Omniamory

redpepper

redpepper

Active member
Omniamorous-- enjoying being in either polyamorous or monoamorous relationships.

I just read this in a FB group I am in and wondered if others knew something about. It kind of makes sense to me, as some people are in polyamorous relationships because it is convenient right now, or because they want to date around, but they might settle into monogamy if the right person came by. Perhaps they would consider identifying as omniamorous if it were used more often. I dunno.... Thoughts?
 
I have not heard of it, but I think I like it. I suppose it's just another example of mankind's innate drive to explore, understand, and subsequently categorize and define. At least now we're exploring more of our inner workings.

I would feel remiss however, if I didn't take this opportunity to propose some classifications that this inspired me to think of.

Herbiamorous- enjoying being in loving relationships with plants; along with monoherbiamorous, omniherbiamorous, and polyherbiamorous; not to be confused with agoraherbiamorous- enjoying being in loving relationships with outdoor plants.

Maybe someday unicorns will grow on trees, or trees that will agree to be faithful will be called unicorn trees. Either way, I can't wait.
 
Last edited:
redpepper said:
It kind of makes sense to me, as some people are in polyamorous relationships because it is convenient right now, or because they want to date. They might settle into monoamory if the right person came by. Perhaps they would consider identifying as omniamorous if it were used more often.
Click to expand...

Or are monoamorous because it is convenient, but if the right person were to enter their life, they would welcome polyamory.
 
But I thought polyamory was simply the ability to love more than one. So if they can do that, then they're polyamorous. No one says you HAVE to love more than one, if you're capable of it. Perhaps that makes "omniamory" a sub-type of poly?

I have to admit, when I see new, super-specific terms coined I can't help but think, "Yes, let's make it even more difficult for the world at large to understand us! " :p
 
redpepper said:
Omniamorous ... Thoughts?
Click to expand...

Ugh. I think far too many people take a shallow and immature approach to the use of terms. Decrying the use of "labels" as if words force behaviors instead of merely describing behaviors.

There's not a damn thing about the term "polyamorous" that prohibits somebody from choosing a monoamorous s relationship. I have been polyamorous since adolescence, AND I have been involved in some monoamorous relationships. The fact that I committed to an exclusive pairing did nothing to change the fact that I preferred non-exclusive relationships.

For folks who don't identify as polyamorous, and sometimes engage in multiple relationships, they can describe their current relationships as either poly or mono without need of any weird term that doesn't really indicate much of anything. Seriously, if somebody says they're omniamorous, is that going to indicate they're currently in a monoamorous arrangement? No. Neither does it indicate current polyamorous arrangements. The term offers no useful information.
 
I think the term is incorrect. "omni" means "everything" and i dont think there is anyone out there who loves everything, or everyone.
 
Whoever dreamed up this ridiculous word, omniamorous, is someone who sees people as either/or and is trying to say that there are some who can be both. This actually fosters more divisiveness than not. Why are people so hung up on labels rather than just paying attention to how they treat the people in their lives instead?

redpepper said:
This kind of makes sense to me as some people are in polyamorous relationships because it is convenient right now, or because they want to date. They might settle into monoamory if the right person came by.
Click to expand...

This is not the first time you've stated this, RP, and I find it a bit irritating. It seems you are saying that only the people who individually identify as polyamorous ("wired that way") are really doing it right, and are truly polyamorous, while others who see polyamory as a relationship structure they have chosen are somehow not serious enough, and are just fooling around with polyamory out of "convenience," or until something better comes along. I feel that is very dismissive.
 
Last edited:
Maybe this is a bit off-topic and belongs in the thread about divisiveness, but we can rearrange copy-pasta any old time round these parts.

What i want to add to nyc's comment is that i find it insipid and wishy-washy when people try to agree just for the sake of fostering harmony. To me this smacks of dysfunctionality and denial.

That is all for this post.
 
nycindie said:
Why are people so hung up on labels and "wiring" and just pay attention to how they treat the people in their lives instead?
Click to expand...

I suspect that most of the folks hung up on "labels" have such a problem with terms because they don't really understand what the terms mean or, at least, haven't thought it through. They take a term and hang lots of detritus on it, well beyond its meaning. They take a term that means "X" and claim it means "X+Y+Z" and thus it's a bad, bad term. In this instance, they ascribe extra meanings to "polyamorous" and insist that a new term is needed.

Polyamorous refers to having multiple, romantic relationships as a form of ethical nonmonoamory. One can identify as polyamorous, meaning one has a preference for having multiple romances at once, or one can simply engage in polyamorous arrangements without having any strong preference for such. Anybody--whether identifying as polyamorous or not--can engage in polyamorous arrangements or monoamorous arrangements and simply say so. There is absolutely nothing about the term "polyamory" that precludes monoamorous relationships.

I, who identify as polyamorous, can have monoamorous or polyamorous relationships as I see fit. NeonKaos, who does not identify as polyamorous, can engage in polyamorous arrangements or monoamorous arrangements as they see fit. The use of the term "polyamory" in no fashion affects any of that. It is a term that describes an approach to romantic relationships and doesn't preclude anything.

Polyamory is not some restrictive, prescriptive, proscriptive bogeyman of a word that imprisons people so that they need saving by another term.
 
I'm irritating, huh? And seem dismissive? And what was it-- disrespectful? Meh. I'm sorry you see it that way. The fact is that some people do use polyamorous "dating" as an interim term between monoamorous arrangements. Not everyone, but they do. If someone doesn't, then they can say so.

I've been here long enough that I feel I can start discussing some of the stuff that is more specific. If that seems dismissive, disrespectful, etc., then you obviously don't know me that well, NYCindie. A bit of a surprise there, actually. If it isn't of interest to discuss the subtle nuances of how people use the word "polyamory," without thinking that there is some big agenda of mine behind it, then don't engage me in conversation about it.

Sorry, I don't mean to sound grumpy about it. But really, I don't give that much of a shit what people do, and I have no interest in convincing anyone that they should do it my way. If I were poly-dating many people until I found "the one," and said what I said, I wonder if it would be an issue. Likely not.

Maybe I need to clarify each time I bring up dating that "some" people find the word polyamory, apply it because its kinda catchy right now, and use it to be more responsible/ethical in their dating practices, because they either don't think they will find monoamory again, or want to be "polyamorous" until they do. Would that help at all?

Or maybe I should also add each time that some people use the word "polyamory" to cover up their cheating and be more palatable to people they might have an affair with. That might work also. I will have a lot of writing to do. Not too surprising. No wonder most polyamorists I know are not interested in discussing this stuff. It's arduous.
 
Last edited:
I'm not grumpy. You're grumpy. :p

Just kidding. ;)

Seriously, discuss away. Just please don't think I am preaching "my way or the highway." I find it a bit insulting at this point. Thanks for calling me on sounding that way, though. I never intended to, as I have no investment in anyone doing as I do. Why would I? That's far too boring a goal. My goal is to bring up shit that hasn't been talked about yet. To me, that is interesting. If you find it also interesting, then please, by all means, discuss. :)
 
I might be grumpy. I'm broke and out of coffee!

I'm sorry it sounded like I was attacking you. I didn't mean you were irritating. I meant the idea that I was interpreting from your statement was irritating to me. I'm sure I'm a bit sensitive about it. I just felt that there was a bit of a dismissive tone toward people who see polyamory as a choice rather than an identity. But I could have just read into it.

And yes, I edited that post from saying disrespectful to dismissive, because I knew "disrespectful" wasn't it. I don't think of you as disrespectful. I brought it up because it's something I've been wanting to address, since it's come up a few times recently, and your post seemed the perfect opportunity to respond with my take on it. But I did elaborate some more in the "Division" thread.
 
Actually, I find the omni thing to be kinda part of it. I have noticed some dismissiveness all around lately. Maybe that is not such a bad thing. It gets kinda tiring to always be on one's game with this stuff. So it's much easier to fade away into being dismissive, maybe.
 
It's strange. I drafted at least 2 or 3 responses to this initial question, and then I couldn't really make a commitment. I think that is largely because I don't really care how people label themselves. It will sound harsh, but I don't really have any interest in what words people may choose to describe themselves, as it's so often the case that I use a particular word differently to the way they use them. In the end...I'll get a feel for someone based on their behaviours they exhibit around me.

I had a long term relationship with someone who would certainly describe himself as poly...he lived with his girlfriend. But basically the level of deceipt involved made the situation way outside my loosest definition of "poly".

Now, I do LOVE words. Really, I love them. The way humans use them, well, not so keen :)

I have a very good male friend, who defines himself as gay. I've known him to sleep with women on occasion. Do I care ? No, not really. Who he sleeps with and the words he feels comfortable with are his own. Yeah, so he's gay, but occasionally fucks a chick. Who cares? Is it useful, not to me, or to him either (his words)?

I don't label myself as polyamorous or monoamorous. I run my personal relationships within my personal ethical framework. I live very close to my values. I don't need a word or a label to justify the way I live. I live happily and honestly.

In any case, omni, meaning "all" or "every," could be a confusing term. Maybe it suggests you could be be all and every love-style at the same time.

Mono and poly, always and all. I'm being silly, obviously. :)

Is there a reason someone would find this word useful?
 
If you were omniamorous, I would think that would include the potential to go through phases of being asexual/aromantic. I think that many polyamorous people have the potential to be satisfied in a single relationship. Just because one has the ability to love more than one, does not mean that they need more than one love at all times throughout their lives.

I think that it would still be important to have the discussion that you were polyamorous when entering a single relationship if you were aware of your ability to love more than one at a time. Even if, at the onset of the relationship, you have no desire for anyone else and can't imagine ever wanting another relationship again, things change over time, and the other partner is going to feel deceived if, down the line, you connect with someone else.
 
AutumnalTone said:
One can identify as polyamorous, meaning one has a preference for having multiple romances at once, or one can simply engage in polyamorous arrangements without having any strong preference for such.
Click to expand...

Is the above a qualitative difference that would warrant a differentiation in terms?

I've heard people in the bisexual movement putting forward "no sexual preference" (actually, "no gender preference" would be a more apt term) as a fourth option that is needed to cover accurately the spectrum of identity and behaviour from straight to bisexual to gay, reserving bisexual for people who actually feel desire/attraction both to male and female gender styles.

I understood "omniamorous" to refer to someone who just doesn't care about the relationship form (has no strong preference either way). From a monoamorous POV, it would be very different to become involved with a person who strongly prefers polyamorous arrangements compared to involvement with a person who doesn't care. If somebody strongly IDs as polyamorous, then indeed it would be ill-advised to get caught up in NRE and forget to mention this tiny little detail to their mono partner.

The word "omniamorous" doesn't catch this difference, but it would be interesting to know if some neologism out there could.
 
Polyamory already includes zero and one

TruckerPete said:
But I thought poly was simply the ability to love more than one. So if they can do that, then they're polyamorous. No one says you HAVE to love more than one.

I have to admit, when I see new, super-specific terms coined, I can't help but think, "Yes, let's make it even more difficult for the world at large to understand us!"
Click to expand...

I agree totally, TP. And I would go further: by saying polyamory MUST mean more than one relationship, we seem to be critical of monoamorists who have chosen, with awareness, to be monoamorous.

If we assert that poly includes the ability to accept any number, this has two benefits:
- makes us easier for others to understand
- makes us less threatening to them

Zero partners is also a valid polyamorous number for polyamorous people who are temporarily celibate by choice.

This point is addressed, in different ways, by posts linked from my sig...

Instead of omniamorous, I prefer polyflexible for those of us (I am one) who are open to the idea that our next primary relationship could be monoamorous or polyamorous. This choice of word keeps polyamory in view, and makes it clear that this particular polyamorous person is open to a medium-/long-term monoamorous relationship as one of a range of options. I think polyflexible does most of what RP wanted, but without the disadvantages, and is easier to understand and remember.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top