Rocking Haloween Old School

October 31, 2005 9:59 AM

Anocht Oidhche Shamhna!(Happy New Year!) Samhain (pronounced Sow-en) or Samhuinn (also pronounced Sow-en I guess) "was (and is) considered a very magical time, when the dead walk among the living and the veils between past, present and future may be lifted in prophecy and divination." It's also a good candidate for the most important historical holiday in the European pagan calendar.

Isaac Bonewitz's Neopagan.net has a few pages about the history and misconceptions & lies about All Hallows Eve from the neo-pagan perspective . Concerned that he's trying to get you join some loony cult of tree huggers? While you're there, run Mr. Bonewitz through his own Cult Danger Evaluation Frame and see if you're still scared.
posted by illovich (94 comments total)

From the site:

"Druidism, Paganism, Witchcraft, magic(k), ceremonial magic(k), liturgical design, polytheology, polyamory, tarot, etc."

Two observations:

1. One of these things is not like the others.
2. "magic(k)". Wow.
posted by gurple at 10:05 AM on October 31, 2005

When I hear Samhain, all I think of is that episode of Ghostbusters when the guy with the Pumpkin head takes over the Firehouse and the Ghostbusters have to take it back, but it's all spooky and ghosty.

His name was Samhain, right?
posted by hughbot at 10:17 AM on October 31, 2005

Isaac Bonewitz ... that's a name I haven't heard in awhile. Thanks for the re-acquaintance.
posted by If I Had An Anus at 10:19 AM on October 31, 2005

One of these things is not like the others.

I know, I've been meaning to email him and tell him to get those silly tarot cards out of the list =0
posted by illovich at 10:26 AM on October 31, 2005

2. "magic(k)". Wow.

Could you clear up your observation, gurple? Is that "Wow, pagans sure are a pretentious bunch" or "Wow, that spelling is sooo 20th Century" ???
posted by If I Had An Anus at 10:39 AM on October 31, 2005

Nothing like being a polyamorous Witch to piss off the religious right, I say. *grin*
posted by keptwench at 10:52 AM on October 31, 2005

Nothing like being a polyamorous Witch to piss off the religious right, I say. *grin*

And fill everybody else with derisive and mocking laughter.
posted by tkchrist at 1:27 PM on October 31, 2005

Nothing like being a polyamorous Witch to piss off the religious right, I say. *grin*

And fill everybody else with derisive and mocking laughter.

When did lifestyle choices become humorous?
posted by angeline at 1:34 PM on October 31, 2005

When did lifestyle choices become humorous?

When people decided to become clowns... and republicans?
posted by tkchrist at 1:52 PM on October 31, 2005

Sorry. I'll clarify. I got into a hurry and came off sounding ingenuous.

When did it become acceptable to point and laugh derisively at a person for their sexual preferences and religion?

I guess that though I myself am not a polyamorous Witch, it doesn't seem too terribly open-minded to mock someone who is. It's just who they are.

(and it's gonna take all the zip out of my righteous fury to admit I laughed at the Republican crack, but there you go)
posted by angeline at 2:11 PM on October 31, 2005

It doesn't seem terribly open-minded to deride someone's closed-mindedness.

Why are you so intolerant of intolerance?

I hate myself.
posted by S.C. at 2:23 PM on October 31, 2005

S.C.: Why are you so intolerant of intolerance?

I hate myself.

I guess if you have to start somewhere, yourself is a good place. I think when you really know what you hate about yourself, it's so much easier to hate it in other people even more.

On the whole point of pagans being pretentious or whatever, yeah sure. They're pretentious, but so are the folks from the zen club, the video gamers, the people who act like their opinion on national politics matters to anyone and the "serious" religious people everywhere are also a bit pretentious when you get down to the stuff they believe... ("so you're the chosen people eh? Special deal with God?" / "Only 144,000 get into heaven, the rest perish?" / "I believe in these couple sentences, and my soul is guaranteed everlasting life?" / "How many virgins do I get?")

I guess I feel like they (or at least Isaac) are/is trying to make an alternative for people who think monotheism is a terrible idea, are too spiritual (or whatever) to be atheists, and who didn't have the good fortune to be born Hindu.

Gob bless them and their little Spiral Scout childrens.
posted by illovich at 3:14 PM on October 31, 2005

Neo-pagan witch on celebrating the dead and casting spells
posted by mrgrimm at 3:14 PM on October 31, 2005

And when I say God, take your pick.

Cause I do.
posted by illovich at 3:15 PM on October 31, 2005

Could you clear up your observation, gurple? Is that "Wow, pagans sure are a pretentious bunch" or "Wow, that spelling is sooo 20th Century" ???

