Poly versus Sluttiness

You can eat chicken and insist that you're a vegetarian. But don't expect people who are vegetarians to agree with your definition. :)

Why do you think how a relationship ended has anything to do with whether or not it was poly? A marriage might end in an ugly, bitter divorce, but it was still a marriage, right?

Why is it so important to you that your "fuckbuddy" be considered a poly relationship?

I guess I don't understand what your criteria for calling something "poly" is or why you feel it's so important to label all of your relationships poly ones, even when they're casual?
 
A - the vegatarioan analogyis weak, but it DOES apply. Some people apply the term to mean absinance from ANY meat, others only to specific kids of meat. It is generally agreed that it means ANY meat - but even many of those who say that would say that fish are an exception. It's not exactly a closed "debate", so I don't see whre it helps in this discussion in the way it's been presented.

B - I never said how it ended had anything to do with whether or not it was poly. I said it was accepted as poly - which it was - and that it ended badly, which it did. :shrug:

C - I never said it was important. I said I didn't like being told I was wrong for calling our relationship "poly" when it dodn't involve a formal V or triad, etc.

D - See above. I believe a relationship can be "poly" without a FORMAL relaationship structure. Others here disagree.
 
B - I never said how it ended had anything to do with whether or not it was poly. I said it was accepted as poly - which it was - and that it ended badly, which it did. :shrug:
Then I'm not sure why you mentioned it in your other post. You said: It ended disasterously, but it was, aparently, satisfactory as a "poly" relationship.I'm not sure what "ending disasterously" had to do with whether or not it was satisfactory as a poly relationship.

C - I never said it was important. I said I didn't like being told I was wrong for calling our relationship "poly" when it dodn't involve a formal V or triad, etc.
No one has said it has to be a "formal V or triad" to be poly. I'm not sure where that's coming from either. But a casual fuckbuddy isn't a poly relationship, by definition. If you wouldn't refer to this person as a lover or someone who you love, then it's not a poly relationship. It's a casual fuckbuddy. There's nothing wrong with having a casual fuckbuddy, mind you. I've had my own at times. But just because it's sex outside your primary relationship, doesn't make it a poly relationship.

D - See above. I believe a relationship can be "poly" without a FORMAL relaationship structure.
I don't believe anyone has said it has to have a "FORMAL relationship structure" either. One can have a love relationship that's more than a fuckbuddy and yet not have a formal relationship structure (e.g. triad, V, open, closed, whatever).
 
Last edited:
See, YGirl and Dakid and I (so far in this thread, lol) would agree - "many loves" works and is accurate.

People have different definations of "love".

Several people here are insisting that "many loves" applies only to a specific definition of love.

Further, some here are saying that certain behavior falls under the umbrella as it applies to their respective poly relationships, and are being told they are "wrong"; which truly amazes me to be honest. There's a pretty substantial amount of SOMETHING I don't like present in that kind of judgment.

:shrug:

Actually I would say that love also has a definition and in this case-since it's the form of love from the Latin language-then we should probably agree to use the Latin definition of love. THEN at least everyone knows what each other means.

When we create our own meanings/understandings of a word-then we annihilate communication. We may well enable intriguing talk, but we aren't communicating unless everyone is using the same definition when they use any word that they speak to one another. BOTH the speaker and listener must have the same definition of the words they are using in order to communicate.

I found the following in my search for clarity on this topic:
(I already posted [I think] the definitions I found for poly and for amorous/amory/amor/amour)

from babylons free dictionary

amor :
love, affection, infatuation, passion.

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)


Love
(v. i.)
To have the feeling of love; to be in love.

(n.)
To take delight or pleasure in; to have a strong liking or desire for, or interest in; to be pleased with; to like; as, to love books; to love adventures.

(n.)
To regard with passionate and devoted affection, as that of one sex for the other.

(n.)
To have a feeling of love for; to regard with affection or good will; as, to love one's children and friends; to love one's country; to love one's God.

(n.)
The object of affection; -- often employed in endearing address.

(n.)
Nothing; no points scored on one side; -- used in counting score at tennis, etc.

(n.)
Especially, devoted attachment to, or tender or passionate affection for, one of the opposite sex.

(n.)
Due gratitude and reverence to God.

(n.)
Cupid, the god of love; sometimes, Venus.

