Polyamorous vs Swingers

The major issue I have with all of this is that asexual in my research is not about disliking sex per se, but to dislike the way sex is typically practised in relationships (as a way of bonding). Now, also from my research, polyamory is most related to a different contact phase where sex is used not for keeipng a bond alive but in the contact phase.

So, when I claim I'm asexual that doesn't mean I have no sex drive, just that I dislike the idea that it is sex that is keeping my relationships together, when I'm sure it's my (also different) attachment style that does. I typically form attachments for life, and I can have many at the same time, which I connect to the concept of polyamory.
 
I think I get your point, it's just that the way you word it makes no sense to me.

A: "There's one single relationship skillset" => healthy 'ships are all basically the same, regardless of mono or poly

Yes, it is 'A' that is seriously flawed.
 
I disagree. I'm basically asexual and live in a mono-relationship, but I'm polyamory by nature. I really dislike it when it is assumed that polyamory is something sexual, and you are supposed to be hypersexual and a swinger to really be polyamory. I'd rather focus on the attachment profile of polyamorous people rather than how they are sexually, as sex shouldn't be in the picture at all.

Just as as an asexual person dislikes equating polyamorous directly with sex, it's equally demeaning to not only think but continue to say out loud that swinging is just about sex.

Not only that... It's also dismissive to say "sex shouldn't be in the picture at all" with regards to polyamory.

I'm basically asexual too, so I'm just going to go ahead and get up on my soapbox for a moment.

Just because sex isn't important for how you and I bond, doesn't mean that's true for everyone. There are many people who deepen their romantic bond through sexual expression. And guess what? That's JUST as valid as NOT using sex for bonding. We don't have to understand it, any more than sexual folks have to understand how we can live without it. Yay freedom!

The whole point of joining hands with swingers is not because we're all "hypersexual" but rather because we're all "non-monogamous." Whether your non-monogamy is expressed just romantically, just sexually, or both... doesn't matter. It's still non-monogamy. It serves neither group's purpose to further marginalize the other.

A: "There's one single relationship skillset" => healthy 'ships are all basically the same, regardless of mono or poly
B: "Some people can be wired for mono or poly, and not wired for the other" => mono & poly are fundamentally different from each other
C: "Knowing your wiring is part of your relationship skillset" => SYNTAX ERROR when combined with A+B

Yes, it is 'A' that is seriously flawed.

=>? Syntax error? So... human relationships are basically computer programs??

Propositional logic: great for math, crap for psychology. Might as well boil relationships down to neurochemistry for all the understanding it will give you. Emotions are inherently illogical, and relationships by extension.

The point Ariakas was making is that if you struggle with romantic relationships, then you'll struggle whether you're mono or poly. He didn't actually say there was "a single skillset." He said the skills are universal. As in, the same skills that make you good at relating to people in a poly relationship will make you good at relating to people in a mono relationship. It's not a lack of relationship skills that makes you unable to handle mono relationships, it's your personality makeup. You still relate to individuals in the same way that monos do. You still need to know how to communicate, share, give compassion...
 
Last edited:
=>? Syntax error? So... human relationships are basically computer programs??
I wish! That would be awesome, as emotion-based decisions just tend to complicate things. So I do try to boil down to the logical core as much as possible. ;)

The point Ariakas was making is that if you struggle with romantic relationships, then you'll struggle whether you're mono or poly. He didn't actually say there was "a single skillset." He said the skills are universal. As in, the same skills that make you good at relating to people in a poly relationship will make you good at relating to people in a mono relationship. It's not a lack of relationship skills that makes you unable to handle mono relationships, it's your personality makeup. You still relate to individuals in the same way that monos do. You still need to know how to communicate, share, give compassion...
Then that point was just very badly worded. As it's written, it's factually wrong - you do not automatically suck at one if you suck at the other, mono and poly 'ships are too different from each other for that to be true.
 
Just because sex isn't important for how you and I bond, doesn't mean that's true for everyone. There are many people who deepen their romantic bond through sexual expression. And guess what? That's JUST as valid as NOT using sex for bonding. We don't have to understand it, any more than sexual folks have to understand how we can live without it. Yay freedom!

