Polyamory.com Forum  

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

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 04-01-2012, 08:54 PM
nycindie's Avatar
nycindie nycindie is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The Big Apple
Posts: 7,104
Default

Polyamory is consensual; therefore cheating is not polyamory. I hope you won't mess up this thread with another one of your cockamamie arguments. This has been a great discussion thus far.
__________________
The world opens up... when you do.

Oh, oh, can't you see? Love is the drug for me. ~Bryan Ferry
"Love is that condition in which another person's happiness is essential to your own." ~Robert Heinlein

Last edited by nycindie; 04-01-2012 at 09:30 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 04-02-2012, 07:52 AM
DomGeek's Avatar
DomGeek DomGeek is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: virginia beach va
Posts: 7
Default

My apologies I did not realize that my post gave that impression.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 04-02-2012, 11:32 AM
Scott's Avatar
Scott Scott is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: near Toronto, Canada -.-
Posts: 237
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nycindie View Post
Polyamory is consensual; therefore cheating is not polyamory.
The 2 root words in polyamory are poly, which is many and amor, which is love. There is no word in there for consensual. I'm not saying that polyamory -shouldn't- be consensual, only that it doesn't have to be defined that way, and in a few cases, it isn't. I have heard the argument that you can't love someone if you're cheating on them; it's an argument I've never believed, but you're welcome to believe this if you like.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nycindie View Post
I hope you won't mess up this thread with another one of your cockamamie arguments. This has been a great discussion thus far.
Insulting someone says more about the person doing the insulting then the person being insulted. As to the quality of this discussion, I believe a good discussion involves diverse points of view, and that it has.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 04-02-2012, 06:34 PM
nycindie's Avatar
nycindie nycindie is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The Big Apple
Posts: 7,104
Default

Scott, you are on my ignore list so I don't usually see your posts anymore, but I looked this time because AutumnalTone had responded to you. This thread is about friends with benefits and casual relationships and how they relate to being poly. This subject is important to more than a few of us. I really don't see how getting on your soapbox about how you see cheating as poly (when clearly it is not) will add any value to the discussion.

I was not insulting you, I was stating my feelings. You are a thread killer.

If you want to argue about how cheating is poly, like you argue that prostitution is poly, why not start your own thread about that?


PS - If you want to know who Morning Glory Zell-Ravenheart is, you can Google her or look up "polyamory" in Wikipedia. For all the research you do to support your ideas about prostitution, it is rather odd you never researched polyamory enough to know the name AT was referencing.
__________________
The world opens up... when you do.

Oh, oh, can't you see? Love is the drug for me. ~Bryan Ferry
"Love is that condition in which another person's happiness is essential to your own." ~Robert Heinlein

Last edited by nycindie; 04-02-2012 at 06:54 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 04-02-2012, 08:51 PM
Scott's Avatar
Scott Scott is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: near Toronto, Canada -.-
Posts: 237
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nycindie View Post
Scott, you are on my ignore list so I don't usually see your posts anymore, but I looked this time because AutumnalTone had responded to you.
If that's the way you want it, so be it. I've heard that what you just did (write a strongly worded post and then saying that you're ignoring the person you're responding to) is a great way to kill a discussion, but I simply respond anyway; while you may never read this, others may.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nycindie View Post
This thread is about friends with benefits and casual relationships and how they relate to being poly.
Agreed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nycindie View Post
This subject is important to more than a few of us. I really don't see how getting on your soapbox about how you see cheating as poly (when clearly it is not)
Just had to add your view on this didn't you :-p?

Quote:
Originally Posted by nycindie View Post
will add any value to the discussion.
Perhaps you are unaware that friends with benefits can cheat, just like anyone else? Or do you think that they can't, simply because they're "casual" relationships? Well, we may never know your view, but I welcome anyone else to give their own view on that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nycindie View Post
I was not insulting you, I was stating my feelings.
As if you couldn't insult someone while stating your feelings. Anyway, you find someone who thinks that "cockamamie arguments" is a compliment, you let me know.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nycindie View Post
You are a thread killer.
For some, apparently. For others, I provide food for thought.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nycindie View Post
If you want to argue about how cheating is poly, like you argue that prostitution is poly, why not start your own thread about that?
Because I don't think that "cheating is poly". I think that people who at times cheat can still be classified as poly, atleast by some people who define themselves as poly. You clearly aren't one of them, and I respect that. I personally don't -like- cheating; I wish that no one felt the need to cheat, that they could just come out to everyone they love and say what they're doing with their love lives, but this isn't the case at present.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nycindie View Post
PS - If you want to know who Morning Glory Zell-Ravenheart is, you can Google her or look up "polyamory" in Wikipedia. For all the research you do to support your ideas about prostitution, it is rather odd you never researched polyamory enough to know the name AT was referencing.
I have certainly googled polyamory in the past, and actually read some of the polyamory article on wikipedia; Morning Glory simply wasn't something that I read about at the time. I've now googled up Morning Glory herself and came up with her wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morning...ell-Ravenheart

Interesting, but while she may be written an article with one of the "first[citation needed] modern English uses of the term "polyamory"", this doesn't mean that she's the only person who gets to define the word.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 04-18-2012, 02:47 PM
MeeraReed MeeraReed is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: East Coast, U.S.
Posts: 348
Default

Thanks, everyone, for your comments on this.

(Except for the cheating thread, which doesn't belong here).

Very glad to hear from some kindred spirits about these issues. Thanks, Nycindie, Feelyunicorn, Cleo, and others.

Regarding labels: I don't think I'm hung up on labels. In fact, I find it a little frustrating when people say (about various things), "Oh, that's just labels."

I don't think the distinction between a boyfriend and a lover is just a label. There are reasons that I want one or more lovers rather than one or more boyfriends. But I am struggling to define and articulate exactly what those reasons are and exactly what I should call what I'm looking for.

Sure, labels are only the terms you use to explain your thoughts/situation to other people, but I do need those labels in order to communicate with others!

I did notice something interesting on this thread: most of the responders who are in stable, permanent relationships seem to be less concerned with labels than the responders who are still looking, still unsure what will make them most happy dating-wise, and still on OKCupid.

(Which doesn't mean that people are happier when they give up preoccupation with labels, only that labels become less important when you've found what you're looking for and can define it for yourself).

I'm definitely in the latter category! Still looking! Still confused about labels!

One of the reasons I started this thread was to figure out how to explain what I'm looking for on my OKCupid profile. And then how to explain it further on dates, in relationships, etc.

There are other cool thoughts in this thread that I will respond to when I have more free time. Thanks!
__________________
Single, straight, female, solo, non-monogamous.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 04-18-2012, 04:22 PM
feelyunicorn feelyunicorn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Brazil
Posts: 151
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MeeraReed View Post

Very glad to hear from some kindred spirits about these issues. Thanks, Nycindie, Feelyunicorn, Cleo, and others.

Regarding labels: I don't think I'm hung up on labels. In fact, I find it a little frustrating when people say (about various things), "Oh, that's just labels."
Thank you.

I use specific labels as a starting point in networking with others who may have similar interests. But those labels are also subject to adjustments and differences in degree.

I avoid online dating services these days, but I still need to communicate my relationship goals effectively.
__________________
Independent, sex-positive, bi-curious, private, atheist, elitist, athletic dude.

Last edited by feelyunicorn; 04-18-2012 at 04:25 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 08-13-2012, 06:21 PM
nycindie's Avatar
nycindie nycindie is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The Big Apple
Posts: 7,104
Default

Oh, Meera, I've been meaning to PM you. I think we are such kindred spirits in our approaches to non-monogamy. Some developments happening for me, would love your opinion - I will write you.
__________________
The world opens up... when you do.

Oh, oh, can't you see? Love is the drug for me. ~Bryan Ferry
"Love is that condition in which another person's happiness is essential to your own." ~Robert Heinlein
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 08-13-2012, 08:04 PM
LovingRadiance's Avatar
LovingRadiance LovingRadiance is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Alaska
Posts: 5,086
Default

I didn't read the whole thread-

and I tend (at this time in life) to prefer the "full on, full time, live together, everything shared" relationships.

HOWEVER-that doesn't mean that other types of relationships are 'legitimate'.

My boyfriend and I were FWB for over 10 years!!! We had no intention during that time of taking it further. We loved each other as friends, we had great sex on rare occasion.

Circumstances unexpectedly changed and now we're living together with my husband and co-parenting the kids.

Don't sell yourself short with unnecessary limitations.
Just because SOMEONE thinks FWB is "casual" or "too casual" for them-doesn't mean it has to be for YOU.


Just be sure that instead of discussing labels with potentials-you clearly state what you want (and don't want) from a relationship with them RIGHT NOW (no one can predict the future-it could change tomorow, ten years from now or never).

__________________
"Love As Thou Wilt"
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 08-16-2012, 10:12 PM
zusammen zusammen is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 12
Default Love this!

Hi all,

I'm not much of a poster, but I read frequently. I love this whole topic, because I see myself as poly in more casual ways. Sometimes it's hard to find personally relevant topics on here as so many people seem to have a number of serious relationships, or are involved in triads or the like.

I love the spontaneous, noncommittal "hook ups". Some might call this casual sex, but for me there is meaning in it. It's having a connection and being able to act on it.

Someone questioned the possibility of "friends in public, affection in private". Honestly, I do have that. For me it's because I have a "primary" I've been with for 2 and half years, and 2 "boyfriends". When I go out with the primary (I'll call him Sax), I don't want to be seen as part of a "unit", or have people assume things about us because of our relation to each other. So, generally, we don't engage in PDA - which is not a rule, but a preference (we're just not "couply" types of people).

If, on the very odd occasion, more than one of my "boyfriends" will be in the same place at the same time, the understanding is that I'm not with one of them more than the other(s) - so this means no real PDA with any of them, ie, we're all out as friends.

On a side note, and I hope someone can identify with me on this... I also like to see myself as solo, unattached, independent... my ideal would be ultimately uncommitted relationships. However, after so much time being with Sax, I inevitably am in a "relationship". I don't want to not be with Sax, nor impose artificial restrictions... Is anyone else in a similar situation? How do you deal with the unintended seriousness that simply comes with time?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
casual relationships, casual sex, friends, friends with benefits, lover-friends, sex, sport sex

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 08:24 AM.