Broken trust, opportunity, or both?

Unfortunately, the OP isn't the only one reacting as though they're threatened by terminology here, which is part of the problem.


Personally, I'm more threatened by a LACK of (common) terminology.

But will it keep me awake tonight? Hopefully it will, at least long enough to get through the new episode of Top Chef.
 
Erm, yes, indeed.

(final hint: I didn't bring up the terminology thing)

Erm, yes, indeed you DID!!! Mono simply asked for more clarification on certain points,


So if I am clear you are in an open relatiosnship, not a polyamorous one? Or are you in a mix? Meeting a stranger and having sex that night is not a typical polyamorous relationship.

Take care
Mono
and you went off on a Wiki-fest. And you admitted to being snarky! This is getting ridiculous, but:

Hi Mono, thanks for your comment. I've learnt that debating definitional issues in lifestyle and sexual preferences isn't a terribly productive way of engaging in conversation, but this is what wikipedia has to say about it:

and

Now, if you mean to say that open relationships don't fit your idea of polyamory, then that's something different. You then have to decide for yourself whether or not to consider me "at your level".

Sorry for being snarky here.
 
Last edited:
Oh, this is getting ridiculous. He was replying to Mono's post saying that his relationship wasn't a typical polyamorous relationship. It's a fair reply. Seriously....I'm really flabbergasted by the replies I see here. Maybe we should just start a definition thread to hash this out.
 
Last edited:
Mono simply asked for more clarification on certain points
Meeting a stranger and having sex that night is not a typical polyamorous relationship.

I interpret that not as a question for clarification, but as a statement about definitions. Besides, it only refers to one part of my post.

I did say that perhaps I should have ignored that first message, but any attempt I've made to calm down this discussion since then seems only to have had the opposite effect.

And when we then both say there is no common terminology, we don't agree?

By the way, one definition of snarky (to be precise, the second one on Urban Dictionary) is:
A witty mannerism, personality, or behavior that is a combination of sarcasm and cynicism. Usually accepted as a complimentary term. Snark is sometimes mistaken for a snotty or arrogant attitude.
Indeed. It is.
 
Last edited:
Oh, this is getting ridiculous. He was replying to Mono's post saying that his relationship wasn't a typical polyamorous relationship. It's a fair reply. Seriously....I'm really flabbergasted by the replies I see here. Maybe we should just start a definition thread to hash this out.

That has been tried and it didn't work out.

But since it is mentioned above, I would like to point out that Mono said it wasn't a TYPICAL polyamorous relationship. While I have been arguing that terminology is a GOOD thing, the rest of you have been arguing "Do we have the right to tell the OP that his relationship "is" or "is not" poly". That stemmed from Mono's response in search of clarification. If you READ Mono's POST, the word "typical" qualifies that statement.

Mono says it's not a TYPICAL poly relationship. He did not say "You DO NOT HAVE a poly relationship." That's when the OP got all "Maybe I'm not on YOUR LEVEL, snark snark," and started with the Wiki definitions. Then he says he's not the one who started discussing terminology. Of course this is his thread, so he can throw out anything for discussion, but if someone else chooses to run with it, it's somehow not acceptable?

I swear, sometimes people don't realize that what was written by others is STILL UP THERE for reference.
 
I interpret that not as a question for clarification, but as a statement about definitions. Besides, it only refers to one part of my post.

I did say that perhaps I should have ignored that first message, but any attempt I've made to calm down this discussion since then seems only to have had the opposite effect.

And when we then both say there is no common terminology, we don't agree?

By the way, one definition of snarky (to be precise, the second one on Urban Dictionary) is:

Quote:
A witty mannerism, personality, or behavior that is a combination of sarcasm and cynicism. Usually accepted as a complimentary term. Snark is sometimes mistaken for a snotty or arrogant attitude.

You sure have an odd way of complimenting someone.
 
I swear, sometimes people don't realize that what was written by others is STILL UP THERE for reference.

What's up there isn't at issue. How what's up there is getting interpreted is what's at issue. I interpret what happened on this thread very differently than you do. I could hash it out in detail in a blow by blow with quotes and all about how I see it differently, but it wouldn't accomplish a damned thing. Minds have already been made up.
 
YGirl, I think we should stop this conversation, because frankly I don't like your one-sided accusations ('sometimes people don't realize that what was written by others is STILL UP THERE for reference') combined with what would be considered rudeness in some parts of the world (like putting words in my mouth, disregarding your very own statement that 'what was written by others etc.'). And there seems to be plenty you don't like about me.

You seem to feel attacked and you have all the right in the world to feel attacked; all I can say is that I didn't attack you, any other poster or the whole community for that matter.

