Poly versus Sluttiness

[dakid]

The root of this debate is "What is love?" That's a question that philosophers have been struggling with since forever. Do we honestly think we're ever going to solve it on any forum?

Since polyamory literally means multiple loves, there's just no room to debate its meaning. Then it seems to come down to judgement over one person's preferred form of love to another's.

Teenagers feel one kind of love, then they grow up and feel a different, more mature kind... or else they don't, and they keep on having semi-meaningful, but basically unhealthy relationships for the rest of their lives. Some people are emotionally damaged and believe that sex means love.

Most adults are relatively healthy and understand the shades of gray between true love and meaningless sex.

It seems you all agree that polyamory means multiple loves. I've never felt love-feelings for a fuck buddy. I used them for sex, they used me for sex, we both knew we were doing it, and we were both happy to do it.

Most of the thread was more confused on the definition of "fuck buddy" than it was on polyamory. Some people took for granted that we'd assume they love their fuck-buddy, so they were offended when others said that fuck buddies aren't part of the polyamorous relationship.

The vegetarian-chicken-eater analogy doesn't work because vegetarian defines what you DON'T do (eat meat), and polyamory defines what you DO do (love multiple people at the same time). The best analogy I can come up with is:
non-monogamy = people who eat something other than red meat
polyamory = people who like tofu (a sub-class of people who eat something other than red meat)
people with fuck-buddies = people who eat chicken (some of them like tofu and some of them don't, but all of them eat something other than red meat)

Who are you to be labelling other people's relationships as "semi-meaningful, but basically unhealthy"? By what standards do you make such judgements? I wonder who you mean when you say this, and what gives you the power/knowledge to decide.

You could have chosen to say that some people's relationships appear unhealthy to you, or wouldn't work for you, but you didn't. Instead you made sweeping and insulting statements without qualifications. I suggest you think a little before doing that again, as it is extremely offensive. So many out there do exactly that to anyone who lives outside the monogamous-for-life box, and many of us here experience the damage that can create. It's time to learn not to do that to others, surely?

Who is it exactly that you are accusing of being "emotionally damaged" and believing that "sex equals love"? I do not understand how these statements are relevant to this thread, since I cannot find any evidence of anyone here doing this. I certainly don't think that sex equals love. Who here does?

You have had a fuck-buddy for whom you felt no love. That worked for you. Fine. As I have stated, I did and do feel love for the person that was until recently my fuck-buddy.

Personally, if I want to "use" something for sex, I use my right hand, and sometimes a dildo or vibrator. I achieve fabulous orgasms that way.

However if I want to regularly connect sexually with another human being, in a loving but not romantic way, I do so with a fellow human being. Every being and every relationship is unique, and I am able to acknowledge that. From reading your post, I get the feeling perhaps you can't, which is a shame.

I don't and haven't "taken for granted that [anybody would] assume I'd love my fuck-buddy" but I did and do love him. I said so, so that others would know that. If I'd thought you'd already assume that, I wouldn't have bothered to say so. I am well aware that not everybody loves their fuck-buddy, but I do. I am able to accept and respect differences between people.

It seems to me you are stuck on a very limited concept of love, similar to the Disney happily-forever-after kind of romantic love, which I would say is just one sort. I acknowledge that sort exists and has a value for some, but I object to denial of the existence of other forms of love, such as the love I feel for my friends, and yes, that includes my fuck-buddy.

If views like yours are really acceptable here, then it seems I must accept that this is not the polyamory forum for me.

No poly person I have ever met in the UK has spouted such tripe, so maybe the answer for me is to stay within the UK poly community, which seems a shame. But I am not going to expose myself any further to such disgusting attitudes when they are freely available in the mainstream hetero-monogamous world I live in.

 

[crisare]

I do feel love for the person that was my fuck-buddy.

Okay, of that whole post, this just slapped me in the face.

Dakid, perhaps the issue here is that I (and a few others) don't understand your frame of reference, or your terminology (and I referenced this in the other thread, as well).

To me, a fuck buddy is someone whom I don't love, whom I interact with purely for the purpose of getting my ashes hauled. That doesn't mean I might not like them, or we might not be friendly, but they are not someone I love.

If there were someone I felt love for, whom I had sex with, I would not call that person a "fuck buddy". If I feel love for someone with whom I am physically intimate on a regular basis, that is a lover, a partner, a b/f or g/f. In fact, to me, calling someone I love my "fuck buddy" seems hateful and harmful, both to them, to me, and to our relationship.

So, perhaps this is at the heart of the misunderstanding. You use the word fuckbuddy as many of us would use lover or companion or partner.

 

[dakid]

No, he was my fuck buddy, just like H is my tennis-buddy. They are both friends. I love my friends. It's not complicated, really. I am not going to explain any further, Look through my previous posts and you will see I have explained repeatedly and thoroughly.

Some people just don't want to understand, it seems to me. I am not going to do your work for you. Think, imagine, stretch your brains, if you want, and if you don't want to, then nothing I say will ever get through. I'll save my energy for other things, from now on.

 

[crisare]

Some people just don't want to understand. I am not going to do your work for you. Think, imagine, stretch your brains, if you want. And if you don't want to, then nothing I say will ever get through.

And this is why, when you insist on defining things they way YOU want to define them, communication becomes non-existent. You insist on using whatever meaning YOU want to for common phrases that mean something else, and then get angry and defensive when other people don't understand what you mean.

This is exactly why defining words is so important-- not to be exclusionary, but to avoid exactly this kind of situation.

 

[NeonKaos]

if views like yours are really acceptable here then it seems i must accept that this is not the polyamory forum for me. no poly person i have ever met in the uk has spouted such tripe so maybe the answer for me is to stay within the uk poly community, which feels a shame but i am not going to expose myself any further to such disgusting attitudes when they are freely available in the mainstream hetero-monogamous world i live in.

Kinda just goes to show that there really is no difference between mono and poly relationships except for the number of people involved.

It is, however, refreshing to see that the entire poly community in the UK has overcome "such disgusting attitudes".

Personally, I'm offended by something almost every time I log on to the internet, and almost every time I leave my house, and it has very little to do with the "poly community" or the "hetero-monogamous world" per se.

I wish you good luck insulating yourself from other people's viewpoints that make you feel threatened. That is certainly one way to go about handling an exchange of ideas on a public forum.

 

[HappiestManAlive]

It all goes back to the fact that no two people view any two things exactly the same way. In my not so humble opinion, the whole concept of agreeing on a specific definition to "make communication easier" is counterproductive. The more you seek to define something, the more detailed the definition, the more room there is for confusion.

I see this all the time with rules and laws. The more specific you try to make them, the more loopholes you create. It's chaos theory and quantum mechanics as they apply to language and communication. Literally.

From there, those that have been saying "define what it's NOT" are closer to the right track, but still trying to tack down a specific definition from the other side, and ultimately that will lead to the same result.

The simpler and wider the definition, the less open to interpretation it becomes. Backwards? Not really. There are very, very few terms in any language that aren't subject to this kind of "definition entropy". I would go so far as to say none, or very nearly so.

Ultimately, even those who agree on a given definition will find that as that definition is further narrowed, they find things about which they disagree.

This entire "defining polyamory" thing is an exercise in futility.

 

[quila]

Who are you to be labelling other people relationships as "semi-meaningful but basically unhealthy"? By what standards do you make such judgements? i wonder who you mean when you say this, and what gives you the power/knowledge to decide.

You could have chosen to say that some people's relationships appear unhealthy to you, or wouldn't work for you, but you didn't. instead you make sweeping and insulting statements without qualification. i suggest you think a little before doing that again as it is extremely offensive. so many out there do exactly that to anyone who lives outside the monogamous-for-life box, many of us here experience the damage that can create, time to learn not to do that to others surely?

who is it exactly that you are accusing of being "emotionally damaged" and believing that "sex equals love"? i do not understand how these statements are relevant to this thread since i cannot find any evidence of anyone here doing this. i certainly don't think that sex equals love, who here does?

I find it curious that you took my statements personally. I neither said nor implied that anyone's relationships here are emotionally damaged, un-meaningful, or that they believe sex equals love.

