First off, I agree with everything you just said, the "Killer Myth of Monogamy" (KMOM herein) or anyone's killer myth is about unrealisic expectations.
Poly people have killer myths too. Everyone does. On some level, any relationship that ended by choice I think must have had at least one unrealistic expectation. Even the ones that "last forever" can still have them.
The Killer Myths I think would be those that keep cropping up doing in relationships. The KMOM(s) would be that/those that keep doing in monogamous relationshops. I'm sure there is/are KMOP(s) too.
Truth be told, merde's comment you refer to was made in response to a comment I had made.
That being said, I confess something: I bear no negative opinions about anyone regarding their voluntarily chosen lifestyle as long as their lifestyle choice doesn't require someone else's involuntarily participation. So yes, this philosophy gives me makes me frown on pedophilia AND sport game hunting (hunting for food is different).
I also tend to think that one should not be "out there" with their chosen lifestyle, just from the stand point that usually it's just plain rude to do so. I tend to find PDA that extends to the point that it gives away one's lifestyle choice a bit of a squick. That being said, I tend not to let someone else find out what my chosen lifestyle is unless one of us is curious. Read that however ya wants to.
The problem I do see is that the moment people get defensive in unhealthy ways. Monogamous society doesn't recognize poly relationships as legit, so some poly people got defensive, and in some cases behaved in the same stupid way as monogamous society at large did (see your footnote 3) whenever they had a perceived majority.
It's a shame really. As much as Poly people and Poly Friendly Monogamous People will tell you that it is important to respect other's opinions and lifestyles, how incredibly often that this doesn't happen when put into practice.
Someone needs to teach a class in applied tolerance. Of course, the concept itself will be branded as "Political Correctness" by boorish members of whatever majority favor the status quo.
I also tend to think that one should not be "out there" with their chosen lifestyle, just from the stand point that usually it's just plain rude to do so.
Does getting married publicly, with a big party, count as being "out there" with one's chosen lifestyle? Is telling everyone about your ski vacation being too out there about that lifestyle? (Spending lots of money and time on a single recreational activity is more of a "lifestyle", in some ways, than whether a person has one lover, more than one, or none.)
For that matter, is it being too out there for me to cuddle, publicly, with a friend who I am not sexually involved with? Does the friend's gender matter, in answering that question?
Does getting married publicly, with a big party, count as being "out there" with one's chosen lifestyle?
Weddings are perfect examples. And to answer your question: Not at all.
Weddings are typically invite only. Those that don't approve can simply not show up. No one who shows up should have a problem with what's about to happen. I don't know about you, but I've never been subjected to a wedding ceremony I didn't want to be around.
Is telling everyone about your ski vacation being too out there about that lifestyle? (Spending lots of money and time on a single recreational activity is more of a "lifestyle", in some ways, than whether a person has one lover, more than one, or none.)
I think you have missed the quotation marks I delimted "out there" with. But to use and extend upon your example:
If you take a week off of work for a vacation and you go skiing, that's your business. If people ask you what you did on your vacation, answer them if you want, and if skiing offends them, that's their problem.
If one of your co-workers wants to learn to ski, and asks you where to get started, by all means tell them. Recommend teachers. Literature.
Coming back from your ski trip, however, and without provocation telling everyone of them individually, including the guy in the wheelchair about how great the powder was on the K-19, and how you got Picabo Street's autograph is probably pushing being rude. It's "out there".
I'm sure the analogy will fail somewhere, but basically it's an ettiquite thing, and I think it should apply ALL ways on the subject. If mentioning being gay is innapropriate, so should being hetero. Same cuts for being Poly or being Monogamous.
Weddings are typically invite-only, yes: although there's a tradition that if people get married in a church, any member of the church can attend the wedding (but not reception, unless invited). But there's quite a bit of "look, we're getting married" that isn't in private or invite-only: wedding photographs are often taken in public parks, with the people being photographed in standardized wedding clothes. Wedding planning often becomes a major topic of conversation, even with people who aren't invited (and might not care to be), notably co-workers who find themselves overhearing lengthy conversations about catering, flowers, et cetera. It's also a lot bigger deal, socially and emotionally, to say "No thanks, I don't want to go to your wedding" than to decline most other invitations.
I'm only aware of one case of people who invited their friends to a social event and then revealed, after everyone had arrived, that it was their wedding. As far as I know, everyone there thought it was cool: after all, they liked their host enough to have accepted her invitation to a party. But if they hadn't, it would have been a lot harder to walk out than it would be to decline an invitation, claiming other commitments. (I think the reason for surprising the guests was so that they wouldn't feel the need to buy gifts.)
Well weddings are their own beast. They have their own subsets of rules, which are full of their own inconsistencies. Issues come up with them that dont occur with anywhere else in society. To use an example that will bring this conversation full circle: Miss Manners once had to tell a lady who was to be a "Best Man" that it was wrong of the Groom to insist that she cross dress for the occasion :-)
I can say this though -- the societal norms are full of double standards that piss me off. The people on the short end of the sticks can react in two different ways when it comes to pushing for consistency:
1) Assert their "right" to do whatever the other guys are "allowed" to do.
2) Assert no "right" whatsoever until such time that the other guys youre dealing with assert theirs. Then follow suit in kind to whatever extent they do.
My problem with #1 is that the "short end" person does this based upon what he/she PERCEIVES the rules to be. If the "long end" person he/she is asserting *at* didn't have the same perception of the rules, (or more likely, no thought out conception of the rules) at best then the message will be lost, and at worst, it's polarizing someone against you who wasn't before.
#1 also smacks of chip on shoulder. I don't know anyone who was ever swayed by such a tactic. #2 may make people think just a little, which I assume is the goal.
For that matter, is it being too out there for me to cuddle, publicly, with a friend who I am not sexually involved with? Does the friend's gender matter, in answering that question?
It all depends where you do it and the social norms of that place.
I would never do this in the office. Anyone who would would squick me.
I have done this at a Science Fiction Convention.
The hair I think you might want to be trying to split is the lesbian couple who is invited to a wedding and discusses their daughter with the strangers seated at the table with them. If people are discussing kids, I think it's fine.
What bothers me is that I have seen this sort of tactic used pre-emptively, "Well if they have an issue with people with discussing their kids, it's their problem! Everyone else can do it, so why can't us?". In theory, I agree, but it felt like the strangers were being baited. There's a line. I don't know where it is. If I claimed to know, I'd be full of it.
And again I think I'm feeling like I'm being painted with a broad brush as someone who uses a broad brush.
I also tend to think that one should not be "out there" with their chosen lifestyle, just from the stand point that usually it's just plain rude to do so. I tend to find PDA that extends to the point that it gives away one's lifestyle choice a bit of a squick.
I find heavy make-out sessions in public (wavy-hands definition of "public") to be in poor taste, but not necessarily *rude* (depends on context ... wilful disregard of others' feelings?). But I don't expect others to hide their preferences from me, and actually that would give the majority even more reason to assume they're way more in the majority than they actually are (no pesky counter-examples in their daily lives). I usually rejoice to see minority (same-sex, multi-racial, multi-partnered, whatever) people being openly, um, preferential.
(no subject)
Poly people have killer myths too. Everyone does. On some level, any relationship that ended by choice I think must have had at least one unrealistic expectation. Even the ones that "last forever" can still have them.
The Killer Myths I think would be those that keep cropping up doing in relationships. The KMOM(s) would be that/those that keep doing in monogamous relationshops. I'm sure there is/are KMOP(s) too.
Truth be told,
That being said, I confess something: I bear no negative opinions about anyone regarding their voluntarily chosen lifestyle as long as their lifestyle choice doesn't require someone else's involuntarily participation. So yes, this philosophy gives me makes me frown on pedophilia AND sport game hunting (hunting for food is different).
I also tend to think that one should not be "out there" with their chosen lifestyle, just from the stand point that usually it's just plain rude to do so. I tend to find PDA that extends to the point that it gives away one's lifestyle choice a bit of a squick. That being said, I tend not to let someone else find out what my chosen lifestyle is unless one of us is curious. Read that however ya wants to.
The problem I do see is that the moment people get defensive in unhealthy ways. Monogamous society doesn't recognize poly relationships as legit, so some poly people got defensive, and in some cases behaved in the same stupid way as monogamous society at large did (see your footnote 3) whenever they had a perceived majority.
It's a shame really. As much as Poly people and Poly Friendly Monogamous People will tell you that it is important to respect other's opinions and lifestyles, how incredibly often that this doesn't happen when put into practice.
Someone needs to teach a class in applied tolerance. Of course, the concept itself will be branded as "Political Correctness" by boorish members of whatever majority favor the status quo.
(no subject)
(no subject)
Does getting married publicly, with a big party, count as being "out there" with one's chosen lifestyle? Is telling everyone about your ski vacation being too out there about that lifestyle? (Spending lots of money and time on a single recreational activity is more of a "lifestyle", in some ways, than whether a person has one lover, more than one, or none.)
For that matter, is it being too out there for me to cuddle, publicly, with a friend who I am not sexually involved with? Does the friend's gender matter, in answering that question?
(no subject)
Weddings are perfect examples. And to answer your question: Not at all.
Weddings are typically invite only. Those that don't approve can simply not show up. No one who shows up should have a problem with what's about to happen. I don't know about you, but I've never been subjected to a wedding ceremony I didn't want to be around.
Is telling everyone about your ski vacation being too out there about that lifestyle? (Spending lots of money and time on a single recreational activity is more of a "lifestyle", in some ways, than whether a person has one lover, more than one, or none.)
I think you have missed the quotation marks I delimted "out there" with. But to use and extend upon your example:
If you take a week off of work for a vacation and you go skiing, that's your business. If people ask you what you did on your vacation, answer them if you want, and if skiing offends them, that's their problem.
If one of your co-workers wants to learn to ski, and asks you where to get started, by all means tell them. Recommend teachers. Literature.
Coming back from your ski trip, however, and without provocation telling everyone of them individually, including the guy in the wheelchair about how great the powder was on the K-19, and how you got Picabo Street's autograph is probably pushing being rude. It's "out there".
I'm sure the analogy will fail somewhere, but basically it's an ettiquite thing, and I think it should apply ALL ways on the subject. If mentioning being gay is innapropriate, so should being hetero. Same cuts for being Poly or being Monogamous.
(no subject)
I'm only aware of one case of people who invited their friends to a social event and then revealed, after everyone had arrived, that it was their wedding. As far as I know, everyone there thought it was cool: after all, they liked their host enough to have accepted her invitation to a party. But if they hadn't, it would have been a lot harder to walk out than it would be to decline an invitation, claiming other commitments. (I think the reason for surprising the guests was so that they wouldn't feel the need to buy gifts.)
(no subject)
I can say this though -- the societal norms are full of double standards that piss me off. The people on the short end of the sticks can react in two different ways when it comes to pushing for consistency:
1) Assert their "right" to do whatever the other guys are "allowed" to do.
2) Assert no "right" whatsoever until such time that the other guys youre dealing with assert theirs. Then follow suit in kind to whatever extent they do.
My problem with #1 is that the "short end" person does this based upon what he/she PERCEIVES the rules to be. If the "long end" person he/she is asserting *at* didn't have the same perception of the rules, (or more likely, no thought out conception of the rules) at best then the message will be lost, and at worst, it's polarizing someone against you who wasn't before.
#1 also smacks of chip on shoulder. I don't know anyone who was ever swayed by such a tactic. #2 may make people think just a little, which I assume is the goal.
Forgot one
For that matter, is it being too out there for me to cuddle, publicly, with a friend who I am not sexually involved with? Does the friend's gender matter, in answering that question?
It all depends where you do it and the social norms of that place.
The hair I think you might want to be trying to split is the lesbian couple who is invited to a wedding and discusses their daughter with the strangers seated at the table with them. If people are discussing kids, I think it's fine.
What bothers me is that I have seen this sort of tactic used pre-emptively, "Well if they have an issue with people with discussing their kids, it's their problem! Everyone else can do it, so why can't us?". In theory, I agree, but it felt like the strangers were being baited. There's a line. I don't know where it is. If I claimed to know, I'd be full of it.
And again I think I'm feeling like I'm being painted with a broad brush as someone who uses a broad brush.
(no subject)
I find heavy make-out sessions in public (wavy-hands definition of "public") to be in poor taste, but not necessarily *rude* (depends on context ... wilful disregard of others' feelings?). But I don't expect others to hide their preferences from me, and actually that would give the majority even more reason to assume they're way more in the majority than they actually are (no pesky counter-examples in their daily lives). I usually rejoice to see minority (same-sex, multi-racial, multi-partnered, whatever) people being openly, um, preferential.