Hey, interesting, I didn't realize Crowley started the whole with-a-k thing. I guess I thought it was older than that, because, you know, it kind of LOOKS old. Magick. Yeah. Looks old.

But what I found hilarious was that this guy couldn't decide. To be all-inclusive, presumably so as not to offend anybody, he introduced yet a third spelling: "magic(k)". It's the parentheses that get me.
posted by gurple at 3:16 PM on October 31, 2005

pagans. what a bunch of pretentious douchebags.

i'd like to ship them, the fundamentalist athiests, and the "Christian" evangelists off to some island and let 'em fight out it out. Then nuke the site from orbit. (it's the only way to be sure.)
posted by keswick at 3:25 PM on October 31, 2005

illovich: I hope you realize my entire prior comment was facetious. I "hate myself" because "you're intolerant of intolerance!" is a shitty joke, and everybody hates shitty jokes.

And man, do I ever hate other peoples' shitty jokes.
posted by S.C. at 3:26 PM on October 31, 2005

When did it become acceptable to point and laugh derisively at a person for their sexual preferences and religion?

People have been laughing about every aspect of sexuality since forever. Breaks the tension about the number one obsession of the human race.

So why is a polyamorous witch funny? Let's see, ok: guys have been making up stories and justifications for sex also since forever. It's just amusing to imagine a women who tells herself she not just sleeping around, she's actually, I dunno, fulfilling her duties.
posted by scheptech at 3:28 PM on October 31, 2005

When did it become acceptable to point and laugh derisively at a person for their sexual preferences and religion?

When their "religion" is a broadcast of their insecurities. You declare yourself a witch either because you hate your parents or because you want attention.
posted by Mayor Curley at 3:31 PM on October 31, 2005

From the Cult Danger Evaluation Frame link:

15. Paranoia: Amount of fear concerning real or imagined enemies; exaggeration of perceived power of opponents...

That could apply to just about any religion! eg. belief in Hell and the Devil.
posted by uncanny hengeman at 3:32 PM on October 31, 2005

MC: When their "religion" is a broadcast of their insecurities. You declare yourself a witch either because you hate your parents or because you want attention.

Oooooh, good one! Hey, I've got one! Ahem: you declare yourself a [blank] because you were born into it and not creative enough to look around for other options! Go me! I'm so clever and people not like me are not good!
posted by gurple at 3:43 PM on October 31, 2005

i'd like to ship them, the fundamentalist athiests, and the "Christian" evangelists off to some island and let 'em fight out it out. Then nuke the site from orbit. (it's the only way to be sure.)

That'll teach 'em tolerance!

Happy hallowed weenie,
posted by joe lisboa at 3:54 PM on October 31, 2005

Scheptech: It's just amusing to imagine a women who tells herself she not just sleeping around, she's actually, I dunno, fulfilling her duties.

That's an extraordinarily loose and dismissive interpretation of the concept of polyamory. It completely disregards any actual personal choice involved in that lifestyle.

I think it was a mistake for the author of the linked article to make it seem that Paganism and polyamory are inextricably linked. They're not; they do go in hand more than a bit of the time, but no one ever said you had to be one to be the other.

Simply put, no polyamorous Witch is going to be seeing it as "fulfilling her duties" to choose to have more than one partner.

MC: When their "religion" is a broadcast of their insecurities. You declare yourself a witch either because you hate your parents or because you want attention.

Another sweeping generalization that fails to take into account any actual personal philosophy or choice. I'm not even sure how to respond to this in a civil manner - so I won't. My disapproval is on record.
posted by angeline at 3:56 PM on October 31, 2005

i never claimed to be tolerant.

ps: you can dress up polyarmory as much as you want; it's still just a fancy word for "slut."
posted by keswick at 3:58 PM on October 31, 2005

ps: you can dress up polyarmory as much as you want

Oooh! I can wear chain mail AND a cuirass?
posted by gurple at 4:01 PM on October 31, 2005

ps: you can dress up polyarmory as much as you want; it's still just a fancy word for "slut."

You know, that's kind of like saying that "homosexual" is just another word for "pedophile." Which we all know as rational adults isn't true. Unfortunately, there was a time when many people believed it was true, and it wasn't so very long ago.

From here, I would have to say that it looks like polyamory is the new misconceived sexual lifestyle.
posted by angeline at 4:06 PM on October 31, 2005

boy, for being a pagan, you're pretty quick to climb up on the cross.
posted by keswick at 4:09 PM on October 31, 2005

When did it become acceptable to point and laugh derisively at a person for their sexual preferences and religion?