I feel that we are categorizing things on the wrong dimensions. We have all this HBTQ and poly/mono stuff that only categorizes people on whom is sexually attracted by whom, and whether it is pairs or groups. Then we have asexuality that is thought to mean "I have no sexual urge at all". Nowhere in this does disliking bonding with sex enter the picture (in fact, in all of these categorizations it's assumed sex is for bonding). Also, nowhere in these classifications do we see in which phase sex is important and in which phase it is not. To make it short, all of these categories are built by sexual people that bond with sex, and people that don't simply doesn't fit in.

It was tempting to suspect that the definition of polyamory could have something significantly different in mind, but it doesn't. It's still assumed in polyamory that people bond with sex, even if sex is not part of the definition. This makes the term polyamory just as useless for research as HBTQ and "asexuality".

The whole point of joining hands with swingers is not because we're all "hypersexual" but rather because we're all "non-monogamous." Whether your non-monogamy is expressed just romantically, just sexually, or both... doesn't matter. It's still non-monogamy. It serves neither group's purpose to further marginalize the other.

The whole point is that polyamory becomes meaningless if you decide to lump it with "non-monogamy", rather than sticking on the primary of multiple emotional bonds.

Propositional logic: great for math, crap for psychology. Might as well boil relationships down to neurochemistry for all the understanding it will give you. Emotions are inherently illogical, and relationships by extension.

I think that too is faulty logic. It assumes that romance and dating is something universal, which is not the case. Not all people like the traditional dating method, and being linked to the neurodiverse contact and attachment traits makes polyamory special. Not because of the definition, or common beliefs, but because it is linked to neurodiverse relationship preferences.
 



Then that point was just very badly worded. As it's written, it's factually wrong - you do not automatically suck at one if you suck at the other, mono and poly 'ships are too different from each other for that to be true.

You were making an assumption of what I was explaining as a skillset vs what I was meaning. I didn't care enough to explain so I let it lie. I had intended to come back when I had time to lay out what I meant by the phrase.

SC nailed it, saved me a little typing. Thanks :)
 
I feel that we are categorizing things on the wrong dimensions. We have all this HBTQ and poly/mono stuff that only categorizes people on whom is sexually attracted by whom, and whether it is pairs or groups.

I'm with you on the HBTQ part (btw, is the H for homo? I haven't heard that particular alphabet soup before...)

Most of the people in our bi/pan group just use "bi" or "pan" without the "sexual" suffix, for exactly that reason.

Then we have asexuality that is thought to mean "I have no sexual urge at all". Nowhere in this does disliking bonding with sex enter the picture (in fact, in all of these categorizations it's assumed sex is for bonding). Also, nowhere in these classifications do we see in which phase sex is important and in which phase it is not. To make it short, all of these categories are built by sexual people that bond with sex, and people that don't simply doesn't fit in.

Strictly speaking, the standard definition of asexual is "lacking of sexual attraction." I always support anyone's right to use any label however they want, but if you're using it to mean something different, it's not surprising that you're being misunderstood. Depending on whether you're more attached to the label or more attached to being understood, you could choose to describe yourself differently if you do have sexual urges but don't use them for bonding.

I think it's assumed that sex is for sexual release, something that sexual people get tense about when they don't have. Biochemically, it does typically promote bonding through the release of oxytocin. If your body doesn't release oxytocin when you have an orgasm, but it releases oxytocin at other times... that's an exception and while it does disprove the rule, it does not disprove the tendency. People will always assume that which is most common, nothing to ruffle one's feathers over.

It was tempting to suspect that the definition of polyamory could have something significantly different in mind, but it doesn't. It's still assumed in polyamory that people bond with sex, even if sex is not part of the definition. This makes the term polyamory just as useless for research as HBTQ and "asexuality".

I disagree. I've met plenty of people in polyworld who accept sexless relationships as being perfectly valid. In the popular media? Well, no polyfolk are asserting that they accurately represent us, so I wouldn't trouble myself over their misunderstanding.

What's assumed is that people in poly relationships bond the same way as people in mono relationships, which is usually includes sex. Again, you being an exception doesn't have anything to do with poly...

The whole point is that polyamory becomes meaningless if you decide to lump it with "non-monogamy", rather than sticking on the primary of multiple emotional bonds.

Only to the extent that "chicken" becomes meaningless if you lump it with "meat." Everyone with half a brain knows that not all meat is chicken. But chicken eaters and beef eaters can still join hands against tyrannical vegetarians.
 
Then that point was just very badly worded. As it's written, it's factually wrong - you do not automatically suck at one if you suck at the other, mono and poly 'ships are too different from each other for that to be true.

