bi-monogamy, what is it?

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?

Quite frankly, I don`t care who you turn yourself into. :cool: You had an opinion, you said it. Own it, and don`t defend it.
I don` t have to like your opinion. It`s 'all good' that way. Seems pretty thick to me, that when people promote something as 'PC' we all embrace it, but if it`s simply just 'new'... we mock it.
Don`t worry, I`m no saint. I`m equally guilty in other areas too. I think I was pretty thick once upon a time, over the subject of intersexed, and transexual people.

P.s, - If you ever catch me saying stupid shit like 'loverly' or 'frubbles' or 'compersion' feel free to call me on it. To me, there is a difference between someone coining something for legitimacy, and someone coining a term to be frivolous.
 
Last edited:
P.s, - If you ever catch me saying stupid shit like 'loverly' or 'frubbles' or 'compersion' feel free to call me on it. To me, there is a difference between someone coining something for legitimacy, and someone coining a term to be frivolous.



Compersion annoys me. It's personal, I know. I have been on support groups for mono/poly long enough to see people use it as a weapon. "Who cares that I cheated on you for X years! We are honest now and you have to just have compersion and get over it!" Bleeeh.

As for Loverly, I'm gonna use it! I love musicals and I sing the song out all the time! So ha! :D


On another note, the reason I use pansexual is because it's not about the body but the person to me. I have weird tastes in who is attractive anyway, and talent is a big turn on for me. So I have liked men, women, trans, you name it. My sexuality IS different from my poly for me.
 
Quite frankly, I don`t care who you turn yourself into. :cool: You had an opinion, you said it. Own it, and don`t defend it.
I don` t have to like your opinion.
Oh, I wasn't defending myself, because I genuinely don't give a shit who likes what I wrote or not, and in a day or two I won't even remember this thread, so who cares. I was just adding to the conversation, posing questions and points that came up in my mind when I read your post and Mono's.

Seems pretty thick to me, that when people promote something as 'PC' we all embrace it, but if it`s simply just 'new'... we mock it.
Oh, I'll put down PC terminology if I don't like it. I don't automatically "embrace" being politically correct. I think a lot of PC terms are stupid and silly, too, and I don't always see being politically correct as necessary all the time.

When you say "thick" do you mean thick-headed, as in stubborn, or sort of dumb?
 
Last edited:
Oh, I wasn't defending myself, because I genuinely don't give a shit who likes what I wrote or not. I was just adding to the conversation, posing questions and points that came up in my mind when I read your post and Mono's.

Good to hear ! It read a bit differently to me, then your usual posts. I prefer to think of you in the ' If-you-don`t-like-it-bite-me' category. :cool:

When you say "think" do you mean thick-headed, as in stubborn, or sort of dumb?

Closer to the 'stubborn' but not really that either. When I say thick, (related to this discussion) I mean it in the sense of not really taking the time to see it with a 360 degree point of view. Tunnel-vision I guess. More of a 'unwilling to learn' .
It is 'thick' with intent.
 
Good to hear ! It read a bit differently to me, then your usual posts. I prefer to think of you in the ' If-you-don`t-like-it-bite-me' category. :cool:
LOL, yep, that's me.

Closer to the 'stubborn' but not really that either. When I say thick, (related to this discussion) I mean it in the sense of not really taking the time to see it with a 360 degree point of view. Tunnel-vision I guess. More of a 'unwilling to learn' .
It is 'thick' with intent.
So, what you're essentially saying is that just because someone doesn't like the word bi-monogamy, they haven't examined it carefully enough nor tried to learn about it, but if they did and understood it more, they would come to love the word? What if I gave it much thought and understood it completely, but still think it's a stupid word? :p
 
Compersion annoys me. It's personal, I know. I have been on support groups for mono/poly long enough to see people use it as a weapon. "Who cares that I cheated on you for X years! We are honest now and you have to just have compersion and get over it!" Bleeeh.

