"Monogamous individuals who are LGBTQ and/or in interracial and/or intergenerational romantic relationships may well be exempt from some (though not all) of these privileges, especially those marked with an asterisk at the end"
pretty much _all_ the "points" needed an asterisk, imo.
I think the distinction is that the asterisked ones don't require alteration. The others would require you to replace 'relationship orientation' with 'sexual orientation
( ... )
It depends a lot on the social circle. Being gay would be a lot easier in my family than being poly. All of my siblings are pro-gay rights. I'm not out as poly, because they've said some anti-poly things and it's not worth it to me to turn family gatherings into excuses for them to criticize my lifestyle. I just don't want to deal with it
( ... )
"However, that list is really, really missing how many problems gay people face."
In fairness, it wasn't trying to talk about homophobia and straight priviledge though. It was talking about prejudice against poly people and monogamy privilege.
I think the problem is that describing the problems poly people face in terms of a privilege list about 'relationship orientation' does make it sound like the two are of similar severity, so it really needed more acknowledgement of the difference.
That being said, the author never explicitly claims that poly people have it as bad as gay people (as far as I saw, I may have missed something). I wouldn't want to assume that's the way he feels.
I think the concept of 'relationship orientation' has some value, although it has to be kept distinct from sexual orientation (which this explicitly does).
The idea that some people may be orientated towards certain relationship styles doesn't strike me as absurd. Whilst many poly people do consider poly to be a lifestyle choice, others do consider it to be a 'part of who they are' that they couldn't choose to change even if they wanted to.
Also, whilst I'd find it trivialising to compare any marginalisation due to being poly to that experienced by lgbt folks and whilst I've never experienced significant problems with being poly personally, some people clearly do. I can completely understand why they may want to discuss that in terms of 'privilege'.
I can only see one comment by the author though, so maybe I'm missing some more obviously problematic statements? (I'll also admit that I did not individually read all 66 illustrations of privilege either)
Rephrasing my comment once I realised that he did mention the asterixs! Anyway... after reading through the list...
The ones that do obviously apply to sexual orientation (without alteration) are asterisked.
The ones that lack asterisks don't apply to sexual orientation without alternation due to the simple fact that they've been qualified.
To take one example: "2) I am not accused of being abused, warped, immoral, unethical, or psychologically confused because of my relationship orientation.Obviously, LGB persons do get accused of such things due to their sexual orientation... but they don't get accused of it due to being monogamous
( ... )
True, I suppose, but a bit misleading to word it that way for things like 12. Gay people can adopt children in some places, but given how difficult it still can be, and how many places are trying to make it harder, I would consider it better to have worded that one with an asterisk. Especially since gay marriage is so difficult, and that means many gay people have to have a relationship without marriage, which can also make it harder to adopt. So, you have a point that the list is trying to be precise, but it still does seem to underestimate the issues gays face. It's not about them, of course, but it is important to not trivialize anyone's issues when trying to bring attention to one form of bigotry.
Well, the point is that gay people can adopt without lying about their relationship orientation. The problem gay people face is not being allowed to adopt due to being gay.
A monogamous gay couple won't need to lie about their preference for monogamy, although that's a 'privilege' that doesn't really achieve much if adoptions for same-sex couples are illegal anyway.
A bit of a moot point in the case of adoption but I think the distinction pays off in other areas. It can be really important to realise that just because you lack one kind of privilege doesn't mean you don't have others, even if the effects of that lack of privilege can be very similar.
So I don't think I'd have liked to see more asterisks but I would have liked a better acknowledgement of the problems faced by gay people in his opening remarks, that would have been good.
I'll have to disagree. I've not seen any poly community, including the ones on LJ, ever question the validity of someone's love for a monogamous partner for the sole reason of being monogamous. In fact, I see quite a bit of outpouring of SUPPORT for that existing love, even if the person wants to add an additional love to their relationship.
