Regarding Labels and Definitions

drtalon

New member
Sometimes I don't like to bother with any of the consequences of short-hand names for certain ways I chose to live my life. I call myself poly, a kinkster, and an athiest, in most cases. Sometimes I don't, and I don't think it's a result of insecurity, identity-crisis, or a desire to not be boxed in. At least not as some others have indicated people use "boxed in" as an excuse.

There are three reasons I ever feel any discomfort about applying one label or another to myself.

First, I have no control over what other people using the same label do.

Second, once there are two people with the same label, there follows this concept of community, how we share this label together, how we should automatically have some sort of connection, common purpose, and reason to protect the "turf" of this label community.

Third, I may not be interested in communicating about issues surrounding the label if there are more important things to discuss and the label might derail those points, or poison the well for them. If the shortcut of language that is the label would not be understood correctly by the audience, then the label hurts understanding more than it helps it and you might as well abandon it. (Or decide get on your soapbox and try to educate.) If everyone around you thinks "atheist" means "devil-worshiper", or "poly" means "LDS cultist" you can decide to use the label and possibly derail your point, or you can avoid the label and try to focus on the real topic.
Whilst we are all entitled to self-identify as we see fit, we are not entitled to pass judgment on other people's entitlement to do the same.​
And I agree with this to a point, certainly everyone has the right to call themselves whatever they want outside of legal issues like calling yourself a doctor, lawyer, accountant, Realtor(tm), or another licensed professional title without a license. But there comes a time when someone is ignorant or deliberately lying about this or that label they have given themselves, and then it becomes necessary to judge. Possibly, you should judge yourself first and ask whether the label truly applies to you. If it does, and the person's behavior is diametrically opposed to your behavior, how can you not judge? To not make a judgment at that point would be to render that label useless in your identification. If person A claims to be vegan, but eats jello, and person B claims to be vegan and does not eat anything containing gelatin as it is derived from animals, then it seems obvious they have a mutually incompatible understanding of the label they've individually chosen for themselves. Maybe neither of them is right or wrong in the grand scheme of a living language, but for at least one of them, the label has become useless as a shortcut for explaining some of the ways they live their life.
 
Second, once there are two people with the same label, there follows this concept of community, how we share this label together, how we should automatically have some sort of connection, common purpose, and reason to protect the "turf" of this label community.

This is what made/makes me loathe to use the label bisexual. I don't like what people on either side of the label think of those with the label. I never felt like what I like to do with someone else's genitals was enough reason to come together in community. I didn't want to anything with the genitals of strangers, and didn't want other people thinking that I did.

That said, I like the convenience of the label; and I like being different and being comfy with the label. (when I first came out, the only thing I could find that all the bisexual people I met had in common was that they 'didn't like labels.') :D
 
But there comes a time when someone is ignorant or deliberately lying about this or that label they have given themselves, and then it becomes necessary to judge. Possibly, you should judge yourself first and ask whether the label truly applies to you. If it does, and the person's behavior is diametrically opposed to your behavior, how can you not judge? To not make a judgment at that point would be to render that label useless in your identification. If person A claims to be vegan, but eats jello, and person B claims to be vegan and does not eat anything containing gelatin as it is derived from animals, then it seems obvious they have a mutually incompatible understanding of the label they've individually chosen for themselves. Maybe neither of them is right or wrong in the grand scheme of a living language, but for at least one of them, the label has become useless as a shortcut for explaining some of the ways they live their life.

Interesting points. I'm not sure if you read of my disagreement with some here regarding how polyamory should be defined. To summarize, I felt that polyamory means "many loves", and so the only real condition to be polyamorous is to love more then one person. That being said, I generally define polyamory as "many sexual loves", to differentiate it from loving friends and family. Do you think that my definition is too broad?
 
I tend to stick with "more than one romantic love", because I do believe that you can have asexual poly, and the "romantic" part excludes the love of family, deity and pets. :)
 
I tend to stick with "more than one romantic love", because I do believe that you can have asexual poly, and the "romantic" part excludes the love of family, deity and pets. :)

Ah, good point :). Sometimes, I go for the all inclusive love, just to show people that in that sense, atleast, almost everyone is poly.
 
In my particular situation, only two people know that I'd like to be poly. I actually cringe at the thought of telling people "I'm polyamorous", because they wouldn't understand, and I'd have to explain myself in the context of a larger movement and lose focus on what I am. Once I've explained myself I could refer to myself as "being poly" because then it would just be a useful shorthand.

One of the things I don't like is that since to "practice polyamory" you need more than one loving relationship, that makes it sound like my preferred configuration is more than one loving relationship. It actually isn't, and in my ideal world I'd be mono because it's easier. One of the things I like the most about poly is about letting relationships be what they are, and not having to fit them in any kind of box. Whether they become a relationship or a marriage is really not all that important to me, I just want to be allowed to feel the way I do.

This is especially bothersome when my recently-ex-boyfriend tells me things like "one day you'll find the right two guys for you"....it doesn't exactly work that way!
 
