From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: Intro to me and question for all
Date: 22 Dec 92 22:14:47
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<1992Dec22.201002.4046@u.washington.edu>
	<MUFFY.92Dec22124315@remarque.berkeley.edu>
	<1992Dec22.230020.7673@u.washington.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: vicka@wrq.com's message of Tue, 22 Dec 1992 23:00:20 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.230020.7673@u.washington.edu> vicka@wrq.com (the Littlest Orc) writes:
   In article <MUFFY.92Dec22124315@remarque.berkeley.edu>
   muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
   > I believe you are "as clear" with your lovers as you are with
   > us.  That does not mean that I believe you are being very clear.

   And yet you claim to agree with Frances' statement that I was "so
   very clear from the beginning"?  Make up your mind.

No, I agreed with her statement that I should assume you have been "just
as clear" with us as with your lovers.  Learn to read.

   > Why not "polyamorous"?  

   Because the term misses a Very Important Point: that I don't *like*
   having multiple simultaneous relationships, and that I prefer my
   lovers one-at-a-time.  This is exactly the phenomenon for which I
   use the term "monogamous": to call myself "polyamorous" hides the
   fact.

You seem to be enjoying it, from all that you have posted.

   > In fact, you *are* polyamorous, according to *your* definition ("max
   > number of acceptable lovers > 1").

   Note one more time: that is not my definition.  I cancelled the article
   that contained the "max number of acceptable" phrase, replacing it with 
   the term "simultaneous-number-of-lovers" as part of one's preferences.  

That was the definition I read.  You're so fond of dragging up old
postings; why would you post something you didn't mean?  In any case,
you have more than one lover simultanenously, so BY YOUR OWN DEFINITION,
you are still polyamorous.

   > Nope, it is within the limitations as it is used by all the other people
   > in our society that I have encountered, other than you and your two or
   > three lovers and/or defenders.

   There have been at least five people in this thread who agreed that my
   use of the word fit their definition; I've never even met some of them.

I have had several people agree with me privately.  I don't recall the
exact number, but it was of the same magnitude (5-10).  I can't force
them to post, of course.  At least one has said he is so disgusted with
the whole idea of people in this group agreeing with you that he doesn't
even *want* to post here anymore.

   You've had exactly one supporter in this newsgroup, if you want to do
   it by poll.  In *my* experience (and I daresay I've spent more time 
   talking over definitions of "monogamy" than you have, since it's a word 
   I use for myself), most people don't have a problem in dealing with it 
   in reference to a preference for having one lover.

Naturally, since you have such a stake in using the word that way, you
are going to find friends who think in the same way.  Try asking around
on the net; I didn't find anyone who agreed with you (and I did not post
either "definition," just the request for a definition).

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