"monogamy" - a definition?
Joe Woodhouse
was the only sufficient protection from HIV.
Their argument, among other things, rests on what I consider an outdated
definition of monogamy - one that involves two virgins who are involved
with only each other throughout their entire lives.
I contended that most people would *not* use that as their definition
of monogamy; that they would instead think of what used to be called
"serial monogamy" - only one partner *at a time*.
They challenge this, and feel that most people would understand "monogamy"
to mean one-single-lifetime-partner-and-no-other.
What do people think? What does "monogamy" mean to you?
Followups directed to alt.sex.
PS. Even "monogamy" by the outdated definition offers no protection against
HIV or any other STD. It doesn't take into account blood products, sexual
activity that doesn't act to remove "virginity" but still is capable of
exchanging fluids, IV drug use, accidental medical exposure, rape and
other sexual assault, etc, etc. HIV neither knows nor cares about the
monogamy status of those it encounters.
Joe.
/ Joe Woodhouse / I'm just a sweet bisexual... / Hello, there.
/ Latrobe University / (think - Rocky Horror) / Threesomes are fun.
/ Melbourne, Australia / Music. Magic. Mathematics. Me. / I like cats! (miaow!)
Steve Sergeant
In article <1993Apr26.0...@latcs1.lat.oz.au> (alt.sex), wood...@latcs1.lat.oz.au (Joe Woodhouse) writes:
> I've been arguing in email with someone who's been insisting that monogamy
> was the only sufficient protection from HIV.
>
> Their argument, among other things, rests on what I consider an outdated
> definition of monogamy - one that involves two virgins who are involved
> with only each other throughout their entire lives.
No. I think that is an excellent definition of monogamy. I hold to
that definition whole heartedly.
>
> I contended that most people would *not* use that as their definition
> of monogamy; that they would instead think of what used to be called
> "serial monogamy" - only one partner *at a time*.
Serial Monogamy is an oxymoron. I think you mean "serial polygamy".
>
> They challenge this, and feel that most people would understand "monogamy"
> to mean one-single-lifetime-partner-and-no-other.
Most people who are some kind of polygamist say that they are a (some
kind of) monogamist in order to appear socially acceptable in our
culture.
>
> What do people think? What does "monogamy" mean to you?
[Stuff Deleted]
Monogamy: One-single-lifetime-partner-and-no-other.
ie. virginity -> one_partner -> death
Serial Polygamy: One has sexual relations with one partner, then after
ending the relationship with that partner, one has sexual relations
with another partner.
ie. virginity -> partner_1 -> ... -> partner_N -> death
Parallel Polygamy: One has sexual relations with partner A, and then
with partner B, and then with partner A again at some frequent interval.
(Perhaps one has relations with partner A and B in the same session!
;-) )
ie. virginity -+-> partner_A -> ... -> ... -> partner_B --|
|-> ... -> partner_B -> ... -> partner_A --+-> death
Some people who had one or more sexual partners before they chose their
'first life partner', and had a sexual relationship with their 'second
life partner' before they ended their relationship with their 'first
life partner' would call themselves monogamists. Sorry, I think they
have CLEARLY demonstrated parallel polygamy.
Some other people decided to re-marry after their first and only sexual
partner dies then has had (at least) two partners in their life. They
might self righteously call themselves monogamists, but they've clearly
demonstrated serial polygamist behavior.
I feel that these definitions are very clear cut and leave nothing
to interpretation. And when you look at it this way, there's only
a very small percentage of the human race that is not polygamous.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Steve Sergeant Internet: Stev...@torrent.sj.ca.us
San Jose, California Radio: KC6ZKT @N0ARY.#NOCAL.CA.USA.NA
(408) 945-0395 GEnie: STEVSERGEANT
Audio Engineering, Music, Macintosh, Bicycles, Backcountry, Japan
trygve lode
>
>In article <1993Apr26.0...@latcs1.lat.oz.au> (alt.sex), wood...@latcs1.lat.oz.au (Joe Woodhouse) writes:
>>
>> Their argument, among other things, rests on what I consider an outdated
>> definition of monogamy - one that involves two virgins who are involved
>> with only each other throughout their entire lives.
>
>No. I think that is an excellent definition of monogamy. I hold to
>that definition whole heartedly.