Since when has it NOT been ok?

It MIGHT be funny if somebody sexual preference was to, say, dress like Mo Howard and only fuck people who looked like Larry Fine, yelling "Why I oughtta...!" and "Woooob woob woob nuck nuck nuck!"

I think people who say they are "poly-whateverous" are preposterous and funny. So what. Why should they care what I think. I'm not going to pass any laws or anything. I could care less what two, or three or four, unatractive nerds want to do in the privacy of thier thatched hut. Go for it.

Grown people who wear capes, prance about the woods chanting magic spells and humping trees or whatever are funny to me. And likely I to them.

So. Lighten up.

Peoples bullshit beliefs are funny, ok.

You believe in magic? I will make fun of you. You wear a Shriner hat and drive a tiny car in July 4th parades? I'll make fun of you. You have Pope who wears a silly hat and thinks he's eating a 2000 year old dead guy every Sunday? I'll make fun of you.

You dance at home alone in your underwear to Ultravox I'll... oh wait... that's me. Nevermind.

And. Crucial to your bullshit belief system should be a sense of humor about it.

You wanna make fun of me? PAH-lease. Be my guest.

Central to my belief system is that the world is pretty much 90% and we see it and as science can explain it.

Yet I still rush up the stairs from the basement when light goes out because I think there is a freaky carnivorous old lady with mouldy green skin who dwells behind the freezer.
posted by tkchrist at 4:10 PM on October 31, 2005

much 90% and we see it

"AS we see it" - sorry.
posted by tkchrist at 4:12 PM on October 31, 2005

Oooooh, good one! Hey, I've got one! Ahem: you declare yourself a [blank] because you were born into it and not creative enough to look around for other options! Go me! I'm so clever and people not like me are not good!

It's a lot more permissable to believe fairytales if you've been fed them since you were a baby. If you dismiss the old story of the magical jew for the new story of the magical lesbians when you're a young adult, you're sending a message instead of finding answers. What I mean is, feed someone a steady diet of bullshit their whole life, they may never figure out that there are other things to eat besides shit. But if someone elects to eat shit after puberty, they have an alterior motive. Like they're bad at being pretentious-- they want us to know that they will only eat feces that are more obscure than most people's.

(I know that some people turn to modern paganism because they are morbidly obese and the religion encourages black clothes and long straight hair that might slightly obscure this. I'm not calling these people pretentious-- I realize that they are being pragmatic.)
posted by Mayor Curley at 4:14 PM on October 31, 2005

Mayor Curley: I just flagged that post as outstanding.
posted by keswick at 4:16 PM on October 31, 2005

It's a lot more permissable to believe fairytales if you've been fed them since you were a baby.

Says you. I think that's a crummy excuse. Also, we're BOTH ignoring kids who grew up in pagan households. They do exist.

If you dismiss the old story of the magical jew for the new story of the magical lesbians when you're a young adult, you're sending a message instead of finding answers.

But the magical lesbians are so much more interesting and, let's admit it, plausible than the magical jew!

Plus, I would imagine that, in a lot of places, the people practicing various forms of pagan beliefs are a lot more interesting than the people doing the same old thing. I think a lot of people choose a religion for the company.
posted by gurple at 4:21 PM on October 31, 2005

[disclaimer: I'm a thin athiest]
posted by gurple at 4:21 PM on October 31, 2005

Angeline, I fail to see why you're surprised by this. Many of the people here hate Christians. Is it any surprise that they hate your religion as well?
posted by unreason at 4:27 PM on October 31, 2005

[snipage] ...like saying that "homosexual"...

No. No it is not. There is growing scientific consensus that Homosexuality for the most part is NOT a choice.

Polyamory is ALWAYS a choice. It is perfectly ethical to poke fun at peoples choices. Yet still retain compassion and protect the rights for the people choosing.

And even if all sexuality IS a matter of simple preferences... nearly everybody would want to be polyamorous if they could.

If they could and NOT feel resentment about their mates fucking other people, too. But only a few can do this.

Why? Because (and I am simply guessing non-scientifically here) those people are largely selfish social retards who are rejected by everybody else. Unless you re-engineer all of society (WHO is opressor then?), polyamory IMHO is a PERSONALITY flaw. Not a sexual preference.

But if you want immunity from being made fun of, sorry. You don't have cancer or some kind of Martyr status just because you want to hump a whole bunch of people.
posted by tkchrist at 4:30 PM on October 31, 2005

You don't have cancer or some kind of Martyr status just because you want to hump a whole bunch of people.

