not-quite-poly: lovers & friends w/ benefits

[dib]

At some point you have to ask yourself "why the labels?". I just use them as they come and if I am comfortable with them. My girlfriend's girlfriend can be just my friend or my girlfriend too, with or without commitment. I don't care what others think or say about my terminology. Do you want your partner to be labeled more than you want a clear definition of rules and regulations surrounding your activities? Just say it like it is. Friend, boyfriend, whatever makes the two or more of you happy...

Honesty in goals and plans can be difficult, especially when discussing the end results of your relationship. But denying you have one is counterproductive. I have a relationship with my cat. Believe me, that's not going any farther than him being fed and him mysteriously gaining 500 lb when I want to get him out of bed. It's the quality and strength of your relationships that you should focus on. If it is and will remain a friendship then focus on that. Does intimacy bring more emotion than you are willing to share with that individual? Take a step back. Not enough love in the mix? Pour it on.

[JaneQSmythe]

I've considered myself poly for 2 decades even though my only long term sexual relationships outside of my marriage were FWB (until Dude). With them I am friends first and the "with benefits" secondarily - with long breaks if their situation warrants it - geography, primary partner that is not on board, etc. These breaks don't affect the underlying friendship, just the "benefits" part. There is no expectation of these relationships "progressing" in any way - they are what they are.

When discussing poly with my bestest friend several years ago - she decided that if my relationships with these FWBs, who I wasn't as close to as her, counted as "poly" then SHE counted to (even though there is no sexual component to our relationship) since she is emotionally closer to me than anyone other than my husband - she decided she was my "platonic girlfriend". (I talk about this some in my blog here). If it makes her happy to assign herself that label - more power to her! Her use of a label doesn't change our relationship in any way. I guess I see all relationships as a branching maze of connectivity - some bonds are stronger, some weaker, some involve sex, some don't, some are romantic, some are more emotional, some are more recreational, some last a long-time, some don't, some are family, etc. For some combinations of these (and other factors) we have labels - GF, lover, boyfriend, lover-friend, FWB, mom - etc. But just because we don't have a distinct label doesn't mean a relationship isn't there - and each of these individual relationships is unique unto itself - none is "equal" to another because people are not interchangeable.

Was I not "really" poly until Dude came along? Who knows? Who cares? My poly is not your poly. These words and definitions are just...words and definitions. We use them as shorthand so that we can, hopefully, convey our thoughts to others. They can be used to "describe" a relationship but they don't need to "define" it.

For anyone that I am involved with, flirting with, having sex with, who is not my husband - it is always "friends in public" - my job and profession could be jeopardized otherwise. Nobody has objected yet - nobody's business but ours.

Just my experience.

JaneQ

[redpepper]

I'm not a big fan of the term "friends with benefits" either. I prefer "intimate friends" more. To me the term has become too derogatory and indicates that there are no benefits to anything else but sex in these particular friendships. Like its not a benefit to have a friend you like to play tennis with or something. The term makes it sound like they are just a benefit if you want to have sex with them.

I tend to think that poly people are more likely to have sex with friends or at least be okay with it though. So why hide it or not say anything. Really, if everyone is consenting then it shouldn't be a big deal I don't think.

I think there is little difference from FWB/intimate friends to poly relationships other than level of commitment really. Bottom line is you can call your relationships whatever you want as long as you are both understanding where each other comes from. Here's to friends *clink.

[Pretzels]

Originally Posted by nycindie

Something else that just occurred to me the other day when I was with Lively: I wondered if it's possible that NRE never really goes away with the more casual FWB-type lover-friend relationships. I mean, when you settle into the real nitty-gritty of a committed bf/gf relationship, we know that eventually the euphoric honeymoon period is over. But with a lover-friend, casual, Love-NSA type thang, maybe the euphoria sticks around a bit. I don't know, but I've been casually seeing my friend Lively for nine months now and, although we are both much more comfortable with each other, I am still feeling this cloud of bliss envelop me whenever we're together. So, maybe keeping a little distance keeps NRE hanging around longer. Hmmm...

I've thought a lot about this, too, since I still get a shit-eating grin every time I see the guys - together or individually.

For me, I think the reason I still feel so intensely for them comes from a range of reasons - we're tremendous friends who, like you, aren't "friend-collectors"; we know that we have different relationships with each of the other in our threesome and that helps prevent the "hostage situation" so many couples lapse into; and, finally, it was just about a year ago that we almost went over into the abyss. We made a conscious choice not to let go of each other not for financial reasons, not for societal reasons but because we each felt like we'd not encounter the same, strong dynamic again in our lives and that wasn't worth losing.

