 |
|
Hooray! Someone finally wrote a letter in response to one of my columns ("On Non-monogamy" OITM Jan. 99).
I welcome your comments, Karen, but I'm wondering if we're talking about the same column. I don't remember assuming that my experience is "the last word" on radical lesbianism in the '70s. As a matter of fact, I remember being careful as I wrote it to say, "It didn't work for me," and "maybe" it can work for others, and "perhaps" it can work well if...
Interpreting history is always based on the individual's perspective. Perhaps I will be careful to emphasize that in my next column. Thank you for the wake-up call.
I take issue with your statement that "the most radical thing we can do is be who we are, whoever that might be." What if we happen to be a nazi? There's no such thing as a free-floating identity. We are who we are based on birth, choices, and historical contexts. We can choose to align with fascists. That does not make us 'radical.'
The point of my article was not to condemn non-monogamy per se; but to take a long, hard look at our motivations and treatment of one another in our sexual practices. This often cannot be done in isolation. We need communities to help each other sort out ethical behavior linked with compassion. It helps not to dichotomize each other's viewpoints. Here's hoping we don't consider each other on opposite sides of the fence. It's much too complicated an issue. I'm sure we agree about that.
In sisterhood,
Crow
