From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: Intro to me and question for all
Date: 11 Dec 92 20:24:47
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<1992Dec09.195829.8886@microsoft.com>
	<MUFFY.92Dec9234317@remarque.berkeley.edu>
	<1992Dec11.194314.14772@microsoft.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: philipla@microsoft.com's message of 11 Dec 92 19:43:14 GMT


I see you don't "pratice what you preach," eh, Philip?

In article <1992Dec11.194314.14772@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>In article <MUFFY.92Dec9234317@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec09.195829.8886@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>>>In article <MUFFY.92Dec8191112@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>>>>Frightening.  I'm both bi and poly:
>>>>
>>>>Bisexuality does not specify the "acceptable number of genders."  I
>>>>don't *care* how many genders my lovers have (and there are theories
>>>>that there are more than two).  Gender is basically *irrelevant* to me,
>>>>as far as attraction goes.
>>
>>>Shouldn't it be called "polysexuality" then?  If you're going
>>>to complain about Vicka playing fast-and-loose with the language,
>>>you shouldn't be doing it yourself.  (Insert smiley if necessary)
>>
>>In other words, you'll take any opportunity to take a stab at me, eh?  I
>>did not make up the word, and, frankly, I am not completely comfortable
>>with it.  However, if I use that word, everyone I use it with will
>>understand it in a basic way (i.e. I will have sex with either men or
>>women).
>In your previous post you say that bisexuality is independent of
>gender.

Nope.  It's right there, read it again.  Boy, you people sure have
trouble with the English language.  I said that bisexuality does not
specify an "acceptable number of genders."  I never said anything about
it being "independent of gender."

>The most commonly used definition of the word, however, would
>specify an either/or condition, since most people recognize only two
>genders.

So?  That is how our society looks at it.  Unlike Vicka, I try to use
words in the way that the people around me use them, so that I will be
understood.

> So, by your own admission, you are using a definition of the
>word "bisexual" that doesn't match the definition used by the majority
>of the population.

Where do you get this?  I'm using exactly the definition that society
uses.  It doesn't completely suit how I *feel*, but I use it because it
gets the basic idea right.

>This is exactly what you are complaining about Vicka doing with
>respect to the word "monogamous".

No, I'm "complaining" because her definition is in *conflict* with the
commonly accepted definition.

Speaking of which, I posted to soc.couples today asking for people's
definitions of "monogamy."  Here is the one I have received so far:

*Personally, my definition of "being monogamous"  has always been that you are
*in a sexual relationship with only one person, which usually means you're either
*married or in a committed relationship (like the dictionary states)  
 
>>>>Well, this is exactly the problem.  I have known many people who "call
>>>>themselves monogamous."  They would be quite upset (and hurt) if they
>>>>got involved with someone who said they were "monogamous" and then
>>>>proceeded to have another lover.  They would feel that they had been
>>>>lied to and betrayed.
>>
>>>I can't imagine how this conversation would go...
>>
>>>Partner 1:  "By the way, are you monogamous?"
>>>Partner 2:  "Yes."
>>>Partner 1:  "Oh, OK..." and proceeds to never mention it again.
>>
>>You seem to have imagined it quite well, actually.  Most people don't
>>even negotiate relationships this far, they just assume monogamy.

>And you're lumping Vicka into this category, despite repeated
>statements to the contrary.  And you continue to do so.

She goes around saying she is monogamous.  If the person does not think
that that is ambiguous (see below), they won't feel that they need to
question further.

>>If you persist in
>>calling a small furry animal a "lamp," that's going to seriously impede
>>your communications with people.

>There is clearly a difference between a concrete noun like "lamp"
>and an ambiguous term like "polyamorous", or "bisexual", or "monogamous".
>You've chosen a poor analogy again.

What is ambiguous about "bisexual" and "monogamous"?  "Polyamorous,"
being new, has not got a well-defined usage yet.

>>I think that communication is very
>>important, and I think that efforts to make communication *less* clear
>>are therefore not good.

>It's important for _both_ parties to recognize the vagaries of
>the English language, and request clarification of any term they
>find potentially ambiguous.

I've never met anyone who found the term "monogamous" ambiguous.  Again,
please tell me how it is that it is ambiguous.

>>I have no reason to believe she is or isn't.  However, that has nothing
>>to do with what I am talking about.

> Muffy, you called her relationship a "cruel lie".  The burden
>of proof is on you to back that statement up, or else retract it.

Now you are lying, or maybe you have just been misled by Vicka's claims
of what I have said.  Show me this text where I "called her
relationships a cruel lie."

Muffy 
--

Muffy Barkocy                      | ~Can you tell me how much bleeding/it
muffy@mica.berkeley.edu            |  takes to fill a word with meaning and/
"amorous inclinations"? Aha! I'm   |  how much how much death it takes/to give
not "not straight," I'm *inclined*.|  a slogan breath?~ - Bruce Cockburn
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory