Gay, Bi-, Queer Polyamory

[River]

Our Moderator, Oliver, is very likely to be reading here, so...

Hello, Oliver! I would like to make a request that we have a sub-forum or topic here on "Gay, Bi-, Queer Polyamory", so those of us who fit that description can talk amongst ourselves. Our experiences are often VERY different than those of the more socially approved heterosexual one -- and doubly so when we add polyamory to the list of differences from the mainstream. (I live in the USA, so what constitutes 'mainstream' may differ where you live.)

Thanks for considering my request, and good luck on your polyamory web project!

[AutumnalTone]

Hmmm...interesting proposal.

I'm not certain there's a clear line between hetero and queer poly, though. My wife is bi. Should she get seriously involved with another woman, then my life will necessarily include that.

Still, if you think there's enough to talk about that would be lost on those of us who are hetero, I'm all for it. I'm not certain how often Olivier checks in, though.

[River]

Well, yes... a lot of poly folk are perfectly comfortable and familiar with gay/bi/queer folk and our "discourses", so I wouldn't want to separate ourselves off from this forum. I just think a nice little queer niche *within* this web-community could prove beneficial, if only because not all poly folk (by any means) are homoerotically inclined.

I have heard it said that many poly folk, in fact, feel rather uncomfortable with gay/bi/queer folk. I don't know to what extent this is true, but discussion of even this very same question immediately surfaces a potentially helpful line of discussion on gay/bi/queer themes.

For what it is worth, I am bisexual (if I must use a label), though most of my "romantic" or erotically involved relationships have been with men.

[AutumnalTone]

NOw that you mention it, I suspect there are some folk who identify as poly who are uncomfortable with queer folk. I say that thinking about the Alt Lifestyles forum on OKC, where many of the people who report being poly are actually swingers--and I remember some of them expressing distaste for queer folk.

So I suspect many of those being reported as poly and uncomfortable are actually swingers and uncomfortable. It appears from here that some swingers are trying to ride their wagons in the poly wagon train to gain some measure of respectability (odd notion, that). Or they simply equate all nonmonogamy and are incapable of understanding the distinctions.

[River]

Oh... I really should have been clear about one point. In no way did I or do I believe non-homoerotically inclined (so-called "straight" or "heterosexual") people should be excluded from discussion of queer/homoeros topics and themes! I'm not wanting to create that sort of segregation at all! I'm sure lots of valuable comments and suggestions, etc., concerning these themes will be provided by "straight" men and women here!

[River]

"... the distinctions ... " Yes! Those are crucial distinctions, indeed. As I understand it, polyamory is centered on the -amory part: love. And if I understand right, swingers are more interested in sexual adventuring which isn't centered on a "heart connection", as I like to call them.

As much as I enjoy sex, I don't imagine I will ever again have "casual" sex -- if ever I did. There has always been some "heart" (love) involved, if not always the intention of a long term, "serious", and commited relationship. I don't think love has to last forever, or be nurtured regularly over a lifetime, to be real love. But I do prefer the many powerful advantages of commitment to loving over time!

[AutumnalTone]

There are many sorts of nonmonogamy and they differ in qualitative fashion. I'm not certain that many people understand that, as the whole topic isn't widely discussed.

For example, I understand the differences between open marriages, poly, and swinging. I can't swear that any given person who identifies with any of those would also understand (or agree) that there's a difference. My former girlfriend, when explaining our relationship to those folks who also knew I'm married, would say my wife and I have an open marriage--which is the only concept those getting the explanation had ever been exposed to.

This, however, is far astray from the topic of getting a board set aside for queer topics.

[River]

This, however, is far astray from the topic of getting a board set aside for queer topics.

Yes, but it is also an interesting subject of discussion!

Anyhow, back to the queer "board" notion. How are such matters decided and implemented? ... and how many moderators are here?

... and now that we're discussing administrative matters for this forum, where is a proper place of asking questions like "How can we promote this forum" so it gets more use? --It appears to me to be a great, but underutilized resource!

[yoxi]

This subject interests me a lot right now.

Since I'm only newly allowing myself to think about all this consciously, it really only occurred to me after reading some of the posts above that 'of course you can have heterosexual polyamory' (took me a minute to click, V's and so on rather than polygons/polyhedra).

I'm bi, and I now know that what I want is to be part of a triple (à la Babel-17) with a bi man and a bi woman. I'm not sure I could do it with others who didn't know what being bi was like (but who knoweth?) Looking on dating sites in the last few days, I was surprised by how many 'straight women who like bi men' are out there, and less surprised at how few 'gay men who like bi men'.

I think I'm just going to have to face the fact that Sesame Street has been brought to me today by the word Surprised, and the number more-than-one.

Meanwhile back on-topic, I think that whatever forums people post in, other people will peek if the titles are interesting enough :), but it could be good to mix it up so we all get to read more about more versions of the poly. (Bloody hell - I've just got the parrot thing. Slow today - too much change.)

[River]

I'm bi, and I now know that what I want is to be part of a triple (à la Babel-17) with a bi man and a bi woman.


Well, let's see now.... If you are in a committed loving relationship with a bi man and a bi woman, given that you are a man yourself, the woman in this triangular geometry will have a very different experience as one of three bi's than the two guys in this arrangement.

>blowing dust off of geometry book -- swwwiioooowww<

The two bi guys in this triad each have the best of all possible worlds: two loves, one male and one female. The bi woman in this triad has.... two male lovers. Now, who could complain about the robust good luck of having TWO lovers?! No one! What great fortune! But the she in this triad may like also to have a woman lover--given that she, too, is bi-. That would convert the geometry of the triad -- a nice solid shape, indeed -- into the rather clunky shape of a square. Are you sure you're ready to be a square?!:p

[yoxi]

Nonono, it'd be a tetrahedron - they're pretty!
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/24/Sierpinski_tetrahedron.jpg
I'm sort of ahead of you on that one, it's just that I've only just got my head/heart around the idea of more-than-two-of-us - and four is a lot to fit in a bed (I'm 6'3", so lots of elbow/knee). No, to be honest it all started pretty selfish, and just about what I want :).

[River]

You'll have to talk with Bob at the Wiggly Parrot Bed Company. They do costom work.


Gads! It's no longer April first. Forget about Bob! I made him up.

[yoxi]

Bob can be our 4thsome - I like the idea of sleeping in a big pile of loves. Warm winters...

[River]

Three Dog Night --

The name

An official commentary included in the CD set Celebrate: The Three Dog Night Story, 1965-1975 states that vocalist Danny Hutton’s then-girlfriend June Fairchild thought of the name when she read a magazine article about indigenous Australians, in which it was explained that on cold nights they would customarily sleep in a hole in the ground while embracing a dingo, a native species of wild dog. On colder nights they would sleep with two dogs, and if a night was especially cold, it was a "Three Dog Night".[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Dog_Night

[yoxi]

I always wondered. I think we stole this topic, though - maybe we should hand it back and walk away slowly.

[River]

I always wondered. I think we stole this topic, though - maybe we should hand it back and walk away slowly.

jrivermartin (*at*) gmail.com :p

[AutumnalTone]

See, I much prefer sleeping by myself. As I have to be attached to a machine for sleep (as does my wife), it's also more practical to have separate beds. And I get way to damn warm with other bodies against me as I sleep, then I wake up and can't get back to sleep.

[yoxi]

I like bodies in the bed - just can't go to sleep face to face with someone (it's a breath thing).

[Quath]

NOw that you mention it, I suspect there are some folk who identify as poly who are uncomfortable with queer folk. I say that thinking about the Alt Lifestyles forum on OKC, where many of the people who report being poly are actually swingers--and I remember some of them expressing distaste for queer folk.

So I suspect many of those being reported as poly and uncomfortable are actually swingers and uncomfortable. It appears from here that some swingers are trying to ride their wagons in the poly wagon train to gain some measure of respectability (odd notion, that). Or they simply equate all nonmonogamy and are incapable of understanding the distinctions.
From what I can tell, the swinger scene is less open to gay men than polyamory is. I am not sure why except that maybe most porn is herteosexual guy fantasy material.

[Red]

where many of the people who report being poly are actually swingers
So I suspect many of those being reported as poly and uncomfortable are actually swingers and uncomfortable. It appears from here that some swingers are trying to ride their wagons in the poly wagon train to gain some measure of respectability (odd notion, that). Or they simply equate all nonmonogamy and are incapable of understanding the distinctions.

I get that you have a very limited understanding of so-called swingers. In my 30 years experience on this subject I can attest to the fact that many so-called and, self identified swingers actually would just as well fit the definition of poly. I know many who start out swinging and then form multiple loving relationships. I know swingers where 3 or more live together in a true poly household. I know others who start out poly and then bring those relationships to the swinging community.

In my experience and opinion the line between swingers and poly is very blurred is there is a line at all. I don't think there ever has been one. Many swingers were poly long befor the term was coined. I think like poly it's self it's just degrees.

[AutumnalTone]

If you read all of my comments about swinging, you'll find that I do understand that there are swingers who are poly and poly folk who also swing.

I understand the difference between swinging and poly quite well, thank you. I also have seen many participants in online discussions who are swingers and clearly not poly speak about being poly. All nonmonogamy is not the same.

[River]

Just announcing a new Social Group here at polyamory.com for gay, bi-, queer folks and their supporters:

http://www.polyamory.com/forum/group.php?groupid=3

[nikkiana]

In my observations of the overall poly community, I've personally noticed two large factions... One being among people in relationships which are mixed gender and the other being relationships that contain gay men only... and the two groups don't often mix.

On the mixed gender side, I've often noticed that the norm tends to be bisexual women and straight men. I can't say I know of any straight women though I'm sure there have to be some that are involved in poly relationships.... and I've occasionally seen lesbian women in poly relationships come and hang around with the mixed genders for support. And I've seen really mixed attitudes regarding bi men and trans folk in the mixed gender poly community, ranging from not accepting at all to very accepting.

Maybe it's just the community of gay men that I hang around with, but it's seemed to me that poly and/or some form of open relationship is rampant... It almost seems weird to me to hear that a gay man is monogamous based on the behavior and philosophy of most of the gay men I know. One of the interesting things that I've run into as a poly woman is that some of my gay male friends have tried to dissuade me from poly because they have a perception that mixed gender poly relationships have much more drama than gay poly relationships do. I disagree with this sentiment, especially since the first time I was told this, I was being told it by some men in the most drama ridden triad I have ever seen. :lol:

[yoxi]

Interesting observations, Nikkiana; I've recently put myself up on a dating website as being a bi man looking for poly-friendly partners of either gender, and so far the overwhelming interest (such as it is :rolleyes:) has been from women who identify themselves on that site as 'straight'. Dunno if this is just a UK thing.

I do know that gay men there don't come near me now that I'm 'bi', though they did when I was 'gay', but that might be the Torch Song Trilogy Phenomenon - you know: "Just for once, I'd like to meet a bisexual man who lived with his boyfriend and snuck out to see his girlfriend..." There's still a strong perception that bisexual (bi men in particular) = promiscuous/confused.

I have yet to find a UK-based polyamory site or forum to see what others are up to or into over here. Oh hell, does that mean I should start one? :confused:

[River]

I have yet to find a UK-based polyamory site or forum to see what others are up to or into over here. Oh hell, does that mean I should start one?

Perhaps, but our very own www.polyamory.com has a place for UK-specific communications and communions. What needs to happen, I think, is better promotion of this site there in the UK and elsewhere. You can help by pointing to us at your dating sites, etc.

And, yes, bisexual men seem to get the short end of the stick pretty much everywhere. (I'm one of those, myself -- though I tend to favor men for lovers, generally, so far.) We're looked upon with all sorts of suspicion from those who are not like us.

[River]

Maybe it's just the community of gay men that I hang around with, but it's seemed to me that poly and/or some form of open relationship is rampant... It almost seems weird to me to hear that a gay man is monogamous based on the behavior and philosophy of most of the gay men I know.

I've never selected friends or social environments based at all on sexual orientation (though lately I'm actively seeking to make more gay and bi male friends). I mention this only because it helps you to see where I am coming from; I'm not, and never have been, part of a gay or queer subculture. This fact means I haven't got a particularly strong sense of what's going on "out there" in the big, bad gay/queer world.

