But it is very defensibly a romantic orientation, and those things do get grouped together in conversations a lot, so shrugs.
No, poly-, pan-, bi- romantic are romantic orientations. Polyamory is a relationship structure, not a romantic orientation. Just like…
You can make the same argument for kink, does not mean kinky cishet people belong in the MOGAI community, neither do cishet polyamourous people, or any cishet people in general.
So if someone is heterosexual but panromantic, or bisexual but heteroromantic, or heterosexual but homoromantic, etc, what is your ruling? Or do you not believe romantic orientations exist separately from sexual ones?
"Cishet" is a terrible blanket term that when used as "the opposite of GSRM/LGBTQUIA+/MOGAI/whatever-acronym" either erases the existence of people with different sexual and romantic orientations or simply implies that they don’t matter.
Kinks are different because unlike sexual, romantic, or relationship orientations, they don’t affect WHO you’re attracted to any more than a preference for a certain hair type or body shape might; it just affects how you express that attraction. And if kinky people are “closeted” it’s generally not out of a fear of prejudice stripping them of everything they hold dear, so, you know, there’s that.
And, basically, “being” poly versus just “doing” poly kind of sucks, because the heteronormative-minded community doesn’t accept such “deviants” and neither does a pretty large portion of the MOGAI community, as you’ve proven. :/ So can you really blame anyone for clinging to what portion of the community /does/ accept them versus just being their own lone entity?
Polyamory is not a romantic orientation. It does not affect WHO you’re romantically attracted to, but how many ppl you form relationships with.
Then we need a new word to describe what I am, because it absolutely has affected who I’m attracted to. I’m in a monogamous relationship. I have never been in anything except a monogamous relationship. But I still am poly, considering it perhaps the most important part of my identity, and I still am deeply in love with more than one person, even though at this point in time I have not formed an official relationship outside of the one. I grew up idealizing Disney Princess Happily Ever After One True Love, so I fought this part of myself for years and certainly never sought it out, but eventually I met someone for whom my feelings ran too deep to ignore, so yeah. My relationship is not polyamorous, but I still am.
But what would you call me instead?
I don’t know. I can’t define your identity for you. But I can tell you, if you’re straight, you need to see your way out of queer spaces.
So again, you imply that romantic identities (in my case panromantic) don’t matter. The fact that I love a woman doesn’t matter unless I want to sleep with her?
Also for someone who can’t define another’s identity for them, you sure don’t seem to have any problems telling people what they ‘can’t’ be.
You didn’t say you were panromantic. We are talking about polyamory. Pan ppl are definitely MOGAI. But being a straight person (Pan ppl are not straight) and cis, and having multiple partners does not make you oppressed.
Sexually, I am straight. Romantically, I am pan. So when you talk about “straight people”, that refers to me and everyone else who is heterosexual with a romantic orientation not matching that. Arguably, it could also refer to heteroromantic people with a sexual orienation mismatching that. That is why I hate the term cishet. Yes, “het” can describe a part of my identity, but that does not supersede all other parts.
But wait, wait, hold on and back up. If I had happened to be “just” straight, no romantic identity involved. I realized just after posting last time that you said I would “need to see [my] way out of queer spaces”, but I commented on this because it was posted in the poly tag. So didn’t you come into my space with that?
Panromantic people are not straight. Again, we aren’t talking about that. We are talking about polyamory. Also, actually I didn’t tag this post originally, you must have found it by searching. And if I had, polyamory is not an oppressed identity and you don’t need a safe space from queer people.
Right, of course, how silly of me. Because being told my feelings aren’t valid doesn’t make me feel unsafe. Living in constant fear of what would happen if the wrong people found out doesn’t make me feel unsafe. Fearing that any time I try to re-approach the issue my husband could finally decide he can’t take it anymore and leave me doesn’t make me feel unsafe. Knowing that if he did leave me I would have a snowball’s chance in hell at custody because my “lifestyle” that I’ve never actually even lived is “unstable” isn’t oppressive at all.
The multiple triads I’ve seen struggle to find housing because so many landlords denied them service if they even suspected anything sexual might be happening between more than two of them? Of course that’s not oppressive. Needing to stay closeted in professional spaces to avoid discrimination? Totally not oppressive.
Name-calling, wild assumptions, being equated to bestiality or pedophilia in terms of sexual deviancy, being used as the argument for what’s at the end of the “slippery slope” if gay marriage is allowed? None of that could warrant any level of depression or anxiety or need for a safe space, right?
Oh, but you’re right, it did come up via searching. I didn’t know Tumblr picked up on words in posts rather than just tags. So. Hey. My apologies for defending my identity and attempting to educate you. I didn’t mean to make you feel unsafe by existing.
Yes, I’m aware I’m being passive-aggressive as hell, and on a certain level I apologize for that, but I actually don’t know a more effective way to present this argument. I hope it will come off more satirical than just dickish, but shrug. If none of that has you reconsidering even the slightest bit, then I’m just going to have to accept that you’re not open to seeing my struggles at this time and go on with my life hoping to have better luck in the future.
Yes poly women do experience oppression but not because they are queer but because of misogyny.
I don’t know what to tell you, friend. I, as a bi woman, talking about how polyamory is not queerness, am not oppressing you. I don’t have that power. Any oppression you feel comes from the patriarchy, so maybe focus on that instead of trying to push into queer spaces.
Why was I not already expecting this to devolve into “polyamory is inherently misogynistic”. I really should have been expecting that stereotype to arise.
Because no. No patriarchy is definitely a huge problem for a LOT of reasons, but it has nothing to do with
— the idea that anyone who wants to date more than one person is “unstable”. That idea persists even when it is a lesbian wanting to date multiple women.
— the fear of being shunned by family for wanting to date more than one person. That fear exists regardless of the poly person’s sex/gender and regardless of who they want to date.
— being denied service for having a relationship involving more than two people. That persists whether it is a man with two women, a woman with two men, two men and two women all dating each other, three men dating each other, five women dating each other, or any other configuration you could imagine.
The list goes on but I won’t.
Historical polygyny is oppressive to women.
Open polyamory, done properly, and not just mis-applying the term as a flimsy excuse for asshole behavior, is not oppressive to women.
Poly people can be misogynistic, and they’re assholes for it. But polyamory, as either an action or an apparently-not-orientation, is not inherently misogynistic.
I wonder how many more negative stereotypes you can perpetuate before this winds down, though.
Nowhere did I say that polyamory was misogynistic. I said poly women face outside oppression because of misogyny in our culture, not in polyamory.
Poly men face most of the same oppression, though. :T Gay poly men sometimes face oppression from gay monogamous men, even.
Yes, the double standard exists that a poly woman is almost invariably “a filthy slut” while a poly man, at least if straight, might instead be seen as a “stud”. I’m in no way claiming misogyny never enters the picture. (Of course, if he’s bi or gay then that’s “sexual deviancy”, but you can argue that stems as much or more from general homophobia. I think it’s telling, however, that people often use gay poly relationships as examples OF “sexual deviancy” and “look at all their uncontrollable sinful lust, clearly this is terrible” because in their minds being with more than one person is just inconceivably terrible.)
I’m just saying that misogyny is most definitely not the only factor at play, and it’s incredibly dismissive to say that polyamory doesn’t present its own struggles but rather just mirrors other existing issues. If that were the case, wouldn’t monogamous couples face all the same problems? If being poly as opposed to mono presents a problem that would not exist if that person was mono, how is it not “a poly problem”? Of course problems are going to overlap and exacerbate each other, but that doesn’t mean they don’t both/all still individually exist.
I’m really tired of this argument, and one of my followers actuallyclintbarton presented a really good summation of/rewording of/addition to my points, and they are a poly person too (I gathered), please go read what they wrote.
Saw it before you pointed it out, and saw nothing in it that justifies your attitude that poly people don’t need any safe spaces or that because you are queer you’re allowed to say whatever you want about other marginalized groups.
But hey. You know. You’re tired of the argument. So I guess I should shut up so you can feel victorious now.
praise all things, YES, be quiet and stop giving her all these passive aggressive notes. “I should shut up so you can feel victorious now” like… is this argument even about what you’re arguing or is it about making her feel a certain way??
Although I admit I skimmed over a lot of these posts since it’s rapidly approaching dissertation length without dissertation editing, I’m fairly sure she never at all indicated you’re not allowed to have a safe space. She doesn’t say stuff like that. Not encroaching on queer spaces ≠ as not having safe spaces period but that is what you’re trying to say.