Dumping The Label

I'm pretty sure it was a joke.

Oh, thank god! I did contemplate whether that was the case, but ref2018's response sounded so serious verging on pass-agg, I HAD to ask the question.

You made a good point though. I do identify as poly. I am not currently in a poly relationship but I'm still poly.

So when I had a wife, a steady girlfriend, and a not quite definable relationship, I considered that poly. (...) Elle wasn't quite on board with the poly so I didn't consider her to be poly.

Thanks, that is exactly what I was getting at. And while I myself do NOT necessarily consider myself a (poly)natural fit for non monogamy, there is no denying that I am currently living a polyamorous lifestyle.

It was the general "you", not "you" as in a specific person on this forum.

Sorry to have offended you. Had I known you (in this case, you specifically, lunabunny) were so easily confused, I'd have been more careful. I'll try not to make the same mistake again.

Ref2018 - Oh, I wasn't "offended" at all. Just mighty confused by your response, and wondered if I'd somehow offended YOU, or if indeed you were being sarcastic/joking around.

Considering you quoted me, then used the word "you", I assumed you were referring to something I'd said... and thought you must have taken something I'd said completely the wrong way - but for the life of me, I couldn't figure out WHAT.

I apologize for confusing you, too, Tinwen. I'll try to do better from now on.

Yah, and it really isn't so hard for the average person to understand, with words. That's why I think "a person who is trying to point out something that a 5-year-old could wrap their mind around" might benefit from an obnoxious purple wordpress template. I mean, I don't think it's "you" who is "failing" to point that out. It's others who have decided they don't believe in it. No matter how many times someone re-types it, people *do* GET it. It has nothing to do with typing out a well-formulated explanation.

I'm not even sure why this thread is getting so much attention (it's another one of polynat's soapbox threads, after all). I just think it's entertaining to watch, like a Netflix Original. I didn't mean to get you all worked up.

It's all good. :D :eek: :p

I think the OP's curly logic and pedanticism (if that's not a word, it is now!) must have infiltrated the brains of those trying to follow this thread.

At risk of offending yet others, as a borderline autistic person, I'll blame my own literal thinking for any confusion of inference.
 
It was the general "you", not "you" as in a specific person on this forum.
Another place I posted in some years ago used "(g)you" to denote that it was a general "you" rather than a direct reply. It cut down on the confusion, but often felt a little laboured.
I think the OP's curly logic and pedanticism (if that's not a word, it is now!) must have infiltrated the brains of those trying to follow this thread.
I think the word you're after is pedantry, but it would be pedantic to point that out when "pedanticism" better captures the fanatical spirit of this particular strain.
 
No matter how many times someone re-types it, people *do* GET it. It has nothing to do with typing out a well-formulated explanation.

This is the downfall of many a "smart" person and why I don't call myself sapiosexual. "Smart" in and of itself holds no attraction. "Smart" is only attractive when it comes wrapped in interest about what other people also think. Without the curiosity gene, "smart" renders a person insufferably self-absorbed, which is perhaps attractive to some, but not to me.
 
Re (from PolyNatural):


That's really crappy. It's as if poly doesn't deserve as much of a fair shake as does monogamy.

Re (from PolyNatural):


Hmmm, I have to admit, that's a startling idea. Are you saying that any V is by definition not poly? or just that *some* V's aren't poly? or, that a V (by definition) is partially (but not completely) poly?

I'm saying that a "V" is a relationship involves three people in which all three as individuals may be poly, but the relationship as a whole isn't. This is because of the absence of interrelatedness, which is the fundamental concept that sets polyamory apart from relationships that lack it. To quote the Zell-Ravenhearts

"it is expected that the people in such relationships have a loving emotional bond, are involved in each other's lives multi-dimensionally, and care for each other."

Complete explanation here: Interrelationships

It is the prevalence of these sorts of ambiguities, assumptions, and subjective interpretations that contribute to the confusion about polyamory. Polycules aren't about polyamory. They're simply diagrams outlining relationship connections. It's the kind of connections that set polyamory apart from the rest. Only relationships that are sufficiently interrelated can be objectively substantiated as polyamorous.
 
Last edited:
I thiink you misunderstand that quote. As I see it that means that if I have a relationship with two different people they are multi-dimentional relationships, as opposed to casual things like one-nighters. I think you are alone in your thought that all members of a polycule must be interrelated somehow.
 
I thiink you misunderstand that quote. As I see it that means that if I have a relationship with two different people they are multi-dimentional relationships, as opposed to casual things like one-nighters. I think you are alone in your thought that all members of a polycule must be interrelated somehow.
I don't think all members of a polycule must be interrelated. I think a polycule is simply a diagram outlining relationship connections, some of which are poly, others which are not.
 
The lint in my belly button reminds me of Abe Lincoln (the 16th President of the United States of America, Earth).
 
Last edited:
I want to add some thoughts, but now they feel more relevant to the "Definition" thread, where I may actually put them unless I stop drinking coffee & get the laundry done. :rolleyes:

I think the word you're after is pedantry, but it would be pedantic to point that out when "pedanticism" better captures the fanatical spirit of this particular strain.
Oh, darn -- missed that the first time 'round. Made me grin. :D
 
... I'm not even sure why this thread is getting so much attention (it's another one of polynat's soapbox threads, after all). I just think it's entertaining to watch, like a Netflix Original. I didn't mean to get you all worked up.
lol. Soapbox thread? I like it. It has a quaint sort of ring that reminds me of where the expression soapbox came from. Maybe the whole site is a soapbox and the Internet is an even bigger one, and mine is a teeny tiny one stuck out on some craggy ledge that makes an easy target for people who just like to throw rocks. Once in a while though I do get a really nice compliment on my efforts and that makes it bearable.
That's why I think "a person who is trying to point out something that a 5-year-old could wrap their mind around" might benefit from an obnoxious purple wordpress template.
You must be one of the minority in the world who don't like purple. Are you into website design? Or just commenting as a reader?
 
Last edited:
Thank you, Tinwen.

I was simply trying - and obviously failing - to point out that in the great Polyamory Terminology Debate, an additional source of confusion is the difference, perceived or otherwise, between those who are currently living a polyamorous lifestyle (they themselves have multiple loving/sexual relationships) and those who consider themselves polyamorous by orientation, but who, due to circumstance or choice, are NOT currently involved with more than one partner. Is all.
Well said.
 
Label...... ah..... there in lies the problem..... They suck!

They mean one thing to one person and another to some one else.

Example. I run. I have since I was 14, often times several times a week. I have even run ultra marathons. People looking at me would say I am a runner. But I don't feel like a runner. I am a tennis player. I have played tennis since 5, have been nationally ranked, played in college, taught the sport and compete to this day. I only run for fun, cross training purposes and to stay in shape. I could never win any running competition, or even compete at the top of my field as a runner.

Yet most people would call me a runner. To me I am not a runner. Is their definition of runner right and mine wrong, or visa versa. No, just different definitions of the same label. And that is why labels suck.

Just last week, I had a session with my therapist / energy gal, she encouraged me to drop any label around poly. I said yes ethically non-mono would be better. She said don't use that either, just another label. Labels keep you stuck. The prevent you from moving forward. While they do facilitate an immediate understanding, that immediate understanding can quickly turn to misunderstanding and disagreement and feeling judged.

Eight pages of forum thread only confirm my opinion that labels and words while necessary can suck, especially when they are words that are loaded with meaning. Not many people will get up in arms about words like cat or dog, but words like god, polyamory, swinging, christian, etc are just loaded with additional meaning that is added by the listener. This additional meaning which is added by the listener, may not have been the intent of the person using the term. So maybe best not to use those words when speaking to a new acquaintance to describe yourself as you are likely to be misunderstood.

I have found labels and definitions useful when learning something new, much like when I was learning music theory and piano. But what is then required to actually implement all of that new found knowledge is to actually forget it and just play. I think life is similar. There is a time to learn, reflect, quantify and analyze. There are also times to just be. I would say that getting to know somebody new is more about just being and enjoying their energy.
 
Last edited:
Label...... ah..... there in lies the problem..... They suck! ... There is a time to learn, reflect, quantify and analyze. There are also times to just be. I would say that getting to know somebody new is more about just being and enjoying their energy.
Thanks for your comment. There's definitely truth in there!
 
Just spitballing here but if Mr Polynatural hates the label shouldnt he have changed his username on page 2 of this thread.???

Damn now im thinking up usernames .... i think you have to go with something really simple like joe2.1. Or steve3po

Funny when i was born there was 2genders ...now look😝
 
Just spitballing here but if Mr Polynatural hates the label shouldnt he have changed his username on page 2 of this thread.???

Damn now im thinking up usernames .... i think you have to go with something really simple like joe2.1. Or steve3po

He needs a new logo, too, while you're at it. ;)
 
I personally hate labels of any kind. I have seen them turned into excuses and weapons on far too many occasions and it's one reason why my spiritual title went from Mennonite, to Christian, to a believer of...well it makes sense if you read the thread I wrote in spirituality on disliking labels.

Anyway, I agree, I don't like labels and while I won't probably ever consider myself poly in the sense of the term, I think that this type of community is the part of the beginning on one of our intended paths in life. I wish we could all piece everything together and simply forget the labels on many things but I fear it's a long way off.

Hopefully you find more love in your journey than hate and aggression.

--D
 
Back
Top