Re: [UUPoly-L] Poly Def (was: Too many circles, lines, triangles.....)

["David VanHorn" <dvanhorn@microbrix.com>]

On 12/5/06, John Ullman <jsu627@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On a list a few years ago, the same thread started, believe it or
> not, maybe it was even this list, and someone emailed Morning Glory
> and got this reply:
>
> Here is Morning Glory's current definition, which she gave to the
> Editor of the Oxford English Dictionary when they contacted her to
> enter the term:


 "Polyamory: The practice, state or ability of having more than
one sexual loving relationship at the same time, with the full
knowledge and consent of all partners involved."


Ok, check me here: Practice means "Some people can do this (defining the
practice of)", State means "I AM doing this now", and Ability means "I am
allowed to do this" and/or "I am capable of doing this"?   "OR" in this
context appears to mean that only one of these three conditions needs to be
met.


J and I consider our relationship poly, even though it is not now sexual by
mutual consent.
It was, and it may yet be again. It was concurrent with my ongoing marriage,
and my secondary and sexual relationship with K.

1. For clear communication it is necessary to agree on what words
> mean. We do not say an atom is a particle that has protons, neutrons,
> and maybe electrons. Nobody goes around bleating that their hydrogen
> nucleus is so lovable, or intense, or meaningful that it simply must
> be called an atom, too.


And you would call positively ionized hydrogen what exactly?
Poor example maybe, as a proton IS positively ionized hydrogen when it's
otherwise unencumbered, as an alpha particle is positively ionized helium.

I see your point though, see above.


2. We have a perfectly good word for non-sexual love between
> unrelated adults: platonic.


True, but in a platonic relationship, at least as I understand it, the
intention is that it never become sexual. It's missing the "ability" from
above.


> 4. Frankly, I think that the urge to take the sexual component out of
> polyamory is giving in to the very sex-negative culture that gives us
> such a pain in the butt.


That's not my intention at all, I'm not saying that it CANT be there
(HORRORS!!) but I'm saying that I don't think that it NEEDS to be there.

Admittedly mono culture is so unfucked that
> even platonic friendships sometimes provoke jealousy, but of all the
> components of polyamory, sexual is where the rubber hits the -
> oooops! bad metaphor, maybe - well, you know what I mean. Oprha and
> Dr. Phil don't do a lot of shows about platonic relationships.


VVBG! :)

5. And also, frankly, I think it is disrespectful to MG and those of
> us who were pioneering poly before the she coined the word. If you
> want labels for non-poly relationships, be polite and ethical enough
> to do the work and make up your own words.


No disrespect intended.



7. For those of you who think labels are bad, just pray you don't
> patronize a pharmacist who shares your opinion.


Not all labels are bad, but bad labels are.