HaHa,..dont'cha love that ? I know we all use words that annoy people. ( Dont`cha ? anyone ? anyone ? Come on grammar majors, I can hear you twitching !!! ) I hate 'cowboy' references in poly, and find it very demeaning. Obviously because it`s personal for me. That`s my livelihood people are using for their own ignorant purpose. I`ve just learned not to respond, or post to anyone who wants to use that terminology. It`s a free world right ? So you can say 'loverly' with every right, and I don`t need to crack you in the head with my bullwhip for it. :D



On another note, the reason I use pansexual is because it's not about the body but the person to me. I have weird tastes in who is attractive anyway, and talent is a big turn on for me. So I have liked men, women, trans, you name it. My sexuality IS different from my poly for me.

Pansexual is another one (much like bi-monogamous) that comes 'close' for me, as well. I understand it, and have felt 'moments of'.
I tend to disregard labels, as I ebb-and-flow too much, based on where my life is in the moment, and also find that most of life and my experience, are based on being specific to the people and the situations.
Being the jaded-turd that I am, I haven`t quite learned how to stop 'judging' others for their self-imposed labels. It`s a fault I work on....sometimes. :eek:
 
So, what you're essentially saying is that just because someone doesn't like the word bi-monogamy, they haven't examined it carefully enough nor tried to learn about it, but if they did and understood it more, they would come to love the word? What if I gave it much thought and understood it completely, but still think it's a stupid word? :p

Ahh,..now YOU`RE putting words into my mouth. So,...bite me. :cool:

I never said anywhere that people would come to like it, if they examined the word longer. Now that you have put it out there, what I would say, is that this post was made yesterday. So a response based on a immediate reaction to the word, might be a bit thick.
What you feel 24 hours into being told of a word, might differ a year or two from now, or it might differ if you ran into a situation where a lightbulb goes off and you find you 'get it'.
If people post they have experience regarding such, where it made sense to them, then to dismiss it would be thick.

You know, while I`m all freak-a-licious with my posting ( Eat that, frubbly lovers !) I really hate the 'downgrade' people do when they take scenarios from other forums, give part of a story, then expect us all to examine it like a pack of dogs. Thats why I said I should know better then to post to these label-baiting threads. :eek:

However, I`m claiming this cesar made me do it. Yum. 06bouncy.gif
 
Ahh,..now YOU`RE putting words into my mouth. So,...bite me. :cool:
Oh, did you miss my question marks? Oh, well, okay... CHOMP! ;):eek:


I really hate the 'downgrade' people do when they take scenarios from other forums, give part of a story, then expect us all to examine it like a pack of dogs. Thats why I said I should know better then to post to these label-baiting threads. :eek:
Hahaha! I admit to being guilty of sometimes bringing topics here from other forums, too, but usually it's when it seems pretty juicy and made me think, so I want the opinions of the peeps here, many of whom I have grown to admire and respect (I'm looking at you, SG!).
 
Oh, did you miss my question marks? Oh, well, okay... CHOMP! ;):eek:
Question marks,..the 'new' get-out-of-jail-free card. :p


Hahaha! I admit to being guilty of sometimes bringing topics here from other forums, too, but usually it's when it seems pretty juicy and made me think, so I want the opinions of the peeps here, many of whom I have grown to admire and respect (I'm looking at you, SG!).

Yes,good points. It`s a silly thing to be annoyed about. I`m picking fly-shit out of the pepper jar I suppose. 'Really hate' wasn`t exactly accurate. I`m just being cheeky.
 
I've never heard the term RP. But, I've known I was bi for.... shit... 25+ years. Long before I ever heard of poly. The first 15 years or so of dating, I was in mono relationships, but it was difficult as I couldn't have "both". There were some times when a boyfriend was "ok with me being with another girl cause that's different" and there were a few times I just said to hell with it and went to dating a woman, back and forth back and forth.
I'd say it was a nightmare in many aspects, always feeling like I was missing a part of myself but that having it would be wrong.

Irony-I'm in a poly-dynamic but I still feel the same way.
 
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.

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.

