kdt26417 said:
So, what (would y'all say) is the defining difference between swinging and polyamory? I mean, are they just two different words for the same thing? Is the difference between the two a stylistic difference?
Is it inappropriate to ask such questions because swinging and polyamory are words that are best defined uniquely and subjectively by each individual?
Like, if I go to a swing club but don't participate, I can self-identify as a "swing event attendee;" it's not like my self-worth will take a ding if I don't self-identify as an actual swinger.
Here's my take on it.
There are "generally accepted" definitions for swinging and poly. Those are, more or less, that swinging is about having casual sex with people outside your principal relationship(s), and polyamory is about building romantic relationships with people. So when you say "I'm polyamorous" or "I'm a swinger," that's what people are going to
assume you mean, if they understand the generally accepted definitions.
Their assumption does not stop you from redefining it for yourself. So I could say "I'm polyamorous" when I'm in a monoromantic marriage, but having sex with my friends. Similarly, I could say "I'm a swinger," even if I'm asexual, but like casual cuddling. In either case, I'd better be prepared to correct people's assumptions, because that's not what most people mean by polyamorous/swinger.
I've identified as polyamorous ever since I learned the word, regardless of whether I was in 0, 1, many relationships at the time. Other people identify polyamory with their behaviour: they're polyamorous when they're in multiple relationships, monogamous when they're in one, and single when they're in zero. Neither of us is right or wrong; it's our own personal identity and we can define it however the heck we want.
Frankly, most asexuals I've spoken with find sex actually repulsive. So while there's nothing stopping someone from self-identifying as an asexual swinger, it's highly unlikely, and I've never actually heard of it. Similarly, swinging is frowned upon by society in general, to the extent that most people who
do fit the generally accepted swinger definition choose not to self-identify. So I think a lot of this is moot...a fun intellectual discussion, but having little bearing on reality.
I respectfully disagree with you, rdos. To the majority of adults, sex is part of romantic love, and in my humble opinion, I feel it is incorrect to state that because the fixed definition of polyamory does not include the word "sex" directly in it that it means sex is optional.
At first I disagreed with this. It seemed to be saying, basically, that asexuals could not have romantic relationships. But when I got ready to reply and read it more carefully, it seems to be saying that for
most people, romantic relationships include sex. I can't disagree with that. I recognize that we asexuals are in the minority. You didn't deny that the definition of polyamory does not include sex, so no disagreement there.
Then it's just some confusion about what is meant by "optional." The way it was introduced by rdos is that polyamory does not necessarily include sex, i.e., that a person
can be in multiple romantic relationships without having sex in any of them. That's true, and if you disagree, then I disrespectfully say "Screw you," because you are denying my reality and personal identity, and I'm not very respectful to people who do that. Auto and I are the only people who get to say whether our relationship is romantic, and the fact that we don't have sex is not a factor in our decision.
