Re: [UUPoly-L] Identity Polytics.

["Kelly Cookson" <kc62301@hotmail.com>]

> I consider them, and I'm sure you, to be polyamorous.  It is a descriptive 
> term.  I will apply it descriptively to anyone who is
> open to more than one "romantic" relationship at a time.

> From a purely descriptive use of the term polyamory, I would have to concede 
my open marriage is polyamorous.

I vote in elections and tell people I believe in democracy. Does that mean 
I'm a Democrat? I like living in a republic that governs by representation 
and rule of law. Does that mean I'm a Republican? The words democrat and 
republican are ambiguous. They can be used descriptively. But they also 
refer to political organizations with their own philosophies and agendas. We 
generally distinguish the use of the words by capitalization: lower case for 
the descriptive meaning and upper case for the political organizations. I 
can say I'm a democrat and a republican, but I'm not associated with the 
Democrats or the Republicans.

Polyamory certainly isn't an organization like a political party. But it is 
a social movement, with loosely connected groups of people who call 
themselves polyamorous, with Web sites and magazines and a literature base, 
and with activists trying to gain greater social acceptance of 
non-monogamous lifestyles.

So I ask my original question with a twist in capitalization: When is a 
polyamorist not a Polyamorist? Can a person be in a relationship that fits 
the descriptive meaning of the term polyamory and be univolved and distanced 
from the Polyamory social movement? (The irony of my asking this in a Poly 
group does not escape me, but I'm really curious to hear what intelligent 
Polyamorists think, and this is the most intelligent group of Polyamorists I 
know.)

> However, it seems to me a waste of time to
> circuitously describe a concept which is described concisely by a
> now-largely-accepted single word because other people have decided
> that they get to say "polyamory is exactly X, Y, and Z."

The term "open marriage" is four syllables. The terms "polyamory", 
"polyamorous", and "polyamorist" are all five syllables. I actually save 
time by saying I'm into open marriage. ;-)

> People can go around all day
> saying that "Marriage is only a lifetime commitment between one man
> and one woman" or "Polyamory is only complete openness to all sexual
> and romantic relationships where the concept of jealousy is rejected"
> or anything else.  The word is in common useage among non-poly people
> without all those caveats.

I agree. The common useage among non-poly people does not make caveats. 
Which is why, when I am labelled a polyamorist, non-poly people associate me 
with everyone else and everything else labelled polyamorist.

But again, can a person be a polyamorist (lower case P) and not be a 
Polyamorist (upper case P)? And if so, since non-poly people don't make 
caveats, is it fair to label people on a descriptive basis?

Just some thoughts... :-)
Kelly

_________________________________________________________________
PC Magazine?s 2007 editors? choice for best Web mail?award-winning Windows 
Live Hotmail. 
http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migration_HM_mini_pcmag_0507