I have known a fair number of bi-, gay, queer men. And for a while I was hanging out with some Radical Faeries at one of their "sanctuaries". The faeries I knew generally inverted the mainstream culture's monogamism, meaning that they looked upon monogamy with a bit of snooty superiority and contempt. Some of these were polyamorous--but few. (This was a long time ago.) One of them even asked me to be one of his lovers!--which weirded me out, since I hadn't yet come to understand and embrace polyamory. Love, to me, still meant monogamy.

Getting to the point.... My overall experience is that, yes, many, many gay/bi/queer men have open relationships of some sort or another, but few are actually polyamorous. Sexual non-exclusivity is one thing and polyamory is quite another -- because poly is primarily about creating loving relationships, usually passionate loving relationships, and it looks very much to me that most gay men with lovers are as possessive and fearful of loss as most straight folk are.

Often, gay male lovers will work out an agreement to the effect that each agrees that the other can have "sexual freedom" --, but have a verbal contract to the effect that "sex is just sex" and "it isn't okay to fall in love" with an outside person (sometimes called "trick").

Gay men often seem to have their erogenous zones split off from their hearts, and this sort of thing seems to be a symptom of that. If one hasn't had that split happen to them, or is deliberately healing that split (however partial it may be -- and I'm one of these, with a very mild case), having "just sex" --without emotions in the love-spectrum-- is a concept akin to "North of the North pole". Yes, the body can experience intense pleasure by rubbing body parts with another body -- but why bother when what we really want is to love and be loved in this way? And isn't there something rather deceptive and crude about using another person as an inflatable doll in a masturbation fantasy?

Of course, not all loving relationships will be alike, or will be long enduring as such, but I'm not at all interested in loveless sex. It stands in the way of where I'm travelling to.

Pardon me the labyrinthian nature of this wandering post. I must leave it rough, for that's what wants to be said, and I'm still learning what I have to say anyhow.

[nikkiana]

That's a good point, JRiverMartin.... while nonmonogamy seems to be fairly common among the gay male communty, it isn't necessarily polyamory.

I'm fairly familiar with the Radical Faerie outlook on things, I went to a gathering at the sanctuary closest to me last fall, and probably will go to more this coming summer... and I have quite a few friends that call themselves Faeries.

[River]

Nikkiana,

May I ask where you live? Maybe the Faerie sanctuary nearest you is where I first encountered those strange folk? (Strangly wonderfull.)

[nikkiana]

I'm in New Hampshire. Faerie Camp Destiny in Vermont is the sanctuary that's nearest to me, and the rumor that I've heard is it's the camp that seems to have the most female and trans Faeries, which I think is pretty nifty. :)

[nikkiana]

I have yet to find a UK-based polyamory site or forum to see what others are up to or into over here. Oh hell, does that mean I should start one? :confused:

I suppose it's somewhat ironic that I actually tripped across one this evening: http://www.polyamory.org.uk/. Looks new.

[yoxi]

Really new - most links don't work yet. Some stuff on there I hadn't come across yet, though, including that ribbon thing. It's not going to seduce me away from here, though... :)

Thanks for posting that, nikkiana.

*update* I tried to contact the website, but they don't have their emial set up yet, it seems. Meanwhile, I came across http://www.uk-poly.net/ too, which has this rather charming description on the front page:

"There is no right way to be polyamorous, (poly folk are a diverse bunch that seldom are able to agree on what to have for breakfast). It is not exclusively about heterosexuality, homosexuality or bisexuality. It is not even about having multiple partners, (many poly folk have less than one)..."

[River]

Yoxi, the first link you posted -- http://www.polyamory.org.uk/# -- with the broken links looks as though it is gonna be fabulous when they get it up and running, fully! I can't wait to see it. Post a reminder if you see new and interesting activity there. Thanks! ... Oh, I didn't register at the other site. Did you? If it's interesting I'd like to know.

James

[yoxi]

the uk-poly.net site is a very slow forum at the moment - mainly consists of messages from people saying 'so... is there anybody out there?' - but I've started chatting with a Kanuck in Scotland, ah, diversity...

[River]

Thanks, Yoxi.

I just wanted to give a "heads up" on the presence of two new topics over in the gay, bi-, queer group at http://www.polyamory.com/forum/group.php.

"The Q word" and "The B word".

[yoxi]

The uk-poly.net site seems to be attracting people looking for group sex or swapping or something. I don't think the concept of polyamory has caught on over here very strongly yet, except among the youngsters. I was a surprised that my counsellor had never heard the term before - and she lives in Glastonbury, the heartland of meta-norms!

[AutumnalTone]

Cool!

[River]

Here's a live chat space for polyamorous gays.

http://gaypoly.weebly.com/chat.html

It appears there is no need to register in order to utilize the live chat system. The site has very little participation at this time, but perhaps folks here can use their chat thingy at arranged times? Also, if folks here are on at the same moment and they want to chat, they can just say so ....

Here's a global map with the current time everywhere(!):

http://www.worldtimezone.com/

You must refresh the page each time you want the time to update.

[River]

As of this moment ...

Views -- 872

Replies -- 36


You do the math, slackers!:eek:

[Solar]

Yoxi, the first link you posted -- http://www.polyamory.org.uk/# -- with the broken links looks as though it is gonna be fabulous when they get it up and running, fully! I can't wait to see it.

Hi guys, I was really pleased to find your posts about polyamory.org.uk, it's my new site and I'm really glad you like the demo page (don't know how it got on to Google already, but hey :P ). The official launch date is June 21st (I thought summer solstice was quite fitting). I've contacted a few people to contribute so if people on here want to get involved let me know. I need people to submit articles, book/film reviews, anything the community would like to see really. The idea of the site is to keep it UK/European in focus and to make it modern, sex positive and informative to experienced polys and the general public alike.

Let me know if you have any suggestions.

Graham

[River]

Graham,

Your site looks as if it will be tremendously good! Very ambitious. Almost makes me wish I were over there on your side of the "pond". I'll be keeping a close eye.:)

[Solar]

Thanks a lot for the kind words, I do hope it will become a major resource for the poly community in the UK and beyond and give the look and feel of poly sites a bit of a make over. Check back towards the end of June as I'll be posting new articles etc., around middle of the month. I'll also post a launch message on here when it goes fully live, hopefully I can swop links with people too.

Thanks again

Graham

[River]

Don't Look Gay: Why American Men Are Afraid of Intimacy with Each Other
By John Ibson, American Sexuality Magazine.
http://www.alternet.org/story/55816/?page=1

[River]

Men & Intimacy:

http://www.polyamory.com/forum/group.php?do=discuss&group=&discussionid=7

[River]

Hello, all! I've been a little busy with other things and haven't had much time to hang out at www.polyamory.com lately. I hope to spend more time in here over the next while.

Say, whatever happened to the momentum at the Gay, Bi-, Queer "social group"?

Social groups can be found by clicking on "Community" on that bar at the top of the page with the list:

User - CP - FAQ - Community - Calendar ... etc.

I started a "Chit Chat" topic there, for those who may be interested.

[River]

There is a little new activity over in the Gay, Bi-, Queer "Social Group"....

http://www.polyamory.com/forum/group.php?groupid=3

[River]

Open Forum: Where Does Polyamory Fit into the Queer Movement?

http://queersunited.blogspot.com/2009/02/open-forum-where-does-polyamory-fit.html

[River]

Given that I just had a sort of "date" with a woman, yesterday, I've been contemplating the matter of what it is like--for myself, for others--to be "bisexual" (see end note for explanation of the quotation marks here) in my culture (I'm American).

The woman I had a lunch date with yesterday may well never become anything other than a friend. But I'm exploring the possibility of ... whatever happens.

So, I'm thinking....

And remembering....

There was Hannah. I fell in love with her. Our relationship was fairly brief. She was quite a lot younger than I was at the time. I was about thirty. She was barely over twenty. I had just recently had a breakup with my first love, M (a guy).

I had a friend at the time who thought that my interest in Hannah couldn't be what I knew it to be. He didn't believe in "bisexuality"* One day, for fun, Hannah and I shared a long passionate, wet kiss in front of this friend in a public place (a bar). Even this did not alter my friend's theory, which is stated thusly: "Everyone is either heterosexual or homosexual; bisexuality was made up by losers who refuse to choose sides and don't want to deal with homosexual stigma."

So there are those types. (Such as this guy.)

And then there are the ones who are made uneasy by "bi" folk, since they -- perhaps -- can only have a sort of watered down attraction to a person of either sex, presumably because a person of such mixed attraction can't find all that they want in either sex. "Bi" folk, in this manner of thinking, are like watered down wine. They can never fully give of themselves to anyone. Any one. For they are themselves two, ("bi") not one.

Etc.

So there are these and other images many people have of "bi" folk. Sometimes we "bi-folk" even internalize them, rather osmotically.

So I'd like to use this topic to explore the liberation of "bi" from such limited and limiting notions.




*End note:

I think we need a new term for "bisexuality" which emphasizes the fact that sex is only part of the whole of what "romantic love" is about. I also dislike terms like "heterosexuality" and "homosexuality". I like sex as much as anyone, but sex is not, for me, central to what it is to love someone. Our language should reflect this fact.

[Ravenesque]

So there are these and other images many people have of "bi" folk. Sometimes we "bi-folk" even internalize them, rather osmotically.

So I'd like to use this topic to explore the liberation of "bi" from such limited and limiting notions.




*End note:

I think we need a new term for "bisexuality" which emphasizes the fact that sex is only part of the whole of what "romantic love" is about. I also dislike terms like "heterosexuality" and "homosexuality". I like sex as much as anyone, but sex is not, for me, central to what it is to love someone. Our language should reflect this fact.

This seems not unlike one of the concepts within monogamy; the concept that a human being cannot love more than one person or have a functioning healthy relationship with more than one person (someone always gets the shorter end of the stick; friends, family, somebody).

I wonder, does your friend identify as polyamorous? I would find it interesting if he did but also subscribed to the philosophy you described above.

And why not? New terms are invented all the time. It is a crucial part of self-identifying as well as reclaiming parts of lost heritages. Come up with a word for yourself. You don't need a crowd. Words are contagious however. Use them enough and they'll be placed in a dictionary somewhere though that wouldn't have been the point. If you're uncomfy with the word why not create a new one. Plus it's fun.

Bi-amorous came to mind at first. I was thinking about it but now I wonder. Bisexual is a word that is used to describe sexual orientation. Is that what you consider the words bisexual, heterosexual, and homosexual to describe? Sexual orientation? If not, from your perspective, what do you see them being used for? What would the new word you create describe about you? Sexual orientation or something else?

~Raven~

[GroundedSpirit]

*End note:

I think we need a new term for "bisexuality" which emphasizes the fact that sex is only part of the whole of what "romantic love" is about. I also dislike terms like "heterosexuality" and "homosexuality". I like sex as much as anyone, but sex is not, for me, central to what it is to love someone. Our language should reflect this fact.

I just stumbled into this thread which looks old but maybe someone is wanting to activate it again ?

In any case - River - per your above quote.......
There has always been a huge difficulty separating "sex" and "love" in modern culture. No point into going into the reasons for that.
They CAN go together - and it's beautiful when they do - but neither is a requirement of the other. For those who choose to believe otherwise, well, they get to live with the consequences (and confusion) of that choice.
I only wish for that fallacy to finally, someday, go away ! But I don't expect to live to see it.

So for me - I certainly don't see any need of further complicating an already over-complex language. The term "bisexual" - inferring an ability to enjoy sexual activity with either gender is about as clear a term as we seem to have in all these convoluted discussions around sex and love. If we needed more clarity we seem to have evolved "pansexual" which I'm still a bit confused about and undecided. Does this pertain to sexuality that includes other forms of life than humans ? I don't know - guess I should go look it up.
But I think the existence of the term probably comes from the same point your question/confusion is coming from about "bisexual". You WANT it to say something about something the word was never intended to refer to - LOVE ! That's just not where and why we needed to add a new word to the language.

