minor coming out vignette
Rivka
course means a new clinic and a new medical provider. They give me
the usual thick background packet to fill out. I’m working my way
down the first page, when I realize:
Damned if there isn’t more than one line under “Name of
spouse/partner.”
After a second look, I decide that it’s probably just an artifact of
the form layout. But I write down Misha’s name, hesitate for a
moment, and then write down Bill’s name too. I start rehearsing what
I’m going to say when they ask about it.
Heading on down the form, I make a wild guess at “number of lifetime
sexual partners” and wonder if it's a bad sign that I don’t know the
exact number. I notice approvingly that instead of asking for my
sexual orientation the form asks if my sexual partners are “male,
female, or both.” (Alas, no space for “neither,” but maybe on next
year’s form.)
I get called in before I’ve even gotten halfway down page two. I’ve
arranged to see one of the nurse practitioners – in the US, these are
people with Master’s degrees in nursing who provide basic medical care
and can prescribe a limited range of medications. I like mine
immediately: friendly and matter of fact, with a sense of humor. But
she doesn’t want the form in which I so bravely come out as poly… she
just wants to ask verbally about the items she cares most about.
(Cigarettes? Seatbelts? Calcium? Caffeine? Depression? Fatigue – oh
never mind, you’re an intern...)
We proceed to the taking-my-clothes-off part of the exam. I remember
that my wedding ring removes me from the “automatic STD screening”
category, and ask for the tests to be done. The regular nurse says
that my insurance may not cover it as part of a “well woman” exam, but
the nurse practitioner goes ahead and does it anyway. I’m not
comfortable explaining why I want it, in front of the regular nurse.
I put my clothes back on, cursing myself for not speaking up. I
remember how difficult it was with my last gynecologist, when I had to
come out as poly because of a Medical Situation. I go into the nurse
practitioner’s office, take a deep breath, and say “If you’re going to
be doing my GYN care, there’s something I want you to know. My
marriage is not monogamous, and I have two primary partners.”
She says, “I figured that was probably the case when you asked for an
STD test. That’s fine with me. If you have a problem, or things get
weird and you want someone to talk to, just let me know.” And smiles.
As simple as that.
--
Rivka is riv...@home.com and a resident in clinical health psychology.
"I don't long for a gender-free society, but I would dearly love one
that wasn't gender-*stupid*." - Elise Matthesen
Mary
>She says, “I figured that was probably the case when you asked for an
>STD test. That’s fine with me. If you have a problem, or things get
>weird and you want someone to talk to, just let me know.” And smiles.
Wow.
Wow. Wow. Wow.
I like your NP.
Mary
Aahz Maruch
Rivka <riv...@home.com> wrote:
>
>She says, “I figured that was probably the case when you asked for an
>STD test. That’s fine with me. If you have a problem, or things get
>weird and you want someone to talk to, just let me know.” And smiles.
>As simple as that.
Cool! BTW, could you change your Outlook settings back to plain text?
--
--- Aahz (Copyright 2000 by aa...@pobox.com)
Androgynous poly kinky vanilla queer het <*> http://www.rahul.net/aahz/
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6
Goodbye dinner for Netcom shell, Thurs 9/7, 7:30pm, Mountain View, CA
e-mail me for details
Rivka
"Aahz Maruch" <aa...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:8p4cak$f8t$1...@panix6.panix.com...[...]
> Cool! BTW, could you change your Outlook settings back to
> plain text?
<blink> Are they not?
Oh. Damn. I wrote that at work, in Word, and cut-and-pasted. In the
previous version of Outlook, that made it plain text. I guess this
version helpfully saves the formatting. My apologies, and thanks for
pointing the problem out so pleasantly.
Rivka
Ben Okopnik
>So I go in for my annual exam today - my first in Maryland, which of
>course means a new clinic and a new medical provider. They give me
>the usual thick background packet to fill out. I’m working my way
>down the first page, when I realize:
>
>Damned if there isn’t more than one line under “Name of
>spouse/partner.”
<Huge Grin> Oh, how cool. I like this already...
<Snip>
>I put my clothes back on, cursing myself for not speaking up. I
>remember how difficult it was with my last gynecologist, when I had to
>come out as poly because of a Medical Situation. I go into the nurse
>practitioner’s office, take a deep breath, and say “If you’re going to
>be doing my GYN care, there’s something I want you to know. My
>marriage is not monogamous, and I have two primary partners.”
>
>She says, “I figured that was probably the case when you asked for an
>STD test. That’s fine with me. If you have a problem, or things get
>weird and you want someone to talk to, just let me know.” And smiles.
>As simple as that.
Oh... wonderful. I know, from personal experience (though on a different
matter) what it's like to tell another person something that seems so
intensely private; something that may create large-scale problems in your
life, professional and otherwise... and to feel the great relief when that
person just accepts you the way you are. <Warm smile> I'm... trying to
come up with a way to say this... warm fuzzies. Vicarious and personal,
family-sized (ObPoly: _large_-family-sized) warm fuzzies.
Three cheers for the wonderful NP.
--
Ben
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
He believed merely in fair play and square-dealing. Petty meanness,
in his code, was almost as serious as wanton homicide, and I am sure
that he respected a murderer more than a man given to small practices.
-- Jack London, "The Heathen"
jenner
Rivka <riv...@home.com> wrote in message
news:vfit5.125476$eS6.1...@news1.rdc1.md.home.com...
> She says, "I figured that was probably the case when you asked for an
> STD test. That's fine with me. If you have a problem, or things get
> weird and you want someone to talk to, just let me know." And smiles.
> As simple as that.
cool. way cool. it must be good to be you on days like that.
-- jenner
Kit
>We proceed to the taking-my-clothes-off part of the exam. I remember
>that my wedding ring removes me from the “automatic STD screening”
>category, and ask for the tests to be done. The regular nurse says
>that my insurance may not cover it as part of a “well woman” exam, but
>the nurse practitioner goes ahead and does it anyway. I’m not
>comfortable explaining why I want it, in front of the regular nurse.
>
>I put my clothes back on, cursing myself for not speaking up. I
>remember how difficult it was with my last gynecologist, when I had to
>come out as poly because of a Medical Situation. I go into the nurse
>practitioner’s office, take a deep breath, and say “If you’re going to
>be doing my GYN care, there’s something I want you to know. My
>marriage is not monogamous, and I have two primary partners.”
>
>She says, “I figured that was probably the case when you asked for an
>STD test. That’s fine with me. If you have a problem, or things get
>weird and you want someone to talk to, just let me know.” And smiles.
>As simple as that.
>--
Shaking head in amazement..
I have been living in the rural center for *way* too long.
I have the same problem with the wedding ring knocking off the STD tests- but
when I have actually ASKED to have them done , I have been told ( rather
snippily) that they weren't needed- "We don't get ~that~ kind of thing out
here"
My jaw about fell to the floor.
I go into the nearby 'city' for medical treatment now- about an hour drive.
~~> Kit <~~
"I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend
to the death your right to say it."
Beatrice Hall
Lisa Geoffrion
>Message-id: <20000906105427...@nso-fx.aol.com> wrote:
>In article <vfit5.125476$eS6.1...@news1.rdc1.md.home.com>, "Rivka"
><riv...@home.com> writes:
>
>>She says, I figured that was probably the case when you asked for an
>>STD test. Thats fine with me. If you have a problem, or things get
>>weird and you want someone to talk to, just let me know. And smiles.
>>As simple as that.
>
Yep, my Family Practitioner is like that. Very cool guy. When we went in for
my first pre-natal, he asked, "You guys still non-monogamous?" At our
affirmative, he turned blandly to the nurse and ordered up the STD tests.
>I have the same problem with the wedding ring knocking off the STD tests- but
>when I have actually ASKED to have them done , I have been told ( rather
>snippily) that they weren't needed- "We don't get ~that~ kind of thing out
>here"
Holy Wah, no way! We live out in the middle of the boonies (1), and I've never
run into that kind of reaction. In fact, I remember my mom, who's a GYN nurse
(now retired), telling me in high school that STD's were rampid in our area,
and that I better think, and act, very carefully about what I was doing.
Lisa, off to model for the art students...
(1) Upper Peninsula of Michigan, which has the same area as half of lower
Michigan, but with a total population of less than the city of Detroit.
------------------
"Listen - we were put here on this earth to fart around. Don't let anyone ever
tell you otherwise." Kurt Vonnegut Jr.
Kit
(Lisa Geoffrion) writes:
>> brkncog...@aol.com (Kit) in
>>Message-id: <20000906105427...@nso-fx.aol.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <vfit5.125476$eS6.1...@news1.rdc1.md.home.com>, "Rivka"
>><riv...@home.com> writes:
>>
>
>>>She says, I figured that was probably the case when you asked for an
>>>STD test. Thats fine with me. If you have a problem, or things get
>>>weird and you want someone to talk to, just let me know. And smiles.
>>>As simple as that.
>>
>
>Yep, my Family Practitioner is like that. Very cool guy. When we went in
>for
>my first pre-natal, he asked, "You guys still non-monogamous?" At our
>affirmative, he turned blandly to the nurse and ordered up the STD tests.
>
>>I have the same problem with the wedding ring knocking off the STD tests-
>but
>>when I have actually ASKED to have them done , I have been told ( rather
>>snippily) that they weren't needed- "We don't get ~that~ kind of thing out
>>here"
>
>Holy Wah, no way! We live out in the middle of the boonies (1), and I've
>never
>run into that kind of reaction.
My Wolf warned me b4 we moved out here that it was a step back in time..I did
not realize how far though.This Doctor actually felt that no married couple
could ever possibly have that problem. I was NOT about to come out to THAT
attitude.
I regret my cowardice though.
In fact, I remember my mom, who's a GYN
>nurse
>(now retired), telling me in high school that STD's were rampid in our area,
>and that I better think, and act, very carefully about what I was doing.
>
I have to agree with your mom...never assume, always be careful.
>Lisa, off to model for the art students...
>
~~> Kit <~~
Bill Gawne
Rivka wrote:
>
> So I go in for my annual exam today - my first in Maryland, which of
> course means a new clinic and a new medical provider. They give me
> the usual thick background packet to fill out. I?m working my way
> down the first page, when I realize:
>
> Damned if there isn?t more than one line under ?Name of
> spouse/partner.?
>
> After a second look, I decide that it?s probably just an artifact of
> the form layout. But I write down Misha?s name, hesitate for a
> moment, and then write down Bill?s name too.
*BigSmile*
[snip]
> remember how difficult it was with my last gynecologist, when I had to
> come out as poly because of a Medical Situation. I go into the nurse
> practitioner?s office, take a deep breath, and say ?If you?re going to
> be doing my GYN care, there?s something I want you to know. My
> marriage is not monogamous, and I have two primary partners.?
>
> She says, ?I figured that was probably the case when you asked for an
> STD test. That?s fine with me. If you have a problem, or things get
> weird and you want someone to talk to, just let me know.? And smiles.
> As simple as that.
That's just wonderful. It's good you have such a fine NP dear.
-Bill Gawne
JennieD-O'C
>>>She says, I figured that was probably the case when you asked for an
>>>STD test. Thats fine with me. If you have a problem, or things get
>>>weird and you want someone to talk to, just let me know. And smiles.
>>>As simple as that.
>
>Yep, my Family Practitioner is like that. Very cool guy. When we went
>in for my first pre-natal, he asked, "You guys still non-monogamous?" At
>our affirmative, he turned blandly to the nurse and ordered up the STD
>tests.
Am I the only one who finds the assumptions behind this stuff a bit
irritating? I mean, non-monogamy does *not* necessarily equal an
increased risk for sexually transmitted diseases. If I'm having sex with
Chris and Iain, and they're each having sex with only me, and this has
been true for six years, then I don't *need* another battery of tests only
two years apart. You know?
And what about all of those serially monogamous folks who date someone
exclusively for six weeks and then move on to the next partner -- then
lather, rinse, repeat? Are these people (and we've all known them) not at
a greater risk for these pesky bugs than your typical polyfolk (who might
have two or three partners at a time, but probably don't hop from person
to person quite as frequently)?
I know you guys actually think this is fine behaviour, but to me it smacks
of some twisted form of discrimination masquerading as helpfulness. It
sounds similar, to me, to a story a good friend told me recently about how
he went to the doctor for something unrelated to sexually transmitted
diseases, and when my friend said he was gay, the doctor said: "Oh, then
we'd better do an HIV test right away." Um, no.
Maybe I'm just being oversensitive, but I don't like that sort of thing at
all.
---
Jennie D-O'C <jenn...@intranet.org> http://home.intranet.org/~jenniedo/
"Twa hames are better than yin; some people they've got nane
It's round the world I've been; no two places are the same"
-- Colin Hay, "Wayfaring Sons"
gaya...@world.std.com
whoo!@!!!
the only thing I'd worry about is now that info is in a medical file
that may or may not be private.