>>
>> I contended that most people would *not* use that as their definition
>> of monogamy; that they would instead think of what used to be called
>> "serial monogamy" - only one partner *at a time*.
>
>Serial Monogamy is an oxymoron. I think you mean "serial polygamy".
[...]
>Some people who had one or more sexual partners before they chose their
>'first life partner', and had a sexual relationship with their 'second
>life partner' before they ended their relationship with their 'first
>life partner' would call themselves monogamists. Sorry, I think they
>have CLEARLY demonstrated parallel polygamy.
>
>Some other people decided to re-marry after their first and only sexual
>partner dies then has had (at least) two partners in their life. They
>might self righteously call themselves monogamists, but they've clearly
>demonstrated serial polygamist behavior.
>
>I feel that these definitions are very clear cut and leave nothing
>to interpretation. And when you look at it this way, there's only
>a very small percentage of the human race that is not polygamous.
Granted, they're very clear-cut definitions, but they're not the ones
that either dictionaries or common usage rely on. Webster's Ninth New
Collegiate, for example, says
monogamy 1 _archaic_: the practice of marrying only once during
a lifetime 2 : the state or custom of being married to one person
at a time
"Serial monogamy" seems to be a very commonly used term, frequently
encountered in books, newspapers, magazines, and conversation; the
message above is the first time that I've encountered the term
"serial polygamy." Now, if there's a compelling reason why the latter
term is inherently better, then perhaps we could all switch over to it,
but I'm not aware of any such compelling reason at this time. "Serial
monogamy" has the additional advantage that when I first ran across the
term, I immediately knew what was meant by it--"serial polygamy" on the
other hand would have been much less intrinsically evocative of its
meaning.
Trygve
Bill Mitchell
>
>In article <1993Apr26.0...@latcs1.lat.oz.au> (alt.sex), wood...@latcs1.lat.oz.au (Joe Woodhouse) writes:
>> I've been arguing in email with someone who's been insisting that monogamy
>> was the only sufficient protection from HIV.
>>
>> Their argument, among other things, rests on what I consider an outdated
>> definition of monogamy - one that involves two virgins who are involved
>> with only each other throughout their entire lives.
>
>No. I think that is an excellent definition of monogamy. I hold to
>that definition whole heartedly.
>>
>> I contended that most people would *not* use that as their definition
>> of monogamy; that they would instead think of what used to be called
>> "serial monogamy" - only one partner *at a time*.
>
>Serial Monogamy is an oxymoron. I think you mean "serial polygamy".
>>
>> They challenge this, and feel that most people would understand "monogamy"
>> to mean one-single-lifetime-partner-and-no-other.
>[...]
From Websters New World Dictionary, 1980:
Monogamy: 1. The practice or state of being married to only one
person at a time.
2. [Rare] the practice of marrying only once during life.
3. Zool. The practice of having only one mate.
Polygamy: 1. The state or practice of having two or more wives or
husbands at the same time; plural marriage.
2. Zool. The practice of mating with more than one of the
opposite sex.
-gamy: [Gr. -gamia < gamos: see GAMO-] a combining form meaning
marriage, sexual union [polygamy]
gamo-: [<Gr. gamos, marriage <IE base *gem-, to marry, be related,
whence Sans. jara-h, suitor. form meaning: 1. sexually
united [gamogenesis] 2. Joined or united [gamosephalous].
(note: "form meaning" above means "former meaning".)
Followups to alt.english.usage
--
mitc...@mdd.comm.mot.com (Bill Mitchell)
Michal Leah Peri
>In article <1993Apr26.0...@latcs1.lat.oz.au> (alt.sex), wood...@latcs1.lat.oz.au (Joe Woodhouse) writes:
>>what I consider an outdated
>> definition of monogamy - one that involves two virgins who are involved
>> with only each other throughout their entire lives.
>No. I think that is an excellent definition of monogamy. I hold to
>that definition whole heartedly.
>> I contended that most people would *not* use that as their definition
>> of monogamy; that they would instead think of what used to be called
>> "serial monogamy" - only one partner *at a time*.
>Serial Monogamy is an oxymoron. I think you mean "serial polygamy".
>Serial Polygamy: One has sexual relations with one partner, then after
>ending the relationship with that partner, one has sexual relations
>with another partner.