The term "polyamory" seems intended to address the need for a term of "loving" multiples, but it's a gender neutral term, which for me is totally self explanatory. If you love someone - you love them. It matters not what gender they are !
So do we REALLY need another term explaining we're capable of "loving" either gender in a "romantic" way ? Maybe.............I don't know. All I can offer is that I don't. Gender is that much of a non-issue for me. And maybe someone already has crossed this bridge and I'm just not aware of it ? But I can see taking a term that's pretty self explanatory and trying to twist and confuse it into a muddled meaning.
I could clearly state that I'm polyamorous AND bisexual and if someone can't put those pieces together and have sufficient meaning in them - I'm happy to clarify on request :)

GS

[River]

Bi-amorous came to mind at first. I was thinking about it but now I wonder. Bisexual is a word that is used to describe sexual orientation. Is that what you consider the words bisexual, heterosexual, and homosexual to describe? Sexual orientation? If not, from your perspective, what do you see them being used for? What would the new word you create describe about you? Sexual orientation or something else?
~Raven~

What I desire is a word that means "bi-amorous," but which rolls off the tongue better, and sounds better.

There are those who have more-or-less strictly sexual relationships with others, where the sexual encounter involves little intimacy of other kinds. These are often as brief as one night stands. Sometimes they last a little longer, but no love bond is formed in them. They are not truly "amorous"; they are not loving relationships, per se. These folks engage in sex as recreation.

Well, I'm not one of those people. I have to actually like my partners, or I'm not going to get between the sheets (so to speak) with them. And if I like them, I'm going to want to stick around and get to know them in various dimentions of intimacy. That is what is meant by "amorous" -- for me. And the term "bisexuality" doesn't emphasize these other dimentions of intimacy. It leaves them out, altogether, while completely emphasizing the sex part of the whole spectrum of intimacy.

This might not matter to some people, but it matters to me in large part because when another approaches me with recreational sex on his/her mind, I might mistake that approach for amorous interest -- when in fact the same person may never like to talk with me, or see me again (after the casual, loveless, sex they want). And when I approach, I don't want to be confused for one who wants a one night stand. So why not have a word for the distinction? Bisexuals can very well be sexual with persons of either sex, but can they (or are they interested in) what may be called "full spectrum intimacy" (intimacy including physical/sexual/sensual but also emotional, intellectual, spiritual dimentions of our being? Are they interested in the heart as much as in the groin? If they are, and they are also attracted to both sexes in this way, then they are "bi-amorous". Not all bisexuals are "bi-amorous".

In this way, I am definitely not "bisexual" -- but I am definitely "bi-amorous".

I'm saying all of this because I've been hurt by people who wanted to be with me sexually, but who were not willing to be with me in a more rounded, whole way. I'm certain I'm not alone in this! Enough mixed signals, already. Let us have a verbal designation!

[This post is also a response to the post following the one in I quoted from.]

[GroundedSpirit]

What I desire is a word that means "bi-amorous," but which rolls off the tongue better, and sounds better.


I understand and basically agree with what you're getting at. A term like "biamoruous" would at first glance be quite unambiguous. Good.
Not sure there isn't such a term - or similar. Problem being this is a binary term in a non-binary world.
Unfortunately for myself, as I read up & think on such subjects trying to understand and better educate myself, it seems we have to now also deal with how we can encompass the .....transgendered community. If that's even the right term. Things were simpler when we primarily had to deal
sexual identity as it stood - biologically. Now we are seeing an explosion where many people's sexuality cannot really be defined biologically - i.e that we don't just have gay or lesbian to incorporate but folks who are physically one gender but emotionally & psychologically the opposite.
So to encompass all combinations it seems we need to adopt a term such as "panamourous" ? Or polyamorous? But as you say, "panamorous" doesn't flow real well off the tongue. But while writing this I searched and discovered that someone else seems to have already coined the term. Ahhhhhhh - learning every day !

http://www.xeromag.com/fvpolyglossary.html#vee

So now - do you have to identify as a polyamorist panamorous ? Damn humans are complicated !

[River]

I was surprised to see a LOT of usage of the term "biamorous" when I googled it. It seems to be in wide usage in polyamory discourse, as well.

"http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=biamorous&rlz=1W1SKPB_en&aq=f&oq=&aqi="

"Panamorous" is also apparently being used, but with more vagueness than biamorous, so far as I can tell from a quick look at usages. Panamorous is a prettier word than biamorous, but only barely. I think that the usefulness of biamorous and biamory, along with it's actual usage in discourse, makes it palatable enough, after all. I'll be describing myself as biamorous until a prettier word comes along. From this moment forward, I am no longer describing myself as "bisexual". I'm biamorous and polyamorous.

[Ravenesque]

What I desire is a word that means "bi-amorous," but which rolls off the tongue better, and sounds better.

There are those who have more-or-less strictly sexual relationships with others, where the sexual encounter involves little intimacy of other kinds. These are often as brief as one night stands. Sometimes they last a little longer, but no love bond is formed in them. They are not truly "amorous"; they are not loving relationships, per se. These folks engage in sex as recreation.

Well, I'm not one of those people. I have to actually like my partners, or I'm not going to get between the sheets (so to speak) with them. And if I like them, I'm going to want to stick around and get to know them in various dimentions of intimacy. That is what is meant by "amorous" -- for me. And the term "bisexuality" doesn't emphasize these other dimentions of intimacy. It leaves them out, altogether, while completely emphasizing the sex part of the whole spectrum of intimacy.

This might not matter to some people, but it matters to me in large part because when another approaches me with recreational sex on his/her mind, I might mistake that approach for amorous interest -- when in fact the same person may never like to talk with me, or see me again (after the casual, loveless, sex they want). And when I approach, I don't want to be confused for one who wants a one night stand. So why not have a word for the distinction? Bisexuals can very well be sexual with persons of either sex, but can they (or are they interested in) what may be called "full spectrum intimacy" (intimacy including physical/sexual/sensual but also emotional, intellectual, spiritual dimentions of our being? Are they interested in the heart as much as in the groin? If they are, and they are also attracted to both sexes in this way, then they are "bi-amorous". Not all bisexuals are "bi-amorous".

In this way, I am definitely not "bisexual" -- but I am definitely "bi-amorous".

I'm saying all of this because I've been hurt by people who wanted to be with me sexually, but who were not willing to be with me in a more rounded, whole way. I'm certain I'm not alone in this! Enough mixed signals, already. Let us have a verbal designation!

[This post is also a response to the post following the one in I quoted from.]


Ah I see. I am still not sure what you see the term "bisexual" describing. What you describe sounds similar to what others describe when speaking of the word polyamorous and why they use it. What would be the difference between the words polyamorous and biamorous for you?

~Raven~

[River]

What would be the difference between the words polyamorous and biamorous for you?
~Raven~

Some self-described bisexuals are also biamorous, but many are not. A bisexual person may be monoamorous! That is, he or she may be sexually attracted to a person of the same (or opposite) sex, but not amorously
attracted -- or even capable!

Jack may like to have sex with other guys, but can only have a "romantic" relationship with women. Jack is monoamorous. Jill, on the other hand, is both sexually and amorously attracted (and capable) with both sexes -- male and female. Jill is biamorous.

John likes to have sex with both men and women, but has no interest in "full spectrum intimacy". For John, sex is a pleasurable form of recreation which has no relation to other kinds of intimacy, e.g., intimate talk, sharing feelings, expressing and exploring the mysteries together.... John just wants to have some "hot" sex and call it an evening. John is not amorous at all. He's bisexual without any biamory.

Tanya is biamorous, but also describes herself as asexual. She has passionate loving relationships with men and women which involve all aspects of intimacy except sex, per se. Tanya is biamorous, but not bisexual. She is also polyamorous and asexual.

====

The point of the term "biamory" is to emphasize that sex isn't at the core of loving relationships--, not even passionate ones. Sure, most biamorous people are also bisexual. But not all bisexuals are biamorous!

Our language should reflect these differences. After all, pretty much everything else in the world has a proper name which distinguishes varieties.

[Ravenesque]

I understand and basically agree with what you're getting at. A term like "biamoruous" would at first glance be quite unambiguous. Good.
Not sure there isn't such a term - or similar. Problem being this is a binary term in a non-binary world.
Unfortunately for myself, as I read up & think on such subjects trying to understand and better educate myself, it seems we have to now also deal with how we can encompass the .....transgendered community. If that's even the right term. Things were simpler when we primarily had to deal
sexual identity as it stood - biologically. Now we are seeing an explosion where many people's sexuality cannot really be defined biologically - i.e that we don't just have gay or lesbian to incorporate but folks who are physically one gender but emotionally & psychologically the opposite.
So to encompass all combinations it seems we need to adopt a term such as "panamourous" ? Or polyamorous? But as you say, "panamorous" doesn't flow real well off the tongue. But while writing this I searched and discovered that someone else seems to have already coined the term. Ahhhhhhh - learning every day !

http://www.xeromag.com/fvpolyglossary.html#vee

So now - do you have to identify as a polyamorist panamorous ? Damn humans are complicated !

If I have to use words, I use the term "pansexual" to describe what sexual attraction feels like to me (as I use polyamorous to describe the knowledge that I want more than one relationship). I don't recognize two genders. I believe there are far more than that and could possibly be impossible to categorize. It is more than gender. It is more than sight; seeing a person and being attracted. There are many mediums through which such attraction can be felt. Sound, touch, the written word.

It's not all that complicated :P But perhaps intricate. A little time to learn where the threads interweave and intersect for different people.

~Raven~

[River]

Ooops! I didn't answer the question properly. Sorry.

The question was about my way of describing the difference between polyamory and biamory.

Here's my answer -- for the moment.:

Polyamory is a term describing a particular sort of non-monogamous relationship or relationship style.

Polyamorous people can be heteroamorous, biamorous, or homoamorous. They may also be homo-, bi-, or hetero- sexual. Not all bisexual people are also biamorous. Etc.

Some biamorous people are also polyamorous (e.g., myself), but not all of them -- by any means. One can be biamorous and staunchly monogamous. Biamorous folks are romantically attracted to both sexes. Polyamorous people are open to multiple, simultanious romantic relationships which are rooted in honesty.

[Ravenesque]

The point of the term "biamory" is to emphasize that sex isn't at the core of loving relationships--, not even passionate ones. Sure, most biamorous people are also bisexual. But not all bisexuals are biamorous!

Our language should reflect these differences. After all, pretty much everything else in the world has a proper name which distinguishes varieties.

*grins* I understand your perspective on it now. Your examples were helpful. I'd get what you mean when you use the terms where I wouldn't have previously.

I wouldn't use them in this way myself but I'd understand you and the view behind it.

~Raven~

[Ravenesque]

Ooops! I didn't answer the question properly. Sorry.

The question was about my way of describing the difference between polyamory and biamory.

Here's my answer -- for the moment.:

Polyamory is a term describing a particular sort of non-monogamous relationship or relationship style.

Polyamorous people can be heteroamorous, biamorous, or homoamorous. They may also be homo-, bi-, or hetero- sexual. Not all bisexual people are also biamorous. Etc.

Some biamorous people are also polyamrous (e.g., myself), but not all of them -- by any means. One can be biamorous and staunchly monogamous. Biamorous folks are romantically attracted to both sexes. Polyamorous people are open to multiple, simultanious romantic relationships which are rooted in honesty.

LoL, don't worry. I actually came to that conclusion from what you were saying in the examples. Based on your reasoning, though the portion of the word '-amorous' is the same, they mean different things and a person can be biamorous and polyamorous.

I also understand the distinction you're making between being able to have a sexual relationship and being able to have a romantic relationship with people based on a binary gender system.

~Raven~

[River]

I wouldn't use them in this way myself but I'd understand you and the view behind it.


====

It's difficult to guage how useful others might find these terms. But I have strong personal reasons for advocating for some multiplication of terminology. These reasons have much to do with being male as well as bi, and also American.

It seems to me that here in the USA there are a great many closeted queers. (Please don't make me define "queer"!) Many of the closet cases are homo- or bisexual, but are not (yet!) homo- or bi- amorous. For this reason, they are not available for homo- or bi- amorous relationships. But it is most difficult (at the initial stages of getting to know them) to know which is which -- and this difficulty is exacerbated by their own lack of self-knowledge and honesty -- and the fact that many simply don't know what love (amorousness) is, or conflate it with sex.

These days, a lot of folks find potential partners by posting personals ads online, or by coming together with common interest/networking groups, face to face. There are bi, gay, and hetero- meeting places, e.g., bars, clubs.... There are internet forums. There are social groups..., and all of these use names to designate what's going on, who's interested or available for what.

Many bi-, homo- and hetero- amorous folks don't want to mix a lot with those who are only interested in, or capable of, recreational sex. Etc.

[Ravenesque]

====

It's difficult to guage how useful others might find these terms. But I have strong personal reasons for advocating for some multiplication of terminology. These reasons have much to do with being male as well as bi, and also American.

....

Many bi-, homo- and hetero- amorous folks don't want to mix a lot with those who are only interested in, or capable of, recreational sex. Etc.

I understand the purpose, as you're proposing it, behind the word bi-amorous.

The reason I wouldn't use it myself has to do with my take on binaries as well as my preference for just saying what I mean and/or what I want, and clarifying if need be.

If I found that within the relationships I was having, there was an expectation for sex to be more prevalent than I wanted it to be because I self-identified as bisexual (which I did, up until I didn't), I'd simply start stating right off the bat "I am looking for a relationship with elements A, B and C, and actions A,B, and C and sex is not very high on my list at the moment. Are you looking for the same thing?"

I don't find it necessary for everyone to use the same word meaning the exact same thing in order to be understood or in order for me to understand another person.

I didn't have a clue what you were getting at with the bi-amorous bit. I asked a few questions and now I understand your perspective. It's not for me but it's not necessary for me to agree in order to understand.

I could define what "queer" means for me as well. It's not that much effort for me. Even if it was, it would be effort well spent in my opinion.

~Raven~

[redpepper]

So would this make me panamourous if I consider myself pansexual and wanted to identify with the love in my heart rather than sexual preference?

oops, I just noticed the other thread, so I will move this question there.... sorry.

[River]

I'm a bi guy with quite a bit more experience with men than with women--, who'd really appreciate some conversation in here which is pertinent to gay and bi guy's challenges, issues, questions relative to polyamory.

I find it rather challenging to meet poly-friendly gay and bi guys who are actually interested in a rounded sort of relationship. There seem to be a lot of guys around who want to have casual ("NSA") sex with strangers whom they seemingly hope not to see again. Makes me think that the gay "movement" hasn't been so successful in addressing the fallout of social stigma... as we'd like to think. That is, I think perhaps this wouldn't be so much the case if it weren't for the social stigma.

[redpepper]

I can't say much about the gay community as I don't know much about it, but the lesbian community I find a hard nut to crack myself. There are some bridges that need building. I would love to even remotely be considered as a part of that group again.

There are poly lesbians out there, but I have found that in talking to them there is a big wall that goes up when they talk about their poly natures to their lesbian community. It seems that the stereotype of serial monogamy and a u-haul on the second date is often alive and well.

[River]

I've actually fallen to the level of trying Craigslist! Got my hopes up a little when a guy wanted to meet me for lunch even though I made it clear that (a) I wasn't into "sex with strangers" and that (b) I was in a committed long term relationship / was poly.

He said he'd call and arrange a time and place to meet for lunch. But he never called ... nor followed up by email. Nothing. Nada. Zilch. Zip.

I live in a moderate sized tourist town which is supposed to be queer-friendly. Yet we have no place to meet one another here, us queers. And really it looks to me that there are a LOT of closet cases / "down low" ..., and folks who aren't really interested in relating intimately in a rounded way or over time.

>sigh<

[GroundedSpirit]

I'm a bi guy with quite a bit more experience with men than with women--, who'd really appreciate some conversation in here which is pertinent to gay and bi guy's challenges, issues, questions relative to polyamory.

I find it rather challenging to meet poly-friendly gay and bi guys who are actually interested in a rounded sort of relationship. There seem to be a lot of guys around who want to have casual ("NSA") sex with strangers whom they seemingly hope not to see again. Makes me think that the gay "movement" hasn't been so successful in addressing the fallout of social stigma... as we'd like to think. That is, I think perhaps this wouldn't be so much the case if it weren't for the social stigma.

Hi River,

I'm going out on a limb here and even propose a theory that some might call gender biased or potentially stereotypical. So be it.

From what I've seen and experienced in the male bisexual community (have no real experience in the gay comm - only via reading), sexual pleasure seems to be the primary motivator. Some variety.
I'm going to suggest that the large majority of these individuals come from the camp, which DO seem to be dominated by men, that can relatively easily separate sex and love - or any true emotional entanglement. For what are probably a long list of various reasons many of the bisexual men I know are really not particularly interested in all the entanglements and complications that a deeper relationship brings. Many already have one, and not because they are philosophically opposed to more (poly), but because they don't want to take on any additional effort beyond a good sexual time, put up a certain barrier.
Could that barrier be taken down ? I feel in many of the cases it might. But it would require time and some deep conversations and even getting a second or third meeting/conversation might be the first hurdle to overcome.
And that whole discussion could open up subjects such as guilt, homophobic concerns etc.

But I think there IS some momentum pushing this into a more normal (?) direction.

Thoughts from here anyway............

GS

[River]

I do believe there are more closeted gay/bi/queer men round here than out ones. So that's a big part of the dynamic, I think. We're talking internalized homophobia and social fear and stigma (This is Northern New Mexico, largely hispanic culture).

I can't believe that men are generally and naturally disinclined to form loving, affectionate bonds, whether they are gay, bi or straight. Human beings, I think, really do need these sorts of connections and bonds. But not all know that they do. And many probably try to fill the void with sex, alcohol, drugs, workaholism, etc....


I once worked with a couple of other guys trying to organize a regular potluck picnic gathering of gay / bi / queer men in a local park. It was well advertised, but only two or three folks would show up at a time! Yet there have to be thousands of us round here.

[Ariakas]

I can't believe that men are generally and naturally disinclined to form loving, affectionate bonds, whether they are gay, bi or straight. Human beings, I think, really do need these sorts of connections and bonds. But not all know that they do. And many probably try to fill the void with sex, alcohol, drugs, workaholism, etc....


I think we do. I just think its different. I have loving bonds (and no I would not refer to it that to be honest)...we have people over, chat, hug during tough times, celebrate success, play sports. The only thing different is the level of acceptable intimacy.

At least in my world I see this.

[River]

Well, obviously, straight men are going to be in some ways different than gay or bi- men with regard to the kinds of relationships they might have with men. Some straight men are much more available to deep intimacy and bonding, including non-sexual touching, with men than others. Same with bi- and gay men. The difference between gay/bi/queer guys and straight guys is primarily about sexuality.

Personally, I find sexual activity profoundly intimate, and I just don't understand "casual sex" activity which isn't about creating or celebrating closeness. But, apparently, I'm in a minority status within the "gay community" in this regard. The mainstream of American "gay culture" seems to involve a fair bit of objectification and depersonalization, thus too many same-sex encounters are quite superficial and lacking in nurturing.

Nurturing? ... Well, yeah.

[River]

I found this on the web and thought to post it here in case anyone might be interested.

Intimacy Freak-Out & Gay Men; Part 1
http://thegaylovecoach.com/2005/08/intimacy-freak-out-part-1/

[redpepper]

Well, obviously, straight men are going to be in some ways different than gay or bi- men with regard to the kinds of relationships they might have with men. Some straight men are much more available to deep intimacy and bonding, including non-sexual touching, with men than others. Same with bi- and gay men. The difference between gay/bi/queer guys and straight guys is primarily about sexuality.

Personally, I find sexual activity profoundly intimate, and I just don't understand "casual sex" activity which isn't about creating or celebrating closeness. But, apparently, I'm in a minority status within the "gay community" in this regard. The mainstream of American "gay culture" seems to involve a fair bit of objectification and depersonalization, thus too many same-sex encounters are quite superficial and lacking in nurturing.

Nurturing? ... Well, yeah.

If it helps any, nerdist is probably right down the middle most of the time in terms of his sexuality. Sometimes he is into men more, sometimes women. He takes sex very seriously too in terms of emotional bonding. He is much like you in that way river. You are not alone. Perhaps you are looking in the wrong places to find men to be with? Just a thought.

[rolypoly]

The mainstream of American "gay culture" seems to involve a fair bit of objectification and depersonalization, thus too many same-sex encounters are quite superficial and lacking in nurturing.

Nurturing? ... Well, yeah.

I'll pipe in too and say that you're not alone... I know gay men who need an emotional bond to be able to have sex. They're out there....

[River]

... I know gay men who need an emotional bond to be able to have sex....

I'm capable of getting turned on by sexy men or women, and could go through the motions of sex with them without some sort of ongoing emotional bond, but this just isn't what I really want. I want sex to be one of the ways affection and closeness / intimacy is expressed and experienced. I want my heart in it, and his or hers, too. Then it's really juicy! Everything else will ultimately be disappointing for me.

[GroundedSpirit]

I can't believe that men are generally and naturally disinclined to form loving, affectionate bonds, whether they are gay, bi or straight. Human beings, I think, really do need these sorts of connections and bonds. But not all know that they do. And many probably try to fill the void with sex, alcohol, drugs, workaholism, etc....


I largely agree with this River. As you say, most all humans have a deeper need for true intimacy. And I agree that in some cases you attempt to fill that void with all the things you listed.

But in the current culture especially, I think men are more comfortable just settling for an orgasm. It affects brain chemistry immediately. And in the gay/bi culture it's relatively easy to cum by. Add to that all the relationship horror stories that we've all seen & heard and it seems easy to take the no effort path even if it doesn't completely fill that void. More of that instant gratification syndrome that's so prevalent in modern culture.

I think when any party starts to open the conversation about "I'm really looking for more"....... the defensive shields trigger. Getting past those shields will develop into an art form.

GS

[rpcrazy]

I'm not really active in the gay community so...what's the difference between queer and gay? behavior choices?

[redpepper]

I'm not really active in the gay community so...what's the difference between queer and gay? behavior choices?

Queer is an umbrella term for anyone who is chosing to identify as not the norm sexually.

Gay is more wo do with homosexuality specifically.

[River]

Question: Is there a difference in the terms "queer" and "gay/lesbian"?
Vanessa wrote in with this question. "I was wondering if there is a difference in the terms "queer" vs. gay/lesbian?"

Answer: The word queer to many is an insult that was said in a hurtful way to gays, lesbians and anyone who was different. Today, many people have reclaimed the word "queer" to be an all-encompassing term for gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and genderqueer. While gaining popularity, some still find the word "queer" to be offensive. To be on the safe side, unless you know your audience and know that the word will not offend them, use gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender or LGBT for short. For any formal writing or presentations, it is appropriate to spell out lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender in the first usage and shorten it to LGBT thereafter.

Quoted from: http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/lesbianactivism/f/QueerGayLesbian.htm


===

Personally, I often call myself "queer" in order to distinguish myself from "gays" who have no sexual or romantic attraction to women, and because most of my "romantic" experience and inclination has been same sex -- though I'm capable of falling wildly for some women. I could as well call myself "bi," but I like the inclusivity of the term "queer," while "bi-" seems to put a lot of folks off somehow or another. It's surprizing, for example, how many folks actually think bisexuality and biamory are myths, like unicorns! We're supposed not to exist by millions. As the theory goes, all supposedly bisexual/biamorous folks are really (consciously or otherwise) trying to maintain some "heterosexual privilege" or are trying to escape some of the social stigma associated with being "gay" or "homosexual". One basic premise most of these folks hold to is that one, by nature, must be either gay or straight, hetero- or homo-. Period.

Weird!

It's funny how some "gay" people don't think I count as being one of them -- a "gay," because I'm also attracted to women. Also, some think my attraction to one or the other gender/sex must be watered down because it is distributed in this way. But let me tell you, I ain't watered down one bit!

[rpcrazy]

thx for the clarification rpepper, you rock like hard candy as always!

I dated a gay guy once...he ended up hating me, lol. I'm pretty sure it has something to do with the fact that I don't HAVE to come out(even though i've had to, to some close people), but he did. Or something like that :/ It's sad really...I love my gay brothas!

[River]

....
I dated a gay guy once...he ended up hating me, lol. I'm pretty sure it has something to do with the fact that I don't HAVE to come out(even though i've had to, to some close people), but he did. Or something like that :/ It's sad really...I love my gay brothas!

Okay, I realize I'm responding late to an older post, but here goes, anyway.:

rpcrazy, while dating this guy, were you ever reluctant to tell the simple truth,
just as you'd do if you were dating a gal, instead?