If we can agree that polyamory means many loves, then that's good enough. Love is 100% subjective, so there's no value in including the definition of love within the definition of polyamory. If it feels loving, and it makes you happy, then it IS loving, whether it lasts 10 years or 20 minutes. We all have a personal interpretation of what love is TO US. Whether you're talking about loving many different people or just one, you still have to explain what you mean by love.

As it related to the thread, I think this was my train of thought: polyamory means many loves. Some people don't perceive certain relationships as loving, such as one-night stands, but others do. There is no single "right way to feel love" If it feels to you like love for the night, then who is anyone to tell you otherwise without crawling inside your brain?

But there are clear examples of relationships which may show some common criteria for love, which are in fact unhealthy, such as many abusive relationships. At the extremes, there are examples where almost everyone can agree "this is love" and "this is not love," but most relationships fall somewhere in the middle, and will appear as love to some people but not to others.

Tying that back to polyamory, it makes it impossible to include the definition of love within the definition of polyamory, because there IS NO hard and fast definition of love. But there is a hard and fast definition of polyamory, which is "many loves." The problem seems to come in when some people look at certain relationship types (such as one-night stands) as being incapable of being loving, because they're using their own personal interpretation of love.

Who am I to label some relationships as unhealthy? I'm the child of parents who verbally and emotionally abused each other. I witnessed the pain it caused them, and experienced the pain it caused me. That relationship was not healthy, and I'm not going to pansy around and say "it didn't appear healthy to me." They did feel love for one another, but were unable to communicate and solve their problems in a responsible, loving manner. That made their relationship semi-meaningful, but basically unhealthy.

 

[dakid]

Thank you so much for clarifying that quila. I accept that I may be getting somewhat defensive due to so many negative statements floating about these boards where the fact that I do feel love for people I am not partnered with gets negated and misunderstood. I thoroughly agree with the sentiments of your more recent post, and appreciate you taking the time to explain.

 

[dakid]

if it feels loving and it makes you happy, then it IS loving, whether it lasts 10 years or 20 minutes.

I particularly love this part of your post. I have been struggling to say exactly this, and have wasted far too many words in my attempts, whereas you have summed it up beautifully and with brevity, an ability I very much admire.

 

[quila]

It's not complicated, really. I am not going to explain any further. Look through my previous posts and you will see I have explained repeatedly and thoroughly. Some people just don't want to understand, it seems to me,. I am not going to do your work for you. Think, imagine, stretch your brains, if you want, and if you don't want to, then nothing I say will ever get through. I'll save my energy for other things from now on.

If it's so uncomplicated, there shouldn't be a need to review your posts to find out how you personally define the term.

It seems that you're the one who doesn't want to understand the common usage of the term "fuck buddy" and instead expects the rest of us to research your own personal definition, just so that you don't have to bother learning the common terms for your relationship types.

In fact, to me, calling someone I love my "fuck buddy" seems hateful and harmful, both to them, to me, and to our relationship.

Amen to that! The very usage of the word "fuck" makes it crass and emotionless. If I want to portray a romantic attraction, no matter how brief, I would call them a lover. If I only love them as a friend, I would call them a friend with benefits. I've had fuck buddies with whom I didn't even click as a casual friend, but the sex was amazing, and that's what made them a fuck buddy, as opposed to a friend with benefits, which I've also had.

 

[Ravenesque]

Kinda just goes to show that there really is no difference between mono and poly relationships except for the number of people involved.

Voilà.

A couple of points. Conservatism and narrow-mindedness crosses all boundaries, whether mono or poly. It has been proven in this thread and others. It can be observed often in the discussions which happen within alternative and mainstream communities.

It has certainly been a benefit to me to realize this. Being polyamorous or queer or what-have-you does not guarantee a progressive and open-minded outlook. It does not guarantee shared values.

So far, I find this community conducive to allowing all views to be expressed, and that the members who express them go unmolested for simply having those views. This is more of blessing than some realize.

Does it seem I qualify progressive as open and conservative as closed? That's because I do.

I see it as patently wrong to assert that someone else's life (experiences and perspective) is invalid because it is not based on the same principles as yours. This is done often here.

Short of murder and bigotry for those who want to go to the extreme irrational.

And this is why, when you insist on defining things they way YOU want to define them, that communication becomes non-existent. You insist on using whatever meaning YOU want to for common phrases that mean something else and then get angry and defensive when other people don't understand what you mean.

This is exactly why defining words is so important. Not to be exclusionary, but to avoid exactly this kind of situation.

I find that there are key value differences here and in others who express opinions such as this.

It is paramount for me to make the effort to see the perspective of others and communicate in the language which they are speaking. It is of equal importance that others do the same with me. Through this effort, understanding emerges by developing a shared language, understanding that may not have been present earlier before the effort was made. Horizons are broadened on all sides.

Queer is a term that I understand on several levels and I change the level based on the situations I am in. I've used the term to self-identify more than once. It is offensive to some, so therefore, I do not describe them as such, whether or not their relationships and views match my own. I accept their differing view and move on, whether or not I understand. It is what it is.

There are better uses of energy, to me, than seeking to push what queerness is and whether another individual or their relationship is queer, if they do not agree. It is not productive.

It is also important to me to realize that my experience and opinion does not constitute a justification for seeking to have others conform to definitions I have created for myself as time goes on. Others may then claim to do the same while continuing to crusade for a definition of life and creating structures which seek to exclude and disadvantage others who hold a different perspective. This is a contradiction.

For this particular example, I find polyamory to be broad and inclusive of dakid's experience. What a fuck-buddy is for her may not be what it is for quila. This does not make this relationship across the board not a polyamorous relationship. There is no grand high poobah of polyamory here validating and invalidating relationships as true poly or not though you wouldn't be able to tell by how some repeatedly state that other's take on polyamory is wrong here.

I do not think quila was necessarily qualifying what was poly or not. I do tend to agree that it comes down to our interpretation of love. Polyamory means "many loves" in a butchered coming together of two different languages (to place the world in perspective for the language sticklers out there) but there are matters of communication, ethics and honesty that many attach to this word. I agree with these attachments but in the barest interpretation, this word says nothing of communication, ethics or honesty now does it?

It is not a positive thing to highlight "lesser" or "greater" versions of love. I believe it is this moralizing of love which lies at the crux of arguments of those seeking to create divides between non-monogamous and alternative communities.

There is an unwillingness to step outside of oneself within posts like Crisare's and others that I find disturbing. I see it not as an inability to communicate due to varying definitions. It is not acceptance of difference. Rather it is a belief that one definition and one experience is correct and all others are invalid. No effort attempted. It is complete disrespect of difference. In this case, polyamory is narrow and only includes experiences which are deemed valid by them.

It could very well be said that the reason a misunderstanding is occurring is that Crisare and others are insisting on THEIR definition of polyamory while we and many others have a broader view of it and recognize that it means different things to different people. It is the sort of relative rationale that can be tossed around but doesn't get us anywhere.

I find it to be healthier and more rewarding to accept the differences than seek to stamp them out.

dakid, as I interpret YGirl's statement for me, there are differences in the world. You will find them in a forum like this and other places. It can be helpful to meet them head on and we cannot always run from them. I know it helps me grow, become more certain of my values and more capable of expressing what they are and why.

I hope you will not leave the forum as I value your perspective a great deal. I will see you on the Network.

~Raven~

 

[dakid]

@ quila - perhaps this is a difference in language usage between the UK and the US. here we use the phrase "fuck buddy" to mean a buddy who we fuck (aka have sex) with.

its a specific kind of friendship because the main or often only activity we would do with our fuck-buddy is have sex. whereas a friend in the general sense would mean someone we hang out and take part in various activities with. therefore a friend with benefits would be someone we have sex with but also hang out with as friends. a fuck buddy we mainly just have sex with, regardless of whether we feel love for them or not.

one of the attractions of this phrase for me it that it lacks the coyness of others, eg friend with benefits. all of my friendships have benefits of one sort or another, that's why they are my friends. i personally favour a "tell it like it is" attitude and what i do with my fuck-buddy is fuck, so that's perhaps another reason i use this phrase.

i appreciate this is a predominately US forum and will try to understand better the way words are used in the US from now on rather than sticking to UK meanings and uses, in the hope i will experience and create less confusion. if i stick around, which i am not sure about right now, but that's probably not of much interest to anyone except me which is fine!