>ie. virginity -> partner_1 -> ... -> partner_N -> death
Thus, a person who marries at age 20, is married (and faithful) for
35 years, is widowed at age 55, remarries at 56, and stays married for
another 35 years until death at age 91, would be considered polygamous.
I doubt most people would agree with this definition.
--
-- Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Impressive amounts of material can be accreted in this manner.
Laura Johnson
frankly, I think that's where it belongs. What to call a particular
relationship isn't a relationship question, it's a language question.
--
Laura Johnson
l...@col.hp.com
Opinions expressed are my own, but may be licensed for a nominal fee.
Steve Sergeant
In article <1rl533...@gap.caltech.edu> (alt.polyamory,alt.sex,soc.couples,soc.singles,alt.politics.sex), pe...@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
> Stev...@torrent.sj.ca.us (Steve Sergeant) writes:
> >In article <1993Apr26.0...@latcs1.lat.oz.au> (alt.sex), wood...@latcs1.lat.oz.au (Joe Woodhouse) writes:
> >>what I consider an outdated
> >> definition of monogamy - one that involves two virgins who are involved
> >> with only each other throughout their entire lives.
>
> >No. I think that is an excellent definition of monogamy. I hold to
> >that definition whole heartedly.
>
> >> I contended that most people would *not* use that as their definition
> >> of monogamy; that they would instead think of what used to be called
> >> "serial monogamy" - only one partner *at a time*.
>
> >Serial Monogamy is an oxymoron. I think you mean "serial polygamy".
>
> >Serial Polygamy: One has sexual relations with one partner, then after
> >ending the relationship with that partner, one has sexual relations
> >with another partner.
> >ie. virginity -> partner_1 -> ... -> partner_N -> death
>
> Thus, a person who marries at age 20, is married (and faithful) for
> 35 years, is widowed at age 55, remarries at 56, and stays married for
> another 35 years until death at age 91, would be considered polygamous.
> I doubt most people would agree with this definition.
No. Most of these people wouldn't want to be called polygamists (even
if you could show them, in the strictest zoological sense, that they
are). The colloquial language has been warped to make common practices
sound unlike 'immoral' ones, and that is the very language bias that
gives some people the righteous high-ground to criticize others
who have made different choices.
Someone who brings a pencil or or a pad of paper home from the supply
cabinet at work for their own (non-work related) use would not normally
be called or want to called a theif. But the truth is that they are.
It's just a very common sort of thievery that we distinguish from other
more significant forms of thievery to make ourselves feel better.
Steve Pope
partner. It can be qualified with a time interval.
It is just as valid to say "I am monogamous this week"
as it is to say "I am monogamous for life".
If one does not specify the time interval: "I am monogamous",
than whomever is being told this had better make
no assumptions.
Steve
Stef Jones
>No. Most of these people wouldn't want to be called polygamists (even
>if you could show them, in the strictest zoological sense, that they
>are). The colloquial language has been warped to make common practices
>sound unlike 'immoral' ones, and that is the very language bias that
>gives some people the righteous high-ground to criticize others
>who have made different choices.
Reductionist.
--
Stef
st...@apple.com st...@netcom.com
Nobody can make you feel inferior without your consent.
--Eleanor Roosevelt
Elizabeth Abrams
>Somebody tried to redirect this discussion to alt.usage.english and
>frankly, I think that's where it belongs. What to call a particular
>relationship isn't a relationship question, it's a language question.
I think it's still a question relevant to singles, however. If two people
are discussing entering into a relationship and one says to the other, "I'm
looking for a monogamous relationship," the discrepancy between "I'm looking
for a relationship in which we don't have sex with others for the
duration of the relationship," and "I'm looking for a relationship with a
person who has never and will never have sex with another person," might
be signficant. :-) Granted, probably there would be other cues/statements
which would make it more clear what each meant by "monogamous", but if there
are two distinct groups using this word differently, it might be worth
knowing.
As we discussed in horrible, excruciating detail in the "pussywhipped" thread,
it's helpful to know what words mean to other people, even if those people
are wrong according to the dictionary or one's own understanding of the
word in question.
--Diamond
dia...@acpub.duke.edu| "In your head, no car is fast enough,
Elizabeth S. Abrams | In your heart, no love is true,
| Would it ruin all your solitary fantasies
| If I told you that it isn't only you?" -Cats Laughing
Greg Lindahl
>Somebody tried to redirect this discussion to alt.usage.english and
>frankly, I think that's where it belongs. What to call a particular
>relationship isn't a relationship question, it's a language question.
