![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I do _not_ have a harem!
Aug. 27th, 2005
I do _not_ have a harem!
[definitions]
Aug. 27th, 2005 02:43 pmI think I figured out why (other than just because I was being contrary) I don't have (or want) a harem by my definition, but the definitions used last night were ok (but good at making me blush furiously).
Harem, in my head, implies things like there being a lack of equality. And that I'm supporting them. And they are always around (that would be crowded). And that there is more defined relationship structure than there actually is in![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
australian_joe's definition of such.
randysmith's definition is just funny. :) And, of course, the fact that I'm nearly certain that the definitions used were only used so that the word could be made to apply to me certainly caused me to have _reason_ to be contrary about it. In addition, the discussion was making me blush furiously, as I tend to have a difficult time with being made highly visible, even if in a good way and in a group of people I trust. (which probably contributed to the discussion continuing, since it's not as if I blush often)
australian_joe's definition was the group containing the people that I have kissed, where there is continued mutual interest in doing more than that (regardless of if it's likely that there will be more than that).
randysmith's definition, which I think no longer even vaguely approximates the original meaning, but was amusing in the 'dear god, I can't even enumerate that list" kind of way, was people I am comfortable cuddling in public. I think that contains pretty much everyone whose company I seek out in a social setting, and since I'm known to periodically have trouble keeping track of who I've not seen a while in that group, especially if they are local, I sure as hell can't enumerate it!
I think the funniest thing about this is that I _was_ actively trying to get everyone who fitsaustralian_joe's definition, who would be around and known to be interested, at last night's Psinging. Because, dude, singing and many people I care about. What's _not_ to like?
Harem, in my head, implies things like there being a lack of equality. And that I'm supporting them. And they are always around (that would be crowded). And that there is more defined relationship structure than there actually is in
australian_joe's definition of such. randysmith's definition is just funny. :) And, of course, the fact that I'm nearly certain that the definitions used were only used so that the word could be made to apply to me certainly caused me to have _reason_ to be contrary about it. In addition, the discussion was making me blush furiously, as I tend to have a difficult time with being made highly visible, even if in a good way and in a group of people I trust. (which probably contributed to the discussion continuing, since it's not as if I blush often)australian_joe's definition was the group containing the people that I have kissed, where there is continued mutual interest in doing more than that (regardless of if it's likely that there will be more than that).randysmith's definition, which I think no longer even vaguely approximates the original meaning, but was amusing in the 'dear god, I can't even enumerate that list" kind of way, was people I am comfortable cuddling in public. I think that contains pretty much everyone whose company I seek out in a social setting, and since I'm known to periodically have trouble keeping track of who I've not seen a while in that group, especially if they are local, I sure as hell can't enumerate it!I think the funniest thing about this is that I _was_ actively trying to get everyone who fits
australian_joe's definition, who would be around and known to be interested, at last night's Psinging. Because, dude, singing and many people I care about. What's _not_ to like?[definitions]
Aug. 27th, 2005 02:43 pmI think I figured out why (other than just because I was being contrary) I don't have (or want) a harem by my definition, but the definitions used last night were ok (but good at making me blush furiously).
Harem, in my head, implies things like there being a lack of equality. And that I'm supporting them. And they are always around (that would be crowded). And that there is more defined relationship structure than there actually is inaustralian_joe's definition of such.
randysmith's definition is just funny. :) And, of course, the fact that I'm nearly certain that the definitions used were only used so that the word could be made to apply to me certainly caused me to have _reason_ to be contrary about it. In addition, the discussion was making me blush furiously, as I tend to have a difficult time with being made highly visible, even if in a good way and in a group of people I trust. (which probably contributed to the discussion continuing, since it's not as if I blush often)
australian_joe's definition was the group containing the people that I have kissed, where there is continued mutual interest in doing more than that (regardless of if it's likely that there will be more than that).
randysmith's definition, which I think no longer even vaguely approximates the original meaning, but was amusing in the 'dear god, I can't even enumerate that list" kind of way, was people I am comfortable cuddling in public. I think that contains pretty much everyone whose company I seek out in a social setting, and since I'm known to periodically have trouble keeping track of who I've not seen a while in that group, especially if they are local, I sure as hell can't enumerate it!
I think the funniest thing about this is that I _was_ actively trying to get everyone who fitsaustralian_joe's definition, who would be around and known to be interested, at last night's Psinging. Because, dude, singing and many people I care about. What's _not_ to like?
Harem, in my head, implies things like there being a lack of equality. And that I'm supporting them. And they are always around (that would be crowded). And that there is more defined relationship structure than there actually is in
australian_joe's definition of such. randysmith's definition is just funny. :) And, of course, the fact that I'm nearly certain that the definitions used were only used so that the word could be made to apply to me certainly caused me to have _reason_ to be contrary about it. In addition, the discussion was making me blush furiously, as I tend to have a difficult time with being made highly visible, even if in a good way and in a group of people I trust. (which probably contributed to the discussion continuing, since it's not as if I blush often)australian_joe's definition was the group containing the people that I have kissed, where there is continued mutual interest in doing more than that (regardless of if it's likely that there will be more than that).randysmith's definition, which I think no longer even vaguely approximates the original meaning, but was amusing in the 'dear god, I can't even enumerate that list" kind of way, was people I am comfortable cuddling in public. I think that contains pretty much everyone whose company I seek out in a social setting, and since I'm known to periodically have trouble keeping track of who I've not seen a while in that group, especially if they are local, I sure as hell can't enumerate it!I think the funniest thing about this is that I _was_ actively trying to get everyone who fits
australian_joe's definition, who would be around and known to be interested, at last night's Psinging. Because, dude, singing and many people I care about. What's _not_ to like?