Gayathri
>--------------------------------------------------------------
gaya...@world.std.com Calamari Club #002, WSMC #158
'88 FZR400 ('gurlzbike') '98 T595 Daytona, "huckleberry"
"On with the dance! Let joy be unconfined." - Lord Byron
LoRe
[snip interesting part]
> She says, "I figured that was probably the case when you asked for an
> STD test. That's fine with me. If you have a problem, or things get
> weird and you want someone to talk to, just let me know." And smiles.
> As simple as that.
Yo! Whoa! Who is she? If it's private, I respect that, but I'd love to know
about someone like that in my area (Monkey County).
Interesting to go through all that sweating first....
LoRe
macu...@hotmail.com
(ah, what the hell--it's already on all the porn/credit/diplomas lists)
LoRe
"JennieD-O'C" <jenn...@kira.intranet.org> wrote in message
news:ZOAt5.13846$Ds1....@jekyl.ab.tac.net...
> Lisa Geoffrion <ljg...@aol.com> wrote:
> >Yep, my Family Practitioner is like that. Very cool guy. When we went
> >in for my first pre-natal, he asked, "You guys still non-monogamous?" At
> >our affirmative, he turned blandly to the nurse and ordered up the STD
> >tests.
>
> Am I the only one who finds the assumptions behind this stuff a bit
> irritating? I mean, non-monogamy does *not* necessarily equal an
> increased risk for sexually transmitted diseases.
This irritates the hell out of me. Enough that I didn't speak much for a
long time to an otherwise very nice person when she said, while discussing
poly, "Oh, that's fine by me. I'd just be concerned about getting diseases."
She (a nurse...hmm) didn't seem much impressed with my surprised response
that, well, you know, if someone is going to deliberately choose to follow
an unorthodox sexual lifestyle and is doing lots of research into it and
spending lots of energy working out the kinks with their partners, you'd
think the first and easiest thing they would deal with would be protecting
themselves from the obvious. Poly people, given that most of them are pretty
intolerant of hiding important issues, should be a lot safer than your
average serialist, as they don't have so much to gain by pretending that the
last one "didn't count" or "never happened." And they don't have the strong
motivation to hide their sex partners from each other (falling prey to the
fear of being asked why they want to use a condom). And so on.
Eventually I realized that someone not of a poly persuasion would have no
sense of the kind of people involved or what they are doing or why. And I
realized that I was being awfully optimistic, too. I mean, there is plenty
of hiding and cajoling and denying and lying to go around, and just being
more aware of the necessity for clear communication and protection doesn't
mean we don't fuck up sometimes. So...suppose one really did believe that
one's (say, 4) partners were faithful and clean. And say all 4 partners were
only human and that they all had "x" percent chance of cheating and not
telling the rest of the group. Even if the value of x is lower for each than
for the population at large, that's still rolling the dice 4 times. Plus, if
the group gets stressed, there is just no way to keep tabs on the comings
and goings of all of them the same way a paranoid monogamist could do. Etc.
As I considered it, it seemed "a half a dozen of one...." That attitude
still pisses me off, though, especially when it is automatic: you have sex
with more than one person, and admit it; ergo, you are dirty.
Blah.
LoRe
Gwynyth
> Lisa Geoffrion <ljg...@aol.com> wrote:
> >><riv...@home.com> writes:
>
> >>>She says, I figured that was probably the case when you asked for an
> >>>STD test. Thats fine with me. If you have a problem, or things get
> >>>weird and you want someone to talk to, just let me know. And smiles.
> >>>As simple as that.
> >
> >Yep, my Family Practitioner is like that. Very cool guy. When we went
> >in for my first pre-natal, he asked, "You guys still non-monogamous?" At
> >our affirmative, he turned blandly to the nurse and ordered up the STD
> >tests.
>
> Am I the only one who finds the assumptions behind this stuff a bit
> irritating? I mean, non-monogamy does *not* necessarily equal an
> increased risk for sexually transmitted diseases. If I'm having sex with
> Chris and Iain, and they're each having sex with only me, and this has
> been true for six years, then I don't *need* another battery of tests only
> two years apart. You know?
>
> And what about all of those serially monogamous folks who date someone
> exclusively for six weeks and then move on to the next partner -- then
> lather, rinse, repeat? Are these people (and we've all known them) not at
> a greater risk for these pesky bugs than your typical polyfolk (who might
> have two or three partners at a time, but probably don't hop from person
> to person quite as frequently)?
If it helps any, while my medical-type person did strongly suggest I
have STD testing done, she did it mostly because two of my past partners
have been bisexual men (granted, one of them was pretty much nil risk,
the other one, while I was pretty confident, I'm glad I had the testing
done.) She also strongly advised it because I'd never had it done, and I
had had multiple partners (and had only been involved with the fiance
for about 9 months before the testing, which means it's a quite solid
baseline).
I got the strong impression from her (though I didn't ask, and I
probably will next time I see her) that if I'd been involved with the
*same* people (and not others) since the last time she'd seen me, she
would have perhaps checked on that, and then dropped it (unless I asked
for testing). I also got the strong impression that if I'd been doing
serial monogamy, I'd have been strongly urged to do testing.
But then, my medical person is very cool that way. Doesn't suggest I
need to lose weight, treats the actual medical conditions necessary,
does the appropriate precautionary testing, and believes me when I tell
her about bizarre medication side effects. She definitely needs to be
cloned or something. She wasn't familiar with poly, but she was
decidedly non-judgemental about it.
Gwynyth, who also did pick up the "Health Care without Shame" book from
Greenery Press on principle recently.
Louise
jenn...@kira.intranet.org (JennieD-O'C) wrote:
>Lisa Geoffrion <ljg...@aol.com> wrote:
>>><riv...@home.com> writes:
>
>>>>She says, I figured that was probably the case when you asked for an
>>>>STD test. Thats fine with me. If you have a problem, or things get
>>>>weird and you want someone to talk to, just let me know. And smiles.
>>>>As simple as that.
>>
>>Yep, my Family Practitioner is like that. Very cool guy. When we went
>>in for my first pre-natal, he asked, "You guys still non-monogamous?" At
>>our affirmative, he turned blandly to the nurse and ordered up the STD
>>tests.
>
>Am I the only one who finds the assumptions behind this stuff a bit
>irritating? I mean, non-monogamy does *not* necessarily equal an
>increased risk for sexually transmitted diseases. If I'm having sex with
>Chris and Iain, and they're each having sex with only me, and this has
>been true for six years, then I don't *need* another battery of tests only
>two years apart. You know?
When I've wanted to describe my r'ship situation to health care
providers or testers, they've usually asked some vague question like
"Are you married?", and I've always tried to answer in more specific
terms in a way that's relevant to what they're trying to assess. "I'm
in a sexually exclusive relationship and there are three of us. We
have been sexually exclusive for X months/years." or (in a previous
part of my life] "I am in a long term relationship but [exceptions
relevant to STD-issue omitted]".
The health care people I've dealt with have all paid attention to the
"We have been sexually exclusive for X months/years" part.
>I know you guys actually think this is fine behaviour, but to me it smacks
>of some twisted form of discrimination masquerading as helpfulness. It
>sounds similar, to me, to a story a good friend told me recently about how
>he went to the doctor for something unrelated to sexually transmitted
>diseases, and when my friend said he was gay, the doctor said: "Oh, then
>we'd better do an HIV test right away." Um, no.
Eew. Was your friend too shocked / tongue-tied to complain about
their assumption?
I remember two friends of mine relating their similar embarrassing
stories of visits to the women's health clinic at our university where
they each had trouble answering the gynecologist's out-of-the-blue
question "What method(s) of birth control do you use?" because one was
a virgin and the other a lesbian.
Louise
* Louise lou...@cyberus.ca *
* http://www.cyberus.ca/~louise/books.htm *
Ben Okopnik
JennieD-O'C of alt.polyamory speaking thus:
>Lisa Geoffrion <ljg...@aol.com> wrote:
>>><riv...@home.com> writes:
>
>>>>She says, I figured that was probably the case when you asked for an
>>>>STD test. Thats fine with me. If you have a problem, or things get
>>>>weird and you want someone to talk to, just let me know. And smiles.
>>>>As simple as that.
>>
>>Yep, my Family Practitioner is like that. Very cool guy. When we went
>>in for my first pre-natal, he asked, "You guys still non-monogamous?" At
>>our affirmative, he turned blandly to the nurse and ordered up the STD
>>tests.
>
>Am I the only one who finds the assumptions behind this stuff a bit
>irritating? I mean, non-monogamy does *not* necessarily equal an
>increased risk for sexually transmitted diseases. If I'm having sex with
>Chris and Iain, and they're each having sex with only me, and this has
>been true for six years, then I don't *need* another battery of tests only
>two years apart. You know?
Hi, Jenny - hope you don't mind me jumping in with a viewpoint.
I understand what you're saying, and I agree with it: discrimination,
any flavor of it, *sucks.* It may be, all factors considered, that
being poly _does_ make for a lower risk factor in re STDs; it might be
the other way around. The automatic assumption that we're Wrong, and
Evil, and Dirty, though... yeah, it hurts, and can make for some
serious anger.
Some time ago, when I was trying to crawl out from under some major
wreckage and feeling overwhelmed, helpless, frustrated, and mad as
hell, a good friend of mine reminded me of the "cow principle"
(Q: how do you eat a cow? A: one burger at a time.) It helped. I
realized that I couldn't fight the entire battle with The Whole Thing,
All at Once, and Right Now - no matter how badly I wanted all that
pain to be gone from my life. I'd have to unravel it one piece at a
time, maybe even disassembling each piece into its component chunks,
and the chunks into gravel, and the gravel into sand - whatever it
took is what it would take.
What makes the experience that Rivka had with her NP, or that Lisa
had with her doctor so wonderful is that they *are* definite chunks.
No, it does not resolve the entire problem. No, it is not an indicator
that the entire world accepts us as we are. What it _is,_ though, is
something that makes their lives a bit easier, and looks like it might
do so for someone else in this group (one of the posters asked for a
"pointer" to the NP).
Yeah, the world would be a nicer place to live in if we didn't have
to struggle with those Bigger Issues. <sigh> The fact is, we do. And
when you are struggling with what seems like the whole world, it's
really, REALLY nice when there's a small trickle of people who come
along and say "hey - I'm not one of the enemy." At the very least,
it reduces the enemy's count... and who knows. That trickle may yet
turn into a raging river.
Giles
> > Am I the only one who finds the assumptions behind this stuff a bit
> > irritating? I mean, non-monogamy does *not* necessarily equal an
> > increased risk for sexually transmitted diseases.
>
> This irritates the hell out of me. Enough that I didn't speak much for a
> long time to an otherwise very nice person when she said, while discussing
> poly, "Oh, that's fine by me. I'd just be concerned about getting diseases."
> She (a nurse...hmm) didn't seem much impressed with my surprised response
> that, well, you know, if someone is going to deliberately choose to follow
> an unorthodox sexual lifestyle and is doing lots of research into it and
> spending lots of energy working out the kinks with their partners, you'd
> think the first and easiest thing they would deal with would be protecting
> themselves from the obvious.
<DEVILS ADVOCATE>
She may not have course have meant STD's, which are relatively easy to
protect yourself against.
Other potentially serious diseases, flus and stuff, are also spread by
contact between people and being poly does provide a route for
transmission of diseases between partially closed environments
(families, schools, work places etc).
You and I might not worry overly about such things (though I *do* have
to be careful about flu since I have a health condition that puts me at
risk), but the nurse concerned might.
</DEVILS ADVOCATE>
Of course she may have been talking just about STD's in which case she
was being a bit dense not to realise that someone exhibiting your degree
of intelligence would have thought about such things.
--
Giles Williams ...
| frubbly, a. feeling contentment or joy on learning of |
| a lover's happiness with another person. [orig. UK, |
| colloq, Simon M.] |
JennieD-O'C
>jenn...@kira.intranet.org (JennieD-O'C) wrote:
>>I know you guys actually think this is fine behaviour, but to me it smacks
>>of some twisted form of discrimination masquerading as helpfulness. It
>>sounds similar, to me, to a story a good friend told me recently about how
>>he went to the doctor for something unrelated to sexually transmitted
>>diseases, and when my friend said he was gay, the doctor said: "Oh, then
>>we'd better do an HIV test right away." Um, no.
>
>Eew. Was your friend too shocked / tongue-tied to complain about
>their assumption?
As he tells it, he responded: "No, thank you."
Rivka
<gaya...@world.std.com> wrote in message
news:G0Hoz...@world.std.com...
>
> whoo!@!!!
>
> the only thing I'd worry about is now that info is in a medical
> file that may or may not be private.
I work in medical clinics, so I have a good idea about how private my
file is. Anyone who works in that office will theoretically be able to
see it, and any medical provider in the hospital will be able to pull
up my lab test results. They can't release information outside the
clinic without my written permission.
