Polyamory.com Forum  

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

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 08-21-2012, 02:42 AM
MeeraReed MeeraReed is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: East Coast, U.S.
Posts: 352
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zusammen View Post
Hi all,

On a side note, and I hope someone can identify with me on this... I also like to see myself as solo, unattached, independent... my ideal would be ultimately uncommitted relationships. However, after so much time being with Sax, I inevitably am in a "relationship". I don't want to not be with Sax, nor impose artificial restrictions... Is anyone else in a similar situation? How do you deal with the unintended seriousness that simply comes with time?
Hi Zusammen, nice to meet you and glad you posted on this!

My approach is similar to yours, i.e., I consider myself solo, unattached, not looking for a primary partner/life partner. And I'm kind of in a similar situation to yours, in that I've got a "lover-friend" that I've been seeing for a while now, so that it begins to feel more like a relationship.

In my case, however, my lover-friend is actively seeking a primary partner of his own, plus he generally has a lot more sex/dating activity than I do, so that keeps things from getting more serious, and is something I am happy with. In a month or two, when I am done with my thesis (fingers crossed!), I will have time to seek out more dating partners myself, which I think will also help keep us from falling into an "accidental" relationship (or a serious relationship by default).
__________________
Single, straight, female, solo, non-monogamous.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 08-21-2012, 11:41 PM
nycindie's Avatar
nycindie nycindie is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The Big Apple
Posts: 7,375
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zusammen View Post
...after so much time being with Sax, I inevitably am in a "relationship". I don't want to not be with Sax, nor impose artificial restrictions... Is anyone else in a similar situation? How do you deal with the unintended seriousness that simply comes with time?
I think a good place to start is to look at certain words and what they mean to you, and whether they really apply to your relationship of not. What does "serious" mean? "Relationship?" "Primary?" "Love?" Get clear on separating the fantasies we were taught about relationships while growing up and what relationships really mean to you TODAY, as an adult. What do you want your relationships to be, and to bring you?

Many emotions pop up simply in response to thoughts we have, and we human beings think the same thoughts over and over again, so it is easy to manufacture feelings. Oh, believe me, I have daydreams about lovers, but I know where they're coming from, so I don't pay them credence and waste time wrestling with fantasies taught to me at an early age. The key is awareness - get to know yourself and how you think, and you can shed light on lots of things and handle them better by simply seeing what choices you have available NOW, in the present. I hope that makes sense.
__________________
The world opens up... when you do.

"Oh, oh, can't you see? Love is the drug for me." ~Bryan Ferry
"Love and the self are one . . ." ~Leo Buscaglia "

Last edited by nycindie; 05-01-2014 at 07:38 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 08-23-2012, 02:28 PM
ThirdAlternative ThirdAlternative is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 8
Default

I've cared for my friends-with-benefits/lovers....did I love them? No, because most never allowed me to get to really know them, to hang out with them and do other things. A few I would talk with, watch movies with, have drinks..I considered them btw the lover and BF, which was ok. Either way, if we both were going back for more, it meant there had to be some kind of connection, which sometimes is just fine. I'm not sure I could tell another man easily "I love you" and I definitely wouldn't if all I could base things on was the quality of the sex. Most of the men though that I met confused FWB with FB (fuck buddy)..to them, it's the same thing. Being friends actually means you have to like the other person, enjoy being around then. Plenty will have a FB that they may not like as a person but are happy to use for sex.

Last edited by ThirdAlternative; 08-23-2012 at 02:30 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 08-29-2013, 05:01 PM
Leilo Leilo is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1
Wink I really relate

I relate to alot of things here. I will be following and am very interested in reading more on the subject. I'm looking forward to telling a bit more a about myself soon. Things I do, prefer to do and what I'm looking/ not looking for ( or at least not "looking" for) are similar to what others are talking about. Thank you for being so honest.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 04-27-2014, 06:33 PM
copperhead copperhead is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 109
Default

It would be nice to hear how things are today for you people. Do you still think the same, what has changed, why?

I'm looking forward to developing several lover-friend relationships. There are at least three people I'm interested in in this way. What I worry is that I'll be swept by emotions and end up wanting more than I can have.

All these people are married and have children, so they definitely have a life of their own and I would be a small part of that life, hopefully a part anyway. But how do I keep my emotions in check? I have done this before, but then I was mostly closed off to other people about everything. Now I try to be open and honest, especially to myself, so I'm not sure if I could do this anymore. I don't want to risk losing the friendships, but I'd like to explore the possibilities these people are open to. And two of these people have clearly expressed they are pretty open
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 04-27-2014, 10:21 PM
MeeraReed MeeraReed is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: East Coast, U.S.
Posts: 352
Default

My lover-friend and I celebrated our 2-year "unniversary" earlier this year. He is still not my "boyfriend." We are still very happy and very much ethically non-monogamous.

I don't stress as much about definitions and terminology as I did two years ago, but I still find that caring friendships with a sexual component are what work best for me. Serious Romantic Relationships aren't something I seek.
__________________
Single, straight, female, solo, non-monogamous.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 04-28-2014, 03:30 AM
JaneQSmythe JaneQSmythe is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Pennsyl-tucky
Posts: 1,182
Default

I posted in this thread just over two years ago...and my thinking has not changed. I have a husband, boyfriend, a (new) girlfriend and a couple of FWBs as well as a few intimate-but-not-sexual friends. I am "open" to new relationships, of whatever sort, but not "looking" for anything.

I tend to use labels "after the fact" to describe what IS...not to define what "should" be. The relationship determines the labels and NOT vice versa.
__________________
Me: poly bi female, in an "open-but-not-looking" Vee-plus with -
MrS: hetero polyflexible male, live-in husband (21+ yrs)
Dude: hetero poly male, live-in boyfriend (3+ yrs) and MrS's best friend
Lotus: poly bi female, "it's complicated" relationships with Dude/JaneQ/MrS (1+ years)
TT: poly bi male, married to Lotus, FB with JaneQ
VV and MsJ: bi-women with male primaries, LTR LDR FWBs to JaneQ


My poly blogs here:
The Journey of JaneQSmythe
The Notebook of JaneQSmythe
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 04-28-2014, 05:51 AM
InfinitePossibility InfinitePossibility is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 368
Default

Good to hear from you, MeeraReed. I've missed your voice on this board.

After much thought, consideration, research, talking to friends and reading of people's stories on this board I eventually came to realise that for now at least, I would consider non-monogamy only if I was not in a serious romantic relationship.

My feeling is that too often non-monogamy isn't terribly ethical when it's being practised by couples. People knowing about what is going on and agreeing isn't sufficient to make something ethical, IMO. (I know that there are lovely examples where it all goes well and everybody is treated well but I think those are not all that common).

Behaving ethically and kindly toward people in my life is important to me which means that I'd rather limit the number of romantic relationships I have than risk getting into some of the situations that I read about here, hear about from friends and read about in other books.

I don't see the same sorts of issues with single people being non-monogamous and it is something that would interest me if my circumstances were to change.

Anyway - long winded way of saying. Good to see ya again.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 05-16-2014, 10:45 PM
MeeraReed MeeraReed is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: East Coast, U.S.
Posts: 352
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by InfinitePossibility View Post
Good to hear from you, MeeraReed. I've missed your voice on this board.

After much thought, consideration, research, talking to friends and reading of people's stories on this board I eventually came to realise that for now at least, I would consider non-monogamy only if I was not in a serious romantic relationship.

My feeling is that too often non-monogamy isn't terribly ethical when it's being practised by couples. People knowing about what is going on and agreeing isn't sufficient to make something ethical, IMO. (I know that there are lovely examples where it all goes well and everybody is treated well but I think those are not all that common).

Behaving ethically and kindly toward people in my life is important to me which means that I'd rather limit the number of romantic relationships I have than risk getting into some of the situations that I read about here, hear about from friends and read about in other books.

I don't see the same sorts of issues with single people being non-monogamous and it is something that would interest me if my circumstances were to change.

Anyway - long winded way of saying. Good to see ya again.
Thanks for the kind words, IP. I'm still "around" in the sense that I still read here frequently, especially the blogs. I just don't have time to post much.
__________________
Single, straight, female, solo, non-monogamous.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 05-19-2014, 06:24 AM
kdt26417's Avatar
kdt26417 kdt26417 is offline
Official Greeter
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Olympia, Washington
Posts: 5,780
Default

Suggested list of titles for people you have sex and/or romance with, starting with the least emotional/life involvement and proceeding down to the most emotional/life involvement:
  • one night stands,
  • fuck buddies,
  • friends with benefits,
  • lovers,
  • lover friends,
  • boyfriends and girlfriends,
  • steady boyfriends and girlfriends,
  • partners,
  • fiancés and fiancées,
  • spouses and heart spouses.
Yes?

Presumably, anything above boyfriend/girlfriend (on the list) is *not* a relationship, while anything below lover friends (on the list) *is* a relationship.

Would the "relationship titles" potentially be poly (versus monogamous) titles, while all the "non-relationship titles" would necessarily stop short of being poly (though they could still be non-monogamous titles)?

And perhaps, if you're not in a relationship, you're not in love, whereas if you are in a relationship, you are in love?

---

Re: Morning Glory Zell-Ravenheart ... is the woman generally credited with coining the word polyamory. In 1999, the editor of the Oxford English Dictionary was contemplating adding polyamory to that dictionary. S/he asked Morning Glory Zell-Ravenheart to provide a definition for the term.

Morning Glory and her husband Oberon published their response on their website ...

... as follows:
Quote:
"The practice, state or ability of having more than one sexual loving relationship at the same time, with the full knowledge and consent of all partners involved."
The clause "full knowledge and consent" suffices to disclude hidden affairs (cheating). However the Zell-Ravenhearts added some comments to their definition ...

... including the following note:
Quote:
"This term is not intended to apply to merely casual recreational sex, anonymous orgies, one-night stands, pick-ups, prostitution, 'cheating,' serial monogamy, or the popular definition of swinging as 'mate-swapping' parties."
You may say, "Screw the so-called coiner of the word. If I want to include cheating and prostitution when I talk about polyamory, then that's what I'll do." And you may do exactly that. The Zell-Ravenhearts have no special authority to punish you (and I doubt they'd use it if they had it). But you should be aware of their definition, since the mother of all English dictionaries deferred to them (before adding polyamory to the Oxford Dictionary in 2006).

(Source: Wikipedia)

I happen to know (from various past threads on this topic, on a couple of poly forums) that more than a few polyamorists do indeed think cheating belongs under the polyamorous heading. I think the majority discludes cheating, but, especially since the "other team" appears to be of considerable size, I will readily discuss polyamory with cheating (and prostitution) included if the person I'm talking to lets me know that they prefer the more inclusive definition. My standard procedure, though, as long as I don't know any different, is to assume that the consensus of the conversing group is to disclude cheating (from the scope and definition of poly).

It is what it is. I can't control how other people define this or that word, regardless of my own preferences, and if I'm going to engage in a conversation with someone, I'd like it to be a coherent conversation. That can't happen if people can't agree on some basic definitions. So, I do whatever I think will add the most clarity to whatever's being discussed.

If you want my official vote: it is to require "full knowledge and consent" to qualify for polyamory. I'll just add that I'm not passionate about that opinion, and I'll even say that "a cheater may be poly at heart."

---

Re: labels ... let's do away with them? I vote no. I believe that every word in every language is a label. Do people misuse labels? Certainly. But sweeping them out of our lives won't solve the problem. As much as I hate nitpicking debates about poly semantics, I think we're going to see more of those debates until we get it right. Getting it right means coming to a consensus about reasonable, workable words and definitions. We can table any discussion that gets too heated, but the issues aren't going to evaporate. Someday, they'll have to be discussed in a way that leads us to some kind of agreement, about definitions that everyone (or darn near everyone) can stand. That may mean we're all gonna have to be willing to compromise on some things. I don't know. We'll have to see. In the meantime, a functional system of poly terminology remains very much a work in progress.

Re (from MeeraReed):
Quote:
"I'm definitely in the latter category! Still looking! Still confused about labels!"
Meera, I think I'm exactly where I want to be as far as (my poly) relationships are concerned, and yet I'm sure I'm as confused about labels as you are (or were at that point in the thread). Some people feel that all the important questions about poly terminology have been answered. But that's not how I feel.

Sorry if this post wandered around a lot. I wanted to respond to a lot of different things in this thread. I don't mean to write Scripture anywhere here, just kind of thinking out loud throughout this post.
__________________
Love means never having to say, "Put down that meat cleaver!"
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
casual relationships, casual sex, friends, friends with benefits, lover-friends, sex, sport sex

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 01:06 AM.