[ SECRET POST #1896 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #1896 ⌋


Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.



__________________________________________________

02.


__________________________________________________

03.


__________________________________________________

04.


__________________________________________________

05.


__________________________________________________

06.


__________________________________________________

07.


__________________________________________________

08.


__________________________________________________

09.


__________________________________________________

10.


__________________________________________________

11.


__________________________________________________

12.


__________________________________________________

13.


__________________________________________________

14.


__________________________________________________

15.


__________________________________________________

16.


__________________________________________________

17.


__________________________________________________

18.


__________________________________________________

19.


__________________________________________________

20.


__________________________________________________

21.


__________________________________________________

22.






Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 05 pages, 115 secrets from Secret Submission Post #271.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 2 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeats ]
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

LOL, no. Being attracted to multiple people at the same time is in no way similar to being gay, asshole. They might overlap, but they are not the same.

[(Anonymous)]

So, what you're saying is that it's okay to judge someone because they happen to be in more than one romantic relationship at the same time? [And no, I'm not including people who cheat] 'Cause that's still ignorant, and messed up.

[megalomaniageek.livejournal.com]

Yeah, oppression of different sexual minorities may have things in common but I'm getting tired of it all coming back to "this is just like oppression of gays and/or interracial marriages!" Even oppression of gays and interracial marriages is different, even though both are wrong.
I mean, both fall under the jurisdiction of "don't say I'm wrong for having a consensual adult relationship outside of social norms" but, for example, I don't think poly teenagers have been sent to mono-sexual reassignment camp.

[(Anonymous)]

But no one said it was 'just like' gay oppression? They were just pointing out how ignorant it was by mentally replacing 'poly' with 'gay'.

Poly teenagers probably do get bullied and slutshamed. It's not quite like monogamy camp (monosexual is the wrong term for it- it means being attracted to only one sex or gender, aka homosexual or heterosexual. polysexuality is its counterpart, being attracted to multiple genders, but should not be confused with polyamory, kthnx), but there's a distinct lack of acknowledgement of polyamory in media, effectively telling that polyamorous person that they don't exist or should 'make up their minds'.

[(Anonymous)]

Dude, teenagers are expected to be poly until they "grow up." People who settle for one person in high school get mocked all to hell and back.

[(Anonymous)]

ayrt never dated or crushed on any real people until college

Wow guess I was doing it wrong.

I really think the teenage expectations are different when people factor in your gender- a girl carrying on with two guys would be vastly differently received (slut, the guys are pussywhipped, or gay for each other) than a guy carrying on with two girls (a player with lesbian benefits).

[megalomaniageek.livejournal.com]

They were just pointing out how ignorant it was by mentally replacing 'poly' with 'gay'.

But you have to be careful with saying "I'm oppressed because look this different group is oppressed and that's wrong." By doing that you're clearly comparing the two, otherwise it'd be a non sequitur.
I'm not saying it's okay to oppress poly people. It is ignorant to say that polyamory/polygamy is wrong just because it goes against social relationship norms. But you can't just point at another oppressed sexual minority and use that comparison to garner sympathy for your own cause. That's why I brought up the conversion camps as an example: there are horrible institutional biases against homosexuality that may or may not exist for other sexual minorities. I'm not here to play oppression olympics, just saying to watch it with the comparisons. Time and time again these have been pointed out in the SJ community as harmful. Oppression of poly people being bad should stand on its own. Polygamy (as in marriage) being illegal isn't wrong because gay marriage is illegal, it's wrong because consenting adults should be allowed to legally marry without the constraints of social and religious norms that say "one person, one spouse."

Speaking of polygamy, monogamy seems like an insufficient word because monogamy technically specifically refers to marriage. I guess the word "monogamous relationship" in practice just means "committed relationship between two exclusive people" (and wikipedia says the usage of "monogamy" has expanded to include committed two-person unmarried relationships) but I suppose I think of the "-gamy" suffix as marriage-oriented. (But yes now that you mention it I remember "monosexual" refers to being attracted to only one sex or gender)

[(Anonymous)]

So how, exactly, would you suggest telling someone 'Yes, what you're saying is ignorant and/or oppressive', if they refuse to understand? Because honestly, I've found saying 'Replace X with any other group, and if it comes off that way, then it *is* that' works pretty damn well most of the time.

