoral because you refuse to live and let live as regards homosexuality. Also, I would never want to dictate your religion, even though I think your interpretation of it is immoral -- but I might want to limit some of its public effects. For instance if you were a radical muslim who believed in infant female genital mutilation, which of course you're not, I would advocate for disallowing that until the infant is an adult & able to make her own decisions about entering the religion. (side note: of course there are many varieties of islam that don't practice FGM and find it anethema. there are also those that incorporate what is fundamentally a cultural practice into their religion.)

I really don't understand how you call yourself a relativist and claim there are no moral absolutes while making statements like this.  Is it always wrong to mutilate little girls' genitals?  Even if society at large approves of the practice?  Even if everyone within 1000 miles thinks it's not only acceptable, but necessary?  Do you allow for gray in this area?

-------------

For clarification:

When I say "monogamy," I do not mean sex with only one person at a time.  I mean sex with one person ever*.  Monogamy and serial monogamy are different ideas.

_{*With the exception of if a spouse dies, of course.}

[Russell Nash]

When I say "monogamy," I do not mean sex with only one person at a time.  I mean sex with one person ever*.  Monogamy and serial monogamy are different ideas.

Oh wow, My wife and I are extremely grateful to eachother for having had previous partners.  Technique aside, and that is a BIG aside, sex is a massive factor on how a relationship works.  I don't believe that a long term relationship can be held together by sex, but I do believe that bad sex can destroy a relationship.  Just like there is a learning of how to interact with friends and how a relationship works, there is a learning of how to have sex.  And then after you have learned how to be with someone, sometimes sexual-personalities don't fit.  Sex with someone you love is such an intimate thing, that things that are maybe small annoyances in normal life can be magnified to levels beyond what is acceptable.  (Don't know if my point is getting across, but I don't have the time right now for a rewrite.)

My wife and I entered our relationship battered but educated by previous loves.  When we proceeded to the more physical aspects of our relationship, we both found a confirmation of what we saw in the other.  Because of our experiences there were no fake walls of what we thought we should do, or stumbles caused by uncertainty.  There was only us, ready to explore and be explored.  (That got a little sappy)

Anyway, I was never interested in the virgins.  Too many headaches.

[wherethewild]

Oh wow, My wife and I are extremely grateful to eachother for having had previous partners. 

I agree. My husband and I learnt so much from having had previous partners and things that went WRONG, that now we can actually work through stuff healthily. And I´m not talking just sex either (although I doubt there´s an adult around that will disagree that a happy sex life is viatl to a functional relationship - unless you´re asexual and you have an asexual partner and yes, there are a lot of asexual folk around too).

I look at my friend who married her high school sweetheart, and see how ill prepared the two of them are for problems in their relationship. They have never had varied experiences to teach them the best way of interacting with one another and so the problems they have are (in my view) just stupid and juvenile ones that my husband and I ARE equipped to work through, solve and come out better for it.

[DKT]

Oh wow, My wife and I are extremely grateful to eachother for having had previous partners. 

I look at my friend who married her high school sweetheart, and see how ill prepared the two of them are for problems in their relationship. They have never had varied experiences to teach them the best way of interacting with one another and so the problems they have are (in my view) just stupid and juvenile ones that my husband and I ARE equipped to work through, solve and come out better for it.

I just wanted to share my own perspective on this.  I actually did marry my high school sweetheart (we were sweethearts our senior year, but we didn't go to the same high school).  She moved to Northern California to attend UC Davis and we did the long distance thing for a number of years, then got married after finishing college.  Actually she finished, I still had another year.  Without giving too much information, we were both virgins when we got married.  We've been married together for 8 years now and I'm very happy with the choices we made.  (I'm pretty sure my wife is, too.)  I love that the only woman I know (in the Biblical sense) is my wife, all my experience is with her, and that it's a shared experience and intimacy just between the two of us.  Like any marriage, we've had good times and bad times and drama.  But we've learned (and are still learning) to deal with those problem from a young age.

I'm not saying any of this because I think our relationship is superior to anyone else's here (I think if you know me, this probably goes without saying) but for us, it was the way we chose to go and looking back, I'm glad we did.  I actually think it's extremely cool how Russell Nash and wherethewild learned from their past relationships and how its improved their current relationships. 

And I've found this discussion about polyamory both fascinating and enlightening (I've never really been exposed to it before, which makes me feel a bit out of it, which is why I've pretty much just been reading).  Steve's answers have given me a completely different perspective than I had before and I'm grateful for that.  I just didn't want people to assume that getting married to your high school sweetheart, much less being a virgin when you do it, is automatically a bad thing. 

[Mr. Tweedy]

I too married my high school sweetheart, who was also my first and only girlfriend.

Jeanna and I met when we were 16 and 17, and I knew pretty much right away that I wanted to marry her.  We got engaged a year later.  Then we went through this stupid and stressful waiting period of an extra year–not because we thought it was a good idea, but to appease various social forces and expectations–then got married when we were 18 and 20.  (Since then I've told everyone that engagement should last only as long as it takes to scrap a wedding together.)

Were we perfectly mature and in all ways ready to start a life together?  No.  Duh!  Nobody ever is.  Life's a journey, and there are always lots of hard parts in any journey worth taking.  We've become more mature through long and patient practice, and the process continues.

Four years so far, and I dare say that year four has been better than year one was.

[Rigger]

I too married my high school sweetheart, who was also my first and only girlfriend.

Were we perfectly mature and in all ways ready to start a life together?  No.  Duh!  Nobody ever is.  Life's a journey, and there are always lots of hard parts in any journey worth taking.  We've become more mature through long and patient practice, and the process continues.

I have to say, I was in the same boat for a while. I married my high school sweetheart after we had been together for six years (yah, we met around 16). It was the first serious (sexual) relationship for either of us, and we were very close for many years. However, the marriage only survived for two years.

I realized (with help from my alternative upbringing) that my conservatively raised Wisconsin bride was in fact a lesbian. I helped her come to terms with that discovery, and we parted ways. It was in no way an easy breakup, but the moment she came to terms with it both her panic attacks and her ulcers disappeared.

Her parent's didn't enjoy the news (Rush Limbaugh speaks nothing but gospel for them), but her life greatly improved. Was I sad to see her go? Yes, for a while. But I was honestly just happy to have helped her grow and come to terms with who she is.

I've been in a relationship with my current partner for the last two years. She and I have both agreed that we would like to bring another woman into our relationship at some point, and we have an open policy of communication for the "just in case" meetings (Like Steve and Minx for example).

Could I have done this with my wife? No. We were waay to insecure and clingy to each other. I partially blame that on the fact that neither of us had had previous partners. Another part of it was just the dynamics of the relationship... but I am much happier with my current situation. We both love eachother, and understand that there may be others that we might love along the way.

You never know who's path you might come across. Had I met my current partner while still in a relationship with my ex-wife... we would have definitely ended up having an affair. There are some people with whom you just... click.

[RNDG33K]

I am going to start off on a bit of a tangent, but I will hopefully come back to the main idea of the thread.

I do not understand how someone could believe in an universal morality. One just has to look at the contrasting moral views on almost anything: abortion, polyamory, stem cell research... there is no end to clashing views of what is right or wrong. These things are smaller than the killing of other humans, but there even times when that was considered acceptable. Look at how the natives and the slaves were treated during the colonization of the Americas; it was considered acceptable for them to be brutally punished or killed by their masters.

With this in mind, one has to consider where people get these contrasting morals. It appears to me that people are conditioned to believe certain things. This may like Brave New World but it is so simple and people are constantly acknowledging the fact. Numerous references have been made throughout this thread that certain cultures accept certain things or that people with a more alternative upbringing are more accepting of others. Watson's Little Albert experiment is a perfect example of this conditioning that takes place. Conditioning can occur at almost any point in life, so more stimuli must be factored then how a person's parents raised them or what religion they were exposed to as a child. There are numerous cases where people were raised with a sibling but still behave differently.