The way we identify in public, T and I as boyfriend and girlfriend with E as our roommate, barely plays out that way when we're alone. It has always been important that we're friends first and lovers second.

[FrankLee]

MeeraReed,

That's the best delineation of the terminology I have seen so far on this forum. I'm glad that I saw it because your definition for yourself seems to be more what I consider that I would call myself as well.

I have a personal listed at OKCupid and am having a difficult time describing my intentions as far as non-monogamy goes. It's amazing how quickly others assume the worst stereotype possible.

[AutumnalTone]

Originally Posted by Scott75

When talking with fellow poly members, I have argued that even though the polyamory community shuns cheating, I think we should include them as polyamory if they truly love more then one partner.

No.

The definition of polyamory specifically excludes cheating. Go read Morning Glory's comments to the dictionary editors when they asked her to provide the definition for inclusion--she specifically excludes cheating.

And I certainly won't identify as part of a group that includes cheaters. The cheaters will have to find their own term that denotes unethical multi-partner affairs.

[AutumnalTone]

Originally Posted by nycindie

I shared something about this awhile back in my blog. I stated:

"I want lovers who are friends, who accept my love but don't freak out or want to build some structure around it. I don't want a partner who has a say in how I run my life. ...

I fail to see how this is different than a boyfriend or spouse. I've never assumed I had much say in how any of my partners run their lives.

[nycindie]

Originally Posted by AutumnalTone

I fail to see how this is different than a boyfriend or spouse. I've never assumed I had much say in how any of my partners run their lives.

Well, sure. My ex-husband and I were pretty easygoing and independent in our relationship and did not boss each other around, but there were issues we could not agree on which impacted certain choices we each made. When I wrote that, I didn't mean that a partner automatically is in a role of granting permission, but that some people get into a long-term committed relationship with someone and believe that they have to check in with each other about everything before they make a move. I don't want to be joined at the hip like that. I want things a little looser. Not that I wouldn't communicate with a partner, but if it's a relationship where we don't see each other as "partners," and there is plenty of space for us to be ourselves and independent, it is simply easier and more amenable to be able to say what I want to do and just convey to my loves what my choices are (of course, I am not talking about going beyond any agreements we may have).

I guess I could have worded it, "I don't want a partner in the sense of someone who thinks he has a say in how I run my life."

[rory]

Originally Posted by MeeraReed

And why is it expected that a FWB is someone you must keep secret and be ashamed about? I've been puzzled in the past when I've had a lover-friend who makes me happy and that I like talking about--but my (platonic) friends don't want to hear about it because we're not "serious" and he's not a "real boyfriend."

Huh? I really can't understand that kind of behaviour. They don't want to hear about your activities and experiences when they include him but you can talk about things you do with other people, say, platonic friends? Have you talked to your friends about that. If I were in a similar situation, I would let them know I feel bad about them dismissing important things in my life just because I don't have a certain label attached to that...

[Scott]

Originally Posted by AutumnalTone

No.

The definition of polyamory specifically excludes cheating.

No, it doesn't. That is -your- definition of polyamory, and admittedly the definition of a fair amount of people who define themselves as polyamorous. That being said, there is no tribunal on how one defines polyamory, with those who refuse to adhere to the definition being banished from all things poly. As someone once said, there are as many definitions of polyamory as there are those who practice it. As mentioned above, when talking to people who are unfamiliar with the polyamory community, I have opted for saying that polyamory is about open, honest relationships, but if dealing with people who are -in- the polyamory community, or cheaters who are unhappy with cheating, I may say that cheating can be seen as a form of polyamory, so long as love is involved in the relationships.

Originally Posted by AutumnalTone

Go read Morning Glory's comments to the dictionary editors when they asked her to provide the definition for inclusion--she specifically excludes cheating.

I don't even know who Morning Glory is. Furthermore, the dictionary editors (I assume this is the dictionary editors of this particular site) are not the tribunal of the polyamorous community either.

Originally Posted by AutumnalTone

And I certainly won't identify as part of a group that includes cheaters. The cheaters will have to find their own term that denotes unethical multi-partner affairs.

Alright, that's fair. -Your- definition of polyamory has no place for cheaters. Just don't lump every other person who identifies as polyamorous with your particular definition.