Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: Intro to me and question for all
From: woodhous@latcs2.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse)
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 03:03:10 GMT
Organization: Comp Sci, La Trobe Uni, Australia

mbr2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>I've
>never felt the desire to be in a romantic or sexual relationship with
>more than one person at any one time, so in one sense I feel the
>question of whether or not I'm polyamorous is the same question as
>whether or not this ever happens to me.

   I said to someone recently that I felt that being Poly didn't mean
"having more than one partner" (of whatever variety), or even actively
*wanting* more than one... Poly to me simply means the *acceptance* of
the idea. Of not saying "no matter what the conditions or circumstances,
I & my partner *can not* become involved with anyone else except at the
cost of the present relationship". If that sentence doesn't sit well
with you, why then you fit my brand of polyamory. Not that I claim to
have an exclusive handle on it anyway.


>	My distinction between romantic-partner and friend is rather
>shaky, and frankly I'd rather do without the romantic-partner script and
>schema altogether, but that's very difficult in an environment where the
>implied prefix of "friends" is "just-".

   I have observed that many (perhaps even most) people treat their
partners in ways they would be ashamed to treat their friends. I even
once glibly remarked that to me, "committment" referred to treating
one's partners as *friends* as well as partners (ie. treating them
with dignity, kindness, gentleness & care).


>	In fact I would suggest, from reading this group, that the
>biggest distinction between flavors of polyamory for people is whether
>they build it from their friendship-schema or from their romance-schema.

   Another important dichotomy seems to be the notion of closure.
"Polyfidelity" (and to a similar but lesser extent, polyamory that
includes "veto") seem to still contain the concept of *rule*-based
limitation of one's partners' other involvements.

   Now possibly I'm misreading the above brands of Poly, but the
"closure" aspect is precisely what I react to in monogamy, and I can't
help but feel that (for example) polyfidelity is simply monogamy with
more than one person - if that makes sense.

   One more distinction between brands of Poly seems to be the model
used to view one's partners. Some establish a hierarchy of importance
or significance, and others seem to prefer to completely do away with
the idea of competing involvement.

   (I explained this recently - I'm not saying that at any given
moment I always feel *exactly* (or even equivalently) about my various
loves. It may happen that someone may feel more significant to me. What
I'm talking about is an actively asserted *constraint* that one
partner *will be* (rather than "happens to be") more important than
another).


>Poly for Joe appears to exemplify the former, and poly for Elf appears
>to exemplify the latter.  Joe and Elf - please check me here!

   Not a flame - speaking for myself I would say that you've probably
not misrepresented me, except possibly for your phrasing which may
suggest somehow that Poly that grows out of "friend" notions is at
variance with Poly from "romance".

   ie. while indeed my notions of loved ones and how Poly relates to
them has grown out of ideas about friends, "romance" is not absent
from the evolution of my ideas. Indeed, "romance" might be the one
factor I can identify that varies between "friends" and "lovers" -
given that I may feel lovingly & sexually towards both groups.

   (See? I told you I'd do a long response after my exams... 8-P)

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!)
Xref: sparky alt.polyamory:1825 alt.sex.motss:1817