Originally Posted by sisterinlove
How about, I am poly, so my heart is big enough to love more than one person, and I am secure enough to admit it.
At least that is my version of poly.
Think someone once said "simple truths are the closest to truth" - or something similar. And this is a good illustration of this.
A lot of confusion & debate I see take place here around the whole 'poly' topic seems to me to boil down to a desire of some people to find a term that has been assigned a fixed meaning that they can use both to express who they are and what they believe in a shortcut method without having to get into long complex discussions with people. Associated with that is the huge fear that they will be misrepresented somehow if EVERYONE doesn't have that invariable option to reference to.
This works ok for simple terms and concepts. It NEVER works for more complex terms such as right/wrong, good/bad, tall/short etc !
Take for example a bicycle. If I ask you if you want to borrow my "bicycle", we both have a pretty clear mutual understanding of what a bicycle is. It will consist of 2 wheels, likely a seat (we hope), some steering mechanism - usually handlebars, and probably a chain drive system. And there's probably a 98+ percent chance that in fact, that will all be true. And as long as all those components are intact I can feel pretty good about the chances of a successful ride.
To think we can drill a term like 'polyamory' down to that simplistic list of likely components I feel is just unreasonable. And to stretch that a bit more, I kind of feel that an absolute insistence on that is borderline demeaning. It's almost saying that we question people's cognitive ability & critical thinking skills so much that we have try to push it to a state where the term is self evident - no thinking required.
So if we believe it's so important to do that I can accept Sister's proposal pretty easily. I don't have to analyze that any farther.
Because - as has been noted numerous times before - we can't add anything much more onto this until we define the embedded term that comes with that description.
That being "love".........
So - like saying we are "going for a "bicycle ride" we have a general and reasonable understanding of the device of transport but an almost endless list of possibilities of where and what the "ride" will entail.
But I can't get my head around the bicycle defining the ride - or vic versa.