I just unsubbed from dot cattiness.
I'm really ashamed to admit it but I am STILL too sensitive to deal with being the object of the kind of stuff that is dished out on there. And if I can't take it, I shouldn't be reading it or dishing it out. And, I CAN take this sort of thing in person, from a friend who I know likes me, with a smile on their face. But from strangers, it hits scars that I guess never healed.
I finally took a deep breath and tracked down the comment I was snarked for on dot_poly_snark. A lot of my friends post there. I feel like they will think less of me for not being able to deal with these communities. :(
Anyway, the original comment thread:
http://www.livejournal.com/community/polyamory/1499313.html?thread=23376049#t23376049The poly snark thread:
http://www.livejournal.com/community/dot_poly_snark/228498.htmlSo, what exactly WAS I thinking when I wrote that?Well, what I actually wrote was:
Pretty! Close, but no cigar. And don't we just love the stress on "two becoming one." I can do without dyad-supremacy codependence-encouraging marketing...
Ah well. The world, at least on the surface, is dyadic. And they make pretty jewellery! :)First of all, when I wrote the comment, the word I was looking for but could not remember was centric. It was originally intended to say "dyad-centric." And, since I was looking for a specific piece of poly jewellery that a community member had made, the dyad-centric marketing was a clear sign that this was not the jewellery I was looking for -- it wasn't aimed at the poly market. So, from that point of view, I feel the response was justified. The jewellery's marketing WAS dyad-centric.
Secondly, in my time I've done a lot of thinking about relationships of ANY kind. To understand modern conceptions of what constitutes romance, you have to understand how they originated.
This is from my memory of a course I took at MIT entitled Philosophy of Love. If anyone remembers the name of the cult, or any other information about when these historical events took place, please pipe up; if not, and if anyone is really curious, I'll try to dig up my notes when I get home from Arisia and have a moment to breathe. Guy Gavriel Kay's A Song for Arbonne, btw, is basically a fantasy version of these actual historical events; just one of the reasons why I love GGKs writing.
Early in the history of the Christian church's dominance, the powers that be would descend on villages and force conversion. At some point in that very vague time period, there was a group of stubborn goddess worshipping pagans (I'm not making this shit up) who resisted. So, their homes were razed and the people were scattered to the four winds. Worshipping their goddess became outlawed and they all had to "convert."
But, in their hearts, they had not converted (as is often the case in situations like this). Many of them took up the profession of traveling minstrel. They would select a noble lady, and make songs that were purportedly about her glory and beauty. But in fact, these songs were just using the lady as a placeholder for their goddess.
In the meantime, there were a great deal of second, third, etc. sons wandering around the country with nothing to their name, as at the time, the firstborn son would inherit EVERYTHING and often toss their younger siblings out on their asses. Young and impressionable, these men started to latch onto the songs they heard, and decide that they were in love with these noble ladies. But, because they had no land and no valuables and no inheritance, and the ladies in question were often married, they could never have the woman in question.
Nonetheless, they would pursue them zealously, and the women took to giving them absurd tasks, such as, "If you love me, you'll go kill a bear with your bare hands and bring me his skin. Bring me that skin, and I'll reward you as true love sees fit." Shit like that. A lot of these knights errant kept diaries of their exploits. I read one in which he completed the unlikely task she asked of him for a kiss, and then she refused the kiss. When he protested that she had promised, she ordered him to jump in the lake in full armour (essentially a death sentence).
This is where modern romance comes from. And it's utterly disgusting, repugnant, and unhealthy. The idea is to fixate on something you can't or shouldn't or couldn't have, and pine for it, and do extravagant, unhealthy things in the hopes that you will get what you want just once, but could never keep. What kind of model is that?
The scary thing is how thoroughly it has saturated our culture. Think about this when you watch romance movies in the future. A romance movie pretty much always is about acquiring what you don't have. We never see what happens afterwards. In real life, we know that while the chase is fun, the stable relationship that hopefully follows is the best part.
The other piece of this puzzle is the concept of codependence. Codependence involves subsuming ones needs in order to meet the desires and needs of others. This is an extremely unhealthy human tendency that can exist in relationships of all kinds (poly and mono). I know because I've done it to myself, in both monogamous and polyamorous situations. What I found, eventually, is that doing this leads to sacrificing things you want for things the other person doesn't actually want, and vice versa. No one gets what they want or need.
When codependence comes into play, there is a certain loss of self. Two become one, or try their darndest to, and in the process, both become ghosts of who they were or could be.
Seeing N become 1 written anywhere raises my hackles. Doesn't matter if its a poly or mono context. It's a cultural meme that needs to be put to rest.
I've heard people claim that codependence is not always unhealthy. I don't know; I'm no expert. But maybe that's not codependence anymore. Maybe it's interdependence; I can't imagine ego merging being healthy in any situation.
I've also heard people (not myself) claim that a monogamous, lifelong marriage cannot last without some degree of codependence. I'm skeptical, given how destructive I've found codependence to be. But again, I'm no expert.
I suppose I have two comments regarding the people who responded to my comment.
First of all, I think it is reprehensible that 00goddess, the moderator of polyamory and pagan communities, says stuff like she does in that thread. As the moderator, it's her job to create a welcoming, safe community. But I've seen her do this before; I remember her bluntly telling some poor girl in the pagan community that she was crazy and needed help for being otherkin. Um, yeah. Even worse, people seem to worship this woman for this behaviour. She's got a real cult of personality going on, and it disgusts me. While I've done my fair share of catting behind closed doors, when I'm in my role as moderator, organizer, etc., I'm on my best behaviour. So should she be.
Second of all, it amazes me how everyone read one comment I wrote and felt a deep desire to comment on how moronic I am, and jumped to a variety of conclusions which were not at all reflective of my history or intentions. Anyone who knows me knows, and more importantly, I know that I'm not a moron, I don't have deep-seated issues regarding monogamy, and I'm not a poly zealot. I'm also very much NOT a one-true-way type of person; in fact, I've had many conversations with people where I was the one reminding them that just because something doesn't work for them doesn't mean it isn't a functional way of doing poly.
Finally, in the event that any of you, my friends, have the urge to be protective of me and revive those threads on either post: please don't. I don't want to deal with those strangers once again making negative comments about me. This is supposed to be a fun weekend, not depressing.
I'm screening comments because, well, as established earlier, I'm a wimp.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
timeasmymeasure
