Re: [UUPoly-L] Poly definition

[Amanda Birmingham <lists@imladris.com>]

Yes, but that's exactly the point Alex is making: those people *aren't* 
polyamorous, even if they believe it is possible for some other people 
to love more than one person--hence, that is a problem with defining 
someone as polyamorous strictly on the basis of philosophy, ie, "A 
person who thinks/believes/feels that it is possible to love more than 
one person".  To be meaningfully described as polyamorous, one must 
believe that it is possible for *oneself* to love more than one person 
at the same time.
Amanda

On May 17, 2007, at 6:45 PM, Brigitte Fires wrote:

> But then those people aren't identifying as being polyamorous. Being 
> allies
> to polyamory and people who practice it doesn't make them any more
> polyamorous than the straight men who march in gay pride parads, or the
> white men who marched for civil rights. You said it yourself, they 
> consider
> themselves monogamous--and who are we to tell them they're poly just 
> because
> they don't disregard it as an option for those who choose or are drawn 
> to
> it?
>
> Brigitte
>
> On 5/17/07, Greenearthal@aol.com <Greenearthal@aol.com> wrote:
> > Focussing the definition on belief/phillosophy  still seems a bit off 
> > to
> > me.
> >
> >     For example, around here, there are a lot of people  --I call them
> > poly
> > allies--
> >     who believe that polyamory is right and good for me  and others 
> > who
> > choose
> >     it.  They firmly believe it can and does work  but consider 
> > themselves
> >     monogamous.
> >
> >     -Alex
> _______________________________________________
> The UUPoly-L mailing list has public archives.
> Please keep that in mind when deciding how much to reveal about 
> yourself.
> UUPoly-L mailing list
> UUPoly-L@uupa.org
> http://www.uupa.org/mailman/listinfo/uupoly-l