Polyamory.com Forum

Polyamory.com Forum (http://www.polyamory.com/forum/index.php)
-   General Poly Discussions (http://www.polyamory.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=2)
-   -   Biamory Clubhouse - a place for biamorists (http://www.polyamory.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1936)

River 01-09-2010 09:26 PM

Biamory Clubhouse - a place for biamorists
 
Biamorists have traditionally been called by the term "bisexual," but this term is starting to lose favor among some of us. I'm one who wishes to cease using "bisexual" as a self-describing term. From this moment forward, I am no longer "bisexual". I'm biamorous. Until a prettier word comes along that more aptly describes my amory orientation.

Likewise, I am refusing to play the sexual orientation game -- because sexual activity, per se, is no more aptly descriptive (or central) of/to my amorousness than a loving look or kind, affectionate speech -- or a walk in the park.

Yes, I'm attracted to both sexes in a "sexual" way, but that's not central to what it's like to BE biamorous, and so "bisexual" is just not an apt description of the EXPERIENCE of biamory -- which is more about affection, love, and what I call "full spectrum intimacy" --
intimacy involving a wide variety of intimacy types, e.g., emotional, verbal, sensual, intellectual.... Full spectrum intimacy may include sexual expression, but can hardly be aptly defined by sex--as terms like "heterosexual," "homosexual," and "bisexual" do.

I doubt that many people enjoy sex, per se, more than I do! But sex is not at the center of my life or of my relationships.

Welcome, biamorists!

http://www.polyamory.com/forum/showp...0&postcount=52

DrunkenPorcupine 01-09-2010 09:55 PM

I learned the term "heteroflexible" yesterday and that describes me pretty much. :P

I think maybe I don't like the term biamorous for one reason. When pertaining to sexual interest in both genders, it implies a connection between sex and love. I have that connection personally, sex and intimacy go hand in hand for me, but not everybody has that.

Maybe you should just be "amorous" and love whomever you want. Labels are silly. :P

River 01-09-2010 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrunkenPorcupine (Post 19327)
I think maybe I don't like the term biamorous for one reason. When pertaining to sexual interest in both genders, it implies a connection between sex and love. I have that connection personally, sex and intimacy go hand in hand for me, but not everybody has that.

Which is precisely why I think we who are biamorous should embrace that term, to distinguish ourselves from the merely bisexual. That is, to distinguish "just sex" and NSA "No Strings Attached" adventurers from the amorous erotic adventurors. There's no need to have judgements about it. It's just a matter of preference or orientation, I guess. Let them (the bisexuals) keep that term if it suits them. No problem. But now I know what tribe I belong to, and it needs a name. Has a name.

River 01-09-2010 10:24 PM

It appears that there are two definitions of "heteroflexible" afoot. I'm curious which kind DP might be.

====

Definition: A heteroflexible is a person who is straight but has a queer sensibility. They usually have lots of gay friends, identify with gay and lesbian culture and work for gay and lesbian rights.

An alternate definition of heteroflexible is heterosexually-identified person who is not opposed to having a same-sex experience.

http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/othe...roflexible.htm

DrunkenPorcupine 01-09-2010 11:02 PM

Quote:

An alternate definition of heteroflexible is heterosexually-identified person who is not opposed to having a same-sex experience.
This one. I posted just a few minutes ago about attractiveness in my eyes being tied to personalities and not looks. I sort of see gender in that as well.

I identify as straight but I don't control who I love. I could potentially love another man, and could potentially have sex with someone I love. :P

So, the second definition.

Quote:

Which is precisely why I think we who are biamorous should embrace that term, to distinguish ourselves from the merely bisexual
Okay, fair enough. When I read the OP description, it seemed as if they were replacement terms with different emphasis.

River 01-09-2010 11:14 PM

Looks don't decide who I may love, but they do play some role in whether I find someone sexually desirable. But it's just "some role". If someone's spirit is sexy to me, that counts for a lot!

Email me your picture! :p

River 01-10-2010 01:26 AM

Folks with an interest in similar discussion, as well as some of the history leading to the present thread, should see:

http://www.polyamory.com/forum/showt...9174#post19174

GroundedSpirit 01-10-2010 05:07 PM

Reviewing the prior thread it seems to illustrate a couple very valid points.
Although for myself, I tend to 'operate' more in line with Raven's approach of having the deeper, explanatory conversations rather than hanging on a particular term I also recognize River's very valid point that there are areas of life - be it social venues, publications etc where it's either impractical or impossible to have those in-depth conversations but still a need to get a feel for what that particular venue will be comprised of or targeting. Therefore a legitimate need for a terminology shortcut.

I totally support the need for clear terminology that can represent not only what our 'love' preferences are, but separately what or 'sexual' preferences are.

So I'm still grinning about the term 'pansexual' - with visions of fuzzy sheep and little green aliens who have stopped by for a visit all piled into one bed. Woooooooo Hooooooooo

Seems language again is evolving to meets the needs and the reality of the human condition :)

GS

vampiresscammy 01-10-2010 05:59 PM

oh labels, labels, labels

labels I see as being good for very minor short inadequate firt glimspes into our personal world by an outsider, but yes I'd love it if we all took more time to simply get to know each other and see where we fit together if we do instead of forcing labels that barely scratch on describing the people we are

some of these I've heard before "heteroflexible" - which I kinda figured meant you were straight but at least not positioned at "no way in hell" on the possibility of same sex fun, wether it be full on sex or just small touching or something

I've also heard "pansexual" used before, and I don't care for it, simply the sound of it, makes it sound like you want to make out with threes or something, just very odd to me, but it was not well defined by said person using it in my presence

in an ideal world, we could all simply be us and stop having to use these inadequate terms to describe ourselves and simply love whom we do and let the feeling sbe returned or not as the other feels, I much prefer getting to know someone and figuring out where we fit together and how our relationship will move forward based on what we both want and are willing to take if we can't have exactly what we want, only problem with that is 'you quieter types' (as a general term for quieter folks whom seem harder to figure out) who seem to not always make it clear if your happy in friendville or are not opposed to perhaps moving farther and seeing what may lie ahead

why can't we all just say, hey I love this person here, this one over there, and him too, and also her, and this lovely indivudual, and hey if you wanna label me soemhting, well okay, but i'm gonna be over here doing my thing, living my life, so call me whatever you like, i'm busy living my life

CielDuMatin 01-10-2010 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vampiresscammy (Post 19401)
in an ideal world, we could all simply be us and stop having to use these inadequate terms to describe ourselves

Totally agree with you! I feel that there are only limited times when labels are of value.

If you are trying to build a community, sometimes labels are important in order for folks to be able to find you using search engine keywords and the like, but even then they can be a huge impediment when people in the group define a term radically different from others and can't agree on any sort of unified approach (which I have found to my cost). Also, if you are looking for some sort of acknowledgment of legal standing, then I feel that definitions may be important (the judicial system relies on them, in fact). But other than that? I really don't care what label someone uses or how they "self-identify" - I see them as a unique person first and want to get to know them as such, rather than saying "oh, you don't self-identify as X - I only get along with people who are X" or anything like that.

@River: Check out the "Community" link in the menu, and then pick "Social Groups" - you could form a "Biamory" social group that people could find and join, long after this thread has dropped down out of sight beyond the first page.


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:22 PM.