I only see questions of love validity when the relationship is with a drama-crazy-bitch-whore, which really has nothing to do with relationship orientation at all.
I've seen the stated assumption that monogamy is by its very nature unhealthy or many times over the years. Of course, those posts usually get deleted after a big pile-on, but it still happens.
I've seen those stated assumptions too, and have become victim to similar criticism being a bisexual, poly, woman who has chosen to be in a heterosexual, monogamous, relationship. I frequently get criticized for my relationship choice by supposedly "open-minded" acquaintances.
privilege is the natural result/complement of oppression; groups are privileged due to advantages resulting from others' oppression. they are not and cannot be mutually exclusive concepts.
I think that's a matter of definition. Even within the context that we are talking about, I don't think we can stamp down such a firm and strict definition that easily.
For what it's worth, I would describe monogamists as being privileged relative to people pursuing non-monogamous relationships.
I don't think the problems that poly people face are of the same severity of lgbt persons (certainly not to my experience) but those problems are still there and can potentially be rather serious.
Not having to worry about those problems seems like a privilege to me given that those problems only arise out of other people's prejudice and bigotry.
Comments 93
Reply
pretty much _all_ the "points" needed an asterisk, imo.
Reply
Reply
Reply
"However, that list is really, really missing how many problems gay people face."
In fairness, it wasn't trying to talk about homophobia and straight priviledge though. It was talking about prejudice against poly people and monogamy privilege.
I think the problem is that describing the problems poly people face in terms of a privilege list about 'relationship orientation' does make it sound like the two are of similar severity, so it really needed more acknowledgement of the difference.
That being said, the author never explicitly claims that poly people have it as bad as gay people (as far as I saw, I may have missed something). I wouldn't want to assume that's the way he feels.
Reply
The idea that some people may be orientated towards certain relationship styles doesn't strike me as absurd. Whilst many poly people do consider poly to be a lifestyle choice, others do consider it to be a 'part of who they are' that they couldn't choose to change even if they wanted to.
Also, whilst I'd find it trivialising to compare any marginalisation due to being poly to that experienced by lgbt folks and whilst I've never experienced significant problems with being poly personally, some people clearly do. I can completely understand why they may want to discuss that in terms of 'privilege'.
I can only see one comment by the author though, so maybe I'm missing some more obviously problematic statements? (I'll also admit that I did not individually read all 66 illustrations of privilege either)
Reply
The ones that do obviously apply to sexual orientation (without alteration) are asterisked.
The ones that lack asterisks don't apply to sexual orientation without alternation due to the simple fact that they've been qualified.
To take one example:
"2) I am not accused of being abused, warped, immoral, unethical, or psychologically confused because of my relationship orientation.Obviously, LGB persons do get accused of such things due to their sexual orientation... but they don't get accused of it due to being monogamous ( ... )
Reply
Reply
A monogamous gay couple won't need to lie about their preference for monogamy, although that's a 'privilege' that doesn't really achieve much if adoptions for same-sex couples are illegal anyway.
A bit of a moot point in the case of adoption but I think the distinction pays off in other areas. It can be really important to realise that just because you lack one kind of privilege doesn't mean you don't have others, even if the effects of that lack of privilege can be very similar.
So I don't think I'd have liked to see more asterisks but I would have liked a better acknowledgement of the problems faced by gay people in his opening remarks, that would have been good.
Reply
This person clearly does not read lj's poly communities.
Reply
I only see questions of love validity when the relationship is with a drama-crazy-bitch-whore, which really has nothing to do with relationship orientation at all.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
For what it's worth, I would describe monogamists as being privileged relative to people pursuing non-monogamous relationships.
I don't think the problems that poly people face are of the same severity of lgbt persons (certainly not to my experience) but those problems are still there and can potentially be rather serious.
Not having to worry about those problems seems like a privilege to me given that those problems only arise out of other people's prejudice and bigotry.
Reply
Leave a comment