A poll (but no buttons, sorry)

[kareina]

This afternoon someone I know referred to me as "promiscuous". This is not a word with which I have ever self-identified, and even if it had applied at some other time (which I don't think it did), it really doesn't sound, to me, like an appropriate description of the current phase of my life. Therefore, either he was mistaken, or, the word doesn't mean what I think it means.

I ask you all:

Would you count someone as promiscuous if, over the course of the past six years there have been only three indivuduals with whom they have become close enough friends to share "proper" kisses?

A) yes
B) no
C) that depends

Would you count someone as promiscuous if, over the course of the past six years there have only been two individuals with whom they shared a sufficent level of mutual love/trust to become lovers?

A) yes
B) no
C) that depends

Does your answer change for different gendered "someones" as used in the questions?

Feel free to elaborate on what factors would make a difference if you select "that depends".

Alas, on my level of free account, I can't create an automatic poll, but I'm good with a spreadsheet, so will tally the answers (if I get any) and post the numbers later...

Comments

[hunrvogt.livejournal.com]

Actually there is an ecological definition that covers extra-pair copulation. I think that would exactly refer to a poly-lifestyle.

Not so much a pejorative, but a correct usage none the less.

[katerit.livejournal.com]

Oh - sorry - the adjective I meant was promiscuous. I cannot see it being reasonably applied in this case at all - even from those who do not understand the choice of lifestyle.

[hunrvogt.livejournal.com]

I realized that promiscuous was the adjective. I was simply stating that there is a reasonable scientific definition of promiscuous that exactly applies to poly lifestyles - "extra pair copulation". However, as it is a simple scientific definition, it does not have the pejorative meaning that the vernacular ascribes to promiscuous.

Assuming your are a SCAdian - think of it in terms of the misunderstandings that arrise between those using Chivalry to mean those dudes on horses with swords hacking on the peasants and those using the term to mean a set of behavior romanticised in the 19th Century.

Both are reasonable and valid definitions - however communication procedes in a more reasonable fashion when both folks having the conversation are using the same definition.