Originally Posted by LovingRadiance
So why did "gay" go from meaning,
"having or showing a merry, lively mood"
What about the word "virgin"?
Why did it go from meaning,
"an unmarried girl or woman"
to: "a person who has never had sexual intercourse"
I think that the problem here in this thread is that what WE (you/I) think the words SHOULD be or SHOULD mean-has little bearing on what they DO MEAN to the MAJORITY-because we aren't the majority.
We COULD agree to our own words for this board-but we've already seen enough people pissed off about how "judgmental" we are when we argued against one night stands not being love relationships.........
Told we were being closed-minded, unreasonable, insisting on putting OUR definitions on other people's lives when the board professes to be a place for ALL people to share about their poly-relationships.
There isn't a defition for the board-therefore we can't really hold to any one specified definition to be "agreed upon" in this venue either.
(And GOd knows my personal opinion is stricter than MANY of the opinions I've read on here, but it's not MY place to name another person's relationship)
I have trouble with your logic here for one very simple reason: The word "polyamory" wasn't there, it is constructed, and therefore we CAN in fact ask other people to please use some other words. Which we can not with, e.g. multiamory, which is not a hybrid. It is perhaps more clear if we apply these same reasonings to "polyfidelity" - are we OK with having the meaning of that turned into something quite different and more general, so people living in polyfidelty relationships can't really identify with it? And if not, why?
Also, I wonder if you have thought about that you list up examples of specialization. Your first example is a word that may still be used in the general way, but in addition has picked up a specific meaning. And the other one is specialized by historical societal norms, by definition so to speak: In several cultures, an unmarried girl or woman was _supposed_ to be virgin, and some laws required death sentence if she turned out not to be. This did not necessarily have to do with judeo-christian moral tradition, but that women were juridically considered as property many places - including among the OT jews. While what we discuss here, is generalization: A specific word is used in more general ways, possibly leading to more difficult communication, because people's mental images aren't in sync at all.
I think the "love" issue with ONS that you mention is a good example of where we can NOT uphold clear definitions - "love" must necessarily be a quite fuzzy concept, and the full meaning of it has to be "defined" by each individual for themselves. It implies that we can't just say to someone "what you call love, isn't it, really". But it does not imply that we have to accept anything either, like an affection murder "legitimated" by "I killed her out of my deep love for her".
And unlimited conceptual relativism - I don't think anybody can really go for that. They just thnk they can, because they haven't really looked into the consequences, like the murder case above. And in daily life, we can't get by without a healthy bit of it