Search results

Huge difference for me between real life and virtual contact. I'm pretty much worthless with interactions in meatspace. (So yup, I'm that oddball who voted in the lowest category. Different cities, or even countries, is a wee tad over arm's length... ;):p) In virtual spaces (chat, phone, etc.)...

This. *nods* Describes me to a T - I can be happy alone, I can be happy with one partner or with several partners; however, I know that I cannot be happy in a mono/closed relationship, for lack-of-autonomy reasons. If I'm with one partner - as I currently am and have been for 5 1/2 years - is...

NSA = no strings attached ETA... the only meanings of that I know are "edit(ed) to add", and "estimated time of arrival". No idea if there's any poly-specific third meaning of it. :confused:

Agreed 100%. Awesome to see someone else seeing it that way, because for the most part I get flack from conservatives and liberals both when I propose that my ideal approach to a) marriage and b) equality in legal benefits for all kinds of 'ships is "rigorously unmix these two concepts, and keep...

Far less shunned/badmouthed/prejudiced against - yes, I dearly hope so, and I think that hope has a reasonably good chance to become reality. Which would go along with poly/open arrangements becoming a lot more visible and commonplace, both IRL and in depictions all across the media. Much more...

I find that definition sadly lacking, focused way too much on sex. Having, or even wanting to have, sex with anybody is not a requirement to be polyamorous. While we're at the OED... it's fascinating how the definitions for polyamory differ between OED American English and OED British and World...

I'd actually say that neither mono nor poly is all that different from FWB, if the 'ship(s) in question is/are healthy. The exact type of benefits can vary. I can't relate to why some folks say FWB as if it's a bad/inferior thing, or as if it were synonymous with "fuck buddy" (worlds of...

Huh. Seems like big swathes of the US are - on paper, at least - half a century behind the sitch across the Big Pond. :eek: Cohabitation, no matter how many people are involved, isn't a legal issue at all over here in Germany (with the exception of applying for welfare and similar social...

"Relationship" is just a label. I don't see it as inherently meaning much else than "close friendship" - whatever other details are involved are to be filled by the folks in it, and can and do vary wildly from case to case. As for love - I'd define it simply as accepting someone the way they...

The first one is the only question I tend to hear at all. I guess it's a cultural thing that makes me think "who would ever ask #2 or #3 instead of just asking #1?" I just answer yes (or "that's not the word we use, but yes"). If they want more details, then I'm fine with talking about them...

I wonder for how many folks it's like it's for me - "always open, never actively looking". :)

I've been using "gals" for decades... and was pretty surprised to hear that it's rated as outdated/unusual by native speakers (only about a year ago). But I may as well be generally out of touch. ;) Hehe, I've picked up "dudette" from R. five years ago or somesuch; I could hardly imagine going...

"No monogamy" is part of the talk that I consider necessary to have by the first date, at the very latest. People who want any kind of mono/closed thing simply aren't compatible with me, because I will not ever agree to that... and the sooner that incompatibility gets noted, the sooner we can...

Phone/chat sex and "ERP"ing are the only forms of sex that are 100% safe from all health risks. ;) Beyond that... well, you'll have to decide for yourself (together with any and all potential sex partners of yours, obviously) what's a reasonably small degree of risk-taking for you. I'm kinda...

Yes, it can work. Works pretty fine between R. and me (I'm asexual, she's not); there has never been a sexual component to our 'ship - going five and a half years now, and around a year and a half into it we've both come to accept that there appears to simply be no workable common ground...

This, basically. :) While I kinda do agree with how london put it - "a very open and liberal style of polyamory" - there's only so far you can go in that 'liberalism' before lots of poly folks will start telling you how "you got it all wrong, that's not poly, it's XYZ". One of the things I keep...

The symbol has another layer of awesome for those (like me) who are asexual on top of the poly-related anarchism. :D

In my case... no kids (ever, period), no job (highly likely to remain a case of "ever", too). Too little time is just about the least of my concerns - it's an abundant and renewable resource to me. ;)

Meh... I have tons of pretty strict limits, but they limit what kind of relationship a partner can have with me (and lead to very very few folks being partner-compatible with me... which I can live with just fine :)), not what kind of relationship they can have with their other partners. No...

*raises hand* I started subscribing to a philosophical view that I would later learn already existed and was called "polyamory" in my late teens, thinking about the question "What is love?" (And no, the answer isn't "Baby, don't hurt me." :p) My first actual relationship, however, didn't happen...