Biamory Clubhouse - a place for biamorists

River

River

Well-known member
Biamorists have traditionally been called by the term "bisexual," but this term is starting to lose favor among some of us. I'm one who wishes to cease using "bisexual" as a self-describing term. From this moment forward, I am no longer "bisexual". I'm biamorous. Until a prettier word comes along that more aptly describes my amory orientation.

Likewise, I am refusing to play the sexual orientation game -- because sexual activity, per se, is no more aptly descriptive (or central) of/to my amorousness than a loving look or kind, affectionate speech -- or a walk in the park.

Yes, I'm attracted to both sexes in a "sexual" way, but that's not central to what it's like to BE biamorous, and so "bisexual" is just not an apt description of the EXPERIENCE of biamory -- which is more about affection, love, and what I call "full spectrum intimacy" --
intimacy involving a wide variety of intimacy types, e.g., emotional, verbal, sensual, intellectual.... Full spectrum intimacy may include sexual expression, but can hardly be aptly defined by sex--as terms like "heterosexual," "homosexual," and "bisexual" do.

I doubt that many people enjoy sex, per se, more than I do! But sex is not at the center of my life or of my relationships.

Welcome, biamorists!

http://www.polyamory.com/forum/showpost.php?p=19320&postcount=52
 
I learned the term "heteroflexible" yesterday and that describes me pretty much. :p

I think maybe I don't like the term biamorous for one reason. When pertaining to sexual interest in both genders, it implies a connection between sex and love. I have that connection personally, sex and intimacy go hand in hand for me, but not everybody has that.

Maybe you should just be "amorous" and love whomever you want. Labels are silly. :p
 
DrunkenPorcupine said:
I think maybe I don't like the term biamorous for one reason. When pertaining to sexual interest in both genders, it implies a connection between sex and love. I have that connection personally, sex and intimacy go hand in hand for me, but not everybody has that.
Click to expand...

Which is precisely why I think we who are biamorous should embrace that term, to distinguish ourselves from the merely bisexual. That is, to distinguish "just sex" and NSA "No Strings Attached" adventurers from the amorous erotic adventurors. There's no need to have judgements about it. It's just a matter of preference or orientation, I guess. Let them (the bisexuals) keep that term if it suits them. No problem. But now I know what tribe I belong to, and it needs a name. Has a name.
 
It appears that there are two definitions of "heteroflexible" afoot. I'm curious which kind DP might be.

====

Definition: A heteroflexible is a person who is straight but has a queer sensibility. They usually have lots of gay friends, identify with gay and lesbian culture and work for gay and lesbian rights.

An alternate definition of heteroflexible is heterosexually-identified person who is not opposed to having a same-sex experience.

http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/otherfunstuff/g/Heteroflexible.htm
 
An alternate definition of heteroflexible is heterosexually-identified person who is not opposed to having a same-sex experience.
Click to expand...

This one. I posted just a few minutes ago about attractiveness in my eyes being tied to personalities and not looks. I sort of see gender in that as well.

I identify as straight but I don't control who I love. I could potentially love another man, and could potentially have sex with someone I love. :p

So, the second definition.

Which is precisely why I think we who are biamorous should embrace that term, to distinguish ourselves from the merely bisexual
Click to expand...

Okay, fair enough. When I read the OP description, it seemed as if they were replacement terms with different emphasis.
 
Looks don't decide who I may love, but they do play some role in whether I find someone sexually desirable. But it's just "some role". If someone's spirit is sexy to me, that counts for a lot!

Email me your picture! :p
 
Reviewing the prior thread it seems to illustrate a couple very valid points.
Although for myself, I tend to 'operate' more in line with Raven's approach of having the deeper, explanatory conversations rather than hanging on a particular term I also recognize River's very valid point that there are areas of life - be it social venues, publications etc where it's either impractical or impossible to have those in-depth conversations but still a need to get a feel for what that particular venue will be comprised of or targeting. Therefore a legitimate need for a terminology shortcut.

I totally support the need for clear terminology that can represent not only what our 'love' preferences are, but separately what or 'sexual' preferences are.

So I'm still grinning about the term 'pansexual' - with visions of fuzzy sheep and little green aliens who have stopped by for a visit all piled into one bed. Woooooooo Hooooooooo

Seems language again is evolving to meets the needs and the reality of the human condition :)

GS
 
oh labels, labels, labels

labels I see as being good for very minor short inadequate firt glimspes into our personal world by an outsider, but yes I'd love it if we all took more time to simply get to know each other and see where we fit together if we do instead of forcing labels that barely scratch on describing the people we are

some of these I've heard before "heteroflexible" - which I kinda figured meant you were straight but at least not positioned at "no way in hell" on the possibility of same sex fun, wether it be full on sex or just small touching or something

I've also heard "pansexual" used before, and I don't care for it, simply the sound of it, makes it sound like you want to make out with threes or something, just very odd to me, but it was not well defined by said person using it in my presence

in an ideal world, we could all simply be us and stop having to use these inadequate terms to describe ourselves and simply love whom we do and let the feeling sbe returned or not as the other feels, I much prefer getting to know someone and figuring out where we fit together and how our relationship will move forward based on what we both want and are willing to take if we can't have exactly what we want, only problem with that is 'you quieter types' (as a general term for quieter folks whom seem harder to figure out) who seem to not always make it clear if your happy in friendville or are not opposed to perhaps moving farther and seeing what may lie ahead

why can't we all just say, hey I love this person here, this one over there, and him too, and also her, and this lovely indivudual, and hey if you wanna label me soemhting, well okay, but i'm gonna be over here doing my thing, living my life, so call me whatever you like, i'm busy living my life
 
vampiresscammy said:
in an ideal world, we could all simply be us and stop having to use these inadequate terms to describe ourselves
Click to expand...
Totally agree with you! I feel that there are only limited times when labels are of value.

If you are trying to build a community, sometimes labels are important in order for folks to be able to find you using search engine keywords and the like, but even then they can be a huge impediment when people in the group define a term radically different from others and can't agree on any sort of unified approach (which I have found to my cost). Also, if you are looking for some sort of acknowledgment of legal standing, then I feel that definitions may be important (the judicial system relies on them, in fact). But other than that? I really don't care what label someone uses or how they "self-identify" - I see them as a unique person first and want to get to know them as such, rather than saying "oh, you don't self-identify as X - I only get along with people who are X" or anything like that.

@River: Check out the "Community" link in the menu, and then pick "Social Groups" - you could form a "Biamory" social group that people could find and join, long after this thread has dropped down out of sight beyond the first page.
 
Last edited:
GroundedSpirit said:
So I'm still grinning about the term 'pansexual' - with visions of fuzzy sheep and little green aliens who have stopped by for a visit all piled into one bed. Woooooooo Hooooooooo
Click to expand...

To me pansexual sounds rather pagan, as if someone were only interested in Pan, the Greek god of the sheep flock.

"Pan was depicted as a man with the horns, legs and tail of a goat, and with thick beard, snub nose and pointed ears. " http://www.theoi.com/Georgikos/Pan.html

I guess I would have a better chance if I were a nymph as pan likes to date them... could they possibly be nymphamorous perhaps or nymphsexuals. :D:p

So my question is would I be panamourous if I consider myself pansexual and wanted to identify with the love in my heart rather than sexual preference?
 
JonnyAce said:
i noticed the 3 extra "o"s there, instead of just the 1, and only 1 that's needed. very interesting :D
Click to expand...

Very observant...I'll keep an eye on those naughty "oooos"..don't they know there is a one letter limit?....must be the poly alphabet :)
 
"I think heterosexual, homosexual and bisexual etc are just fine as referents to SEXual orientation (ie. who you have or had sexual attraction to), in fact, I prefer when this usage is done exclusively. If you want a set of terms to refer to love, use homoamory, heteroamory and biamory etc. I am a homoamorus bisexual, for example. I have had attraction to men and women at some time or another, but only love men."

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080707190043AAB0eG8

So others agree..., not all "bisexuals" are biamorous. Perhaps a neologism is called for.

Most of these people have very little clue what the hell they are talking about!:

http://www.okcupid.com/forum?tid=6319390891115628378&low=65

Allow me to provide a clue to/for the perplexed.:

a. Love is not the same thing as sex.

b. Sex with love may be the most freaking mind-blowing thing you cannot imagine!

c. Fucking someone doesn't mean you love them.

d. Loving someone doesn't mean you are fucking them.

e. Yes, some people really do love people!

f. Send a self-addressed stamped envelope and three thousand dollars to..., and I'll provide you with a "free" clue. Just pay shipping and handling.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Regardless of the label applied (although, for the record, "biamorous" or "panamourous" really feel like repetitive terms).. if you're bi or pansexual, you're interested in relations with either/any gender identification.. if you're open to relations with them, you're most likely open to relationSHIPs with them. I for one can't be bothered to have sex with someone I don't care at least a little about, so I don't see the difference between, for example, "bisexual" and "biamorous".. if I want to sleep with you, I probably like you, and possibly could love you.. if I like you, it's entirely possible that I might want to sleep with you, and if I love you, that possibility goes up exponentially.
THAT BEING SAID.. I would absolutely invite you to identify however you are most comfortable.. the value of "labels" is their ability to transmit larger amounts of information in a smaller, more concise way. Therefore, we choose and invent labels to avoid longer explanations and try to reduce confusion. I'm not big on them.. but I am always interested in hearing them, in an attempt to understand that person.
Being married to a self-proclaimed pansexual polyamorous lesbian who's chosen to marry hetero... (yes, it makes sense.. she chose me specifically, as a human, not as a gender.. she still believes that if it were not for me she'd be dating/in relationships with women only, and just occasionally enjoying the company of a man, but not in relationships with them.. and she'd still desire other female lovers too.. wow.. see? complex).
This has the benefit of helping one understand the value of short forms. Hearing her explain to someone her life theories is sometimes unbelievably complicated.. as you can see.
I think the only real drawback is when people mistake the label as "the last word" or misunderstand them.. or even deliberately misrepresent them. (Like when people say bisexuals are just confused.. bull) It's a hint about someone, a starting point.. eventually, humans can only be understood by taking their complexity into account.

Apply or wear labels as you wish.. do so justly and without malice.. they do have some value.. even if they're only a starting point to a greater understanding.
 
Thunderlizard said:
........if you're open to relations with them, you're most likely open to relationSHIPs with them. I for one can't be bothered to have sex with someone I don't care at least a little about, so I don't see the difference between, for example, "bisexual" and "biamorous".. if I want to sleep with you, I probably like you, and possibly could love you.. if I like you, it's entirely possible that I might want to sleep with you, and if I love you, that possibility goes up exponentially.
Click to expand...

Yea - as you can see here, labels often are just an important part of people trying to understand and define themselves.

Lizard and River's different (but in the end similar) perspectives on the connection between love & sex are probably the biggest divides in perspectives of people on a wide scale.

River sees (the potential) for sex and love to stand alone OR combine.

Lizard still pretty much connects the two, so sees no need for any differentiation.

So to Lizard I would just remind that although that's your personal view, there ARE people out there in the world that ARE comfortable being sexual with the either gender in a particular setting, but are incapable of forming any true bond with one of those genders. And there are those that are capable of forming deep bonds with either gender but incapable of being sexual with one or the other (or both!).

So for those trying to sort out their own sexuality & amorous feelings it gives a method of distinction. And for others who understand these complexities a word speaks volumes.

GS
 
Actually I didn't firmly connect the two directly... I said "most likely" and that it's "possible". I would, if pressed, even insert "often" into that thought.
Obviously there are individuals unique in their outlook in every demographic.
I live with one every day.. I thank the stars for her uniqueness.
I agree that there may be instances where sex and love stand alone, and / or combine.

However, my point was intended more to be about the labels.. and that "heterosexual" doesn't have a balancing "heteroamorous" definition.. it's understood that it's not all about the sex.. it implies orientation, preference, or bias towards the opposite gender, so the terms may refer to either a preference for sexual partner gender, a preference for love interest gender, or both, or neither. (Although, if neither, the application of any label would seem superfluous).
The term "pansexual" , for instance, is most often used to describe someone who cares not about gender, gender identification, or lack thereof.. in their ROMANTIC interests, not their sexual interests. They care simply that you're human. And actually, if you speak to a pansexually identified person.. they are often pretty insistent that you're human... really! Sheep and aliens are most often disqualified from being loved on a romantic OR sexual level (unless the alien is really cute, in which case some special dispensation may be issued). Those who love sheep have thier own labels. I'm not going NEAR that issue.
However, I know several pansexuals.. and those individuals assure me that it's about the ability to LOVE anyone they meet, no matter who that person is or how they gender identify, that counts. Sleeping with that person will follow or not, depending on how the interpersonal part develops.

I was just kinda thinking that the more we split hairs in labels, the more cumbersome they become, and now we're back to not having "quick explanations" but instead have "the long story". It's the reason part numbers were invented, for instance.. "66-271004" is more effective than trying to fit "the rubber band that connects the upper fritzlefram housing to the lower grapplegrommet assembly in a 1966 harley davidson sewing machine with the zig zag setting and the buttonhole attachment, but not the rhinestone setter" on a label for the shelf. (btw.. I made that one up).

However, if someone is happier being referred to as "biamorous", then they should absolutely use the term. In the end, I prefer "happy anyone" to "unhappy" anyone
 
Last edited:
ROFL !
But yea - we're with you on the whole labeling thing. We regularly rail against them in general.

Thunderlizard said:
....... And actually, if you speak to a pansexually identified person.. they are often pretty insistent that you're human... really! Sheep and aliens are most often disqualified from being loved on a romantic OR sexual level (unless the alien is really cute, in which case some special dispensation may be issued). Those who love sheep have thier own labels. I'm not going NEAR that issue.
Click to expand...

But here I'm afraid you've really stepped over the line. I would suggest maybe moving with no forwarding address. Otherwise be expecting a knock on your door from PETA, Sheep Lovers United and last but NOT least the Marginalization Police ! Because you're definitely guilty of marginalizing the poor fuzzies. And THEY think that's a very baaaaaaaaaa-d idea !

:)

GS

sorry - that was plain naughty - but too hard to resist. Simply a moment of weakness :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top