Biamory Clubhouse - a place for biamorists

River, are you at all worried, that in creating a new definition you dilute the already murky waters of being bi?

To clarify:
My wife & friends already have a hard enough time with one definition and it being accepted to the masses (more backlash from the gay community than anywhere), to include another definition which can create more confusion could cause more problems, not lesson them.
 
Last edited:
Ok, this is how I would describe myself as biamorous thus far...

Tell me what you think and if I am understanding...

I met a man on line about the same time I met Mono. Or just before? He met me and Nerdist met his wife. We all hit it off really well and we have all become really good friends. Our kids play together, we camp together and we spend time visiting each other often. Our families have become very close with all partners included.

I have been calling the man, who I am far more close to, my non-sexual boyfriend. For a time we were non-sexually wife swapping (NSWS :D)together. We (the man and I) would go on "dates" and there would be no sexual gratification at the end. Just a hug, a peck on the cheek and a feeling of being satisfied and loved.

The man and me have become close and hang out regularly once a month. Last month I went to his place to watch old movies, eat nachos and drink beer. We had a great time, but there was definitely that air of wanting more intimacy. It didn't happen.

My relationship with Mono and my other loves is as such that there is no option of adding another intimate friend. It would completely changed what we have and change the friendship we have with this family. So we don't go there and are content to see each other once a month to chat and sit close to one another. That's it.

I would call this a biamorous relationship as I have a similar one with my ex-wife. We are equally as close, yet not sexual for a variety of reasons. The love is definitely there, yet sex isn't.

Does this fit the definition?
 
Ariakas said:
River, are you at all worried, that in creating a new definition you dilute the already murky waters of being bi?

To clarify:
My wife & friends already have a hard enough time with one definition and it being accepted to the masses (more backlash from the gay community than anywhere), to include another definition which can create more confusion could cause more problems, not lesson them.
Click to expand...

Not at all! First of all, I discovered that the term "biamory" already existed and was in use. I didn't invent it. I was happy to discover that it was in use because it described my own erotic / amorous nature better than "bisexual". It is more accurate, for me. Lots of folks are bisexual who are not also biamorous. Biamory is one way of being bisexual, just as leaves are part of a tree, as are roots. We have several words for parts of trees: roots, branches, trunk..., and this doesn't create confusion. It clarifies.

Don't get me wrong, I LOVE SEX!. But sex without a real connection, without intimacy beyond erogenous zones of the body, is -- for me -- empty and uninteresting. But this non-intimate kind of sex is readily available, and intimate sex between men seems far, far less available. And this is so because so many self-described "bisexual" guys are only interested in a romp in the hay without real connection and open-hearted tenderness. And tenderness of this sort usually requires time to develop. And time is what isn't on offer, too often.
 
redpepper said:
Does this fit the definition?
Click to expand...

As it is generally used, the term "biamory" seems to indicate two things: (a) bisexuality and (b) ongoing ("committed") partnerships (whether monogamous or otherwise). So one could be monogamous and also biamorous. Or one could be poly and biamorous.

As for your description of your friend? Lots of people have passionate loving relationships with people they adore but with whom they have no sexual relationship. Sometimes there is "sexual tension" in this friendships, but not always. Sometimes there is cuddling and kissing -- but no genital sex. Sometimes these friends will even share a bed but not have genital sex contact. We're pretty free to do as we wish, really. And folks do. (Though they don't always tell others about it!)

Man! This reminds me how much I need cuddle partners whom I'm not being sexual with at the time! This should be considered normal and natural, I think, but society has a rough time with such. I don't know why they should, but they do.
 
River said:
Not at all! First of all, I discovered that the term "biamory" already existed and was in use. I didn't invent it. I was happy to discover that it was in use because it described my own erotic / amorous nature better than "bisexual". It is more accurate, for me. Lots of folks are bisexual who are not also biamorous. Biamory is one way of being bisexual, just as leaves are part of a tree, as are roots. We have several words for parts of trees: roots, branches, trunk..., and this doesn't create confusion. It clarifies.
Click to expand...

I deleted my response (if you happened to see it) because this explanation fits what I was looking for. I can understand it as a root tree situation. I, personally, would still think "I am a bi-sexual lover" or something similar would suffice. As bi-sexual can include everything, but as a tree setup...I get it :)...

In the world of geek the centre has been parsed out...combining two different variables into one.

bisexual polyamory
to
biamory

Thats fills my geek quota hahaha...

Don't get me wrong, I LOVE SEX!. But sex without a real connection, without intimacy beyond erogenous zones of the body, is -- for me -- empty and uninteresting. But this non-intimate kind of sex is readily available, and intimate sex between men seems far, far less available. And this is so because so many self-described "bisexual" guys are only interested in a romp in the hay without real connection and open-hearted tenderness. And tenderness of this sort usually requires time to develop. And time is what isn't on offer, too often.
Click to expand...

Understandable. As a straight guy who is poly...finding women to take to bed is "easy"...finding women to spent time with, date and be with...makes it difficult :)...

Well written River :)
 
Ariakas said:
bisexual polyamory
to
biamory

Thats fills my geek quota hahaha...
Click to expand...

Well.... I think it's important to know that not all biamorous people are also polyamorous. Some tend much more toward monogamy.

Biamorous people are those who are interested in and capable of "romantic" love with persons of both sexes. "Bisexual" used to be an adequate term, when there wasn't quite so much "casual sex" and so many "one night stands" on offer. Or these without the possibility of evolving into "romance".

I like the term "biamory" because it clearly demarks recreational sex from intimate partnerships. Once folks learn the term, well, clarity is achieved.
 
River said:
As it is generally used, the term "biamory" seems to indicate two things: (a) bisexuality and (b) ongoing ("committed") partnerships (whether monogamous or otherwise). So one could be monogamous and also biamorous. Or one could be poly and biamorous.
Click to expand...

So we would have to be committed? Hm? I'm not getting it. I am pansexual he is hetrosexual and we are both polyamorous... Does this indicate that poly is banking on people having sex in order to be different than biamorous? I seem to fit both a and b to my thinking. Our relationship does... What am I not getting?
 
redpepper said:
So we would have to be committed? Hm? I'm not getting it. I am pansexual he is hetrosexual and we are both polyamorous... Does this indicate that poly is banking on people having sex in order to be different than biamorous? I seem to fit both a and b to my thinking. Our relationship does... What am I not getting?
Click to expand...

There may be nothing in particular you're not getting. Amour is the French word for love, an intense feeling of affection.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amour

Love does not depend upon there being sexual expression. Obviously. Even intense, passionate love doesn't depend upon there being sex involved. Most people are, in this sense, probably biamorous. That is, they can love persons of both sexes.

I simply stated that most of the time the term "biamory" is used in writing or in speech it is used to refer to "romantic" love, which generally involves sex -- but not always, perhaps. (There is a tradition called "romantic frienship" which you can google for yourself.)

This stuff may ultimately be simple, but first it's a little complicated. ;)
 
I should add here that the terms "biamory" and "biamorous" arose for a particular historical reason. The reason it arose and is gaining ground in usage is that "bisexual" is now deemed by many to be an inadequate descriptor for many people's experience. Many people who are "bisexual" (sexually attracted to both sexes) are NOT amourously ("romantically") interested in both sexes. That is, they are not capable of (or, in some cases, interested in) being available to loving both sexes in a "romantic" way).

In some modern cultures at present, sexuality has come to be understood by many as a casual form of recreation, not anything involving "romantic" feelings. (Please see Craigslist Personals for examples - esp. the gay male sections.) For others, sex is held somewhat sacred, or treated with reverence (Though often in a secular sense). So there is a great tension between how some people experience their sexuality and how others do. For many, it's all good so long as there is proper reverence (respect) for persons. I'd be one of those. But it isn't always clear whose version of reverence is to be applied. Some have reverence for the power of sex to produce pleasure -- without much regard for the persons involved..., or at least without any intention of forming a truly ongoing and intimate bond. Others revere sexual sharing as a powerful adjunct to other kinds or forms of intimacy, e.g., emotional and intellectual--, or spiritual.

Anyhoo, I think the term "biamorous" is generally used to mean "bisexual" but also open to ongoing loving relations with both sexes. And I think the term grew out of a need having to do with the pervasiveness of casual sex in the culture. It is intended to distinguish entirely different "love styles".

===

One additional thought:

It seems to me that most people who understand and prefer the term "biamory" (when it is appropriate to the situation) are of the kind that prioritizes amour (love) over sex, and therefore somewhat resent the emphasis on something many folks engage in without any loving whatsoever (which is embodied in the term "bisexual") This, however, doesn't mean that everyone who prefers to stick with the term "bisexual" are not also biamorous. Some folks just hope to be understood despite the near ubiquity of casual sex in the culture.
 
Last edited:
okay, biamorous is loving both genders... bisexual is having sex with both genders?

romantic friendship is totally different?

I can see how this would come about. Just yesterday Mono's student who is gay told him he didn't believe in bisexuality in terms of men loving women and men, but being able and willing and desirous of having sex with both. He just could not get past his biphobia. My Nerdist is truly able to love both... I am am too.
 
Every time I see this thread title, I think of people who simply have two lovers. There's nothing in it to indicate whether those involved are gay, straight, or bi. When I was involved with my wife and a girlfriend and nobody else, I was biamorous--and I'm strongly heterosexual.

When speaking of sexuality, relationship style is divorced. "Gay" doesn't indicate mono or poly, nor does "straight" or "bisexual." Those terms speak solely to sexual attraction. Likewise, "monogamous" and "polyamorous" don't speak to sexual orientation.

I'd say it's going to be extremely difficult to find a set of terms that would cover both, and "biamorous" on the face of it, speaks only to relationship style.

Furthermore, as there are bisexual folks who aren't necessarily poly, one can't automatically tie sexuality and relationship style together for bi folk. I know serial monogamists who are bi and bi folk who fuck around and don't engage in romantic relationships with most of their sex partners.

I'd love to hear a set of terms that could describe all of the permutations and I've no problem with accepting a different term to cover bisexuality. "Pansexual" has its problems--seems to imply attraction to all animal life forms--though I can certainly live with it.
 
I appreciate your input in this topic, AT, and agree that the term "biamory" may be problematic prior to explanation (few words really do explain themselves!), but it really looks to me that you have not read most of the posts which explain why biamory is a good term which is, indeed, useful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top