Polyamory.com Forum  

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

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 01-09-2014, 08:54 PM
PolyinPractice PolyinPractice is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 518
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by london View Post
Dude, I've never heard you say that anything other than the type of model you have is not polyamory because it's just people having endless strings of seperate relationships or whatever. I'm not saying that people shouldn't practice whatever relationship style suits them, you just don't get to remove someone's perfectly acceptable poly label because they don't do the same as you.

Imagine telling everyone in a closed triad or quad that they had to use the term monogamish because they aren't open to new relationships at all times like proper poly folk. It would be ridiculous. Regardless of my beliefs on closed relationships, a healthy triad or quad involves the people in them maintaining more than one loving relationship. That's polyamory.
I'm merely saying that you can't eliminate what is "really" poly, anymore than the OP was dismissing the "chain" type poly. I'm saying that all are legit, though I've often heard poly people state that my form is controlling and not "really" poly, simply because I like all my partners to be involved to some extent. I don't like having my time, and my partner's, divided, is all. Don't have enough time for that.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 01-09-2014, 09:03 PM
london london is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: UK - land of the free
Posts: 1,635
Default

I'll be honest and say that I've definitely spoken out about what I see as red flags in certain types of poly, but I've never saw them as "not poly". And yeah, I've spoken out against the type of poly you seem to practice going by what you said, but my argument isn't anything to do with that arrangement not being poly more about why I think some people gravitate towards it. But that's off topic here.

Long story short, if you have or have the potential of consensually obtaining and maintaining more than one loving union at a time in your relationship style, and you want to be poly, you're poly. Nothing to do with how much sex you have, who you have that sex with and under what conditions. Just about the potential of multiple, simultaneous loving relationships.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 01-09-2014, 09:09 PM
PolyinPractice PolyinPractice is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 518
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by london View Post
I'll be honest and say that I've definitely spoken out about what I see as red flags in certain types of poly, but I've never saw them as "not poly". And yeah, I've spoken out against the type of poly you seem to practice going by what you said, but my argument isn't anything to do with that arrangement not being poly more about why I think some people gravitate towards it. But that's off topic here.

Long story short, if you have or have the potential of consensually obtaining and maintaining more than one loving union at a time in your relationship style, and you want to be poly, you're poly. Nothing to do with how much sex you have, who you have that sex with and under what conditions. Just about the potential of multiple, simultaneous loving relationships.
That isn't what you said originally; what you said was "People who feel this way believe that monogamy is the ideal. They believe that a monogamous template for relationships is the only way to achieve "real" commitment. The absence of monogamy inherently negates commitment, in their mind, and they strive to compensate for that imagined deficit in their polyamorous relationships with "tools" such as couple privilege, unicorn hunting, controlling their partner's relationships, sex negativity and just about everything else I hate about polyamory. "

ALL people. Not some. To be fair, I see very few who are capable of handling the integrated type of poly, but please do not put ALL of us in the same blanket statement. Not ALL of us gravitate towards it for the bullshit reasons you stated, so kindly do not make those judgments.

/end rant
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 01-09-2014, 09:14 PM
london london is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: UK - land of the free
Posts: 1,635
Default

Quote:
People often want to make polyamory as close to monogamy as possible in some attempt to correct all the things that are morally wrong about it.
This is where I'm starting. People who fundamentally believe that non monogamy is wrong so they structure their relationships in a way that reflects monogamy. Everything else follows.

I'm saying that there are a subset of people who practice non monogamy who actually believe it is wrong and feel guilty/dirty/wrong for desiring and partaking in it.

Last edited by london; 01-09-2014 at 09:17 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 01-09-2014, 09:20 PM
PolyinPractice PolyinPractice is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 518
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by london View Post
*People often want to make polyamory as close to monogamy as possible in some attempt to correct all the things that are morally wrong about it.*

This is where I'm starting. People who fundamentally believe that non monogamy is wrong. Everything else follows.

I'm saying that there are a subset of people who practice non monogamy who actually believe it is wrong and feel guilty/dirty/wrong for desiring and partaking in it.
And there are some who superficially appear monogamous, but are just going about their lives. I'll admit I'm sensitive on this...I even once had someone tell me, actually two people tell me, even though I CONSISTENTLY made it clear I was poly, that I must be monogamous since I only had one partner. As if I had to "prove" my polyness by dating another person. Same way I felt I had to "prove" my bisexuality by dating a woman (as I've so far mostly dated guys and have not had a serious girlfriend). I can't help that the sort of person you described above exists. I just don't let that discourage me from practicing the type of poly they claim they do.

It just gets annoying when I hear things that seem to perpetuate those myths

But thanks for the apology and clarification.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 01-09-2014, 09:45 PM
scarletzinnia scarletzinnia is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 88
Default

Polyfidelity is just one subset of polyamory. Restricting yourself to a closed group of two or more partners is not what makes one poly. There are swingers who restrict themselves to sex only with another particular couple or group, and won't sleep with outsiders. They are not poly, even though they have a closed group of partners.

What separates the polys from the people in open relationships is that poly people are open to a wider range of emotional possibilities in their relationships. I have heard of people in open relationships dumping partners because "it got too serious," meaning the other partner fell in love with them. If they want to keep things light, then fine, but it ain't polyamory.

Poly-amory = many loves. Or the openness to having such. It's that simple.

Last edited by scarletzinnia; 01-09-2014 at 09:53 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 01-09-2014, 10:21 PM
LovingRadiance's Avatar
LovingRadiance LovingRadiance is online now
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Alaska
Posts: 5,189
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CuriouslyPoly View Post

In my opinion, V-types are probably a chain of open relationships and not really poly ones. Fine, some of you can call them networks to encompass the whole chain of people involved, but I think V-type polyamorous relationships are a misnomer...it's just part of a chain of open relationships.
Except, when they aren't.
In our dynamic for example, there is myself (hinge) Maca (my husband of 15 years) and GG (my bf of 20+ years). Maca had a gf for 2 years-but she moved to another state.
No long line of open relationships.
__________________
"Love As Thou Wilt"
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 01-09-2014, 11:43 PM
Dagferi's Avatar
Dagferi Dagferi is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 988
Default

Quote:
In my opinion, V-types are probably a chain of*open relationships
*and not really poly ones. Fine, some of you can call them networks to encompass the whole chain of people involved, but I think V-type polyamorous relationships are a misnomer...it's just part of a chain of open relationships.
Ummm.. my V relationship is just that a v. Murf is monogamous. There is no continuing chain of partner there. Butch is polycurious BUT is not seeking other partners. So the chain ends on his end. I am polyfidelous. I have no urge to be with anyone but Murf and Butch.

So you are wrong painting all relationship with one brush.
__________________
40 yo straight female
Married in the eyes of the government to Butch since 2001...
Murf my monogamous second husband has been with me since May of 2012.
In a V relationship with an average 60/40 split of time. Only due to Murf's and Butch's crappy work schedules.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 01-10-2014, 12:50 AM
Natja's Avatar
Natja Natja is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 822
Default

Flame baaaaaaaait!!!!!!!
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 01-10-2014, 01:11 AM
CuriouslyPoly CuriouslyPoly is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 15
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dagferi View Post
Ummm.. my V relationship is just that a v. Murf is monogamous. There is no continuing chain of partner there. Butch is polycurious BUT is not seeking other partners. So the chain ends on his end. I am polyfidelous. I have no urge to be with anyone but Murf and Butch
Well there you go, you somewhat see things from my perspective. To me, the concept of polyamory is more clear when the relationship has a limit...otherwise it's an open relationship.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dagferi View Post
So you are wrong painting all relationship with one brush.
Nope, If you read the quote below then here's another person's perspective.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LovingRadiance View Post
Except, when they aren't.
In our dynamic for example, there is myself (hinge) Maca (my husband of 15 years) and GG (my bf of 20+ years). Maca had a gf for 2 years-but she moved to another state.
No long line of open relationships.
See, she even said that there's no long line of open relationships so there's a limit on her polyamorous relationship.

Also, some of you can nitpick and say that you don't have to be involved in another relationship and still be poly or mono, but I wonder...what's the point of being in poly relationships if I don't desire or rather not be be involved in my partner's partner and my partner is mono to her girlfriend but her girlfriend is poly and has a boyfriend and the girlfriend's boyfriend is poly and has a girlfriend who is poly and is interested in me and she got another boyfriend etc. etc. etc. ....can some of you see how can this be confusing?

It's confusing.

So there has to be line drawn for polyamorous relationships to work, otherwise it's again...an open relationship. I can see why most people will rather attempt to be monogamous because it's a straight line.

Anyways, this will be my last post on this thread. It's unfortunate that I can't understand how v-type poly relationships can be stable if there is a chance to add onto the v-type diagram. But if I do get into a polyamorous relationship by chance then polyexclusive will probably work for me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Natja View Post
Flame baaaaaaaait!!!!!!!
Wow...very mature...
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
polyarmory, relationship, v-type

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 05:51 PM.