It's more than just words -- lots of people probably were offended at
the posting that claimed that most folks who would call themselves
monogamous were actually polygamists or some other word like that.
Sensitive issues like that are ones that dictionaries don't address.
Now cross-posting the request between soc.couples and alt.polyamory
wasn't very clever... sigh.
Phil Trodwell
>From: pe...@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
>Subject: Re: "monogamy" - a definition?
>Date: 28 Apr 1993 05:35:31 GMT
>Stev...@torrent.sj.ca.us (Steve Sergeant) writes:
>>Serial Polygamy: One has sexual relations with one partner, then after
>>ending the relationship with that partner, one has sexual relations
>>with another partner.
>>ie. virginity -> partner_1 -> ... -> partner_N -> death
>
>Thus, a person who marries at age 20, is married (and faithful) for
>35 years, is widowed at age 55, remarries at 56, and stays married for
>another 35 years until death at age 91, would be considered polygamous.
>I doubt most people would agree with this definition.
>
As has been pointed out to me, the dictionary definition is significantly
different from that accepted in the popular media. That's why it's
important to define your terms and perhaps avoiding this slippery word.
Phil Trodwell
*** This space ***| "I'd be happy to ram a goddam 440-volt cattle
*** for rent. ***| prod into that tub with you right now, but not
*** (cheap) ***| this radio!" -Hunter S. Thompson
ELAINE M. KALPIN
1.lat.oz.au (Joe Woodhouse) writes:
>>>what I consider an outdated
>>> definition of monogamy - one that involves two virgins who are involved
>>> with only each other throughout their entire lives.
>
>>No. I think that is an excellent definition of monogamy. I hold to
>>that definition whole heartedly.
>
>>> I contended that most people would *not* use that as their definition
>>> of monogamy; that they would instead think of what used to be called
>>> "serial monogamy" - only one partner *at a time*.
>
>>Serial Monogamy is an oxymoron. I think you mean "serial polygamy".
>
>>ending the relationship with that partner, one has sexual relations
>>with another partner.
>>ie. virginity -> partner_1 -> ... -> partner_N -> death
>
>Thus, a person who marries at age 20, is married (and faithful) for
>35 years, is widowed at age 55, remarries at 56, and stays married for
>another 35 years until death at age 91, would be considered polygamous.
>I doubt most people would agree with this definition.
>>
Sorry, but I don't see what makes the term "serial monogamy" an oxymoron...
You've got "serial", basically meaning successive, and "monogamy"...being
married to a single individual. While I *don't* agree with the idea that the
persons involved must be *virgins* to start with, I do think we're talking
about being involved with one person *at a time* here. Polygamy is being
married to more than one person at a time. Now, I know it's very _trendy_ for
people in this country in particular to completely embrace as gospel every
fancy new *term* someone comes up with. Someone writes an article for TIME
about "serial polygamy" (I don't know *where* it appeared, actually) and
suddenly we're all polygamists! Gee, we weren't before that article came
out...
All I'm saying is that it's a personal definition and a matter of _semantics_.
Call it whatever you want.
I just don't think I know anyone who would consider the above description
(virginity> partner 1>...>death) to be polygamy. Not one.
Just an opinion...
*E*
"Some people say I'm halfway here,
some people say I'm halfway gone" --Jimmy Buffett
--
Anonymous Jones
Hmmm... I've heard and used the term "serial polygamy" for 20
years or so - never heard the term "serial monogamy" until I read it
hear this week.
"Serial polygamy" goes way back to the mid-60's and was used by us
flower children to make the point that having five marriage partners
one after another with divorces in between was a form of polygamy in
itself not significantly different from having more than one
spouse at the same time.
In my day, down in the South, monogamy was monogamy in the old
Catholic Church sense - one marriage, one spouse, no divorces.
Period, exclamation mark. Death of a spouse was almost approved
sometimes as an excuse for remarrying, maybe if you were otherwise
very good.
