Philosophical Semantics, Part II

kdt26417

Official Greeter
Staff member
More extra credit problems. Same rules apply as in "Philosophical Semantics, Part I." Answer only those questions you feel inclined to answer, and make your answers as long or short as you want. (There are four riddles.)

  • Consider the following four terms:
    • polyamorous,
    • monogamous,
    • monoamorous,
    • polygamous.
Riddle #1: For each term listed above, pick another term from the list that is the most opposite to it. Explain your reasoning.
Riddle #2: For each term listed above, pick another term from the list that is the most similar to it. Explain your reasoning.

  • Consider the following two terms:
    • polyfidelitous,
    • swinger.
Riddle #3: For each of the two terms, pick another term from the four-term list that is the most opposite to it. Explain your reasoning.
Riddle #4: For each of the two terms, pick another term from the four-term list that is the most similar to it. Explain your reasoning.

Let me know if you have any questions. I'll give my own answers to the above riddles after a few other posts have trickled in.
 
Last edited:
#2

Polyfidelitous seems the most like Polygamous. Both include multiple partners in a closed group where outside romance/sexual activity is not welcome.

Swinger reflects Monoamorous. Love for only one, but sex with many.



I'm going to come back to this when I have more time... Love the concept!
 
That's pretty cool km34 -- that's exactly what one member independently concluded on Poly Percs.

I will keep mulling over my own thoughts, and let you know of my answers a little later on. ;)
 
My opinion:

polyamorous: in love with more than one (or able to be so)
polygamous: in a relationship with more than one
monoamorous: in love with one person at a time
monogamous: in a relationship with one person at a time

Therefore I see them as kind of unrelated. What I mean is, mono- and poly- amorous are on a different scale than mono- and poly- gamous. Just like you can be a gay man and married to a woman, you can be polyamorous with a single partner (while in love with others) or monoamorous in a relationship with several partners (but only in love with one). In my opinion, because "gamous" comes from marriage, it implies a serious relationship and doesn't include friends with benefits or dating around, for instance.

Therefore I would say that each poly/mono pair is each other's opposite, and that the -gamy and -amory part are neither opposite nor the same, just like a cat isn't the opposite of a tomato.

Polyfidelity means several partners and in a closed relationship. In my opinion it implies both polyamory and polygamy (mostly polygamy as it describes the relationship without talking about the people's orientation inside of it).

Swinging would be monoamory in an open relationship, it isn't polyamory nor polygamy. People consider it nonmonogamous because there is no sexual exclusivity, but in my opinion since there is only one romantic partner, it could count as monogamous.
 
Interesting ... So -amorous is like the theory (how many people you're in love with), while -gamous is like the application (how many people you're actually in a relationship with).

I thought it was also interesting you have swingers in both the monogamous and the monoamorous category. It of course makes sense based on your general theory.

Polyfidelity, then, being in both the polyamorous and polygamous group, is almost like the opposite of swing! (though with a lean more to the polygamous direction.)

I'll probably post my take on the whole thing in about a week (still turning things over in my mind, :)).

Kevin.
 
Kevin's Part II Answers

These'll be a lot easier to answer than the "Part I" riddles, although not because everyone would answer these in the same way. So, as promised (and for any who might be interested), here are my answers to my own "Part II" riddles.

Riddle #1, answered:

  • Polyamorous is the "most opposite" to monogamous. So say I. After all, it is opposite both in prefix (poly- versus mono-) and in suffix (-amorous versus -gamous).
  • Monoamorous is the most opposite to polygamous. Similar to my explanation in the previous bullet point.
Riddle #2, answered:

  • Polyamorous is the "most similar" to polygamous. This is a bit tougher of a call, but I am going with the prefix (poly-) as the more important determiner (than the suffix).
  • Monogamous is the most similar to monoamorous. Similar explanation as in my previous bullet point.
Riddle #3, answered:

  • I think "monoamorous" would be the most opposite to "polyfidelitous." Polyfidelity is kind of a marriage-like arrangement, and monoamorous "lacks" the -gamous suffix. (So does polyfidelitous, but the "-fidelitous" suffix serves as something of a substitute.)
  • This is tough, since (as I explained in the Part I answers), I kind of put swing midway between polyamory and monogamy (or monoamory, and I've sort of used monogamy and monoamory interchangeably). I suppose "swinger" is the most opposite to polygamy, since in polygamy there are multiple partners and the -gamy suffix suggests a lot of structure/commitments among the multiple partners.
Riddle #4, answered:

  • Polyfidelitous is probably the "most similar" to polygamous. Not the patriarchal polygyny that polygamy often connotes, but the theoretical/egalitarian version of polygamy.
  • Really tricky, like in the last riddle, but I'll say swinging is the "most similar" to monogamous. Swing is traditionally centered around a monogamous marriage ... although now I know there are many polyamorists (and monoamorists) who swing.
Again, it's important to understand that these aren't "perfect" answers. Indeed, I designed the riddles to "defy" perfect answering. For example, given monogamy, monoamory, and polyamory (and even polygamy), which on earth is the most "similar" to swing? None of the above, frankly. Swing (or the lack thereof) exists independent of the form of one's core relationship/s. I only answered that one on the basis of how swing is "commonly" or "traditionally" understood. Not a very strong basis for an answer, but I suppose it'll do.
 
By the way, in case anyone would be interested, there are more perspectives on this same topic, posted on Polyamorous Percolations:

Philosophical Semantics on Ppercs, Part I
Philosophical Semantics on Ppercs, Part II

There's not a lot of new material there, but there's some.

I invite you (if you're interested) to check out those threads, and return here to post any thoughts/comments that come to you as a result of that further reading.

Just a thought, for more extra credit if you're interested. :)
 
I see over at the PolyPerc page it says of "biamory":

"biamory (abstract noun: love for two) = falling in love with two (but only those two) persons."

It is worth noting here that some folks use "biamorous" to mean "romantically attracted to persons of either sex".
This term arose because "bisexual" turns out to lack nuance and specificity. That is, many self-describing 'bisexuals'
are only interested in sex (not romance) with persons of the same (or "opposite") sex. A biamorous person is
romantically interested in either or both sexes.
 
River, thanks for that info. I am going to pass it on to Ppercs (via the glossary discussions thread), and probably add (around the end of this month) the definition you described to the glossary entry.
 
I think biromantic would make sense for the emotional orientation, since there is heteroromantic and homoromantic as well.
 
I think biromantic would make sense for the emotional orientation, since there is heteroromantic and homoromantic as well.

Let the prettier words win. (I'll never use "biromantic". It sounds ridiculous.):rolleyes:
 
Well the Ppercs glossary is known for its inclusiveness :))), so, I'll probably nominate biromantic, homoromantic, and heteroromantic to be added (while retaining biamorous as an alternative word for biromantic). We'll see if anyone votes against the additions; Ppercs isn't a very busy site so I'm going to try to give 'em awhile to vote.

By the way, I kind of had a bunch of changes "piling up," so I suddenly figured I'd best implement them before I started making mistakes (and I've been known to make mistakes). So, I already added the new definition for biamorous as of yesterday. Don't know if it matters, but thought I'd let you know.

As for which words are prettier, beauty is entirely in the eyes of the beholder. ;)
 
NR has fun with blindness.

So, I'm reading away, and i see:
I think BROmantic would make sense for the emotional orientation, since there is heteroromantic and homoromantic as well.

I lol'd
 
Although I think as a girl I'd have qualified as BIROmantic, with the number of pens I collected... [ba-dum CHING]
 
Don't know what "Biro" is. Some type of brand name for pens?

As for "bromantic," that's like Turk and J.D. on Scrubs, isn't it?

I'm so confused ...
 
Ahh ... I see the light.

Wikipedia sez:

"Bíró is a Hungarian surname meaning 'judge,' and may refer to:
  • a brand of ballpoint pen. In British English the word "biro" is often used as a generic term for any ballpoint pen.
  • László Bíró, the inventor of the ballpoint pen."
 
There is a very specific legal definition for "polygamous" - it means legally married to more than one, and it is illegal in most countries. "Monogamous" means legally married to only one.

It is for this reason that the term "polyamory" came up - loving more than one, which can include being in a relationship (not a legal marriage) with more than one. This isn't illegal in many places at all.

It might be a good idea if, when developing a new vocabulary, and not trying to confuse those already using the terms, we invoke a sort of stare decisis and keep the commonly-used terms to mean exactly what they have been used for within the society.

Part of the reason for coming up with a glossary is to provide folks with a resource that makes things simpler to understand. I am finding that a lot of these so-called "inclusive" glossaries end up being more confusing and creating more mis-communication than they resolve.

So, as a suggestion, how about NOT including every single person's suggestion for brand new words in there...
 
Well I'm basically indifferent either way; I usually try to base glossary decisions on Ppercs membership votes. Tonberry seemed to indicate that "heteroromantic" and "homoromantic" are words already in use, so for the sake of any who might hear those words and wonder about their definitions, I assumed it wouldn't hurt to add them. This would be an addition to the Ppercs glossary of course, not to any glossary on Polyamory.com, and I don't know what the legal definitions/implications would be.

It never occurred to me to make the Ppercs glossary a legally-correct (or even entirely serious) glossary; it could be done but would require considerable research, and a re-building of the glossary from the ground up. For something like that, I'd be inclined to look for a nomination, and a majority vote, from the Ppercs membership. Nominating a couple of new entries is an easier proposition, so I (being a Ppercs member) don't mind making the nomination. The other Ppercs members can usually strike such ideas down with one or two votes.

If you feel strongly about it, I'll consider not nominating the words. (I don't plan on deciding either way for several weeks.) It's true that the words haven't appeared (to my knowledge) on Ppercs per se, so I guess Ppercs has less of a "vested interest" in them.

If you visit the glossary in question, you'll no doubt observe that lots of "questionable" entries are already in there. I don't personally nominate deleting entries as often as I do adding, but if other Ppercs members ask me to delete an entry, I take it seriously.

I could add a note to the Ppercs "polygamy" entry, strongly emphasizing the importance of using the correct legal definition. I guess I make these decisions to nominate or not nominate based on my own intuition (and any Ppercs member can do likewise without my go-ahead), but I try to take opinions outside Ppercs into account.

The sad fact is that people don't always use legally correct definitions, and "polygamy" is a prominent example of that. I've heard, for example, "polyandry" used in a way that doesn't suggest legal marriage. I've also heard "marriage" used in a way that doesn't suggest legal marriage. Incorrect, and arguably dangerous in certain situations, but people do it sometimes.

Right now, I just consider the Ppercs glossary to be a "general information" (occasionally even a "just for fun") resource. I don't even try to make it line up with the dictionary (let alone Oxford or Webster). My primary goal has been to make it reflect the words and definitions that exist in the minds and posts of the Ppercs membership, which by the way is a good argument for keeping that glossary separate from any Polyamory.com assertions. But I don't want Ppercs to be "stuck in a bottle" either, so I sometimes nominate stuff that I run across on other sites (and then let the Ppercs membership decide if they want it). It's the best I can do with an ailing website (Ppercs doesn't get a lot of activity nowadays).
 
Back
Top