Actually, if polyamory IS part of your religion, and you pick up some nasty fatal STD from humping a bunch of people... and your religion has a concept of martyrdom... I guess you DO get martyr status!
posted by gurple at 4:37 PM on October 31, 2005

the people practicing various forms of pagan beliefs are a lot more interesting than the people doing the same old thing

You would think. But unless your talking about the Yanamamo in the rain forest or someplace and not the same silly white people that buy crystals and shit... you'd be wrong. They are every bit as boring as Lutherans.
posted by tkchrist at 4:38 PM on October 31, 2005

ps: you can dress up polyarmory as much as you want; it's still just a fancy word for "slut."

And all I'm seeing here is a bunch of fancy words for "terribly jealous."
posted by poweredbybeard at 4:46 PM on October 31, 2005

oh yeah, i wish i felt it was acceptable behavior to sleep with dozens of fat, ugly, and pretentious people.
posted by keswick at 4:48 PM on October 31, 2005

um... again - all i'm getting is sour grapes.
posted by poweredbybeard at 4:52 PM on October 31, 2005

um... again - all i'm getting is sour grapes.

what you got against sour!? I happen to LIKE sour.

poweredbybeard - your coming off like an egotistical oversensitive whiner. Not the image I'd wager you want for your people.

It COULD be that polyams are social retards who simply can't fit in with intimate and fully committed adult relationships. And not something we monags secretly lust after. If I were you I'd entertain that notion first.

Otoh. Now my wife and I often muse that we would like another wife... one that can cook, clean and take care of the kids. The position is open if you want to apply. However, you would have to respect our preference to NOT have sex with you. Unless you are hot like that Paz Vega. In that case it would be open to negotiations.
Also: Rrrrar.
posted by tkchrist at 5:02 PM on October 31, 2005

It COULD be that polyams are social retards who simply can't fit in with intimate and fully committed adult relationships. And not something we monags secretly lust after. If I were you I'd entertain that notion first.

(earlier, angeline) From here, I would have to say that it looks like polyamory is the new misconceived sexual lifestyle.

tkchrist, you're doing a pretty good job of proving angeline right. Which is too bad, because I don't think she is, really.

I mean, if you don't like polyamory, is it really necessary to justify your dislike of it by accusing them all of being social retards who blah blah blah?
posted by gurple at 5:11 PM on October 31, 2005

dozens of fat, ugly, and pretentious people

Your disdain for polyamory is loud and clear, keswick--overstating your case isn't helping. You can't seriously believe that every single person who's ever participated in polyamory is both fat and ugly. That's profoundly unlikely, statistically speaking, and quantitatively disprovable.
posted by jesourie at 5:15 PM on October 31, 2005

social retards

Yes. Because the SOCIAL NORM is for monogamous relationships - even amongst homosexuals. And not just as a matter of religious ethic either. monogamy is easier to manage.

Those that admittedly CAN'T fit with-in the social norm would be by definition social retards.
posted by tkchrist at 5:16 PM on October 31, 2005

Boy, it doesn't take much to bring the jerks out on mefi these days. Just mention any sort of religious conviction whatsoever and you're a prime target for attacks!
Polite, civil discourse is dead. Long live personal attacks!
posted by nightchrome at 5:18 PM on October 31, 2005

jesourie: i couldn't help but notice you didn't quibble with my use of the word "pretentious."
posted by keswick at 5:20 PM on October 31, 2005

That's profoundly unlikely, statistically speaking, and quantitatively disprovable.

I'm intrigued. Are there pictures to go along with this contention? It sure seems like I can easily post pictures to support keswick. Let's see the hot poly contingent. In fact I insist!
posted by tkchrist at 5:26 PM on October 31, 2005

Yes. Because the SOCIAL NORM is for monogamous relationships - even amongst homosexuals. And not just as a matter of religious ethic either. monogamy is easier to manage.

Purely strict monogamy is not nearly as common as the appearance of strict monogamy. Remember good old Kinsey? Perhaps this is whole polywhatsit thing is just the segment of society that can't be monogomous feeling free enough to express itself more openly. Or part of that segment, anyway.

I, for one, would much prefer to know right off the bat if a potential lover didn't have a prayer of staying faithful. Good on 'em for being honest and keeping the diseases for partners who are aware of and don't mind the fact that they screw a bunch of people.

On preview, I agree, tkc, let's see the hot poly contingent! Of course, my interest is purely prurient.
posted by gurple at 5:28 PM on October 31, 2005

dress like Mo Howard and only fuck people who looked like Larry Fine, yelling "Why I oughtta...!" and "Woooob woob woob nuck nuck nuck!"

