I've always been intrigued by Blog rants. I don't believe I've ever written one, so this is a first. This Blog and the body of work that we've (admittedly mostly swan) created here and on our predecessor Blog has just been hugely and totally misrepresented by a commenter on another Blog in our circle of correspondence, and I want to correct those entirely false statements about what we write here.
It was stated that we are "proponents of polygamy and M/s." This is an utter falsehood. Firstly polygamy is a serious federal felony in the United States. Were we to practice polygamy we would be subject to decades of imprisonment. Considering the dominance of our government by Christianity, other mainline religions, and general conservative intolerance that is so prevalent in our country in recent years, freedom of speech aside, were one to be proponent of polygamy, that would likely gain you legal sanction. We have never described ourselves as polygamous, nor are we polygamous, and we most certainly are not proponents of polygamy. The person who stated this, who has seemed to read here for some time, apparently has no understanding of what she has read.
We are polyamorous, but we are absolutely not proponents of polyamory. We believe very strongly that everyone should be able to lead self-determined lives and develop whatever family structures they choose (obviously within the purview of civil law). We do not promote our lifestyle as superior, sacred, holy, right, or in anyway superior to being single, monogamous, gay, straight, bi or any other permutation of adults coming together in committed relationship. We do not either set ourselves up as guru's or solicit people to ask us for advice about their love lives.
As for our being "proponents of M/s." This also is entirely false. It is true that two of the three of us (swan and I) are involved in a consensual M/s power exchange. We in no way suggest anyone else should engage in M/s, nor have we.
I would like to challenge someone to cite examples of our promoting either polygamy or M/s here ,or even for that matter, polyamory.
We share our experiences, we share our feelings about many aspects of our lives, we are not proponents nor will we be, as long as I have control of this family.
The implication too was communicated by inference, that we in some fashion denigrate domestic discipline (DD) as a lifestyle, or that we somehow argue that D/s or M/s is superior to DD. I have routinely on this Blog, and in many other Internet fora, described our lifestyle as bDDsm, connoting the practice of domestic discipline within the context of a BDSM lifestyle. While I recognize that this may be a unique take on DD, compared to the way many define it (imagine that -- this family being unique), I feel no compulsion to define my life and that of my family by anyone else's lexicon. For us to in someway say that DD is inferior would be for us to denigrate our own lifestyle. We are not self-effacing.
We do not put our lifestyle forward as superior to anyone else's. We are not seeking to become gurus or proselytize. Were we to be treated as such by someone we would end that co-dependent relationship immediately. We are not so insecure as to need to offer an advice line for co-dependent folks to turn to with their life questions, in order to feel superior to others or OK about ourselves. We do not tell others how to lead their lives. We do not purport that our choices and opinions are somehow sacred or are in anyway representative of "facts." We are most certinly not attempting to have people turn to us for advice in how to live their lives, AND WE MOST CERTAINLY ARE NOT AND NEVER HAVE BEEN PROPONENTS OF POLYGAMY AND M/s! Describing us as being like those who are prostelitizing their lifestyle and setting themselves up as experts (based upon laughably short experience with their lifestyle besides) is insulting.
Tom
Go confidently in the direction of your dreams. Live the life you've imagined.
Well said! I should say I don't consider this a 'blog rant'. Its a strong posting sure, clearly expressing your views, but in a way which seems considered, with the words well chosen to make their point. It seems to me to be a 'controlled response' Moreover, it speaks in defense of your own circumstances rather than in criticism of anyone else's. That's a position I will aways be able to respect.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure you'll be aware that I too consider myself in a polyamorous relationship, though it takes a different form to that of you, T and swan (I love your phrase of a self determined choice of family). What I continue to learn from you all from what you've share here has helped me understand the emotional gifts and challenges involved in such relationships. That's been of huge value to me, so thank you.
As someone who as she gets older deliberately chooses to embrace a live and let live approach to relationships more and more, I find myself slowly moving away from those of a less accepting nature. Life's just too short, and too precious, to do otherwise.
love and hugs xxx
I,too, would not consider this a rant. It is rather a well written position statement.
ReplyDeleteI have not read the other blogger's comment. That being said, I have generally observed a lack in many blogs of reasoning and thoughtfulness. In this case, it seems that because you, Swan and T have presented some positives in your life style, the writer may have therefor assumed that you were "proponents". Or, perhaps because of your belief that everyone should be free to develop their own style of family structures, she presumed that automatically made you "proponents".
I believe your decision to comment extensively is a wise one. If nothing else, it might help reduce the sloppy thinking that so many have when responding to a thoughtful, well written blog and drawing very inaccurate conclusions.
I do believe that civil law should allow any family structure the members choose as long as it protects any children within that structure.
This blog is the first one I check every day. I appreciate the quality of the writing, as well as the challenge it sometimes presents to my own way of thinking.
I wish you all the best!
Lyn
Well said Tom. And I must agree whole heartedly with your other commenters.
ReplyDeleteEspecially about finding your sharing here to be nurturing of my understanding of my own relationships. As time unfolds I think I'll find myself in a deeply committed poly relationship and there will be others for U/us. For Him and for me and for Us together. It will be unique, but I think that dynamic when there's poly and power exchange and bdsm seems to have a resonance even if the basic design and agreements makes things look different on the outside. That's the stuff that keeps me learning as I read what you all share here.
That doesn't make you a guru in my life. It makes you a fellow traveler and I appreciate the comradery in that. Its precious and rare. And your family is a success and is long term. You've graduated new relationship energy and have got into the meat of daily loving. That's a very important motion to me. There's alot to savor there and you do that openly here. I value that sharing.
I hope you'll continue to find it valuable to share these little insights into your lives. You are all a blessing to behold and that's about you as individuals, not because or just because you've got a successful family. *smiles*
Jeeze, Tom, you're talking about me and I meant no harm by what I said in the blog comment I made, none whatsoever. The word proponent, to me, simply means you guys are advocates of your way of life, both M/s and polyamory just by living it and writing about your enjoyment and love of it. Just like I enjoy monogamous marriage and I often like to write about my enjoyment of that, too. By the way, I have only the vaguest idea of the difference between polyamory or polygamy; as I've said before, I'm here reading because Swan's sub, not because I'm interested in the poly aspects; I meant no harm by using the word polygamy, I thought it meant the same thing, sorry.
ReplyDeleteAnd I didn't say you felt superior to other ways of life or that you guys think your way is the only way or the "best" way, just *your* way. Nor did I say you look down on DD or anything like that. Quite the opposite.
What I was trying to do was get Swan and Sara to make up so I was saying what I thought were nice things about both of them while pointing out maybe it's the differences in your types of relationships that causes the problem. Just pointing that out as a possible cause, not suggesting either of you are feeling superior to the other.
The gist of my comment was trying to heal that rift, absolutely not trying to denigrate any of you.
Obviously I failed spectacularly in my attempt.
I'm sorry. :(
Amber, I understand that your motives were pure. My Mother used to continually quote a saying, "the worst thing you could say about her was that she meant well."
ReplyDeleteThe main thing that makes the word "polygamy" such a hot spot in terms of these discussions, is that I feel that life in a penitentiary would be so very limiting in terms of my self-actualization.
I didn't infer that you thought that we were feeling superior to others or condescended to others. I was responding to your having said that we were really essentially the same as Sara and Grant, approaching things from a different side of the looking glass. We are not. The difference is not polyamory vs. monogamy or DD vs. BDSM.
They proseletize their lifestyle like a country Baptist preacher in a revival tent. Their marriage is "wonderful" because of DD. If you read them, they will tell you how yours can be too. If you have questions or problems about your life, all you need do is write the "ask Sara and Grant helpline," and they'll advise you how to do DD because their brief stint in all this has made them experts who can advise anyone. They are in fact self-styled gurus who have set themselves up to tell us all how to improve our lives, if only we would find the way.