I am generally a very patient person but there are limits, especially with people who only hear what they want to hear, believe their views are the only right ones and think it's their god-given right to lash out at anybody they disagree with. It's your turn to grow up, girl.
 
This thread has turned into a perfect example of why using the word Polyamory is not the best way to try to explain my relationship to those unfamiliar with non-monogamous dynamics. They immediately Google it and get such a wide variety of opinions it means nothing anymore. People understand the terms swinging and open relationship much easier, but that is not what I am in.

I prefer to stick to "I'm in a loving relationship with multiple people involved". That way all the other things like swinging and casual sex aren't included in what I am talking about. I need a way to distinguish my relationship with clarity for the benefit of my family and friends. Poly is not it. Too bad..it has a catchy tune don't ya think :rolleyes:
 
The flaw is not in the term itself. It's in trying to apply a very broad umbrella term to define very specific relationship structures. The problem is in using the term to make assumptions. Which is why people shouldn't take such stock in calling or judging someone else's relationship as poly or not or even saying that their relationship is a "typical poly relationship" (which can fairly be interpreted as a judgement even if the intention wasn't to judge). Simply because two different kinds of relationships are being described under the same broad umbrella term, that doesn't automatically mean they should be compared to each other.

It's like saying a person who's married is more monogamous than a person who's dating. And then the married person taking offense or being hurt that the dating person is also describing their relationship as monogamous. And then a bunch of people jumping down that dating person's throat for bringing up that definitions can be broad. At least that's how I see it.
 
It's like saying a person who's married is more monogamous than a person who's dating.

Either way, when someone says they are monogamous you know exactly what you are referring to, when someone says "I'm a swinger" you know exactly what they are referring to, when someone says "I have casual sex" you know exactly what you are referring to. By watering down and refusing to apply a basic definition to polyamory, if someone says "I'm Polyamorous" you end up not having a clue what they are referring to.

That's all I am saying, Ceoli. All the respect in the world to broad umbrella's. Some of us like having a certain baseline of clarity in at least the inclusion of loving connections within Poly. But I digress, the word means very little in the big picture. People refuse to define it and therefore it fails in being considered "terminology" at all.
 
Ugh.

Please remember that the OP invited us to judge his situation. He asks US how HE "should" feel about his fiancee having a one-night-stand with a co-worker.

Sorry if I butted into a private conversation that was being shouted from roof-top to roof-top, but it's not exactly like I broke the lock on the Secret Journal of Eskludin's Personal Life and splattered it all over the sidewalk.
 
Last edited:
Either way, when someone says they are monogamous you know exactly what you are referring to, when someone says "I'm a swinger" you know exactly what they are referring to, when someone says "I have casual sex" you know exactly what you are referring to.



I disagree. If I tell you, "I'm in a monogamous relationship" what exactly do you know about my relationship other than it involves one other person? Do you know whether we're married, dating or FWB? Monogamy only means that whatever kind of relationship it is it involves one other person. There's nothing terribly exact about that. Anything past that is an assumption.

Similarly for swinging. I know swingers that have sex with strangers. I know swingers that have sex within a closed circle and group of friends that know each other and hang out outside of the sex. Which one is the real swinger in this case?

These terms are all laden with assumptions that people generally accept. The trouble is, even if a majority of people accept those assumptions as accurate descriptions, it still doesn't change the reality that they are also broad umbrella terms. People are just more used to navigating the assumptions around certain terms than others. The term polyamory itself hasn't been around that long.
 
Ugh.

Please remember that the OP invited us to judge his situation. He asks US how HE "should" feel about his fiancee having a one-night-stand with a co-worker.

Sorry if I butted into a private conversation that was being shouted from roof-top to roof-top, but it's not exactly like I broke the lock on the Secret Journal of Eskludin's Personal Life and splattered it all over the sidewalk.

He asked for feedback, not a full on assault and accusations about the nature of his relationship.
 
I disagree. .
We agree to disagree then. How anyone could misinterpret "I'm monogamous" is beyond me. It doesn't even attempt to describe anything other than a one on one intimate relationship. Allthe other details have nothing to do with saying the word, they are other aspects to the relationship dynamic but not what defines the type of romantic involvement.

I'm finished as this topic has spiralled into negativity.

Take care Ceoli.
 
Thanks Mono, you too. I've been catching up on some of the posts here and realise you and your loved ones are not in an easy situation. Good luck with that!

Thanks, I apologize for creating a huge tangent on your thread.

Take care
 
I'm finished as this topic has spiralled into negativity.

Take care Ceoli.

For what it's worth, I didn't view this little debate we were having in these couple of posts or the disagreement we have about it as negative. I like conversations like this because I do see them as important to have. So thanks for that.
 
Back
Top