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

"Laura Stewart" <mathlaura@gmail.com> · Tue, 05 Dec 2006 21:11:05 -0000

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."
I object to the minority that wants to change the sense of the term
polyamory by qualifying or deleting the sexual component for these reasons.
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.

Actually a hydrogen nucleus, which is also a single proton, is a
fairly stable isotope of hydrogen and can generally be considered an
atom.
2. We have a perfectly good word for non-sexual love between
unrelated adults: platonic.

That is not AS DESCRIPTIVE of a label as "polyamorous" would be for
some relationships which may not be sexual.
3. We did not have a perfectly good word for "more than
one sexual loving relationship at the same time, with the full
knowledge and consent of all partners involved."  Before MG coined
polyamory, people were using "consensual adultery" or "ethical
non-monogamy." Do I need to spell out the inadequacies of these terms
for polyamory?
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. 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.

I think that polyamory is more accurately yet less precisely defined
as "More than one romantic relationship at a time, with the full
knowledge and consent of all partners involved."  I believe the
"sexual loving" definition is a better dictionary definition because
the term "romantic" is fairly imprecise in and of itself.
However, as I said, I believe it is more accurate.  A teenager who
doesn't feel they are yet ready for sex may be polyamorous, and have
multiple dating relationships (or the potential therefor) which are
romantic.  A parapalegic who cannot engage in most sex acts may have
multiple dating relationships or life partners which are romantic
relationships.  A person who identifies as asexual may have multiple
life partners or dating relationships which are romantic.  A person
may have a partner with whom they are simply sexually incompatible but
otherwise romantically in love with; these peopel may be life
partners, live together, raise children together, but not have sex
with one another because they don't find sex together exciting.
One CAN say that these things are easy to distinguish from polyamory,
but I must disagree.
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.

I reject anyone's claim of entitlement to be better able to define a
word because they have engaged in the thing that the word describes
for a longer amount of time.  I am fully behind your arguments
regarding useful labels and clarity (clarity of language being an
extremely important idea to me), but I reject this as much as I reject
evangelical's claims to define "Christian" only as those who share
their exact beliefs.
6. For those of you who think it is fine to have your own personal
definitions of words, good luck passing your SAT's.

However, for those who are highly interested in the ideas of meaning,
useage, and definition, be sure to restrain those urges that you might
have good SAT scores, then think about a fulfilling career in academic
linguistics; you'll be far better equipped.
7. For those of you who think labels are bad, just pray you don't
patronize a pharmacist who shares your opinion.

Personally, I am a great lover of labels, so long as those labels are
descriptive and not proscriptive.  Proscriptivism of labels tends to
breed elitism, cliquishness, and rejection of diversity and
individuality.
-Laura