July 11, 2006

I'm just a soul whose intentions are good; oh lord, please don't let me be misunderstood

It's been brought to my attention that some people feel that saying that a non-polyamorous person is "not ready for polyamory" is offensive, because it implies that polyamorists are somehow morally superior to or more highly evolved than monogamists, and I apologize if I gave anyone the impression that I believe that, because I most emphatically don't. I feel strongly that polyamory has no inherent moral superiority to monogamy, just as I feel monogamy has no inherent moral superiority to polyamory. When I said that, based on a reading of her lyrics, I didn't think Amy Rigby was "ready for polyamory", I was merely attempting to jocularly state the simple fact that, were it not for the impediment that I am married and Amy Rigby is not polyamorous, Ms. Rigby would obviously, in a heartbeat, choose me out of her legions of male admirers to sleep with. I think this is an utterly non-controversial statement, and I'm sorry if my poor choice of words occasioned any distress.

Posted by Francis at 10:35 PM

Wait, somebody read that another way? Weird.

I totally got it the way you intended, if that's any consolation.

Posted by: Erin at July 12, 2006 11:56 AM

Same here.

Ready, set...polyamory!

Posted by: Orange at July 12, 2006 12:25 PM

The trouble with... well, just about everything, really, is that no matter how careful one is, misunderstanding can always creep in. This is especially true when people are looking for it, which, I've found, is often true with regards to lifestyle choices.

Still, that doesn't stop it from being troublesome when it happens.

Posted by: CC at July 12, 2006 01:47 PM

Sorry. I'm going to ignore your explanation and continue to think of you as "Mr. Snooty Snoot."

Posted by: Owlet at July 12, 2006 02:01 PM

When you said she was "not ready for it", I assumed you just meant she had a few things to take care of first, and would probably get around to it by next Tuesday.

Posted by: Rick at July 12, 2006 03:06 PM

On a related note: Francis, can we assume you will be stopping at six?

Posted by: rubyrubyrubyrubyrubyruby at July 12, 2006 05:10 PM

I dated this guy once who really did think that polyamory was superior, and was always saying really hilarious shit like, "Oh my god, this girl I'm dating is so weird, she won't have sex with me just because this other girl I'm dating is in the house," or "I'd really like you to have sex with this girl, but she's still a little uptight about that stuff."

Posted by: Cyn at July 13, 2006 12:41 AM

Ruby: Not sure what you mean. Will I be stopping at six...comments? Too late for that. Will I be stopping at six...simultaneous romantic embroilments? Unless I start dating Siamese quadruplets, this is a rather unlikely scenario ever to arise. Will I be ceasing to be polyamorous at 6:00? Again, no.

Posted by: Francis at July 13, 2006 09:09 AM

Will the next Six Things have six and only six things in it, or are you planning to go past six before stopping?

On a related note, I think Polyamory would be a good name for a board game.

Posted by: RichM at July 13, 2006 09:36 AM

Francis, I meant limiting yourself to six simultaneous romantic embroilments. Thank you for your answer(s).

Posted by: Ruby at July 13, 2006 02:20 PM

I limit Myself to 1 romantic embroilment,and, that's all I can take. If I had anymore I'd be to stressed out all of the time.

Posted by: Joseph Palowski at December 15, 2007 10:42 PM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?