Vocabulary update discussion: "polysexual"

[Evie]

To continue the issue of what to use instead of "Polysexual" now that dictionaries are including it in the spectrum of sexual orientations, let's open the floor to ideas.

Note, "multisexual" is already the umbrella term for everything that isn't heterosexual:

Bisexual
Omnisexual
Polysexual
Pansexual

Therefore, so we can effectively discuss the relationship structure that most accurately describes what we call polysexual (willing/able to maintain multiple [ongoing] sexual relationships independently without necessarily romantic involvement, possibly but not essentially while also romantically partnered), what are we going to call this? Because it really feels like there's a gap in the literature right now. Or shall we just stick to our guns?

When I searched for what is out there, the closest was "open relationships," but that definitely also feels too broad, as well as too couple-centric, assuming the existence of some kind of core relationship/s that is/are then open with sexual relationships supplementary, both emphasising hierarchy and missing solo-poly people and relationship anarchists.

Personally, I am someone who gravitates towards non-monogamous relationships to the point that I consider it an identity not just a choice. I can have both multiple concurrent romantic relationships and multiple concurrent sexual relationships (that also include ongoing friendship). Sometimes I get polysaturated at just a couple of people, other times I can have five or six people in my life at varying degrees of regularity. I would have said I'm polyamorous and polysexual, but what could be a descriptor for the polysexual part of that won't give people the impression that I'm attracted to multiple genders (because at best I'm heteroflexible)?

Thoughts?

How can we also describe this to people who come looking for the desire and ability to maintain multiple sexual relationships but not in the context of swinging?

 

[Magdlyn]

Oh, I just started a thread on this. I will take my post, add it here, and delete my thread.

 

[Tinwen]

I think we should instead send a request to wikipedia to include "alternative usage" under the polysexual keyword with the definition you provide (or even do a disambiguation as they have for terms with double meaning). If it's there, it won't get lost. I've never done it though and I'm not sure how big a chance we've got.

 

[Magdlyn]

Ever since 2008, when this board began, we have used the term "polysexual" to mean a person who is able and willing to have casual sex with multiple people. In other words, Suzy can be having sex with Ted, Bob, Mark and Jane, or several other randoms every weekend at the sex club, but doing nothing more than just having sex, not actually going on vanilla dates with any of them, not going anywhere on the relationship escalator beyond casual sport sex.

This is different from "polyromantic," where one can love several other people in a romantic way. (If you are asexual, you can be polyromantic too.)

Now we are getting feedback (from one person so far, silver-genie) that "polysexual" is no longer accepted as the word for the definition we have used for 17 years. Now apparently, it means being attracted to more than two genders, but not all genders. So, it means just shy of being pansexual, where you are attracted to all genders.

I am not sure how many genders we are accepting as legit here, either. If there are, say, 30 genders, and one is attracted to 29 of them, I guess one would get to claim the term polysexual, and not claim pansexual.

Now, as a queer person, who is pansexual, I had not become aware of this new definition of the term polysexual until just recently. Personally, I think it's kinda bullshit. I, personally, don't think the greater LGBTQIA+ community gets to claim the new definition of this term, and castigate us polyamorists here for using it as we always have. I am a member of the LGBTQIA+ community, and I am also polyamorous. I post on this board often. I need a quick term for a person who can and will have casual sex with multiple others, without the need for a deep emotional/romantic bond. According to the New Order of Queers, I cannot use "polysexual." I am left without a shorthand term for this kind of person. I have to write out "a person who can and will have casual sex with many others without an emotional/romantic bond."

Or maybe, if I use the term the way I am used to doing, I need to asterisk it and explain myself!

Or do we have to go back to a cutesy term like "ethical slut"? There are people who aren't into reclaiming the word "slut," though. Oh dear...

I find this very annoying.

I pray to the poly gods algorithm to pick up on this discussion.

 

[Magdlyn]

I just read Evie's post, and I think it's unfair that the queer community gets "omnisexual," and "pansexual," and "multisexual" and "polysexual," and the polyamory community gets nothing. That seems discriminatory. I object.

 

[Evie]

Truly, Mags, I am rather irritated (that's what we call a "classic Kiwi understatement") that the term has been subsumed into the LGBTQ spectrum as it leaves a gap here. But it's more than just silver-genie with this - as they rightfully pointed out it's ended up in the dictionary on the sexuality spectrum. Web searches all give polysexuality on that spectrum, and we're unlikely to get it back any time soon :-(

edit: okay, I had time for a deep dive this evening and polysexual has been used in both pop culture and queer theory for decades. I guess I'm just too straight to have noticed it

 

[kdt26417]

I usually rely on Wiktionary to settle these problems, which in this case yields both of the conflicting definitions. So, I guess I'll just read the word with the context in mind.

