Aahz Maruch wrote:
> In article <5kl5f5-baa.ln1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> Aqua <aqua@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>>Greta Christina has a nice article here:
>>http://blog.blowfish.com/culture/the-joy-of-theoretical-non-monogamy/657
>>
>>It reminds me a lot of my own "monogamy running on a poly OS".
>
>
> There are some interesting points, but what got me annoyed was that
> halfway through it switches to overgeneralizations:
>
> But when you're not monogamous, the Gothic soap opera vanishes like a
> bad dream in daylight. The basic unavoidable fact that you and your
> partner are living animals with normal libidos doesn't turn into a
> crisis. The fact that your partner is flirting with someone else at a
> party, the fact that you yourself are flirting with someone else at a
> party, all those little flickers of attraction and curiosity that
human
> animals are subject to: not a crisis. Non-monogamy takes the lid off
of
> the pressure cooker. It turns the brooding melodrama into a
> sophisticated romantic comedy. It makes it No Big Deal.
>
> Obviously, it does work that way for many poly people, but I hope it's
> equally obvious to anyone who reads alt.poly that it works differently
> for many successfully poly people. And even when it does work that way,
> I've seen many examples when it suddenly stopped working that way (that
> is, the Gothic soap opera gets re-introduced, for any of a number of
> reasons).
Seriously. I'd take that a lot more kindly if it started with "At least
in ideal cir***stances" or else sprinkled a lot of "cans" and "mays"
among those flat "this is how it is" statements.
--
Pat Kight
kightp@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