Obviously, all people are different and have different life experiences. Therefore, all people will have different conditioned moral codes. This further implies that there is no universal moral code and that almost all moral judgments are relative to the person making them. Therefore, it seems that people should resort to logic when they consider important decisions if they wish to make an objective decision. At the very least, people need to acknowledge their conditioned morals when they make very important decisions in their lives. Unfortunately, when some people come to a logical conclusion that contradicts their morals, people will tend to stick to their conditioned responses. Examples of this include the brutal treatment of slaves, racism, stem-cell research and other topics.

Another example could include marriage or love...

[raygunray]

I married late in life which is in contrast to the rest of my family that almost unanimously married in their teens.  All are divorced or single parents and, incidentally, all were raised Pentacostal Christian.  I consider most of them victims of 'abstinence only' dogma since this led to them marrying young or having sex without protection. 

Because I'm a older and have been involved with many short and long-term relationships, I knew much about myself when I married. With maturity and experience, you learn to put your emotions in check and make decisions based on facts and experience.  I know how I am in a conflict or angry or criticized so when a situation arises, I know how to work around my faults and come to a solution.  Fortuneatly, me and my wife don't argue and tend to find consensus on family issues. In a relationship, you will get everything you want, just not in the order you expect.

As for polyamory, I've noticed that someone in the relationship get hurt and eventually cast off.  I've known someone this happened to and she was in a suicidal and drug dependent state.  She got better but I could tell she carried deep wounds from the relationship.  I don't know if it hurts any more or less than a traditional relationship breakup, but it seemed like the kind of hurt you feel when you're kicked out of the club you helped create.  Also, I heard another woman say, "We'll men will cheat on you anyway, so I might was well have some fun too." It was heartbreaking to hear someone agree to be a throw rug in her own home.

I believe if you fall in love with someone and you feel they are worthy of it, then they deserve 100%.  They deserve one lover, one friend, one champion that looks at them and says: "You are worthy of one man or woman to love you with fullsome passion and attention.  You are my One."  I think everyone deserves that.

I've noticed that the SF crowd is the most 'family-values' people I've ever met.  I see many couples who have been together for a long time and take good care of their children.  It seems the overall divorce rate is lower.  I can't find any statistics on this but it has proven true.  The divorce rate seems lower than most 'traditional marriage' churches I've visited.  I think its also because most are college educated and the divorce rate is lower among the educated.

A note on "HS sweetheart" marriages: Those kind of marriages seem to work if both people already know what they want to do with their lives careerwise.  Also, getting your education first is crucial since it means better financial stablity.  Its the ones that marry out of some romantic whim or because they're having a child and get stuck in low-wage jobs that seem to end in divorce.

[SFEley]

As for polyamory, I've noticed that someone in the relationship get hurt and eventually cast off.  I've known someone this happened to and she was in a suicidal and drug dependent state.  She got better but I could tell she carried deep wounds from the relationship.  I don't know if it hurts any more or less than a traditional relationship breakup, but it seemed like the kind of hurt you feel when you're kicked out of the club you helped create.

Was there a modifier missing in that first sentence?  "Someone in the relationship always gets hurt..." or some other adjective?  If so, I disagree from experience.  I've known a number of people who've maintained stable poly relationships for many years.  True, they're not all stable.  And when you have more people in a break-up the drama can sometimes be spectacular.  But saying poly relationships always fall apart is like saying marriages always end in divorce.  It simply isn't true.

Also, I heard another woman say, "We'll men will cheat on you anyway, so I might was well have some fun too." It was heartbreaking to hear someone agree to be a throw rug in her own home.

"Throw rug?"  I can't agree with her characterization of men, so her motivations may be suspect, but a conscious decision to take charge of enjoying one's life is being a "throw rug?"

Many men cheat.  So do many women.  Many men and women would never consider it.  I've never cheated on my wife -- and in a poly context it makes even less sense.  Why would I go behind Anna's back when I can discuss my feelings for other people openly, and if she feels good about it, get her consent?

I believe if you fall in love with someone and you feel they are worthy of it, then they deserve 100%.  They deserve one lover, one friend, one champion that looks at them and says: "You are worthy of one man or woman to love you with fullsome passion and attention.  You are my One."  I think everyone deserves that.

That's a fine perspective, and if it's led to a successful long-term relationship for you I couldn't begin to argue.  It's simply not the only one that works. 

I've noticed that the SF crowd is the most 'family-values' people I've ever met.  I see many couples who have been together for a long time and take good care of their children.  It seems the overall divorce rate is lower.  I can't find any statistics on this but it has proven true.

This is anecdotal and could be selection bias, but if it is, I've got the same bias.  The fannish geeks I know do seem to have successful relationships and make attentive parents.  But if your chosen crowd, what you consider the "SF crowd," correlates highly with my chosen crowd, then you also have a much-higher-than-average percentage of poly people, kinky people, Pagans, gay/bi/transsexual people, etc.

...All of whom, more often than average, seem to have successful relationships and make attentive parents.  I agree with you that it probably has a lot to do with education, intelligence, and awareness.  I bring up the diversity of SF fandom only because "family values" is such a loaded and contentious phrase, and I wanted to make sure you weren't using it in its most popular exclusionary sense.

[SFEley]

And since the topic's been bumped, I may as well go back to address a couple of posts I meant to say something about but never did:

 

When I was in college, I saw people practicing polyamory, and I went "OMG, they are so totally idiotic" -- because for the most part they were. Their relationships were disasters and they were hurting people right and left. One sweet friend of mine who was about 19 or 20 got invited into a relationship with a married couple in their 40s, who thought introducing her would solve their problem. Shockingly, it didn't. A marriage on the rocks with two people, was still a marriage on the rocks when they added someone naive and new. Babies don't work to heal old wounds, and neither do new sexual partners.

This might be the most significant paragraph in the whole thread.  It's a very important point, and I've seen it too.   People who think they can "fix" broken relationships by making them more complicated with more people -- or, worse, people who were already cheating and declare themselves poly in an attempt to justify it.  This trick never works.  A decision to be polyamorous can make healthy relationships better if both people are on board with it.  But it will only make unhealthy relationships worse.

One common behavior which has become a cliché in the poly world is to decide you're poly by saying "Oh, ho-hum, our marriage has gotten boring, let's find a hot bi babe that we can both sleep with to liven things up."  This is almost always the man's idea -- go figure.  Not only is it a dumb idea, it's very difficult to implement.  Hot bi babes do exist (I know several) but they are, on the whole, spectacularly uninterested in being objectified as somebody else's marital toy.  HBBs willing to go along with this are referred to as "unicorns" because they're widely believed to be mythical.

I think polyamory is probably more prone to drama than monogamy *in our culture* because it's less understood. We have fewer rituals embedded in our culture for how to adapt to the problems when we come up. Polyamory is great because it's flexible and new, but it also means that there's less of a pool of experience to draw on when things go bad. Responsible polyamorists think a lot about the ethics of their actions, and try to minimize the drama that comes up.

That's true, but to be fair, I also think that there very often is more drama when there are more people involved in a relationship and things turn sour.  That's just mathematics: more nodes on the network, more bridges that could burn.  And that's before you bring in extended networks of friends, who in poly circles may be more intimate with the participants than usual, etc.  It can get really, really ugly, and hurt more people in more colorful ways than a typical monogamous break-up. 

It's a risk.  As you say, smart people try to avoid it by acting ethically and by dealing with problems as they come up rather than letting things simmer under the surface.

However, I think sometimes polyamory is judged by an impossible standard -- one informed by confirmation bias. We monogamists assume that polyamory is laced by drama, so whenever we see some drama, we go "Oh, yep, there go those dramatic polyamorists." At the same time, we ignore the same stuff that's happening in monogamist communities, because it doesn't fit into the same narrative in our heads about what monogamy is.

Yes.  Exactly.  There aren't any statistics out there to say whether poly relationships last longer on the whole than monogamous relationships -- there may never be good statistics on it, given how many poly people stay closeted in their public lives.  But I can't help looking at the U.S. divorce rate (currently around 40% by my best-effort research) and thinking, "Wait, monogamous marriage is the model that everyone says works?"

When it comes down to it, I think most people are just bad at relationships.  We're never taught how to have good relationships, and the interpersonal skills it takes to find one and keep one.  Schools don't teach it; the books that exist on the subject are rarely read by anyone unless there are problems; counselors who specialize in it only work with people whose relationships are on the brink.  Some religions and If you're lucky, you might have some good examples growing up; but people don't necessarily learn best by their family's examples, and it shouldn't come down to luck.

If people learned better how to have relationships, how to listen and talk, and how to fairly match their needs up with the needs of the people they care about, I think we'd have many more successful monogamous relationships and many more successful polyamorous relationships.

[raygunray]

I bring up the diversity of SF fandom only because "family values" is such a loaded and contentious phrase, and I wanted to make sure you weren't using it in its most popular exclusionary sense.

I certainly didn't mean that in any exclusionary sense.  I co-opted it to describe people, of all persuasions, who are in loving in dedicated relationships.  Yes, its true that all relationships can crash and leave many ravaged hearts behind.  And I don't believe there is only one way to love.

As for all lifestyles and persuastion, I am a civil libertarian as in "Do as you wish and harm no one."  Yet, even in my monogomous, vanilla life, I have hurt people emotionally and have had the same done to me.   

The "family values" aka Traditional Marriage proponents sell marriage like its the best and most stable relationship for everyone.  Yet, if it doesn't work for 10-20% who try it, and those have found better relationships, it doesn't discredit the traditional avenues.  Nor does it threaten it.  Society's human interactions are more organic that didactic and some people are made up different.

This discussion reminds me of Theodore Sturgeon's "Mr. Costello, My Hero." where Constello takes over colonies by encourages persecution of a small minority, the installs himself as protector.

[SFEley]

When it comes to being raised in an environment like that, my friends (who also had poly parents) and I got to see a lot of things that helped me with our own personal relationships. We saw some of the nastiest breakups of poly couples. Horrible fights, and incredible levels of jealousy. Much to my amusement, it was always the same problem: lack of trust, and lack of communication. We learned a lot watching my parents and their friends try and make polyamory work; they made glaring mistakes in the dating and courtship process that taught me a lot about human nature and relationships.

Awesome post, Rigger, thanks.  I'm curious, if you don't mind my asking: roughly how old are you?  (You can round off to the nearest 5 years or so if the question's too indelicate.  I'm just wondering which generation.)

In my circle of really close friends, Anna and I are the first with kids, but I know a few poly/pagan families in my area with kids either in or nearing adolescence now.  Of the kids I've spent any time with, a couple are abysmally spoiled; some are well-socialized and interact well on an adult level; but they're all scary smart.  Often smarter than their parents, IMO.  I don't have any really solid theories about causes for this, if it isn't just coincidence.  If I had to guess I'd say there's a lot of benefit in having enough adults nearby to pay attention. 

[wakela]

What's the connection between Paganism and polyamory?

[Planish]

What's the connection between Paganism and polyamory?

They both start with the letter "P"?
(What did I win?)

I married my first True Love in college, and we've been Happily Ever After since 1975. Not a clue as to why it worked. 

[SFEley]

What's the connection between Paganism and polyamory?

Nothing direct -- but they seem to go together an awful lot of the time.  Along with interests in role-playing games, BDSM, science fiction, technology...  There's no specific reason I can think of why so many of the same people should be interested in all these things; I'm sure there's a lot of sociological theory here, but I'm not that grounded in it.  It just seems to happen this way more often than not.

See earlier in the thread about the Bi Poly Kinky Pagan Gamer Geek community, and what I call the "Venn diagram of mostly-white middle-class non-conformity."


(UPDATE:  Actually, I can think of one direct link between two of those spheres -- poly and SF.  You'd be amazed how many people in the poly community cite Robert A. Heinlein for their philosophical underpinnings.  Alas, it's mostly the later Heinlein books, which for the most part I couldn't stand.)

(2nd UPDATE:  Okay, come to think of it, three spheres.  There's also a widespread and serious Pagan religious group, the Church of All Worlds, directly inspired by the teachings of Michael Valentine Smith in Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land.  CAW co-founder Morning Glory Zell is credited with first coining the term "polyamory."  I've almost been a member of CAW in the past, and been close to people who were.  All I can say is that I'm a lot less Pagan now than I used to be -- but I don't regret any of it.)

[lowky]

What's the connection between Paganism and polyamory?

my opinion on this is that people who are into both tend to be educated and to truly become well educated requires an open mind.  an open mind leads people to both question the status quo as well as be accepting to more "fringe" ideas than the "mainstream". ( I use quotes same way I would if referring to someone as normal.  Normal is an average, not something anyone truly is)

[wakela]

What's the connection between Paganism and polyamory?

Nothing direct -- but they seem to go together an awful lot of the time.  Along with interests in role-playing games, BDSM, science fiction, technology...  There's no specific reason I can think of why so many of the same people should be interested in all these things; I'm sure there's a lot of sociological theory here, but I'm not that grounded in it.  It just seems to happen this way more often than not.

I just found it interesting that you listed fan proclivities twice, and both lists were mostly sexual tendencies plus pagansim.  And then in that last post you put poly and paganism together as if their was a cause and effect thing going on or a tight connection.  I wasn't sure if polyamory was a tenant of paganism.  Having browsed the CAW site, it looks like there is a loose connection.  Maybe like a Christian church and potluck dinners.  If you don't go to the dinner it doesn't mean you don't believe, and simply bringing a meatloaf to a church doesn't give you a ticket to eternal bliss in the hereafter.  But there is a general vibe of breaking bread and sharing meals and fellowship in the stories of Jesus, so it seems like a compatible activity if you are into it.  And no, I am not really trying to equate an important aspect or your life with a tuna casserole (though I've has some seriously good tuna casserole in my day...). 

I looked for the venn diagram but didn't find it. 

What's the connection between Paganism and polyamory?

my opinion on this is that people who are into both tend to be educated and to truly become well educated requires an open mind.  an open mind leads people to both question the status quo as well as be accepting to more "fringe" ideas than the "mainstream". ( I use quotes same way I would if referring to someone as normal.  Normal is an average, not something anyone truly is)

I think it's impossible to say that the pagans and polys are not open-minded.  They are practically open-minded by definition.  As far as education goes, what kind of education are we talking about?  I'm with you that most of these guys really like to read, and many of them are good with computers.  What about engineers, lawyers, and medical doctors? 

[eytanz]

I think it's impossible to say that the pagans and polys are not open-minded.  They are practically open-minded by definition.

I don't know about the polys, but the pagans certainly have their own fanatics who believe that there is a right way to be pagan and that any pagan who does not conform to their own beliefs/rituals (let alone any non-pagan) is misguided or worse. I've seen people online self-identify as "pagan fundamentalists" and I felt at the time they were correct in their use of the term. While many pagans are open-minded, I would hardly think that it is a defining characteristic.

[SFEley]

I just found it interesting that you listed fan proclivities twice, and both lists were mostly sexual tendencies plus pagansim.

I also said "role-playing games" and "technology."  Granted, both of those could be turned toward sex if one was creative, but that isn't the context in which I meant them.  >8->

And then in that last post you put poly and paganism together as if their was a cause and effect thing going on or a tight connection.  I wasn't sure if polyamory was a tenant of paganism.  Having browsed the CAW site, it looks like there is a loose connection.  Maybe like a Christian church and potluck dinners.

Heh.  Cool metaphor.  I think you have the spirit of it right.  There are plenty of Pagans who aren't poly, and plenty of polyamorous people who are Christian, Jewish, atheist, whatever.   But if you go to a Pagan gathering you're going to run into a lot of poly people, and vice versa.  And if you go to a typical SF convention, you'll find plenty of Pagan/Poly/etc. fans.

I looked for the venn diagram but didn't find it.

Oh, I didn't mean there was an actual diagram somewhere.  I just meant that the overlapping communities could be visualized as one.

I think it's impossible to say that the pagans and polys are not open-minded.  They are practically open-minded by definition.

Unfortunately, as eytanz already pointed out, that's very much not true.  You can be closed-minded and confrontational about any belief.  I've known Pagans who were actively hostile toward good Christians without any provocation, and poly people who felt that monogamy wasn't just "not for them," but unnatural and wrong.  I think most Pagan and poly people find that sort of bigotry among their own ranks embarrassing and unhelpful, but it does happen.