I'm comfortable with those limits of confidentiality.
Rivka
Lisa Geoffrion
<zNKt5.128191$eS6.1...@news1.rdc1.md.home.com> wrote:
>Lisa's doctor assumed STD risk from non-monogamy, which I think is a
>much less justifiable assumption. I would really hate having a doctor
>order tests like that without discussing with me whether I thought I
>needed them.
Gotta stick up for my doc, here. First, I think that the reason he ordered the
tests weren't so automatic...it was part of my first OB visit. If it was just
a normal GYN visit, I don't think it would have been automatic. And, if I had
made any kind of objection, I doubt that he'd have questioned me.
This thread has made me look at my feelings about STD's. Thing is, I don't
really think of them as "dirty". Well, not any dirtier than, say, getting a
cold or flu. That said, I have to admitt that I've never gotten an STD, so
maybe I'd feel differently if I had.
And then there's the Incident. I wrote about it last year. Short story --
Mike's girlfriend had unprotected sex with a guy who is HIV pos (he didn't tell
her, and still denies it, and now there is another young girl who is HIV pos)
and didn't tell us about it. Fortunetely, Mike had been out on the road, and
they hadn't had sex, but it could easily have gone the other way. Well, she
tearfully told us of it when a friend clued her about the HIV status, and that
was kinda the straw that broke the camel's back with her and Mike. But the
'could have beens' was scary. (She never did test positive, btw)
But, really, I think that we're dealing with definitions, here. When the
average person hears "non-monogamous", they think, "sleeping around, many
sexual partners, high risk". I'm not saying that this definition is correct,
just that it's normal. So, like Ben said, I think that acceptance of
non-monogamy as not a big deal, and not bad or evil or immoral, is a big step.
Lisa
------------------
"The Sun, the Darkness, the Winds are all listening to what we have to say."
Goyathlay (Geronimo)
JennieD-O'C
>This thread has made me look at my feelings about STD's. Thing is, I
>don't really think of them as "dirty". Well, not any dirtier than, say,
>getting a cold or flu.
This makes it sound like if you don't want people to assume you're at a
higher-than-average risk for STDs, you must think of STDs as dirty. I
don't, personally. But I *am* very bothered by the idea of people
thinking of me or my partners as promiscuous simply because we are not
monogamous. I am far less promiscuous, both presently and over my
personal history, than most single or serially monogamous people I know.
And it's the assumption that I'd fit better into a category of people with
really wild sexual histories that bothers me, because that bears no
resemblance to the sort of person I actually am.
I've talked about this sort of thing before with respect to people
assuming polyfolk are like swingers. I don't have anything against other
people being swingers, but I'm *very* bothered by people assuming *I* am
one. I don't have anything against other people being promiscuous, but
I'm *very* bothered by people assuming that *I* am. Being choosy about
sex partners and not immediately willing to hop into the sack with anyone
I'm attracted to is a part of my identity. So lumping me in with a group
of people who *do* do those things is an affront to the identity that I
have personally chosen for myself after a great deal of thought.
>But, really, I think that we're dealing with definitions, here. When
>the average person hears "non-monogamous", they think, "sleeping around,
>many sexual partners, high risk". I'm not saying that this definition is
>correct, just that it's normal.
Thing is, though, it's this assumption that I'm *most* bothered by of
*all* of the ways people could react to my polyamory. I *really* hate it
when people automatically associate non-monogamy with promiscuity. I'd
far rather people associate it with "weird" than with "promiscuous". So
this is the *first* stereotype *I* would want to combat, and I absolutely
do not see it as a step in the right direction.
Vicki Rosenzweig
>I have been living in the rural center for *way* too long.
>I have the same problem with the wedding ring knocking off the STD tests- but
>when I have actually ASKED to have them done , I have been told ( rather
>snippily) that they weren't needed- "We don't get ~that~ kind of thing out
>here"
>My jaw about fell to the floor.
>I go into the nearby 'city' for medical treatment now- about an hour drive.
>
<croggle>How far do they think they are from Decadent Civilization?
And how large an epidemic is it going to take to wake them up?
--
Copyright 2000 Vicki Rosenzweig. Permission to insert links when
displaying is available for $100 per link. Use in this fashion
constitutes acceptance of these terms.
v...@redbird.org | http://www.redbird.org
Aahz Maruch
Rivka <riv...@home.com> wrote:
>
>I work in medical clinics, so I have a good idea about how private my
>file is. Anyone who works in that office will theoretically be able
>to see it, and any medical provider in the hospital will be able to
>pull up my lab test results. They can't release information outside the
>clinic without my written permission.
>
>I'm comfortable with those limits of confidentiality.
Those limits, yes, but I believe you're incorrect about the limits.
Unless you've got an unusual insurance provider, you probably agreed to
let the insurer review your records if they choose.
Kit
<v...@redbird.org> writes:
>Quoth brkncog...@aol.com (Kit) on 06 Sep 2000 14:54:27 GMT:
>
>
>>I have been living in the rural center for *way* too long.
>>I have the same problem with the wedding ring knocking off the STD tests-
>but
>>when I have actually ASKED to have them done , I have been told ( rather
>>snippily) that they weren't needed- "We don't get ~that~ kind of thing out
>>here"
>>My jaw about fell to the floor.
>>I go into the nearby 'city' for medical treatment now- about an hour drive.
>>
><croggle>How far do they think they are from Decadent Civilization?
>
>And how large an epidemic is it going to take to wake them up?
>--
I'm not sure...I find it frightening at times, amusing at others. I find myself
very cautious, too.
Heather Anne Nicoll
> >the average person hears "non-monogamous", they think, "sleeping around,
> >many sexual partners, high risk". I'm not saying that this definition is
> >correct, just that it's normal.
> Thing is, though, it's this assumption that I'm *most* bothered by of
> *all* of the ways people could react to my polyamory. I *really* hate it
> when people automatically associate non-monogamy with promiscuity. I'd
> far rather people associate it with "weird" than with "promiscuous". So
> this is the *first* stereotype *I* would want to combat, and I absolutely
> do not see it as a step in the right direction.
Oh, /yes/.
One of my _favorite_ sets of weird reactions to me came when a bunch of
people at MIT (before I found my current social group there, which makes
much more sense to me) were trying to figure out what to think of me.
They could have understood if I was in a committed relationship and
wasn't interested in anyone else. They could have understood if I'd
been bouncing beds. The whole 'engaged but not monogamous but sticking
to one person to whom not engaged' thing completely confounded them.
Eventually they decided I was so scary that they would refuse to
acknowledge my existence. The virgin-mother/whore pigeonhole is
evidently a /really/ important one to some people.
Yes, I'm poly. Yes, this means that there is more than one person with
whom I might be sharing sexual contact. No, that does not mean that my
relationship is open: at the moment I consider my personal relationship
structure closed for the foreseeable future while I wait to see what it
stabilizes to.
Bleah on stereotypes and assumptions.
- Darkhawk, pondering breaking in a new doctor at the
end of the month, as she's got a physical
--
Heather Nicoll - Darkhawk - http://aelfhame.net/~darkhawk/
The night'll be our cover and we'll huddle below
We got the music in our bodies and the radio.
- Bonnie Tyler, "Faster Than The Speed of Night"
Rivka
"LoRe" <com.hotmail@maculate> wrote in message
news:8p6p33$3q2$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
[about the nurse practitioner who did my GYN exam]
> Yo! Whoa! Who is she? If it's private, I respect that, but I'd love
> to know about someone like that in my area (Monkey County).
She's at the University of Maryland Medical System, in the Maryland
Women's Center - which is what they call their main OB/GYN clinic. I
don't know how close that is to you. (*Monkey* county?) I don't know
how she'd feel about having her name bandied about on Usenet, but
local folks who want to know are welcome to e-mail me at this address.
> Interesting to go through all that sweating first....
Yeah, I'm a little embarrassed about not having been braver.
Heather Anne Nicoll
> She's at the University of Maryland Medical System, in the Maryland
> Women's Center - which is what they call their main OB/GYN clinic. I
> don't know how close that is to you. (*Monkey* county?)
If you'd ever had to deal with any aspect of Montgomery County's local
government, including the public school system, you'd know why it's
Monkey County.
- Darkhawk, graduate of Monkey County Public Schools
Josh Jasper
Heather Anne Nicoll wrote:
>
> Rivka <riv...@home.com> wrote:
> > She's at the University of Maryland Medical System, in the Maryland
> > Women's Center - which is what they call their main OB/GYN clinic. I
> > don't know how close that is to you. (*Monkey* county?)
>
> If you'd ever had to deal with any aspect of Montgomery County's local
> government, including the public school system, you'd know why it's
> Monkey County.
>
I thought it was a derivation of the Montgomery-Wards department store's
nickname, "Monkey Ward".
--
Now it is the time of night that the graves all gaping wide, every one
lets forth his sprite, in the church-way paths to glide: And we fairies,
that do run by the triple Hecate's team, from the presence of the sun
--
A Midsummer Night's Dream Act 5, Scene 1
Queen of Diamonds
news:3a20f4bb....@news.uottawa.ca...
> I remember two friends of mine relating their similar embarrassing
> stories of visits to the women's health clinic at our university where
> they each had trouble answering the gynecologist's out-of-the-blue
> question "What method(s) of birth control do you use?" because one was
> a virgin and the other a lesbian.
Oh, gods, yes. My University Health Center did birth control well, and that
was about it. They totally had it on the brain. A friend of mine went in
with an *arm injury* and they still asked birth control she was using, and
wanted to do a pregnancy test (part of their standard workup.) Being both
very fundie Christian, and very virginal, she was a bit P.O.ed.
The one time I did go in an answer the question with "i only sleep with
girls" they were cool with it, though. It is sort of a shame that period of
my life didn't last longer, though; birth control is either messy,
ineffective, or messes with my head. I'll settle for messy, 'cause I have
to, but sometimes it makes me want to declare that I'm never having sex that
involves bodily fluids with *anybody*. Feh.
Jeliza
astral alice
>
> On Wed, 06 Sep 2000 02:47:55 GMT, "Rivka" <riv...@home.com> wrote:
>
> >She says, ?I figured that was probably the case when you asked for an
> >STD test. That?s fine with me. If you have a problem, or things get
> >weird and you want someone to talk to, just let me know.? And smiles.
>
> Wow.
>
> Wow. Wow. Wow.
>
> I like your NP.
I couldn't work out where to snip the original post, so I'll just add
a "Me too!" and "That's cool!" here...
alice.
--
* astral alice: bi, poly, goth | http://www.death.org.uk *
* alice on Surfers | telnet://surfers.org 4242 *
* --------------------------------------------------------------------- *
* What's the name of the word for things not being the same always? You *
* know... the thing that lets you know time is happening? - The Sandman *
Lisa Geoffrion
<1egldvc.10tzrwn14xcjwxN%dark...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Yes, I'm poly. Yes, this means that there is more than one person with
>whom I might be sharing sexual contact. No, that does not mean that my
>relationship is open: at the moment I consider my personal relationship
>structure closed for the foreseeable future while I wait to see what it
>stabilizes to.
First, I want to say that I really do get where you're coming from. But, in a
more broad sense, what is the "face of polyamory"?
Let's take the group "high school football jocks". Even though I might fight
against it, I can't seem to help getting a picture in my mind of what the
"average" high school football jock is like, both in looks and behaivior. I
might fight against it, but it is a fight.
>JennieD-O'C <jenn...@kira.intranet.org> wrote:
> I *really* hate it
>> when people automatically associate non-monogamy with promiscuity. I'd
>> far rather people associate it with "weird" than with "promiscuous". So
>> this is the *first* stereotype *I* would want to combat, and I absolutely
>> do not see it as a step in the right direction.
But, well, Mike _is_ promiscuous. I understand that you would feel compelled to
fight this stereotype, but what if the stereotype fits? I guess that, since
I'm not promiscuous, I could have pointed that out, but as I am a partner of a
promiscuous person, I don't think the doc would really appreciate the
distinction.
>Bleah on stereotypes and assumptions.
>
Lisa
R. Wald
Lisa Geoffrion <ljg...@aol.com> wrote:
>>dark...@mindspring.com (Heather Anne Nicoll) in >Message-id:
><1egldvc.10tzrwn14xcjwxN%dark...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>Yes, I'm poly. Yes, this means that there is more than one person with
>>whom I might be sharing sexual contact. No, that does not mean that my
>>relationship is open: at the moment I consider my personal relationship
>>structure closed for the foreseeable future while I wait to see what it
>>stabilizes to.
>
>First, I want to say that I really do get where you're coming from. But, in a
>more broad sense, what is the "face of polyamory"?
I don't think there *is* a single face. I think of polyamory as a
(sorry) multimodal distribution. There are several common forms or
structures, and other forms and structures that are less common, but
there's no central model, no single typical form.
Closed or semi-closed poly families seem as "poly-typical" to me as open-
or semi-open poly webs like the one I'm in. I'd be hard-pressed to pick
one or the other as the "face of poly." I'd guess from your further
comments that you think of open webs as the typical model?
>Let's take the group "high school football jocks". Even though I might fight
>against it, I can't seem to help getting a picture in my mind of what the
>"average" high school football jock is like, both in looks and behaivior. I
>might fight against it, but it is a fight.
Well, yeah. Human minds appear to be set up in part to perceive and
interpret information in terms of patterns, schemas, general models, or -
if you will - stereotypes. It's a way of managing the fantastically
enormous number of pieces of information in our environments.
But we're not compelled, by our neural wiring or anything else, to let our
actions be determined by stereotypes. It's especially important for health
care providers to avoid doing so.
Men are more likely to have heart attacks than women, because estrogen is
a protective factor. But women are more likely to die if they have a heart
attack. Why? Stereotyping. Women delay seeking treatment and are treated
less aggressively once they arrive at the hospital, because *they are
correctly perceived as being in a lower-risk group for heart attacks.*
Obviously it's important for health care providers to know how risks vary
by group membership. But it's also important to *assess* the extent to
which an individual patient is at risk, rather than *assuming* from group
membership. At one of my clinics, 70% of the patients have a past or
present history of substance abuse. For every new patient I see, I
consider that substance abuse may be part of the problem - but that means
I *ask* them about it. I don't automatically line them up to go to an NA
group.
>>JennieD-O'C <jenn...@kira.intranet.org> wrote:
>
>> I *really* hate it
>>> when people automatically associate non-monogamy with promiscuity. I'd
>>> far rather people associate it with "weird" than with "promiscuous". So
>>> this is the *first* stereotype *I* would want to combat, and I absolutely
>>> do not see it as a step in the right direction.
>
>But, well, Mike _is_ promiscuous. I understand that you would feel compelled to
>fight this stereotype, but what if the stereotype fits? I guess that, since
>I'm not promiscuous, I could have pointed that out, but as I am a partner of a
>promiscuous person, I don't think the doc would really appreciate the
>distinction.
Obviously, in your case the tests were appropriate - there would've been
little point in huffily objecting to them on the grounds that you're not
promiscuous. If you'd wanted to be a Poly Crusader, I suppose that you
could've said something like "Thanks, that will be a good idea for us. But
I hope you understand that not everyone who has more than one partner is
doing things that put them at higher risk of STDs." But I consider the
Poly Crusader role to be optional.
Rivka
who would rather not identify as promiscuous, although she does have
multiple partners
--
__________________________________________________________________________
Rebecca L. Wald | "If your morals make you dreary,
graduate student | depend on it, they are wrong."
U Iowa Psych Dept.| - Robert Louis Stevenson
barbara trumpinski-roberts
> So I go in for my annual exam today - my first in Maryland, which of
> course means a new clinic and a new medical provider. They give me
> down the first page, when I realize:
> I put my clothes back on, cursing myself for not speaking up. I
> remember how difficult it was with my last gynecologist, when I had to
> come out as poly because of a Medical Situation. I go into the nurse
> be doing my GYN care, there’s something I want you to know. My
> marriage is not monogamous, and I have two primary partners.”
>
> She says, “I figured that was probably the case when you asked for an
> STD test. That’s fine with me. If you have a problem, or things get
> weird and you want someone to talk to, just let me know.” And smiles.
> As simple as that.
BRAVO!!!!!
you are so lucky...i love my n.p., too because she has a fairly cool
attitude about things like std tests and poly....but it's not that common.
hugs,
kitten
/\ /\ 'ah, but you don't have to know everything. you
{=.=} just have to know where to find it.' john brunner
~ kit...@uiuc.edu _shockwave rider_
http://members.tripod.com/~barbarakitten smotu
Heather Anne Nicoll
> >dark...@mindspring.com (Heather Anne Nicoll) in >Message-id:
> <1egldvc.10tzrwn14xcjwxN%dark...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >Yes, I'm poly. Yes, this means that there is more than one person with
> >whom I might be sharing sexual contact. No, that does not mean that my
> >relationship is open: at the moment I consider my personal relationship
> >structure closed for the foreseeable future while I wait to see what it
> >stabilizes to.
> First, I want to say that I really do get where you're coming from. But, in a
> more broad sense, what is the "face of polyamory"?
Gibberish to me. ;)
Or, more seriously -- I have no idea what that means, or what it should
mean, if any. I don't know what Polyamorous People Do. I just know
what /I/ do.
- Darkhawk, handflapping vaguely before splitting to
catch a plane
Josh Jasper
Lisa Geoffrion wrote:
>
[snip]
> >JennieD-O'C <jenn...@kira.intranet.org> wrote:
>
> > I *really* hate it
> >> when people automatically associate non-monogamy with promiscuity. I'd
> >> far rather people associate it with "weird" than with "promiscuous". So
> >> this is the *first* stereotype *I* would want to combat, and I absolutely
> >> do not see it as a step in the right direction.
>
> But, well, Mike _is_ promiscuous. I understand that you would feel compelled to
> fight this stereotype, but what if the stereotype fits? I guess that, since
> I'm not promiscuous, I could have pointed that out, but as I am a partner of a
> promiscuous person, I don't think the doc would really appreciate the
> distinction.
Can someone here define promiscuous in terms of describing *other*
people's behavior? I'd be interested to find out if all definitions are
the same, and if not, how many of them I fit.
piranha
<20000908084446...@ng-bg1.aol.com>:
> >dark...@mindspring.com (Heather Anne Nicoll) in >Message-id:
> <1egldvc.10tzrwn14xcjwxN%dark...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >Yes, I'm poly. Yes, this means that there is more than one person with
> >whom I might be sharing sexual contact. No, that does not mean that my
> >relationship is open: at the moment I consider my personal relationship
> >structure closed for the foreseeable future while I wait to see what it
> >stabilizes to.
>
> First, I want to say that I really do get where you're coming from. But, in a
> more broad sense, what is the "face of polyamory"?
i don't know that there is one face. i know people will want to
create one, so they can handily stuff people into another box,
but i'll resist that as much as i resist other such stuffings.
> But, well, Mike _is_ promiscuous. I understand that you would feel compelled to
> fight this stereotype, but what if the stereotype fits?
*heh*. well, then i wouldn't fight it in that particular in-
stance. i would make sure though that the stereotype isn't in
operation here, but that the doc is personally in the know as
to why STD tests are a good idea in your case. (if somebody
doesn't feel like sharing such information with a doctor i'm
fine with that too, but then one needs to ask for what one re-
quires on one's own and insist on it).
> I guess that, since
> I'm not promiscuous, I could have pointed that out, but as I am a partner of a
> promiscuous person, I don't think the doc would really appreciate the
> distinction.
not in your personal case, because you are affected by your part-
ner's promiscuity. i don't think you did anything you shouldn't
have done.
but i would probably feel compelled to let the doc know (some
time during an initial interview; i always interview my physi-
cians) that i don't appreciate being tossed into handy boxes be-
cause i expect medical treatment _as an individual_, not as a
member of group X. sensible doctors know statistics don't apply
in individual cases. i don't actually bring up that i am poly
because it has no bearing on my medical status, and i function
mostly on a "need to know" basis with doctors. my shrink knows.
:-)
what darkhawk said:
> >Bleah on stereotypes and assumptions.
-piranha
Romanadvoratrelundar
>
> Can someone here define promiscuous in terms of describing *other*
> people's behavior? I'd be interested to find out if all definitions are
> the same, and if not, how many of them I fit.
I'm sure you know you won't get just one definition. :)
Mine would be, I guess, having flings as part of one's regular
interactions. It doesn't have to do with sleeping with people you've just
met, necessarily, but more that you aren't having sex only with people you
intend to be close to. (When I have impulses to sleep with people so as to
get to know them better, I class that as promiscuous, because it's part of
the evaluation process. Sometimes it works out that I become close to
them later.)
Kylee,
rambling again
--
Copyright 2000 Kylee Peterson.
Permission to reproduce this post through normal Usenet quoting or to
archive in full, including sig, is granted. Permission to add hyperlinks
is expressly denied. Current known offenders in that regard: deja.com
Josh Jasper
Romanadvoratrelundar wrote:
>
> Josh Jasper <sin...@jps.net> wrote in <39B92108...@jps.net>:
> >
> > Can someone here define promiscuous in terms of describing *other*
> > people's behavior? I'd be interested to find out if all definitions are
> > the same, and if not, how many of them I fit.
>
> I'm sure you know you won't get just one definition. :)
>
> Mine would be, I guess, having flings as part of one's regular
> interactions.
Hmm. I don't have flings part of my regular interactions, but I
consider it possible for me to have sex with someone I've recently met
under certain circumstances. I'm just wondering how many people here
would class me as promiscuous. I've know several people whom I'm
emotionally close to whom I sometimes have sex with, and there have been
people I'm not emotionally close to whom I've had sex with just "for
fun". This trend seems to be continuing for the most part.
> It doesn't have to do with sleeping with people you've just
> met, necessarily, but more that you aren't having sex only with people you
> intend to be close to. (When I have impulses to sleep with people so as to
> get to know them better, I class that as promiscuous, because it's part of
> the evaluation process. Sometimes it works out that I become close to
> them later.)
>
So, you have impulses you call promiscuous, and you sometimes act on
them. Does that make you a promiscuous person? Lisa said "But, well,
Mike _is_ promiscuous." Am I promiscuous? Perhaps Lisa might think I
am. I don't know. I also don't know what baggage comes with that tag.
Promiscuity is not a positive thing in the USAian mainstream culture.
Lisa Geoffrion
>Lisa Geoffrion <ljg...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>But, in a
>> more broad sense, what is the "face of polyamory"?
>
>Gibberish to me. ;)
>
>Or, more seriously -- I have no idea what that means, or what it should
>mean, if any. I don't know what Polyamorous People Do. I just know
>what /I/ do.
Yes, but we were talking about stereotypes. Maybe we have a different
definition of stereotype?
> - Darkhawk, handflapping vaguely before splitting to
> catch a plane
>
(sigh) sometimes I just wish I was going somewhere, seeing something new....
Lisa, wishing Darkhawk a good trip.
Kit
>Can someone here define promiscuous in terms of describing *other*
>people's behavior? I'd be interested to find out if all definitions are
>the same, and if not, how many of them I fit.
OOOhh- hard one...
Ok- to me, promiscuious is having ( insert whatever defines sex for you here )
with someone you don't know well, and doing so often, and it includes the idea
that when you do so, you feel badly afterwards OR don't care how the behavior
affects your more permanent partners.
mary__...@my-deja.com
"Queen of Diamonds" <ja...@luxumbradei.com> wrote:>
>A friend of mine went
in
> with an *arm injury* and they still asked birth control she was using,
and
> wanted to do a pregnancy test (part of their standard workup.) Being
both
> very fundie Christian, and very virginal, she was a bit P.O.ed.
My kid sister came back sick from Thailand and Japan to the semi-rural
large town where she'd gone to high school, and went to the doctor she'd
had for years, who was also my grandma's doc. She didn't quite want to
come out as gay to grandma's doctor, but he was all set to do an HIV
test (which she accepted) and a pregnancy test. She hadn't had sex,
period, for the past several months, and before that had only had sex
with women. But he basically did *not* believe her and kept insisting
she needed the tests as part of the diagnostic workup.
Turns out that it was malaria. He knew she'd been in Asia, but didn't
think anyone really got malaria anymore.
Mary
hey Jeliza, hi :)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
mary__...@my-deja.com
Josh Jasper <sin...@jps.net> wrote:
>I've know several people whom I'm
> emotionally close to whom I sometimes have sex with, and there have
been
> people I'm not emotionally close to whom I've had sex with just "for
> fun".
There are people who'd say that's not poly! And no, I'm not one of them.
My relationship with my chewtoy Casey, with whom I'm hopelessly in love,
committed to, and have been with for more than 4 years, started with a
temporary, transitional weekend fling. It was NOT supposed to last.
Oh well. Can't control everything :)
Mary
Josh Jasper
What. An. Idiot. The doctor, that is.
Romanadvoratrelundar
>
> Hmm. I don't have flings part of my regular interactions, but I
> consider it possible for me to have sex with someone I've recently met
> under certain circumstances. I'm just wondering how many people here
> would class me as promiscuous.
I guess it depends on what the circumstances are.
> So, you have impulses you call promiscuous, and you sometimes act on
> them. Does that make you a promiscuous person?
I could be, very easily, if I decided to be. Right now I would rather like
to be having a slut phase, but I have a monogamy agreement with the boy.
If I got to the point in promiscuity where I was having sex with people I
wasn't sure I liked at all, it would worry me, but I think it can be
harmless if handled well. I don't identify as promiscuous, though, because
I'm not doing anything about it; my internal definition of the word seems
to have a "currently behaving as such" in there somewhere. Probably a
"consistently", too, if it's being used to describe a person.
