ext_50480 ([identity profile] flexibeast.livejournal.com) wrote in [personal profile] flexibeast 2006-03-03 05:13 am (UTC)

At the very least they would be non-monogamous

*nod*

What if they genuinely had affection/care for some of their "no strings" sexual encouters? That is a big grey area

Well, i have recently had situations put to me in which that was the case, and calling that 'poly' now basically makes sense to me. Which is why my question specifically described a scenario in which that was not the case. So given that scenario, what do you think?

Are they only having sex once withthier casual partners, or is it ongoing casual?

Well, just as a data point, i've usually heard the term "fuck-buddy" to describe a situation in which there's regular sex, but no commitment beyond friendship . . . .

I think it is a complicated area to be wanting to impose simple solutions.

*nod* Most certainly; i agree it's all very complimicated. :-) But i think it's useful to have discussions as to what terms are being used to mean, because otherwise further complicatinos may result. What if, say, someone defined a lesbian as "belonging to the sisterhood of women"? It's not an unreasonable definition; and yet, in its most frequent usage, that's not what "lesbian" is regarded as meaning.

Up until recently, i had never heard polyamory used to include casual sex. But within the last month or two, that usage is popping up everywhere. So i'm trying to adjust my understandings based on current usage . . . .

Post a comment in response:

This account has disabled anonymous posting.
(will be screened if not validated)
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting

If you are unable to use this captcha for any reason, please contact us by email at support@dreamwidth.org