Seems to me that "serial monogamy" is a sign of the times. What
currently passes for monogamy is having only one spouse at any
given time, i.e., "serial polygamy". Hopping from one spouse to the
next is so entrenched as a social pattern that it apparently
doesn't count as polygamy any more. <s>
But nobody wants to be a polygamist, because that's still
considered to be b-a-d. People *will* redefine the language to
comfort themselves about what they're doing, eh?
John
Stef Jones
>Hopping from one spouse to the
>next is so entrenched as a social pattern that it apparently
>doesn't count as polygamy any more. <s>
>
>But nobody wants to be a polygamist, because that's still
>considered to be b-a-d. People *will* redefine the language to
>comfort themselves about what they're doing, eh?
People do that, but I'm not so sure that's what is going on in this case.
I think 'serial monogamy' is preferred because it more accurately describes
what a lot of people do.
'Serial monogamy' implies both that you have one SO at a time (serial),
and that you only sleep with one at a time (monogamy). (Yes, I am not using
the strict definition of 'monogamy' -- "one wife" -- I'm using the loose
definition -- "one sex partner")
Whereas 'serial polygamy' just seems contradictory -- you have one SO at
a time (serial) but you sleep with several SOs at once (polygamy).
--
Stef
st...@apple.com st...@netcom.com
In the force if Yoda's so strong, construct a sentence
with words in the proper order then why can't he? /fortune
john e. clark
+
+'Serial monogamy' implies both that you have one SO at a time (serial),
+and that you only sleep with one at a time (monogamy). (Yes, I am not using
+the strict definition of 'monogamy' -- "one wife" -- I'm using the loose
+definition -- "one sex partner")
Wife???!!! Gamy is from greek for 'marriage'. 'wife' would be
'gyny'. The greek for woman and wife are the synonyms, how's that for
assumptions. Actually, english itself use to use 'wife' and 'woman'
as synonyms, and for those of viennese bent.. 'Wien, Weib, Wein'
--
John Clark
jcl...@ucsd.edu
Greg Lindahl
>I think 'serial monogamy' is preferred because it more accurately describes
>what a lot of people do.
But I doubt a lot of people would use that term to refer to
themselves, because they don't think that serial monogamy is the ideal
way to live, so they don't want to admit they've been doing it.
The first time I remember seeing the term was someone explaining an
interesting twist on the relationship between AIDS and polyamory: if
you KNOW you're going to have multiple partners, you may be more
willing to use condoms than if you're deluding yourself. Most college
students are serially monogamous... but many delude themselves into
thinking "This one's the one." "OK, so this one wasn't the one, but
next one's the one." "Well, maybe this one." And so on. Bad delusion.
Followups to soc.couples.
Ed Gould
> a time (serial) but you sleep with several SOs at once (polygamy).
Serial doesn't imply one individual at a time, just a sequence. I
agree that the idea of serial polyandry (since we are talking about
lovers, not wives) is pretty silly, though. The idea that one would
have to change groups from time to time *is* odd.
--
Ed Gould e...@pa.dec.com Digital Equipment Corporation
+1 415 688 1309 Network Systems Lab 250 University Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94301
"Unison is only one form of harmony." -- LW
Ilana Stern
> > Whereas 'serial polygamy' just seems contradictory -- you have one SO at
> > a time (serial) but you sleep with several SOs at once (polygamy).
>
> Serial doesn't imply one individual at a time, just a sequence. I
> agree that the idea of serial polyandry (since we are talking about
> lovers, not wives) is pretty silly, though. The idea that one would
> have to change groups from time to time *is* odd.
Ok, definition time. (This is the second post that seems to be confused
about the actual words involved.)
polygamy: many lovers/spouses
polygyny: many wives (from gyno, woman)
polyandry: many husbands (from andro, man)
polygony: many sided
polyester: synthetic fabric
--
/\ "The mind, Shelly, is a strange ball of goo." -- Chris Stevens, NEXP
\_][ <--NCAR Ilana Stern dod#009 r.b. cliff swallow il...@ncar.ucar.edu
\______________________________________________________________________
Brad Shapcott
|>
|> Ok, definition time. (This is the second post that seems to be confused
|> about the actual words involved.)
|>
|> polygamy: many lovers/spouses
|> polygyny: many wives (from gyno, woman)
|> polyandry: many husbands (from andro, man)
|> polygony: many sided
|> polyester: synthetic fabric
And, interestingly enough:
polyglot: a mixture or confusion of languages or nomenclatures
(among other meanings.)
--
______
Brad Shapcott \ / It's a | Bell-Northern Research and
Mail: ad...@Freenet.carleton.ca \bi/ big world, | the National Capital Freenet
not bnr.ca (no e-mail access!) \/ share it. | do not share my opinions.
David F. McWade
>|> polygamy: many lovers/spouses
>|> polygyny: many wives (from gyno, woman)
>|> polyandry: many husbands (from andro, man)
>|> polygony: many sided
>|> polyester: synthetic fabric
>And, interestingly enough:
>polyglot: a mixture or confusion of languages or nomenclatures
And polymlexite is a kind of plastic. We really shouldn't be doing
this too much longer, no no no.
Dave
john e. clark
+
+And, interestingly enough:
+
+polyglot: a mixture or confusion of languages or nomenclatures
So banal an interpretation, 'polyglot' many tongues. Film at 11..lick,lick,...
--
John Clark
jcl...@ucsd.edu
Matt Crawford
> Actually, english itself use to use 'wife' and 'woman'
> as synonyms,
Well, sort of. "Man" used to mean "person", while "wifman" a female
man and "werman" meant a male man.
In a linguistic Great Leap Forward, China mandated the analogous
change in their language just a decade or three ago -- the formerly
all-inclusive term was decreed to refer to males.
__________________________________________________________
Matt Crawford ma...@severian.chi.il.us Java Man
That was Zen ... this is Mao!
Paula Puffer
>>Serial Monogamy is an oxymoron. I think you mean "serial polygamy".
>
>[...]
>
>
>encountered in books, newspapers, magazines, and conversation; the
>message above is the first time that I've encountered the term
>"serial polygamy." Now, if there's a compelling reason why the latter
>term is inherently better, then perhaps we could all switch over to it,
>but I'm not aware of any such compelling reason at this time. "Serial
>monogamy" has the additional advantage that when I first ran across the
>term, I immediately knew what was meant by it--"serial polygamy" on the
>other hand would have been much less intrinsically evocative of its
>meaning.
>
>Trygve
I recently came across the term serial polygamy in the book Responsible
NonMonogamy (and i forgot the name of the author). Very interesting
book but a bit draggy at times. Tho i think it;s a good source of info
for those just starting out in polyamory relationships.
next on my reading list is the polyfildelity primer... again i don't know who
worte it.... i'm just reviewing them for a catalogue.
Paula
Andrew John Harrington
>>|>
>>|> polygamy: many lovers/spouses
>>|> polygyny: many wives (from gyno, woman)
>>|> polyandry: many husbands (from andro, man)
>>|> polygony: many sided
>>|> polyester: synthetic fabric
> And polymlexite is a kind of plastic.
Polygrip: a specific kind of orgy.
--
Andrew John Harrington | nin1...@merrimack.edu
Merrimack College, North Andover, MA | I'm too sexy for this network.
CW...@psuvm.psu.edu
was making a very tortuous point about the numerical value of the
the prefix "mono" while most of the respondents have placed value
based judgements on the term "polygamy". Polygamy can be viewed in some
societies as being an acceptable form of relationships. Many conservatives
and feminists revile the concept as being either immoral or oppressive.
It is somewhat ironic that many of the peoples in cultures where polygamy
is acccepted and practised would find many American social values and
customs equally repulsive. If I think that atheists (for example) are
reviling and you call me an atheist (based on tortuous definitions)
should I be offended? This is the danger of redefining terms that
have strong value judgements attached to them. It may appear harmless
and even cute but society is left in a small turmoil because the
rules have been changed in the middle of the game. Toying with
deffinitions is dangerous, but at the same time instructive as it points
out the strong dependance societies have on on commonly defined terms.
The word "racism" is a classic example of the volatility of re-defining
terms. Most white Americans believe that racism means race based bigotry
whereas many ethnic activists define it as opressive race based actions
taken by a majority race against a minority race. Hence the enormous
non-productive debates over who or what is racist. Re-defining monogamy
to satisfy a penchant for accuracy in prefixes is silly. To take
offense over such a silly proposal is even more silly.
Wade Sheen
john e. clark
+I recently came across the term serial polygamy in the book Responsible
+NonMonogamy (and i forgot the name of the author). Very interesting
Deborah Anapol's book, 'Love Without Limits' is so subtitled.