[River]

Hey You Guys! (& gals)

And that means you, too, you lurkers!

Speak up!

Thanks!

At least ask a question if you haven't got a statement to make. Eh?

[RfromRMC]

Perhaps this thread needs to be merged with this one: http://www.polyamory.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3830 ??

[River]

Perhaps this thread needs to be merged with this one: http://www.polyamory.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3830 ??

Eh, I'm not so sure. One is explcitly about MEN, the other is broader and more inclusive in intent.

In any case, neither thread is seeing activity since last year. Which saddens me a little. :(

I wish the lurkers would speak up!

[Magdlyn]

OK OK!

Here I am, a queer/pansexual/panamorous woman formerly in a very long term monogamous relationship with a straight guy. I enjoyed het privilege galore for all those years.

Now, I am in a 2+year relationship with a MTF (male to female) transgendered woman, and we are polyamorous.

I can't find a guy who will enter into a more serious committed relationship with me, despite looking for that for 2 years. Not a straight guy, not a bi or pansexual guy, not a single guy, not a stable partnered poly guy. Of course, my lack of success is partly because my dating pool is narrower because of my gender (queer) my sexual preference (all genders), and my lovestyle (poly).

But part of it comes down the the trouble with guys (gay, bi or straight). Guys are just tough. In general (present company excluded) they don't feel comfortable expressing feelings, whether this is cultural, or somehow built in biologically. I've read it's partly brain chemistry. Because of men's long history as hunters and warriors, they've learned to be able to turn off feelings so they can carry on during a hunt or battle despite an injury, deprivation, or witnessing the horror of seeing comrades wounded or killed.

That said, most men are more comfortable expressing feelings, if they ever do, to a woman friend or mate. Sharing feelings with another dude? Nah, that makes them feel all ooshy and womanly. It's a sign of weakness! Let's just drink another beer, deal another hand of poker, and talk about sports, please!

[BlackUnicorn]

Ah, the Kinsey 4 with NO experience whatsoever in the field of women, finding herself in what seems to be escalating into a situation where I am secondary to TWO straight guys! That is me alright.

My problem is exactly the opposite from yours, Magdlyn. Girls just don't fancy me. My animal magnetism isn't coming through to them. I go on dates, and I like them, but NOTHING ever comes out of it!

I've been told I should be more aggressive in showing my interest and pursuing women, because after all the heterosexist conditioning, women are loathe to take the initiative even with other women. Frankly, I don't know how aggressively you CAN express your interest before crossing over to sexual harassment!

My problem is not some sort of deficient socialization, for I have lots of female friends, including very close ones, and talk to girls on-line all the time. So obviously I'm likable but maybe not beddable to other women?

[River]

.... Sharing feelings with another dude? Nah, that makes them feel all ooshy and womanly. It's a sign of weakness! Let's just drink another beer, deal another hand of poker, and talk about sports, please!

Ooooh, I LOVE feeling all ooshy with men! >Posting lawn sign to this effect<:D

....

I, too, am feeling challenged in finding men who are willing to be a little more ooshy.

[Magdlyn]

My problem is exactly the opposite from yours, Magdlyn. Girls just don't fancy me. My animal magnetism isn't coming through to them. I go on dates, and I like them, but NOTHING ever comes out of it!

I've been told I should be more aggressive in showing my interest and pursuing women, because after all the heterosexist conditioning, women are loathe to take the initiative even with other women. Frankly, I don't know how aggressively you CAN express your interest before crossing over to sexual harassment!

My problem is not some sort of deficient socialization, for I have lots of female friends, including very close ones, and talk to girls on-line all the time. So obviously I'm likable but maybe not beddable to other women?

Oh no, I have that problem as well, BU. Women so rarely message me on okc, and when they do, it usually quickly fizzles. Or they bore me, older women just wanting to prattle about their knitting or grandkids for hours... or they live 70 miles away. Or, sometimes, I am 95% sure they are actually a guy just looking to get off.

I think I'd do better in lesbian bars possibly. But I don't really do the club scene. Too expensive.

[River]

.... But I don't really do the club scene. Too expensive.

Buy one drink and sip it very, very slowly. :p

[RfromRMC]

I think I'd do better in lesbian bars possibly. But I don't really do the club scene. Too expensive.
Most lesbians and bi women I know say the same thing. Thus, they go for stuff like softball leagues, bowling, biking/hiking outings, coffee socials...stuff like that.

[Vivien]

Hi, all. Just adding myself to the list. :)

[Magdlyn]

Buy one drink and sip it very, very slowly. :p

Actually I've been chatting on on and off with this tv/transwoman person on okc for a while in a friendly way, and she's always wanted me to accompany her to this gay/les club up in NH. Now that my weekends are more free b/c of my gf seeing her bf overnight, Ive got more free time, and told her id take her up on the offer. the cover's only $5 and she said she'd pay. hehe She said everyone is very friendly there and lots of lesbians ask her to dance... so it would be fun to try my luck! I just need for her to find herself a free Sat night.

[River]

Magdlyn,

Remember, sip, don't gulp! And good luck.

====

Everyone, ... er.., guys:

Check out www.GayOutdoors.org . A good way to meet folks, I think.

[River]

Is sex the central thing (deal) about being, um..., gay? The marketeers of "gay" seem to think so.

http://www.polyamory.com/forum/showthread.php?p=74831#post74831

[RfromRMC]

I'm guessing you're referring to the theme of "sex sells" when it comes to gay-oriented businesses, like magazines, etc?

I dunno. I mean, there's always the stereotype that gay men sleep around more than straight men. But I've always believed it was not a gay vs straight thing. It was more because men in general are usually more horny than women...and that unfortunately for straight guys, they only get sex when the women in their lives will give it to them. Whereas a gay man, anytime he's in the mood can find another one who is too.

So to get back to your marketing thing, I think it's just reflective of all that. A travel agency advertising a gay cruise will have the ads covered with hot guys in bathing suites, but the ads for a cruise for straight couples will probably have pictures of romantic sunsets and other scenes to appeal to the women.

[BlackUnicorn]

It was more because men in general are usually more horny than women...and that unfortunately for straight guys, they only get sex when the women in their lives will give it to them. Whereas a gay man, anytime he's in the mood can find another one who is too.

So to get back to your marketing thing, I think it's just reflective of all that. A travel agency advertising a gay cruise will have the ads covered with hot guys in bathing suites, but the ads for a cruise for straight couples will probably have pictures of romantic sunsets and other scenes to appeal to the women.

Hehee, since we are getting on to the world of stereotypes I'm happy to inform you that bi-women beat the shit out of men both gay and straight when it comes to having horns, so where are our sexy adds? :D

Seriously speaking, lesbian media marketing too is very sexualized, which doesn't sit well with some of the anti-commercial, anti-objectified-sex people involved in the community. I think it comes down to thinking that gay is a SEXUAL orientation - i.e. it's not about desiring relationships and sharing your life with people who share your gender identification, but it's about desiring a certain set of genitalia.

As to the are women less horny than men in general, I think the question is pretty impossible to solve in our current gender/orientation system. For women, heterosexual activity carries SO much cultural baggage as in being perceived as a bad girl, a slut, putting it out for the man, fear of pregnancy etc. that it would be strange if none of it carried to same-sex relationships, too, particularly since many more gay women than gay men have at some point in there lives been involved with the opposite sex, too. I know women who say that being gay is so liberating because there are no sluts in the dyke scene, just girls who get around. And then there are women who say it's so liberating not to have their female partner constantly initiate sex, unlike their previous male partners.

A woman friend of mine is so excited about her new sexual relationship with a man, not so much for the general sexual satisfaction but because she feels she is a properly functioning, desirable woman who is able to have heterosexual intercourse after all. Just sayin' it's not that simple 'women want it less' -issue.

[BlackUnicorn]

I think I'd do better in lesbian bars possibly. But I don't really do the club scene. Too expensive.

That, and what doesn't attract me to the scene at all is that many people my age involved tend to use alcohol rather heavily.

[Magdlyn]

Women have a much much MUCH! higher orgasmic potential than men. We are just as horny as men, if not more. We've just been programmed to be "pure" because of the patriarchy. We deny our own feelings to be seen as lady-like and mate material.

[River]

.... I think it comes down to thinking that gay is a SEXUAL orientation - i.e. it's not about desiring relationships and sharing your life with people who share your gender identification, but it's about desiring a certain set of genitalia. ....

Right.

The very idea of "gay" (which I'm here using -- or stretching -- in a broad way, similar to "queer," as to include bi men -- such as myself) is marketed in a certain way, whether or not anything is being literally sold (which, usually, it is). That way--the way the term is tossed around--is sex-centered. Not loving-centered.

Now, I'm a BIG fan of sex. I really am. But sex is not the center of my attraction to men. It's juicy. It's exciting. It's fun. And it's a basic biological drive, etc. But, shit, so is loving! And loving isn't sex!

We men, and maybe women too, are being sold a bill of goods. We're being taught by the "marketeers" of culture that sex is MORE important than loving,
and the two need not have anything whatsoever to do with one another.

And so I think we need another term than gay, or we need to fight the marketeers and "rebrand" "gay".

I like the latter idea better. Let's take "gay" back from those who stole it from us! Let those who are into "just sex" ("NSA," etc., i.e., recreational sex with strangers and the kindred), be "homosexuals". They shouldn't mind. It's sex that they WANT at the center of their label. They don't want those "mooshy" feelings!

I want some damned mooshy feelings! That's what being "gay" should be all about. Er, rather, ... loving.

[Magdlyn]

Ah, River, that's why I love The Birdcage/La Cage au Folles. Mooshy loving feelings abound, between the 2 main characters, and in their family as well (their son, their houseboy, the son's gf, her parents, their family of queens downstairs in the club...).

[scramcity]

From what I can tell, the swinger scene is less open to gay men than polyamory is. I am not sure why except that maybe most porn is herteosexual guy fantasy material.

Hi thought I'd chime in:)
As a multi- decades lesbian turned bi thenswing then poly, I have observed this as well. I found the swing scene to be more poly minded often but yes definitely homophobic for men but not for women. Many bi men I spoke to shared their experiences of being seen as " too gay" and therefore often had to play it str8 to be involved. It seems like some aspects of swing are all about the str8 men's desires, yet they will quickly tell you it's really the women that have the control, as women are the gatekeepers to most parties. For Which the men need the women to gain access. After running thru these changes for myself I've found that the amount of bi people is about 400% larger than I'd previously been aware of. And also that the str8 people in my life have been far more open minded about my relationships than the majority of my gay friends.

[BlackUnicorn]

As a multi- decades lesbian turned bi...

Ooh, women who have transitioned from lesbian to bi intrigue me! Now I know you and Redpepper, there are probably others on this forum. Female sexual fluidity is something I spend absurd amounts of time thinking about, since I've moved a fair bit between identifying as a gay woman and identifying as a bi woman. Just now I'm comfortable with flexbian - primarily interested in women but willing to make exceptions for a few specific men. I find my 'man-phases' come and go, and more often than not probably become self-feeding cycles - opening yourself to one man leads to noticing others in a special way too, and then you allow other men a little more leeway, and sooner than you know it, you are on a man-binge!

I have been informed that nobody who likes cock as much as I do can be a lesbian. But to me, orientation is about emotional attraction first and foremost. If it were easier to meet women I'd probably stop actively dating men all together and just stick with my current sweetheart and any lovely ladies I could put under my spell. Maybe I'm one of those lesbians who end up married with a man after all.

I wonder how much of this emotional preference of mine has to do with having been brought up in a two-female-household. I've never lived with an adult male, related or unrelated, and was thus severely shocked by the discovery that although everyone calls them 'balls' or 'testicles', they are in fact located in the SAME bag! Like what is that about?! ATM I have a live-in mum and a live-in straight gf, and have one male friend who is as gay as a Swiss cuckoo clock. Like, how homo-social can one get, really?

Growing up I thought everyone was bisexual and was quite surprised to discover at the tender age of eleven that it was not so. I experienced my bisexual and feminist revelation pretty simultaneously, so I guess it's one of the reasons I feel so drawn to this quote by Alice Walker;
"A womanist is a woman who loves other women sexually and/or non-sexually. Appreciates and prefers women's culture, women's emotional flexibility (values tears as a natural counterbalance of laughter), and women's strength. Sometimes loves individual men, sexually and/or non-sexually."