So do you think this is a pretty typical meaning of pansexual (a term I'd also never seen prior to reading this site)? I read this as basically de-emphasizing sexuality per se, in favor of focusing on the individual person. Or is pansexual more commonly used because bisexual is too limiting, eg might not be seen (perhaps I'm wrong here though) as encompassing transgender?

And if someone else referred to you as bisexual would you think this was incorrect?

No hidden agenda here at all, just curious.
 
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.

I agree that being made-up doesn't automatically make it stupid. What makes it stupid is that it takes a clearly-delineated term (monogamy) and then tries to use it to describe something that is clearly outside the term's meanings. "Monogamous" excludes having more than one partner...period. "Bi-monogamous" is thus an oxymoron (it's a monogamous pairing but it's not!) and stupid.
 
Binogomous

Too funny - I came up with the term Binogomous for us, as we have been exclusively seeing eachother in our triad. I left out of the mono completely, as it means one, and didn't seem to fit. New word time! Binogomous!:D
 
Too funny - I came up with the term Binogomous for us, as we have been exclusively seeing eachother in our triad. I left out of the mono completely, as it means one, and didn't seem to fit. New word time! Binogomous!:D

Perfect. So that settles that.
 
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 disagree. Polyamory itself is precisely the ability to love, or perhaps more accurately, to be in love (as opposed to platonic, familial, etc love) with more than one person at a time. The rest is just mechanics.

It's the very fact that you can only feel "that kind of love" for your husband that makes you not poly.

I don't know what your painful experience is that led you to feel otherwise. But I do know that for every thing that humans do, there is (for lack of better words) a "good way" and a "bad way" to do it. So if you were in a polyamorous situation that was painful and didn't work out, it wasn't because there's more to polyamory than being in love with multiple people... it's that there's more to good relationships than just love.

Sorry, Beatles. Love is NOT all we need. If only!
 
So do you think this is a pretty typical meaning of pansexual (a term I'd also never seen prior to reading this site)? I read this as basically de-emphasizing sexuality per se, in favor of focusing on the individual person. Or is pansexual more commonly used because bisexual is too limiting, eg might not be seen (perhaps I'm wrong here though) as encompassing transgender?

And if someone else referred to you as bisexual would you think this was incorrect?

No hidden agenda here at all, just curious.

Your reading is essentially correct.

I would guess that many people who call themselves bisexual are actually pansexual, they just don't know the word exists. Just like lots of people have lived successful poly relationships without knowing there's an actual term for it.

For example, I have met many "bisexuals" who like women and men equally and also like transsexuals. After those are all crossed off your list, there isn't really much left to be turned-off by, gender-wise...

Of the other pansexuals I've spoken with, all seem to identify roughly the same way as I do. It's all about "the spark" and it's either there or it isn't, but whether it's there is independent of your sex or gender.

I most definitely think of it as incorrect when people refer to me as bisexual, and I make a point of informing them. 95% of the time, they have never heard the term pansexual, and had always just assumed that's what bisexual meant. Oh, how I do love breaking people's brains...

I have met a few bisexuals who understand the concept of pansexuality and have decided that no, they're bisexual not pansexual. I'm thinking in particular of my one friend who is open to romantic relationships with women, but only sexual relationships with men other than her husband. I don't know how she feels about transsexuals. In her case, she married her high school boyfriend and later discovered that she had attractions to women. She told him that she had to explore that, and if he couldn't accept it, she had to leave him. So for her, it was very much about a romantic dichotomy: to be satisfied emotionally, she feels that she needs to be in romantic relationships with one man and one woman. Since she's already married to a man, she's got that box filled, so she had to go out and find herself a woman. I suspect she's exactly the kind of person for whom this "bi-monogamous" term was coined.

It seems to me, a non-bisexual, that a component of bisexuality is the desire for both men AND women... an appreciation of the uniqueness of each gender, the soft caress of a woman, the firm grasp of a man... the Motherliness of a woman, the Fatherliness of a man... Of course, it could also be all about tits'n'cock! Again, just my observations as not "one of those," so if any bisexuals want to disagree, I fully welcome it.