(n.)
Courtship; -- chiefly in the phrase to make love, i. e., to court, to woo, to solicit union in marriage.

(n.)
Affection; kind feeling; friendship; strong liking or desire; fondness; good will; -- opposed to hate; often with of and an object.

(n.)
A thin silk stuff.

(n.)
A feeling of strong attachment induced by that which delights or commands admiration; preeminent kindness or devotion to another; affection; tenderness; as, the love of brothers and sisters.

(n.)
A climbing species of Clematis (C. Vitalba).


Affection
(n.)
The lively representation of any emotion.

(n.)
The act of affecting or acting upon; the state of being affected.

(n.)
Prejudice; bias.

(n.)
Passion; violent emotion.

(n.)
Disease; morbid symptom; malady; as, a pulmonary affection.

(n.)
Bent of mind; a feeling or natural impulse or natural impulse acting upon and swaying the mind; any emotion; as, the benevolent affections, esteem, gratitude, etc.; the malevolent affections, hatred, envy, etc.; inclination; disposition; propensity; tendency.

(n.)
An attribute; a quality or property; a condition; a bodily state; as, figure, weight, etc. , are affections of bodies.

(n.)
Affectation.

(n.)
A settled good will; kind feeling; love; zealous or tender attachment; -- often in the pl. Formerly followed by to, but now more generally by for or towards; as, filial, social, or conjugal affections; to have an affection for or towards children.


infatuation
Noun
1. foolish and usually extravagant passion or love or admiration
(hypernym) passion, passionateness
(derivation) infatuate
2. temporary love of an adolescent
(synonym) puppy love, calf love, crush
(hypernym) love
(derivation) infatuate
3. an object of extravagant short-lived passion
(hypernym) object
(derivation) infatuate


Passion
(v. t.)
To give a passionate character to.

(v. i.)
To suffer pain or sorrow; to experience a passion; to be extremely agitated.

(n.)
The state of the mind when it is powerfully acted upon and influenced by something external to itself; the state of any particular faculty which, under such conditions, becomes extremely sensitive or uncontrollably excited; any emotion or sentiment (specifically, love or anger) in a state of abnormal or controlling activity; an extreme or inordinate desire; also, the capacity or susceptibility of being so affected; as, to be in a passion; the passions of love, hate, jealously, wrath, ambition, avarice, fear, etc.; a passion for war, or for drink; an orator should have passion as well as rhetorical skill.

(n.)
The state of being acted upon; subjection to an external agent or influence; a passive condition; -- opposed to action.

(n.)
Passion week. See Passion week, below.

(n.)
Disorder of the mind; madness.

(n.)
Capacity of being affected by external agents; susceptibility of impressions from external agents.

(n.)
A suffering or enduring of imposed or inflicted pain; any suffering or distress (as, a cardiac passion); specifically, the suffering of Christ between the time of the last supper and his death, esp. in the garden upon the cross.


SO for the sake of this conversation and finding some clarity in it, I guess we need to decide which of these is the actual accepted definition of Amory.............

Because without that-we are only talking and not really communicating about the topic.
 
See, YGirl and Dakid and I (so far in this thread, lol) would agree - "many loves" works and is accurate.

People have different definations of "love".

Several people here are insisting that "many loves" applies only to a specific definition of love.

Further, some here are saying that certain behavior falls under the umbrella as it applies to their respective poly relationships, and are being told they are "wrong"; which truly amazes me to be honest. There's a pretty substantial amount of SOMETHING I don't like present in that kind of judgment.

:shrug:

YIKES forgot to write this one last part, sorry HMA!

I don't think that any given behavior is "wrong" or "right". ANY given behavior (love, sex, murder, abortion, etc).I think that "right" and "wrong" like "beauty" can only be identified by the person in the situation.

I don't care WHAT polyamory is either actually.

My point was only that if two people wish to communicate-truly COMMUNICATE they must have the same understanding of what the words being used mean. If they do not-they are both only talking and hearing, but not communicating or gaining new understanding much less the community of sharing information WITH one another.
 
A - the vegatarioan analogyis weak, but it DOES apply. Some people apply the term to mean absinance from ANY meat, others only to specific kids of meat. It is generally agreed that it means ANY meat - but even many of those who say that would say that fish are an exception. It's not exactly a closed "debate", so I don't see whre it helps in this discussion in the way it's been presented.

