bi-monogamy, what is it?

redpepper

Active member
My friend wrote this the other day and I wondered your thoughts on it.

"This was the question I asked a girl who lists herself bi and has criteria for both a male and a female partner. Her profile doesn't give any other hints to her, um, "quantitative orientation", so the question popped out.

Afterwards, I found the term "bi-monogamous" kind of curious. I wasn't sure if it was something I'd seen before or if it was one of those neologisms my mind makes up and just tries to pass off as normal everyday parlance. I googled it, and found a lot of discussion on the dissonance of being bisexual AND monogamous, but no references to the term "bi-monogamous". Has anyone seen this before? Is there another term for this already? Finally, what would your answer to the original question be?"

Is this a form of Poly-fi?
Is this related to the term "closed loop relationship?"
 
I believe it's the same thing as poly-fi, but prescriptive poly. One female and one male relationship. It's like, baby steps into Poly without actually saying you are poly.

I had a friend who was gay but found it easier to say he was bi. Kind of the same thing. You aren't poly, you aren't interested in open relationships, you just like boys and girls, so you want A girl to date and A boy to date. Keeping both relationships separate.
 
Huh. No idea really.

But if I was making up a definition, I would say it is the agreement of a bi person in a poly relationship to only date people who are the opposite sex of their primary partner. So a woman who agrees to only see women because of her male partner's discomfort is practicing bi monogamy.

At least that's what it's going to be in my head from now on!
 
I believe it's the same thing as poly-fi, but prescriptive poly. One female and one male relationship. It's like, baby steps into Poly without actually saying you are poly.

I had a friend who was gay but found it easier to say he was bi. Kind of the same thing. You aren't poly, you aren't interested in open relationships, you just like boys and girls, so you want A girl to date and A boy to date. Keeping both relationships separate.

Well that is an interesting .....dismissal ?

So if I said,..... I have been non-mongamous for 10+ years, done the swing thing, done the poly thing, neither one with any OPP rules, or 'soft'....and I am now at a place where I realize I only want my husband for male company, and my girlfriend for female company......How do you put that into,..'baby steps into poly ' ?

Anywho,....Guess I have to answer the questions now. ;)

Yes, heard this before, albeit fairly recently. This is a term I heard about 3 months ago. It resonated with me, and made sense.

As for dating a man and a woman, and how to define it :

I put it in the poly-fi category, if those involved, find their relationship evolves around the 'spirit' of poly interactions, common poly-beliefs, and common poly practices. The need to share lives, shared communication, shared goals.

I would put it in the bi-monogamous category, if the relationships are truly separate, and seem to follow the basic rules of monogamy. For instance, if the description of love felt for the woman, is a different love then what is felt for the man. If the relationships have their own paths, and don`t interact.
 
To me being bisexual and being poly are about two different identities. One being a sexual orientation and the other being a relationship orientation. People could be bi and poly or bi and mono. Just as readily as if they were straight and poly or straight and mono. Just because someone is bi, doesn't automatically mean they are poly. I know committed bisexual people who are married monogamously and that is how it works for them. They didn't stop being bi because they got married.
 
Well yes, but isn`t this in the context of being 'active' ?

If you are bi, and 'made your choice' and decide to be monogamous to one person /sex, you wouldn`t be needing the add-on of the 'bi' to the monogamous part.

I see the context relative to the environment. I assumed in the question, being on a poly group, you were talking about someone actively looking for a partner to fulfill each side of their sexuality ?
 
When I first started having multiple relationships since the only model I knew was monogamy I went with that. I told myself, and tried to live as though I was having two separate monogamous relationships. Personally, I realized that didn't work. It didn't matter that my husband and boyfriend/girlfriend did not meet, talk or interact in any way. The relationships still affected each person. If only because of how I felt. If I had a really good talk or time with one, then that energy and emotion was felt by the other. If I had a fight, argument or bad time with one, the other knew. It was literally impossible to have two separate relationships. To say that I had two monogamous relationships was inaccurate. Even though hubby is mono he says he is in a poly relationship, because he is. Every relationship carries over to the other in SOME way.

When I said baby steps into poly, that's how I meant it, because multiple loving relationships that are honest, open and ethical IS poly, even if you don't use the label. (Not everyone is a fan of labels). Not everyone was lucky enough to understand that they were poly or be in poly relationships from the get go. Some move into poly in steps. Some through cheating, then non monogamy, then ethical non monogamy, then poly.

I wasn't maligning how anyone 'does' poly. Some are prescriptive, "I like having X number of partners, so many men so many women." and that's fine for them. Some are more descriptive in that they take each relationship as it comes and not concerned with how many, how serious, or what type of relationship it is. Whatever works for you and your partners!
 
Last edited:
...but no references to the term "bi-monogamous". Has anyone seen this before? Is there another term for this already? Finally, what would your answer to the original question be?"

Is this a form of Poly-fi?
Is this related to the term "closed loop relationship?"

I'd say it's one of those stupid things people make up when they're trying to describe something that doesn't have an established term. Being involved with two people is polyamorous--no monogamy involved. They may be involved with only one female-aspected person and only one male-aspected person and it doesn't change the fact that they are involved with two actual people, and thus, polyamorous.

They should just describe as polyfi and be done with it. It really doesn't matter, for description purposes, whether they're involved with two males or two females or one of each--they're involved with two folks and not looking for more.
 
I wasn't maligning how anyone 'does' poly. Some are prescriptive, "I like having X number of partners, so many men so many women." and that's fine for them. Some are more descriptive in that they take each relationship as it comes and not concerned with how many, how serious, or what type of relationship it is. Whatever works for you and your partners!

Actually, I regret my comment. I was up late last night with kiddies, and really shouldn`t of posted on one of these baited label-threads. They always end the same. ( Not your fault.) Usually I know better. So I apologize for questioning you. :)
 
I'd say it's one of those stupid things people make up when they're trying to describe something that doesn't have an established term. Being involved with two people is polyamorous--no monogamy involved. They may be involved with only one female-aspected person and only one male-aspected person and it doesn't change the fact that they are involved with two actual people, and thus, polyamorous.

They should just describe as polyfi and be done with it. It really doesn't matter, for description purposes, whether they're involved with two males or two females or one of each--they're involved with two folks and not looking for more.

I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here. First of all, making up something because there isn't an established term is one way we get new words, like Polyamorous. Being made-up doesn't necessarily make it stupid.

Second, while I wouldn't bother using the term (because I'm much more likely to just explain rather than labeling), I could see it applying to my life if other paths had been taken. In my situation, MC is mono. I am his only partner. I am poly, but I have two partners and that's it. I'm not looking for more, I'm not playing with anyone, I'm "polysaturated". TGIB is poly, and while I'm his only partner at the moment, he will likely have multiple partners over the next several years. We are NOT polyfi or closed loop. So IF, instead of being with TGIB, my other partner were a woman, I could see a term like bi-monogamy being used to explain that I'm with one man and one woman and that's it. Polyfi wouldn't apply if Hypothetical Female Partner were still having relationships with other people.
 
First of all, making up something because there isn't an established term is one way we get new words, like Polyamorous. Being made-up doesn't necessarily make it stupid.

I agree with you here. But I don't think this term works, because monogamy has such an established meaning, that is, being in a relationship with one person only. That's why I think bi-monogamy is nonsensical.
 
Polyfi has way too much gray area in the sense that 100 people could be in a Polyfi relationship of pansexual genders. The word monogamy has as much of a scale as polyamory in my opinion.

"I want one female and one male partner. My partner wants the same. If we get together we are bi monogamous meaning having or desiring only one lover of each gender."

In order to actually be in love with both partners I think you would need to be polyamorous so it becomes more of a dynamic description than a nature description.
 
There was a thread I saw yesterday (sorry can't remember which one it was so I don't have a link)... where someone mentioned an ex who alternated between a woman and a man with each relationship... she had recently gotten out of a relationship with a woman, so she didn't want to get into a relationship with the OP of that thread, because she was a woman.

This whole thread brings up something else I've been thinking about lately: bisexual vs pansexual. I've noticed that some people use the terms interchangeably, whereas others have a very specific meaning of bisexual.

In the latter case, there are specific aspects of the male or female archetype that they like, and deliberately seek. For example, they might like the way men are take-charge and protectors, and they might like the way women are caregivers and supportive. The deliberately seek out one or the other gender at certain times, depending on their needs at the time.

Now myself, I'm pansexual, which I define as "I don't give a hoot what's in your pants, as long as I think you're cute." I'm attracted more to personalities than bodies or faces. While I can appreciate beauty or classical attractiveness from an objective point of view, it never turns me on half as much as your sexy brain or caring personality.

In the local bi group on Facebook, a discussion was recently started, on whether people look for different aspects when dating men and women, or whether they look at them both the same. One person posted that she looks for romantic relationships with women, but only sexual relationships with men. She's married to a man, so she says she doesn't want any other romantic male partners. She also mentioned that she doesn't let other men kiss her, but she readily kisses other women.
 
As for the term "bi-monogamous" I have also not heard of it, so I wouldn't presume to give it a hard-and-fast definition.

If I read it, depending on context, I would probably think it refers to poly people who want to have one male partner and one female partner. No information is implied whether they would accept a transsexual partner, a gender-neutral partner, or whatever else people can come up with to gender-identify.

I completely agree with AT that it's not monogamy at all. Monogamy is one partner, period. Two is not equal to one.

I can't understand why someone would have such a policy, but there are many aspects of some people that I can't understand. I mean, if you like men and you like women, and you're capable of polyamory, then why would you deliberately turn down someone to whom you're attracted, just because you already have one of that gender? It's like ordering dinner at a restaurant... pick your potato: do you want fries or mashed? You can have both, but we'll have to charge you extra.
 
I'd say it's one of those stupid things people make up when they're trying to describe something that doesn't have an established term.
I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here. First of all, making up something because there isn't an established term is one way we get new words, like Polyamorous. Being made-up doesn't necessarily make it stupid.
But in this case, it is stupid. AT didn't say that making up words in general is stupid, but that this is one example that is.

If you have more than one loving relationship, that is polyamory/you are polyamorous.

If your poly relationships are "closed," your approach to poly is "polyfidelitous."

The terms polyamorous and poly-fi already exist and are sufficient. To say one is "bi-monogamous" is really silly. I guess this may be a case where the person is trying to offset the notion that bisexuality equals promiscuity (if that is a notion people tend to have?). "Oh, I'm bisexual, but I'm not a slut. I have one male and one female partner and I am monogamous with each of them, so don't get the wrong idea about me!" It seems like defensive posturing to me. But, basically that's a Vee. Furthermore, why mix sexual orientation and relationship structure/approach in one word? You're bisexual, and you're polyamorous. Why gunk it up with new, more confusing terms?

Reminds me of the words bi-monthly and semi-monthly - no one can ever remember which means twice a month and which means every two months.
 
Polyfi has way too much gray area in the sense that 100 people could be in a Polyfi relationship of pansexual genders. The word monogamy has as much of a scale as polyamory in my opinion.

"I want one female and one male partner. My partner wants the same. If we get together we are bi monogamous meaning having or desiring only one lover of each gender."

In order to actually be in love with both partners I think you would need to be polyamorous so it becomes more of a dynamic description than a nature description.
I like this, particularly the idea that monogamy can have a scale just as poly does. I think people like you and my husband are perfect examples of that, since while you yourselves are monogamous, neither of you are in a monogamous relationship, since you've accepted and are supportive of the fact that your partner is poly.

Unfortunately your example falls apart a little bit because you could still end up with 100 people as you create a chain of relationships where each person has only 1 male and 1 female partner. (It would look something like: MFFMMFFM...)

This whole thread brings up something else I've been thinking about lately: bisexual vs pansexual. I've noticed that some people use the terms interchangeably, whereas others have a very specific meaning of bisexual.
I had never even seen the word pansexual until I came to this forum, so this is something I've been thinking about too. I think I'm probably pansexual, rather than bisexual, if I'm understanding the meaning correctly, but I'll probably never bother using the word "pansexual" to people because it's just ONE more explanation that I don't want to deal with. For my purposes "bisexual" gets enough of the idea across.
Now myself, I'm pansexual, which I define as "I don't give a hoot what's in your pants, as long as I think you're cute." I'm attracted more to personalities than bodies or faces. While I can appreciate beauty or classical attractiveness from an objective point of view, it never turns me on half as much as your sexy brain or caring personality.
Yes, THIS. Exactly!
I guess this may be a case where the person is trying to offset the notion that bisexuality equals promiscuity (if that is a notion people tend to have?). "Oh, I'm bisexual, but I'm not a slut. I have one male and one female partner and I am monogamous with each of them, so don't get the wrong idea about me!" It seems like defensive posturing to me.
Yes, it's a prevalent notion among both straight and gay people, in my experience. And you're probably quite right. I could totally understand a little defensive posturing after years dealing with some of the attitudes towards anything outside the hetero- and mono-expectant paradigms. Many people are still on their journey to knowing and being secure in themselves. If only for that reason, I would not want to call the term stupid. Silly, maybe, and of course no one HAS to use it if they don't want to. But if using that term helps someone figure out their needs and wants and how to be true to who they are, hey, more power to them, I say.
 
With all the made up words around here I am surprised anyone would call a word silly at this point.

Still if the word doesn't work for someone that is fine, but belittling it seems a bit hypocritical and elitist. Do only the cool kids get to make up words :rolleyes:
 
With all the made up words around here I am surprised anyone would call a word silly at this point.

Still if the word doesn't work for someone that is fine, but belittling it seems a bit hypocritical and elitist. Do only the cool kids get to make up words :rolleyes:

Thank you.


I`m not a label-lover. However, I have painfully learned through experience, that poly is MORE then just the ability to love more then one person at a time. Calling it only 'the ability to love more then one person' is a simplistic, and idealistic view at best, in my opinion.
I am not poly. Even if I love more then one person, it is a very different love from what I feel for my husband. To try and treat myself as poly, confuses others and hurts me. The type of love I feel for my husband is more in line with what monogamous couples describe.

I don`t really fit the description for bi-monogamous either, but I do understand how it can happen. (Generally speaking )Belittling something just because you don`t understand it for yourself, is a bit thick.
 
To be clear, I think the word is silly, especially since other words already apply, but not the concept behind it. But just because I have a judgment about the word doesn't mean I don't understand it. Should I turn myself in to the thought police because I think "bi-monogamous" is a stupid silly word?

Aren't there other words that were made up in poly lingo that are just plain silly -- like frubbles, wibbly, and swoly?? No? You all think they are perfectly sensible made-up words? Heck, even the word compersion took me a while to warm up to. Am I being narrow-minded, elitist, hypocritical, and thick if I say they are silly? It's okay if you like the word, but if I think it's dumb, I should be castigated for saying so? Aren't we all entitled to our opinions?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top