Just throwing this into the mix: I have actually met bisexuals who have said they would not be attracted to a transsexual. To me, this reinforces my belief that bisexuals are attracted to the cisgendered aspects of both men and women, rather than indifferent to gender.

For bisexuals who aren't attracted specifically to the Manly aspects of men and the Womanly aspects of women, but rather are just easy-going either way... where do you draw the line? No transgendered? What about cross-dressers? And where-oh-where do gender-fluids fit into your world?
 
Last edited:
I disagree. Polyamory itself is precisely the ability to love, or perhaps more accurately, to be in love (as opposed to platonic, familial, etc love) with more than one person at a time. The rest is just mechanics.

It's the very fact that you can only feel "that kind of love" for your husband that makes you not poly.

I don't know what your painful experience is that led you to feel otherwise. But I do know that for every thing that humans do, there is (for lack of better words) a "good way" and a "bad way" to do it. So if you were in a polyamorous situation that was painful and didn't work out, it wasn't because there's more to polyamory than being in love with multiple people... it's that there's more to good relationships than just love.

Sorry, Beatles. Love is NOT all we need. If only!

Yes, you and about 90% would disagree. I know that before I stated it. There is a very select way that poly people see the 'good' for relationships. Sometimes it is in line with ANY RELATIONSHIP, most times not. Most times poly people have a set way they do, and educate others on what is 'good'.
I have seen many times the reverse : Where people obviously have a more platonic, or 'grateful' type of love for their spouse, but reach out to other partners for that passionate, romantic type of love.
Yet, they are still seen as 'poly',...How they treat, and guide the relationships determines that. So I don`t think it is about 'levels of love'. There is more to it, then that.

That is why it takes more then just an 'ability to love more then one',..Maybe I should of said,( in my opinion) it takes a very select, and certain type of ability in how poly people see their relationships...., I do not seem to possess that 'poly' way.

If I ever witness different, I`ll gladly eat my words. I just have not seen that yet.

( It's not any of the relationships (plural) that were the painful part. Its the learning process that I had to take upon myself, after the fact. Lots of generalized processing. )
 
Last edited:
Yes, you and about 90% would disagree. I know that before I stated it. I understand, and knew beforehand, that argument. There is a very select way that poly people see the 'good' for relationships. Sometimes it is in line with ANY RELATIONSHIP, most times not. Most times poly people have a set way they do, and educate others on what is 'good'.

It's very possible that I'm either oblivious to, or have chosen to ignore, this very select way that most poly people see "good" for relationships. Could you elaborate? Specifically, on how it is different from how monos see "good" relationships (other than that "exclusivity" bit).

Myself, I see "good" for relationships the same way as most reasonable people I know. That is, loving, supportive, considerate, overall happy (baring the normal ups and downs of any relationship)... Free from lies, cheating, deceit, and obviously abuse...

Is my view of "good" relationships different from "most" poly people?
 
It's very possible that I'm either oblivious to, or have chosen to ignore, this very select way that most poly people see "good" for relationships. Could you elaborate? Specifically, on how it is different from how monos see "good" relationships (other than that "exclusivity" bit).

Myself, I see "good" for relationships the same way as most reasonable people I know. That is, loving, supportive, considerate, overall happy (baring the normal ups and downs of any relationship)... Free from lies, cheating, deceit, and obviously abuse...

Is my view of "good" relationships different from "most" poly people?

The things you mention are the 'universal' truths of relationships in general. The specifics, of which there are many, is what differs in poly. Take a look around this board, you`ll find all the answers you need. People come here for advice on how to 'do' poly relationships, not for a generalization, on how to treat people in general. They are given the information they need. Thread after thread.
If everything is the 'same' everywhere, you wouldn`t have mono partners, coming here to learn about their poly partners. It would just be the same ! Multiplied !

The whole reason I come to this board, is so I can better understand any poly people ( obviously poly people who are open to other relationship types.) I happen to date. To make sure I am clear both with my terminology, and actions. I try to understand the expectations that may come up, so I`m not stumbling through stuff, oblivious to their reasons.
 
Back
Top