*grins*

Yeah, we polys can be dorks. And here were were not supposed to be HUMAN. *grin*

(Not original, I know.)

“[F]olks new to poly ideas in general will sometimes trip over their own tongues while trying to decide whether to use the word “partner,” or “girlfriend,” or “friend,” or “fuck-buddy,” or whatever. When you introduce somebody, pick a word….”

That is so difficult, actually, because all words carry connotations. Me, I am happy with “partner” because it suggests a joint venture of some sort and with “lover” because it’s based in love, but a lot of people see these words quite differently.

” ”friend” is okay, but be ready for questions if you’re later seen to be doing what many mono-people would call “more than friends” ”

And then there is the fact that I have friends who are just very close friends whom I sometimes snuggle up with on a couch, in a cafe…

Matt in the Hat: for me, I don’t agree with the restriction on the term to relationships. I was in a lengthy monogamous relationship because I was committed to the relationship, but I was still poly: I couldn’t help falling for other people, I just didn’t act upon it.

Matt In The Hat: You raise a valid point. In my post, I’ve exclusively used the word “polyamourous” to refer to individuals – defined, perhaps, as “being capable and willing to engage in multiple romantic relationships simultaneously with the knowledge and consent of all involved.” In this way it’s defined as a philosophy, almost, and the similarity to bisexuality isn’t lost on me.

I’ve also heard the term used to refer to relationships: “I’m in a polyamourous relationship,” etc. Confusingly, these two definitions are not mutually incompatible – for example, it’s quite possible to identify as monogamous and be in a polyamourous relationship (for example, you may allow your partner to have other partners without wanting to do so yourself), or you may consider yourself polyamourous but be in a monogamous relationship, which can in turn be defined as being a definition of the state of affairs (“I have only one partner right now, but I’m potentially available,”) or a definition of the relationship in general (“I’m happy to have multiple partners, but I’m compromising for this relationship”). A similarity could be drawn to bisexuals in a monogamous relationships who may well – and are likely to – still consider themselves bisexual.

With so many terms and so many meanings – and meanings that may have different definitions to different people – I generally find it’s best to avoid them as far as possible. Personally, I tend to describe what I have with Claire and what I have with Ruth as “an open relationship,” and I’ll happily go into detail about what that actually entails (“No, I don’t consider it primary/secondary”, “No, I don’t consider it swinging,” “Yes, it’s exactly as complicated as it sounds,” “Yes, they each have other partners,” “Yes, the relationships are different: X, Y and Z, for example,” and all that jazz) if people actually want to know. Similarly, I try not to take offence at people coming up with their own definitions of what I have – I’ve heard it called polyamoury, nonmonogamy, swinging, partner-swapping, an open relationship, free love, and far more, and the only times I’ve felt the need to correct anybody has been when the definition is unambiguously not-what-we-have (e.g. polygamy – I’m not marrying either of them!).

Nonetheless; I think the short answer to your point is that a lot of people actually consider themselves to by “poly.” I think that the reason for this is that so many people definitively state that a poly relationship “wouldn’t work for them,” and so these are the people for whom one would work. The question’s kind-of academic to me, anyway, because I don’t personally identify as “polyamourous”, just as being in the kinds of relationships I’m in. Just one of the reasons I’m probably not an ideal candidate to have written a post like the one above, perhaps.

Thanks for your feedback, anyway.

Whilst I can see that the term polyamourous is valuable in assigning a group name and identity doesn’t it actually refer to a state of affairs, in the same way as married, engaged or single? It doesn’t really matter if I’m polyamourous or monogamous since I am single in the same way whilst a person may be willing to be polyamourous whilst in a monogamous relationship they are, at that time, monogamous.

I realise that there are certain similarities with bisexuality (i.e. whilst a bisexual person is dating a member of one gender it does not mean that they are no longer attracted to members of another gender) but the term polyamory strikes me as being a description of current relationships, not of potential relationships.

*****
I have to dash to work now, so I apologise if the above is badly phrased or comes across as insulting. I’m only intending to debate the use of a word.

It’s easy to overstate the significance of “mono privilege”

Well, I think that mono privilege can show up in a lot of subtle ways. I covered some of these in the “assumptions about relationships” section, but there’s lots more. We tend to trip over these, often by surprise.

That said, clearly it is possible for us to get past not having mono privilege, or there wouldn’t be any poly people. So while this stuff is annoying, it is not always debilitating.

Also, there’s other complexities to the situation. Monogamy, while still the definite norm, has taken a conceptual beating over the last forty years. (Which is probably why polyamory is doing well.) We see this all over the place: “the old ball and chain”, assumptions that monogamy must be boring or sexless, and so on. So while the culture does make polyamory difficult, it’s simultaneously creating problems for monogamous people, just different sorts of problems.