So yeah, if the term had wider currency I'd love to be a womanist.

Midnight ramblings. Love 'em.

[opalescent]

Count me among the sexually fluid, lesbian-to-bi-to-???? types on the board. I think there are quite a few of us running about. I don't think enjoying cock makes one not a lesbian/queer/bi - I think it just means you like dick. Me too! Men who enjoy a finger in the ass are not automatically turned gay/queer by the experience - the reverse is true too.

Recently, I had the somewhat startling realization that the more I fuck men, the more I realize I have little in common with many mainstream, straight women.

[nycindie]

. . . the more I fuck men, the more I realize I have little in common with many mainstream, straight women.

What do you mean? It's a fascinating statement, so just wondering. I'm a straight woman, but hopefully not too mainstream. :)

[girlpatrol]

Ooh, women who have transitioned from lesbian to bi intrigue me! Now I know you and Redpepper, there are probably others on this forum. Female sexual fluidity is something I spend absurd amounts of time thinking about, since I've moved a fair bit between identifying as a gay woman and identifying as a bi woman. Just now I'm comfortable with flexbian - primarily interested in women but willing to make exceptions for a few specific men.
Ah! Me too! I'm a flexbian! :D

I used to think I knew it all about myself. In high school, I was "definitely straight". When I was 20, I was "definitely bi". In my mid-20s, I was "definitely lesbian". When I hit 30, I was "maybe straight...??" for about a month, then to "1000% lesbian". At 35, I was thinking "lesbian... pretty much." At 38 now I'm "queer." I got tired of looking for the right thing to try and define myself, and then wondering why I had to at all. I just roll with 'queer' now - or flexbian :D - it seems to cover all the bases in a general and uplifting way, and I don't get headaches and complexes from analyzing it anymore.

When it comes to the idea of dating, though, I'm just willing to go out with the person first, and decide later if it should go further. I will concede that most of the "go further" times have been with women, as there is definitely something in the touch of a woman I desire, in a far different, and more compelling, way than the touch of a man. I'm not sure if I would ever be satisfied, wholly, in a relationship with just male partner(s), and I worry that if I try I'll fail miserably... this actually reminds me of something I need to ask for advice on in another thread sometime.

I am biologically female, and very woman, but pretty andro in my thinking and personality. I have no problem getting comfortable with my "male side". But a random stranger on the street would probably classify me as "hetero gender normative" based on looks alone. These ideas are pretty fluid with me, however, so the terms to describe them, I find, usually fall very short and are misapplied. I'm always thinking and challenging ideas of gender and sexuality even within myself. Gender is a very complex idea. It wouldn't faze me, though, to put a little Venus symbol in my signature or anything, or a little rainbow flag or something.

[BlackUnicorn]

When it comes to the idea of dating, though, I'm just willing to go out with the person first, and decide later if it should go further. I will concede that most of the "go further" times have been with women, as there is definitely something in the touch of a woman I desire, in a far different, and more compelling, way than the touch of a man. I'm not sure if I would ever be satisfied, wholly, in a relationship with just male partner(s), and I worry that if I try I'll fail miserably...

The more I am with women the more I realize how strong my preference for them is. The men I tend to go for have very definitive feminine/boyish streaks in them.

I am biologically female, and very woman, but pretty andro in my thinking and personality. I have no problem getting comfortable with my "male side". But a random stranger on the street would probably classify me as "hetero gender normative" based on looks alone. These ideas are pretty fluid with me, however, so the terms to describe them, I find, usually fall very short and are misapplied. I'm always thinking and challenging ideas of gender and sexuality even within myself. Gender is a very complex idea.

And gender isn't the be all and end all of sexual attraction either. I am somewhat of a chubby-chaser, I must confess. I'm size 14 myself and prefer people with real bellies. I know a lot of lovely men and women who don't do it for me because they are very athletic/thin/petite.

And though I self-identify as vanilla, I'm definitely versatile and like to both top and bottom, depending on my mood. To quote a woman I greatly admire; 'I think the best sex is to be had between too versatile self-confident bottoms'. My sweetheart, despite being very male and very fit, definitely fits that bill!

[River]

Folks might not want to respond to today's River's Blog post in the "blog". It does end with a question, and it isn't entirely rhetorical.

http://www.polyamory.com/forum/showthread.php?p=76253#post76253

What do you think?

[RfromRMC]

River--- It was a very interesting post, thanks for sharing.

If I had to guess, it sounds like he's typical of a lot of gay men in "open relationships"---sex with others is ok but you're only allowed to love one man. And in that same breath, they'll turn around and say something negative and/or stereotypical about polyamory ("dangerous" in his words). I know...the irony! :rolleyes:
And the sad fact is, I'm convinced most of the time, these guys in open relationships would actually benefit from true polyamory. (It's certainly more healthy than sleeping around and trying to act like you can never love anyone you screw.)
Sigh...it can be exhausting trying to find gay men who actually know what polyamory is about.

To the question at the end of your post...should you forget him? Well, if you can be a friend-with-benefit with him, knowing that's all he wants, then more power to you. Nothing wrong with that...have fun, play safe, etc.
But...only you can know if that's what will make you happy in the longterm.

[nycindie]

Oh! River, I posted a response to your blog - were you saying you didn't want people to do that? I'm sorry!

[River]

... were you saying you didn't want people to do that? I'm sorry!

No, no. I just didn't want anyone to NOT reply because they don't want to post in someone's blog. That's all. I wanted people to have a choice between responding there or here.

No problem!




RfromRMC,
Thanks for your response. Pondering....

[opalescent]

Recently, I had the somewhat startling realization that the more I fuck men, the more I realize I have little in common with many mainstream, straight women.

When I started sleeping with men, I had some expectations - some of which happened and others not. For example, I expected some reaction from my LGBT friends because many people in those communities believe sexuality to be a fixed characteristic. However, that has not been my experience so far.

I've always had sympathy for straight men because, well, I've tried to pick up women too. And I expected that I would learn more about men which has been very true.

I also thought I would align myself more with straight women - that me and straight women would have more in common. After all, I am now doing one of those things that make a straight women - fucking men. I guess I envisioned more bonding over the goofy things men do.

I chat with my guys during pillow talk - admittedly, this is their perceptions - and find that their experiences of dating and being with women surprise me - largely because it does not line up with my experiences of dating women or how I think of myself as female. I'm amazed at how little communication there is, how so much of it seems to be assumed, or extracted solely from behavior. Given my recent experiences, I'm hardly fool-proof at this myself - but I know that communication needs to happen, even if I fail at it sometimes.

I'm also surprised at how passive during sex some women seem to be. Both male lovers have commented that I am more responsive than other partners. SW asked how I was afterwards and I purred back "REAL good" which made him laugh - when I asked why (I didn't mean to be funny) he said that my responsiveness made him chuckle. I told him he must have dated the quietest set of women ever.

Telling a partner they did good just seems the right thing to do. I love feedback myself and have a hard time imagining being with a very quiet, or unresponsive partner. It's difficult to wrap my mind around - I guess I always selected female partners who also love to give and get feedback.

I realize that I am generalizing from a small sample and that not all straight women are quiet in bed or don't communicate well in relationships. I also don't mean that I never connect with straight women, mainstream or otherwise, but I thought sleeping with men would leave me with more in common with straight women. So far, that has not been the case.

[BlackUnicorn]

I'm also surprised at how passive during sex some women seem to be. Both male lovers have commented that I am more responsive than other partners. SW asked how I was afterwards and I purred back "REAL good" which made him laugh - when I asked why (I didn't mean to be funny) he said that my responsiveness made him chuckle.

:D That's happened for me too! Or a combination of 'wow, you really are wet' or 'oh my, you really like to fuck :eek:' or 'you are horny again?!?'. I am left wondering at how many women actually fuck guys when they are not really in the mood? How much bad, non-fulfilling sex do women tolerate from their men? I have been with some excellent male lovers and when I ask who taught them they just remark that they are good at observing. But if you give no feedback whatsoever how are they ever supposed to learn?

[RfromRMC]

After reading River's story...and thinking about some of my own observations (see: http://www.polyamory.com/forum/showpost.php?p=58188&postcount=39 as example), it really seems that, at least in the Queer community, the bisexuals and lesbians seem to decently comprehend the whole concept of Polyamory way better than gay men do.
Again, it goes to that craziness that you have to be one extreme or the other: either 100% monogamous angel, or a rampant slut who sleeps with anybody and everybody. (And sometimes it seems like the latter outnumbers the former 2:1) :rolleyes:
And they see us in a committed triad and think we're the weird ones. :o

It seems like an extremely uphill battle convincing most gay men that there is a middle ground. Either they don't know it exists...or they just don't want to understand it because of cognitive dissonance.
There's been very little discussion of it in the community. The only article I think I've ever seen on it in a LGBT magazine was an old Advocate one ( http://tinyurl.com/4vcjckm ) from 5 years ago.
In NYC, I know the local Poly group marches in the LGBT Pride parade. That's probably a very good start. Maybe something worth pursuing nationwide.

[River]

... it really seems that, at least in the Queer community, the bisexuals and lesbians seem to decently comprehend the whole concept of Polyamory way better than gay men do.

I was reaching out online in an endeavor to start a local-regional chapter of www.GayOutdoors.org, when a lesbian woman contacted me, wanting to be involved. She said, "There sure are lots of men on that site". I explained that it is a gay men's club, then said an LGBT club would be a good idea and that I'd be happy to help start one up. (I have a history of organizing things, and some relevant skills.) Then I realized the poly folk would have to be included.

And then I was out hiking with Kevin (my sweet) and Andy, my straight friend, and the three of us talked about that club idea ... and I just had to include Andy ... So we decided the three of us would start up a club focussed on bringing LGBT, poly, and their admirors together under one umbrella.

(Welcoming club name suggestions!!!)

Anyway, there is a local organization / group / whatever of poly folk ... and I'm getting ready to share my idea with them.

This should be quite an educational experience for everyone involved!

The club is for hiking, bicycling, picnicing, skiing, camping, backpacking, kayaking ... anything outdoors -- but there's no reason we can't also have indoor potlucks and the like, or bowling / roller skating....

The idea is to let club participants / members invite folks, via a calendar (online, etc.) to join in specific activities. Sometimes just the gay men are invited, or the lesbians. Other times it would be for everyone. Sometimes just poly folk. Sometimes just LGBT -- by design of the one posting the calendar item.

Anyway, the bar scene is very limited!

My main point in this post is that the plan is to bring poly folk together with gay (etc.) men, women, folks, etc.

Spooky! I mean poly men round those other kinds of men! Very spooky. BoooOOOooo!

[opalescent]

From my experience, I don't know if my particular lesbian community is more accepting of poly than gay men. While I haven't encountered anything negative when I've told my queer friends about my poly situation, there also isn't much positivity or asking questions about it either. They just seem to take it in and move on. It's not dismissive but it also doesn't seem to really dealt with. Of course, it's early days. They may be mulling and will get back to me at some point. Or they think I'm fucking around and don't want to call me on it.

Also the poly groups I'm involved in are pretty straight. (I believe there is a thread about this somewhere.) They are not homophobic but just mostly collections of straight (or mostly straight) people. I have not found the equivalent grouping of lesbian poly types or gay men or queers. I'm sure they exist but the organization, at least in my neck of the woods, is missing.

[River]

I recently joined up over at ...

http://www.connexion.org

It's for LGBT folks, and there are some poly folk there, too. I recommend it.

[girlpatrol]

Wow, visiting that site made me feel so old. lol I'm only 38!

Guess I could try sharpening my cougar claws... :p

[River]

Yup, them's a lot of fine lookin yunguns over there. I git to tell 'em 'bout the ol' days when
we had black and white tv and rotory dial telephones -- and Superman still had phone booths to change in ... and we walked to school in the snow, uphill both ways!

[BlackUnicorn]

What's the geographic coverage for that one, inquires one young but rather isolated.

[River]

Which one, the http://www.connexion.org ? or the clubs I mentioned?

http://www.connexion.org seems to be US and Canada -- but mainly US, I suppose. But I'm not really sure. I've just noticed that most of the folks I've seen on it are scattered all over the USA.

[BlackUnicorn]

Connexion - :D when I want to experience closeness with nature, I take a look out of the window and then curl back up with my covers.

[River]

A week backpacking and camping in the wilderness can cure that.

[RfromRMC]

I remember connexion....they advertised for a while as a "gay facebook" so to speak. Don't recall any poly people on there though...but that's cool if there are some now.

I remember tribe.net had a ton of poly people on it... even had a "Queer Poly" room as well as a "gay/bi poly men" room. Postings on it became sporadic though over the years from what I saw. But they are still up and operating regardless.

[scramcity]

That's my term for bouncing all over Kinsey 6 and back. My new question is about love types. Do those of us with a very gay history have a difference in how we love - or the depth of feeling we have- for new loves of other genders? Having two people now, I have a feeling of difference but articulating the way the difference manifests is difficult. How do other describe this ?

[River]

.... I have a feeling of difference but articulating the way the difference manifests is difficult. How do other describe this ?

Heck if I know! But I know what you mean. It's different. Not less or more, just different.

[BlackUnicorn]

Getting back to an old topic (and I readily confess I haven't read the whole thread), I wonder if this is similar to what others have seen in their local poly community.

1) Bi/pansexual women form the largest constituency of poly. As per bisexual men, bi women have the largest dating pool; they can potentially partner up with straight men, bi men, bi women and lesbian women.

2) Straight men are close seconds to most commonly found poly peeps (and for the sake of argument, I'm pretending that there are only two gender identifications and three orientations available, and that they are mutually exclusive). However, their dating pool is much smaller, and consists only of straight and bi women. And as we have already learned, even though bi girls are the most numerous, there is a lot more competition for them.

3) Gay guys are almost non-existent. Why is that? I can think of three possible reasons;
a) There is more or less overt homophobia in the community.
b) Gay guys are more often to be found in open/swinging relationships vs. poly.
c) With a gender imbalance in favour of women and straight men being so prevalent, gay guys don't have a much of a dating pool to speak of in poly circles.

So, there is a dearth of straight women compared with straight men in the community, and a definite dearth of gay guys. Is anyone else seeing this?

[Magdlyn]

That's my term for bouncing all over Kinsey 6 and back. My new question is about love types. Do those of us with a very gay history have a difference in how we love - or the depth of feeling we have- for new loves of other genders? Having two people now, I have a feeling of difference but articulating the way the difference manifests is difficult. How do other describe this ?

I come from the opposite end... was in a hetero marriage for 30 years, and now have been partnered with a (trans)woman for 2. There's a huge difference in living with a woman than a guy! We're both girls! We do girl stuff! She's real femme and I'm in the middle, I can go femme (into fashion, interior design, arts and crafts, cooking and other girly stuff), and since she was raised as a boy, we also share some traditionally masculine interests, such as camping and hiking.

However, the biggest difference I have seen as compared to my ex is my gf's communication skill. She is just so much better at talking things over without getting huffy or trying to just "fix" something. She is much more open emotionally.

[nycindie]

So, there is a dearth of straight women compared with straight men in the community, and a definite dearth of gay guys. Is anyone else seeing this?

Interesting. As a straight woman, I definitely see myself as a minority on these forums and at the few poly gatherings I've attended. However, I'm not sure there really is a dearth on the macro level. I'm thinking of the polygamists with all those sister-wives, aren't they straight? I don't know enough about those communities. BUT mostly, I wonder if straight women are just more quiet about it. Bi and gay women have, perhaps, more experience in fighting for and being vocal about expressing their sexuality, living out loud about it, and being ready to rock the mainstream boat. I have a feeling there are lots of straight women in poly situations that do not feel the need to be an activist or join a community, and so we just don't hear from them as much. They're just getting on with... getting it on. I think that it is most likely that the majority of straight women in polyamorous relationships would be involved in Vees, Quads (where it's more of a "wife swap" than everyone being sexual with each other), or just living solo with several loves in their lives.

[Vivien]

My observation has been that a lot of gay men who are polyamorous aren't active in the poly community, so they look underrepresented in polyamory.

[BlackUnicorn]

Yep, very much true. A specific subset of people in consensual nonmonogamy are attracted to poly, and an even more specific subset are hanging out on forums like these.

I read an interesting article on how some people might lack sexual orientation alltogether. I don't mean asexuality, but that some people (the argument of the writer was that more women than men lack sexual orientation) don't have a strong gender preference, in that they would be attracted to the female/male form in general, or desire sex with a man/woman specifically. So a heterosexual woman would go 'Oh, I just really need a man right now', a bisexual woman would check out both guys and girls at work, and a woman with no sexual orientation would really rather desire intimacy/sex on a more general, abstract level, or only with specifically their current partner(s). Women in the last group would not understand magazines like Playgirl at all, even if they had male partners whom they enjoyed being with.

[RfromRMC]

@ Scramcity: I dunno if gender has as much to do with it. Both my partners are men yet I love each in very different ways. And I'm sure each of them could say the same. No two people are alike in how you fall in love with them.



3) Gay guys are almost non-existent. Why is that? I can think of three possible reasons;
a) There is more or less overt homophobia in the community.
b) Gay guys are more often to be found in open/swinging relationships vs. poly.
c) With a gender imbalance in favour of women and straight men being so prevalent, gay guys don't have a much of a dating pool to speak of in poly circles.


Mostly (b) really.

I think I mentioned this elsewhere but my observation is that most gay men see things as one of two extremes---either you're in a 100% fully monogamous couple, or you're completely sexually open with no boundaries.
For many gay men...this in-between zone of being in love with multiple partners yet still having a level of open/honest commitment & devotion to them all---is a strange Grey Area that they just don't quite understand or feel comfortable with. They'd rather things be more black and white.
And this is very ironic seeing as I'm convinced most gay men would probably benefit from open and honest polyamory! (I know now I could never go back.) I wish more of them understood it better.
Oh well! :o

My observation has been that a lot of gay men who are polyamorous aren't active in the poly community, so they look underrepresented in polyamory.
I agree with this too. We've visited our local poly group some, but it's sporadic at best. Most of our friends are still in the gay community and while we felt very welcomed at the poly group, we certainly stood out quite a bit. (Not to mention some of their meeting topics didn't apply to us...like the "Poly with Kids" discussion...LOL!) :D

[River]

I think I mentioned this elsewhere but my observation is that most gay men see things as one of two extremes---either you're in a 100% fully monogamous couple, or you're completely sexually open with no boundaries.

Perhaps you were being too quick when writing that, Rfrom. Or maybe that's been your experience, as said. But my observation is that [American] gay men are somewhat infrequently sexually monogamous when coupled up, while very frequently emotionally monogamous while sexually non-monogamous. Many of the latter also practice DADT (don't ask, don't tell) regards their casual sex adventures.

One sad result of this situation is that only a small(ish?) minority of gay men are actually available for what I call full spectrum intimacy (relating with people in a whole and rounded way which can include sexual intimacy), while ever so many are available for NSA (no strings attached) casual sex. It's sad because it leads to loneliness. And all of the hot sex in the world can't fill that void.


And this is very ironic seeing as I'm convinced most gay men would probably benefit from open and honest polyamory! (I know now I could never go back.) I wish more of them understood it better.

I couldn't agree more. But almost all of the men in question seem to believe that "true love" is exclusive and dyadic. This is unsurprising, given the songs, movies, novels and other forms of relationship propaganda (mostly hetero, of course).

[River]

Same sex couples now have the legal right, and ability, to marry in New York state! Yay!
I hope this trend continues.

[thirstythirsty]

River, I'll join in the Yay! About this thread though... Let's not hurry to give theories about the gay men - let them speak for themselves. It might just be that we don't hear much from them 'cause we're not inviting them enough. And giving theories about how they work probably isn't helping that cause.

As to the original post about a folder for the bi's & queer's in here - I'd like it. I do love to talk to straight people, but the message "I'm totally OK with you guys" comes up a lot, and while I appreciate it, it'd be nice to sometimes have discussions that don't get so clogged up.
It's something about who have the need to speak their minds, and in what circles. I've learned to keep my mouth shut around straight guys, and it's sadly a habit that seeps over to other areas. I do love the straight people, but they haven't had that experience, and sometimes speak accordingly. It'd be nice with some corners for the more soft-spoken of us.

Second thought, looking at this rant, it's a bit weird to call me soft-spoken. But there it is.

[Abstract]

New to this, and new to here, but I read plenty of the post. I can see how a "sub-forum" would be very helpful.... It's a good idea : )

[Magdlyn]

Same sex couples now have the legal right, and ability, to marry in New York state! Yay!
I hope this trend continues.

River, I'll join in the Yay!

Woohoo!!! (Not that I plan on marrying ever again, but great for those who want to.)



As to the original post about a folder for the bi's & queer's in here - I'd like it. ...It'd be nice with some corners for the more soft-spoken of us.



a "sub-forum" would be very helpful.... It's a good idea : )

It's not a subforum, but it's a group and it's already here.

Go to Community in the bar above.

http://www.polyamory.com/forum/group.php?groupid=3

[Tonberry]

Go New York! And it more than doubles the number of people in the US who have access to it now, so it's more that just "the sixth state" allowing it, it's a state with more population (queer or overall) than the previous five and DC combined!

[Magdlyn]

Interesting statistic, TB. Thanks!

[River]

Are there any bi guys in here who have both a boyfriend and a girlfriend, husband and wife, or anything like that? Just curious.

[BlackUnicorn]

Is bisexuality enough? Not really, I think. As a label, it's not highly useful. If somebody says to me they are gay/straight/lesbian, I understand that they are interested in and at least theoretically capable of sex, romance and long-term relationships with people who posses the gender identification of their choice.

Not so with "bisexuals". I know of all those fancy terms like "bicurious", "hetero/homoflexible", "bisexual lesbian", "pansexual" etc., but the sheer popularity of "bisexual" will ensure it's survival as an umbrella term that covers all the above variations and then some.

Are there genuine Kinsey 3's out there? Must be. But how many and how to tell them apart from the rest, if everyone's bisexual at least in principle, theoretically, never say never, "I fall for the person not the gender" -way?

Don't get me wrong. It's wonderful that more and more people don't auto-assume they're straight just because everyone else seems to be. But an intellectual nod to the bi potential in all of us is a far cry from actually being available for courting by both (all) genders.

What I really want to know is this; if a girl calls herself bisexual, does it mean she likes to kiss girls when she's drunk, enjoys threesomes with her boyfriend (because let's face it - he wouldn't do it with another guy for her), had a girly crush during her teenage years, has agreed on an OPP and really has no choice but to seek out other girls...?

When does bisexual mean "yes, I am open and willing to engage in long-term committed romantic relationships with members of both (and in the case of pansexual, any) genders"? Because frankly, I don't have time for the others. Casual has a lot of good to it, but I just don't want to sex up anyone who is a priori uninterested/unavailable for a relationship with me that goes beyond the hydraulics.

[River]

It is my observation that a very large percentage of men who are bisexual are not also biamorous. At least not yet. They may have the potential to become biamorus, but they'd have to deal with their internalized homophobia and fear of intimacy with men.

A biamorous person can be both romantically and sexually attracted to persons of either sex. (That would be me.) But a bisexual person may not be romantically attracted/capable at all, or may only be capable and interested with one or the other sex.

A person can be bisexual and totally uninterested and/or incapable of 'romantic' loving. Many, many people substitute sex for love, and avoid emotional intimacy and bonding.

I suspect bisexual women are more often also biamorous than is the case with bisexual men. But this is just the results of a very informal and unscientific poll.

I'm also not terribly fond of the term "bisexual" as definitive for people like me, because so many bisexual people are just not like me at all, in that they may not include and involve loving relationship. Sex is not love!, and it's too bad we as a culture have put sex over love in defining ourselves.

[nycindie]

. . . an intellectual nod to the bi potential in all of us is a far cry from actually being available for courting by both (all) genders.

What I really want to know is this; if a girl calls herself bisexual, does it mean she likes to kiss girls when she's drunk, enjoys threesomes with her boyfriend (because let's face it - he wouldn't do it with another guy for her), had a girly crush during her teenage years, has agreed on an OPP and really has no choice but to seek out other girls...?

This may be an unpopular statement, but I do think that many, many women are "going bisexual" just to please the guys in their lives. Not saying that quite a lot of them wouldn't have found bi- or pansexuality on their own, but that individual exploration and discovery seems to be less and less, while doing it at the suggestion of a male partner seems to be happening more and more, from what I've seen here and elsewhere.

It is getting so prevalent that my first inclination is not to believe it when a woman who is currently involved with a man says she is bi, especially when they are looking for a "girl" (ugh!) to add to their relationship. I admit, it alarms me -- not the bisexuality, but the use of another person to satisfy their fantasies, AND a certain vibe that tells me there is a neediness on the woman's part for their male partner's approval -- so much that their own sexual ripening becomes tainted by it. I dislike the lack of a conscious choice. And when you do something just out of a co-dependent need to please, I think it always backfires. And is usually full of drama.

[BlackUnicorn]

This may be an unpopular statement, but I do think that many, many women are "going bisexual" just to please the guys in their lives.

It is getting so prevalent that my first inclination is not to believe it when a woman who is currently involved with a man says she is bi, especially when they are looking for a "girl" (ugh!) to add to their relationship.

Ditto. And when a woman tells me that they have an OPP in place but that she is free to date other "girls", I instinctively balk a little. It tells me that they really don't have a choice. It's okay if she is simply uninterested in dating other men, but not being able to do that because of the insecurities of the male partner?

First, as has been gone over this site a many times, statements like that totally denigrate the potential value and importance of lesbian relationships. Second, I've observed that although men might think that in principle, they wouldn't get jealous of a female partner dating another woman, it's when the relationship is no longer a potential fantasy but actually there, in your face, women suddenly become a lot more threatening and the guy starts closing ranks.

[Chimera]

I don't know if you all mean it that way, but this discussion of whether there are "real" bisexuals makes me nervous. There's so much ignorance and biphobia out there. People automatically think it's a phase, or fake or you're doing it for a man or one day you'll discover your true self. I lost friends years ago when I had to come out again as "bi" -- the identity wasn't available to me when I was young. You were either straight or lesbian. Being able to say I was "queer" was a revelation and much more of a political position, which I liked. What I really hate is the stereotype of bisexuals being "easy" and only interested in sex. I think it's partly the cultural stereotype that's driving some of the behavior. There are all types of behavior of all sorts in every sexual orientation, at least from my personal experience. The most macho controlling person I was ever with was a butch lesbian!

I think this is not a problem with "bisexual" as a label, but the way that we're forced to create identities based on who we fuck and who we are romantically involved with. I think your questions are fair Black Unicorn, you want to know if someone's playing with your attraction. But I don't think those are exclusive questions for bi folks.

[peabean]

I think this is not a problem with "bisexual" as a label, but the way that we're forced to create identities based on who we fuck and who we are romantically involved with.


This really is the heart of the issue for me. I've identified as bisexual since high school. After dating both men and women in college I met my husband and we married. Suddenly I was defined as straight! People who knew me to have girlfriends in the past would mention it to me as my 'experimentation phase'. I find that completely repulsive and insulting. The relationships I had with both men AND women prior to my marriage were valid relationships with feelings of mutual trust and love. Just because I married a man doesn't make me straight!

Now we are in a relationship with a woman and I suddenly find myself facing these same questions. Friends who find out automatically assume that a) I was a lesbian all along, and b) I've left my husband for a woman.

Neither of these things is true. I'm still, and always was, a bisexual. My husband and I are closer than ever, and we form a triad so he certainly isn't left out. In fact, he is bisexual too and wishes we could find a man to include.

I really find it juvenile when people see me in a different way because of who I sleep with. That said, I'm not sure how I can change that mindset, even amongst my closest friends.

[River]

Most bi folk have had this crazy stuff going on where we're doubted and misunderstood. I even had one "friend" look me in the face and insist that my girlfriend was nothing more than a ticket to social acceptance! as a gay guy. She and I would be holding hands, kissing passionately, and he thought it was all some kind of act. Sheesh.

[nycindie]

I don't know if you all mean it that way, but this discussion of whether there are "real" bisexuals makes me nervous. There's so much ignorance and biphobia out there. People automatically think it's a phase, or fake or you're doing it for a man or one day you'll discover your true self.I really didn't mean to jump on some bandwagon about bisexuality not being real. I do however, admit to a certain judgement or resistance that rises up in me, specifically on this and other polyamory-focused forums, when women come here talking about how they are looking for a "girl" at their male partner's urging. It's not that I don't think these women would explore bisexuality on their own, but it is just always a red flag for me when it seems they are not in charge of their own sexuality and could wind up getting involved with women just to please a man. I did say: "it alarms me -- not the bisexuality, but the use of another person to satisfy their fantasies, AND a certain vibe that tells me there is a neediness on the woman's part for their male partner's approval -- so much that their own sexual ripening becomes tainted by it." It makes me skeptical and I admit that doubting them is one of the first thoughts that come up for me -- but I probably should have also mentioned that then I see my own personal work is to get past my initial reaction and try to see or engage with the person individually so that I see it for what it is.

I'm not part of the LGBT community, and live a pretty solitary life, so I don't have many bi or queer friends in my social circle. I have always embraced my inner prude as much as the open-minded part of me. I'm not going to pretend not to have judgments, but I do make an effort to look at them, dig deep, and deconstruct them.

[BlackUnicorn]

I don't know if you all mean it that way, but this discussion of whether there are "real" bisexuals makes me nervous. There's so much ignorance and biphobia out there.

:( One thing I didn't want to contribute with my post was biphobia. I've been excluded as a potential dating partner because of my bisexuality, since "I would always leave my female partner if the right man came along". My mum refuses to believe that such a thing as bisexuality can even exist, and thinks if I choose to be with a female primary I must be lesbian, because if I truly were bi I would rather dodge all the social penalties and date a man instead.

I think this is not a problem with "bisexual" as a label, but the way that we're forced to create identities based on who we fuck and who we are romantically involved with. I think your questions are fair Black Unicorn, you want to know if someone's playing with your attraction. But I don't think those are exclusive questions for bi folks.

Nope, the whole open relationship/swinging/poly drama seems to center around the question of whether a person is truly polyamorous or just playing around. I will have to disagree about the problematics of labelling, though. We as a species seem to intent on organizing and labelling environmental stimuli. Because the real world is too complex for any useful categorizing, we make generalizations that help as orient ourselves in our environment and make decisions. This is not in itself a good or a bad thing; it's inevitable.

So the problem becomes that of over-generalizing. And the way "bisexual" is used as a label is, to my mind, over-generalizing. It is a broad umbrella term that covers the whole spectrum from occasional daydreaming to full-on two-gender triads. Most self-identified bisexuals fall somewhere in the middle of that spectrum.

So I think instead of being anti-label we could start using new, more specific labels in situations where we want to let others know whom we could consider as a potential life, dating or sex partner.

[Magdlyn]

Just wanted to link to this thread about NY state's new same sex marriage law.

http://www.polyamory.com/forum/showthread.php?t=12850

[BrigidsDaughter]

In high school, I was attracted to females, but being brought up in a Christian home and coming from a Christian elementary/ middle school. I needed to get drunk to act on them. My husband, then boyfriend, Runic Wolf noticed this and while we were planning our wedding, told me that IHO I was bi-sexual and he was completely okay with me exploring that side of myself. I denied it for maybe a month before realizing that he was right. But 10 years later, I still need him to hold my hand when I am exploring a potential relationship a woman. We've had plenty of threesomes over the years, but that generally results in me getting all the attention or us giving him all the attention and me being too afraid to return the favor so to speak. Pretty Lady is my first real relationship with a female and my first fully mutually expressive sexual relationship as well. Runic Wolf and Wendigo were very patient with us while we sat on opposite couches inching closer to each other, trying to work up the courage to let go of our fear. It was worth it, but in the end they literally had to push and prod us towards each other that first time.

[nouryia]

So the problem becomes that of over-generalizing. And the way "bisexual" is used as a label is, to my mind, over-generalizing. It is a broad umbrella term that covers the whole spectrum from occasional daydreaming to full-on two-gender triads. Most self-identified bisexuals fall somewhere in the middle of that spectrum.

So very true. Being 'bi' doesn't mean you want men and women equally all the time. And it isn't a fad either, it's a fact. Most people aren't 100% anything and preferences can change over time. I for one have been 'straight' all my life, but now, in my late thirties, I have been having fun with my bf's wife and enjoying it tremendously. She and I are each other's first female lover. Does that mean that we're faking it for our husbands' benefit? NO! In fact, I had fantasies of being with women on and off for many years, the opportunity just never presented itself...and now it has :)

My husband also identifies as bi and tends to me more attracted to men than women sexually, but still loves me and wants me and we're happy together. Incidentally, my b/f is bi too, and he's just a tad more into females at this stage of his life, but started out thinking he was gay in his teens. From what I can see, sexuality is...fluid. Nothing's set in stone and labels tend to be rather useless.

[rory]

^Interesting experiences. :) I, for one, was about 50/50 when I realised I'm bi, but nowadays I would propably identify as a lesbian if it wasn't for the fact I'm happily married to a man. ;) It's just that I made that connection to him when I was into men, and it has lasted with my love for him, but I can't see myself starting a new relationship with a man anymore. Never say never, though.

[River]

From what I can see, sexuality is...fluid. Nothing's set in stone and labels tend to be rather useless.

I certainly agree about the fluidity over time. I have had a meandering path in terms of my attraction to the sexes, with my attraction to other males being much stronger through much of my youth and young adulthood, as compared with my attraction to women. I've always been attracted to females somewhat, however. But lately I'm much, much more interested in the feminine, and am perhaps about equally attracted to men and women--or even slightly more attracted to women (probably because I've had so little experience with them and am quite curious). I also seem to be in love with my faraway female friend I met in this forum, but, as I have said, nothing is for certain until we spend time together. Still, there is definitely friend-love! and loads of it.

As for the proposition that labels are useless. I cannot agree. Maybe they are inadequate, but not useless. We need our shorthand terms, like "bi", which -- for example -- is a little more clarifying than "queer" (which I am).

But when I say "I'm bi", I mean that I'm biamorous, first and foremost. I also happen to be bisexual, but that's much less central to my experience of myself than my biamorousness. Many people are bisexual but not biamorous. And the difference is enormous, for only a biamorous person is capable of being fully in love with persons of either sex, while many bisexuals can only fall in love with a person one sex, or neither! Sex is not love!

[River]

Are there any bi guys here who have had little experience with women until, say, middle age (or around that) -- and then gone on to have a loverly partnership with a woman?

I've seen many stories here in these fora about bi women who had been almost exclusively with women (or men) until around midlife, but few examples of this from men.

Speak up, lurkers!

[opalescent]

I am interested in any stories or experiences by men too. River's right - there are plenty of discussions of women who were exclusively or predominately lesbian or straight and then became involved with men or women later on in life.

I think there is a perception that women are much more likely to be bi than men. And there is some surveys that back this up. Men are believed to be more rigid in their sexuality, so to speak. I don't know if this is actually true or if men have more to lose by expressing or having a more flexible sexuality and so are more likely to be closeted, or simply unaware of the range of possibilities. At any rate, looking forward to any thread replies!

[Magdlyn]

...I don't know if this is actually true or if men have more to lose by expressing or having a more flexible sexuality and so are more likely to be closeted...

It's this, of course. Male homosexuality was condemned in the Hebrew Bible. So was transgender (a man with crushed testicles or a "cut off penis" was not allowed in the Temple).

Men were allowed to have as many wives and concubines as they wished, of course.

There is no issue with what women do when they aren't having sex with their husband, as long as she doesn't fuck another guy. There is no condemnation of women fucking other women, because women are second (or third) class people, so who cares if they take pleasure with each other. All that matters is they don't get knocked up with another man's biological child.

There were however, male prostitutes (the word used is "holy ones") in the Jerusalem Temple, as well as male priests of the female goddesses in Canaan (Judah, Israel). These were called "dogs" by the Temple priests, and were finally forced out of the Temple and their sacred sex duties.

Of course, much of the late Hebrew Bible and all of the New Testament were influenced by the Graeco-Roman culture of the day, where male homosexuality was accepted. The dominant culture didn't need to focus on reproduction just to survive, whereas the struggling, basically enslaved Hebrews did.


And so... all that background filters down to our prevailing paradigm of lesbians being hot, while gay men are seen as weak and perverted.