Columns

Control Tower

The Great Polyamory vs. Polyfuckery Debate

  • comments (43)
  • Print

Some days, I miss the term nonmonogamy. I should dust it off and give it some daylight, because I'm put off by how reductive the definition of the word polyamory has become lately.

I first heard the term polyamory on a Usenet group in the early 1990s. Its appeal was obvious: Saying that one is nonmonogamous implies that monogamy is what's proper and that being nonmonogamous is a deviation, with all the negative baggage that word carries. Also, to say I'm nonmonogamous makes sexual behavior the central issue. But to say I'm polyamorous widens the focus to include both emotional connections and political worldview, something advocates for alternatives to monogamy want. Quite simply, polyamory is better branding than nonmonogamy. So a wide range of people who were nonmonogamous—including me—adopted the word.

However, as the term became more popular, factions developed, and one of them might be called poly literalists. "Polyamory has the word amor in it, which is Latin for love," they say. "So if you don't love the other person, then what you are doing is polyfuckery, not polyamory. You're just using the word polyamory to justify your promiscuous sexual activities. And you're a dirty slut who is tainting my morally pure system of having sex with more than one person."

Okay, they usually don't say the "promiscuous dirty slut" part out loud. But it's clearly implied, along with every other sex-negative shaming strategy in the book. The beauty of this trick is that since you can define the word love any way you like, you can sling the accusation of polyfuckery at anyone: people who reject you, romantic rivals, ex-lovers, and so on.

I dislike transparently opportunistic lechers (of any gender) cocking their finger at me and saying, "Hey, babe—I'm polyamorous," as if the mere phrase were an all-access pass into my pants. But you know what I dislike even more? Purity campaigns. And sexual- minority groups of all kinds have an unfortunate habit of eating their own young. Certain individuals in the group proclaim themselves the protectors of the Right Way, identify some subgroup within the ranks, and say, "Their way of being X isn't pure enough, we must ostracize them!" Bonus points: They then turn to mainstream society and say, "See, we're not like those people. They're bad. We're good, like you."

Right! Because polyamory has so much social support, we really need to keep unworthy people from climbing on the bandwagon. Plus, it's so easy to do polyamory properly, there's no reason to cut anyone any slack here, no siree. Oh wait—that's not true. Well, I'll let you Pure Poly People wrestle with how, exactly, you can restrict the language of polyamory to folks who do it exactly like you. Let me know how that works out. I'll be over here, being nonmonogamous.

 

Comments (43) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
1
Discrimination is discrimination no matter how you fancy up the definition.
Posted by James Early on October 20, 2010 at 3:01 PM · Report this
2
As a species we sure like our dogmas. This is the exact same thinking that drives religions--if you don't conform, then you're not one of us. All labels are ultimately reductive because no flawed human can live up to the ideal. Eventually, we all end up at "ur doin it wrong".
Posted by Westside forever on October 20, 2010 at 3:46 PM · Report this
3
Discrimination and judgmental assholes aside, I think the term "nonmonogamous" is much more descriptive of the wide variety of the things that go on, physically and emotionally. Monogamy is very specific. Nonmonogamy is everything else.
Posted by red tie on October 20, 2010 at 3:46 PM · Report this
4
'sexual- minority groups of all kinds have an unfortunate habit of eating their own young.'
....an awesome phrase to describe something that has always annoyed me.
Fabulous column as usual.
Posted by melbzig on October 20, 2010 at 3:47 PM · Report this
5
Humans are not monogamous animals. Nature. Although more intelligent and evolved than some species, still not a monogamous species. Until we evolve differently emotionally or physically, it's just part of our nature we have to live with. The end.
Posted by BurlyGirl on October 20, 2010 at 5:53 PM · Report this
6
I like this.

When I tell someone I'm nonmonogamous, I've been asked, "But are you Poly?"

Poly-what?
Posted by Alea on October 20, 2010 at 10:18 PM · Report this
7
@BurylGirl, did you READ the blog above? really? This type of statement is exactly what the author was highlighting. Absolutists crap like that is exclusionary and hurtful. It doesn't respect others choices or even allow for the possibility it is a choice.

As to the central argument, my feeling is language shouldn't be restricted or controlled as this leads directly to the question of "controlled by who?" but I do think that people, ALL people, need to be more aware of othering behavior direct or implied in how they speak.
Posted by firewuff on October 20, 2010 at 10:58 PM · Report this
8
@BurylGirl, did you READ the blog above? really? This type of statement is exactly what the author was highlighting. Absolutists crap like that is exclusionary and hurtful. It doesn't respect others choices or even allow for the possibility it is a choice.