Amber, there is no desire to mend any rift with sara. swan is simply drawing boundaries. Whenever they have found themselves in any forum lately anything swan has expressed, sara has responded to by saying swan was wrong and her own perspective or opinion was fact. In another case she said swan was wrong because her opinion was "sacred." swan has no problem with anyone communicating any perspective or opinion whatever, but will not be condescended to and told that she is simply wrong because the "guru has spoken" and therefore that is that. Whenever sara does that from this point forward, she is going to be confronted and her rudeness addressed.
Saying that we are essentially the same as Sara and Grant is in fact profoundly insulting. I also know you were in no way attempting to be insulting.
I am sorry you find yourself immersed in this. I appreciate the Rodney King effort, and heartily accept your apology, and hope we can in fact go on from here as (continued and valued) friends.
Thank you for responding.
Tom
Go confidently in the direction of your dreams. Live the life you've imagined.
Greenwoman, Lynlass, and M:e thank you very much for your responses, your kind words, and for "getting it." This really is not much about a pissing match over some Blog comments, but is much more about clarifying the values upon which our blogging is based.
ReplyDeleteThank you for traveling through all this with us and for sharing your lives in return. If there are things we experience that are helpful to you in clarifying your lives what a neat extra benefit. I know that certainly we are looking for those insights in our reading of your experiences, thoughts, etc. Mostly it is simply nice to not be alone on the journey and to be able to support and be supported by others.
All the best,
Tom
Go confidently in the direction of your dreams. Live the life you've imagined
Tom, I'm glad you understand where I was coming from. Yes, I meant well. But then, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions". ha!
ReplyDeleteHowever, I don't agree that Grant and Sara are the way you describe at all. Dan and I used to answer questions too, when we used to blog about our...well, whatever we are, lol! Or were...we've changed over the years. :)
Anyway, we used to get reader questions and private questions, too, and I would answer or Dan would, the best we could. We were pleased about doing it; not in an "omg, I'm so much better than everyone else" kinda way. Just, "glad I could help".
I've read their answers and I don't see some holier-than-thou attitude like I've read on so many DD sites in the past.
You guys have answered questions here on your blog, too. Never got the impression any of you were setting yourselves up as better or superior or as gurus, just sharing what you have found in your own relationships and your own experience.
As far as similarity goes, I said this:
I don't think either of you mean to step on the other one's toes when you express enthusiasm about your own beliefs. I think what happened is, because your core beliefs differ, it stings when you realize your beliefs clash at times.
So I was actually saying you are all very different and that is the part that causes the rift.
The only thing I said about them being similar was this:
I wish one of you would email the other and extend the olive branch. We are such a small group, we submissive or slave or DD or whatever term you want to use, women like us. So similar in our need to please our men at any cost. That is the true core, is it not? The rest is as nothing compared to that, right?
You’re both much more alike than not. We all are. :)
I stand by that. The urge to serve/obey/please our man is very deep. I think, as submissive/DD/slave/whatever women, that bond should bring us together whenever possible. Despite whatever term we like to use for ourselves.
And I almost quoted Rodney King but the poor man has become such a cliche, heh. He still spoke truth, though. Cliche or not. :)
Oh and no worries on any of this; I realized when I made the comment it was A) risky; people react strongly to any kind of interference like mine, and B) it was a long shot. Swan and Sara both already know how I feel because I've told them privately.
Btw, I will probably not be commenting much on blogs, for a while, as Dan and I are taking a break and have taken our blogs down. So please don't take it personally if I "disappear" for a while. It has nothing to do with this thing but the hiatus we're taking.
Signed, Jimmy Carter. ;)
Tom,
ReplyDeleteI also do not see S&G as you describe. I read both blogs - they are intelligent and written from the heart. Both Swan and Sara are very passionate people. I've read both make very black/white statements at times. One could read that as trying to tell everyone they should feel that way OR that they simply have a definite opinion for themselves. I think *readers* do a lot of projecting.
