Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: Intro to me and question for all
From: woodhous@latcs2.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse)
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 13:12:06 GMT
Organization: Comp Sci, La Trobe Uni, Australia

vicka@wrq.com (the Littlest Orc) writes:
>muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>> Why not "polyamorous"?  
>
>Because the term misses a Very Important Point: that I don't *like*
>having multiple simultaneous relationships, and that I prefer my
>lovers one-at-a-time.  This is exactly the phenomenon for which I
>use the term "monogamous": to call myself "polyamorous" hides the
>fact.

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

   Actually, I've really been wondering something for a while here.
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).

   So, I'm a little confused. You think being Poly is good. You have
more than one partner. You want only one.

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


>My current relationship-status is not monogamous, nor have I ever claimed
>that it is.

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


>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?


>There have been at least five people in this thread who agreed that my
>use of the word fit their definition; I've never even met some of them.
>You've had exactly one supporter in this newsgroup, if you want to do
>it by poll.

   *ahem*.

   And there are others who've talked with me about this but don't want
to post about it for various reasons. *I* didn't want to post about it
for ages.


>In *my* experience (and I daresay I've spent more time 
>talking over definitions of "monogamy" than you have, since it's a word 
>I use for myself), most people don't have a problem in dealing with it 
>in reference to a preference for having one lover.

   That's very contrary indeed to my experience, and also seems very
counterintuitive. I'll outright ask people - does it really not seem 
worthy of comment at least for someone to say "Yes, by my own choice
I have more than one partner, but really, I'm monogamous, I am, since
I'd *prefer* having only one"?

   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.

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

Joe.

  / Joe Woodhouse        / I'm just a sweet bisexual...   / Hello, there.
 / Latrobe University   /    (think - Rocky Horror)      / Threesomes are fun.
/ Melbourne, Australia / Music. Magic. Mathematics. Me. / I like cats! (miaow!)
From: Elise@p19.f341.n282.z1.tdkt.kksys.com (Elise)
Sender: FredGate@tdkt.kksys.com