[(Anonymous)]

I hate cake. Now, replace cake with gays, and if it comes off that way, it is that way.

...obviously I'm using a completely ridiculous example, but the point is that you can't compare things that aren't in the same class. If you want to talk to people about why being poly isn't wrong specifically, the "have you ever had a crush on two people/celebrities/whatever at the same time" questions work better. Not perfect, but at least then you won't be using an oppressed group as your shield.

[intrigueing.livejournal.com]

I actually paused before writing that comparison because I don't actually think poly and gay relationships are that easily comparable, but I decided to make it anyway because I couldn't think of any other way to bring out the hypocrisy of the statement. So I wasn't really trying to say "poly relationships are like gay relationships therefore oppressing polys is like oppressing gays", it was more "okay what the hell gives you the right to dismiss all poly relationships across the board like that just because of an uninformed opinion?"

[(Anonymous)]

ayrt

I do agree with you that gay doesn't have much to do with poly- one of the major fears of conservatives is if gay marriage is permitted it'll open up opportunities for polygamy, which gay people are constantly arguing have nothing to do with each other.

But I'm queer myself, and I have to admit I was doing what intrigueing was doing. SJ may say that it's wrong, but perhaps it's just basic empathy, to put myself in someone else's shoes like that. Apologies to any actual poly people who were offended.

The day you can make monoamory not an incredibly awkward word to say aloud, is the day you can stop making references to marriage through Greek word roots. Polygamy =/= polyamory, but the only word for the opposite of both of them is monogamy.

[(Anonymous)]

I really don't think it was meant as a comparison. It was more just asking that commenter to consider what they'd just said more objectively. The comparison could have been practically anything.

'I have never liked a pairing between people of different religions, I don't think they work, I don't like their dynamics, I don't like anything about them. Get over it some people hate inter-religious relationships in general.'

'I have never liked a pairing of people in their 80s, I don't think they work, I don't like their dynamics, I don't like anything about them. Get over it some people hate older people's relationships in general.'

The problem with the statement is that they are stating their personal preference about what they like to read in a way that erases/attacks other people's experiences. Saying 'The dynamics of threeway relationships don't appeal to me at all so I don't read them' is very different from saying 'threeway relationships don't work and I hate them'. You don't have to be talking about an oppressed group for "X relationships don't work" to upset anyone who is familiar with that kind of relationship.

[(Anonymous)]

DA

all of this. this is a good comment. especially this.

The problem with the statement is that they are stating their personal preference about what they like to read in a way that erases/attacks other people's experiences. Saying 'The dynamics of threeway relationships don't appeal to me at all so I don't read them' is very different from saying 'threeway relationships don't work and I hate them'. You don't have to be talking about an oppressed group for "X relationships don't work" to upset anyone who is familiar with that kind of relationship.

[(Anonymous)]

They made it clear that the dynamics didn't appeal to them.

Besides, if someone hates it, they can say it. Tolerance ≠ acceptance.

If something is really that good, it doesn't matter what someone else says.

[(Anonymous)]

If they had just said that the dynamics didn't work for them, I think their statement would be fine. I don't think anyone should be forced to read anything they don't enjoy. And I mostly think it's great that everyone has different preferences (I mean, I'd have some problems with people who liked to snuff videos or racist humour, because those have genuine victims, but for the most part, everyone should be free to like what they like).

"Tolerance ≠ acceptance"
Yes. And for the most part tolerating difference without accepting it is kind of bullshit. It's the kind of thinking that leads to a "who you are is fine, as long as you keep it completely hidden, and if you don't I should be free to attack you for it" attitude, which is entitled and offensive and basically anyone who has that attitude can go fuck themselves.

Again, it's partly how it's phrased. "I hate threeway relationships" is more likely to hurt someone's feelings than "I hate reading about threeway relationships" or "I'd hate being in a threeway relationship". Because relationships are often very important to people and make up part of their identity. 'Hate' basically means you either wish something didn't exist or you want it to suffer. If you genuinely mean it when you say you 'hate' all threeway relationships, you're basically hoping everyone currently in a threeway relationship will have a messy breakup. Feeling that kind of ill-will towards other people's happiness just comes across cruel.

You don't have to want to read about every variety of relationship imaginable, but you don't have to be a dick about not liking something either. It's fine to just... not like it. Without hating anyone or telling them they're lying to themselves if they think it's possible for their kind of relationship to ever work.