From: aahz@netcom.com (Mean Green Dancing Machine)
Newsgroups: alt.callahans
Subject: Re: Definition of "monogamy"?
Date: 31 Dec 92 01:59:05 GMT
Organization: Don't blame me, I voted for Bill 'n' Opus

In article <memo.833067@cix.compulink.co.uk> maryb@cix.compulink.co.uk writes:
>In-Reply-To: <1992Dec24.183204.21457@netcom.com> aahz@netcom.com (Mean Green Dancing Machine)
>
>thanks for the details...
>> Okay, the problem in alt.poly started when someone introduced themselves
>> as being currently involved with two people, yet having a preference for
>> the monogamous lifestyle.  Another person flamed them for using
>> "monogamous" incorrectly, and the rest is history.
>Hmmm. Can I be picky about definitions as well. Express a preference 
>for does not mean believe in or want to live that way in your current 
>life. I'd express a prefernce for having lots of money, but I can't 
>choose to live that way because of external circumstances... you  
>might *watn to be in a monogmaous relationship but care about somene 
>who wants to be in a poly relationship... The basis for the flame 
>sounds shakey to me... still, it's interesting to see teh viewpoints 
>on this. The main one emerging is "be true to yourself", which is one 
>of my principles. Along with" try just about anything at least once, 
>as long as it doesn't hurt you or anyone else".

As I pointed out in alt.poly, the "societal model" of a monogamous
relationship includes the possibility of dating several people
concurrently, as long as none of them is a "serious" relationship.
If, for whatever reasons, a person is unable to "settle down" at the
present time, why should they be labeled as non-monogamous?

>> Let's start with emotional monogamy.  I love my parents, I love my
>> sister, I love a lot of the people I know from this Place -- in what way
>> is my love for Stef really any different?  Why shouldn't I share a
>> similar kind of love with many other people?  Note that I do recognize
>> that there's a time-based component to love: you can't really love
>> someone as *intensely* when you spend less time with them, and the
>> *quality* of the love also changes.
>Do you really *love them all in the same way? Isn't there a 
>difference between teh way you feel about parents, sisters, close 
>friends and your significant other (?Stef if I read that para right). 
>I love my mother and my friends in a platonic, dear friend, way. When 
>I have a lover, a beloved, a mate - what I feel for them is 
>different, sometimes more intense - it's a sharing and a giving and a 
>comitting that goes beyond what I feel for even teh dearest, most 
>loved friend. It's the emnotional basis for physical monogmay in my 
>case. Which I define currently as nothing sexual, nothing erotic, 
>nothing arousing. Non-sexual touching, closeness, backrubs, hugs, 
>even smooches i feel I can share with anyone I(and they) want to. 
>Stuff where the *intention is sex/sexual stays within a mongamous 
>relationship. The difference between a friendly kiss and a 
>sexy/romantic kiss is again *intention... and desire/what you want to 
>do.

For me, it really doesn't *feel* like a different kind of love.  The
love I feel for, say, Liralen and Jilara doesn't have a different
quality that I can detect from what I feel for Stef -- even though I
don't have any romantic interest in them.
-- 
                         --- Aahz (the *other* Dan Bernstein)
                             @netcom.com 

Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6

Virtual anniversary: 1 day and counting
Newsgroups: alt.callahans