Re: [UUPoly-L] UUPoly-L Digest, Vol 33, Issue 9

["Earth Father" <earthfather@cfnc.us>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: P O

> Oh, and personally I consider 'polyamory' a pretty
> loose definition anyway.  It's actually such a broad
> category it's hardly informative to use it.  However,
> until better, more concise language is developed, I'll
> work with what I have.

Pat, I think you have made an important point here.  Really, when it comes to
fully consensual sexual relationships, there is celibacy, there is strict
monogamy, and there is ... everything else.  Hundreds, maybe thousands of
variations of the human sexual pattern, and they all get lumped under
"polyamory".

So to my mind, what the entire issue is about is not polyamory, certainly not
any particular form of it-- it is about the freedom to *choose* what kind of
sexual, emotional, and intimate relationships we will have.

So I'm not a polyamorist-- I'm "pro-choice".

:-)

Michael Rios

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.7/829 - Release Date: 6/2/2007 5:26 PM