You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #160: I agree [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
Chovexani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-21-08 02:21 PM
Response to Reply #140
160. I agree
Edited on Mon Apr-21-08 02:22 PM by Chovexani
We aren't immune to this kind of thing. Every once in a while you hear about some pedo fruitcake who convinces a bunch of teenage girls that the only way to be a "real Witch" is through initiation of the wang. And there's the Frosts and that one nagging passage in their Witches Bible that they never seem to denounce (while I question the motives of AJ Drew in stirring that particular cauldron, and the way he went about it, it is something that needs to be addressed and they've never done it to my satisfaction--but then they've had zero credibility with most people like, forever).

Fortunately those nuts are few and far between, and they are decidedly fringe--we handle business when we find this stuff out. I have to say, I may have a lot of issues with the Pagan community but I'm pretty proud of us on this point. In Pagan polyamory you never see abuse like this FLDS Taliban nonsense. I think it's because we're just not patriarchal and authoritarian like that. We're about freedom and choice. I find spiritual fulfillment in my little triad but it's by no means required. And the three of us are consenting adults.

My only issue in these threads so far is that you've got a handful of people (by no means everyone, or even most) who are so ruled by their visceral squick about multi-partner relationships that they'll make broad statements such as "polygamy is always abusive". The problem with that view is that "polygamy" has, over time, come to be defined as just one very narrow interpretation of it: this Taliban-style polygyny. Polyamory, as practiced by Pagans and others, is something entirely different than that and has nothing to do with child/spousal abuse, "bleeding the Beast" or any of that nonsense. I've seen people using the terms polygamy and polyamory interchangeably and they just are not the same thing.

It's a sore point for me because while I'm not parading my relationships around, most people I work with know that I'm poly (I have pictures of my BF and my GF on my desk), and I've had to field some pretty insulting questions in the last few days due to the media coverage of this raid. I'm sure that most people can tell the difference, but I'm not so sure when reading some of these threads.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC