Polyamory.com Forum  

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

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 06-15-2010, 09:01 PM
Ariakas Ariakas is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,872
Default

River, are you at all worried, that in creating a new definition you dilute the already murky waters of being bi?

To clarify:
My wife & friends already have a hard enough time with one definition and it being accepted to the masses (more backlash from the gay community than anywhere), to include another definition which can create more confusion could cause more problems, not lesson them.

Last edited by Ariakas; 06-15-2010 at 09:17 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 06-15-2010, 09:09 PM
redpepper's Avatar
redpepper redpepper is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 7,639
Default

Ok, this is how I would describe myself as biamorous thus far...

Tell me what you think and if I am understanding...

I met a man on line about the same time I met Mono. Or just before? He met me and Nerdist met his wife. We all hit it off really well and we have all become really good friends. Our kids play together, we camp together and we spend time visiting each other often. Our families have become very close with all partners included.

I have been calling the man, who I am far more close to, my non-sexual boyfriend. For a time we were non-sexually wife swapping (NSWS )together. We (the man and I) would go on "dates" and there would be no sexual gratification at the end. Just a hug, a peck on the cheek and a feeling of being satisfied and loved.

The man and me have become close and hang out regularly once a month. Last month I went to his place to watch old movies, eat nachos and drink beer. We had a great time, but there was definitely that air of wanting more intimacy. It didn't happen.

My relationship with Mono and my other loves is as such that there is no option of adding another intimate friend. It would completely changed what we have and change the friendship we have with this family. So we don't go there and are content to see each other once a month to chat and sit close to one another. That's it.

I would call this a biamorous relationship as I have a similar one with my ex-wife. We are equally as close, yet not sexual for a variety of reasons. The love is definitely there, yet sex isn't.

Does this fit the definition?
__________________
Anyone want to be friends on Facebook?
Send me your name via PM
My blog
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 06-15-2010, 09:26 PM
River's Avatar
River River is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: NM, USA
Posts: 1,894
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ariakas View Post
River, are you at all worried, that in creating a new definition you dilute the already murky waters of being bi?

To clarify:
My wife & friends already have a hard enough time with one definition and it being accepted to the masses (more backlash from the gay community than anywhere), to include another definition which can create more confusion could cause more problems, not lesson them.
Not at all! First of all, I discovered that the term "biamory" already existed and was in use. I didn't invent it. I was happy to discover that it was in use because it described my own erotic / amorous nature better than "bisexual". It is more accurate, for me. Lots of folks are bisexual who are not also biamorous. Biamory is one way of being bisexual, just as leaves are part of a tree, as are roots. We have several words for parts of trees: roots, branches, trunk..., and this doesn't create confusion. It clarifies.

Don't get me wrong, I LOVE SEX!. But sex without a real connection, without intimacy beyond erogenous zones of the body, is -- for me -- empty and uninteresting. But this non-intimate kind of sex is readily available, and intimate sex between men seems far, far less available. And this is so because so many self-described "bisexual" guys are only interested in a romp in the hay without real connection and open-hearted tenderness. And tenderness of this sort usually requires time to develop. And time is what isn't on offer, too often.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 06-15-2010, 09:38 PM
River's Avatar
River River is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: NM, USA
Posts: 1,894
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by redpepper View Post
Does this fit the definition?
As it is generally used, the term "biamory" seems to indicate two things: (a) bisexuality and (b) ongoing ("committed") partnerships (whether monogamous or otherwise). So one could be monogamous and also biamorous. Or one could be poly and biamorous.

As for your description of your friend? Lots of people have passionate loving relationships with people they adore but with whom they have no sexual relationship. Sometimes there is "sexual tension" in this friendships, but not always. Sometimes there is cuddling and kissing -- but no genital sex. Sometimes these friends will even share a bed but not have genital sex contact. We're pretty free to do as we wish, really. And folks do. (Though they don't always tell others about it!)

Man! This reminds me how much I need cuddle partners whom I'm not being sexual with at the time! This should be considered normal and natural, I think, but society has a rough time with such. I don't know why they should, but they do.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 06-15-2010, 09:45 PM
Ariakas Ariakas is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,872
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by River View Post
Not at all! First of all, I discovered that the term "biamory" already existed and was in use. I didn't invent it. I was happy to discover that it was in use because it described my own erotic / amorous nature better than "bisexual". It is more accurate, for me. Lots of folks are bisexual who are not also biamorous. Biamory is one way of being bisexual, just as leaves are part of a tree, as are roots. We have several words for parts of trees: roots, branches, trunk..., and this doesn't create confusion. It clarifies.
I deleted my response (if you happened to see it) because this explanation fits what I was looking for. I can understand it as a root tree situation. I, personally, would still think "I am a bi-sexual lover" or something similar would suffice. As bi-sexual can include everything, but as a tree setup...I get it ...

In the world of geek the centre has been parsed out...combining two different variables into one.

bisexual polyamory
to
biamory

Thats fills my geek quota hahaha...

