From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: Intro to me and question for all
Date: 11 Dec 92 19:43:14 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <MUFFY.92Dec9234317@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>In article <1992Dec09.195829.8886@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>>In article <MUFFY.92Dec8191112@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>>>
>>>Frightening.  I'm both bi and poly:
>>>
>>>Bisexuality does not specify the "acceptable number of genders."  I
>>>don't *care* how many genders my lovers have (and there are theories
>>>that there are more than two).  Gender is basically *irrelevant* to me,
>>>as far as attraction goes.
>
>>Shouldn't it be called "polysexuality" then?  If you're going
>>to complain about Vicka playing fast-and-loose with the language,
>>you shouldn't be doing it yourself.  (Insert smiley if necessary)
>
>In other words, you'll take any opportunity to take a stab at me, eh?  I
>did not make up the word, and, frankly, I am not completely comfortable
>with it.  However, if I use that word, everyone I use it with will
>understand it in a basic way (i.e. I will have sex with either men or
>women).

     My original comment was meant in the spirit of jest, but since
you seem to have taken it seriously, let's have a look.
     In your previous post you say that bisexuality is independent of
gender.  The most commonly used definition of the word, however, would
specify an either/or condition, since most people recognize only two
genders.  So, by your own admission, you are using a definition of the
word "bisexual" that doesn't match the definition used by the majority
of the population.
     This is exactly what you are complaining about Vicka doing with
respect to the word "monogamous".


>>>Well, this is exactly the problem.  I have known many people who "call
>>>themselves monogamous."  They would be quite upset (and hurt) if they
>>>got involved with someone who said they were "monogamous" and then
>>>proceeded to have another lover.  They would feel that they had been
>>>lied to and betrayed.
>
>>I can't imagine how this conversation would go...
>
>>Partner 1:  "By the way, are you monogamous?"
>>Partner 2:  "Yes."
>>Partner 1:  "Oh, OK..." and proceeds to never mention it again.
>
>You seem to have imagined it quite well, actually.  Most people don't
>even negotiate relationships this far, they just assume monogamy.

     And you're lumping Vicka into this category, despite repeated
statements to the contrary.  And you continue to do so.


>>There is clearly more to it than that.  Just as you have your
>>own definition of polyamory (what it means to you), others will have
>>their own definition of monogamy.  Why begrudge them that?
>
>Although most people have their "own" definitions of words, there is
>generally a "basic definition" of any word (polyamory, being newly
>created, is a little more nebulous than most).

     Agreed.  Words have multiple definitions.


>If you persist in
>calling a small furry animal a "lamp," that's going to seriously impede
>your communications with people.

     There is clearly a difference between a concrete noun like "lamp"
and an ambiguous term like "polyamorous", or "bisexual", or "monogamous".
You've chosen a poor analogy again.


>I think that communication is very
>important, and I think that efforts to make communication *less* clear
>are therefore not good.

     It's important for _both_ parties to recognize the vagaries of
the English language, and request clarification of any term they
find potentially ambiguous.


>>>>>It's not "impossible," it's just cruel.
>>>>To whom?
>>>
>>>To anyone who is misled into thinking that you are really monogamous.
>>Do you have any reason to believe that Vicka is anything but
>>honest with her lovers?
>
>I have no reason to believe she is or isn't.  However, that has nothing
>to do with what I am talking about.

    Muffy, you called her relationship a "cruel lie".  The burden
of proof is on you to back that statement up, or else retract it.

					-Phil

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Lafornara         				1 Microsoft Way         
philipla@microsoft.com				Redmond, WA 98052-6399 
Note:  Microsoft doesn't even _know_ that these are my opinions. So there.
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory