Marcus
Well-known member
however the term is not the best because by the word progressive it implies that the opposite of it is not progressive.
You don't think "stagnant swinging" is likely to catch on?
however the term is not the best because by the word progressive it implies that the opposite of it is not progressive.
"Just the like LGBTQ people but aside their differences to help each other out and move their rights along, I believe that swingers and poly folk are very similar and need to put aside their differences and work together."
Polysexual -- desire or capacity to share sex more than one partner
So maybe people are accepting non-monogamy as a "solution" for bisexual people, thinking a bisexual person "has" to have one partner of each gender?
Being relatively new in polyamory I have a hard time accepting that many full-blown swingers describe themselves as polyamorous.
How do you see this issue?
I use this word that way too, but apparently people have been using the word Polysexual to describe what I think of as Pansexual, i.e. dating people as people regardless of gender, for years!
And this, kids, is why I don't like labels. They become more confusing than helpful the more you look at them.
Which is why calibrating with a new person I'm talking to matters.
"The kinds of people who think it's wrong to have sex with more than one man also think it's wrong for two men to have sex together. You know, basically judging all-around."
From how I've heard the word used, the difference between pan- and polysexual is that pan is open to dating folks of all sexes and genders, while poly is open to many, definitely more than two, but not all.I use this word that way too, but apparently people have been using the word Polysexual to describe what I think of as Pansexual, i.e. dating people as people regardless of gender, for years!
From how I've heard the word used, the difference between pan- and polysexual is that pan is open to dating folks of all sexes and genders, while poly is open to many, definitely more than two, but not all.
E.g., if you're not open to, say, dating transmen (for whatever reasons), but open to literally everyone else but transmen, you'd be polysexual; pans would be open to dating everyone you're open to plus open to transmen.
Yeah, labels can be confusing. I still love having them around, though... I actually like to sort myself into small boxes. Maybe I'm part cat.
This topic always surprises me when it comes up. Society in general views both polyamory and swinging as negative. It doesn't help when one group denigrates another because they fear being misrepresented by society in general.
People believing polyamory "is like" swinging is only bad when polyamorists allow those archaic and wrong beliefs to define either polyamory or swinging. There is nothing wrong or negative with wanting multiple loving relationships... and there is nothing wrong or negative about a person or a couple wanting to open their relationship sexually with or without strings.
I see so many common misconceptions in this string about swinging and it makes my heart hurt to see these misconceptions being perpetuated by another non-monogamous group. I personally love it when monogamous people share their misconceptions with me about poly or swinging because it gives me an opportunity to straighten out the misconception and it gives a human face to something most people fear.
I've known swingers who eventually ended up in a poly relationship and I've known poly people who went back to swinging. I've known unethical swingers and unethical polyamorists. I've known swingers who wholeheartedly enter into relationships and strong friendships with their swinging partners, and I've known polyamorists who have closed themselves down in specific formations. These characteristics are not inherent to one group and yet we continue to try and define (i.e. limit) these relationship types. I think that is a sad comment.
I totally agree, mmkeekah ... polys and swingers need to join hands and set the example of accepting each other. After all, both groups have the important characteristic in common of challenging the monogamous standard.
I disagree. I'm basically asexual and live in a mono-relationship, but I'm polyamory by nature. I wouldn't accept sex outside of the relationship, but I would accept other attachments (and have one myself). 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. Kind of like assuming that all mono-people also like to play football, when there really is no connection between the two.
I could not disagree more.Or.. succinctly
people who suck at mono relationships will also suck at non-mono relationships...
I could not disagree more.
Consistently failing miserably at one while totally owning the other is absolutely possible, and simply shows that one of these things is an unworkable concept that one should not give room in one's life.
For folks like me, monogamy simply is bullshit, and I won't touch it with a ten-foot pole, because I know I would ruin my life and the one of the unlucky person stuck in the mono-prison with me.
For others, it's the other way around.
And for a third group, both work more or less equally, for better or worse.
All of that's ok - people are different, sometimes fundamentally. Just don't try and mingle with the incompatible ones, relationship-wise, and you'll be ok.
I think I get your point, it's just that the way you word it makes no sense to me.You are misunderstanding the gist of what I am saying.
Relationships skills (good or bad) are universal. You are either good at relationships or not.
Whether or not you are wired for a certain type really shouldn't have a bearing on your relationship skillset.
Just the fact you know you can't do monogamy is part of that skillset. Its been a consistent observation I have made across many mediums when discussing relationships.
Of course I have no proof, and don't care to argue the point beyond what I have said. Until I see one relationship that proves otherwise. I will stick to that observation.