Quote:
Don't get me wrong, I LOVE SEX!. But sex without a real connection, without intimacy beyond erogenous zones of the body, is -- for me -- empty and uninteresting. But this non-intimate kind of sex is readily available, and intimate sex between men seems far, far less available. And this is so because so many self-described "bisexual" guys are only interested in a romp in the hay without real connection and open-hearted tenderness. And tenderness of this sort usually requires time to develop. And time is what isn't on offer, too often.
Understandable. As a straight guy who is poly...finding women to take to bed is "easy"...finding women to spent time with, date and be with...makes it difficult ...

Well written River
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 06-15-2010, 10:16 PM
River's Avatar
River River is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: NM, USA
Posts: 1,894
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ariakas View Post

bisexual polyamory
to
biamory

Thats fills my geek quota hahaha...
Well.... I think it's important to know that not all biamorous people are also polyamorous. Some tend much more toward monogamy.

Biamorous people are those who are interested in and capable of "romantic" love with persons of both sexes. "Bisexual" used to be an adequate term, when there wasn't quite so much "casual sex" and so many "one night stands" on offer. Or these without the possibility of evolving into "romance".

I like the term "biamory" because it clearly demarks recreational sex from intimate partnerships. Once folks learn the term, well, clarity is achieved.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 06-15-2010, 10:22 PM
redpepper's Avatar
redpepper redpepper is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 7,639
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by River View Post
As it is generally used, the term "biamory" seems to indicate two things: (a) bisexuality and (b) ongoing ("committed") partnerships (whether monogamous or otherwise). So one could be monogamous and also biamorous. Or one could be poly and biamorous.
So we would have to be committed? Hm? I'm not getting it. I am pansexual he is hetrosexual and we are both polyamorous... Does this indicate that poly is banking on people having sex in order to be different than biamorous? I seem to fit both a and b to my thinking. Our relationship does... What am I not getting?
__________________
Anyone want to be friends on Facebook?
Send me your name via PM
My blog
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 06-15-2010, 10:29 PM
River's Avatar
River River is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: NM, USA
Posts: 1,894
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by redpepper View Post
So we would have to be committed? Hm? I'm not getting it. I am pansexual he is hetrosexual and we are both polyamorous... Does this indicate that poly is banking on people having sex in order to be different than biamorous? I seem to fit both a and b to my thinking. Our relationship does... What am I not getting?
There may be nothing in particular you're not getting. Amour is the French word for love, an intense feeling of affection.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amour

Love does not depend upon there being sexual expression. Obviously. Even intense, passionate love doesn't depend upon there being sex involved. Most people are, in this sense, probably biamorous. That is, they can love persons of both sexes.

I simply stated that most of the time the term "biamory" is used in writing or in speech it is used to refer to "romantic" love, which generally involves sex -- but not always, perhaps. (There is a tradition called "romantic frienship" which you can google for yourself.)

This stuff may ultimately be simple, but first it's a little complicated.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 06-15-2010, 10:45 PM
River's Avatar
River River is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: NM, USA
Posts: 1,894
Default

I should add here that the terms "biamory" and "biamorous" arose for a particular historical reason. The reason it arose and is gaining ground in usage is that "bisexual" is now deemed by many to be an inadequate descriptor for many people's experience. Many people who are "bisexual" (sexually attracted to both sexes) are NOT amourously ("romantically") interested in both sexes. That is, they are not capable of (or, in some cases, interested in) being available to loving both sexes in a "romantic" way).

In some modern cultures at present, sexuality has come to be understood by many as a casual form of recreation, not anything involving "romantic" feelings. (Please see Craigslist Personals for examples - esp. the gay male sections.) For others, sex is held somewhat sacred, or treated with reverence (Though often in a secular sense). So there is a great tension between how some people experience their sexuality and how others do. For many, it's all good so long as there is proper reverence (respect) for persons. I'd be one of those. But it isn't always clear whose version of reverence is to be applied. Some have reverence for the power of sex to produce pleasure -- without much regard for the persons involved..., or at least without any intention of forming a truly ongoing and intimate bond. Others revere sexual sharing as a powerful adjunct to other kinds or forms of intimacy, e.g., emotional and intellectual--, or spiritual.

Anyhoo, I think the term "biamorous" is generally used to mean "bisexual" but also open to ongoing loving relations with both sexes. And I think the term grew out of a need having to do with the pervasiveness of casual sex in the culture. It is intended to distinguish entirely different "love styles".

===

One additional thought:

It seems to me that most people who understand and prefer the term "biamory" (when it is appropriate to the situation) are of the kind that prioritizes amour (love) over sex, and therefore somewhat resent the emphasis on something many folks engage in without any loving whatsoever (which is embodied in the term "bisexual") This, however, doesn't mean that everyone who prefers to stick with the term "bisexual" are not also biamorous. Some folks just hope to be understood despite the near ubiquity of casual sex in the culture.

Last edited by River; 06-15-2010 at 10:56 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 06-16-2010, 03:57 AM
redpepper's Avatar
redpepper redpepper is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 7,639
Default

okay, biamorous is loving both genders... bisexual is having sex with both genders?

romantic friendship is totally different?

I can see how this would come about. Just yesterday Mono's student who is gay told him he didn't believe in bisexuality in terms of men loving women and men, but being able and willing and desirous of having sex with both. He just could not get past his biphobia. My Nerdist is truly able to love both... I am am too.
__________________
Anyone want to be friends on Facebook?
Send me your name via PM
My blog
Reply With Quote
Reply

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 04:40 PM.