Gay, Bi-, Queer Polyamory

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
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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~
 
Last edited:
*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
 
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.]
 
What I desire is a word that means "bi-amorous," but which rolls off the tongue better, and sounds better.

I understand and basically agree with what you're getting at. A term like "biamoruous" would at first glance be quite unambiguous. Good.
Not sure there isn't such a term - or similar. Problem being this is a binary term in a non-binary world.
Unfortunately for myself, as I read up & think on such subjects trying to understand and better educate myself, it seems we have to now also deal with how we can encompass the .....transgendered community. If that's even the right term. Things were simpler when we primarily had to deal
sexual identity as it stood - biologically. Now we are seeing an explosion where many people's sexuality cannot really be defined biologically - i.e that we don't just have gay or lesbian to incorporate but folks who are physically one gender but emotionally & psychologically the opposite.
So to encompass all combinations it seems we need to adopt a term such as "panamourous" ? Or polyamorous? But as you say, "panamorous" doesn't flow real well off the tongue. But while writing this I searched and discovered that someone else seems to have already coined the term. Ahhhhhhh - learning every day !

http://www.xeromag.com/fvpolyglossary.html#vee

So now - do you have to identify as a polyamorist panamorous ? Damn humans are complicated !
 
Last edited:
I was surprised to see a LOT of usage of the term "biamorous" when I googled it. It seems to be in wide usage in polyamory discourse, as well.

"http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=biamorous&rlz=1W1SKPB_en&aq=f&oq=&aqi="

"Panamorous" is also apparently being used, but with more vagueness than biamorous, so far as I can tell from a quick look at usages. Panamorous is a prettier word than biamorous, but only barely. I think that the usefulness of biamorous and biamory, along with it's actual usage in discourse, makes it palatable enough, after all. I'll be describing myself as biamorous until a prettier word comes along. From this moment forward, I am no longer describing myself as "bisexual". I'm biamorous and polyamorous.
 
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.]


Ah I see. I am still not sure what you see the term "bisexual" describing. What you describe sounds similar to what others describe when speaking of the word polyamorous and why they use it. What would be the difference between the words polyamorous and biamorous for you?

~Raven~
 
What would be the difference between the words polyamorous and biamorous for you?
~Raven~

Some self-described bisexuals are also biamorous, but many are not. A bisexual person may be monoamorous! That is, he or she may be sexually attracted to a person of the same (or opposite) sex, but not amorously
attracted -- or even capable!

Jack may like to have sex with other guys, but can only have a "romantic" relationship with women. Jack is monoamorous. Jill, on the other hand, is both sexually and amorously attracted (and capable) with both sexes -- male and female. Jill is biamorous.

John likes to have sex with both men and women, but has no interest in "full spectrum intimacy". For John, sex is a pleasurable form of recreation which has no relation to other kinds of intimacy, e.g., intimate talk, sharing feelings, expressing and exploring the mysteries together.... John just wants to have some "hot" sex and call it an evening. John is not amorous at all. He's bisexual without any biamory.

Tanya is biamorous, but also describes herself as asexual. She has passionate loving relationships with men and women which involve all aspects of intimacy except sex, per se. Tanya is biamorous, but not bisexual. She is also polyamorous and asexual.

====

The point of the term "biamory" is to emphasize that sex isn't at the core of loving relationships--, not even passionate ones. Sure, most biamorous people are also bisexual. But not all bisexuals are biamorous!

Our language should reflect these differences. After all, pretty much everything else in the world has a proper name which distinguishes varieties.
 
I understand and basically agree with what you're getting at. A term like "biamoruous" would at first glance be quite unambiguous. Good.
Not sure there isn't such a term - or similar. Problem being this is a binary term in a non-binary world.
Unfortunately for myself, as I read up & think on such subjects trying to understand and better educate myself, it seems we have to now also deal with how we can encompass the .....transgendered community. If that's even the right term. Things were simpler when we primarily had to deal
sexual identity as it stood - biologically. Now we are seeing an explosion where many people's sexuality cannot really be defined biologically - i.e that we don't just have gay or lesbian to incorporate but folks who are physically one gender but emotionally & psychologically the opposite.
So to encompass all combinations it seems we need to adopt a term such as "panamourous" ? Or polyamorous? But as you say, "panamorous" doesn't flow real well off the tongue. But while writing this I searched and discovered that someone else seems to have already coined the term. Ahhhhhhh - learning every day !

http://www.xeromag.com/fvpolyglossary.html#vee

So now - do you have to identify as a polyamorist panamorous ? Damn humans are complicated !

If I have to use words, I use the term "pansexual" to describe what sexual attraction feels like to me (as I use polyamorous to describe the knowledge that I want more than one relationship). I don't recognize two genders. I believe there are far more than that and could possibly be impossible to categorize. It is more than gender. It is more than sight; seeing a person and being attracted. There are many mediums through which such attraction can be felt. Sound, touch, the written word.

It's not all that complicated :p But perhaps intricate. A little time to learn where the threads interweave and intersect for different people.

~Raven~
 
Ooops! I didn't answer the question properly. Sorry.

The question was about my way of describing the difference between polyamory and biamory.

Here's my answer -- for the moment.:

Polyamory is a term describing a particular sort of non-monogamous relationship or relationship style.

Polyamorous people can be heteroamorous, biamorous, or homoamorous. They may also be homo-, bi-, or hetero- sexual. Not all bisexual people are also biamorous. Etc.

Some biamorous people are also polyamorous (e.g., myself), but not all of them -- by any means. One can be biamorous and staunchly monogamous. Biamorous folks are romantically attracted to both sexes. Polyamorous people are open to multiple, simultanious romantic relationships which are rooted in honesty.
 
Last edited:
The point of the term "biamory" is to emphasize that sex isn't at the core of loving relationships--, not even passionate ones. Sure, most biamorous people are also bisexual. But not all bisexuals are biamorous!

Our language should reflect these differences. After all, pretty much everything else in the world has a proper name which distinguishes varieties.

*grins* I understand your perspective on it now. Your examples were helpful. I'd get what you mean when you use the terms where I wouldn't have previously.

I wouldn't use them in this way myself but I'd understand you and the view behind it.

~Raven~
 
Ooops! I didn't answer the question properly. Sorry.

The question was about my way of describing the difference between polyamory and biamory.

Here's my answer -- for the moment.:

Polyamory is a term describing a particular sort of non-monogamous relationship or relationship style.

Polyamorous people can be heteroamorous, biamorous, or homoamorous. They may also be homo-, bi-, or hetero- sexual. Not all bisexual people are also biamorous. Etc.

Some biamorous people are also polyamrous (e.g., myself), but not all of them -- by any means. One can be biamorous and staunchly monogamous. Biamorous folks are romantically attracted to both sexes. Polyamorous people are open to multiple, simultanious romantic relationships which are rooted in honesty.

LoL, don't worry. I actually came to that conclusion from what you were saying in the examples. Based on your reasoning, though the portion of the word '-amorous' is the same, they mean different things and a person can be biamorous and polyamorous.

I also understand the distinction you're making between being able to have a sexual relationship and being able to have a romantic relationship with people based on a binary gender system.

~Raven~
 

I wouldn't use them in this way myself but I'd understand you and the view behind it.

====

It's difficult to guage how useful others might find these terms. But I have strong personal reasons for advocating for some multiplication of terminology. These reasons have much to do with being male as well as bi, and also American.

It seems to me that here in the USA there are a great many closeted queers. (Please don't make me define "queer"!) Many of the closet cases are homo- or bisexual, but are not (yet!) homo- or bi- amorous. For this reason, they are not available for homo- or bi- amorous relationships. But it is most difficult (at the initial stages of getting to know them) to know which is which -- and this difficulty is exacerbated by their own lack of self-knowledge and honesty -- and the fact that many simply don't know what love (amorousness) is, or conflate it with sex.

These days, a lot of folks find potential partners by posting personals ads online, or by coming together with common interest/networking groups, face to face. There are bi, gay, and hetero- meeting places, e.g., bars, clubs.... There are internet forums. There are social groups..., and all of these use names to designate what's going on, who's interested or available for what.

Many bi-, homo- and hetero- amorous folks don't want to mix a lot with those who are only interested in, or capable of, recreational sex. Etc.
 
Last edited:
====

It's difficult to guage how useful others might find these terms. But I have strong personal reasons for advocating for some multiplication of terminology. These reasons have much to do with being male as well as bi, and also American.

....

Many bi-, homo- and hetero- amorous folks don't want to mix a lot with those who are only interested in, or capable of, recreational sex. Etc.

I understand the purpose, as you're proposing it, behind the word bi-amorous.

The reason I wouldn't use it myself has to do with my take on binaries as well as my preference for just saying what I mean and/or what I want, and clarifying if need be.

If I found that within the relationships I was having, there was an expectation for sex to be more prevalent than I wanted it to be because I self-identified as bisexual (which I did, up until I didn't), I'd simply start stating right off the bat "I am looking for a relationship with elements A, B and C, and actions A,B, and C and sex is not very high on my list at the moment. Are you looking for the same thing?"

I don't find it necessary for everyone to use the same word meaning the exact same thing in order to be understood or in order for me to understand another person.

I didn't have a clue what you were getting at with the bi-amorous bit. I asked a few questions and now I understand your perspective. It's not for me but it's not necessary for me to agree in order to understand.

I could define what "queer" means for me as well. It's not that much effort for me. Even if it was, it would be effort well spent in my opinion.

~Raven~
 
Back
Top