xx Dee

I’m certainly of the camp that most things are a mixture of nature and nurture. My earliest years weren’t my worst, but they were tumultuous, and I think I came out a sensitive child. I oversimplified the theory a great deal, in order to use it as an illustration, but I think it’s got a kernel of truth… that our whole environment interacts with our given temperament, our closest relationships and affinities, and our earliest gained skills to “set” some part of our anxiety triggers out of our hands on a fundamental level. Maybe I’m responding to the truth of that, or maybe it’s something more metaphysical, that we just can’t ever fully escape something as human as our fight-or-flight response. Maybe this would be a good post in the philosopher’s group.

One of the most nourishing parts of y’all’s relationship for me is that this is the first time I’ve been privileged to watch both sides of his relationship with someone else, at least to some degree. It multiplies the beauty.

I am SO glad you like the kite!

She introduces the term in the first paragraph. She switches to “monogamist” in the first sentence of the second paragraph. She does not RETURN to the “cowboy/cowgirl/cowpoke” reference, until the very last sentence of the piece.

That’s not using it interchangably, in my book. If she were going back and forth between the two terms when making her descriptions, I would have an easier time, actually, believing that she didn’t believe this about all monogamist. But the deliberate choice to use the terms on three times in the entire article- 1st para, 1st sentence; 1st para, 2nd sentence; last para, last sentence… to me says a lot.

Please respond to it here, though; I’m sure it will be a lot less confusing to have the discussion happen all in one place.

I meant to add it in, but got wayyyy to involved and forgot.

The reasoning displayed by this article is the same that is displayed by fundamentalists, many psychiatrists, and other closeminded people about BDSM.

(Insert name of known serial killer) was diagnosed as a sexual sadist. He got off on hurting people and then, he KILLED THEM. Therefore, everyone who gets sexual satisfaction from sadistic acts must be a sociopath/psychopath/potential serial killer. YOU CANNOT GET INVOLVED WITH A SADIST, THEY WILL KILLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL YOU. Maybe not today, but one day! They are cold, heartless bastards!

Now, read it this way.

(Insert name of known serial killer) is known in the community as a “cowboy”. He got involved with XYZ, who is polyamorous, and then he tried to manipulate her into MONOGAMY. Therefore, every monogamous person who gets involved with a polyamourous person must be that way! YOU CANNOT GET INVOLVED WITH A MONOGAMIST, THEY WILL TRY TO CONVERT YOUUUUU. Maybe not today, but one day! They are cold, heartless bastards!

Let me share my take on it.

Immediately, in the second paragraph she switches from the terminology of “cowboy/cowgirl” to “monogamist”.

And I quote. Her ENTIRE paragraph.
“I understand why people—including those dating the person being courted by the monogamist—view such tactics askance. The number of potential partners is small enough for polyamorous people without the mono crowd rustling them. It’s also no mystery why they try. Viewed through a monogamist’s gaze, dropping your lasso on a wandering heart is the stuff of songs, literature, and drama. But it begs the question: Why the hell would a poly person get romantically involved with someone who is clearly monogamous in the first place?”

Now. The problem with that paragraph is this: It isn’t a monogamy thing. I promise. As someone who has played monogamy, monopoly, polyamory, and probably a few different relationships styles in between- that’s not how it works. As a monogamist, I would never *REQUIRE* it of someone. Now, I would ask (and if things progressed, require) that they do it in an ethical form- I want to know about it, and I want you to use rubbers, and I reserve the right to request you not sleep with certain people after we discuss my reasons and make sure it’s not just me being insecure but may be an actual problem I have with the person (personality conflicts, a known “cowboy” type, high drama elsewhere, etc.). But I’m not going to try to stop you under most circumstances. IF Matisse wants to keep to the situation she proposed in her introduction, she fails in the first sentence of her second paragraph.

Not every monogamist is a “cowboy/cowgirl”. So why use a term that encompasses a MUCH larger group of people, that, unfortunately, also encompasses the people who purport the horrendous and heartbreakingly atrocious behavior of the “cowboy/cowgirl”?

If one is going to put it out there for what is known to be a large audience to read, one must be so very specific with the chosen words, chosen meanings, and define all things as clearly as possible, so that things ARE NOT mistaken. She did a WONDERFUL job, in the first paragraph, of giving us the label “cowboy” and defining what they are known for- what their behaviors are.

Then, she went from using a term SHE chose and SHE introduced and SHE defined, to using a term that has a meaning much larger, much broader, and much more inclusive than the singular, smaller group of people described in the first paragraph.

As the column progresses, she continues to use the term mono or monogamist. She may have *meant* to say cowboy. But she didn’t say that. She said monogamist or mono. That involves a lot more people than just the “cowboys/cowgirls” of the world. SO much more.

So if she *meant* to say cowboy, she would have said it. She proved in the first paragraph she is capable of typing the word. She is experienced enough a columnist to ensure congruent word choice. And if she isn’t, she should not be posting to such a public blogspace. But until she writes something to the effect of “I’m sorry I hurt those who identify as monogamist by making the extremely public mistake of stating that EVERY SINGLE ONE of them who are in a relationship with a polyamorous person are in the relationship in order to “change” the polyamorous person, and subject them to horrendous and unimaginable emotional and mental stressors”, I don’t and won’t believe that.

Say what you mean. Mean what you say.

And if you have NO first hand, personal insight into healthy, meaningful, functional relationships of ALL natures, keep your fucking “stereotypes” out of it. Don’t tell me it can’t happen, when I have quite a few examples showing that it can.

I don’t know many stereotypes that come from a functional and healthy place. All you do is hurt those of us who strive and work and bend over backwards to be those people who break stereotypes for the good, who offer ourselves and accept our loved ones for who they are, what they are, and would NEVER seek to change that about them. If you don’t know about it, don’t write about it as a matter of absolute fact, because it obviously is not.

URGH.

I’m done. For now.

That doesn’t, however, fix her insulting language, her know-it-all behavior about relationships she’s not a part of, nor her inability to distinguish between how a person works and what they need from their partner(s). Her conclusion and introduction are fine, but that doesn’t change the problems I laid out above.

If you can show me where she didn’t just tell me the source of every problem in my relationship without knowing anything about it then, then perhaps I’ll be less offended by her asshattery.