Yes, those two dichotomies are what I struggle with personally when it comes to how out I should be and why. While I completely believe that those on the "fringes" have the right to be as out there as they want to be, from a political maneuvering standpoint, it doesn't help with being "accepted" when you're so far out there that you're considered threatening. What is needed is some education to make even the "out there" types non-threatening. Just because someone wants to run around on Gay Pride Day in a hot-pink thong and a 3-foot feathered headdress, it doesn't make the heterosexuals less heterosexual and doesn't threaten their choice in relationship partners. But the heterosexual needs to understand that in order to accept them, and running around screaming "we're queer, we're here" and *forcing* them to see the furthest extreme can often cause a backlash and drag back the progress to an earlier point. The extremists (providing there is no harm being caused to anyone) have the right to be open or not as they choose, but before acceptance is gained, it's a bit of a tricky situation having the extremists be the "voice" of the "movement".
The Queen (for example) makes for more entertaining television, it doesn't do anything to help quell the fears of those who are in a position to make policies that affect us. But the less-threatening person with the facts about homosexuality (or any subculture, really) isn't nearly as entertaining.
You are correct that either end has not disappeared. I get into lots of discussions about the importance of being "out" with people who take the side of "if no one knows who I sleep with, how could it become a problem?" Well, the thing is, it can become a problem in several different ways, some of which might be totally surprising. First of all, if everyone hides being poly so that no laws and no social attitudes get changed, then one is forever in danger of being "found out" and therefore losing power over their life. Jobs and family and even freedom can be taken from them. But a more sinister loss is possible, and tacit actually discusses it in a post here.
I actually don't go around broadcasing who I sleep with or what I do when I have sex with them either. If anyone cares to notice, the reporter mentioned me having two boyfriends and two partners who are "undefined". None of that explains who is performing what actions on whom and I think the reality of who is doing what to whom might be a bit surprising given some people's assumptions about what makes a "relationship". But it is important for people to know that there *are* more than just one partner for me to make my point ... that polyamory is not something to be feared and therefore discriminated against. Of course, some would claim that I do go around "broadcasting" by the very fact that I was in a newspaper article and allowed my real name and face to be shown. But my opinion stands ... I did not say who did what sexual act to whom, and it's no more public than anyone having their picture and name in the paper to announce their upcoming marriage. Wedding engagements are a public announcement of their chosen relationship style. I just happen to be using my public announcement of my chosen relationship style as a tool to help achieve public acceptance for alternative relationships :-D
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 7/11/07 03:15 am (UTC)From:The Queen (for example) makes for more entertaining television, it doesn't do anything to help quell the fears of those who are in a position to make policies that affect us. But the less-threatening person with the facts about homosexuality (or any subculture, really) isn't nearly as entertaining.
You are correct that either end has not disappeared. I get into lots of discussions about the importance of being "out" with people who take the side of "if no one knows who I sleep with, how could it become a problem?" Well, the thing is, it can become a problem in several different ways, some of which might be totally surprising. First of all, if everyone hides being poly so that no laws and no social attitudes get changed, then one is forever in danger of being "found out" and therefore losing power over their life. Jobs and family and even freedom can be taken from them. But a more sinister loss is possible, and
I actually don't go around broadcasing who I sleep with or what I do when I have sex with them either. If anyone cares to notice, the reporter mentioned me having two boyfriends and two partners who are "undefined". None of that explains who is performing what actions on whom and I think the reality of who is doing what to whom might be a bit surprising given some people's assumptions about what makes a "relationship". But it is important for people to know that there *are* more than just one partner for me to make my point ... that polyamory is not something to be feared and therefore discriminated against. Of course, some would claim that I do go around "broadcasting" by the very fact that I was in a newspaper article and allowed my real name and face to be shown. But my opinion stands ... I did not say who did what sexual act to whom, and it's no more public than anyone having their picture and name in the paper to announce their upcoming marriage. Wedding engagements are a public announcement of their chosen relationship style. I just happen to be using my public announcement of my chosen relationship style as a tool to help achieve public acceptance for alternative relationships :-D