Re: [UUPoly-L] looking for a referral

[Greg Southworth <greg27241@yahoo.com>]

Reminds me of the bumpersticker: Death to all fanatics! (Sorry, it is off-topic, but it really did)


Greg


________________________________
From: Frank Rudolph <docrudolph@gmail.com>
To: uupoly-l@uupa.org
Sent: Sun, December 20, 2009 2:53:57 PM
Subject: Re: [UUPoly-L] looking for a referral

Folks, you are missing the point. I don't want to define all the
permutations! I have as much imagination as anyone (more than most, else I
wouldn't be in this group!)

All I wanted to know was, for the purpose of interpreting what others say,
can we get a list of terms (like polyfidelity, for instance, which is
obvious) so if we hear someone say something like "vegasdelity" or whatever
it was that started this thread, we don't have to ask!

Boxes? Down with boxes! Burn the damn things! Death to boxes!
(I still like Malvina Reynolds' "Little Boxes" though :-)

Come to think of it there are quite a few little boxes I've run into that
are very nice, but I digress :-)

- Frank

On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 3:29 PM, Kit Peters <popefelix@gmail.com> wrote:

> Trying to shoehorn the infinite variety and possibility of human
> relationships into a finite number of boxes is fraught with peril, I agree.
> That said, it might be useful to have definitions for the more commonly
> used
> terms on this list and the wider polyamorous community.
>
> KP
>
> On Dec 20, 2009 2:05 PM, "Michael Rios" <earthfather@cfnc.us> wrote:
>
> > -----Original Message----- > From: docrudolph@gmail.com > > Seriously,
> does anyone out there ha...
> There really is no comprehensive list possible, I would think.  If we are
> looking at all possible *ethical* and/or responsible relationship styles
> that are acknowledged in this society, they really fall into three
> categories:
>
> 1. Celibacy
> 2. Monogamy
> 3. Everything else-- which is to say, "polyamory".
>
> There are a near-infinite number of possibilities of how humans can create
> relationships.  As a woman I know once said, "We have these relationships--
> and *then* we try to find labels for them."
>
> So polyamory isn't really a relationship style-- it is more a collection of
> alternatives to items 1 and 2 above.
>
> And that is as it should be, to my mind.  The idea of fitting real live
> human beings, and the ways that they choose to care about and connect with
> each other, into a finite number of predefined boxes, is repugnant to me.
> The real power in polyamory is not that we are increasing the number of
> boxes, but that we are *eliminating* boxes that people are expected to fit
> into.
>
> Michael Rios
>
> _______________________________________________ The UUPoly-L mailing list
> has public archives. Pl...
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
_______________________________________________
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