The standpoint that polyamory is more mainstream and common than society in general wants to admit is according my my observations very true. In today's New York Times there is a rather tongue-in-cheek article entitled: Do Republican men ever have sex? For those of you who don't live in the USA or don't pay much attention to its public problems, this is in reference to the Republican party one of the only two of relevance (alas!) in our country (I wish we had a bigger choice!) Those who speak out on behalf of the Republican generally disdain any mention of sex or at least put down every kind of sex except for that between married people and for the purpose of reproduction (procreation). Unfortunately for this party, many of the male members have been "caught" in flagrante in public participating in various forms of sex that they publicly denounce. But even people outside of that party generally don't talk about their participation in sexual activities with many others since doing so is regarded by our society as being morally loose. As I said, this is according to my own observations hypocrisy as I know for a fact that many of my friends and acquaintances have at times had more than one partner - hehe. So being polyamorous may just be another way of protesting against the hypocrisy of society - not really an old hat at all. It is just sort of in-your-face and that may not be such a bad thing.

We're better served by examining our own faults and viewing others with only love. It's hypocritical to claim to know the hearts and minds of strangers and how they should behave, while we ignore the hatred growing unchecked in our own lives, too afraid and proud to see our faults.

And anyway, when talking with people, love is like an open hand, and people can sense that. They open in response to our opening. We can gain some real understanding of their lives in this way. Morality however is often a facade for selfish superiority. It's like a till: do we soften our own garden soil, or go wave it around in our neighbor's yard, showing how well equipped we are to do the work we've never actually begun?

None of us is above reproach, so our only useful course of action is love. Where we are right, no flowers can grow.

That is my salero for this opinisupo, anyway

Duko:@ bpbatch: Sorry, but that was not cool. You just don't equate tolerance towards an alternative lifestyle that doesn't hurt anyone, with tolerance towards clear evils like nazism and bestiality. It's inconsiderate and it builds a dishonest argument.

I'm not about to debate the "merits" of polyamorous relationships on an Esperanto website—my point was about the acceptance of one group over another and calling that practice "open-minded" and "inclusive."

If you want to debate the idea that any particular lifestyle "doesn't hurt anyone," this is not the forum for which I wish to discuss further.

Let's keep it clean, everyone. Profanities and personal attacks against other users aren't permitted here. Please edit your messages accordingly.

Edit: This messsage having been ignored, I removed all messages with profanities and personal attacks. I repeat - keep it clean. Profanity isn't allowed here.

johmue:

Oijos:Aren't the males typically multiamorous in that they have relationships with multiple females, and the females typically in that that they accept, that their man have multiple partners, but they themselves rarely have more than one man, even though their man would not have anything against it? (maybe continue this discussion in Esperanto)

That's one of many possible constellations. But many polyamorists I know live in different constellations. I know examples for the other direction one female with mulitple males

I wonder what is typical, you didn't answer. Usually males would have something against their sex partners having other males, though.

johmue:

Why the willingness to wear a sign indicating multiamorousity?

I am not wearing one usally. When they are handing out those stickers I put one onto my name badge just like the ones for music, raumism, science, and others.

They are there for a quick overview of a person to initiate interactions? What Esperanto meeting was that? (No abbreviation, please)

johmue:

I had a slight miscomprehension, thanks. What is called someone, who is willing to fuck anyone attractive to him/her (besides healthy man)? What are these terms in Esperanto?

I am not aware of a specific term for that. I think it's a cliche. Do you really want to fuck anyone attractive? I don't.

From a biological standpoint healthy males try to produce the maximum amount of offspring possible.

johmue:

How many multiamorist you know speak Esperanto? As a share?

Maybe 20 to 30.

Do you mean, that you know 30 multiamorist, 20 of which speak Esperanto, so 66% ? Or you didn't provide percentical information?

Oijos:"and not some ancient Roman tradition" what tradition?

Maybe Catullus' carmen 16:

Gaius Valerius Catullus:Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo,
Aureli pathice et cinaede Furi,
[...]

Oijos:I wonder what is typical, you didn't answer. Usually males would have something against their sex partners having other males, though.

There's no such thing as typical or usual in the polyamory-world. Why would I mind one of my girlfriends to have sex with another male?

johmue:I am not wearing one usally. When they are handing out those stickers I put one onto my name badge just like the ones for music, raumism, science, and others.

They are there for a quick overview of a person to initiate interactions? What Esperanto meeting was that? (No abbreviation, please)

http://jes.pej.pl/

johmue:

How many multiamorist you know speak Esperanto? As a share?

Maybe 20 to 30.

Do you mean, that you know 30 multiamorist, 20 of which speak Esperanto, so 66% ? Or you didn't provide percentical information?

There are 20 to 30 Esperanto speaking polyamorists that I know. It's a rough estimate. A couple of months ago I attended a meetup of polyamorists. There where 50 people. So it's about 50:30. But I can't give any representative figures on that. I also don't know what you are trying to find out.

orthohawk:
Oh, great! Let's alienate even MORE of the mainstream population by inviting even MORE crackpots and stranguloj into Esperantujo!

true

Oh, great! Let's alienate even MORE of the mainstream population by inviting even MORE crackpots and stranguloj into Esperantujo!

If unity is important then acceptance is essential.

We are all crazy but our superego keeps us in check. This enables us to act in accordance with the social norms.

efilzeo:

orthohawk:
Oh, great! Let's alienate even MORE of the mainstream population by inviting even MORE crackpots and stranguloj into Esperantujo!

true

"Inviting even MORE crackpots and stranguloj into Esperantujo" is not bad, per se. Diversity is one of the things we value and cherish, being an international movement. The bad things only happen when "crackpots" and "stranguloj" impose their worldviews forcefully (with "legal" force, I mean) upon the movement and disregard any opinion contrary to theirs as simply intolerant.

For instance, the so-called "kruel-imposto" (cruelty tax, for meat-eaters.) Its name has been changed, but still I find it chilling because it gave an impression that the movement is ready to weed out or at least marginalize people who simply don't agree with them, which is much the contrary of our ideals. In a vegetarian-dominated Esperanto movement, will meat-eaters like me become a dhimmi, having to pay vegetarian jizya? I really don't think the Esperanto movement should impose any alternative lifestyle at all.* It's beyond the scope of the "internal idea", to begin with.

Bulonja Declaracio:1. Esperantism is the endeavour to spread throughout the entire world the use of this neutral, human language which, "not intruding upon the personal life of peoples and in no way aiming to replace existing national languages", would give to people of different nations the ability to understand each other, and would be able to serve as a conciliatory language of public institutions in those lands where different peoples fight amongst each other over language issues, and in which could be published those works that have an equal interest for all peoples. All other ideals or hopes tied with Esperantism by any Esperantist is his or her purely private affair, for which Esperantism is not responsible. [My emphasis]

* Individual Esperantists, though, can persuade other Esperantists into these alternatives. Persuasion, not imposition.