(Ser or estar again...)
> Promiscuity is not a positive thing in the USAian mainstream culture.
No, not really. It carries connotations of irresponsibility which I think
it doesn't really deserve. Lisa didn't sound to me like she meant it
terribly negatively, though.
Aahz Maruch
Romanadvoratrelundar <sky...@drizzle.com> wrote:
>
>I could be, very easily, if I decided to be. Right now I would rather like
>to be having a slut phase, but I have a monogamy agreement with the boy.
I know you know this, but even without monogamy, it's still quite
possible to be in a relationship where being a slut is mostly out of the
question.
--
--- Aahz (Copyright 2000 by aa...@pobox.com)
Androgynous poly kinky vanilla queer het <*> http://www.rahul.net/aahz/
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6
Usenet is not a democracy. It is a weird cross between an anarchy
and a dictatorship. --Aahz
JennieD-O'C
>Hmm. I don't have flings part of my regular interactions, but I
>consider it possible for me to have sex with someone I've recently met
>under certain circumstances. I'm just wondering how many people here
>would class me as promiscuous.
Well, just by that information, I wouldn't. Promiscuity has at least
something to do with frequency for me, in addition to the "casual sex"
element. I'd class you as "willing to have casual sex" based on the above
information, but unless you do that frequently, that alone wouldn't make
you promiscuous.
Stef Maruch
Romanadvoratrelundar <sky...@drizzle.com> wrote:
>Josh Jasper <sin...@jps.net> wrote in <39B92108...@jps.net>:
>>
>> Can someone here define promiscuous in terms of describing *other*
>> people's behavior? I'd be interested to find out if all definitions are
>> the same, and if not, how many of them I fit.
I don't define other people like that normally, because I figure it's up
to them to define themselves. But since you asked -- I guess I define
promiscuous as having a lot of short term sexual relationships. "A lot"
would be "a new partner every month or two or more."
--
Stef ** rational/scientific/philosophical/mystical/magical/kitty **
** st...@cat-and-dragon.com <*> http://www.bayarea.net/~stef **
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Premature optimization is the root of all evil. -- Knuth
Josh Jasper
JennieD-O'C wrote:
>
> Josh Jasper <sin...@jps.net> wrote:
>
> >Hmm. I don't have flings part of my regular interactions, but I
> >consider it possible for me to have sex with someone I've recently met
> >under certain circumstances. I'm just wondering how many people here
> >would class me as promiscuous.
>
> Well, just by that information, I wouldn't. Promiscuity has at least
> something to do with frequency for me, in addition to the "casual sex"
> element. I'd class you as "willing to have casual sex" based on the above
> information, but unless you do that frequently, that alone wouldn't make
> you promiscuous.
>
How frequent is frequently?
Romanadvoratrelundar
> In article <srinhu1...@corp.supernews.com>,
> Romanadvoratrelundar <sky...@drizzle.com> wrote:
>>
>>I could be, very easily, if I decided to be. Right now I would rather like
>>to be having a slut phase, but I have a monogamy agreement with the boy.
>
> I know you know this, but even without monogamy, it's still quite
> possible to be in a relationship where being a slut is mostly out of the
> question.
Oh, of course. That's just my reason. Other reasons for nonsluttery
abound.
Kylee,
reminded of bad plot expositions she's seen:
"So, Lieutenant, even though we both know all
this, let's detail just why we hate the enemy
and what has already happened in the war!"
Lisa Geoffrion
<20000908165439...@nso-fh.aol.com> wrote:
>In article <39B92108...@jps.net>, Josh Jasper <sin...@jps.net> writes:
>
>>Can someone here define promiscuous in terms of describing *other*
>>people's behavior? I'd be interested to find out if all definitions are
>>the same, and if not, how many of them I fit.
>
>OOOhh- hard one...
>Ok- to me, promiscuious is having ( insert whatever defines sex for you here
>)
>with someone you don't know well, and doing so often, and it includes the
>idea
>that when you do so, you feel badly afterwards OR don't care how the behavior
>affects your more permanent partners.
Just talked to Mike about this one (Mike's home!)...
The only two things that we felt defined "promiscuous" were having sex for the
simple sensual pleasure of it, and then some sort of determining measure of how
often this happens.
Neither one of us thought of the word "promiscuous" as negative, though I do
realize that in general use "promiscuous" has a negative conotation, simular to
"slut".
My own personal "feeling" for the word is something like "hedonist", and I
guess I'd class promiscuous behaivior with that of a gourmand or any other type
of sensualist.
Lisa
------------------
"Do not hate your neighbor, for it is not he, but yourself that you hurt."
Pima Indian Saying
mary__...@my-deja.com
Josh Jasper <sin...@jps.net> wrote:
> How frequent is frequently?
For me? Often enough to get sore ;)
Mary <==pervert. And I mean that in the nicest way.
John Clark
Lisa Geoffrion wrote:
> Yes, but we were talking about stereotypes. Maybe we have a different
> definition of stereotype?
What is a 'stereotype' works both ways, those inside a group appeal to some
set of 'general classifications', which are stereotpyes. Those outside a
group will use those classifications, and perhaps others which are not
recognized, or not seen as significant by those inside the group.
JennieD-O'C
>> Well, just by that information, I wouldn't. Promiscuity has at least
>> something to do with frequency for me, in addition to the "casual sex"
>> element. I'd class you as "willing to have casual sex" based on the above
>> information, but unless you do that frequently, that alone wouldn't make
>> you promiscuous.
>
>How frequent is frequently?
Jeez, I've never thought about that before. :-) To me, I guess one new
casual partner every couple of months or so would be promiscuous.
Whereas sleeping with the *same* casual partners over and over again once
ever few months would *not* be promiscuous. Just a plain ol' enjoyment of
casual sex.
piranha
> people's behavior? I'd be interested to find out if all definitions are
> the same, and if not, how many of them I fit.
somebody who has frequent sexual encounters with relative strangers,
without strings attached, and no particular desire to have there be
anything other than sex, or even wishing for a repeat performance
with the same person. very casual about sex -- might even be fairly
indiscriminate about partner selection (for sex); focuses more on
the sex itself than on the person(ality) with whom one has it.
i don't view it per se as a negative, not if the person is using
safer sex protocols carefully. but i realize it has very negative
connotations in greater noram society, so i am careful with applying
it to anyone.
-piranha
JennieD-O'C
>The only two things that we felt defined "promiscuous" were having sex
>for the simple sensual pleasure of it, and then some sort of determining
>measure of how often this happens.
That doesn't work for me. If I have sex for the simple sensual pleasure
of it with someone I'm monogamously married to, and I do that frequently,
then I'm promiscuous? Nah ...
>My own personal "feeling" for the word is something like "hedonist", and
>I guess I'd class promiscuous behaivior with that of a gourmand or any
>other type of sensualist.
That implies that you need to change partners often in order to be
sexually hedonistic. Don't agree with that, either ...
Gwynyth
<picking piranha to followup to>
When I think of an example of someone I'd consider promiscuous (and in a
bad way), I think first of my sister's freshman year first semester
roommate - who would go to the bars in Medford, bring home guys she'd
never met before that evening, and want to have sex with them (in their
shared room, mind, and from what little I've been told, not necessarily
with good safe-sex precautions (though this was in.. um. 77, so perhaps
safer than now in some ways) However there are some reasons for that
behavior [1]
Beyond that, it gets a lot fuzzier for me.
Someone who has multiple partners who are also emotional partners and
who have ongoing intermingled lives (regardless of distance or living
together status) isn't, to my mind, promiscuous. Someone who isn't
particularly emotionally involved with (at least some) partners and who
has no desire to be is a lot closer to that line.
Which isn't bad, I think, it just leaves me, personally, utterly
disinclined towards it. (For a large number of reasons, ranging from
personal moral/ethical code to sheer physical fact that it almost
certainly wouldn't be much fun for me, so what's the point...) Which is
probably why I have such problems verbalising about it.
[1] The roommate in question also called my sister anti-Semetic (which
to anyone who knows anything about our family history is a little.. um.
Silly.) She was (after that first year) diagnosed as a paranoid
schizophrenic (including, if I remember correctly, hearing voices), was
hospitalised, and has since largely recovered and become able to cope,
and has written a book about it (which my mother has a copy about,
because, well, she did rather make my sister's first semester of college
very hellish.)
--
Gwynyth
gwy...@polyamory.org
http://www.polyamory.org/~gwynyth
John Clark
Josh Jasper wrote:
> So, you have impulses you call promiscuous, and you sometimes act on
> them. Does that make you a promiscuous person? Lisa said "But, well,
> Mike _is_ promiscuous." Am I promiscuous? Perhaps Lisa might think I
> am. I don't know. I also don't know what baggage comes with that tag.
> Promiscuity is not a positive thing in the USAian mainstream culture.
In some sense does it matter what the tag is. I'm pretty promiscuous, I'll
talk to anyone... except that very often I don't talk to anyone, because I
don't usually initiate a conversation... ok, and that goes for sex too...
And personally I think people with perfume are very promiscuous... at least
in the broadcast and reception of scent...
As for 'whence', I wonder at the irony of the 'whore' imagery which was used
by Old Testement prophets for 'the ultimate evil', and that if the spies
that Joshua sent into Jericho had not been taken in by a whore, would he
have been as successful; and had Tamara not played a whore, where
would the Lion of Judah come from... I also think most christians never
read the book of Hosea, or if they do, they narrow it down to only
pointing to the hebrews of his day, or narrow it only to their relationship
with their god incarnate, rather than a prescription of whom they
should choose to partner with, or how to conduct their relationships
with the 'whores' of the world.
John Clark
Josh Jasper wrote:
> JennieD-O'C wrote:
> >
> > Josh Jasper <sin...@jps.net> wrote:
> >
> > >Hmm. I don't have flings part of my regular interactions, but I
> > >consider it possible for me to have sex with someone I've recently met
> > >under certain circumstances. I'm just wondering how many people here
> > >would class me as promiscuous.
> >
> > Well, just by that information, I wouldn't. Promiscuity has at least
> > something to do with frequency for me, in addition to the "casual sex"
> > element. I'd class you as "willing to have casual sex" based on the above
> > information, but unless you do that frequently, that alone wouldn't make
> > you promiscuous.
> >
>
> How frequent is frequently?
Well, not only frequency, but sex of the person... 5-6 times a day with
different
partners for women is promiscuous, for men, an indication of power and
worthy of emulation... I think for men, one would have to be in the Whitehouse
for any real charge of promiscuity to be leveled...
Lisa Geoffrion
<Rteu5.15056$Ds1....@jekyl.ab.tac.net> wrote:
>Lisa Geoffrion <ljg...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>The only two things that we felt defined "promiscuous" were having sex
>>for the simple sensual pleasure of it, and then some sort of determining
>>measure of how often this happens.
>
>That doesn't work for me. If I have sex for the simple sensual pleasure
>of it with someone I'm monogamously married to, and I do that frequently,
>then I'm promiscuous? Nah ...
Well, ya got me there...hmm, having sex for the simple sensual pleasure of it
with someone that one is not emotionally intimate with?
>>My own personal "feeling" for the word is something like "hedonist", and
>>I guess I'd class promiscuous behaivior with that of a gourmand or any
>>other type of sensualist.
>
>That implies that you need to change partners often in order to be
>sexually hedonistic. Don't agree with that, either ...
Again, hmm, I will bow to your knowledge of word usage, but I never thought of
a hedonist or sensualist as someone who would require a ....constantly changing
selection of pleasures. I always used the word as - someone who revels in
physical, sensual pleasures of the moment, whether that be a fine meal, a
beautiful piece of music, a fragrance, or the silky feel of fresh water under
the moonlight.
Ben Okopnik
Josh Jasper of alt.polyamory speaking thus:
>
>Can someone here define promiscuous in terms of describing *other*
>people's behavior? I'd be interested to find out if all definitions are
>the same, and if not, how many of them I fit.
"Other people's behavior", as in what do I think constitutes
promiscuity in someone else (but not in *me*, _never_ in *me!*
I'm a paragon of high <sound of smacking self in the head>)?
Uh... hadn't thought about the meta-issue before (do I make
distinctions between "me" and "them" when assigning labels?),
but in this case, feels like the right answer is "no". That
said, I'd define sexual promiscuity as lack of discrimination
in sexual partners - to be exact, being more interested in the
"chase" than in the person.
<Rueful grin> I had to think on that one for a while, since it _felt_
like I'd shown an appaling lack of discrimination in my sex partners
in the past; in one case, even the very recent past. Fortunately, a
review of the culprit's record shows that this was all in *hindsight*
("Thank'ee, yer Honner!") - almost exclusively factors learned in
getting to know the person I was involved with. <Shaking head> I
wish I knew where I could go get my JerkMeter tuned; it's pretty
much out of whack these days, and I'm paying some serious freight...
Am I going to make a call on whether it's right or wrong? *Hell* no,
Bubba; you're not just in the wrong pew - it's the wrong church! Is
it right for *me?* Nope. I choose to make love with warm, wonderful,
fascinating, _involved_ human beings, not 2D pictures. I'll screw up
sometimes - there are all kinds of people out there, with all kinds of
agendas - but in general, I know what I'm shooting for.
ObYesIMeanIt: OK, yes: the paronomasia was intentional, but purely
coincindental. So sue me. :)
--
Ben
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
He believed merely in fair play and square-dealing. Petty meanness,
in his code, was almost as serious as wanton homicide, and I am sure
that he respected a murderer more than a man given to small practices.
-- Jack London, "The Heathen"
JennieD-O'C
>>>My own personal "feeling" for the word is something like "hedonist", and
>>>I guess I'd class promiscuous behaivior with that of a gourmand or any
>>>other type of sensualist.
>>
>>That implies that you need to change partners often in order to be
>>sexually hedonistic. Don't agree with that, either ...
>
>Again, hmm, I will bow to your knowledge of word usage, but I never
>thought of a hedonist or sensualist as someone who would require a
>....constantly changing selection of pleasures. I always used the word
>as - someone who revels in physical, sensual pleasures of the moment,
>whether that be a fine meal, a beautiful piece of music, a fragrance, or
>the silky feel of fresh water under the moonlight.
I think I agree with everything about that definition other than the
requirement that everything be constantly changing. I think I'm being a
hedonist when I'm enjoying reeeeally good sushi, even if it's a place I've
eaten at a thousand times before. I'm less of a hedonist about sexual
things, but I could easily imagine a non-promiscuous (even a monogamous)
hedonist.
Kit
(Lisa Geoffrion) writes:
That would be the difference then- I see promiscuous as a word with negative
connotations - the implication of emotional harm, to one'self or to others.
I'd use hedonist, or maybe sexual hedonist for what you and Mike descibe.
astral alice
>
> Josh Jasper <sin...@jps.net> wrote:
>
> >> Well, just by that information, I wouldn't. Promiscuity has at least
> >> something to do with frequency for me, in addition to the "casual sex"
> >> element. I'd class you as "willing to have casual sex" based on the above
> >> information, but unless you do that frequently, that alone wouldn't make
> >> you promiscuous.
> >
> >How frequent is frequently?
>
> Jeez, I've never thought about that before. :-) To me, I guess one new
> casual partner every couple of months or so would be promiscuous.
Hmmm, I'd personally put the limit at "weeks" or "days". One of the
reasons there's a bad outbreak of HIV amongst heterosexuals in the
Midlands (I can't really say "the Midlands of the UK" as that sounds
odd, and I can't say "in the middle of the UK" as that's not technically
correct - anyway, in a part of the UK called "the Midlands") is that
there is a culture whereby men and women go to clubs every Saturday
night for the sole purpose of finding a new sex partner. As using a
condom means that you're a slapper, there is quite a blackspot of HIV
infection and other STDs.
I would define "promiscuous" in this way - someone who has very short-
term relationships (lasting less than a month) with new sexual partners
entering the scene every few days or weeks is promiscuous. And I must
admit that I see this as a bad thing. Sorry, but sex is just too
important for me to have it so indiscriminately.
> Whereas sleeping with the *same* casual partners over and over again once
> ever few months would *not* be promiscuous. Just a plain ol' enjoyment of
> casual sex.
Right, and this _isn't_ a bad thing. I wouldn't do it myself, but I know
plenty of people who do, many of whom are sensible poly people who take
care about STDs and just happen to enjoy sleeping with their friends.
alice.
--
* astral alice: bi, poly, goth | http://www.death.org.uk *
* alice on Surfers | telnet://surfers.org 4242 *
* --------------------------------------------------------------------- *
* What's the name of the word for things not being the same always? You *
* know... the thing that lets you know time is happening? - The Sandman *
Romanadvoratrelundar
>
> [...] As using a condom means that you're a slapper, [...]
Define "slapper", please?
LoRe
"Rivka" <riv...@home.com> wrote in message
news:QNVt5.128954$eS6.1...@news1.rdc1.md.home.com...
> She's at the University of Maryland Medical System, in the Maryland
> Women's Center - which is what they call their main OB/GYN clinic. I
> don't know how close that is to you. (*Monkey* county?) I don't know
>how she'd feel about having her name bandied about on Usenet
[...]
Oh--that's Baltimore, right? I live nearer to College Park, and work in
Arlington, so it's out of the way. But at least I know some place to contact
for refs. Not that any would necessarily be one of my "insurance" people,
but...yeah, I wouldn't encourage bandying of the good doctor's name.
As for Monkey County, ditto Darkhawk. Except that I haven't lived [here] so
long. How can you call it anything *but* Monkey County? Lafont Plaza.
Judishuwary Square. Jinnya Beach. Monkey County. Y'all put too many
syllables in yer fine colonial place names.
(Ersters, indeed.)
LoRe,
hailing from about 3 hours north of Beeyouna Vista and Pee-Yeb-Low,
Cullaradda (having once been taken to task by an awlmun for pronouncing
"awl" with too many syllables: "Y'all say it 'OY-yullll'--that's just
*wrawng*!")
Teal
>Can someone here define promiscuous in terms of describing *other*
>people's behavior? I'd be interested to find out if all definitions are
>the same, and if not, how many of them I fit.
Whereas I don't use the term at all, since I tend do think that
"promiscuous" falls into the same category as "slut" or "whiner" - a
term that is always used vis-a-vis a third party as a slur, rather
than a neutral descriptor.
I consider "promiscuous" to be in its nature non-neutral; so if I want
to discuss someone else's sexual habits I'll pick another term. Too
many people have looked at my sex life from the outside and misjudged
it; I'm sure as hell not going to do the same to someone else if I can
avoid it.
Teal
Heather Anne Nicoll
> > dark...@mindspring.com (Heather Anne Nicoll) in >Message-id:> >But, in a
> >> more broad sense, what is the "face of polyamory"?
> >Gibberish to me. ;)
> >Or, more seriously -- I have no idea what that means, or what it should
> >mean, if any. I don't know what Polyamorous People Do. I just know
> >what /I/ do.
> Yes, but we were talking about stereotypes. Maybe we have a different
> definition of stereotype?
I don't think a stereotype -exists- for polyamorous people.
I think there's a stereotype for sexually promiscuous people that often
is mistakenly applied. I think there's a stereotype for new-agey
free-lovin' sort of people that often is mistakenly applied. I think
there's a stereotype for polygynous religious structures that often is
mistakenly applied.
Poly? It's not well known enough to be stereotyped. Just mistaken for
other stereotypes.
- Darkhawk, with a tuppence from five hundred miles south
of her usual placement for tuppences
--
Heather Nicoll - Darkhawk - http://aelfhame.net/~darkhawk/
Letting the days go by, let the water hold me down
Letting the days go by, water flowing underground
- The Talking Heads, "Once in a Lifetime"
Heather Anne Nicoll
> Lisa Geoffrion <ljg...@aol.com> wrote:
> >The only two things that we felt defined "promiscuous" were having sex
> >for the simple sensual pleasure of it, and then some sort of determining
> >measure of how often this happens.
> That doesn't work for me. If I have sex for the simple sensual pleasure
> of it with someone I'm monogamously married to, and I do that frequently,
> then I'm promiscuous? Nah ...
Thank you for pointing this out, so I don't have to. ;)
> >My own personal "feeling" for the word is something like "hedonist", and
> >I guess I'd class promiscuous behaivior with that of a gourmand or any
> >other type of sensualist.
> That implies that you need to change partners often in order to be
> sexually hedonistic. Don't agree with that, either ...
Me, I'm a bit of a sensation freak, and am in a particularly
sensation-freak phase at the moment. I like to feel good, I like people
I love to feel good, I like the notion overall of raising the local
pleasure levels.
(This is generalizing a bit from sex, but as I noted elsewhere recently,
sex is not a special case.)
I'm picky about my pleasures, though -- I know what I like, and I know
how much of it I like. I'm wearing one of my silk shirts at the moment,
for example, because I like the way silk feels against my skin and I
like the partner's tendency to stroke it and I like its lack of weight.
I have a lot of silk shirts. (This one, I discovered today, sets off
the colour in my hair by contrast, which is a bonus. Gods help me, I'm
developing a vain streak.) I know what foods I like, what colours I
like, what furniture I like, what music I like (and music is an utter
hedonism), what I like from a lover (or to do to^Wwith a lover).
Sure, I'll expand on my known preferences, but I need a damn good reason
to go to the bother, and generally, I don't get one that's good enough
for me. The stronger the pleasure for me, the more exacting my
standards are, I think. I'm very picky about who I'm willing to
consider having sex with, even granted the fact that I have a libido
this week, which is not something I'm willing to say is a normal state.
Promiscuous, no. Hedonist, though, I'll cop to.
- Darkhawk, who really ought to go to bed so she can
get up to get to the Faire tomorrow
Heather Anne Nicoll
> As for Monkey County, ditto Darkhawk. Except that I haven't lived [here]
> so long.
Haven't lived there since 1995. ;)
- Darkhawk, currently located in Monkey County, though, in
the partner's parents' house
Jim Roberts
Giles wrote:
> "LoRe" <com.hotmail@maculate> wrote:
>
[...]
>
> <DEVILS ADVOCATE>
>
> She may not have course have meant STD's, which are relatively easy to
> protect yourself against.
>
> Other potentially serious diseases, flus and stuff, are also spread by
> contact between people and being poly does provide a route for
> transmission of diseases between partially closed environments
> (families, schools, work places etc).
>
> You and I might not worry overly about such things (though I *do* have
> to be careful about flu since I have a health condition that puts me at
> risk), but the nurse concerned might.
The best way to spread disease is to shake hands and not to wash them. Fucking is
less dangerous.
jimbat
RJ
}And I must admit that I see this as a bad thing. Sorry, but sex is just
}too important for me to have it so indiscriminately.
Why does frequent sexual encounters with an assortment of partners imply a
lack of discrimination?
--
RJ Johnson \\ I don't write .sig files...
Meme Wrangler \\
r...@xocolatl.com \\ I write the things that make .sig files _better_.
David Matthewman
> Josh Jasper <sin...@jps.net> wrote in <39B92108...@jps.net>:
> >
> > Can someone here define promiscuous in terms of describing *other*
> > people's behavior? I'd be interested to find out if all definitions are
> > the same, and if not, how many of them I fit.
>
> somebody who has frequent sexual encounters with relative strangers,
> without strings attached, and no particular desire to have there be
> anything other than sex, or even wishing for a repeat performance
> with the same person. very casual about sex -- might even be fairly
> indiscriminate about partner selection (for sex); focuses more on
> the sex itself than on the person(ality) with whom one has it.
Almost all of which describes me to a T, incidentally. Of course,
that's just my attitude to *sex*, not to relationships, nor to the
people with whom I'd like to have sex but whose friendship I also
value highly.
--
David Matthewman
Owenbrau
;-)
Owen Hutchins
Head Brewer
Downtown Brewing Company
Wilmington, DE
302-984-BREW
"May be going to Hell in a bucket,
but at least I'm enjoying the ride..."
Lisa Geoffrion
>I'm less of a hedonist about sexual
>things, but I could easily imagine a non-promiscuous (even a monogamous)
>hedonist.
So, do we have a definition of "promiscuous" as -- a sexual hedonist with
numerous partners (either simultaneously or serially) who is not emotionally
connected or involved with those partners--? And then let negitive conotations
fall where they may?
JennieD-O'C
>So, do we have a definition of "promiscuous" as -- a sexual hedonist
>with numerous partners (either simultaneously or serially) who is not
>emotionally connected or involved with those partners--?
Um, well ... maybe I'm just being really picky, but my definition has some
sense of 'frequently', implying that the casual relationships are not
ongoing. So someone who's got 40 casual partners, but sleeps only with
those 40 partners for the rest of his or her life, wouldn't be promiscuous
to me.
But we're getting closer to my definition with the above, yeah ...
piranha
<n6tjrskpm92l662mr...@4ax.com>:
> Quoth piranha on 08 Sep 2000 17:41:37 -0500:
>
> > without strings attached, and no particular desire to have there be
> > anything other than sex, or even wishing for a repeat performance
> > with the same person. very casual about sex -- might even be fairly
> > indiscriminate about partner selection (for sex); focuses more on
> > the sex itself than on the person(ality) with whom one has it.
>
> Almost all of which describes me to a T, incidentally. Of course,
> that's just my attitude to *sex*, not to relationships, nor to the
> people with whom I'd like to have sex but whose friendship I also
> value highly.
i am really glad i added the "(for sex)" in there, which i wasn't
gonna bother with at first, but then realized how easily this might
be mistaken as somebody who doesn't care about others much at all.
which i don't think is true. i guess i view "promiscuous" as one
end of the spectrum in "polysexual", and i see no reason at all why
somebody couldn't be polyamorous _and_ promiscuous. some of my
best friends... (actually one of my friends is. very. sex with
a different partner every week. sex is sort of a hobby, i think
-- zie has sex like i swim in every waterhole i find, and we actu-
ally have a common reason for why we do what we do.)
still, i'd not call you promiscuous unless you did yourself because
the word carries so much bad baggage.
-piranha
Liz W
Romanadvoratrelundar <sky...@drizzle.com> wrote:
> astral alice <al...@death.org.uk> wrote in <39B9A11E...@death.org.uk>:
> >
> > [...] As using a condom means that you're a slapper, [...]
>
> Define "slapper", please?
English slang for prostitute.
--
"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." - Wittgenstein
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Ben Okopnik
Lisa Geoffrion of alt.polyamory speaking thus:
>> jenn...@kira.intranet.org (JennieD-O'C) in >Message-id:
><DEfu5.15059$Ds1....@jekyl.ab.tac.net> wrote:
>
>>I'm less of a hedonist about sexual
>>things, but I could easily imagine a non-promiscuous (even a monogamous)
>>hedonist.
>
>So, do we have a definition of "promiscuous" as -- a sexual hedonist with
>numerous partners (either simultaneously or serially) who is not emotionally
>connected or involved with those partners--? And then let negitive conotations
>fall where they may?
Doesn't work for me, at least the "hedonist" part. To me, a hedonist is
someone who joys in the pursuit and the experience of the good things in
life; to that extent, I consider myself a hedonist. Promiscuity, to me,
has a shade of... well, desperation is perhaps the word; chasing a
spectre, because the chase itself is the thing. <Shrug> I see that mode
as something that "flattens" out the world, makes it lose a bit of the
peaks and the valleys, a touch of its color. *Decreases,* IOW, the
available avenues to joy. Decidedly non-hedonistic.
<insmod /lib/modules/2.2.1/misc/IMO.o>
Ben Okopnik
Liz W of alt.polyamory speaking thus:
>In article <srjcrf...@corp.supernews.com>,
> Romanadvoratrelundar <sky...@drizzle.com> wrote:
>> astral alice <al...@death.org.uk> wrote in <39B9A11E...@death.org.uk>:
>> >
>> > [...] As using a condom means that you're a slapper, [...]
>>
>> Define "slapper", please?
>
>English slang for prostitute.
Didn't know that.
Given that (re the original "slapper" line) - *daaamn.* What a B.A.D.,
non-survival belief...
Lisa Geoffrion
in >Message-id: <Rbsu5.15135$Ds1....@jekyl.ab.tac.net> wrote:
>Um, well ... maybe I'm just being really picky, but my definition has some
>sense of 'frequently', implying that the casual relationships are not
>ongoing.
Yeah, I get that, too.
But, ya know, I was cooking myself a late breakfast, when I started thinking
about the "sexual hedonist" part. I remember a conversation I had when I was
17 or so, with a young woman of about 24. We were talking about sex, and I was
contemplating my first sexual foray...
She said, "You know, I've been with over a hundred guys. Sometimes it's great,
sometimes it's okay, and sometimes it's awful....I don't know why I keep doing
it. I guess I'm looking for something, but I sure the hell haven't found it
yet." Then she grinned. "But looking sure can be fun."
So, I think that sexual hedonist might be _a_ definition, but not the complete
story.
I have to admit that I'm facinated by this, promiscuity, because...hmm, I'm
not sure. Like there are two of me, and one is curious and the other is just
plain turned off.
JennieD-O'C
>I have to admit that I'm facinated by this, promiscuity, because...hmm,
>I'm not sure. Like there are two of me, and one is curious and the other
>is just plain turned off.
I used to definitely be completely turned off by promiscuity. Even by
casual sex in general. I don't feel that way anymore (though I still get
that feeling if I think about how I'd feel about promiscuity for either
myself or my partners -- or to a lesser extent, even my partners'
partners).
I think part of that for me is having gotten a better sense of what
short-term, casual relationships mean for other people -- what they feel
they can get out of those that they can't get out of a relationship that's
more ongoing. I still can't entirely wrap my brain around why people
wouldn't want to continue relationships that began casually, but I've
gotten some pretty good explanations for it, and that helps.
And another part that helps is that I finally met someone who *almost*
made me wish my relationship had a "Daryl Hannah clause". And *that*
certainly made me stop and think!
Aahz Maruch
JennieD-O'C <jenn...@intranet.org> wrote:
>
>And another part that helps is that I finally met someone who *almost*
>made me wish my relationship had a "Daryl Hannah clause".
Um, if you're going to rail against TLAs, I think you ought to explain
phrases like "Daryl Hannah clause".
--
--- Aahz (Copyright 2000 by aa...@pobox.com)
Androgynous poly kinky vanilla queer het <*> http://www.rahul.net/aahz/
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6
Usenet is not a democracy. It is a weird cross between an anarchy
and a dictatorship. --Aahz
JennieD-O'C
>>And another part that helps is that I finally met someone who *almost*
>>made me wish my relationship had a "Daryl Hannah clause".
>
>Um, if you're going to rail against TLAs, I think you ought to explain
>phrases like "Daryl Hannah clause".
That does not necessarily follow, given what I've said in the past about
this (to piranha, in response to the question of something like "should we
then avoid *all* in-group speak?"):
>>No. But we don't have to keep using the unnecessarily opaque in-group
>>terms, either. This group has *lots* of in-group terminology which can
>>be figured out through just a little bit of thought ('geek flirting' in
>>particular comes to mind, but there are many others). I think that sort
>>of thing is perfectly acceptable, and doesn't discourage newcomers to
>>participate. But then there are terms (like 'NRE'), which are wonderful
>>terms, but the fact that they're made into acronyms makes them *much*
>>harder to figure out for a new person. Even for some not-so-new
>>persons.
In other words, I think acronyms in particular are much more opaque than
just general in-group terms that can usually be figured out from context,
at least with repeated use.
That said, though, a Daryl Hannah clause is when a relationship makes a
rule that generally, you need to [do specific thing, such as maybe talk
first] before having sex with someone else, but there's *one* exception
for this one highly unlikely person.
Aahz Maruch
JennieD-O'C <jenn...@intranet.org> wrote:
>Aahz Maruch <aa...@panix.com> wrote:
>>JennieD-O'C <jenn...@intranet.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>And another part that helps is that I finally met someone who *almost*
>>>made me wish my relationship had a "Daryl Hannah clause".
>>
>>Um, if you're going to rail against TLAs, I think you ought to explain
>>phrases like "Daryl Hannah clause".
>
>That does not necessarily follow, given what I've said in the past about
>this (to piranha, in response to the question of something like "should we
>then avoid *all* in-group speak?"):
What part of "I think" and "like <this>" do you not understand? I don't
consider "Daryl Hannah clause" to be on the same level as "geek
flirting". I think that if you're going to rail against the use of
acronyms such as "NRE", you ought to be consistent in explaining
lesser-used phrases.
Mary
On Sat, 09 Sep 2000 16:05:59 GMT, jenn...@kira.intranet.org
(JennieD-O'C) wrote:
>>I used to definitely be completely turned off by promiscuity. Even by
>casual sex in general. I don't feel that way anymore (though I still get
>that feeling if I think about how I'd feel about promiscuity for either
>myself or my partners -- or to a lesser extent, even my partners'
>partners).
I was reasonably promiscuous in the first year or so after my marriage
ended, and during the time I was establishing a relationship with my
current primary chewtoy. That was a very important time for me,
because I learned that I am sexy, I could really enjoy and be active
in and excited about sex (my marriage made me think I didn't like sex
much). It also helped me learn that I *am* actually extremely picky
about who I'm physical with.
But since then, I've actually become much less interested in casual
sex. I haven't ruled it out entirely, but it's not as much fun as it
used to be, or used to seem, anyway.
I don't mind being physical with someone I'm not romantically involved
with, but I really need to *like* that person, and trust and respect
that person, and I need to feel a very strong chemistry between us.
Period. The times I haven't had that feeling, I've felt very wrong
after sex.
I've also got one of the narrowest ranges of physical "types" I'm
attracted to of any person I know, and that's despite that I like both
boys and girls. I find a lot fewer people sexy, over all, than my
sweetie does, despite his being uninterested in boys.
My sweetie doesn't mind casual sex at all, though he's pickier than he
was when he was younger. But he'll go to a con or something, meet
someone he finds sexy, spend a sweaty afternoon together (he and I are
both hedonists), then later (sometimes) realize that she was someone
he wouldn't get along with in any sort of long run. But that doesn't
mean it wasn't a really fun sweaty afternoon! He doesn't let the
outcome color the event.
I do.
The problem this leaves me with now is that I've got an *extremely*
active libido, and my primary chewtoy, with whom I've got an
unabashedly primary, tight relationship, has a relatively inactive
libido. I could have sex about 5 times as often as he wants to, and be
fine with it.
So I go back and forth between wanting to date more actively, and not
wanting to bother with the hassles of dating: The expectations, the
having to explain to someone when my physical expectations differ from
his or hers.
The whole NRE thing is like pure bing cherry juice, to me -- I don't
mind a sip, or the thought of it, but actually drinking a whole glass
would be overwhelming.
I'm also fairly recently done with the only really close
love/romantic/sexual relationship I've had concurrently with my
primary relationship, and feeling a little bruised by that. I don't
really want to get involved (again) with someone who's hoping for
romantic bonding right away. Having a really nice, bright, friendly
boink-buddy seems perfect.
Or would if I had the energy to go find one :)
Mary
http://www.prado.com/~iris
Mary
Okopnik) wrote:
>To me, a hedonist is
>someone who joys in the pursuit and the experience of the good things in
>life; to that extent, I consider myself a hedonist.
Yeah! I'm a hedonist. I like wearing silk (though I try to buy it
used, because I don't like the silk industry). I like warm blankets
when I'm cold, and cool breezes when I'm warm. I like to dry off from
my shower naked in the sun on the back deck. I like having my hair
brushed, and the feel of a dry raspberry on my tongue before the juice
breaks out. I love the shivers I get when my sweetie touches me just
right.
And if that means that a good cuddle buddy or even sex partner and I
have sex just for the sheer physical thrill, the hedonism, that's
fine!
> Promiscuity, to me,
>has a shade of... well, desperation is perhaps the word; chasing a
>spectre, because the chase itself is the thing.
Or the filling up loneliness. Or the need to feel wanted and sexy, and
not knowing how else to get it.
I think of a friend of mine who wanted affection, period, so she had
sex with whoever wanted her just to get it. When I hear "promiscuous"
as it connotes for me, that's what I think of.
I use it most broadly to mean "someone who sleeps with a lot of people
(for random values of a lot) without (perhaps) intention of staying in
touch with those people." But in that sense, it's not something that
makes me sad. It might just be hedonism. It might be someone who
attaches different values to sex than I do, and I have no problem with
that.
But it makes me sad when people use sex to strive for goals that sex
will ultimately fail to lead them to.
Mary, tired and verbose this morning.
JennieD-O'C
>JennieD-O'C <jenn...@intranet.org> wrote:
>>Aahz Maruch <aa...@panix.com> wrote:
>>>JennieD-O'C <jenn...@intranet.org> wrote:
>>>>And another part that helps is that I finally met someone who *almost*
>>>>made me wish my relationship had a "Daryl Hannah clause".
>>>
>>>Um, if you're going to rail against TLAs, I think you ought to explain
>>>phrases like "Daryl Hannah clause".
>>
>>That does not necessarily follow, given what I've said in the past about
>>this (to piranha, in response to the question of something like "should we
>>then avoid *all* in-group speak?"):
>
>What part of "I think" and "like <this>" do you not understand?
I guess the "like <this>" part is the part I "don't understand". Because
to my mind, 'Daryl Hannah clause' and 'geek flirting' (and 't-shirt
drawer', and the 'zie-zir' pronoun set) have more in common with each
other than they do with things like 'NRE' or 'LDR' (or 'TLA' or 'YKIOK').
I find the former to be pretty transparent in context, while the latter
group is opaque, either in or out of context.
>I don't consider "Daryl Hannah clause" to be on the same level as "geek
>flirting". I think that if you're going to rail against the use of
>acronyms such as "NRE", you ought to be consistent in explaining
>lesser-used phrases.
I'm sorry, but I don't agree. I find 'Daryl Hannah clause' and 'geek
flirting' to have more in common than either of them do with 'NRE'.
JennieD-O'C
>I don't mind being physical with someone I'm not romantically involved
>with, but I really need to *like* that person, and trust and respect
>that person, and I need to feel a very strong chemistry between us.
>Period. The times I haven't had that feeling, I've felt very wrong
>after sex.
That sounds like the kind of "casual sex" (though I don't know if I'd use
that term in this sort of situation) you like is what I'd refer to as a
"sexual friendship".
>I've also got one of the narrowest ranges of physical "types" I'm
>attracted to of any person I know, and that's despite that I like both
>boys and girls. I find a lot fewer people sexy, over all, than my
>sweetie does, despite his being uninterested in boys.
I think this is true with me and one of my partners, too. He finds lots
and lots (and lots and lots) of people sexy, even though he isn't
interested in men. I have a *far* narrower range of physical types I'm
attracted to in women, though a much broader range in men (which is, I
think, the only reason why I'm generally more often attracted to men than
women).
>The problem this leaves me with now is that I've got an *extremely*
>active libido, and my primary chewtoy, with whom I've got an
>unabashedly primary, tight relationship, has a relatively inactive
>libido. I could have sex about 5 times as often as he wants to, and be
>fine with it.
Oh, I have so been there, done that. Sigh.
>The whole NRE thing is like pure bing cherry juice, to me -- I don't
>mind a sip, or the thought of it, but actually drinking a whole glass
>would be overwhelming.
What a *delightful* analogy.
Mary, you need to post more. :-)
LK
>On Sat, 9 Sep 2000, astral alice wrote:
>
>}And I must admit that I see this as a bad thing. Sorry, but sex is just
>}too important for me to have it so indiscriminately.
>
>Why does frequent sexual encounters with an assortment of partners imply a
>lack of discrimination?
Something along the llines of knowing one's partners' sexual character
far better than knowing their personal character, beyond "ready, set,
go." Or "I wanted sex with you. I don't want to _know_ you. I'm
here for the fun, not for the responsibility of friendship beyond
sharing genitals." Or "fuckbuddies."
He's promiscious. She's a slut. I just want variety.
<removing tongue from cheek>
One could also say promiscious is someone who enjoys the chase more
than involvement after sampling the candy. And some enjoy the
flirtations and leading on and drop the interaction once the novelty
has worn off.
Always ask what someone means when they say
slut
promiscuious
fuckbuddy
secondary
primary
etc., etc., etc., And by the time you understand the answers you may
have something more than weekend fling in your hands. The simple fact
of asking for definitions is often taken as an indication of more than
passing interest.
What a tangled web we weave
When seeking sex
But not to conceive.
LK
Odgen Nash lover
LK
wrote:
>As for 'whence', I wonder at the irony of the 'whore' imagery which was used
>by Old Testement prophets for 'the ultimate evil', and that if the spies
>that Joshua sent into Jericho had not been taken in by a whore, would he
>have been as successful; and had Tamara not played a whore, where
>would the Lion of Judah come from... I also think most christians never
>read the book of Hosea, or if they do, they narrow it down to only
>pointing to the hebrews of his day, or narrow it only to their relationship
>with their god incarnate, rather than a prescription of whom they
>should choose to partner with, or how to conduct their relationships
>with the 'whores' of the world.
>
>
>
The books need a warning label: Do not quote out of context.
LK
Ben Okopnik
Mary of alt.polyamory speaking thus:
>On 9 Sep 2000 15:32:25 GMT, fuzz...@AnythingButPocketmail.com (Ben
>Okopnik) wrote:
>
>>To me, a hedonist is
>>someone who joys in the pursuit and the experience of the good things in
>>life; to that extent, I consider myself a hedonist.
>
>Yeah! I'm a hedonist. I like wearing silk (though I try to buy it
>used, because I don't like the silk industry). I like warm blankets
>when I'm cold, and cool breezes when I'm warm. I like to dry off from
>my shower naked in the sun on the back deck. I like having my hair
>brushed, and the feel of a dry raspberry on my tongue before the juice
>breaks out. I love the shivers I get when my sweetie touches me just
>right.
Yep, fits my definition of hedonist. *Joyful* living, getting that
extra flavor out of everything.
Keep on posting, Mary. :)
>> Promiscuity, to me,
>>has a shade of... well, desperation is perhaps the word; chasing a
>>spectre, because the chase itself is the thing.
>
>Or the filling up loneliness. Or the need to feel wanted and sexy, and
>not knowing how else to get it.
<Sigh> Yeah, there's that perception of sadness to it, too.
"Desperation" came closest, but wasn't quite the whole thing.
>But it makes me sad when people use sex to strive for goals that sex
>will ultimately fail to lead them to.
Bingo. I won't make judgements about what's right for somebody else,
but seeing a friend do that to themselves would sadden me.
Kit
(JennieD-O'C) writes:
>>I don't consider "Daryl Hannah clause" to be on the same level as "geek
>>flirting". I think that if you're going to rail against the use of
>>acronyms such as "NRE", you ought to be consistent in explaining
>>lesser-used phrases.
>
>I'm sorry, but I don't agree. I find 'Daryl Hannah clause' and 'geek
>flirting' to have more in common than either of them do with 'NRE'.
>
I don't know- I consider 'net speak' to be in a group separate from acronyms
alone or 'in group phrases' alone.
I understood 'Daryl Hannah clause' , because I have heard variations of it off
the net- but YMMV, for example, is netspeak- hard to use in verbal conversation
as an acronym.
If it doesn't appear outside of the net, in use by non-net denizens, it's less
likely that a casual net user will figure it out by context alone.
It's like a colloquialism in a language new to you- it may mean what you think-
but you have no way of knowing unless you ask.
So, for me- 'geek flirt' and NRE were both ideas I had to have explained.
Or maybe I'm just dense that way- YMMV :)
~~> Kit <~~
"I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend
to the death your right to say it."
Beatrice Hall
piranha
<5huu5.15140$Ds1....@jekyl.ab.tac.net>:
[...]
> to my mind, 'Daryl Hannah clause' and 'geek flirting' (and 't-shirt
> drawer', and the 'zie-zir' pronoun set) have more in common with each
> other than they do with things like 'NRE' or 'LDR' (or 'TLA' or 'YKIOK').
> I find the former to be pretty transparent in context, while the latter
> group is opaque, either in or out of context.
hm. i dunno. i figure TLAs out from context about as often
as i figure other in-group jargon out. it really does depend
a lot on that context, for me. sometimes all i need is a key-
word -- i remember i figured YKIOK out when i saw somebody
use the word "kink" in the same post; otherwise that might've
taken a little longer. if i share the general vocabulary, i
tend to do ok. (i can't at all figure out acronyms in french,
for example; my vocabulary is way too small yet.)
with in-group jargon it really depends on whether i share the
cultural background.
how comprehensible is "drawer" to somebody who doesn't know
the BTDT "etymology"? i just was educated about "drank the
koolaid" in another group; that one went completely over my
head for a while, and i did _not_ figure it out from context;
i just didn't have the trendy west coast IPO background. (eve-
rybody know what an IPO is? :-).
now, i think it's _fun_ to figure those out, but i feel the
very same way about acronyms. i am not a crypto fan, btw --
hand me a set of acronyms without context and i won't care a
whole lot. somehow i slipped out of my secret spy language
fantasies after i turned 14, i think. too bad. that was fun,
too.
and i think that if one wants to make the group friendlier to
newbies that one ought to explain both, acronyms and in-group
jargon if one uses it in response to a newbie.
i actually put the pronouns in a different category. i am al-
ways boggling when somebody can't figure _those_ out after two
posts or so. their context is _so_ clear to me; what else are
they gonna be? obviously pronouns from their grammatical lo-
cation. gee, why would one want neo-pronouns, being as we're
not in an sff group here? i recognized the first one i ever
saw instantly (and was just as instantly thrilled).
-piranha
Stef Maruch
>> jenn...@kira.intranet.org (JennieD-O'C) in >Message-id:
><DEfu5.15059$Ds1....@jekyl.ab.tac.net> wrote:
>
>>I'm less of a hedonist about sexual
>>things, but I could easily imagine a non-promiscuous (even a monogamous)
>>hedonist.
>
>So, do we have a definition of "promiscuous" as -- a sexual hedonist
>with numerous partners (either simultaneously or serially) who is not
>emotionally connected or involved with those partners--? And then let
>negitive conotations fall where they may?
*sigh* I liked this better when we were all giving our personal
definitions rather than trying to come up with one that our squirrels
could agree on, too.
"Hedonist" is not part of promiscuous to me, because I don't actually
know that everyone who has a lot of sex is doing it for the physical
pleasure of sex. "Not emotionally connected" isn't part of promiscuous
to me because I think some people who have a lot of sex also frequently
have emotional involvements to go along with the sex. The emotional
involvements may not be deep or long lasting, but they exist.
--
Stef ** rational/scientific/philosophical/mystical/magical/kitty **
** st...@cat-and-dragon.com <*> http://www.bayarea.net/~stef **
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
WHY DID THE CHICKEN CROSS THE ROAD?
Bill Clinton:
I did not cross the road with THAT chicken.
What do you mean by chicken?
Could you define chicken please?
Stef Maruch
>Promiscuity, to me, has a shade of... well, desperation is perhaps the
>word; chasing a spectre, because the chase itself is the thing.
To me, that definition would apply just as well to "flirtatious."
--
Stef ** rational/scientific/philosophical/mystical/magical/kitty **
** st...@cat-and-dragon.com <*> http://www.bayarea.net/~stef **
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
A cat discusses the new "lite" cat foods:
"I have only two pleasures in life, standing on the newspaper while
you're trying to read it, and eating. Leave my food alone. If I need a
kitty by-pass, I'll pay for it myself." -- Nicole Hollander, Sylvia
Aahz Maruch
>
>Can someone here define promiscuous in terms of describing *other*
>people's behavior? I'd be interested to find out if all definitions are
>the same, and if not, how many of them I fit.
I'm not sure one can define it in terms of behavior. For me, the
critical element of promiscuity is lack of discrimination -- wanting sex
and not caring who provides it. There is some connotation of frequency,
but that is not the defining element. To a certain extent, that's why I
call myself a promiscuous hugger (which isn't completely true, but
that's beside the point -- it's mostly true).
Gwynyth
> On 9 Sep 2000 15:32:25 GMT, fuzz...@AnythingButPocketmail.com (Ben
> Okopnik) wrote:
>
> >To me, a hedonist is
> >someone who joys in the pursuit and the experience of the good things in
> >life; to that extent, I consider myself a hedonist.
>
> Yeah! I'm a hedonist. I like wearing silk (though I try to buy it
> used, because I don't like the silk industry). I like warm blankets
> when I'm cold, and cool breezes when I'm warm. I like to dry off from
> my shower naked in the sun on the back deck. I like having my hair
> brushed, and the feel of a dry raspberry on my tongue before the juice
> breaks out. I love the shivers I get when my sweetie touches me just
> right.
>
> And if that means that a good cuddle buddy or even sex partner and I
> have sex just for the sheer physical thrill, the hedonism, that's
> fine!
Yep.
I fully consider myself a hedonist - and it's one of the reasons I play
(and when in company which understands the reference reasonably well)
refer to myself as a Satyr, specifically a World of Darkness/White Wolf
Games type Satyr.
Although if I have to pick, I prefer velvet to silk, come to think of
it.
I *don't* get the same rush out of physical contact much beyond a hug or
a (restrained) backrub unless it's someone I know and trust pretty
strongly. (I do feel sexual hedonism, it's just limited as to who it's
with.)
But warm summer days, and grass between toes of bare feet, and sushi
(hey, it had to go in there) and the touch of the cat's fur... <mmm.
Happy>
--
Gwynyth, waiting a bit fretfully for a phone call.
gwy...@polyamory.org
http://www.polyamory.org/~gwynyth
John Clark
> "Hedonist" is not part of promiscuous to me, because I don't actually
> know that everyone who has a lot of sex is doing it for the physical
> pleasure of sex. "Not emotionally connected" isn't part of promiscuous
> to me because I think some people who have a lot of sex also frequently
> have emotional involvements to go along with the sex. The emotional
> involvements may not be deep or long lasting, but they exist.
I've thought about this thread... and it occurs to me that I would not
willingly label any sexual activity promiscuous, with the idea that
promiscuous contains a negative element. I really consider the term
to be a value laden term, and since it is often used to package any
form of 'more than one' sexual partner, I'd eschew its use.
On the other hand... I use the term promiscuous in my Ethernet driver...
and that has a very beneficial sense when used effectively... In fact
given some situations, I can't think of a more effective way for things
to happen...
Then by extrapolation, perhaps promiscuity in sexual areas is a requirement
for some set of 'good things to happen', and of course it would still be
a value judgement on my part as to exactly 'when those good things are
to be had'.
--
Copyright 2000, John Clark all rights reserved, in particular
permission for use in reference to any commercial product
is denied.
Copyright 2000, John Clark alle Rechte vorbehalten,
insbesondere kommerzieller Gebrauch ist nicht gestattet.
umar
derogatory sense, to imply recklessness and irresponsibility.
I daresay some people I know would use the word to describe
most of us in this newsgroup.
umar
--
No rule to make target `love'. Stop.