Poly versus Sluttiness

[crisare]

No matter what definition you come up with for poly, you are going to find some who are very much opposed to that definition and can get quite upset by it. So you either have to live with that, or you have to try to make everyone happy, in which case poly basically turns out to mean whatever it is that each person wants it to mean, and is therefore meaningless as a term you can use in any form of effective communication. It's already got the the point where the term means you need to ask more questions to clarify what the person means by it.

I hope that some day we do come up with a true definition of what poly is and what it isn't. Some will be upset by it, and then will have to find another term to describe how they self-identify. For all I care, it can be one that *I* don't agree with at all Just pick one, so that we can stop discussing it endlessly and providing a platform for everyone with an agenda to co-opt the word for their own purposes.

I am not one in favour of totally flexible definitions for any term you choose you use. If you do that, then you end up cabbage the llama - and we wouldn't want that, now, would we?

Yup yup yup. I agree with all of that.

If we're going to agree that being poly means including anything and everything sexual, from long-term loving relationships to one-night stands and fuckbuddies, then that's fine, but I will no longer self-identify as poly at that point, because that doesn't define the dynamic I choose to have.

 

[redpepper]

If we're going to agree that being poly means including anything and everything sexual, from long-term loving relationships to one-night stands and fuckbuddies, then that's fine, but I will no longer self-identify as poly at that point, because that doesn't define the dynamic I choose to have.

This is precisely why I don't anymore. This conversation seems to come up at every poly meet-up we have in our city. We seem to end every meeting trying to define what poly is. As a result, I simply use the word as a means to describe our version, rather than what poly is as a whole.

Why we feel we must keep defining it, I have no idea. Maybe because we all want to feel comfortable?

I used to identify as non-monogamous about 12 years ago. I think I will stick to that, as it is more ambiguous and broad.

 

[dakid]

Perhaps "polyfidelity" might be a useful term for some of the folks worried that they might be mistaken for someone willing to have short-term intimacy with another? Just a thought...

I have been reading the words of Morning Glory Zell-Ravenheart this evening, the person who first publicly used the term poly-amoury, and in her original article she certainly includes "one-night stands" as a poly activity within her own personal definition.

This discussion has really tweaked my interest in the origins and evolution of the word/phrase. Thanks, everyone!

 

[CielDuMatin]

There seems to be a feeling that we have to be all-inclusive, and that may well come from the place where poly folks have felt excluded by society as a whole, and doesn't want to make the same mistake. The problem is that in our extreme efforts we have rendered the term meaningless (or approaching it). Like redpepper says, it's already getting to the point where people don't self-identify as poly any more because it doesn't really mean anything other than non-monogamous.

I'm afraid that I fail to see (and have been passionately criticised for in other fora) the need to define polyamory as the same things as non-monogamous. What's wrong with "non-monogamous" as the umbrella term? Under that come the cheaters and "responsible non-monogamy". Under THAT comes polyamory and swinging. Those are just some examples. Just in positing this, though, I have been accused of being the equivalent of a poly-cop and wishing to "build walls" where they shouldn't be any. No value judgements are inherently being made by doing this. It's is merely descriptive of the different relationship styles and needs of different people.

It doesn't make sense to me, and I am tired of fighting about it. It's our loss, I think, if the word ends up meaning nothing.

 

[MonoVCPHG]

The problem is that in our extreme efforts we have rendered the term meaningless (or approaching it).

That's pretty much the sentiment I get from people I try to explain it to. They Google it and get completely confused.

My close friend was very worried that I was exposing myself to an overwhelming risk of sexually-transmitted diseases by being with some one who was polyamorous, because the impression she got was that everybody fucks everybody whenever and wherever. Add to that, the fact that Redpepper's husband is poly and bi and she was sure I was basically screwing the entire city by proxy. It ook forever to convince her otherwise.

I totally agree with your comment and Redpepper's.

