View Single Post
  #10  
Old 01-27-2012, 09:24 PM
ThatGirlInGray ThatGirlInGray is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Northern Cali
Posts: 552
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AutumnalTone View Post
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.
__________________
~~~~~~~~~
Pan Female, Hinge in a V between my mono (straight) husband, Monochrome and my poly (pan) partner, ThatGuyInBlack
Reply With Quote