Polyamory.com Forum  

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

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 05-23-2009, 05:10 PM
Solar Solar is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4
Default

Thanks a lot for the kind words, I do hope it will become a major resource for the poly community in the UK and beyond and give the look and feel of poly sites a bit of a make over. Check back towards the end of June as I'll be posting new articles etc., around middle of the month. I'll also post a launch message on here when it goes fully live, hopefully I can swop links with people too.

Thanks again

Graham
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 05-25-2009, 01:26 AM
River's Avatar
River River is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: NM, USA
Posts: 1,894
Default

Don't Look Gay: Why American Men Are Afraid of Intimacy with Each Other
By John Ibson, American Sexuality Magazine.
http://www.alternet.org/story/55816/?page=1
__________________
bi, partnered, available

River's Blog
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 05-25-2009, 02:10 PM
River's Avatar
River River is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: NM, USA
Posts: 1,894
Default

Men & Intimacy:

http://www.polyamory.com/forum/group...discussionid=7
__________________
bi, partnered, available

River's Blog
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 06-27-2009, 09:50 PM
River's Avatar
River River is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: NM, USA
Posts: 1,894
Default

Hello, all! I've been a little busy with other things and haven't had much time to hang out at www.polyamory.com lately. I hope to spend more time in here over the next while.

Say, whatever happened to the momentum at the Gay, Bi-, Queer "social group"?

Social groups can be found by clicking on "Community" on that bar at the top of the page with the list:

User - CP - FAQ - Community - Calendar ... etc.

I started a "Chit Chat" topic there, for those who may be interested.
__________________
bi, partnered, available

River's Blog
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 08-06-2009, 10:34 PM
River's Avatar
River River is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: NM, USA
Posts: 1,894
Default

There is a little new activity over in the Gay, Bi-, Queer "Social Group"....

http://www.polyamory.com/forum/group.php?groupid=3
__________________
bi, partnered, available

River's Blog
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 08-20-2009, 05:37 PM
River's Avatar
River River is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: NM, USA
Posts: 1,894
Default

Open Forum: Where Does Polyamory Fit into the Queer Movement?

http://queersunited.blogspot.com/200...amory-fit.html
__________________
bi, partnered, available

River's Blog

Last edited by River; 08-20-2009 at 05:39 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 01-08-2010, 06:43 PM
River's Avatar
River River is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: NM, USA
Posts: 1,894
Default

Given that I just had a sort of "date" with a woman, yesterday, I've been contemplating the matter of what it is like--for myself, for others--to be "bisexual" (see end note for explanation of the quotation marks here) in my culture (I'm American).

The woman I had a lunch date with yesterday may well never become anything other than a friend. But I'm exploring the possibility of ... whatever happens.

So, I'm thinking....

And remembering....

There was Hannah. I fell in love with her. Our relationship was fairly brief. She was quite a lot younger than I was at the time. I was about thirty. She was barely over twenty. I had just recently had a breakup with my first love, M (a guy).

I had a friend at the time who thought that my interest in Hannah couldn't be what I knew it to be. He didn't believe in "bisexuality"* One day, for fun, Hannah and I shared a long passionate, wet kiss in front of this friend in a public place (a bar). Even this did not alter my friend's theory, which is stated thusly: "Everyone is either heterosexual or homosexual; bisexuality was made up by losers who refuse to choose sides and don't want to deal with homosexual stigma."

So there are those types. (Such as this guy.)

And then there are the ones who are made uneasy by "bi" folk, since they -- perhaps -- can only have a sort of watered down attraction to a person of either sex, presumably because a person of such mixed attraction can't find all that they want in either sex. "Bi" folk, in this manner of thinking, are like watered down wine. They can never fully give of themselves to anyone. Any one. For they are themselves two, ("bi") not one.

Etc.

So there are these and other images many people have of "bi" folk. Sometimes we "bi-folk" even internalize them, rather osmotically.

So I'd like to use this topic to explore the liberation of "bi" from such limited and limiting notions.




*End note:

I think we need a new term for "bisexuality" which emphasizes the fact that sex is only part of the whole of what "romantic love" is about. I also dislike terms like "heterosexuality" and "homosexuality". I like sex as much as anyone, but sex is not, for me, central to what it is to love someone. Our language should reflect this fact.
__________________
bi, partnered, available

River's Blog

Last edited by River; 01-08-2010 at 06:45 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 01-08-2010, 07:39 PM
Ravenesque's Avatar
Ravenesque Ravenesque is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 297
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by River View Post
So there are these and other images many people have of "bi" folk. Sometimes we "bi-folk" even internalize them, rather osmotically.

So I'd like to use this topic to explore the liberation of "bi" from such limited and limiting notions.




*End note:

I think we need a new term for "bisexuality" which emphasizes the fact that sex is only part of the whole of what "romantic love" is about. I also dislike terms like "heterosexuality" and "homosexuality". I like sex as much as anyone, but sex is not, for me, central to what it is to love someone. Our language should reflect this fact.
This seems not unlike one of the concepts within monogamy; the concept that a human being cannot love more than one person or have a functioning healthy relationship with more than one person (someone always gets the shorter end of the stick; friends, family, somebody).

I wonder, does your friend identify as polyamorous? I would find it interesting if he did but also subscribed to the philosophy you described above.

And why not? New terms are invented all the time. It is a crucial part of self-identifying as well as reclaiming parts of lost heritages. Come up with a word for yourself. You don't need a crowd. Words are contagious however. Use them enough and they'll be placed in a dictionary somewhere though that wouldn't have been the point. If you're uncomfy with the word why not create a new one. Plus it's fun.