 

[crisare]

My close friend was very worried that I was exposing myself to an overwhelming risk of sexually transmitted diseases by being with some one who was polyamorous, because the impression she got was that everybody fucks everybody whenever and wherever.

Yup. When I first brought it up to my husband he had the same impression.

I was talking about polyamory with a friend the other day, and he asked me point blank, "How do YOU define it? I don't really understand how everyone defines it differently." At least he asked, I guess.

 

[dakid]

Surely ill-informed folk are liable to jump to random conclusions, no matter word you use to express the fact that you are in a relationship other than a monogamous couple? There will always be a need to explain (to those you consider worth the effort) in more detail than one word can give, as long as we live in a monocentric society.

Somewhat of a tangent here, but I must say that I would be personally pretty annoyed if someone I considered a close friend came out with such rubbish, such dumb-assed assumptions, about me, the way Mono's friend appears to have done about them. I would hope that they knew me better than that, and that they had more respect for my choices than to make such insulting and idiotic assumptions. To me, this says more about your friendship than about any word, or definition of a word.

 

[dakid]

Sorry, Mono. I don't mean to be rude about your friendship here. I'm just genuinely shocked at the thought of a close friend coming out with such comments! My own close friends know that I practise safe and ethical sex, and at most, might ask me how I incorporate that into a particular relationship or style of relationship(s). They would never presume that I was behaving in such self-destructive ways without real evidence. It's a pretty big leap, is it not?

 

[MonoVCPHG]

I would hope that they knew me better than that, and that they had more respect for my choices than to make such insulting and idiotic assumptions. To me, this says more about your friendship than about any word or definition of word.

No offense taken at all, Dakid. I definitely understand emotional responses to statements that push buttons. They merely made assumptions based on a lot of research online. We are the ones to blame for their misunderstanding, not them. They don't put vague shit online. We do.

 

[dakid]

Sorry, Mono, my friend. I really don't understand your last post? Who is this "we" who puts vague shit online?

On a separate note, I sincerely hope my friends would ask me about my lifestyle if they were curious, rather than surfing the net for answers. But maybe that's just me. As I am always telling the children in my life: "everybody's different." I say it so often, I hardly have to utter the first syllable and they're chanting the rest back at me!

 

[GroundedSpirit]

Hmm... this has certainly turned into an interesting and thought -rovoking thread. I guess I had never considered the possibility that something seeming so basic, understanding the term was, in fact, so potentially complex. To me, when we "identify" with poly, it simply means that we're prepared to engage in multiple meaningful, close, ethical relationships with more than two people. This seemed to cover the basics that I felt was explanatory enough for anyone else considering being involved with me, to know and feel comfortable with what they were getting involved with. With that came of offer of some type of commitment-- respect, honesty, caring for their desires and opinions, including responsible sex practices and the offer of everyone in the circle getting to know each other, for all of those that had a mutual desire for that.

This seemed an obvious enough distinction compared to random anonymous sex, not sharing that fact, creating potential for drama, etc.

But like others have mentioned here, if the deeper details mattered to anyone, I am completely prepared to go into the most intimate details or hypothesis of how different scenarios might play out.

Because I have no access to any local poly groups, this turned out to be an enlightening thread, because of all the variety of opinions. For example, when my wife and I used to circulate some in what most would call a "swingers circle," whenever we met someone, our opening introduction always went something like "We're not really swingers, but prefer some deeper level of connection and relationship, but not to include setting anyone else's boundaries beyond honesty and respect," i.e., no strings attached. We never seemed to confuse anyone with that approach, and it served well to scare away any who were not comfortable with that, but preferred a "sex only" type relationship.

So all this confusion has been interesting.

But I agree with something someone posted in this thread, that I had mentioned in some other one-- the biggest complexity really comes from any single agreed-upon term of what "love" even means. Because it has many aspects, you would expect a term including it to have an equal amount.

Good stuff.

 

[dakid]

I couldn't agree with you more, Grounded Spirit. It seems to me you are really living up to your name with that post. I hope you don't mind me saying so.

I also feel that when I "identify" with poly, it simply means that I am, my partners and are, prepared to engage in multiple meaningful, close, ethical relationships with more than ourselves. Seems I just have different definitions of what meaningful, close and ethical mean compared to some folks here. And like you say (and thank you for putting it so well!): "The biggest complexity really comes from any single agreed-upon term of what love even means. Because it has many aspects, you would expect a term including it to have an equal amount."

 

[crisare]

I would hope that they knew me better than that, and that they had more respect for my choices than to make such insulting and idiotic assumptions. To me, this says more about your friendship than about any word or definition of word.

I'm not sure I agree with that. I know any number of really smart people who sometimes make bad decisions about things when they're emotionally driven. And when someone has heard only vague and possibly sketchy information about something, it's possible for them to think in a well-meaning kind of way that someone they care about has been misled or is making a poor decision out of emotion.

I don't think it means your friends (or mine, in this case) are idiots, or that it reflects badly on their friendship. I think it means that they care, even if it is misguided.

 

[Ravenesque]

It seems to me that when I "identify" with poly, it simply means that I am prepared to engage in multiple meaningful, close, ethical relationships with more than one. This seemed to cover the basics that I feel explanatory enough for anyone else considering being involved with me to know and feel comfortable with what they were getting involved with. With that comes an offer of some type of commitment-- respect, honesty, caring for their desires and opinions, including responsible sex practices and the offer of everyone in the circle getting to know each other, for all of those that had a mutual desire for that.

But I agree, the biggest complexity really comes from any single agreed-upon term of what "love" even means. Because it has many aspects, you would expect a term including it to have an equal amount.

This was beautifully stated. At the risk of repeating, I find it more than worthwhile to find others who are on the same wavelength on what polyamory is. The same for other important values.

If there is confusion, in-depth discussion dispels it, even while getting to know others. It is an excellent way to discern friends and potential loves. I don't understand the aversion of some to this sort of communication or the need for a hard and fast meaning for polyamory. I don't find this form of communication difficult and it has been beneficial in my relationships with others over the years.

As love encompasses so much, so does polyamory for me.

~Raven~

 

[HappiestManAlive]

Just throwing this in:

Meat:
1. the flesh of animals as used for food.
2. the edible part of anything, as a fruit or nut: Crack the walnuts and remove the meats.
3. the essential point or part of an argument, literary work, etc.; gist; crux: The meat of the play is the jealousy between the two brothers.
4. solid food: meat and drink.
5. solid or substantial content; pith: The article was full of meat, with few wasted words.
6. a favorite occupation, activity, etc.: Chess is his meat.
7. Chiefly South Midland and Southern U.S. pork, esp. bacon.
8. slang (vulgar): penis.
9. archaic: the principal meal: to say grace before meat.

That's leaving out the idioms and other such. So technically, a vegetarian can't eat anything that contains an outer skin and an inner portion referred to as meat? Or engage in fellatio? How far does this go? Can they read anything more than a review? Or have a hobby?

 

[Ravenesque]

I absolutely love that, HappiestMan. It's just a matter of putting it in perspective.

~Raven~

 

[dakid]

It made me giggle, too.

What I am really curious about, though, is whether anyone's mind has been changed or broadened by this debate. Are we actually learning from each other here, or just figuring out who agrees with us and who doesn't, while keeping to our previously-held point of view?

 

[LovingRadiance]

You either have to live with that, or you have to try to make everyone happy, in which case, polyamory basically turns out to mean whatever it is that each person wants it to mean, and is therefore meaningless as a term you can use in any form of effective communication.

It's already got the the point where the term means you need to ask more questions to clarify what the person means by it.

I hope that some day we do come up with a true definition of what polyamory is and what it isn't. Some will be upset by it, and then will have to find another term to describe how they self-identify. For all I care, it can be one that *I* don't agree with, Just pick one so that we can stop discussing it endlessly and providing a platform for everyone with an agenda to co-opt the word for their own purposes.