Last edited:
Using the general "love" term and postulating that everyone is poly doesn't go far to convince anybody, I've found. The general push-back is that romantic love is "different", and I haven't been able to get anyone away from that stance.
 
Using the general "love" term and postulating that everyone is poly doesn't go far to convince anybody, I've found. The general push-back is that romantic love is "different", and I haven't been able to get anyone away from that stance.

I haven't persuaded anyone who's monogamous to become poly, but I still like getting them to think a bit atleast (and I have managed that). Seriously, what is so "different" about romantic love vs. the more platonic kind, -especially- if sexuality isn't involved? Actually that bring up a question; can romantic love truly be removed entirely from sexuality? I wonder...
 
In my particular situation, only two people know that I'd like to be poly. I actually cringe at the thought of telling people "I'm polyamorous", because they wouldn't understand, and I'd have to explain myself in the context of a larger movement and lose focus on what I am. Once I've explained myself I could refer to myself as "being poly" because then it would just be a useful shorthand.

One of the things I don't like is that since to "practice polyamory" you need more than one loving relationship, that makes it sound like my preferred configuration is more than one loving relationship. It actually isn't, and in my ideal world I'd be mono because it's easier. One of the things I like the most about poly is about letting relationships be what they are, and not having to fit them in any kind of box.

I think that my ideal would be 2 partners; they could also have other partners, I'm just saying what I think would work for me.

Whether they become a relationship or a marriage is really not all that important to me, I just want to be allowed to feel the way I do.

This is especially bothersome when my recently-ex-boyfriend tells me things like "one day you'll find the right two guys for you"....it doesn't exactly work that way!

Feelings are fine, but I see nothing wrong with commitments either. That being said, the commitment doesn't have to be formalized into a marriage. I think the nature of the commitment should depend on what's on the table, if you will.
 
I haven't persuaded anyone who's monogamous to become poly, but I still like getting them to think a bit atleast (and I have managed that).
I agree - I'm not in this world to try to convince someone to change their feelings about something they want to do in their own lives because I respect their choices. However, this is about finding acceptance of our way of thinking, while allowing folks to be monogamous if they desire, is it not?

Seriously, what is so "different" about romantic love vs. the more platonic kind, -especially- if sexuality isn't involved?
A question I have asked quite a few folks, and the usual answer is "I don't know, it just IS". Trying to apply logic to discussions about matters of the heart is often futile, in my experience.
 
Feelings are fine, but I see nothing wrong with commitments either. That being said, the commitment doesn't have to be formalized into a marriage. I think the nature of the commitment should depend on what's on the table, if you will.

Actually, I do really want to be married someday. One thing that's painful to me is that if I end up with two co-primaries, that I won't be able to marry them both. If I ever end up having feelings for someone other than my spouse, I think I'd like to keep it at romantic friendship, or something casual...I don't really like the idea of a long-term "secondary", because it feels like half-assed commitment.
 
Just a comment on this - why do you feel the need to be legally married? Some folks do have lots of good reasons why, some do it because they feel it's the "highest form of commitment".

You can't legally marry more than one, but you can enter into all sorts of contractual agreements that give most of the trappings of marriage.

There is a long way between marriage and the person being a secondary that the law can't touch anyone on.
 
I haven't persuaded anyone who's monogamous to become poly, but I still like getting them to think a bit atleast (and I have managed that).

I agree - I'm not in this world to try to convince someone to change their feelings about something they want to do in their own lives because I respect their choices. However, this is about finding acceptance of our way of thinking, while allowing folks to be monogamous if they desire, is it not?

Aye.

Seriously, what is so "different" about romantic love vs. the more platonic kind, -especially- if sexuality isn't involved? Actually that bring up a question; can romantic love truly be removed entirely from sexuality? I wonder...

A question I have asked quite a few folks, and the usual answer is "I don't know, it just IS".

A weak argument if ever I saw one, laugh :).

Trying to apply logic to discussions about matters of the heart is often futile, in my experience.

Well, like you said, this isn't really about persuading anyone that poly is for them, it's just about persuading them that poly can work for some people; and in that, I think, I've made some headway atleast :p.
 
Feelings are fine, but I see nothing wrong with commitments either. That being said, the commitment doesn't have to be formalized into a marriage. I think the nature of the commitment should depend on what's on the table, if you will.

Actually, I do really want to be married someday. One thing that's painful to me is that if I end up with two co-primaries, that I won't be able to marry them both.

I hear you. I think that this is a dilemna that many poly people with more then one serious relationship face. That being said, I will follow my heart.

If I ever end up having feelings for someone other than my spouse, I think I'd like to keep it at romantic friendship, or something casual...I don't really like the idea of a long-term "secondary", because it feels like half-assed commitment.