 

[dakid]

thank you so much for your words raven, all of them. it means a lot to me to read them and i am sure there is much i can learn from you. i plan to re-read your last post a few times tomorrow and meditate on it all.
once again, thank you so much.

 

[Ravenesque]

It all goes back to the fact that no two people view any two things exactly the same way. In my not so humble opinon, the whole concept of agreeing on a specific definition to "make comminucation easier" is counterproductive. The more you seek to define something, the more detailed the definition, the more room there is for confusion.

I see this all the time with rules and laws. The more specific you try to make them, the more loopholes you create. It's chaos theory and quantum mechanics as they apply to language and communication, lol. Literally.

From there, those that have been saying "define what it's NOT" are closer to the right track - but still trying to tack down a specific definition from the other side, and ultimately that will lead to the same result.

The simpler and wider the definition, the less open to interpretation it becomes. Backwards? Not really. There are very, very few terms in any language that aren't subject to this kind of "definition entropy". I would go so far as to say none, or very nearly so.

Ultimately, even those who agree on a given definition will find that as that definietion is further narrowed, they find things about which they disagree. This entire "defining poly" thing is an exerscise in futility.

I find I agree with most of what you've said. Though I do not find that defining what one is not is closer to the right track. It creates a non-identity. There is one example of how this approach was used divisively.

The identity of "white" was created solely upon whatever was not "colored." You were white if you were not any of those other things. But if asked what you were no answer could be given. It was not attached to ethnic backgrounds until waaaay later. The purpose was to cordon off privilege. If there was an ounce of anything colored, you did not have the rights you should have as a human being. If you were colored free, you got all the rights.

I see the opportunity for such inequality here when it comes to discussing laws needed to secure rights for polyamorous relationships. And so I agree that it does end at the same result but not that it gets closer to the mark. If we define what polyamory is NOT then again we have the problem of invalidating poly relationships that do not fit this one perspective and shutting them out from the rights which may be attained for poly relationships.

But I must say I love this:

This entire "defining poly" thing is an exerscise in futility.

I agree as far as having some overruling definition.

You know whenever I see the word futile, I have a flash of Data from Star Trek saying "Resistance Is Futile."

~Raven~

 

[ImaginaryIllusion]

You know whenever I see the word futile, I have a flash of Data from Star Trek saying "Resistance Is Futile."

As I recall, that was seconds before he resisted.

 

[HappiestManAlive]

Thank you for your comments, Raven. I am completely with you re the rights and so forth. It is of no benefit for ANYONE who considers themselves or their relationship(s) polyamorous to either be excluded or to exclude others.

As that applies to this thread/discussion, the term "polyamory" has a built-in baseline definition we all agree on: "many loves." Where a few of us are taking issue with the over-definition, or feeling attacked by same, is this drive by some to define "many loves" as "multiple monogamy" using a strict definition of monogamy, lol. Even "polyfidelity" becomes open for interpretation when these things get going.

 

[crisare]

its a specific kind of friendship because the main or often only activity we would do with our fuck-buddy is have sex. ... a fuck buddy we mainly just have sex with, regardless of whether we feel love for them or not.

How can you feel love for someone you don't have a friendship with or whom you don't know past the instance of fucking them? If "the only activity" you have with someone is sex, how can you claim you love them? I don't understand that.

And again, I'm not trying to be hostile, I'm trying to understand. I would like for you to get back the knee jerk defensiveness and help me to understand rather than attacking me again.

 

[Ravenesque]

Wow

Where a few of us are taking issue with the over-definition, or feeling attacked by same, is this drive by some to define "many loves" as "multiple monogamy" using a strict definition of monogamy, lol. Even "polyfidelity" becomes open for interpretation when these things get going.

Wow. I mean... wow. Seriously. I have asked this question before. The question was whether others saw polyamory as a many-fold version of monogamy. From my perspective it seemed that often it was portrayed in this way by a more conservative crowd. A few conventions which seemed reminiscent of values inherent to monogamous relationships seemed replicated.

