Polyamory.com Forum  

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

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 01-29-2012, 11:53 PM
wildflowers wildflowers is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Boston area
Posts: 180
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SchrodingersCat View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 01-30-2012, 06:07 PM
AutumnalTone AutumnalTone is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Kansas City Metro
Posts: 2,186
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThatGirlInGray View Post
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.
__________________
When speaking of various forms of non-monogamy...it ain't poly if you're just fucking around.

While polyamory, open relationships, and swinging are all distinctly different approaches to non-monogamy, they are not mutually exlusive. Folks can, and some do, engage in more than one of them at a time--and it's all good.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 01-31-2012, 02:02 AM
ChloeJane's Avatar
ChloeJane ChloeJane is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Small Town, British Columbia
Posts: 45
Default 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!
__________________
I love to love the lovers, who love to love the love.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 01-31-2012, 03:50 AM
MonoVCPHG's Avatar
MonoVCPHG MonoVCPHG is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: In Redpepper's heart
Posts: 4,742
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChloeJane View Post
Binogomous!
I like it!
__________________

Playing the Game of Life with Monopoly rules.
Monogamy might just be in my genes

Poly Events All Over
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 01-31-2012, 09:47 PM
SourGirl's Avatar
SourGirl SourGirl is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: South of an Igloo, North of a Desert.
Posts: 885
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChloeJane View Post
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!
Perfect. So that settles that.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 02-02-2012, 06:29 AM
SchrodingersCat's Avatar
SchrodingersCat SchrodingersCat is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Saskatchewan
Posts: 2,130
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SourGirl View Post
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!
__________________
Gralson: my husband (works out of town).
Auto: my girlfriend (lives with her husband Zoffee).

The most dangerous phrase in the English language is "we've always done it this way."
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 02-02-2012, 06:50 AM
SchrodingersCat's Avatar
SchrodingersCat SchrodingersCat is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Saskatchewan
Posts: 2,130
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildflowers View Post
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?
__________________
Gralson: my husband (works out of town).
Auto: my girlfriend (lives with her husband Zoffee).

The most dangerous phrase in the English language is "we've always done it this way."

Last edited by SchrodingersCat; 02-02-2012 at 07:15 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 02-02-2012, 07:18 AM
SourGirl's Avatar
SourGirl SourGirl is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: South of an Igloo, North of a Desert.
Posts: 885
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SchrodingersCat View Post
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 by SourGirl; 02-02-2012 at 07:39 AM. Reason: Half-asleep, and I can`t type ? I dunno.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 02-02-2012, 07:43 AM
SchrodingersCat's Avatar
SchrodingersCat SchrodingersCat is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Saskatchewan
Posts: 2,130
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SourGirl View Post
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?
__________________
Gralson: my husband (works out of town).
Auto: my girlfriend (lives with her husband Zoffee).

The most dangerous phrase in the English language is "we've always done it this way."
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 02-02-2012, 07:56 AM
SourGirl's Avatar
SourGirl SourGirl is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: South of an Igloo, North of a Desert.
Posts: 885
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SchrodingersCat View Post
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.
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 07:28 AM.