I understand "suck at relationships" to mean "inability to communicate effectively and/or lacking in basic care and compassion for the needs of others." Ariakas confirmed this is what he meant, in which case it's not so much the wording as your personal understanding of "suck at relationships."

What makes someone specifically suck at poly or mono relationships is not a lack of skills. It's a presence of personal qualities. For example, "being the jealous type" (suck at poly) or "wanting to express myself with other partners" (suck at mono). Put another way, being good at poly doesn't mean you have different skills than people who are good at mono. It means you're a different kind of person.
 
The major issue I have with all of this is that asexual in my research is not about disliking sex per se, but to dislike the way sex is typically practised in relationships (as a way of bonding). Now, also from my research, polyamory is most related to a different contact phase where sex is used not for keeipng a bond alive but in the contact phase.

So, when I claim I'm asexual that doesn't mean I have no sex drive, just that I dislike the idea that it is sex that is keeping my relationships together, when I'm sure it's my (also different) attachment style that does. I typically form attachments for life, and I can have many at the same time, which I connect to the concept of polyamory.

I find discussions about asexuality to be enlightening and endlessly confusing at the same time. I've known the term "asexual" since I was a kid, but I never really considered that a person could be asexual. Sexual expression is such a big part of daily life in my environment that it just would never have occurred to me if it weren't brought starkly into the light (like on this forum).

However, as with all discussions about sex drive or sexual orientation I feel it's important for everyone to remember that there are seemingly endless variations on the theme. While you personally don't mean asexual to suggest that you don't like sex or have a sex drive doesn't mean that's how other people are going to mean it. I watched a neat documentary about asexuality a year or so back and everyone on that show seemed to be saying that they had no interest in sex in any way. They ALSO had the problem that sex is so often used to bond that they found themselves between a rock and a hard place but no one expressed what you have expressed here.

This is one of those fine variations which just needs to be voiced. How else would anyone know such a particular aspect of your view on the topic?

If it's important to you that people don't think you're sexual, make sure to insist on that point.

100%

I'd rather focus on the attachment profile of polyamorous people rather than how they are sexually, as sex shouldn't be in the picture at all. Kind of like assuming that all mono-people also like to play football, when there really is no connection between the two.

[Edit: SchrodingersCat did a very good job of explaining this already. We were apparently typing it at the same time.]

I think you are way off base here and are confusing your personal view as the common view. When people talk about romantic relationships (romantic being distinct from platonic) you are correct, there is a general assumption that sexual interaction will be a part of it. This is not because people don't understand how relationships work, it's because they DO know how relationships generally work. Having a sexual orientation or worldview which separates you from that norm could be frustrating, I'm sure, but it in no way suggests that the common usage of the phrase is incorrect or coming from ignorance.

In contrast, I am polyamorous. To say that I am a swinger is incorrect, and the mistake is generally due to ignorance about the distinction between the terms. If I want people to understand that there is a distinction and where I fit into those terms then I need to voice as much.

The statement that sex shouldn't be involved at all doesn't make any sense to me. What do you mean by that?

I want people to know I'm poly, and also not a swinger. But I'm not going to do it by denigrating swingers. Just because I'm not one doesn't mean they're bad, less evolved, or that their relationship as less valuable than my own.

I don't see the denigration in this thread that people are referring to. I saw one statement about bringing poly down to a lower level to elevate the standing of swinging... that is certainly a negative way to say it, but that's the only comment I've noticed.

This idea of bringing poly down to swinging is most likely linked to a stigma that sex is a "baser instinct". That, indulging in sex is natural but shouldn't be allowed to be a primary motivation because it's such a primal part of our nature. I find this suggestion to be silly.
 
Last edited:
Strictly speaking, the standard definition of asexual is "lacking of sexual attraction."

Yes, but it is obvious that most people that identify as asexual do it because they also dislike sexual intercourse (there is a huge correlation between those things). However, asexual do not at all correlate with "unusual sexual preferences".

I always support anyone's right to use any label however they want, but if you're using it to mean something different, it's not surprising that you're being misunderstood.

I don't officially identify as asexual. I identify as "dislike sexual intercourse" and I identify as "do not need sex to keep bond".

I think it's assumed that sex is for sexual release, something that sexual people get tense about when they don't have. Biochemically, it does typically promote bonding through the release of oxytocin. If your body doesn't release oxytocin when you have an orgasm, but it releases oxytocin at other times... that's an exception and while it does disprove the rule, it does not disprove the tendency. People will always assume that which is most common, nothing to ruffle one's feathers over.

Seems totally incorrect. AFAIK, the only species that uses sexual intercourse to keep attachments is humans, and I very much doubt that oxytocin has a special function in humans. In most species sexual intercourse is for procreation, not social bonding. Attachment and bonding is on different dimensions than sex in most species. In fact, this is not even an human universal as some people do not need sex to keep attachments.

What's assumed is that people in poly relationships bond the same way as people in mono relationships, which is usually includes sex. Again, you being an exception doesn't have anything to do with poly...

That makes no sense. That would imply that polyamory requires sex, which you told us before was not necessary.
 
I understand "suck at relationships" to mean "inability to communicate effectively and/or lacking in basic care and compassion for the needs of others." Ariakas confirmed this is what he meant, in which case it's not so much the wording as your personal understanding of "suck at relationships."

What makes someone specifically suck at poly or mono relationships is not a lack of skills. It's a presence of personal qualities. For example, "being the jealous type" (suck at poly) or "wanting to express myself with other partners" (suck at mono). Put another way, being good at poly doesn't mean you have different skills than people who are good at mono. It means you're a different kind of person.

I'm glad you guys decided to hash out this conversation a bit more. I also found the original statement from Ariakas to be very odd and I couldn't help but disagree with it as written.

While there are certainly skill sets that are likely to help in any relationship (clear communication, good listener, conscientious), the more important aspect of being successful in a relationship is making sure you are in a relationship structure which fits with your personality and worldview. I can communicate until my head falls off but if I'm poly but in a mono relationship it's still going to fail. So, SC, I agree with what you wrote here but I have no idea how anyone could have gotten there by reading the original post.
 
In most species sexual intercourse is for procreation, not social bonding.

A species survives because it has some kind of drive which leads to procreation. Species who procreate through sexual intercourse do so because they want desperately to have sexual intercourse. Species who desperately want to have sex do so because there is something pleasurable to be gained from the experience. Humans (and I presume, any animal which sexually reproduces) have sex because it feels amazing and releases desirable chemicals into our brains.

Procreation is the end result of all of this, not the motivation. So in fact the opposite of what you said is true.
 
A species survives because it has some kind of drive which leads to procreation. Species who procreate through sexual intercourse do so because they want desperately to have sexual intercourse. Species who desperately want to have sex do so because there is something pleasurable to be gained from the experience. Humans (and I presume, any animal which sexually reproduces) have sex because it feels amazing and releases desirable chemicals into our brains.

Procreation is the end result of all of this, not the motivation. So in fact the opposite of what you said is true.

Of course, but what I said is that sexual intercourse is not about attachment, but about reproduction. It's only in humans that sexual intercourse and attachment has been mixed-up in such a strange way. Not only that, but it has been combined with concealed estrus, which makes it impossible for males to know when females can conceive, and thus have driven males to have as much sex as possible to increase their chances of passing their genes along. However, this still has nothing to do with attachment.
 
[EDIT: Sorry mods and original poster, I seem to have hijacked the hell out of this thread by engaging this topic]

Of course, but what I said is that sexual intercourse is not about attachment, but about reproduction.

How do you get to this point? I see that you don't personally find sex to be any value in social bonding, but how does that translate to this broader point that sex "isn't about attachment"?

What is it about sharing a pleasurable moment in which our delicate sexual organs are joined and awesome chemicals being flooded into our brains that suggests it couldn't (or shouldn't?) promote social bonding or social attachments? There are many things which can promote social bonding, sex is one of them. You are expressing a personal preference as if it is a scientific axiom.
 
Last edited:
Of course, but what I said is that sexual intercourse is not about attachment, but about reproduction. It's only in humans that sexual intercourse and attachment has been mixed-up in such a strange way. Not only that, but it has been combined with concealed estrus, which makes it impossible for males to know when females can conceive, and thus have driven males to have as much sex as possible to increase their chances of passing their genes along. However, this still has nothing to do with attachment.
It's not only in humans. In our closest primate relatives, bonobos, sex is big in social bonding, even more so than in humans I think.

As an asexual I don't understand how sex creates or enhance emotional attachment, but I accept that it's how it works for most people. And I suppose it's similar to how cuddling can enhance an emotional bond for me. Indeed, what does any physical contact have to do with attachment? But the reality is the physical aspect and emotional aspect in interpersonal relationships aren't totally separate. Some people can have one without the other, but more often than not, there's some kind of link between the two.
 