As to the central argument, my feeling is language shouldn't be restricted or controlled as this leads directly to the question of "controlled by who?" but I do think that people, ALL people, need to be more aware of othering behavior direct or implied in how they speak.
Posted by firewuff on October 20, 2010 at 11:00 PM · Report this
9
So anyone that doesn't agree with your definition of poly wants an "All access pass into (your) pants"? My, don't we think the sun shines out of our pussy! Listen MM, I know most fetishists are dour and humorless, but you might want to lighten up a little. If you first heard the term 20 LONG YEARS AGO, that means that fewer and fewer people will be lining up to enjoy the dubious pleasures of that aging Weeping Eye. You might want to take what you can get, and be thankful for it.
Posted by Sergei on October 21, 2010 at 12:33 AM · Report this
10
@Sergei: Try reading it again. I don't think you read the same thing MM wrote.

She says, "I dislike transparently opportunistic lechers (of any gender) cocking their finger at me and saying, "Hey, babe—I'm polyamorous," as if the mere phrase were an all-access pass into my pants." In other words, she doesn't like people who use "poly" to try to get her to have sex with them.

She also says those who define polyamory their way and say that others aren't doing it right (because they do it different) get on her nerves. Restricting the definition of poly to an individual's personal outlook is not acceptable. There isn't a right way to practice polyamory any more than there is a right way to practice monogamy.

Also, shit like "If you first heard the term 20 LONG YEARS AGO, that means that fewer and fewer people will be lining up to enjoy the dubious pleasures of that aging Weeping Eye. You might want to take what you can get, and be thankful for it." is not cool. So, because she is not 22 years old anymore she should just take what she can get, even if people offend her? That's just awesome. Really, I mean, I somehow forgot that pussy has an expiration date.
Posted by ravenwaift on October 21, 2010 at 1:02 AM · Report this
11
@Sergei - you'd be so lucky as to be in the same room with someone as hot as Matisse. As for "dour and humourless", oh please. Perhaps you should read a little more from the person you're trying to characterise in that way -- but then again, she doesn't actually need 12-year-old boys like you as "readers".

@BurlyGirl - get a grip. Non-monogamy essentialists like you are just as bad as the fundamentalist HOLY MONOGAMY FOREVURRR types that give us shit.

In every human quality I can think of, there is a spectrum. This includes sexuality. Which also includes monogamy/non-monogamy. A spectrum means that you WILL have asexual people, celibate-by-choice people, lifetime monogamous, serially monogamous, whatever that "closed-poly" thing is I can't remember, polys, swingers and sluts (by which I mean people who don't do relationships at all, nothing negative).

And while many people may not currently be aware of the full range of options, it doesn't mean that everyone will become automatic screw-anything exponents as soon as they see the light. Me, I'm poly, and I'm happy to have casual flings from time to time (when I'm in relationships and when I'm not). There's no way in hell you'll get me to an orgy or swingers' event, but that's my personal aversion to group or public sex. That's where I am on the spectrum.
Posted by Trix on October 21, 2010 at 1:58 AM · Report this
12
My only complaint is when people who are sneaking around on a partner say "oh, but I'm poly, I can't help myself." Being a cheating POS is still being a cheating POS, no matter what excuse you use to cover it up. Otherwise, go on and have the fun you want with the partners you want.
Posted by BakerB on October 21, 2010 at 8:21 AM · Report this
13
#10 proves the adage that anyone on the internet whose screename includes either "raven" or "wolf" in it is an irredeemably humorless twunt.

That said, I think Matisse's writing over the last 6 months has been alot less boring and self-congratulatory than it used to be.
Posted by Rip City Hustle on October 21, 2010 at 10:38 AM · Report this
14
@Sergei: You have obviously never *seen* MM. Sun shines out of her pussy? I think I got a little tan just talking to her at a party once! I don't agree with everything she says, but I don't care if she's 22 or 82, the woman is smokin hot.
Posted by Larkshead on October 21, 2010 at 11:44 AM · Report this
Collin 15
Well the word "polyamory" is a sin against language as it is, maybe it's time for a rebranding campaign?
Posted by Collin on October 21, 2010 at 4:07 PM · Report this
16
The problem I've always had is that I -need- a word like polyamory. When I tell people I'm poly, the first thing they ask is always "so what, you just fuck other people?" To which I always have to explain "No, we're not swingers."

It isn't that I have some kind of moral high ground about being Poly[tm], it's that the "literal poly" definition is the -correct- one for me; my husband and I occasionally date other people, and sometimes those relationships get serious. To call this "nonmonogamy" isn't demeaning or dirty or anything moral; it's just *incorrect*.

Maybe people who get all purist about polyamory are doing it because that's the strongest available word for the people at the far end of the spectrum who really want a strong term. If everyone out there uses "poly" to describe "swinging", then why even have multiple words?

In short, I agree with the sentiment and we're not widely enough accepted as a lifestyle to turn people away. But if we can't properly describe the spectrum of possibilities, how can we be sure we've gotten everyone?
Posted by kamnell on October 21, 2010 at 5:54 PM · Report this
17
And I have very little interest in polyamory because multiple relationships take *so much work*. I'm cheerfully nonmonogamous. :D

I'm just sad that Matisse never noticed that my comments about wrestling her for who would top were thinly veiled ways of saying *I would lose*. :)
Posted by boot_slut on October 21, 2010 at 11:07 PM · Report this
18
Darlin' Darlin',
You should do more research before tossing something like this out there to meet a deadline! {And if that's not why you did it this way, you should be aware that to those who know the difference your piece screams 'rush job!'. Or ignorance.}

You obviously don't take Poly people seriously.

As a movement, Poly is trying to define itself, and make public the distinctions between Poly & non-monogomy, infidelity, polygamy, etc., so for now, at least, the discussion should not be discouraged.
Posted by xenasdom on October 22, 2010 at 12:42 AM · Report this
19
So far, all 17 comments above have proven MM's point, if in wildly different ways.

Great article. "Bottom" line?
Posted by illegitimati on October 22, 2010 at 1:08 AM · Report this
20
Great column. As usual in these conversations, it makes me wish there was a word for "I'm sexually monogamous, but I'll do various forms of kinky shit with anyone whose company I enjoy (and who enjoys mine)." I know, I know, labels invite just the kind of confusion and oneupping and purer than thou crap that MM describes, but it's nice to be able to have language to start from. I usually use "sexually monogamous, kink poly," which seems to do the trick, I suppose.

Also, @ Sergei, "I know most fetishists are dour and humorless"... Are you serious? Man, that's the best joke I've heard all day.
Posted by seanchai on October 22, 2010 at 2:26 AM · Report this
lazylisa 21
#15 THANK YOU. Who made up that word anyway?

I think it'd be much sexier to be "polyerotic" in any case.

Something else that I need to get used to: using the abbreviation "poly" for polyamorous. Way to completely appropriate a common prefix, guys. Like there aren't a million other words that begin with "poly." Every time someone says that they are poly I want to be like "So you're polygamous? Polygynous? Polyandrous? Polydactylic? Polychromatic? Polynesian? Polygonal? A polyglot?" I realize that this kind of thing does happen linguistically, but usually it's context-sensitive - e.g. "mono" can refer to an illness or to a recording method if that's what you are talking about. OK, OK, I'm being grumpy, but I'm probably extra touchy about it because I don't like the word "polyamory" to begin with. Also, maybe I've been drinking.
Posted by lazylisa on October 22, 2010 at 5:06 AM · Report this
22
My personal view is that the argument that mankind is either monogamous or not is false, some people are and some people aren't. Some are more adapted to the freedom of polyamori, some want the safety and/or stability of monogamy and some want to try and combine the two with swinging. Like sexuality it's probably a sliding scale between wanting to sleep with everyone in sight and wanting to be with only one person all your life (or even none at all as asexuel people might feel). Regarding sleeping around there's a world of difference between somebody who does it because he/she can, he/she has permission from their lover and somebody who feels that their loved one is neglecting and/or pushing them away.

The only thing as far as I see it that all these people should do is to be open and honest with their partner/-s. I'm re-reading Venus in Furs right now and the kind of honesty that the main female character Wanda displays early on in the story might be just what would make a lot of relationships happier, stating as she does that she might find him interesting for a month or two at the most but then she'll probaby want to move on. Basicly telling him to enjoy the present but don't expect it to last.
But then that would require quite a lot of honesty about oneself and not everybody know themselves that well or have the strength to tell others about it.
Posted by Not_exactly_Thor on October 22, 2010 at 7:58 AM · Report this
23
@xenasdom, you seem uninformed and humorless, and take yourself far too seriously.

Since when is 'Poly' (@lazylisa, sorry: I hate the abbreviation too) a movement? I thought it was a choice and/or option in how people live their lives. Why politicize it by calling it a 'movement'?

Also: "the discussion should not be discouraged"? Ha! Let's see: you have an agenda and don't want it derailed, so others who don't necessarily agree with your agenda shouldn't be free to say what they feel. Is that it? I suspect you're one of the "Poly literalists" mentioned in the article.

Posted by supdegrave on October 22, 2010 at 8:06 AM · Report this
24
Honestly, in my poly activism and among the people and groups I know, I just don't see these kind of One True Way putdowns. Certainly that is Loving More's attitude: that there's a spectrum between romance and raunchy fun, and where people place themselves on that spectrum in their business; it's all about honesty and freedom of "relationship choice."

The Polyamory Leadership Network also chose "relationship choice" as its defining phrase, after about 45 minutes of discussion during its meeting in Phila. last February. It deliberately leaft purely sex-play relationships included.

Ditto the Northeast poly groups I'm in.

Maybe it's just the people I hang with, but the only "poly purity" definition I ever hear is openness and treating people honestly. Not sex negativity.

Alan M.
Polyamory in the News
http://polyinthemedia.blogspot.com
Posted by alan7388 on October 22, 2010 at 1:53 PM · Report this
25
Honestly, in my poly activism and among the people and groups I know, I just don't see these kind of One True Way putdowns. Certainly that is Loving More's attitude: that there's a spectrum between romance and raunchy fun, and where people place themselves on that spectrum in their business; it's all about honesty and freedom of "relationship choice."

The Polyamory Leadership Network also chose "relationship choice" as its defining phrase, after about 45 minutes of discussion during its meeting in Phila. last February. It deliberately leaft purely sex-play relationships included.

Ditto the Northeast poly groups I'm in.

Maybe it's just the people I hang with, but the only "poly purity" definition I ever hear is openness and treating people honestly. Not sex negativity.

Alan M.
Polyamory in the News
http://polyinthemedia.blogspot.com
Posted by alan7388 on October 22, 2010 at 1:57 PM · Report this
26
Okay, I've never heard "polyfuckery" before. I LOVE it.

My ex-girlfriend was totally polyfuckerous when I met her. We experimented with unifuckery for a while but it just didn't work out.
Posted by beccoid on October 22, 2010 at 7:20 PM · Report this
27
@ravenwaift: Nope, don't think I misread her at all. In fact, concocting phrases like, "an all-access pass into my pants" implies an unhealthy level of vanity that Father Time will be handling in about, oh, 5 years.
And, yes, pussy does have an expiration date. That's why you don't see teenagers dating seniors, unless it's for financial reward. Sorry no one ever told you that.

@Trix: Sorry, old enough to drink, and young enough to not consider myself "lucky" to share an enclosure with a forty-something "sexpert". Just typing that sort of sent a shiver down my spine. Yikes!

@Larkshead: Oh, no, I've seen her. She's about a medium cougar right now, but in 5-10 years she'll be advertising for $20 and hour in the back of Seattle Gay News. Such is the way of all flesh.
Posted by Sergei on October 23, 2010 at 8:13 AM · Report this
28
Don't be too hard on Burlygirl and the other's who have stated their opinions here. She appears to have have voiced her opinion on the state of things. I "think" that science and statistics might actually support her statements. I prefer to accept personal choice as the "enlightened" view - for what my opinion is worth.

If I were to make a point, it would be that the English language and how some people use it, tends to be overly declarative! [See what I mean!]. Again - In My Opinion!

This "might" create many issues. Perhaps what MM was intending to provide through the article, was a means for pondering how the potential use of language to define who "people" are, might be detrimental to our true intentions. And she appears to offer alternative ideas for the reader(s) to ponder.

I personally feel that she did a fabulous job of providing a provocative look at a conflict that appears to be in many folk's "thoughts". It certainly provoked them to write some intriguing responses...

For fun, I thought up some new terms...

* non-mono-amorous = not restricted to love only one being

* poly-eros = multiple erotic desires with multiple beings

* homo-festival = celebration by many beings

* homo-lumous = a being striving to be conscious and illuminated spirits/beings

* poly-ero-lumi = beings who accept all forms of eroticism and associated beings

* non-mono-amorous-lumi = beings accepting of all facets of - not living restricted to love only one being

Love-Blessings-Illumination
=> in whatever mix, measure or manner you desire!

Mark

.
PS
@Sergei - ".... ...." [sound of silence...]
Posted by TaoTouch on October 23, 2010 at 3:28 PM · Report this
blackat13 29
@16, while I do understand that having a label sometimes makes things easier, the polyamorous label is so diverse that people really need to discuss and clarify what they mean by that anyways. And maybe that's what you want and what some of the poly-purists want. However, I'm poly too and I know how hard this can be realistically.

Part of developing a love-relationship with people outside of your primary relationship involves dating. And dating sometimes involves fucking. After fucking, sometimes that dating relationship doesn't evolve into the poly love bliss that you imagined it might - and that's ok. But then the poly purists might jump down your throats and tell you that you just experienced an 'open relationship'. This is just silly. As any poly person knows, communication is key, and I don't think it's a bad thing that that has to start with what kind of relationship you have and/or are looking for.

@28 you are correct that Burlygirl has science on her side. I'm doing my PhD in evolutionary psychology, and while it's a bit of an oversimplification to say that monogamy just isn't natural in humans, evidence (such as testicular size, the amount of sexual dimorphism, and the actual behavior of humans) that humans are not as monogamous as even some other species in existence. That doesn't mean that monogamy is impossible or bad for those who find it fulfilling. It just means that it's difficult. But poly's difficult too. Humans are also naturally jealous, and this has to be worked on a lot in order to make seeing and loving multiple people run smoothly.
Posted by blackat13 on October 24, 2010 at 1:59 AM · Report this
30
Polyamory is wrong. It should either be multiamory, or polyerotica. Don't mix Greek and Latin root words. Such unnatural hybrids offend God.
Posted by nickdanger3deye on October 24, 2010 at 10:50 AM · Report this
31
Jeez, so humans are non-monogamous because it's their nature and they evolved to spread their seed etc etc, and homosexuality is natural because, umm....because... dang, looks like homophobes were right all along! How horribly unnatural homosexuality is! Screw people whom it comes naturally to, science is on our side!
Posted by tiare on October 25, 2010 at 10:23 AM · Report this
Unregistered User 32
I don't care who does what with who as long as they're all having fun.

Now if only they'd stop going to great lengths to define, redefine, compartmentalize, psuedo-philosiphize, PCize, unPC-ize it.
Posted by Unregistered User on October 25, 2010 at 4:41 PM · Report this
onion 33
"relationship choice?!"
that's a bit of a misleading label too. what's the flipside of that - is that inferring that monogamous couples aren't choosing their relationships?
does that infer that even though a couple has chosen to be together for life, that something someone else chose/forced them into their relationship?
i think the continuing search for refined terms is a good one. not sure if i like "relationship choice" if it only refers to uh, polys.
Posted by onion on October 25, 2010 at 11:46 PM · Report this
34

> "relationship choice?!"
> ...is that inferring that monogamous
> couples aren't choosing their relationships?

No! Loving More and the PLN make a big point of supporting people choosing monogamy if that is what's right for them.

What it means is that people should have the knowledge and awareness of options, and the freedom, to live whatever way the decide is right for them.

Alan M.
Polyamory in the News
http://polyinthemedia.blogspot.com

Posted by alan7388 on October 26, 2010 at 1:35 PM · Report this
35
@29--"Part of developing a love-relationship with people outside of your primary relationship involves dating. And dating sometimes involves fucking. After fucking, sometimes that dating relationship doesn't evolve into the poly love bliss that you imagined it might - and that's ok. But then the poly purists might jump down your throats and tell you that you just experienced an 'open relationship'. This is just silly. As any poly person knows, communication is key, and I don't think it's a bad thing that that has to start with what kind of relationship you have and/or are looking for."

Yes! This sums up my feelings exactly. On the one hand, I totally get what @16 is saying-- I have both a husband and a boyfriend, and it's endlessly frustrating to me when people invalidate my relationship with my boyfriend by assuming it's all about sex. But on the flipside of that, I think about my husband, who hasn't yet happened to become involved in an additional serious relationship. If he has sex with someone and it doesn't end up turning into anything more, then is he in an "open relationship" while I'm "polyamorous"? That is, like you say, just silly.

The only point at which I'm a bit uncomfortable with people using the term polyamorous is if the terms of their relationship explicitly prohibit emotional ties--ie. if someone has a rule "you can fuck whoever you want, but no actual relationships allowed." I don't feel like too much of a purist for drawing the line and saying that's far more of a sexually open relationship than it is polyamory. But if casual sex just happens to be all that's happening at a given point in time for one or more partners? I don't see any reason not to consider that poly.
Posted by Angi on October 26, 2010 at 8:36 PM · Report this
36
What the fuck is this nonsense?

People, we have a LOT more to worry about than Greek and Latin root words when it comes to open relationships.
Posted by fts on October 27, 2010 at 5:23 AM · Report this
Lissa 37
"And, yes, pussy does have an expiration date. That's why you don't see teenagers dating seniors, unless it's for financial reward. Sorry no one ever told you that."

Well Sergei if that's how you feel about it, I suggest you get cracking on earning piles and piles of money since your tastes and personality pretty much ensure you're going to end up on the wrong end of that paradigm. xoxo
Posted by Lissa on October 27, 2010 at 2:38 PM · Report this
38
"Two legs good, four legs bad"

-George Orwell, Animal Farm
Posted by kungfujew on October 27, 2010 at 3:02 PM · Report this
Lissa 39
@38 Cryptic. So it's the single life for you (two legs belonging to one person as it were)? Or are you announcing a general objection to bestiality for the edification of our readers? Because if you intened to convey your opinion that polyamory as a lifestyle is ill advised, shouldn't you have written something like "four legs good, (a monogamous coulple), six (or eight, or what have you) legs bad"?
I will now insert an emoticon smiley face to indicate that I am just teasing you. :)
Posted by Lissa on October 28, 2010 at 8:05 AM · Report this
40
@Sergei that's very amusing as Matisse needs someone taking the piss out of her occasionally.
My own take on "polyamory" is that people who use that term typically are not adults, with some exceptions. For instance, they very rarely have and/or raise children or own homes with "primary partners" (please don't write saying you're an exception, as that's what "very rarely" means). On the other hand, people who just fuck around often have quite stable family lives. Polyamorists, by and large, and again in my experience, seem to just want to extend their adolescense forever and not feel guilty about doing so. Not that anyone can blame them for that, if they were more honest about it, that is.
Posted by kinkynotcrazy on October 29, 2010 at 4:11 AM · Report this
41
@39: OK, that's funny.

I was making a point (poorly) about how a group that gets pushed around often adopts the same types of "rules" used against it on its own subgroups as it gains power.

So the analogy goes not literally to the number of legs an animal or person has, but rather to arbitrary behaviors they adopt and subsequent mistreatment of relatively similar fictional animals (as in Animal Farm) or real people (as in various permutations of poly) who do not also adopt those behaviors, and how the process of mistreating those others becomes almost an essential component of self-identification.

It's like this "friend" that I have. My "friend" is a comic book fan who only likes Marvel comics but not DC comics. My "friend" thinks guys who like DC comics are nerds. But sometimes, when my "friend" catches himself lost in moments of deep self-reflection while smoking pot in his parents' basement, he contemplates the possibility that by disparaging the DC comics readership, he is really just projecting the anxieties he feels about the non-comic-reading society at large regarding him as a nerd.
Posted by kungfujew on October 30, 2010 at 7:42 AM · Report this
42
Well, however one may judgeit, if it IS in fact promiscuity what one means, what is the concept "polyamory" ist than needed for?

I think you can compare it to vegetarians and vegans:
There are many common lines of arguments, people often become one or the other because of the same motivation and both are minorities who need each other's solidarity.

Still there remain lot's of differences and both would not like to be called by the wrong word.
And using one term while indeed wanting to promote the other really IS a dirty trick.
Posted by Rona on August 17, 2011 at 5:54 AM · Report this
43
Well, however one may judge it, if it IS in fact promiscuity what one means, what is the concept "polyamory" than needed for?

I think you can compare it to vegetarians and vegans:

There are many common lines of arguments, people often become one or the other because of the same motivation and both are minorities who can't afford to reject one another's solidarity.

Still there remain lot's of differences and both would not like to be called by the wrong word.
And using one term while indeed wanting to promote the other really IS a dirty trick.
Posted by Rona on August 17, 2011 at 6:09 AM · Report this

Add a comment