Actually that isn't true. There ARE definitions for people who eat NO meat, people who only eat seafood, people who only eat meat occassionally etc. It's because the general population is too lazy to BOTHER knowing what the words they use mean that they allow themselves to be involved in MIScommunication regularly AND promote and foster MIScommunication and MISunderstanding in themselves AND others because they use words improperly, misusing and abusing words to fill a gap in their speech instead of ensuring that the word they are using actually MEANS whatever concept that they are trying to express.

See below:

1. Pescatarian (also spelled pescetarian)
The word “pescatarian” is occasionally used to describe those who abstain from eating all meat and animal flesh with the exception of fish. Although the word is not commonly used, more and more people are adopting this kind of diet, usually for health reasons or as a stepping stone to a fully vegetarian diet.

2. Flexitarian/Semi-vegetarian
You don’t have to be vegetarian to love vegetarian food! “Flexitarian” is a term recently coined to describe those who eat a mostly vegetarian diet, but occasionally eat meat.3. Vegetarian (Lacto-ovo- vegetarian)
When most people think of vegetarians, they think of lacto-ovo-vegetarians. People who do not eat beef, pork, poultry, fish, shellfish or animal flesh of any kind, but do eat eggs and dairy products are lacto-ovo vegetarians (“lacto” comes from the Latin for milk, and “ovo” for egg).
Lacto-vegetarian is used to describe a vegetarian who does not eat eggs, but does eat dairy products.

Ovo-vegetarian refers to people who do not eat meat or dairy products but do eat eggs.

4. Vegan
Vegans do not eat meat of any kind and also do not eat eggs, dairy products, or processed foods containing these or other animal-derived ingredients such as gelatin. Many vegans also refrain from eating foods that are made using animal products that may not contain animal products in the finished process, such as sugar and some wines. There is some debate as to whether certain foods, such as honey, fit into a vegan diet.5. Raw vegan/Raw food diet
A raw vegan diet consists of unprocessed vegan foods that have not been heated above 115 degrees Fahrenheit (46 degrees Celsius). “Raw foodists” believe that foods cooked above this temperature have lost a significant amount of their nutritional value and are harmful to the body.6. Macrobiotic
The macrobiotic diet, revered by some for its healthy and healing qualities, includes unprocessed vegan foods, such as whole grains, fruits and vegetables, and allows the occasional consumption of fish. Sugar and refined oils are avoided. Perhaps the most unique qualifier of the macrobiotic diet is its emphasis on the consumption of Asian vegetables, such as daikon, and sea vegetables, such as seaweed.

C - I never said it was important. I said I didn't like being told I was wrong for calling our relationship "poly" when it dodn't involve a formal V or triad, etc.

I probably should leave this one alone-but I believe that what was actually expressed was that it wasn't poly because it didn't involve "love" as I'm not sure what definition of love has been agreed upon-then I can't say that it was a reasonable expressed statement or not.

D - See above. I believe a relationship can be "poly" without a FORMAL relaationship structure. Others here disagree.

Others very well may disagree, but again they would be wrong because Poly+ amory doesn't even SUGGEST anything about a formal relationship structure.
 
Actually that isn't true. There ARE definitions for people who eat NO meat, people who only eat seafood, people who only eat meat occassionally etc. It's because the general population is too lazy to BOTHER knowing what the words they use mean that they allow themselves to be involved in MIScommunication regularly AND promote and foster MIScommunication and MISunderstanding in themselves AND others because they use words improperly, misusing and abusing words to fill a gap in their speech instead of ensuring that the word they are using actually MEANS whatever concept that they are trying to express.
Thank you. :) I wasn't even going to go into that since it seemed to just be misdirecting the whole conversation. I'm glad you put it out there, though.
 
My point was only that if two people wish to communicate-truly COMMUNICATE they must have the same understanding of what the words being used mean. If they do not-they are both only talking and hearing, but not communicating or gaining new understanding much less the community of sharing information WITH one another.

I agree with this statement completely.

It seems yet another poly discussion circling around definition is in progress. Definitions change and expand. Words change and new words are constantly coming into existence. Language is living and breathing. The fact that the word 'polyamory' itself was a Frankenstein job of two different languages doesn't seem to put it into perspective for folks even the definition sticklers.