 

[Tinwen]

I usually rely on Wiktionary to settle these problems, which in this case yields both of the conflicting definitions. So, I guess I'll just read the word with the context in mind.

Amazing! That's footing right there. We're not getting it "back", but can make our use legitimate again.

Is there someone at least somewhat familiar with how Wikipedia works, so that we can make a full article on our meaning of polysexual and get a disambiguation? I have other worries right now (yai for pregnancy brain and baby clothes O), so I'm willing to help write the article, an argument to convince whoever is in charge of moderating content on wiki, or whatever is needed, but I don't feel up to the task alone :/

 

[IndieSolo]

I think we should instead send a request to wikipedia to include "alternative usage" under the polysexual keyword with the definition you provide

Is there someone at least somewhat familiar with how Wikipedia works, so that we can make a full article on our meaning of polysexual and get a disambiguation?

Anyone can edit a Wikipedia article. There is no one person in charge of editing. The fact that it's crowd-sourced is why it's not considered a reliably accurate source itself, and is never accepted as a citation in academic papers/journals. However, some Wikipedia articles can be considered fairly accurate if the editors cited verifiable sources for whatever statements or information they add to it.

I've been a regular editor on Wikipedia for over 20 years now. A few years ago, because of the number of edits I've made, they gave me free access to the Wikipedia Library, which is a collection of news sources, academic journals, books, magazine articles, and subscription-only databases. I have no qualms about editing whatever article you are talking about, but I would need to research it and cite legitimate sources to back up whatever I add to it. Even so, anyone could come along and edit out whatever I added. Yes, there are instances of editors kind of battling it out for their edits to stay until someone gets tired of reverting the other person's changes!

I've personally never initiated creating a new article because it's always seemed like too much work and jumping through hoops to do that, and if other editors deem an article unnecessary or incomplete, they can provide their reasons to get rid of it and it is voted on - and many articles are deleted if enough people feel it isn't encyclopedic enough or doesn't belong there for any number of reasons. Or they'll make it a "stub" and request that more info (and sources) be added to it. Also, there's a huge list of requests for articles to be created and some of those requests have been there for years and years.

Anyway, I'm explaining this because, for any edits made, the citations used as references cannot be simply the opinions of a bunch of people on a message board or a blog. It has to be neutral and encyclopedic, and the citations must come from what is considered a legitimate source, perhaps in this case the best would psychology and/or medical journals, but books could do as well.

Personally, I see no reason for poly folks not to use the term polysexual however we want! Seriously, can one group co-opt a term and essentially tale it away from another group just because (perhaps) it's more well-known? We used to talk about polyfuckery, but that seems too negative. There are plenty of words that are used differently by different groups. I'll try to think of some examples, but until then, I say claim the word for what you want and use it however you want!

 

[silver-genie]

I don't think there needs to be a word for someone who is able to have sex with multiple people or able to fall in love with multiple people. Most people can do both of those things; that doesn't make someone poly. Polyamory refers to how one structures their serious relationships.

Someone asked me what dictionary I was referring to in my post: Oxford English Dictionary. I have never seen evidence of polysexual or polyromantic meaning anything other than their dictionary definitions besides a few commenters on the Internet, and commenters on the Internet misuse words all the time. A lot of people falsely think solo poly means someone who is single and poly, for example.

Of course, people can use words to mean whatever they want, but they shouldn't tell people who don't know those words incorrect definitions.

 

[Tinwen]

I've been a regular editor on Wikipedia for over 20 years now. A few years ago, because of the number of edits I've made, they gave me free access to the Wikipedia Library, which is a collection of news sources, academic journals, books, magazine articles, and subscription-only databases.

Cool!

I have no qualms about editing whatever article you are talking about, but I would need to research it and cite legitimate sources to back up whatever I add to it. Even so, anyone could come along and edit out whatever I added.

This happened to me the one time I made an edit - there was some misleading info on astronomy, I replaced it and someone just changed it back. I thought maybe I missed some guidelines or some background discussion needs to happen before an edit sticks. That's why I'm weary about trying again.

Anyway, I'm explaining this because, for any edits made, the citations used as references cannot be simply the opinions of a bunch of people on a message board or a blog. It has to be neutral and encyclopedic, and the citations must come from what is considered a legitimate source, perhaps in this case the best would psychology and/or medical journals, but books could do as well.

