Being Poly Isn't a Cop-Out

One of the most common reactions to my assertion that I am Polyamorous is the look of astonishment coming from a person who assumes that means that I believe I can have sex with anyone I want, without any cares for the other relationships I have. The prevailing thought is that Poly-folk are looking for a way to excuse bad behavior in the past, to cover up being promiscuous or unfaithful in a relationship. Often, someone Poly is considered to be a slut or a womanizer.

Indeed, there are some who fall into the category of Polyamorous who act in such a manner, choosing lovers and romances without concern about how their actions affect others.

However, I aspire to the ideal of Ethical Polyamory - which means that I believe that I should not enter into relationships without the consent of all affected - my Primary, any others I am involved with, and the prospective new partner. Anyone who has a relationship with me, sexually or romantically, is going to affect the others I love, and they are going to be affected by those I love, in turn.

It is also important that I do not lead others to be misled about myself - just as I would not want others to lie to me. Love is based upon trust, and when trust is violated, love withers and tends to die. Love based upon lies is built upon a tar pit for a foundation, and is doomed more likely to fail than succeed, no matter the intensity of the passion.

As Poly, I do believe that every person in my relationship structure has the right to choose whether they wish one or more lovers. It is not a matter of having multiple lovers. It is the ability to make that choice as each person sees fit.

That is why I will always identify as Poly, no matter whether I am in a monogamous relationship, a Triad, or any other form or relationship.

Because love divided is not diminished - how can something infinite be?

(c) Tortured Cyclone 2017

Why Do I Speak Out?

More than once, I have taken heat for my willingness to take a stand against people who harm others within the online community. There are those who have stated that I start drama, and seek fights. I have been accused of intolerance to viewpoints that differ from my own.

My issue is a simple one. In the offline world, it would not be right to allow an assailant to rape a woman, and do nothing about it. Or see a store being robbed and decide it is someone else's problem. Or a man being gunned down in the street.

In all of those instances, it is the civic duty, the ethical duty to stand forth as at least a witness, if not to intervene to try and prevent the crime from taking place. Doing nothing effectively makes the bystander an accomplice in the crime.

Although the online realm is a non-corporeal world, I argue that the civic and ethical duties of the offline world carry over. Correspondingly, it is not right to stand by and not react in some way.

We teach our children that it is not right to let bullying take place unopposed. The digital realm is rife with such bullying. It makes sense that our lack of tolerance for bullying would extend online, in social media, for instance.

The act of catfishing people online is as dangerous as any form of offline imposture. Consider the phisher who seeks information for identity theft through social engineering. Or the con man/blackmailer who coaxes information from a vulnerable person, in order to gain influence and/or sexual favors from them. Both of these are acts of rape that are no less heinous than physical rape.

None of these things I would want to happen to myself, or any I care about. By extension, if I don't want these crimes to happen to those I care for, it is logical I would not want them to happen to anyone.

Because victimization of people is Everyone's Problem, I get involved. I speak against it. I report it to authorities when I can prove it. I speak out, warning of people who harm others.

By my understanding of both ethics and morality, this is the right thing to do.

(C) Tortured Cyclone 2016

The Disingenuity of the Post-and-Delete Phenomenon

You've probably seen someone who goes onto his (or her) social media or blog to troll others. This person will post something to the internet, and then quickly remove it, due to being reported for abuse and/or violation of the terms of service for the site. This person then repeats, ad nauseam.

As a writer and person who champions the cause of stopping bullying, I find this practice reprehensible. Not only does this give the troll the opportunity to continue bullying his or her targets, but it also protects them from disciplinary action by the Internet community. Also, as someone who takes pride in my work, and considers posting online to be the electronic equivalent of publishing, what sense does it make to publish and then retract?

In the offline world of publishing, there are laws that prevent slander and libel in printed media. This is why newspapers and magazines spend so much time and effort to verify information before they run with a story. There is a legal and ethical requirement for published media to do so. It is the contention that there needs to be a similar requirement for social media sites and other hosted online media outlets.

Indeed, I suggest that sites like Twitter should use their analytical ability to review the behavior of habitual offenders of site TOE. There are harassers/trolls who use the post-and-delete tactic to avoid disciplinary action by the hosting website. Even when the offending information is deleted, that information still exists in electronic form for some time. For the protection of the members of the online community, habitual offenders should be subject to disciplinary action, up to permanent suspension.

In truth, the controversial post-and-delete user is nothing more than a person who seeks self-aggrandizement at the expense of others, not a shock jock like Howard Stern. They emulate the outrageous tone of Donald Trump, without the integrity to own their words for all to see.