NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/alt/polyamor/2219

Text File | 1992-12-23 | 6.0 KB | 129 lines

Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!usenet.coe.montana.edu!news.u.washington.edu!vicka
From: [e-mail] (the Littlest Orc)
Subject: Re: Intro to me and question for all
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 22:23:32 GMT
Lines: 117

In response to Muffy:

It occurs to me that I'm not quite certain where the problem lies.  Is
it that I use a word "monogamy" in a way you don't like, or is it that a
person who is capable of having honest, above-board, perfectly agreeable
relationships with multiple lovers should still prefer a different sort
of arrangement?

If the former -- whether or not you can find people who'll agree to your
restrictions on its definition, it's still *my* usage that's the critical
one -- after all, I'm the one who's trying to use it to convey a particular
idea to other folks.  Since (as you admit) my lovers and others *do* get
the point, then my use of the word has been successful, and my definition
is an operatively good one.  If you don't like it, I think that's rather
petty of you; you can join the Latinists who don't want English to support
the split infinitive or the sentence-final preposition.

If the latter, well, that still seems petty, but in an uglier and more
dictatorial manner.  How can you imagine you know better than I what I
like, or what's happiest and best for me and/or mine?  You've stated
elsewhere that you believe that "everyone is capable of polyamory"; if
that means that anyone can be honest and open about their love-lives, I
think that's completely true.  On the other hand, if you mean "everybody
would really be happy if they only opened up their minds and conducted
their personal lives way *Muffy* likes to", then I think that's a rather
parochial attitude.


Back to the tedious business of the flamewar:
> No, I agreed with her statement that I should assume you have been "just
> as clear" with us as with your lovers.

*sigh* Let's have this again:

    >Frances K. Selkirk writes:
    >    Muffy might also assume that Vicka, who has been so very clear from
    >    the beginning of this as to what she, personally, meant by monogamous,     >    was similarly clear to her lovers about what she meant by it.
    >
    >I have indeed assumed this.

You stated your agreement generically; if you only meant part of it,
you ought to have said so.  (For that matter, Frances said I was as
clear with my lovers as I had been with you, not the other order.)

> You seem to be enjoying [current multiple relationships], from all that
> you have posted.

Indeed, I do like it better than my other currently-practical options, as
constrained by the whereabouts and the travel schedules of all concerned.
Still, I don't consider my current love-life ideal; when a single relationship
has been compatible with my choice of locale, I've found that arrangement to
be preferable.

> That was the definition I read.  You're so fond of dragging up old
> postings; why would you post something you didn't mean?

I wasn't finished editing it; it went out by accident.  I knew it didn't
quite express what I meant, and that's why I cancelled the article that
contained the mistake (as you're well aware).

>> Note one more time: that is not my definition.  I cancelled the article
>> that contained the "max number of acceptable" phrase, replacing it with
>> the term "simultaneous-number-of-lovers" as part of one's preferences.
>
> you have more than one lover simultanenously, so BY YOUR OWN DEFINITION,
> you are still polyamorous.

Note the "as part of one's preferences" point.  My current relationship-
status is polyamorous, if you like; my preference remains otherwise.

> Try asking around on the net; I didn't find anyone who agreed with you

I believe there was a post in alt.callahans by someone who shared my
definition (I don't read that group and didn't post the request there
myself, but I hear there's been some talk about this lately over there).


Steve Moir sez:
> I get the feeling that you are talking about the sex aspect, and if that
> is the case, the term 'polyamory' isn't correct. We aren't using it to
> mean 'sleeps with more than one person' but rather 'loves more than one
> person'.

I'm using it not to mean "gets laid with" or even "loves" exactly, but
"is romantically and/or sexually involved with simultaneously".  We don't
use "polyamory" for "loving one's daughter / spiritual leader / dear friend
as well as one's romantic partner"; at least, I think such a definition is
so loose as to be nearly meaningless.

> Well, look at the example of Elf Sternberg.. he has more than one lover,
> but prefers to spend time with them alone rather than together with other
> loves. (At least sexually, I don't think the restriction is there socially.)

My restriction is a social and romantic one; I wasn't referring to the
notion of having sex with both of them at once.  Elf's social preference
is to have a single Primary Partner (his wife Omaha) to whom he is also
Primary, with some number of other sex-partners and/or beloveds besides.
My personal life is not much like this in either preference or practice --
neither of my lovers is "primary"; indeed, I don't see all that much of
either of them, since they both reside a good long ways away.


Aahz sez:
> How 'bout if we all just agree that Vicka is *currently* in a polyamorous
> relationship, but that she *prefers* to be in a monogamous relationship.

Sounds reasonable to me, though I'd actually say I'm in *two* polyamorous
relationships, and I don't know if the kind of relationship I like to be in
is necessarily purely monogamous, since I don't mind if my lover has others.
(Picky, picky :)


cheers,
--vicka                            [e-mail]

       "Not flesh nor fowl nor good red herring?
        That's okay; I'm a vegetarian."