When it comes to whether others believe your relationship is authentically poly ignore them (and hope they are never in government). It reminds me of the whole issue of defining marriage. Between one man and one woman or not between one man and one woman. From this sort of definition dispute and restrictive attitude, laws like Prop 8 emerge. Find poly people who have similar views with yours. My take on polyamory is quite expansive. Others are more constrictive. Don't be goaded. Other's opinions do not validate your relationships.

You may be interested in texts like Opening Up by Tristan Taormino or Peppermint's essays Defining Polyamory: Inclusion and Exclusion and Polyamory Is Not About Sex, Except When It Is. Both text and website give a broader open minded perspective on what polyamory encompasses and how varying forms of non-monogamy intersect and overlap each other. Hope that's helpful :)
 
the analogy with vegetarianism is limited, because no-one is arguing about the meaning of the word poly - it is our different definitions of amory that is causing the "confusion".
unless there is an equivalent "is it meat or isn't it" grey area then the analogy is not very helpful here.
loving radiance's post about the many definitions of love seems to back up my point - love means many things to many people and for me love can exist between two people who are enjoying just one night together just as it can within a long-term relationship.

how long do i have to know someone/spend with them before it becomes poly? if one night is not enough, however loving that night is, then please can someone explain at what point it would become poly? on the third date, the fourth, after a year together?

what would you all call a relationship between two people who seek a third? or someone who is single but seeking to become part of a triad, for example?
 
Last edited:
according to wikipedia (and similarly every other dictionary or encyclopedia i have read recently):

"Polyamory, often abbreviated to poly, is sometimes described as consensual, ethical, or responsible non-monogamy. The word is occasionally used more broadly to refer to any sexual or romantic relationships that are not sexually exclusive, though there is disagreement on how broadly it applies; an emphasis on ethics, honesty, and transparency all around is widely regarded as the crucial defining characteristic.

"Polyamorous" can refer to the nature of a relationship at a given time, or be used as a description of a philosophy or relationship orientation (much like gender orientation), rather than a person's actual relationship status at a given moment. It is an umbrella term that covers various forms of multiple relationships; polyamorous arrangements are varied, reflecting the choices and philosophies of the individuals involved."

it is also frequently cited as having only been in common use as a word since the early 1990's, despite it's practise being of course much older than that.

if this is true and the word was only coined with the last few decades then why the (f)rigidity about trying to keep to such a small and fixed universal definition? the word itself is testament to english as a living (and ever changing) language ffs!
 
Perhaps it's time to coin a new word? Let polyamorous be an umbrella word covering everything without providing any real specifics as to what it is. That way anyone can use it and it is all inclusive.

Instead of trying to define what this new word is why don't we define what it isn't? Let's make it non-inclusive. Give it agreed upon meaning.
That way when some one wants to explain their specific non-monogamous form of loving to other people the word will be clear and direct in how it is worded and what it means. When they Goggle it (which they will) it will be clear and precise.

Any suggestions or should I stick with "non-monogamous" and a drawn out explanation?

How's about multi-amorous? A word that refers to a person who has the capacity to have multiple loving relationships involving romantic emotions and sexual expression as well as commitment to the overall welfare of all partners. A relationship based on multiple layers of depth.

Not
-a fuck buddy or casual sexual playmate such as a friends with benefits
-one night stand
-a situation where some partners are unaware of all people involved
-an arrangement or network of sexual acquaintances primarily concerned with sexual freedom
-Swinging
-Affairs

Clearly there is some tongue in cheek in this post but it does point out a very real desire to see clarity in words being used.

There is very little more damaging to the acceptance of new ideas than vagueness amongst the very people who would attempt to promote them.

This is where the need for clarity is most important in my opinion...but than again..it is only my opinion.
 
Last edited:
i feel love for my fuck buddy. its a different kind of love to what i feel for my partners but it is love nonetheless. just as i feel love for my niece, my dog, my friends, and just as the love i feel for each of my partners is unique and different to what i feel for the other.
i can feel love for/with somebody whom i am having a sexual encounter (one night stand) which we have both agreed will not lead to any further such encounters.
perhaps for some this does not happen but for me it does. why is this love so easily discounted/dismissed?
i ask again, when does a relationship become officially loving/poly? how much time do i need to spend with someone before you all would allow it to qualify as a loving relationship?
 