Sara has felt her opinion was 'sacred' - FOR HER - not once have I seen her directly tell Swan she was just wrong - only that it was not *her* (Sara's) belief.
As to the whole guru thing... There are many guru type blogs/websites out there (you know them... Mr LDD etc... some quite unhealthy)- but I, personally, do not see it on S&G. They answer a few questions on the blog, speak their experiences, refer to other places on the net, and encourage each questioner to communicate with their partner. Many bloggers answer questions. Looks like she made a section for the q&a - perhaps for housekeeping reasons? I don't understand how that becomes proselytsing like a country babtist.
No - you do not do that on your blog, but you do advertise for people to meet and 'mentor'. You have a lot of experience, and offer it up at large.
I believe there is something else going on here between you all. Someone struck a chord - a deep one, and it started a long time ago. Were you ticked that G was offended and said so when you offered an example of his wife with another? Is it because there is something to the insecurities Swan expresses over "girlies" - when that is something Sara does not have to worry about. Both monogamy and polamory have their own up and downsides. The thing is - each of your families fits your own very different personal desires/needs.
Also... this... Sara on "The RIGHT Way to do DD" - so opposite of the way your are painting them. She is clear in her belief that each couple has to find their own way. She shares what works for her in her relationship - as you all do yours.
http://findingsara.wordpress.com/2007/09/19/the-right-way-to-do-dd/
Anyway, despite the differences, I enjoy both blogs, and just wish I could understand the animosity.
One thing that I find interesting is that almost everywhere Sara goes online, strife follows.
ReplyDeleteTerri
Anonymous if I knew who to address I might respond more. I'm glad you enjoy both Blogs.
ReplyDeleteThe Internet and in particular the Blogosphere is about a huge forum of ideas, and we are all free to respond and react as we choose. I hope you'll feel free to continue to. I'm glad you enjoy reading here. I hope that too will continue.
The upset swan experienced was about sara's attitude when she encounters her on line and expresses an opinion that is different than sara's. I hear you don't see that occurring. If we really wanted to have a pissing match we could cite quotations when it has occured, but this really is just not worth it. And of course we answer questions, that is very different than solicitng requests for advice.
Thanks for commenting.
All the best,
Tom
Go confidently in the direction of your dreams. Live the life you've imagined.
I agree 100% with Terri. Having seen Sara on more than one forum wreaking havoc, trying to take the forum down and in one case, actually being the catalyst for the taking down of a forum, strife and destruction does indeed follow her wherever she may roam.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, it is scarey to think that that sort of havoc could be wrought by one individual correspondent/reader. Is it that history that causes you to feel so intimidated that you are unwilling to identify yourself with even an Internet psuedonymn?
ReplyDeleteAll one need do to see the condescending attitude towards others whose views are diverse from S's is look at the post on her Blog currently. She raves about how fortunate she is to have one of the few, the proud, the ......drum roll......"good man." I can only assume that men who don't live as she purports they do, are less than he t"good men." He had never ever lied, and has perfect integrity. (They had better have great care. The last time there was a semite with such super human moral excellence he wound up hanging from a cross. I wonder G is here to perhaps exonerate us all of our sins and hunman imperfections.)
She then goes into how wonderful it is he takes the "high road." I would assume therefore, that approaches to life other then theirs must be on a contrasting "low road."
Here I sit condemned as an imperfect sinner, who has, yes my friends I admit it....I have lied in my life, and have even worse sins than that. I hope desperately that when I encounter all the rest of my friends on the low road we can get along in our flawed ways, just supporting each other in our less than perfect lives.
Oh the pain of it all being so flawed. I likely flatter myself thinking that I might even be worthy of the contempt of such a profoundly peerfect man and his family, but were it true, too, I would be deeply honored.
All the best,
Tom
Go confidently in the direction of your dreams. Live the life you've imagined.