I don't think it has to be that way. Also, I would never trust things to remain the same. Let me give you a fictional example:

I marry Lisa, but then get into a serious relationship with Kim. Lisa starts seeing Phillip and Kim starts seeing Nonamebrand (sorry, that's an inside joke :)). So let's say that Lisa is my primary and Kim is my secondary. Phillip would be Lisa's secondary, and Nonamebrand becomes Kim's primary. Things can change. Lisa may decide she wants to spend more time with Phillip then with me; I may in essence be bumped to secondary even though (officially through marriage) I would be seen as "primary". Kim, meanwhile, may find that she likes me more then Nonamebrand. So, do me and Lisa divorce and marry our new primaries? Maybe, if it's worth the hassle. That's just the way life goes. Personally, I believe there will come a day when you can marry more the one person; there are ways around things like getting visitation rights at hospitals or what not, but it'd be the simplest solution in my view.
 
Just a comment on this - why do you feel the need to be legally married? Some folks do have lots of good reasons why, some do it because they feel it's the "highest form of commitment".

You can't legally marry more than one, but you can enter into all sorts of contractual agreements that give most of the trappings of marriage.

Yeah, that's what I meant when I said that you can work around only being able to marry one person.

There is a long way between marriage and the person being a secondary that the law can't touch anyone on.

What do you mean by this?
 
Just a comment on this - why do you feel the need to be legally married? Some folks do have lots of good reasons why, some do it because they feel it's the "highest form of commitment".

You can't legally marry more than one, but you can enter into all sorts of contractual agreements that give most of the trappings of marriage.

I hold marriage in pretty high esteem. I think it's one thing to be in a long-term relationship, but to be MARRIED, to declare yourself in front of friends and family, and legally too, that's like "the final frontier". I don't consider divorce as an option for myself, so if I marry someone, I intend it to last for the rest of my life.

And yeah, I guess there are ways around it...I remember a book that was published to help gay couples create legal bonds that are similar to marriage (I think that the legal benefits of marriage are very important)...if I'm ever in that situation I guess I'd do that, but a marriage license would be so much less hassle (and less expensive too). But I guess that's the cost of being alive now and not 100 years in the future.
 
Last edited:
OK, so here goes - my opinions, for what they are worth.

Some people see legal marriage as the highest form of commitment to a relationship. I see it as a legal document and nothing more. It has nothing to do with a degree of commitment or how much I love someone. I can be just as committed to my partner without a legal document saying so. If we have trust in our relationship and believe the promises that we made each other, then no government-sanctioned document is going to change that for the better or worse.

The other problem is that if legal marriage is seen as the highest form of commitment, and while the laws stay the way they are today (each person can only have one legal spouse), then by definition this is going to be ranking your poly relationships by setting one automatically above all the others.

So, for me, there are a large number of highly effective and desirable relationship options between having someone as a secondary and being legally married - it's more than possible to have multi-primaries, in the case of poly families living together. Even with secondary relationships, there can be a high level of commitment to the relationship without the sharing of the day-to-day running of a house.

I don't feel the need to have a formal ceremony to show family and friends how much I am committed to the ones I love in my life - they see that in the every day interactions. Commitments I make with my partners are between my partners, and I don't fell the need to share the making of those with my family or friends.

I'm not suggesting that anyone else should feel this way - just putting it out there as a different way of thinking than the standard that society tends to present us with.
 
Given the things I've read and pondered for a while now, I sometimes wish I had not gotten legally married. I am more for civil unions or domestic partnerships which can include more than one person of whatever gender, and hope that that becomes normal soon. In the mean time, I'm realizing I'd prefer to have a cultural ceremony and ignore the legal "marriage license" (why should the government "allow" me to marry my love?), but sometimes things happen on default because that's what normal people in society do if they don't think about things thoroughly, especially when they're young. Honestly, the biggest benefit to legal marriage that I've seen so far is the tax deductions, but I could have gotten most of them (and maybe more) filing as head of household (because of the kids) and he filing as single. (Yeah, in my day job I'm an accountant).

That being said, legal marriage is default for acknowledging the parentage of children, so, in the instance that there was a pregnancy between Guy and another woman, I'd prefer to divorce him (on paper, anyway :)) and the two of them get married legally, so there are protections in place for her and any children. (I can't have any more, I've been "fixed" ;) ).

I think somehow we just got off the original topic of labels. So I have a question on labeling - what exactly does fluid bonding mean, and entail? Is it just practicing safe sex? And how does it differ in male/male, male/female and female/female relationships? Wouldn't open mouth kissing be essentially fluid? Or does it only refer to "sexual fluids"? And does that mean just the commingling of sexual fluids (cumming in a vagina without a condom) or any contact with sexual fluids (hand job or mutual masturbation without a condom or gloves)? Thanks!
 
I think somehow we just got off the original topic of labels. So I have a question on labeling - what exactly does fluid bonding mean, and entail? Is it just practicing safe sex? And how does it differ in male/male, male/female and female/female relationships? Wouldn't open mouth kissing be essentially fluid? Or does it only refer to "sexual fluids"? And does that mean just the commingling of sexual fluids (cumming in a vagina without a condom) or any contact with sexual fluids (hand job or mutual masturbation without a condom or gloves)? Thanks!

Have you done any searches here? There may be a definition of fluid bonding in our glossary. There is also a very informative thread about it here: fluid bonding/bareback
 
Thanks for the link!
 
Back
Top