Polyamory.com Forum  

Go Back   Polyamory.com Forum > Polyamory > General Poly Discussions

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 01-27-2012, 09:53 PM
rory's Avatar
rory rory is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Europe
Posts: 496
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThatGirlInGray View Post
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.
I agree with you here. But I don't think this term works, because monogamy has such an established meaning, that is, being in a relationship with one person only. That's why I think bi-monogamy is nonsensical.
__________________
Living with my partner Mya and metamour Hank. Seeing Lily.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 01-27-2012, 10:17 PM
MonoVCPHG's Avatar
MonoVCPHG MonoVCPHG is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: In Redpepper's heart
Posts: 4,742
Default

I'm good with the term - it leaves no gray area. I like no gray
__________________

Playing the Game of Life with Monopoly rules.
Monogamy might just be in my genes

Poly Events All Over
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 01-27-2012, 10:25 PM
MonoVCPHG's Avatar
MonoVCPHG MonoVCPHG is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: In Redpepper's heart
Posts: 4,742
Default

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.
__________________

Playing the Game of Life with Monopoly rules.
Monogamy might just be in my genes

Poly Events All Over
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 01-28-2012, 07:12 PM
SchrodingersCat's Avatar
SchrodingersCat SchrodingersCat is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Saskatchewan
Posts: 2,130
Default

There was a thread I saw yesterday (sorry can't remember which one it was so I don't have a link)... where someone mentioned an ex who alternated between a woman and a man with each relationship... she had recently gotten out of a relationship with a woman, so she didn't want to get into a relationship with the OP of that thread, because she was a woman.

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.

In the latter case, there are specific aspects of the male or female archetype that they like, and deliberately seek. For example, they might like the way men are take-charge and protectors, and they might like the way women are caregivers and supportive. The deliberately seek out one or the other gender at certain times, depending on their needs at the time.

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.

In the local bi group on Facebook, a discussion was recently started, on whether people look for different aspects when dating men and women, or whether they look at them both the same. One person posted that she looks for romantic relationships with women, but only sexual relationships with men. She's married to a man, so she says she doesn't want any other romantic male partners. She also mentioned that she doesn't let other men kiss her, but she readily kisses other women.
__________________
Gralson: my husband (works out of town).
Auto: my girlfriend (lives with her husband Zoffee).

The most dangerous phrase in the English language is "we've always done it this way."
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 01-28-2012, 07:18 PM
SchrodingersCat's Avatar
SchrodingersCat SchrodingersCat is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Saskatchewan
Posts: 2,130
Default

As for the term "bi-monogamous" I have also not heard of it, so I wouldn't presume to give it a hard-and-fast definition.

If I read it, depending on context, I would probably think it refers to poly people who want to have one male partner and one female partner. No information is implied whether they would accept a transsexual partner, a gender-neutral partner, or whatever else people can come up with to gender-identify.

I completely agree with AT that it's not monogamy at all. Monogamy is one partner, period. Two is not equal to one.

I can't understand why someone would have such a policy, but there are many aspects of some people that I can't understand. I mean, if you like men and you like women, and you're capable of polyamory, then why would you deliberately turn down someone to whom you're attracted, just because you already have one of that gender? It's like ordering dinner at a restaurant... pick your potato: do you want fries or mashed? You can have both, but we'll have to charge you extra.
__________________
Gralson: my husband (works out of town).
Auto: my girlfriend (lives with her husband Zoffee).

The most dangerous phrase in the English language is "we've always done it this way."
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 01-28-2012, 07:29 PM
nycindie's Avatar
nycindie nycindie is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The Big Apple
Posts: 7,105
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThatGirlInGray View Post
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.
But in this case, it is stupid. AT didn't say that making up words in general is stupid, but that this is one example that is.

If you have more than one loving relationship, that is polyamory/you are polyamorous.

If your poly relationships are "closed," your approach to poly is "polyfidelitous."

The terms polyamorous and poly-fi already exist and are sufficient. To say one is "bi-monogamous" is really silly. 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. But, basically that's a Vee. Furthermore, why mix sexual orientation and relationship structure/approach in one word? You're bisexual, and you're polyamorous. Why gunk it up with new, more confusing terms?

Reminds me of the words bi-monthly and semi-monthly - no one can ever remember which means twice a month and which means every two months.
__________________
The world opens up... when you do.

Oh, oh, can't you see? Love is the drug for me. ~Bryan Ferry
"Love is that condition in which another person's happiness is essential to your own." ~Robert Heinlein
Reply With Quote
  #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
  #18  
Old 01-28-2012, 08:34 PM
MonoVCPHG's Avatar
MonoVCPHG MonoVCPHG is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: In Redpepper's heart
Posts: 4,742
Default

With all the made up words around here I am surprised anyone would call a word silly at this point.

Still if the word doesn't work for someone that is fine, but belittling it seems a bit hypocritical and elitist. Do only the cool kids get to make up words
__________________

Playing the Game of Life with Monopoly rules.
Monogamy might just be in my genes

Poly Events All Over
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 01-29-2012, 02:01 AM
SourGirl's Avatar
SourGirl SourGirl is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: South of an Igloo, North of a Desert.
Posts: 885
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MonoVCPHG View Post
With all the made up words around here I am surprised anyone would call a word silly at this point.

Still if the word doesn't work for someone that is fine, but belittling it seems a bit hypocritical and elitist. Do only the cool kids get to make up words
Thank you.


I`m not a label-lover. However, I have painfully learned through experience, that poly is MORE then just the ability to love more then one person at a time. Calling it only 'the ability to love more then one person' is a simplistic, and idealistic view at best, in my opinion.
I am not poly. Even if I love more then one person, it is a very different love from what I feel for my husband. To try and treat myself as poly, confuses others and hurts me. The type of love I feel for my husband is more in line with what monogamous couples describe.

I don`t really fit the description for bi-monogamous either, but I do understand how it can happen. (Generally speaking )Belittling something just because you don`t understand it for yourself, is a bit thick.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 01-29-2012, 02:19 AM
nycindie's Avatar
nycindie nycindie is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The Big Apple
Posts: 7,105
Default

To be clear, I think the word is silly, especially since other words already apply, but not the concept behind it. But just because I have a judgment about the word doesn't mean I don't understand it. Should I turn myself in to the thought police because I think "bi-monogamous" is a stupid silly word?

Aren't there other words that were made up in poly lingo that are just plain silly -- like frubbles, wibbly, and swoly?? No? You all think they are perfectly sensible made-up words? Heck, even the word compersion took me a while to warm up to. Am I being narrow-minded, elitist, hypocritical, and thick if I say they are silly? It's okay if you like the word, but if I think it's dumb, I should be castigated for saying so? Aren't we all entitled to our opinions?
__________________
The world opens up... when you do.

Oh, oh, can't you see? Love is the drug for me. ~Bryan Ferry
"Love is that condition in which another person's happiness is essential to your own." ~Robert Heinlein

Last edited by nycindie; 01-29-2012 at 02:27 AM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:54 AM.