Re: [UUPoly-L] cheating other angle

["Earthfather" <Earthfather@cfnc.us>]

Another listmember asked why the discussion of definitions, etc.  None of
this is about proving who is "right" or "wrong", or what someone is allowed
to call themselves.  Everyone can call themselves whatever they wish; no one
is disputing that.  But the question is what these terms mean to other
people.  I can call myself a "kayaker", but if what I mean is that I write
poetry about kayaks, but I have never been in one, my use of that term will
confuse most people.  

When talking about "fringe" groups or identities, I think it is very
important that we are as careful with our use of words as possible; there
tends to be so much misinformation and misunderstanding anyways, that we can
ill-afford to confuse people by using words idiosyncratically as well.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kelly 

> >You are, of course, free to use whatever term that you prefer.  I have a
> >child who is not willing to be identified by gender;
> 
> I can identify myself any way I want. However, if I identify myself in a
> way
> that does not fit your construction of reality, then I'm acting like a
> child? And like your child no less? Well, as it is written, a child shall
> lead them! ;-)

Wow, Kelly, talk about triggered!  Please go back and read my post again.
You seem to have misread it entirely, or I'm even more obtuse than usual,
and missed the subtle irony in your comments above.

"I have a child".  Take the words literally.  There exists a human being of
whom I am the biological father, who does not wish to be identified by
gender.  I respect that request, and used the gender-neutral pronoun zir in
referring to him/her/it.  This child of mine is an adult, and a highly
responsible one at that.  However, choosing not to be identified by gender
does not change the fact that this person *has* a gender, and that there is
a term that 99% of the English-speaking world would agree is the correct
word to use to describe that gender.   

To try to make it even clearer:  assume this child of mine has a vagina.
Most people would use the she/her pronouns, and would call her female, a
woman, etc.  This child of mine does not wish to be referred to in that way.
Her choices about words, however, do not change the words that the rest of
the world uses to describe her-- and it doesn't change the fact that she
fits the usual definitions of the word "woman".


> >"Open marriage" is one kind of polyamory, because it is honest,
> >responsible, and not monogamous. Pure swinging is not necessarily a
> >polyamorous activity,
> >but the "emotionally involved friendships" are certainly included in the
> >term.
> >Open marriage is not the equivalent of polyamory, because there are many
> >other kinds of polyamory as well.  But it is one of the forms that
> >polyamory
> >can take.
> 
> We are not so far apart. I think open marriage and polyamory overlap, but
> are not identical. They are like two overlapping circles in a Venn
> diagram.
> The left circle is polyamory. The right circle is open marriage. The
> overlapping area is polyamorous-style relationships in open marriages. But
> the open marriage circle contains swinging-style relationships (which
> doesn't overlap polyamory), and the polyamory circle contains group
> relationships of various sorts (which don't overlap open marriage). The
> circles overlap, but they are not identical.

So unless a married couple has *only* swinging-type relationships, it would
seem to me that describing them as polyamorous would be accurate.   Not
necessarily complete-- but accurate as far as it went.

A side note:  I've never heard someone use the term "Open Marriage" to mean
a couple who engaged in swinging, but no other sexual/romantic
relationships.  The term came into use with a book by that title, and in the
book, they were *definitely* talking about intimate emotional relationships
with people outside the marriage-- not about swinging.


> It also raises the possibility of choosing to identify oneself using the
> label for the open marriage circle rather than the label for the polyamory
> circle. My relationship experiences fall all over the open marriage
> circle.

The question with anything like this is:  What will the term "open marriage"
mean to most people.  If they have any familiarity with the term at all, I
don't think that "swinging" is likely to be associated with the term.

Here are some of the definitions I found on the web for "open marriage":

A marriage of two partners that is not sexually exclusive, but permits
either or both partners to have other lovers outside of the primary
relationship within the marriage.
www.number-one-adult-sexual-health-terms-advisor.com/relationshipstyles.htm

A form of polyamory relationship in which there may also be other lovers who
are not partners in the given relationship. Most commonly, this refers to a
primary couple who may have secondary relationships. The term "Open
Marriage" was coined by the O'Neils in their 197x book by the same name. ...
www.openweave.org/NCPoly/PolyTerms.html

a marriage in which each partner is free to enter into extraneous sexual
relationships without guilt or jealousy from the other 
http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

An open marriage is a marriage where both parties agree that they are
permitted the right to have sexual relationships outside the marriage,
without regarding this as sexual infidelity. Open marriage can be regarded
as a half-way state between traditional marriage and free love. However, the
idiosyncrasies of each open marriage are defined by the individuals
involved. ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_marriage

Note that all of them use the term "relationship" or "lovers", and one of
them specifically identifies it as a form of polyamory.

> But my relationship experiences fall only in overlapping area of the
> polyamory circle. The term open marriage more accurately represents my
> experiences and interests than the term polyamory, since polyamory
> includes some things that are not part of my experiences or interests. Why

> should I prefer a less accurate label over a more accurate label?

I'm suggesting that your understanding of the commonly understood meaning of
these labels is not accurate, as evidenced by the citations above.

> But, I sense I'm fighting a losing battle. If you really, really, really
> need to identify me as poly...

Nope; I would just like our use of terms to be less idiosyncratic, and more
in line with the more commonly understood meanings.  This promotes better
communications all around, both among ourselves, and with the world at
large.
 
> Polymonogamy = a socially monogamous relationship in which both partners
> have agreed to allow sexual relationships with extra-couple partners.
> 
> Polymonogamist = a person who is involved in, or aspires to be involved
> in,
> a polymonogamous relationship.
> 
> I offer these definitions with tongue firmly in cheek. ;-)

And these terms would likely aid communication just about as much as keeping
your tongue in that position...


Having said all this, the term that I have found communicates to most people
in the larger culture is "open relationship".   I've found that when I tell
people that I am "polyamorous", most often I have to explain it what it
means, and I often sense a guardedness, perhaps because they aren't sure
what *else* it might mean.  When I use the term "open relationship", people
nod, seem to understand, and most people seem to find this unremarkable.  So
most of the time, that's the term I use to describe my relationship style.

Michael Rios



No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.9.10/873 - Release Date: 6/26/2007
11:54 PM