Apparently we are part of the solution to end capitalism....or something.

[sharz]

https://www.adbusters.org/blogs/blackspot-blog/polyamory-revolutionary.html?page=1&sms_ss=facebook

Can't remember if this was posted here:

Polyamory is an outgrowth of the free love movement but instead of looking to the orgy as the model for rebellion it is the notion of a tribe that excites their imagination. There are many visions of polyamory,

Comments

[wight1984]

I've always thought that politics is one of the worst ways to pick your relationship style preference. Be polyamorous or monogamous because it's what suits you... not because it's what your politics dictate.

I'd certainly never date anyone who I thought was poly for political rather than personal reasons.

[sharz]

Or sexuality for that matter too- like political lesbianism.

[wight1984]

I can imagine that being doable for a bisexual but is an awful choice for someone who is actually heterosexual. What gay woman would want to date someone who doesn't actually fancy women but seeks out gay relationships for political reasons? Bizarre.

[sharz]

I think political lesbianism sort stems from the 'you can chose your sexuality camp' so therefore it's better to date a woman than a man?

[antayla]

Uh, what?

[sharz]

Yeah, my thought exactly at first.

Also correct me but doesn't revocation of libidinal investments kind of make the whole poly thing a bit harder? :P

[leora]

They go through all of that effort to list multiple combinations of sexes and they can't throw in an example where all of the people are the same sex?

[sharz]

Fun you mention that. I bet our poet from the previous snark would have something to say about this :P

[sharz]

*funny sorry

[leora]

Yeah, I thought about that. But this looked like it was trying to describe the range of polyamory, and while it did a really poor job of that on several counts, that one really leaped out at me (whereas the community isn't trying to be a model of the range of polyamory and just has whoever joins). I think it was the combination of no explicitly all same-sex groups with the reference to bisexuality as an experiment for destroying monogamy, which I think many bisexuals would feel quite differently about, especially the monogamous ones, that really made it seem annoyingly heterosexually oriented.

I admit, when the author says two couples, no sex or gender is specified for any of them. But I would give really good odds that the author's mental image of that was two m-f couples.

[red_girl_42]

I want to snark it but it snarks itself so much better than I possibly could.

[tacky_tramp]

the nuclear, patriarchal family is no where to be found

Yes, polyamory is NEVER patriarchal. We're so evolved.

[cu_sith]

Just like kink!

[morrigan191]

Icon luv

[cu_sith]

Oh, thanks! It's an old badge design of mine.