Resembles being too tired.

[kiya]

One of these days I'll learn how to recognise when people aren't actually going to hear what I'm trying to say and stop trying to argue with them. Sometimes I can do this ahead of time -- I failed to post something to alt.callahans earlier today because I could tell that the person I would have responded to wouldn't hear me, and it would just embroil me in another pointless argument. (And polyamory is giving me enough pointless arguments right now.)

And I can do it with particular people. I can not wind up in a fight with a Certain Someone when that favorite old chestnut "Those wicked polyfolk who keep saying that it's not about sex are just pandering to a sex-negative culture!" gets trotted out yet again. I've had that argument before, with that person as well as with others, several times.

Bleh.

Polyamory isn't about sex. It's not about having one's needs met. It's not about outgrowing swingings. It's not about enlightenment. It's not about sacred sex. It's not about world change. It's not about a lack of commitment. It's not about a superfluity of commitment. It's not about kink. Individual polyfolk may have practices that have to do with any of those things. But none of them are what polyamory is "about".

For me, polyamory isn't "about" anything.

. . . though it seems to be a source of endless argument with someone who is quite bound to tell me that I'm either lying or deluded about myself.

Clearly, my wisdom isn't mature enough, because I'm not too tired to argue.

Comments

I wonder....

[brooksmoses]

A thought, that just sort of happened while I was reading this....

It seems that a fair bit of your difficulty isn't on the recognition end of things, but the not arguing with them end of things. Which means I actually have a useful idea, which I wouldn't for recognizing things.

\end{preamble}.

No, I mean it. \end{preamble}; I need to stop rambling and say my idea!

So, erm, ah....

You could create some other way of dealing with these people besides arguing with them. By something akin to a small religious ceremony -- commend their argument to the appropriate gods, and ask the gods to do with it as they see fit, taking your feelings on the matter into consideration when they determine how to see fit (or, just use the expedient of asking a god that you figure will roughly agree with you). And, having handed it off to them, it's not yours to deal with.

This, of course, runs the risk that the god will turn about and say, "Yeah, sure; I appoint you to be my instrument of verbal thumpage on this person."

But, still, it might help; I dunno.

And, if it's a ceremony you can collapse into a sentence or two of Greek or Sumerian or something that most people in need of thumping are unlikely to understand, you could even post it as you leave the thread. But that might be rude....

...

Is a thought, anyhow.

Re: I wonder....

[kiya]

Sometimes I give up and funnel stuff into dot_cattiness, as a 'I can't get closure until I say it somewhere' thing.

Unfortunately, I tend to think that commending someone to my gods' attention is probably sort of impolite; I get on fine with Seth, but He's a bit much to aim at someone without consent. (And He's entirely likely to reinforce my tendencies to not accept the existence of unstomped opposition.)

Though actually, in the case of the person who's currently causing me outrage, repeating the bit of Romans I have on my frontpage might do me some good. It's a fine mantra.

Re: I wonder....

[brooksmoses]

(I wish to note, first off, for the record, that by "gods" I meant and mean those of all genders and combinations thereof; I would have said "gods and goddesses", but that seems even more exclusionary to the ones of nontraditionalbinary genders.)

The politeness (and utility of the exercise, for that matter) probably depends a lot on which god one chooses. I'd be inclined to suggest picking one that deals with repeating cycles with long timescales; a god that deals with seasons and such, perhaps. You need one with an attitude of "Such things come, such things go, such things will come again, and will go away again; this is the way of things." One that accepts changes of imperceptible amounts, and works in such changes, slowly shifting the overall balance to follow the cycle, such as winter shifts to summer day by day.

I also wonder, considering that attitude and biblical quotes, whether there's anything of use in Ecclesiastes.

Re: I wonder....

[kiya]

I don't know that I'm regularly in communication with any of those, is the thing. And even if I were, I suspect that the outrage would provoke response from Seth before anyone else.

You know . . . I really, really need a prayer to Ma'at. I'll put that thought in the backbrain and see what it spawns.

Re: I wonder....

[brooksmoses]

It occurs to me, also, that this is somewhat a difference between my religion and yours -- I believe, roughly, in one universal god with many aspects. And so commending an argument to Him would not be something that I would expect to change His outlook or involvement in the matter; as a universal god, He's already there and paying attention to it and dealing with it. (And not necessarily dealing with it through the facet that I speak to.) So the commendation, for me, is something that happens solely between me and my god, and not something that directly impacts the annoying person at all except through how I interact with them afterwards.

Perhaps a better way of analoging this into a polytheistic worldview -- wherein, if one asks a specific god to take responsibility for something, one is asking them to do so as largely in the form of the same god that one asked -- is to let them be part of the universe. Go from a telescopic focus on them to the global view, and let them be the tiny dust-mote in the vastness of the universe that they are, and let them be lost from your view in it.

...

It also occurs to me that I probably should not be allowed to pontificate in public on religious matters after midnight, on grounds of producing stuff that will no doubt seem quite woo-woo and flaky in the morning.

Re: I wonder....

[kiya]

I do love you.

My first argument with <lj user="brooksmoses">!

[briar24.livejournal.com]

I say, if you can stomach it, keep arguing.

Because it's not just about being heard by your opponent.

It's about being heard by the rest of us, the be-fuddled, the confus-ed, the new. The ones who stumble upon postings like this one (http://www.livejournal.com/community/polyamory/440088.html?replyto=4081688) and this one (http://www.livejournal.com/community/polyamory/419850.html?replyto=3783946) and this-a-one (http://www.livejournal.com/talkpost.bml?journal=lilairen&itemid=89796) and think to ourselves, "Oh, okay, yeh, that makes sense. Because, that's sort of what it's like for me, only I couldn't figure out how to say it. Okay, so I'm not the only one out here who feels that way. Maybe I really can do this polyamory thing, after all."

It's not just about being heard.
It's about being overheard.


It's not about enlightenment

Methinks you and I shuddered at the same passages in the Anapol book. ;)

(greetings, brooksmoses. Pleased to meet you.)

[teddywolf.livejournal.com]

*shrug*

Argument... happens. It's damn frustrating arguing but it's extremely rewarding to feel you've enlightened someone - how much of this is "I'm right" is anybody's guess.

I do want to mention, very briefly, my take on polyamory. Do feel free to disagree. There is one common thread I have seen in polyamory: the people involved either have or allow themselves to have more than one romantic relationship at the same time, every single one of these relationships being aboveboard and ethical.

I know, it's not quite sound byte material.

Everything else is up in the air from what I know - the sex, primaries, hierarchy, time juggling, polyfidelity.

If you do disagree with the above premise I won't hold it against you (not my way) but I would be curious as to what you would figure to be inaccurate, either just for you or in general.

BTW, when's the next time I'm cooking for you and yours?

[kiya]

I think my only disagreement with you premise is that I believe that some people try to do polyamory, and fail to be above-board and all; I don't think that means they're not polyamorous, but I think it means they're doing a hash-up job of it.


And oh. Your cooking. Damn, I have no earthly idea. . . . :}