From: wa137@sdcc12.ucsd.edu (john e. clark)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: Intro to me and question for all
Date: 15 Dec 92 23:43:43 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <1992Dec14.080229.20289@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
+In article <ZEN.92Dec12194848@death.corp.sun.com> zen@death.corp.sun.com (d) writes:
+>In article <1992Dec12.113603.25819@midway.uchicago.edu> mbr2@quads.uchicago.edu (Curious Of All Natures) writes:
+>
+>> >I've never met anyone who found the term "monogamous" ambiguous.  Again,
+>> >please tell me how it is that it is ambiguous.
+>
+>
+>  Once you start modifying a word with redefinitions, new or unusual
+>situations and personal feelings, then any word can be used in a
+>different way from it's generally accepted meaning.  All you showed
+
+     That's precisely the foundation of the disagreement here.  The
+basic question that I need to ask is "Which words are OK to
+redefine or qualify?"  From past posts, it's clear that "polyamorous"
+and "bisexual" fall into this category for Muffy, while "monogamous"
+does not.  Why?

I thought that the 'disagreement' started with an individual's self
identification as 'monogamous' and yet had 'lovers' outside of the
monogamous relationship.

'monogamy' does have a very specific definition, as well as a more
loose one. The specfic one is encoded into law regarding marriage
contracts approved by the state. The loose one includes both formal
state sponsored marriage as well as various cohabitation
relationships that can apply to two individuals of any gender.

Since 'polyamory' is of recent coinage, the definition is in flux
and so debatable (Yes old words may gain new meaning or expanded
meaning but there is a great more volitility in newly coined ones).

My working definition of polyamory is a relationship which allows,
makes provisions for, or accepts, more than one love relationship of
the 'relators'. It could very well be that an individual who is
married to an other individual in a state sponsored monogamous
relationship is also 'polyamorous'. However, I think from most of
the discussion which tries to distinguish between old fashioned
'cheating' in a monogoamous relationship and 'polyamory', the latter
includes the concept of 'approval, acceptance' on the part of the
other partner to the monogamous relationship and the individual who
is not the partner in the monogamous relationship, i.e. everyone is
at least aware of the others as 'lovers' rather than each in a state
of simi-knowledge about the other.

Better terminolgy would be class relationships by primary members,
and how many. So a primary monogamous relationship would be one were
there is not concept or interrest in developing a multipartner
relationship with more than a dyad. Primary polygamous would be a
multipartner relatioship which may include individuals who have
possibly one-one relatiohship with another group member, but for the
most part individuals have more than one partner in a closed group.

Polyamory then would be more of a general relationship class term to
cover both of the monogamous primary and polygamous primary, and
more loosely organized relationships, whose member have not formed a
self-identified group, and whose membership may be in a state of
flux.

Where does that leave the basically monogamous relationship whose
members digress from the standard of exclusiveness? I think these
individuals are still 'polyamorous' but similar to others whose
sexual behavior evoces societal outrage, they are 'closeted'. These
definitions are not to imply a 'moral' judgement as to which is
better or worse. However, in the above 'definition' I did mention the
requirement of everyone knowing about each other, and so to sould
inconsistent, I would like to say that an 'ideal' to work for is
more openness in polyamorous relationships, but I'm not going to
stand on my head if it doesn't happen in my lifetime.
-- 

John Clark
jclark@ucsd.edu
Xref: sparky alt.polyamory:2105 alt.feminism:5928 soc.women:21397 soc.men:21046