10 ms·
Be polite! Polyamory is common enough among geeks and SF area types that there must be a few HN-reading polyamorists. It's brave of Pavlina to write about taboo
by michaelkeenan 17y ago
Be polite! Polyamory is common enough among geeks and SF area types that there must be a few HN-reading polyamorists. It's brave of Pavlina to write about tabooed topics[1]. And it can't be any more fun for polyamorists to encounter incredulity and derision than it was for the first open homosexuals or interracial couples.
[1] cf. http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html
- pmichaud 17y agoTell me about it, we don't even have a movement. We're 50 years behind homosexuals in terms of rights and social acceptance. At least we're not killed for it.
- nevinera 17y agoI rely on safety in numbers!
- yters 17y agoWhy doesn't everyone just cut to the chase and start an "I can have sex with anything and it's ok" movement?
- silencio 17y agoBecause even if you try to make it clear that it's a consensual act (sex, relationship, whatever) between any group of people of age, the people against such a movement will claim that you are a pedophile, that it's against (insert some religion)'s beliefs for a union to be between more than two people, etc. The people who don't know better and don't think of polyamory as mainstream will find that emotionally appealing. In the end you have a mess (see: same sex marriages today) where you think people should know better and realize this isn't about what's "right or wrong" to any individual on any level, but a matter of discrimination when it comes to benefits that are not being given to one group but to another. But they don't always know better. In the US, we're barely scraping by trying to get the same benefits to gay couples, let alone any mix of more than two people. A movement to do what you suggest...I can't imagine what kind of uproar there will be and how many people will be conflating polyamory with polygamy and being very against it as a result. At the minimum.
- jodrellblank 17y agoIs it: Geeks: Polyamory? -> {Manuel Garcia O'Kelly and his extended family, Moon Colonies, Heinlein, good associations} Non-Geeks: Polyamory? -> {Hippy communes, commun...ism, cold war, evil, bad associations}
- pyre 17y ago> Non-Geeks: Polyamory? -> {Hippy communes, commun...ism, cold war, evil, bad associations} Yes. Because that's what those Russians were doing on the other side of the Iron Curtain... having massive orgies.
- eru 17y agoAnd those East-Germans, too. (Or at least lying naked on the beach.) http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601100&sid=aki3t28Yfmk8 http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601100&sid=aki3...
- camccann 17y agoYes. Because that's what those Russians were doing on the other side of the Iron Curtain... having massive orgies. Well that does put a slightly different spin on "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need".
- Sukotto 17y agoPolyamory gets a bad rep due to the highly sensational abuses reported the last few decades. Most recently, in Utah and Paris(?).
- jmackinn 17y agoPolygamy and Polyamory are very different concepts. I'm not which Steve Pavlina wrote about, but they are not the same thing. In simple terms, Polyamory is the practice of open relationships, where Polygamy is the practice of having multiple married partners.
- lsc 17y agoI actually find this kindof odd... I mean, not that I think there is anything wrong with Polyamory- it just, as my parents would say, requires "advanced relationship skills" - something that seems wouldn't be so common in geek culture. I mean, I don't know about you, but I have a hard enough time keeping a relationship with one other person going.