I totally concur here.

I also agree with Mono's point.

It's come to the point (quite quickly, in my case) that I see no point in identifying myself as "polyamorous" because the term has no meaning and is therefore useless as a identifier. I don't much care anymore what the definition is, but it would be nice to know, so I could figure out if it fits me or not.

At least I know that "gay" and "straight" and "man" do not fit me.

Why we feel we must keep defining I have no idea. Maybe because we all want to feel comfortable?

For me, it's not to feel comfortable. I am comfortable with myself. Especially so after reading the book Living Happily Ever After (finished it today).

But when I talk to other people, I don't enjoy having to spend 30 minutes explaining the dynamic of my family and sex life so that they can grasp why I have two men with me at a doctors appointment (for example).

If I could say "These are my SOs. We're a multi-partner family," or whatever, that would allow me to go on with the conversation more smoothly and skip the 30 minutes of history in order to ensure clear communication between myself and them.

What's wrong with "non-monogamous" as the umbrella term? Under that come the cheaters and "responsible non-monogamy". Under THAT comes polyamory and swinging. Those are just some examples.

It's our loss, I think, if the word ends up meaning nothing.

I don't understand at all why we need the word polyamory if its definition is the same as non-monogamy, which everyone seems to agree on already.

I agree it is our loss. I am fairly certain that as a general rule-that monogamous circles couldn't care less which word is used. As Mono has pointed out on any number of threads, if we as a group want them to accept us, we first have to make it possible for them to know who/what we are. With understanding and knowledge comes acceptance. Without understanding and knowledge comes fear, and with fear, judgment and condemnation.

Are we actually learning from each other here or just figuring out who agrees with us and who doesn't, keeping to our previously held point of view?

Hmm... very good question.

I guess, for me, my thoughts had already started, but this thread just really confirmed my feeling on the matter.

Small history, I was raised Christian, and about a year ago, after 2 years of really in-depth study and conversation in a group of Christians, Atheists and Agnostics, with a few single representations from other religious sects: I concluded that I no longer wished to identify as Christian, because the MAJORITY of people have a definition of that term that simply does NOT describe me or my beliefs.

Likewise, it would appear to me that it is purposeless and almost lying to identify myself as "polyamorous," because the majority of people I'm encountering have no clue what that word means, and when they research it, they are highly likely to come up with a definition that simply doesn't identify me, and because the word itself is so undefined as to be a wasted effort to use. There is already an "umbrella" term that defines that I am not in a monogamous relationship. I can use that term with technical identifiers, and have it be less confusing and less damaging to the true understanding I'm trying to give someone than using "polyamory" does.

 

[CielDuMatin]

Non-monogamy also describes cheating and swinging as well as poly. If you want to use a blanket term that people will think that you are practicing any one of those, then that's fine. But if you want something that is a little more specific, then you need a more specific term.

Responsible non-monogamy, a term I have heard, encompasses swinging and what I know of as polyamory, so that can help clarify.

There are those that don't want anyone to draw the line between swinging and polyamory, there are those that would like to. There is no inherant value judgment there, just a desire to have a descriptive term for this relationship model.

 

[rosevett]

Labels and terms-- EGAD-- one of my least favorite subjects, but heck, I keep poking my nose in.

So how do I identify my relationship to someone that is 'normal'? Ya know, from the monogamous and/or cheater world? I say, "We have a unique relationship." Then, if they want more information, I carry on with the identifying verbiage and what it means to ME.

Now, as for slutdom and The Ethical Slut, even after reading the book (which I still can't finish), I personally dislike the word. Even with the pride that has been associated with it, such as I can identify with 'bitch' in a positive way, I just can't conceptually associate with 'slut'. No matter how proud others choosing to use those titles are, it's not for ME.

So, I keep my mind open when others use the vocabulary they choose, and continue to listen to the content of the conversation, and ask questions for clarification.