From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: Intro to me and question for all
Date: 12 Dec 92 09:08:57 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <MUFFY.92Dec11201307@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>In article <1992Dec11.194826.17404@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>>In article <MUFFY.92Dec10103358@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>>>[speaking about Vicka again]
>
>>Who cares what the rest of the world thinks?  
>
>Apparently, Vicka does.  She's the one who brought up "outness."

     Perhaps being "out" means more than just wearing a T-shirt.  "Out"
can involve discussion, conversation, and interaction.  I don't see
that explaining any particular facet of a personality could be
hindered to the extent that you seem to believe it is merely by
ambiguity.


>I didn't say they were doing any harm, so I don't see why you ask.
>Once again, the discussion was about "outness."  I don't call it "being
>out" if I act differently than what I claim to be.

     And once again we're back to the definition.  Muffy, whatever
your opinion on the subject might be, there are definitely and without
a doubt multiple meanings for the term "monogamous".  If you can't
get past this I don't see that there's much point in continuing
this thread.


>>>Similarly, if I show up at the office Christmas party with two or more
>>>lovers (or with interchanging lovers from one event to the next), then
>>>my coworkers are going to see me as polyamorous (or whatever their term
>>>for it is), not monogamous.
>> You make love at the office Christmas party? 
>
>Well, I might, but I haven't yet.  I am certainly sufficiently
>physically affectionate with all of my lovers (hugging, stroking,
>cuddling, kissing) for it to be obvious that we are more than friends.

     I have friends you are physically affectionate without being
lovers.  Are they perpetrating some cruel hoax on the public by
behaving that way?


>> Which brings up yet another point probably worth discussion:  The
>>vast majority of the people in the U.S. have no idea what polyamory is,
>>and the thought of someone having multiple lovers would either disturb
>>them or never even cross their mind.
>
>Indeed.  So, if someone told them that they were monogamous, then
>started having other lovers, they'd be pretty damn surprised, wouldn't
>they?

     You still have this bizarre idea that people define themselves
by single words.  I have never known this to be the case - even
yourself.  You say that you are bisexual and then qualify the term,
and do the same with polyamorous.  Yet for some reason, with this
one word "monogamous" you seem to feel that only your own definition
can possibly be correct, and that any qualifications to the word
are somehow deceptive and cruel.  It's a double standard - you
are refusing to give others the same consideration you expect for
yourself, and try to rationalize this with specious arguments.
     I just don't understand you, Muffy - I don't understand this
hangup on one word, or the apparent need to condemn a stranger based on
your own misperceptions and ignorance.  I just don't get it.

					-Phil
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Lafornara         				1 Microsoft Way         
philipla@microsoft.com				Redmond, WA 98052-6399 
Note:  Microsoft doesn't even _know_ that these are my opinions. So there.