Daddy? Why won't you come home, Daddy? I didn't tell them anything, I promise!
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 5:32 PM on October 31, 2005

Why is everyone so mad about the c(k)ups?
posted by robocop is bleeding at 5:38 PM on October 31, 2005

Pagans always remind me of D&D. I'm a druid dancing in the woods. It's just kind of silly.
posted by monkeyman at 5:43 PM on October 31, 2005

You're right, keswick, I didn't, because a picture of someone who clearly isn't fat or ugly won't show you whether or not they're pretentious. I think you're wrong, but I have no proof that you are, so I won't waste my time debating that part of it with you when you've already made up your mind.

tkchrist: it would be bad form for me to post a link to pictures of people I know personally without first asking them if they're OK with it. I tried the poly-boston meetup page but their server is down. I'll try again later, much as the error message instructed.
posted by jesourie at 5:44 PM on October 31, 2005

Or part of that segment, anyway.

A very small segment. Kinsey observed a large segment of people cheat, sure. But they can't stomach the thought of their mates cheating on them. Get the difference?

To be openly poly I would assume you would have to either not have that reaction at all or you would have to deeply suppress it. This ability I would argue is not normal with people who bond deeply to eachother - no matter how much intellectualizing one does over the intended nature of the relationship. And research I have read seems to bare that out. People THINK open relationships will have this fulfilling effect - but they don't anymore than monogamous ones and perhaps quite a bit less.

Now I have met several poly "groups" and from my non-scientific observations I would label (as non-judgmentally as possible) as "practically dysfunctional" and most of these individuals I would also label as "outsider" personalities. They tend to not last all that long and the very fabric of the relationship justifies this as an acceptable part of the dynamic. When in fact only one or two members of the poly are reaching fulfillment from the arrangement - the rest are simply weak individuals desperate for somebody.

But mostly I find the entire idea of a wicca poly clan just a laugh olympics. They should be ok with that. Ultimately people need to have a sense of humor about these things. Not point fingers and scream something akin to racism or homophobia. That's simply silly. And that's what that angeline was doing.
posted by tkchrist at 5:44 PM on October 31, 2005

Central to my belief system is that the world is pretty much 90% and we see it and as science can explain it.

Considering that we live in a universe where 4% of the matter is accounted for, I think you're in for a rude awakening. I hate to be there when you wake up, but enjoy the 19th century while you still can.

Those that admittedly CAN'T fit with-in the social norm would be by definition social retards.

Isn't the definition of "retard" (as if anyone actually uses that term) one who is slow to learn?

Thus, born-again Christians who were not Christians growing up would be the "social retards," no? (As would any of us who have not yet accepted Jesus Christ as our own personal savior). Most children do it by age 13, so anyone who doesn't get around to it until 40-50 must surely be a retard.
posted by mrgrimm at 5:47 PM on October 31, 2005

The important thing to remember when slagging and making fun of someone for their beliefs and/or practices is that while they may be seen as eccentric or just plain "wrong" by some, you will be seen as a complete jerk by almost all.
posted by nightchrome at 5:47 PM on October 31, 2005

jesourie, you don't need to post pictures to prove your point, and it wouldn't convince these guys anyway. If they were really curious they might try a Google Images search (NSFW), which produces some not-unattractive people who claim to be poly. As well as the requisite fat f*cks.

Disclaimer: I only did that search in hope of finding some hot people to look at, not to prove anybody's point.
posted by gurple at 5:48 PM on October 31, 2005

it would be bad form for me to post a link to pictures of people I know personally without first asking them if they're OK with it.

Oh. BAD form. Gotcha.

[Makes note to self: Take down video camera from bathroom before wife takes shower tomorrow]

You are seriously impeding my income with all this "bad" form stuff.
posted by tkchrist at 5:50 PM on October 31, 2005

For the record, I personally know 3 completely unconnected people who are polyamorous and well within the realm of "hot". I myself am not one of them, sadly.
posted by nightchrome at 5:51 PM on October 31, 2005

A very small segment. Kinsey observed a large segment of people cheat, sure. But they can't stomach the thought of their mates cheating on them. Get the difference?

To be openly poly I would assume you would have to either not have that reaction at all or you would have to deeply suppress it.

Well, one possibility would be that that reaction is socially learned, and that poly people either were never properly indoctrinated or managed to reverse the effect consciously. I dunno, at this point I'm just making shit up.

