[cryptic]

[wispfox]

I do _not_ have a harem!

Comments

[jasra]

Are you sure? :D

[shadesong.livejournal.com]

That's what I'm sayin'.

[wispfox.livejournal.com]

See my reply to jasra. :)

[wispfox.livejournal.com]

...

No?

Harem, in my head, implies things like there being a lack of equality. And that I'm supporting them. And that there is more defined relationship structure than there was in australian_joe's definition of such (see my reply to ratatosk for that). randysmith's definition is just funny. :)

By their definitions? Sure, I do. But by my interpretation of the word? No, I don't.

[shadesong.livejournal.com]

Ah! My definition (and, I suspect, jasra's, though I can't speak for her) doesn't imply support or lack of equality. Just lots of happy people being schtupped by the wispfox.

[wispfox.livejournal.com]

Depending on your definition of 'schtupped', that is not, actually, what was meant by harem. Kissing with on-going mutual interest in more was the original definition. :) *points to later post*

But, yes.

[jasra]

My defintion is more like australian_joe's. It's definitely not a lack of equality... I think it's the shifting group of people who feel affection of varying levels toward you (and probably toward each other 'cause they're all just nifty people).

[wispfox.livejournal.com]

I think it's the shifting group of people who feel affection of varying levels toward you (and probably toward each other 'cause they're all just nifty people).

I think _that_ probably better approximates randysmith's original definition, before he realized that he'd not quite defined it as he'd intended. But, yes. :)

[wispfox.livejournal.com]

And, by my definition, I don't _want_ one.

[jasra]

By your definition, I wouldn't want one either. *sends you a new definition* ;)

[wispfox.livejournal.com]

*catches* Thank you! :)