X-From-Line: nobody Mon Oct 25 19:34:37 1999 Newsgroups: uk.people.polyamorous Subject: Re: Help me understand my girlfriend References: <7umloe$spg$1@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au> <940570008.47.4.nnrp-09.9e98ea3a@news.demon.co.uk> <381061b7.1567313@news.demon.co.uk> <940620032.19976.3.nnrp-14.9e98ea3a@news.demon.co.uk> From: Paul Crowley Date: 25 Oct 1999 19:34:37 +0100 Message-ID: <87emeje1c2.fsf@hedonism.demon.co.uk> X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.5/XEmacs 20.4 - "Emerald" Lines: 34 Xref: hedonism.demon.co.uk misc-news:814 X-Gnus-Article-Number: 814 Mon Oct 25 19:34:37 1999 "Brian Watson" writes: > Claimed. Not Reclaimed. My friend just described this as the "dictionary attack", which has a rather different meaning when applied to Usenet ripostes than to cryptology... #### reclaim vt. 1. make fit for cultivation 2. bring back 3. reform #### 4. demand the return of ... so I think we're having meanings 3 and 4 for a main course, with a side order of 1, and 2 for dessert. Reclaiming these words is useful because their *sole* insulting content, really, is that the thing described is bad: whether the word is queer, slut, pervert - the content is "You fit category X. And that's bad." Reclaiming them is to say "Yes, we do fit that category. And that's not bad. Tough." Also, there aren't any positive or neutral words for "person who likes sleeping with new people" waiting out there that we can take up instead. We could make up new ones ourselves, but I think overall that would aid comprehension less than taking up the existing ones and challenging the values people attach to them. Obviously not all poly people are sluts, but unsurprisingly poly people are less likely to have a bad attitude about those of us who are. I hope some of this helps clarify things... -- __ \/ o\ paul@hedonism.demon.co.uk Got a Linux strategy? \ / /\__/ Paul Crowley http://www.hedonism.demon.co.uk/paul/ /~\