NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/alt/polyamor/2249

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-30 | 5.9 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!usenet.coe.montana.edu!news.u.washington.edu!vicka
From: [e-mail] (the Littlest Orc)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: Intro to me and question for all
Date: 30 Dec 1992 04:54:01 GMT
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA
Lines: 110
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: elmer.wrq.com

Joe sez:
> But couldn't it equally be said that to call yourself "monogamous"
> hides the fact that you have more than one partner?

I don't think so, since I don't use that term when discussing my
relationships rather than my preferences.  (Has anybody here missed
the fact that I've got two lovers?)  When referring to my current
status, I usually say I'm "plurally involved".  Similarly, I still
call myself bisexual even though I am currently unmotss'd; I'd also
say that I haven't got a gf.

> You've said in a past post that you agree with and support the notion
> of Poly as an ideal (it was something like that, it's not in front of
> me and I'm way sleep-deprived).

Close, anyway :)  I think Poly's a nice concept philosophically, and
my life might be simpler if my preferences leaned that way -- but it
simply hasn't appealed to me in practice.   I do understand there are
folks who do enjoy it as part of their day-to-day lives, and I smile
and support them in doing so.  (I also like the notions of, say, gay
men and people who get off on latex bodysuits -- but I'm not much of
a gay man myself, and I happen think latex bodysuits look more silly
than erotic.  Vive la difference, and all that!)

>   Am I the only person who's a little puzzled by this?

Maybe not; I'll therefore post the response to anyone who's still
reading this thread (as well as emailing to Joe directly, since he
sez later he's gonna have limited time for the news :)

>   So you describe yourself as a monogamous person not in a monogamous
> relationship? I'm still confused.

Yep.  What's so confusing about that?

(Let's try for a parallel.  Let's say I wasn't turned on by SM, but I had
a lover who liked to be beat upon for sexual gratification.  Even if it
ain't my cup of tea, I might nonetheless engage in beating upon my lover
for their pleasure.  I'd then be a vanilla person having a non-vanilla
relationship.  Does this help?)

>>My preference is *still* for a single lover at a time, and has been since
>>I began my sex life some ten years ago.
>
>   This might sound like I'm being bitchy, but I really don't mean it as
> anything more than an honest question born from confusion - if this is so,
> then *why* do you by your own choice have more than one partner?

I think I've explained this before, but --

There are some pretty heavy constraints on my love-life in general right
now.  Both my relationships are Very Long-Distance ones; one lover has a
primary commitment to somebody else.  I have other desires besides the one
for monogamy -- I like to get laid more than quarterly, for starters.  At
the moment, the best RL compromise between *all* my desires and constraints
seems to be having the two relationships.  Yes, my monogamy-desire takes a
hit for this; but at the moment I feel that it's worth it.  And since both
relationships *are* long-distance, I don't have to deal directly with the
plurality of it all that often.  (My subjective impression, on a day-to-
day basis, is generally that I'm quite alone.)

>   I quite accept you saying that people you know seem not to be
> bothered by this. But I think the loudest howls of objection would
> surely come from other monogamous people whom on the whole I would
> think could not accept that you and they shared the one "monogamous"
> label.

(I assure you, the loudest howls have been Muffy's.  No contest.)
When this happens, I talk with them about the distinction between a
"monogamous person" and a "monogamous relationship".   Some folks
have a moral stake in the latter; I regard this as a non-issue.  But
lots of people who desire monogamy are still okay with notions like
"dating around" when a monogamous relationship isn't appropriate for
some reason; my life makes perfect sense to them on those terms.

>   Personally I don't see why you need to go through so much (potential)
> confusion in self-labelling as "monogamous" and then having lengthy
> explanations of what exactly *you* mean by that, when all you are
> trying to say (if I read you correctly) is that you prefer having one
> partner, and currently have more than one. What's so attractive about
> "monogamy" as a label?

Well, mostly that it means the first part of your description (that is,
the preference for having one partner).  I've no problems with the full
sentence as you've written it out, except that it strikes me as equivalent
(and shorter) to say "Vicka's a monogamous person who presently has two
lovers."  (I've been saying things like this for over a year now, since I
first fell in with lover-the-second, and I've never had to go through any
such lengths as this to explain it before.  Welly-oh.)

> I feel you've gone to some lengths to adjust
> both yourself and the label so that it fits, which makes me ask - why?

Hmm.  I don't feel that I've "adjusted" either; as I've said before,
it came as a natural usage from a native speaker.  I do think it's an
important point to mention when I talk about multiple relationships
in general (to show that even people who don't really prefer such
arrangements can nonetheless have them honestly, openly, and without
angst), or when I talk about my love-life in specific (to explain why
I don't see my current status as necessarily ideal).


Elise, thank you for your kind words.  One of the things I like best
about the Pacific Northwest is that we *don't* have mosquitos out here :)

cheers,
--vicka                            [e-mail]

       "If you can't explain it to an undergrad,
        you don't understand it well enough yourself."