But if a poly group got together and started reinforcing each other, presumably the social circle could build on itself and snowball... in the sense of gathering more people, and also in the sense of spitting semen into each other's mouths.
posted by gurple at 5:54 PM on October 31, 2005

it would be bad form for me to post a link to pictures of people I know personally without first asking them if they're OK with it.

C'mon.

First: I tried it.

Second: There is little accuracy in the intention of such a shot-gun search. Most those pix were typically Google random.

Third: I still didn't see many hot people, damn it! even when I put in "hot" in the search terms.

Fourth: If your hot your hot. I won't be dishonest. Or even THAT choosey. Despite the fact my wife would rank as exceedingly hot. And I would rank as... very "cookie." ( I ain't bragging, it's the truth)
posted by tkchrist at 5:55 PM on October 31, 2005

gurple, okay there goes my morning coffee all over the front of my desk...
posted by nightchrome at 5:55 PM on October 31, 2005

well within the realm of "hot"

AHEM! Then what are you waiting for? Digital cameras have been around over a decade!
posted by tkchrist at 5:57 PM on October 31, 2005

Wait, I thought this thread was supposed to be about mocking other people? When did it turn into an "amihotornot" contest?
posted by nightchrome at 5:58 PM on October 31, 2005

and snowball

LOL. So THAT is what that means. Oh. So what about that guy who wanted to Sword Fight?
posted by tkchrist at 6:01 PM on October 31, 2005

Don't ask how I know this, but isn't that called frottage?
posted by nightchrome at 6:02 PM on October 31, 2005

I think this thread was about wicca or tree humpers or something.
posted by tkchrist at 6:02 PM on October 31, 2005

Everybody knows somebody who knows a guy who saw another guy screw a tree. I'm sure there's something on snopes about it...
posted by nightchrome at 6:03 PM on October 31, 2005

poweredbybeard - your coming off like an egotistical oversensitive whiner. Not the image I'd wager you want for your people.

i have people? dude, i was just lambasting your delightfully uptight and hilariously bewildering rage toward people who like to sleep with multiple people. which, really, is all of us - it's just that some people don't always want to do it one at a time.

It COULD be that polyams are social retards who simply can't fit in with intimate and fully committed adult relationships.

yes... that COULD also be true of happily married monogamous people. in fact, it's true of many people fitting both descriptions, and other descriptions to boot. it has nothing to do with how they choose to express their sexuality, and everything to do with the fact that they are social retards who can't fit in with intimate and fully committed adult relationships. i avoid open relationships with those people for the same reason i avoid monogamous relationships with them: they suck.

the same content can take a different form. polyamory is not "NO COMMITMENT" - it just means you are willing to commit in some way to more than one person (but are also willing to admit that sex doesn't always require commitment). you have friends, right? more than one, maybe? does that make you a player, or does it make you a person who likes people?
posted by poweredbybeard at 7:40 PM on October 31, 2005

Unreason, I fail to see why you're surprised by this. Many of the people here hate atheists. Is it any surprise that they hate your religion as well?
posted by joe lisboa at 7:44 PM on October 31, 2005

oh and even though it doesn't even really deserve a response, this "poly people are ugly" thing... all i can say is you folks obviously haven't been hanging with the same poly people i have.

but it would be fine if you were.

not that they would want anyone so shallow, of course... but....
posted by poweredbybeard at 7:44 PM on October 31, 2005

> For the record, I personally know 3 completely unconnected people who are
> polyamorous and well within the realm of "hot".

Paris Hilton is horse-faced. Now you're down to 2.
posted by jfuller at 3:58 AM on November 1, 2005

angeline, keswick and Mayor Curley are trolls. Just ignore them and they'll go away.

It is terribly interesting to see how uncomfortable and bothered polyamory makes people. The kind of childish stereotyping and idiot justifications ("it's against the SOCIAL NORM!!!1") really do reveal far more about the poster than anybody who might be in a polyamorous relationship. Looking at this thread, it becomes really clear why so many people see homosexual marriage as a threat to all marriages. A lot of people are just totally wrapped up in their sexual insecurities.
posted by nixerman at 5:43 AM on November 1, 2005

So nobody saw that Ghostbusters episode but me?
posted by hughbot at 7:07 AM on November 1, 2005

You know, that's kind of like saying that "homosexual" is just another word for "pedophile."

Back to this -- the logic of this analogy is no good. Homosexuality and pedophilia are two totally different predilections. One involves sexual attraction to members of the same sex. The other involves sexual attraction to juveniles of either sex. They can't be equated becuase they are, in fact, not the same. The analogy falls apart here because polyamory and being a slut both describe the same basic behavior using different value terminology-- the behavior being sex outside the context of a monogamous relationship. If you're trying to illustrate the judgement implied by the term, you could say homosexual is just another word for fag. At least your terms would be parallel.