Bi-amorous came to mind at first. I was thinking about it but now I wonder. Bisexual is a word that is used to describe sexual orientation. Is that what you consider the words bisexual, heterosexual, and homosexual to describe? Sexual orientation? If not, from your perspective, what do you see them being used for? What would the new word you create describe about you? Sexual orientation or something else?

~Raven~
__________________
Are you a polyamorist or non-monogamous individual between the ages 18-35? Are you located in New York State or the Northeast?
Join us at The Network, a social and socially aware network which connects young polys and progressive polys of all ages.



~Open up your mind and let me step inside.
Rest your weary head and let your heart decide. It's so easy.
When you know the rules.
It's so easy. All you have to do is fall in love.
Play the game.
Everybody play the game of love. Yeah...~

Last edited by Ravenesque; 01-08-2010 at 07:55 PM. Reason: Missing ze words
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 01-08-2010, 10:42 PM
GroundedSpirit GroundedSpirit is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: New England USA
Posts: 1,231
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by River View Post
*End note:

I think we need a new term for "bisexuality" which emphasizes the fact that sex is only part of the whole of what "romantic love" is about. I also dislike terms like "heterosexuality" and "homosexuality". I like sex as much as anyone, but sex is not, for me, central to what it is to love someone. Our language should reflect this fact.
I just stumbled into this thread which looks old but maybe someone is wanting to activate it again ?

In any case - River - per your above quote.......
There has always been a huge difficulty separating "sex" and "love" in modern culture. No point into going into the reasons for that.
They CAN go together - and it's beautiful when they do - but neither is a requirement of the other. For those who choose to believe otherwise, well, they get to live with the consequences (and confusion) of that choice.
I only wish for that fallacy to finally, someday, go away ! But I don't expect to live to see it.

So for me - I certainly don't see any need of further complicating an already over-complex language. The term "bisexual" - inferring an ability to enjoy sexual activity with either gender is about as clear a term as we seem to have in all these convoluted discussions around sex and love. If we needed more clarity we seem to have evolved "pansexual" which I'm still a bit confused about and undecided. Does this pertain to sexuality that includes other forms of life than humans ? I don't know - guess I should go look it up.
But I think the existence of the term probably comes from the same point your question/confusion is coming from about "bisexual". You WANT it to say something about something the word was never intended to refer to - LOVE ! That's just not where and why we needed to add a new word to the language.

The term "polyamory" seems intended to address the need for a term of "loving" multiples, but it's a gender neutral term, which for me is totally self explanatory. If you love someone - you love them. It matters not what gender they are !
So do we REALLY need another term explaining we're capable of "loving" either gender in a "romantic" way ? Maybe.............I don't know. All I can offer is that I don't. Gender is that much of a non-issue for me. And maybe someone already has crossed this bridge and I'm just not aware of it ? But I can see taking a term that's pretty self explanatory and trying to twist and confuse it into a muddled meaning.
I could clearly state that I'm polyamorous AND bisexual and if someone can't put those pieces together and have sufficient meaning in them - I'm happy to clarify on request

GS
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 01-09-2010, 07:15 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 Ravenesque View Post
Bi-amorous came to mind at first. I was thinking about it but now I wonder. Bisexual is a word that is used to describe sexual orientation. Is that what you consider the words bisexual, heterosexual, and homosexual to describe? Sexual orientation? If not, from your perspective, what do you see them being used for? What would the new word you create describe about you? Sexual orientation or something else?
~Raven~
What I desire is a word that means "bi-amorous," but which rolls off the tongue better, and sounds better.

There are those who have more-or-less strictly sexual relationships with others, where the sexual encounter involves little intimacy of other kinds. These are often as brief as one night stands. Sometimes they last a little longer, but no love bond is formed in them. They are not truly "amorous"; they are not loving relationships, per se. These folks engage in sex as recreation.

Well, I'm not one of those people. I have to actually like my partners, or I'm not going to get between the sheets (so to speak) with them. And if I like them, I'm going to want to stick around and get to know them in various dimentions of intimacy. That is what is meant by "amorous" -- for me. And the term "bisexuality" doesn't emphasize these other dimentions of intimacy. It leaves them out, altogether, while completely emphasizing the sex part of the whole spectrum of intimacy.

This might not matter to some people, but it matters to me in large part because when another approaches me with recreational sex on his/her mind, I might mistake that approach for amorous interest -- when in fact the same person may never like to talk with me, or see me again (after the casual, loveless, sex they want). And when I approach, I don't want to be confused for one who wants a one night stand. So why not have a word for the distinction? Bisexuals can very well be sexual with persons of either sex, but can they (or are they interested in) what may be called "full spectrum intimacy" (intimacy including physical/sexual/sensual but also emotional, intellectual, spiritual dimentions of our being? Are they interested in the heart as much as in the groin? If they are, and they are also attracted to both sexes in this way, then they are "bi-amorous". Not all bisexuals are "bi-amorous".

In this way, I am definitely not "bisexual" -- but I am definitely "bi-amorous".

I'm saying all of this because I've been hurt by people who wanted to be with me sexually, but who were not willing to be with me in a more rounded, whole way. I'm certain I'm not alone in this! Enough mixed signals, already. Let us have a verbal designation!

[This post is also a response to the post following the one in I quoted from.]
__________________
bi, partnered, available

River's Blog
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
bisexuality, gay, lesbian, lgbt, sexuality

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 02:02 AM.