Well, someone found a citation for the wictionary entry Kevin linked:
2020, Alex Stitt, ACT for Gender Identity: The Comprehensive Guide, Jessica Kingsley Publishers, →ISBN, page 359:
Some queer relationships are monogamous (married/committed couple), some agree to polyfidelity (married/committed group), some are polysexual (open sexually), and others are polyamorous (open romantically).
I get that's not enough to have a whole article, but if we can find some more examples of using "polysexual" in context of ENM outside of this forum (even if it's internet people using it), maybe there could be an "alternative usage" paragraph. If the word is in use, it doesn't matter major dictionaries haven't cought up yet.

There are plenty of words that are used differently by different groups. I'll try to think of some examples, but until then, I say claim the word for what you want and use it however you want!

I agree, but it's impractical if newbies go google for the word and only find a completely different meaning. If we get it on wiki, they can find it and AI probably catches up too.

 

[Tinwen]

Btw. "polyromantic" has the same problem

Polyromantic - LGBTQIA+ Wiki

Polyromantic, also spelled plyromantic or poliromantic, refers to someone who is romantically attracted to many, but not all, genders. For example, a polyromantic...

lgbtqia.wiki

 

[Tinwen]

I don't think there needs to be a word for someone who is able to have sex with multiple people or able to fall in love with multiple people. Most people can do both of those things; that doesn't make someone poly. Polyamory refers to how one structures their serious relationships.

You don't listen - we do need that word for finer differentiation. Sure, polyamory describes a relationship structure, but we need a word for a person who's able to have multiple sexual relationships but not actually willing or able to have multiple romantic/loving/deeply connected ones. There are plenty of people like that in the broader ENM community.

 

[ref2018]

I thought "polysexual" meant you only have sex with Polynesian people. But that must be the one with the capital P.

If swingers can have their own kind of unicorn, we can have our own usage of "polysexual". If anyone has a problem with that, they can take it to the complaints dept.

 

[silver-genie]

You don't listen - we do need that word for finer differentiation. Sure, polyamory describes a relationship structure, but we need a word for a person who's able to have multiple sexual relationships but not actually willing or able to have multiple romantic/loving/deeply connected ones. There are plenty of people like that in the broader ENM community.

I just refer to that as romantically exclusive ENM. If there is to be a word for it, I don't think it should be "polysexual," which already has a different meaning.

 

[Evie]

Please see this post for when silver-genie compiled links regarding definitions.

And this one for the OED.

And here's a link to the entry at dictionary.com.

Here's a book (scholarly) from 2012 using it in the dictionary sense. (You might like this book, Mags.)

This would likely be an interesting article if someone has access to journals.

And here's a PhD thesis of some interest if anyone likes a very long read about 1970-1990. Note, the author goes out of her way to avoid using the term polysexual other than acknowledging its existence and inadequacy.

Here is the beginning of a thread where this was discussed in 2010 and both uses of the word are included in that thread. Here's another from 2010 which is using it as multiple sexual partners.

Polysexual was being used quite commonly here by 2012 to describe multiple sexual relationships. Example at this link.

And in 2009 it made the oldest appearance still searchable here.

First appearance of the word seems to be around 1903 and was used in botany but was (likely) first published with respect to humans in 1974, although there's also some credibility to it being used in the 1950s, and Freud got pretty close in 1905 when he wrote about a humans having a "polymorphous sexual disposition."

I am not sure how many genders we are accepting as legit here, either. If there are, say, 30 genders, and one is attracted to 29 of them, I guess one would get to claim the term polysexual, and not claim pansexual.

In my research, I came across "omnisexual" for attracted to all genders (that, say, 30) and pansexual for attraction regardless of gender (or "gender-blind". Here's a slightly more accessible web article for that.

But, bottom line is, Polysexual was coined decades ago with regards to sexuality and subsequently has spontaneously been created and adopted here with our usual meaning in 2009/2010.

So the dictionary definition predates the use of the term polysexuality here as a contrast to polyamory without the potential abrasiveness of polyfuckery. Polysexual as used to describe having/maintaining/enacting multiple sexual relationships without the requirement of romantic love but also without the more couple-centric approach of swinging is going to become contentious when held up to the dictionary definition more and more I suspect. silver-genie is just the first person to be so adamant that we're completely wrong in using it the way we do, but there's every chance other people have found it confusing.

I also don't feel like the term "romantically exclusive ENM" is a good capture as it has underlying connotations of mononormativity and the couple's privilege of a dyad. And it's a mouthful.

 

[silver-genie]

Thanks for doing a deep dive; this is helpful.