From: mjmh@crsa.bu.edu (Michael J M Holmes)
Newsgroups: alt.callahans
Subject: Re: Definition of "monogamy"?
Date: 23 Dec 92 18:53:05 GMT
Organization: Boston University Center for Remote Sensing

In article <1992Dec23.165649.5640@netcom.com> aahz@netcom.com (Mean Green Dancing Machine) writes:
>We're having a nice little discussion (read "flamewar" ;-) in

/* sighs.  "Flamewars.  Y'know, when I first gained net.access
(oh so long ago - like this past August!  :-)  )  I read as
many newsgroups as I could, as I am sure most beginning lurkers
do.  I was so amazed at the nastiness that could occur.  People
being righteous over the tiniest points, or slightest differences
in belief, ideas, even vocabulary choices.  I was surprised that
so many 'educated' people have this severe 'need to be right' that
they resort to insulting people they don't even know face-to-face.
I guess that's one of the reasons I like this Place so much - 
all of you wonderful people who can disagree without being
insulting!"

>alt.polyamory about the nature of monogamy.  I'd like to hear some
>thoughts from people in this newsgroup about what it means to them.

The purple one ponders.  "Do you mean a 'monogamous relationship'
or a 'monogamous person' or 'monogamy as a philosophy?'  There
may be slight differences.  I've always thought that a monogamous
relationship was a longish-term relationship between two people
who were not currently involved with anyone else.  Monogamy in
general I guess I would believe to be the general societal
definition of 'exclusive partners for life' or, perhaps
a more '90s definition would be 'exclusive partnership until
a breakup, then another exclusive partnership, etc.'"

"I'm not familiar with alt.polyamory, but I guess that
polyamorous people can have more than one 'relationship'
at the same time.  But I'd bet that a polyamorous person
could also be in a monogamous relationship, and even
vice-versa. Hmm, to make it clear, a monogamous person
would think that a monogamous (exclusive) relationship
is their ideal, yet could conceivably have a period
of polyamorous relationships before they found their
monogamous relationship.  And a polyamorous person
might find a time when there is only one relationship
in their life, therefore it would be a monogamous
relationship.  That's why I think the nature of monogamy
depends on whether you are attaching the word to a person,
a relationship, a lifestyle belief, or a philosophy."

/* smiles, a little impishly.  "There!  I've made my
points clear as mud!"

>(I'm posting this because I'm annoyed that one of the other people went
>to soc.couples for a definition.)

The purple one has a quizzical look one his face.
"soc.couples doesn't seem to be the best place to find a
representative view of monogamy - I'm sure that they have
their own view or bias on the term.  But then again, I don't
think any newsgroup is a very good sampling, since all
newsgroups are a smaller subset of the set of people with
net.access!!  Statistically skewed things are bound to
happen!"

"Well, Aahz, I don't know if I've helped or hurt your
case, but feel free to use my typically-verbose views!"

>-- 
>                         --- Aahz (the *other* Dan Bernstein)
>                             @netcom.com 
>
>Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6
>
>Virtual anniversary: 8 days and counting

(Virtual congratulations!  Which anniversary is it?  The cathode
anniversary?  The microchip anniversary?  I *never* know what
to get people!!)


-- 
========================================================================
Mike Holmes       mjmh@crsa.bu.edu           "Happiness Will Prevail!"
Boston University Department of Geography (a truly GREAT place to work!)
========================================================================