+book but a bit draggy at times. Tho i think it;s a good source of info
+for those just starting out in polyamory relationships.
+next on my reading list is the polyfildelity primer... again i don't know who
+worte it.... i'm just reviewing them for a catalogue.
Ryam Nering, of PEP fame, 'worte' it.
There are other books on multiparnter relationships. In the early
'70's there was a flurry of such books. The as the jesus freaks
co-opted the counter culture, the contributions dropped to none.
Also in the '70's the 'sexual revolution' was co-opted by
leasure-suite larries and so sexual behavior bagan to go into
recidivistic archaism.
--
John Clark
jcl...@ucsd.edu
john e. clark
+In article <48...@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> wa...@sdcc12.ucsd.edu (john e. clark) writes:
+> Actually, english itself use to use 'wife' and 'woman'
+> as synonyms,
+
+Well, sort of. "Man" used to mean "person", while "wifman" a female
+man and "werman" meant a male man.
Ha! I always knew mailmen were vermin.
--
John Clark
jcl...@ucsd.edu
Heather Noel Bobbie
>In article <AfsQvNC00...@andrew.cmu.edu>, "David F. McWade" <dm...@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>>>|>
>>>|> polygamy: many lovers/spouses
>>>|> polygyny: many wives (from gyno, woman)
>>>|> polyandry: many husbands (from andro, man)
>>>|> polygony: many sided
>>>|> polyester: synthetic fabric
>>>polyglot: a mixture or confusion of languages or nomenclatures
>> And polymlexite is a kind of plastic.
>
>Polygrip: a specific kind of orgy.
>
heather
@*-@*-@*-@*-@*-@*-@*-@*-@*-@*-@*-@*-@*-@*-@*-@*-@*-@*-@*-@*-@*-@*-
* hnb...@tamuts.tamu.edu -*@*- hea...@dreamland.rice.edu *
-*@-*@-*@-*@-*@-*@-*@-*@-*@-*@-*@-*@-*@-*@-*@-*@-*@-*@-*@-*@-*@-*@
and i wrote you this letter 'cos the clothes were hung on the line
and the crows flew of out of the field and up into the sky
i'm lying here in this station, and stretching out on the tracks,
are all the possible places that i might arrive... --cvb
john e. clark
>In article <1993May2.0...@merrimack.edu> nin1...@merrimack.edu (Andrew John Harrington) writes:
+>Polygrip: a specific kind of orgy.
+>
+i rather thought it was a specific kind of denture cream.
And I thought it was multiple travel bags.
--
John Clark
jcl...@ucsd.edu
Paul E. Ourada
>>Polygrip: a specific kind of orgy.
>>
>i rather thought it was a specific kind of denture cream.
Well, you know how it possible to turn nouns into adjectives... ;)
Paul.
pa...@ohmeda.com
Grant Thoms
>In article <AfsQvNC00...@andrew.cmu.edu>, "David F. McWade"
<dm...@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>>>|> polygamy: many lovers/spouses
>>>|> polygyny: many wives (from gyno, woman)
>>>|> polyandry: many husbands (from andro, man)
>>>|> polygony: many sided
>>>|> polyester: synthetic fabric
>>>polyglot: a mixture or confusion of languages or nomenclatures
>> And polymlexite is a kind of plastic.
>Polygrip: a specific kind of orgy.
PollyFilla - A: A plaster solution for filling holes in the walls.
B: A parrot that has had too many crackers for dinner.
:)
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grant Thoms Graphics Artist / Radio DJ - Star FM 92.8, Wanganui
Wanganui, New Zealand - Zol...@glasgow.amigans.gen.nz
Tel: +64 (06) 347-8531 - Zol...@amigans.gen.nz
** I'm on the prowl for a good quote **
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Piglet
>polygamy: many lovers/spouses
>polygyny: many wives (from gyno, woman)
>polyandry: many husbands (from andro, man)
>polygony: many sided
>polyester: synthetic fabric
*There's* my problem. I've been engaging in tight purple polyester
relationships. (Or is that "indulging" in?)
Piglet, who could use a few indulgences right about now
ha...@panix.com
> *There's* my problem. I've been engaging in tight purple polyester
> relationships. (Or is that "indulging" in?)
Pinching purple petroleum-based pursuings???
--AlanHardy