View Single Post
  #17  
Old 01-28-2012, 07:58 PM
ThatGirlInGray ThatGirlInGray is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Northern Cali
Posts: 552
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MonoVCPHG View Post
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...)

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