Perhaps it's time to coin a new word? Let polyamorous be an umbrella word covering everything without providing any real specifics as to what it is. That way anyone can use it and it is all inclusive.

That's just ridiculous. That's like saying "Let's just use the word "rain" to mean "any form of precipitation" (speaking of "umbrella words").

How's about multi-amorous? A word that refers to a person who has the capacity to have multiple loving relationships involving romantic emotions and sexual expression as well as commitment to the overall welfare of all partners. A relationship based on multiple layers of depth.

That is actually more "proper" than "polyamorous" because it's etymologically Greek through and through, instead of an artificial hybrid of Latin and Greek base-words.

You folks don't seem to remember that we weren't really trying to say that "having a fuck-buddy "is" a polyamorous relationship". We WERE saying (I'll use HMA as an example) that "If HMA has a poly (or multi) amorous relationship agreement/style with Violet, and Jane is his (or her) fuck-buddy, that does not mean that HMA and Violet's relationship is any less "polyamorous" because one or both of them has a fuck-buddy on the side." I don't see how it becomes mandated that every relationship must define every other relationship with respect to the different people involved. If I wanted to go out and pick up women just for the sake of being able to enjoy girl-on-girl sex, and my husband decided to pursue a "boyfriend-girlfriend" dynamic with his best female friend, then my relationship with my husband would still be "polyamorous" in nature regardless of what we're doing with the other people.

I consider myself a "selective omnivore", by the way. Try that one for your ANALogies.
 
Last edited:
Ok, I'm quoting a couple of people here:

Let polyamorous be an umbrella word covering everything without providing any real specifics as to what it is.
Doesn't non-monogamous already cover that?

Not
-a fuck buddy or casual sexual playmate such as a friends with benefits
-one night stand
-a situation where some partners are unaware of all people involved
-an arrangement or network of sexual acquaintances primarily concerned with sexual freedom
-Swinging
-Affairs
That's pretty much what my understanding of the definition of polyamoury is to begin with.

There is very little more damaging to the acceptance of new ideas than vagueness amongst the very people who would attempt to promote them.
This is where the need for clarity is most important in my opinion...but than again..it is only my opinion.
One I agree with. :)


Ygirl said:
You folks don't seem to remember that we weren't really trying to say that "having a fuck-buddy "is" a polyamorous relationship". We WERE saying (I'll use HMA as an example) that "If HMA has a poly (or multi) amorous relationship agreement/style with Violet, and Jane is his (or her) fuck-buddy, that does not mean that HMA and Violet's relationship is any less "polyamorous" because one or both of them has a fuck-buddy on the side."
Actually I do remember that. :) But we got derailed by one or two people getting upset that their fuckbuddy wasn't considered another poly relationships.

I don't see how it becomes mandated that every relationship must define every other relationship with respect to the different people involved.
I agree and I seem to remember someone saying earlier in this thread that if you have a poly relationship with someone, that doesn't preclude you from also swinging, also having a one-night-stand, also having a fuckbuddy, etc., etc., etc. But just because YOU yourself are poly and may or may not currently be in a poly relationship, it doesn't make every sexual encounter you have part of a poly relationship. (note that the word "you" is being used generically here)

If I wanted to go out and pick up women just for the sake of being able to enjoy girl-on-girl sex, and my husband decided to pursue a "boyfriend-girlfriend" dynamic with his best female friend, then my relationship with my husband would still be "polyamorous" in nature regardless of what we're doing with the other people.
Agreed. But your picking up of women would not count as other polyamorous relationships (unless at some point they developed into that). I think you and I are saying much the same thing on this point. :)

ANALogies.
Really that's not necessary. I tend to use analogies to explain how I'm thinking when I think my thought processes might otherwise not be clear. It's not necessary to be snotty about it.
 
Really that's not necessary. I tend to use analogies to explain how I'm thinking when I think my thought processes might otherwise not be clear. It's not necessary to be snotty about it.


If you choose to take it as "being snotty", then that's your prerogative. I was simply juxtaposing the fact that the word "anal" is the first four letters of the word "analogy" onto the fact that a lot of the time analogies don't hold up beyond the first layer or two.

You are not the only person around here who uses ANALogies to explain their thought processes. It's quite common in fact.

Besides, my ANALogy was more or less in agreement with your earlier ANALogy, so that suggests to me that you are looking for subtextual hostility in order to be able to be offended.
 
Last edited:
Besides, my ANALogy was more or less in agreement with your earlier ANALogy, so that suggests to me that you are looking for subtextual hostility in order to be able to be offended.
Oh good grief.

No, but I do find your continued use of ANALogy to be really childish.
 
That's just ridiculous. That's like saying "Let's just use the word "rain" to mean "any form of precipitation" (speaking of "umbrella words").



.

I agree, it is ridiculous and I totally agree with your example..which is why I like words that are much more defined. Great example, YGirl! You conveyed the concept behind my personal frustration perfectly :)
 
you guys remind me of the mythical king standing at the sea shore trying to stop the tide coming in. like it or not, many people have much broader definitions of words including "love", "relationship", and (gasp!) even "polyamory".

rather than telling those people they are wrong wrong wrong, and that you know better than them what such words mean, and claiming that this somehow helps communication, why not accept that not everyone shares your limited definitions and get a bit practical with that reality?

personally whenever i have a conversation with anybody about polyamory i start with asking them exactly what this word means for them, and sharing what it means for me.

this way misunderstandings are avoided, and respect is shown to the diversity of opinions that exist.

for example, some people define polyamory in such a way as to leave me thinking that the only difference between their polyamory and polygamy is the lack of a marriage certificate. often these are the same people who make moral judgements about me because i enjoy sex for the sake of sex sometimes.

i need to know if someone holds that definition so that i can keep my emotional distance from them.

for the third time, at what precise point does a sexual or emotional connection become polyamorous to you? what line has to be crossed to move it from "casual sex", "friendship", "an affair", or a real genuine polyamorous relationship? i genuinely would like to know.
 
i feel love for my fuck buddy. its a different kind of love to what i feel for my partners but it is love nonetheless. just as i feel love for my niece, my dog, my friends, and just as the love i feel for each of my partners is unique and different to what i feel for the other.
i can feel love for/with somebody whom i am having a sexual encounter (one night stand) which we have both agreed will not lead to any further such encounters.
perhaps for some this does not happen but for me it does. why is this love so easily discounted/dismissed?

I agree with dakid here.

To me, a fuckbuddy by definition is not someone that I don't love; typically the situation is that we share a very loving connection but simply don't mesh on enough levels for a daily living partnership to be a good thing for either of us.

Sometimes, we've learned that the hard way.
Sometimes it's just pretty clear from the get go.

And part of my self-identifying as poly is wrapped up in the fact that we can still share our love in whatever form works for us, with our other partners' full knowledge and consent.

I wouldn't even say it's a different kind of love for me; it's a different level of interaction, perhaps of expectation (who do I call when the car breaks down? R, because he's my partner and involved in my life at that level of the daily dirty work, e.g.) and that leads to a different depth of connection but both feel like romantic love to me.

The way that love is expressed is what is different.

To claim that one of my relationships is somehow "not" poly because we don't meet some kind of litmus test for what other people's definition of love is would annoy me if I actually cared about labels.

As it is, I'm content just living and loving and be loved in whatever forms happen to show up.

But I am finding the wide array of ideas, thoughts and feelings on the subject in this thread quite interesting...
 
No matter what definition you come up with for poly, you are going to find some who are very much opposed to that definition and can get quite upset by it.

So you either have to live with that, or you have to try to make everyone happy, in which case poly basically turns out to mean whatever it is that each person wants it to mean, and is therefore meaningless as a term you can use in any form of effective communication.

It's already got the the point where the term means you need to ask more questions to clarify what the person means by it.

I hope that some day we do come up with a true definition of what poly is and what it isn't. Some will be upset by it, and then will have to find another term to describe what they self-identify. For all I care, it can be one that *I* don't agree with - just pick one so that we can stop discussing it endlessly and providing a platform for everyone with an agenda to co-opt the word for their own purposes.

I am not one in favour of totally flexible definitions for any term you choose you use. If you do that then you end up cabbage the llama - and we wouldn't want that, now, would we?
 
Back
Top