From: fks@vaxeline.ftp.com  (Frances K. Selkirk)
Subject: Re: Intro to me and question for all
Nntp-Software: PC/TCP NNTP
Reply-To: fks@ftp.com
Organization: FTP Software, Inc., Wakefield, MA
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 18:10:12

(I wrote this a day or two ago, but nntp (from the viewpoint of our news node) 
seems to have sent it into limbo. I apologize to anyone who gets it twice.)

In article <1992Dec09.194302.8386@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) (with quotes from Vicka and Muffy) writes:

> >> Bzzt.  Poor definition.  Monogamy by my definition would
> >>be "I prefer a single partner." - it is a direct parallel to
> >>polyamory "I prefer multiple partners."  Polyamory in no way says
> >>"I do not think it is right for my partner to have a single
> >>partner." - why restrict monogamy to such a narrow definition?
> >
> >Well, don't bother telling *me* that.  I'm not monogamous and don't
> >intend to be.  All the people I know who *are* monogamous use a
> >definition similar to the one I gave above.
> 
>     I've been reading Vicka's posts on here for a couple of weeks now -
> I think she made her own definition quite clear during that time, and
> I would have assumed that she was using her own and not yours when
> referring to the word.  At any rate, this is nitpicking, so I'll cut
> it out now.

Muffy might also assume that Vicka, who has been so very clear from the
beginning of this as to what she, personally, meant by monogamous, was
similarly clear to her lovers about what she meant by it. 

There is tremendous variation in how speakers of the same language use
words. Most of the (unwarrented) hostility in this thread seems to be
an argument over word use. Consider: Some groups of concepts just don't
have enough words to go around! The number of things for which we use the
word "love," for example, has been remarked on in this group before. Now
it happens that there are not established, exclusive words for:

	1. Prefering exclusive to multiple relationships.

	2. Participating only in exculsive relationships.

	3. Currently exclusive (should refer to relationships, not
	   people).

	4. Regarding exclusive relationships as morally superior to 
	   multiple relationships.

Since we need to express all these concepts, and the only word that
comes close to expressing these concepts is "monogamous," the word is
bound to be used for multiple things. The onus is on the speaker
to be clear which one she (or he) means. There is no reason to flame
someone for using the word in a way you would not as long as the
meaning is made clear. (Now, you might flame someone for agreeing with 
#4 as a statement, but no one in this thread has even come close.)

Vicka has said she is monogamous by meaning #1. Muffy has said she _only_
uses monogamous to mean #2, and has than repeatedly insulted Vicka for 
saying she is monogamous while not conforming to meaning #2. This is silly.
Vicka is obviously capable of (and reasonably comfortable in) a non-exclusive 
relationship, is accepting of people who prefer non-exclusive relationships, 
and regards neither type of relationship as morally superior. All she is 
saying is that in her ideal world she would have only one true love, who 
would, I assume, be with her, and not on the wrong coast or nomadic. That
this is what she desires does not give her young men fits, and it should
not inspire hostility in a total stranger.


> >I don't lie to myself or my partners.  Whatever lifestyle someone
> >chooses, if I see them lying, I will think that that is wrong.

Vicka does not lie to her partners either, or others. I have never
met a more forthright person than Vicka (occasionally prickley, but
definitely honest! *grin*). She used a word in a way you would not,
while being completely, totally clear about that usage. Deal.


--
Frances K. Selkirk		fks@ftp.com		(508) 685-3600
FTP Software, Inc.		2 High Street, North Andover, MA 01845
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
"There is nothing in life so complicated that a Microsoft manual can't
make it completely incomprehensible."			-Douglas Adams

Newsgroups: alt.polyamory