qatarperegrine: (Default)
[personal profile] qatarperegrine
OK, LJ, help me settle an argument.

[Poll #1187095]

Please also leave a comment explaining/clarifying your answer.

[EDIT: I was asked to clarify that the girlfriend does not move to the other country with him.]

Date: 2008-05-13 02:17 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
Monogamous, no. I would hope that he's been clear about the relationship to his girlfriend--both of them.

Date: 2008-05-13 02:18 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
If he doesn't break up with the woman in the first country before getting jiggy with the second woman, then he's not monogamous. If he leaves the first country breaking things off with the first woman, then he's monogamous.

Date: 2008-05-13 02:20 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
What he said.

Date: 2008-05-13 02:33 pm (UTC)
ext_65558: The one true path (Montreal skyscraper)
From: [identity profile]
Sounds about right.

Date: 2008-05-13 02:58 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
Unless he ended the relationship with the first girlfriend prior to moving, then no, that isn't monogamy as I understand it.

Date: 2008-05-13 03:01 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
legally, i really have no idea. I was wondering this the other day. apparently some people living along the border of the US and mexico have a weekday wife and a weekend wife. is international bigamy illegal? who knows.

as for socially, totally nonmonogamous.

unless there was a mutually

Date: 2008-05-13 03:07 pm (UTC)
andreas_schaefer: (Default)
From: [personal profile] andreas_schaefer
understood ( not necessarily accepted ) break, moving to another country will not per se brak the relationship. Given the often arbitrary placement of borders one would else have to settle upon an arbitrarily set distance which constitutes breakage. ( moving to other side of road [ no double entendre implied ], town, city, county, state, continent )

However a long distance relationship is not easy and given human frailty and temptabilty one should be aware of the risks of a long distance. More so if one is going to miss skin-contact and touch and sex by their sudden lack.

forgot to add

Date: 2008-05-13 03:11 pm (UTC)
andreas_schaefer: (Default)
From: [personal profile] andreas_schaefer
there is though the old adage about sailors : a bride in every harbor. ( and I once met a truckdriver on a regular Germany - UK - Ireland run who apparently had 'homes' at both ends and in the middle. He also introduced me to the concept of one-word-vocabulary )

Date: 2008-05-13 03:55 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
I think there's a huge difference between "monogamous and cheating," and "polyamorous." I would say "non-committed" before either of those.

Date: 2008-05-13 04:57 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
Actually, to revise:

1. Uncommitted, i.e., "dating."
2. If there is legal or pseudolegal commitment, then bigamous. Taken from bigamist, but I don't really know if bigamous is a word. Polyamorous is (possibly) a whole 'nother animal than this situation.

I think you can be monogamous and casually dating multiple people, or serial people, especially if it's not about a relationship but simply being social and having fun.

Date: 2008-05-13 04:29 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
Even if the couple has an understanding, or engages in a polyamorous lifestyle, it's still not monogamous, by the very definition of the word. This isn't to pass judgment on polyamorous relationships, just a nitpick at a word definition.

Date: 2008-05-13 05:25 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
Essentially, no.

That said, from a technical, the-way-I-specifically-use-words perspective, it depends on if he understands himself to be entering into a relationship with the other person. If so, then it is not monogamous. If not, then it is. It is, however, certainly not monofidelitous. (It might be polyfidelitous if both know and are ok and he's not sleeping with anyone else.)

But, yes, from the normal, everyday use of the word, this is certainly not monogamous.

Date: 2008-05-13 08:31 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
I'd feel that moving to another country is basically "breaking it off", but I personally would never engage in a long distance monogamous relationship. That just doesn't work well with me.

Is said male only having relations with one person at a time? Or well, different question. Emotionally monogamous or Physical monogamous or "____________" monogamous? Swingers would be an emotional monogamous relationship, while having sex with other partners how ever they choose.

So, my question is more about the specific nature of using the word 'monogamous'.


1. The practice or condition of having a single sexual partner during a period of time.
1. The practice or condition of being married to only one person at a time.
2. The practice of marrying only once in a lifetime.
3. Zoology The condition of having only one mate during a breeding season or during the breeding life of a pair.

Looking at the second definition, yes, he is in fact monogamous. As marriage is not even part of the question.

Date: 2008-05-13 08:50 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
To clean up that mess of syntax;

The Black's Law Dictionary (American Law) states the word as;

Monogamy n. 1. The custom prevalent in most modern cultures restricting a person to one spouse at a time. 2. The fact of being married to only one spouse.

Spouse. One's husband or wife by lawful marriage; a married person.

So... a relationship is not a marriage. So actually, I'd say yes, yes he was in fact being monogamous. Quite clearly by legal standards, and strict use of the word.

Date: 2008-05-13 11:42 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
Wouldn't that make him nulligamous, though, since he hadn't married either girl?

I think there's an understanding, particularly in cultures like the UK where a legal partnership can be acknowledged outside the minefield of legal "marriage", that a serious relationship is equivalent to a marriage for most legal purposes. It's harder to prove, puts more pressure on the individual to prove that the relationship was essentially a marriage, but it's not at all uncommon for a relationship that isn't legally married to receive the same or similar legal considerations.

Date: 2008-05-14 10:49 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
The OED, which I'd consider more authoritative than either of those, defines monogamy as:

"The condition, rule, or custom of being married to only one person at a time (opposed to polygamy or bigamy). Now, also (in extended use): the practice or principle of remaining faithful to one person during the course of a sexual relationship other than marriage."

Date: 2008-05-13 11:46 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
Outside of my previous comment regarding domestic partnerships and the legal side of the term "monogamous", I should explain my nay-vote -- whether or not anyone finds a terminology loophole to make "monogamous" somehow not apply to the situation in the way most people would apply it, it strikes me that Mr. Non-monogamous is, more to the point, a scumbag and unworthy of both girls (assuming he's not told either/both of them about the other). That is, however, a value judgement, and as such must be caveatted with the acronym "IMHO". :-)

Date: 2008-05-14 03:42 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
Mr. Non-monogamous is, more to the point, a scumbag and unworthy of both girls (assuming he's not told either/both of them about the other).

What she said.


qatarperegrine: (Default)

August 2011

141516 17181920

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Oct. 17th, 2017 12:04 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios