Re: [UUPoly-L] looking for a referral

[Rosemary Amico <sophygurl@yahoo.com>]

Here are some lists I've found helpful online that do attempt to define and describe some of the many poly terms out there.

http://www.xeromag.com/fvpolyglossary.html

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/polyamory/faq/

http://www.lovemore.com/terms.php

-Rosemary
http://sophy.livejournal.com/
"The less I seek my source for some definitive
The closer I am to fine."
Indigo Girls


--- On Sun, 12/20/09, Frank Rudolph <docrudolph@gmail.com> wrote:

> From: Frank Rudolph <docrudolph@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [UUPoly-L] looking for a referral
> To: uupoly-l@uupa.org
> Date: Sunday, December 20, 2009, 12:53 PM
> 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
>