Polyamory is Wrong

January 25, 2010 By Guest Contributor 29 Comments

JulietEcho has written a couple widely-read pieces about polyamory.

But I have to break it to her: polyamory is wrong:

Good to get that off my chest. Laurie Higgins would be proud.

(Thanks to Ungullible for the link!)

Filed Under: General, Humor, Love 29 Comments
  • sc0tt

    I knew there was something that was bugging me about that. But wait, is the prohibition on mixing linguistic elements being overly pedantic? I found this on Wiki:
    *****
    Medical roots generally go together according to language: Greek prefixes go with Greek suffixes and Latin Prefixes with Latin Suffixes. Although it is technically considered acceptable to create hybrid words, it is strongly preferred not to mix different lingual roots.
    ****

    So “polyamory” would seem to be acceptable, but multiamoraphobia would be a no-no.

  • JulietEcho

    Thanks, sc0tt! “Technically acceptable” is the best kind of acceptable :-P

    But if I had to chose, it’s multiamory for the win.

  • http://themousesnest.blogspot.com Mouse

    A.E. Housman felt the same way about the word “homosexual.” (At least Stoppard has him say something about it “Invention of Love.”)

  • http://whoreofalltheearth.blogspot.com Whore of All the Earth

    That’s awesome!

  • http://twaddleoranything.wordpress.com twaddleoranything

    I was rather confused to see this headline from you in my Google Reader–then I clicked over and all was explained. :)

  • http://lagunatic.wordpress.com/ Lagunatic

    As long as multiamory doesn’t lead to multiarmory it is all good.

    /bad joke.

  • http://lagunatic.wordpress.com/ Lagunatic

    (one day, I’ll realize that I don’t have to hit “submit comment” every time I have a crazy thought which, btw, are like std’s..better unshared)

  • Jim H

    I think the rule is about a centimeter off the mark…

    ;-)

  • Wendy

    BWAHAHAHAHA!!!! MUST HAVE!!!!

  • Derek

    Ha! Very nice! Does it come in other colours? =D

  • http://millennialthoughts.wordpress.com/ Christine

    I nearly choked myself laughing at that. Excellent find.

  • TychaBrahe

    @Lagunatic – I dunno. Multiamory and Multiarmory sounds like the Long Family or the Stone Gang. I’d be happy to belong to either.

  • Alpha Bitch

    Love, love, love it!!

  • Shane

    As long as multiamory doesn’t lead to multiarmory it is all good.

    Nonsense. In healthy multiamorous relationships everyone should be free to keep and maintain their own personal armory as they see fit. None of this imposed patriarchal single armory dogma.

  • http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david/journal/ Evil Dave

    Now will someone please ban television for the same reason!

  • http://neosnowqueen.wordpress.com/ neosnowqueen

    This is the English language. We can do whatever the hell we want and make so many exceptions that the rules are pointless. Who cares if it doesn’t make sense? :D

  • revyloution

    Oh my, I laughed for a good 15 minutes. That is just classic.

    Multiarmory? Kinda reminds me of the time I couldnt pass up the deal on a new pistol at the gun show. On the way home, my buddies kept bugging me. “Are you going to tell the wife? Are you going to hide it?”

    Of course not! marriage is built on trust and honesty. When I got home, I marched right up to my (not a gun lover) wife and said
    “Here honey! Look what I bought you!”

    She still refers to it as ‘her’ gun, even though she’s never shot it.

  • Colin Day

    But “polyphilia” only means having more than one friend, wouldn’t the proper term be “polyerotica” or some such? Also, by that standard, heterosexuality is wrong.

  • The Pint

    That is hilarious! I want it.

  • http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com/ James F. McGrath

    Was the double entendre intentional when you said you had to “get that off your chest” – referring to something located precisely there on a T-shirt?

  • Mathew Wilder

    Shane, additionally, one can never be too prepared for the zombie apocalypse. It only makes sense for each individual to have their own personal armory!

    Three cheers for multiamory and multiarmory!

  • http://toomanytribbles.blogspot.com/ toomanytribbles

    i hate it when they do that. like multiethnic. argh.

  • http://garics.blogspot.com Garic

    That’s a beautiful sentiment!

    Oh, damn it, beautiful‘s Germanic/Romance…

    I was talking about this with someone the other day. It is incredible that some people actually do see this kind of mixing as wrong. I wonder if it correlates with opposition to interracial marriage..

  • GribbletheMunchkin

    ArmoUry. ArmoUry!

    Bloody colonists. Think they can mess up the Queens English.

  • http://diaphanus.livejournal.com/ Ian Andreas Miller

    It is true that it is best for Latin word elements to go with other Latin word elements, and it is best for Greek word elements to go with other Greek elements. But when a certain word element was very often used in one of the languages, while its translation in the other language was not very often used, making the word elements match is not so easy. A perfect example is the Greek adverb tele, “far off.” The Greeks used it as a prefix pretty often. But the Latin translation, procul, was never used as a prefix by the Romans. In cases like television (Greek + Latin), I think mixing is a-okay. Proculvision is just weird.

    The multiamory is not best for the Latin elements, anyway. Multamory is better according to how Latin word elements normally work (as in multangulus, multanimis, multannus).

    Perhaps polyeroticism would be better than polyphilia.

    Even the Romans had Graeco-Latin hybrids: antelogium, Pseudocato, salaputtium, protolapsus, drillopota, monoculus, penteloris, euroaquilo, scenofactorius, septidromus, artigraphus, myobarbum, tractomelitus.

  • Colin Day

    @GribbletheMunchkin:

    Can you say “Yorktown”?

    I knew you could.

  • Chris

    I think I saw something about this on television.

  • Pingback: Why Polyamory is wrong « Friendly Humanist