|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed May 12, 2010 2:09 pm
Me and my husband have been discussing this, and I wanted to bring it up here as well; the fact that most terms of 'poly' don't translate from one person to another.
We tell people we want a polyfidelity relationship, they think we mean '******** buddies'. Um, no?
Here are my thoughts:
Polysexual: This is for people who want to have sex with multiple people with emotional connection between the partners
Relationships I'd consider Polysexual: Swingers, FWBs, and anything else where they aren't emotionally attached to their partner.
Polyamory: Amory means 'love', so this is the one where you're in love with everyone you're sleeping with.
Relationships I'd consider Polyamory: V, W, and anything else with 'lines'. They have to honestly care, and consider them a girl/boyfriend at the very least, otherwise I'd bump it to polysexual.
Polyfidelity: The most strict (and it seems to be) the most difficult: Where everyone in the group is emotionally attached to the others. They don't have to be doing anything sexually, but the honest attachment and love has to be there. I'd consider it 'marriage plus 1 (or however many)'
Relationships I'd consider Polyfidelity: Triangles, Squares, and anything else where there's no loose 'lines'. If someone falls out with someone else, but is still okay with everyone else in the group, I'd bump it to Polyamory.
Does anyone else have this problem, where their definition of poly is different than yours? Where you tell people you want a committed relationship with them, but they're just in it for the sex? Or they say want a commitment, but it turns out they want to be 'open'? Or whatever else...
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 12, 2010 3:50 pm
I thought it was pretty straight forward: "poly", and then whatever is being expressed. You've demonstrated it quite nicely too. Thus, polyfidelity would mean "many" "fidelity", which means being commited to the multiple people involved.
I did have people wonder about the difference between "FWBs" and "******** buddies" as my own definitions may be personalized (be they right or wrong, I don't care). I put more focus on the "F" in FWBs but ******** buddies are just casual sex partners with no emotional investment.
Ultimately, I don't bother with definitions unless I need/want to. It's a pain to explain things to someone who doesn't need to know. My lover and I are "friends" to the public, "special friends" with a nod and wink to our closer friends, and without any explicit definition to an even closer few although implicit jokes get tossed around every now and then. "Lover" seems to be the most comfortable term to use online because it seems like the closest word to what we have. It's still inaccurate, but it shuts people up.
As for when to spill the beans about the nature of the relationship, I guess it's best in that little transition time when that little lightbulb goes off and you're both thinking about this being long-term and/or serious. That can take a few months. It also depends on context. I'm more likely to let a FWB or ******** buddy know I'm sleeping with others right off the bat because it's a health concern (a bit like guilt insurance).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 12, 2010 5:40 pm
Curious: where would you put casual relationships, or relationships just starting out and aren't very 'serious' yet? Would you classify them as part of polyamory because there is some emotional attachment and (as long as it is progressive)
I'd be careful with using the term polysexual to describe relationship styles though. Polysexual always struck me as a sexuality term more than where the focus lay in a relationship.
For example there is more than just the binary set of genders and sexes, so instead of bisexual many people consider themselves to be pansexual.... however pan translates to 'all' more or less and there have been some who don't really fit the 'all' category but are attracted to more than just the binary so they label themselves 'polysexual' many, but not all beyond the binary.
And I always heard polyfidelity being more of a "closed" relationship. It doesn't have to have everyone involved romantically with one another but the effective 'group' isn't open to new members in any sense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 11, 2010 10:03 am
I'd like to say this at the very least. The definition you're using for polysexual is not the standard definition. This is what it usually means: "people who are attracted to more than one gender or sex but do not wish to identify as bisexual because it implies that there are only two binary genders or sexes."
That's actually the biggest problem I face when it comes to definitions. I describe myself both as polysexual and polyamorous and many people seem to think polysexual has the same definition you listed.
To me, I just consider ******** and FWBs as swingers. I describe myself as polyamourous, but I suppose the sort of relationship I'd want would be closer to polyfidelity (all persons in the relationship in love/attracted to each other). I don't think I'd mind swinging between partners within the relationship and those outside of it though. Just as long as everyone within the actual, structured relationship were emotionally and sexually attracted to each other.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
