although there was no pretense of "love" involved, does it qualify as "poly" that for a number of years, i used to have a fairly set group of sex partners with whom i used to play? (both individually and 'en masse')
posted by:
|
-
Re: So now i wonder...
Tue, August 30, 2005 - 4:02 PMDear UML,
I believe that regardless of whether "love" was involved or not, your past situation does qualify as "poly". Poly merely means "many"....and thus can be many "partners" or lovers or relationships.
So, within choosing to have many sex partners to play with, I am assuming that you did not have a primary monogamous partner...?? If that is true, then I think you were practicing poly-amory.
At any rate... I have found over the past 6 years or so that there are as many definitions/qualifications for poly-amory as there are poly relationships. And in the bay area, I guess that would mean in the thousands...
But going back to the simplest meaning of the word "poly", I think that qualifies your past experience as being poly to a degree. :)
Just my 2 cents....
-
-
Re: So now i wonder...
Tue, August 30, 2005 - 6:24 PMyes, I agree with the Galactivated Princess, I've never found two people with the same definition of polyamory, I wouldn't normally use that word myself except I haven't found a better one - we are closer to being polygamous (in that we want very close LTRs) than polyamorous.
But in anycase, I agree that UMLs experience would count as polyamorous by almost everybodies definition. -
-
Re: So now i wonder...
Tue, August 30, 2005 - 7:21 PMI always thought that "polyamorous" *meant* polygamous, only it was more accurate since there need be no -gamy involved whatsoever...
-
-
-
Re: So now i wonder...
Tue, August 30, 2005 - 7:19 PMDo you want it to qualify as "poly"?
My understanding of the word as it was originally used was that it referred to "love" relationships.
I am a great fan of labels, generally, but why would you want to label a pattern that until recent years was just the norm for people who were sexually active and hadn't settled down with any one partner in a pair-bond? Why "poly" instead of "single," for example? -
-
Re: So now i wonder...
Tue, August 30, 2005 - 9:43 PMYou know, I was wondering the same thing..?? It sounds more like being a sexually active "single" who hadn't settled down with one partner.
I, myself, am not a big fan of labels, but a lot of the time it's very challenging to not use them in this reality/dimension.. Especially, as we humans use WORDS to express a majority of our communication.
As for the "love" part.... I think that, too, has as many definitions and qualifications as poly relationships! I mean, what exactly does one consider to be "love".
I know MANY people who say they practice "poly-amory", and they don't necessarily feel "love" for all of their "partners".
another 2 cents for ya. :) -
-
Re: So now i wonder...
Thu, September 1, 2005 - 4:51 PMI would differentiate polyamory from plain-old dating by saying that a poly person has a primary LTR, *and* openly dates other people. I'd call polygamy a group LTR involving multiple people (like a triad). But without some type of LTR, I think you're just dating. I sometimes come across people claiming to be polyamorous when all they seem to be doing is sleeping around and avoiding deepening their relationships. There's a huge difference between the NRE hormones-and-infatuation type of dating love, and the deep love that grows in a commited relationship. I firmly believe you can't develop a deep connection without the agreement to try to stay together. You can't rest your heart on a weak foundation.
As for deep, loving connection with multiple people, ... late te da and so forth ... , the few LTR poly relationships I've seen last are those where the primary couple has a deeply loving, connected relationship with each other, and shallow (but still loving) relationships with others partners.
I did the poly thing for a number of years, then ended my LTR. I'm dating these days & sleeping with different partners, but when I find someone I want to go deep with, it won't be in an open relationship. -
-
Re: So now i wonder...
Fri, September 2, 2005 - 12:01 PMby avoiding the deeper emotional attachments in our group, we were essentially able to elimintate the need for nay clearly delineated heirarchy.
the only lines that were ever drawn were with respect to the various flavors of "orientation" among the group
(Gay and Bi boys didn't try too hard to play with the exclusively straight boys, Straight boys didn't try too had to play with the exclusive lesbians, and the straight and bi girls not trying to hard to play with the exclusively gay boys)
it sounds more complicated than it actually was
besides, in retrospect, every time i've tried to make any attempt at deeper emotional commitment, i've ended up on the short end of things, so as bored as i may be with somewhat superficial poly play and general promiscuity, they seem to be the only things where everyone was fairly honest or that ever really worked for me with a minimum of damage -
-
Re: So now i wonder...
Fri, September 2, 2005 - 4:47 PMWell, to each his own path.... :)
In the past 4 poly relationships I have had, there was a clearly delineated heirarchy which created the inability to foster the continued growth of deeper emotional connection.
And in every poly relationship, I ended up on the "short end" of things...and that for me in itself, became very boring and extremely disempowering.
As for honesty...??? There may have been a different degree or "type" of honesty within these open relationships.... AND YET there seemed to be quite a measurable disconnect between "intention" and "practice".... what is said, and what is actually done.
Not to mention, there are just NOT enough days in the week, HOURS in a day to have geniunely DEEP and connected and intimate relationships with multiple partners.
Someone always loses out.
All of this= some serious damage and disillusionment.
Love and blessings to you,
Princess
-
-
Re: So now i wonder...
Wed, September 7, 2005 - 5:43 PMoohhh ya..... how could I *POSSIBLY* have forgotten about THAT?????
What qualifies something as a poly relationship, is that there is a primary "Queen Bee".
*wink* ..thanks, Shams.
-
-
-
