From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: Intro to me and question for all
Date: 23 Dec 92 15:52:08
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<1992Dec22.230020.7673@u.washington.edu>
	<MUFFY.92Dec22221447@remarque.berkeley.edu>
	<1992Dec23.222332.28910@u.washington.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: vicka@wrq.com's message of Wed, 23 Dec 1992 22:23:32 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.222332.28910@u.washington.edu> vicka@wrq.com (the Littlest Orc) writes:
>It occurs to me that I'm not quite certain where the problem lies.  Is 
>it that I use a word "monogamy" in a way you don't like, or is it that a
>person who is capable of having honest, above-board, perfectly agreeable
>relationships with multiple lovers should still prefer a different sort
>of arrangement?

Amazing.  Reminds me of alt.feminism.  You give me two choices, neither
correct, both at least slightly obnoxious, and tell me I have to pick
one.  You then go on to put me down, whichever one I choose.  You'd do
very well indeed over there.

I don't know *what* you have been reading, but you have not understood
anything I have said.  I have heard that there will be a post on this
subject coming out soon; perhaps you will understand that one better.

>If the latter, well, that still seems petty, but in an uglier and more
>dictatorial manner.  How can you imagine you know better than I what I
>like, or what's happiest and best for me and/or mine?  You've stated 
>elsewhere that you believe that "everyone is capable of polyamory"; if
>that means that anyone can be honest and open about their love-lives, I
>think that's completely true.  On the other hand, if you mean "everybody
>would really be happy if they only opened up their minds and conducted
>their personal lives way *Muffy* likes to", then I think that's a rather
>parochial attitude.

What a charming, charming paragraph.  This does bring us somewhat back
to the original point, though.  You are *not* living your life the way
*you* say you want to.  As I said at the beginning, I think that is an
odd way to live.  It has *NOTHING* to do with how I choose to live, and
I have not prescribed (nor would I) how anyone else should live.
However, if someone says to me "I'd rather be a vegetarian, but I really
enjoy having a nice steak every week or so," I think it is useful to
them to point out that this is very contradictory.  It DOESN'T MATTER
whether I, personally, prefer steak or vegetarianism...what matters is
that their life is, in fact, in conflict with their stated desires.

When I discover such a place in my life, I try to resolve the conflict.
It is true that I generally go toward options which provide more freedom
of choice.  So, if it was me in your situation, I would choose to be
polyamorous (which, of course, does not *REQUIRE* multiple lovers, but
allows for it, thus letting me have whatever number works for me at any
particular time).  However, I have not at any point tried to say that
that (or anything else) is what you should do/choose.

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