The fact that you said that blows me away.

I agree on polyfidelity as well. All forms of poly are open to interpretation.

~Raven~

 

[dakid]

How can you feel love for someone you don't have a friendship with or whom you don't know past the instance of fucking them? If "the only activity" you have with someone is sex, how can you claim you love them? I don't understand that.

And again, I'm not trying to be hostile, I'm trying to understand. I would like for you to get back the knee jerk defensiveness and help me to understand rather than attacking me again.

i am sorry that you have felt attacked by me. i too have felt attacked, not just by you but by several people on these boards recently. it saddens me to realise that in my pain i have inflicted similar wounds on others. an eye for an eye leaves us all blind, as they say.

i am not sure i can explain it (my love for another) in words, unfortunately there are limits (i am realising now more than ever) to my ability to express emotions with words sometimes.

i will try though, and i hope that in opening myself up like this i will be treated with respect because i feel i am making myself quite vulnerable here.

i guess i grew to love him partly based on his behaviour during sex, his thoughtfulness and attentiveness, his willingness to learn how to please me and the importance he placed on my pleasure as well as his, but also because of his sensitivity when i wasn't sure how sexual i could be that day, or needed to limit our activities in one way or another. he never judged me for that, or for the sexual fantasies i shared with him, whether or not he shared those fantasies/was turned on or off by them/wanted to put them into action.

when i have sex with somebody, i also engage in conversation about sex with them, before and after (and often during, tbh). it's a specific kind of conversation based entirely around sex, but it can be quite revealing.

then there were times when he would let me know before he arrived that he wasn't entirely sure if he could have sex that day, but still wanted to come over, for example, the day after his much-beloved dog died. that day we did actually have sex (we actually always did, in some form!) but it was a much more intimate kind of sex than was normal for us, and probably only happened because we removed the pressure to do so from the situation.

in a million little ways, i got to know him over the five years we spent in a sexual relationship, from small comments and big ones, from the giggles at the fanny farts, and the willingness to try new things, and to admit to fears he felt about certain sexual activities, as well his attempts to overcome those fears.

spending a couple of hours a fortnight with someone over five years, whatever the activity you are doing together, involves some communication and inevitably (in my experience) leads to gaining some sense of who that person is and what their values are. when the activity is as intimate as sex, i have found that only heightened.

i love him for who he is and for what he has taught me - including, but not only, that a sexual relationship has a value in and of itself. i love him because i feel he has a good sense of who i am, accepts and understands me, with relatively few words having passed between us.

when we first met i was just coming out of a four-year period of self-imposed celibacy. i was absolutely not willing to consider a partnership-type relationship. his primary relationship was based on an agreement not to take on any other partner-type relationship either, so neither of us was available for that. as i got to know him, i realised that, actually, even if either of us were (which we did become) available and open to such a relationship, i would not want that with him.

however, i do care deeply for him, wish him much happiness, and have learnt much from him. we have a connection, which i know he feels too, not despite of, but in fact because of the nature of our relationship over the years.

as i said, words are very limiting when it comes to expressing emotions, so i am not at all confident that i am expressing or describing accurately the emotions i feel about this person.

in a way, the specific feelings about this specific person are not the point though, for me. the point is a more detached, philosophical one, i think. as i have said before, i love in many different ways. i love my dog, i love my sisters, i love each friend/lover/sexual partner in a unique and different way. the love i have for certain of my platonic friends is every bit as passionate and deep as the love i feel for my primaries, in fact, but perhaps that's for a different thread...

i would hope even if you don't understand entirely you would respect my stating that i feel love for somebody - not negate that regardless of your own situation and feelings about the people in your life.

i hope that helps. i would be willing to try to explain further, if needs be. i promise not to attack if questions are put to me in a reasonably respectful manner. i hope you will bear in mind what i say in my penultimate paragraph, because sometimes we have to accept that even if we don't understand another's viewpoint, it is nonetheless valid and true for them.

 

[CielDuMatin]

dakid, that is a very touching story - thank you for feeling that you can share that with us.

I don't care what it is called, it was right for you, and was what you needed. It sounds like a healthy and rewarding experience for all involved.