[lowky]

What's the connection between Paganism and polyamory?

my opinion on this is that people who are into both tend to be educated and to truly become well educated requires an open mind.  an open mind leads people to both question the status quo as well as be accepting to more "fringe" ideas than the "mainstream". ( I use quotes same way I would if referring to someone as normal.  Normal is an average, not something anyone truly is)

I think it's impossible to say that the pagans and polys are not open-minded.  They are practically open-minded by definition.  As far as education goes, what kind of education are we talking about?  I'm with you that most of these guys really like to read, and many of them are good with computers.  What about engineers, lawyers, and medical doctors? 

maybe i am reading your response incorrectly but it sounds like you thought that I was saying pagans and polys were not open-minded.  I was saying that they were and that was part of what lead people to those practices.  I still stand by my statement that people who have more education tend to be more open minded, including engineers, lawyers, and medical doctors.  Not that there aren't closed minded people in any of those categories/professions.

I think that people that are poly are more prone to act on it if they are more educated and open minded, especially if they didn't grow up with a poly frame of reference.  Not that there aren't polys who haven't been able to pursue education or whatever, just I would think without the education etc. they would tend to be more confused and probably seem more to be a serial cheater or commitment phobic, because they don't understand their own impulses better.  then again I could be completely talking out of my ass on this one, as I am not well versed in the poly community. 

[wakela]

What's the connection between Paganism and polyamory?

my opinion on this is that people who are into both tend to be educated and to truly become well educated requires an open mind.  an open mind leads people to both question the status quo as well as be accepting to more "fringe" ideas than the "mainstream". ( I use quotes same way I would if referring to someone as normal.  Normal is an average, not something anyone truly is)

I think it's impossible to say that the pagans and polys are not open-minded.  They are practically open-minded by definition.  As far as education goes, what kind of education are we talking about?  I'm with you that most of these guys really like to read, and many of them are good with computers.  What about engineers, lawyers, and medical doctors? 

maybe i am reading your response incorrectly but it sounds like you thought that I was saying pagans and polys were not open-minded.  I was saying that they were and that was part of what lead people to those practices.  I still stand by my statement that people who have more education tend to be more open minded, including engineers, lawyers, and medical doctors.  Not that there aren't closed minded people in any of those categories/professions.

Sorry, Lowky, I wasn't clear.  I knew you thought the pagans and polys to be open-minded and I was agreeing with you.  But after reading Steve and Etanz's posts I now know that both of us are wrong and that pagans are all a bunch of bigoted jerks.  Thanks guys! 

I don't, however, agree with you that education and open-mindedness go hand in hand.  I don't have any science to back me up, so feel free to add as many grains of salt as you like, but you can get yourself a PhD without having to challenge your preconceived notions.  And I've met several open-minded fans/pagans/poly who never finished high school.  That's why I brought up the "hard" professions.  There is no question that professional engineers, lawyers, and doctors are well-educated (they may not be skilled or talented, but they know a lot of stuff and have passed a lot of tests).  Are there a lot of these guys in the pagan/poly community?  I'm trying to think of the fans that I know, and I have to admit that I don't know most of their professions.  The ones I do know tend to be educators, writers, editors, and computer geeks.    What do you guys think?

Also there are plenty of poorly educated people who are open minded enough accept the existence of spirits, psychic abilities, ghosts, aliens, angels, etc. 

[Rachel Swirsky]

Are there a lot of these guys in the pagan/poly community?

Certainly there are a lot of poly computer programmers.

Maybe we could say that there's a loose correlation where one is more likely to be exposed to other ways of life if one is educated than if one is not educated. Some uneducated people manage to be exposed; some educated people manage to protect themselves. And then, there are also people who are open-minded without exposure, and some people whose brains couldn't be opened with a crowbar despite knowling lots and lots of people from different backgrounds.

(This is written as if there's a reifiable thing called open-mindedness, which of course there isn't. One can be open-minded about some things, and closed-minded about others.)