I've nothing further to add - just wanted to point out that this line of argument is a dead en. There's no sense in following the fundie Christians in equating pedophilia with homosexuality. Different.
posted by Miko at 7:14 AM on November 1, 2005

I resent the assertion that I am a troll. I'm not exactly popping out of nowhere to cause trouble, I didn't get a MeFi account just to get into an argument. Generally, I stay away from heated discussions.

I just didn't think it was right to assume that all Pagans are pretentious gits who only claim to be Pagan to piss people off, and I didn't think it was right to assume that everyone who claims to fall under the polyamory umbrella are just promiscuous flakes. That's all.

I have friends who are poly, I have friends who are Pagans, and I have friends who are both. They're the reasons I'm in here speaking my mind - I am not polyamorous...I suppose I could have the Pagan label applied to me, but I don't really actively practice or celebrate any religion.

But I wouldn't ever dismiss their very deeply held beliefs as pretension, and I don't call them sluts simply because they choose to engage in emotional and sexual relationships with more than one person. People are reacting too much to stereotypes and not seeming to accept that neither Paganism nor polyamory are as casual - or as lightly decided upon - as you think.

That's all I really want to say.
posted by angeline at 7:19 AM on November 1, 2005

Miko: Back to this -- the logic of this analogy is no good. Homosexuality and pedophilia are two totally different predilections.

It makes sense if it is realized I am not comparing the predilictions.

There was a time when people generally held a belief that all homosexuals are pedophiles. Of course this isn't true; it was an instance of a very distasteful generality being applied to a lifestyle. Just like the distasteful generality of assuming polyamory is equivalent to rampant indiscriminate and casual sexual behavior. The homosexuality and pedophilia example is much more extreme than calling a polyamorous individual a slut, of course, but the basic idea is the same - someone is assuming that being the one is equivalent to being the other, when this is not the case.
posted by angeline at 7:29 AM on November 1, 2005

I read nixerman as addressing you, angeline, not including you in the group.
posted by If I Had An Anus at 7:29 AM on November 1, 2005

Sorry. Predilections. Much too early in the morning.
posted by angeline at 7:31 AM on November 1, 2005

If I Had An Anus: Ah. Then my apologies are extended for my erroneous assumption. Thank you for clearing that up for me.
posted by angeline at 7:32 AM on November 1, 2005

way to knock it out of the park, angeline. Good on ya.
posted by felix at 8:00 AM on November 1, 2005

The analogy falls apart here because polyamory and being a slut both describe the same basic behavior using different value terminology

Miko, this is bullshit and you know it. The analogy is perfectly valid. Both statements, homosexual:pedophile and polyamory:slut, are based on idiotic stereotypes that imply some sort of harmful sexual deviancy common to the entire group. Don't hide behind "value terminology" because it's your argument that falls apart here. It's readily apparent that you're defining the term 'slut' just so it matches up with your limited understanding of polyamory relationships. Any rational person would understand that a woman in a polyamory relationship is in a committed relationship and doesn't have partners outside of that relationship ergo, by definition, she isn't a 'slut.' There's no rational basis for equating the two and the term was used by keswick in exactly the same manner and for precisely the same reasons a bigot would claim all homosexuals are pedophiles or have AIDS.

And yes, angeline, I was addressing you not calling you a troll.
posted by nixerman at 8:02 AM on November 1, 2005

I feel pretty sheepish for letting my English comprehension get away from me, Nixerman. Heh. I'm awfully sorry for my knee-jerk protesting. This is why I don't engage in debate - flusterfication occurs.

Thank you.
posted by angeline at 8:08 AM on November 1, 2005

'slut' is too loaded a term for this discussion. In addition to it being intrinsically derogatory, the fact that it traditionally refers only to females brings in far too much baggage.
posted by gurple at 8:13 AM on November 1, 2005

Miko, you're dead on.

nixerman:
angeline, keswick and Mayor Curley are trolls. Just ignore them and they'll go away. It is terribly interesting to see how uncomfortable and bothered polyamory makes people.

For the record, I didn't say a word about polyamory. But because you saw fit to get offended by something I didn't say, I will let you know what I think of polyamory so that you can have reason for your indignation:

"Polyamory" is a pretentious window dressing used by homely nerds to add some fake philosophy to their sexual practices. Well-adjusted people just have sex under whatever conditions they want/can and don't invent philosophies to make themselves sound enlightened in how they get their rocks off.
posted by Mayor Curley at 8:58 AM on November 1, 2005

There is growing scientific consensus that Homosexuality for the most part is NOT a choice.

Polyamory is ALWAYS a choice.

There is growing scientific consensus in my pants that sometimes polyamory is NOT a choice.
posted by illovich at 9:41 AM on November 1, 2005

Looking at this thread, it becomes really clear why so many people see homosexual marriage as a threat to all marriages.

Whoa. Now everybody here is a universal bigot who disagrees or pokes fun at one group or another. What complete strident nonsense.

We are talking about a voluntary belief system here. Not some genetic trait that causes a minority group to be persecuted - their rights with-held - by a majority.

Seriously. Where the fuck are all the poor persecuted poly's? Have there been poly's nailed to fences or ruthlessly bashed and murdered? Are poly's fired from thier jobs? No. In fact I would postulate that most are white, upper middle class and college educated. And if we were talking about Mormons this pig pile would be nearly universaly derisive and you all KNOW it.

Who here is endorsing legislation against poly's... or FOR them for that matter? Nobody.

These people are not an endangered species. They are people who made a choice, and by and large are no more - and according to studies on the matter slightly less - "commitment" functional than the rest of us. They have simply moved the bar.

And frankly I don't give a shit how they choose to live.

All you witches and poly's - grow a sense of humor and thicker skin for Christ sake.
posted by tkchrist at 10:39 AM on November 1, 2005

If I participated in polyamory, I wouldn't want to take your advice - "grow a sense of humor" and laugh and admit that I'm simply a "slut?" Give me a break.
posted by agregoli at 10:46 AM on November 1, 2005

and laugh and admit that I'm simply a "slut?" Give me a break.

So you think being a slut is a bad thing? Talk about a value judgement. Looks like you have your own bias's.

Anyway. I never called anybody a slut. But if I did - take it as a compliment.

Because before I took the plunge to a life-long commitment to one individual - I was a slut. And proud of it.

Wear it as a badge of honor.

And if this thread is any indication it's obvious the types of people participating in polyamory and their sympathizers are INCAPABLE of taking my advice. As it seems they are incapable of having a sense of humor in the first place.
posted by tkchrist at 11:57 AM on November 1, 2005

So you think being a slut is a bad thing? Talk about a value judgement. Looks like you have your own bias's.

I would prefer not to be called one, as:

A. I'm not.

and

B. I don't care for derogatory names that are used primarily for women.

So is it ok if I call you an asshole?

Because before I took the plunge to a life-long commitment to one individual - I was a slut. And proud of it.

Uh, good for you? Who cares? Apply traditionally negative labels to yourself if you must, but I don't see the point in applying them to people's lives you know nothing about.

Wear it as a badge of honor.

No thanks. I don't care to be called derogatory names.

As it seems they are incapable of having a sense of humor in the first place.

I'm very capable at laughing at things that are actually funny. Your insistance on making fun of things you don't understand is tedious, at best.

I'm amused to hear that I'm a "polyamory sympathizer" though. Who knew?
posted by agregoli at 12:32 PM on November 1, 2005

I'm amused to hear that I'm a "polyamory sympathizer" though. Who knew?

See, now that's funny.
posted by If I Had An Anus at 12:46 PM on November 1, 2005

So is it ok if I call you an asshole?

Yes.

Your insistance on making fun of things you don't understand is tedious, at best.

(You mean "insistence"? )

Perfect example of your lack of humor. As there are plenty of funny things of which people have no understanding.

Religion and politics being prime examples.

Or are you stating our comedians need PhDs in these things. I, sir, have a Masters Degree is Slutiology.
posted by tkchrist at 1:35 PM on November 1, 2005

Yawn. I'm too bored to continue this conversation with you. For someone who wants to fight you don't do a very good job of it.
posted by agregoli at 2:29 PM on November 1, 2005

Yes! I win!
posted by tkchrist at 3:38 PM on November 1, 2005

'slut' is too loaded a term for this discussion.

how? slut means someone who sleeps around. either you're ok with sleeping around or you're not, but... there's nothing wrong with the word per se.

unless you're seeing it is a misogynistic thing, which i could understand... but i generally understand the term to be gender neutral. at least among hipster sluts.

"Polyamory" is a pretentious window dressing used by homely nerds to add some fake philosophy to their sexual practices.

People rationalizing objections to polyamory is a pretentious window dressing used by homely nerds to add some fake philosophy to their sexual practices.

Hey look - now we're both being idiots. Neat.
posted by poweredbybeard at 6:01 PM on November 1, 2005