Last edited:
It's not only in humans. In our closest primate relatives, bonobos, sex is big in social bonding, even more so than in humans I think.

True, but they are not fixated on sexual intercourse, rather often have other types of sex. Also, Bonobos have regular mating periods, and does not have concealed estrus like humans, and thus males don't need to copulate all the time in order to reproduce.
 
Seems totally incorrect. AFAIK, the only species that uses sexual intercourse to keep attachments is humans, and I very much doubt that oxytocin has a special function in humans. In most species sexual intercourse is for procreation, not social bonding.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by social bonding, but it's pretty common knowledge that bonobos, which are our closest relatives, use sex as a form of social bonding. They use it after fighting, they use it to socialise, and they pretty much have no taboos about sex.
Dolphins also use sex in non-reproductive ways (such has having forms of sex that can't possibly lead to reproduction) but I'm not sure how much they bond over it.

This being said, I fail to see how what other animals do is relevant to us. Humans are humans, and I don't think basing what we should do on what other animals do, rather than what we're personally naturally drawn to as a species, is conducive to a better self-understanding.

I think the emphasis on sex has little to do with polyamory, monogamy or non-monogamy in general. People assume relationships have a sexual element because theirs do. They assume someone who has several romantic relationships also has several sexual relationships, because in their experience the two do together. They put just as much emphasis on sex in monogamous relationships than they do in non-monogamous ones. In short, they don't assume more sexuality in polyamorous people, in my experience. They simply expect some. If that assumption is false for you, it would be just as false if you were monogamous and has nothing to do with people's lack of education on polyamory, and everything to do with their lack of education on non-sexual relationships of any kind.
 
While there are certainly skill sets that are likely to help in any relationship (clear communication, good listener, conscientious), the more important aspect of being successful in a relationship is making sure you are in a relationship structure which fits with your personality and worldview. I can communicate until my head falls off but if I'm poly but in a mono relationship it's still going to fail. So, SC, I agree with what you wrote here but I have no idea how anyone could have gotten there by reading the original post.
And this - especially the last sentence - sums it up perfectly from my p.o.v.. :D
 
The whole point of joining hands with swingers is not because we're all "hypersexual" but rather because we're all "non-monogamous." Whether your non-monogamy is expressed just romantically, just sexually, or both... doesn't matter. It's still non-monogamy. It serves neither group's purpose to further marginalize the other.
Uh-oh, I didn't get the memo. What is each group's purpose?

you do not automatically suck at one if you suck at the other, mono and poly 'ships are too different from each other for that to be true.
I see all "romantic" or non-platonic relationships as pretty much the same. The only difference is that, with poly, you have more of them.

I feel that we are categorizing things on the wrong dimensions. We have all this HBTQ and poly/mono stuff that only categorizes people on whom is sexually attracted by whom, and whether it is pairs or groups. Then we have asexuality that is thought to mean "I have no sexual urge at all". Nowhere in this does disliking bonding with sex enter the picture (in fact, in all of these categorizations it's assumed sex is for bonding). Also, nowhere in these classifications do we see in which phase sex is important and in which phase it is not. To make it short, all of these categories are built by sexual people that bond with sex, and people that don't simply doesn't fit in.

There are plenty of polyfolk who bond first with friendship before they get to sex. And there is no predetermined "phase" where sex is automatic or expected. It's different for everyone. Where are you getting your ideas?

It assumes that romance and dating is something universal, which is not the case. Not all people like the traditional dating method, and being linked to the neurodiverse contact and attachment traits makes polyamory special. Not because of the definition, or common beliefs, but because it is linked to neurodiverse relationship preferences.

It seems you are making some wild assumptions about relationships in general. You are also contradicting yourself, and aren't making a lot of sense when you mention "neurodiverse contact," as if we all should automatically know what you mean, attachment traits, which many do not accept as standard, and are categorizing polyamory as if all poly relationships are the same. Is English a second language for you? I feel that, in this thread and your other one, the way you are expressing what you want to say, without defining your views clearly, is really getting in the way of us understanding you.
 
Last edited:
I see all "romantic" or non-platonic relationships as pretty much the same. The only difference is that, with poly, you have more of them.
Not the first time I hear that view. I find it baffling and really can't relate to it, at all.

However, if it works that way for you... mh, good for you, I guess? :)
 
Back
Top