[Heradel]

(This is written as if there's a reifiable thing called open-mindedness, which of course there isn't. One can be open-minded about some things, and closed-minded about others.)

Ai, I'm pretty open minded when it comes to politics or cosmology, but that specific bit about you-killing-me-for-money I'm pretty closed minded on.

[Russell Nash]

(This is written as if there's a reifiable thing called open-mindedness, which of course there isn't. One can be open-minded about some things, and closed-minded about others.)

Ai, I'm pretty open minded when it comes to politics or cosmology, but that specific bit about you-killing-me-for-money I'm pretty closed minded on.

If you don't open your mind to new experiences, how do you expect to get anywhere?

[Heradel]

(This is written as if there's a reifiable thing called open-mindedness, which of course there isn't. One can be open-minded about some things, and closed-minded about others.)

Ai, I'm pretty open minded when it comes to politics or cosmology, but that specific bit about you-killing-me-for-money I'm pretty closed minded on.

If you don't open your mind to new experiences, how do you expect to get anywhere?

My feet.

[Russell Nash]

(This is written as if there's a reifiable thing called open-mindedness, which of course there isn't. One can be open-minded about some things, and closed-minded about others.)

Ai, I'm pretty open minded when it comes to politics or cosmology, but that specific bit about you-killing-me-for-money I'm pretty closed minded on.

If you don't open your mind to new experiences, how do you expect to get anywhere?

My feet.

Hmm.  Could work.  I guess.

[Heradel]

(This is written as if there's a reifiable thing called open-mindedness, which of course there isn't. One can be open-minded about some things, and closed-minded about others.)

Ai, I'm pretty open minded when it comes to politics or cosmology, but that specific bit about you-killing-me-for-money I'm pretty closed minded on.

If you don't open your mind to new experiences, how do you expect to get anywhere?

My feet.

Hmm.  Could work.  I guess.

Also depends on what you walk past. Or, for that matter, into. Might not really work out in the middle of nowhere, but a few wrong turns in certain cities can certain be mind-opening, if not outright mind-altering.

For example, if anyone here's seen it, the American tourists in 2 Days in Paris.

[Listener]

I have a question for the poly/nontraditional folks.

Do people tend to act strangely toward you, or change their opinion of you, when you reveal to them you're poly?  My best friend is gay but he doesn't get as many weird looks for that as he does for the way he dresses.  But I'm curious.

Like, let's say you meet someone through your neighborhood association.  You talk to them.  You become friends.  You share recipes and gardening tips.  Then one early morning that person is taking out the trash and notices a woman not your wife coming out of your house.  They ask what's up (I know, most people would rather spread rumors, but let's believe the best of our fictional person for now) and you explain, because you know the person pretty well and have had a beer (or margarita or whatever) with them.

Do they treat you differently or give you weird looks?

I'm not saying that you'd have made a secret of it, but if it hasn't come up... like, for example, I'm on good terms with two of my neighbors, but they don't know I'm into BDSM, and have been to a national convention on the topic, and been part of a demonstration of BDSM paraphernalia.  (Whited out for TMI purposes; read at your own risk.)  I don't think I'd ever tell them, but if it came up in conversation, I wouldn't hide it.

*shrug*

[Mr. Tweedy]

Heh.  That question obviously isn't pointed at me, but I'll answer it.

As a monogamist, people definitely give me weird looks.  People's jaws drop* and their eyes bug out when I tell them I've only had sex with my wife, and that I have done this on purpose, not just because I was too uncool to get laid in high school.  When I tell them I don't use porn, they really think I'm weird.

These revelations invariably lead to all kind of questions about why I would behave in such strange ways, and the relationship changes because of that.

Is it weird to be poly?  Is it weird to be bi?  Perhaps my experience is unusual, but–with the exception explicitly Christian gatherings–such lifestyles would not be perceived as weird in any environment that I've spent time in.  For example, my gay coworker in the next room is considered 100% normal, but coworkers near my desk find my lifestyle very strange.  (I'm not talking about hostility, just the "raised eyebrows" reaction.)

_{*That was a guy I worked with at Toys'R'Us.  I've gotten lots of blink-eyed disbelief, but that was the only genuine jaw drop.}