no subject
2006-03-02 16:05![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
flexibeastOkay. i am very angry.
i have a message that i need to scream out to the world:
DON'T CHEAT ON YOUR PARTNER AND CALL IT POLYAMORY!
By 'cheat' i here mean "agree to have one relationship style with your partner and then break that agreement - especially on the sly".
This issue has come up a few times in my life recently. Essentially, the scenario is: "i want to have a relationship with someone other than my wife. She hasn't agreed to that, but i'll do it anyway. i'm polyamorous."
Since WHEN has polyamory been simply another word for cheating? The fact is, IT'S NOT.
You know, i've been forced to reconsider my position that polyamory doesn't include the concept of casual sex. i note again that i wholeheartedly endore the concept of casual sex - i just haven't believed that it's part of the concept of polyamory. But someone said something today that made me reconsider that. i'm not entirely convinced, but i'm certainly reconsidering my stance.
i will NOT, however, change my opinion that polyamory involves behaving ETHICALLY and HONESTLY.
And i will continue to get furious at people who help perpetuate the notion that "polyamory is simply cheating" by cheating and then trying to hide their poor behaviour behind the shield of 'polyamory'.
i have a message that i need to scream out to the world:
DON'T CHEAT ON YOUR PARTNER AND CALL IT POLYAMORY!
By 'cheat' i here mean "agree to have one relationship style with your partner and then break that agreement - especially on the sly".
This issue has come up a few times in my life recently. Essentially, the scenario is: "i want to have a relationship with someone other than my wife. She hasn't agreed to that, but i'll do it anyway. i'm polyamorous."
Since WHEN has polyamory been simply another word for cheating? The fact is, IT'S NOT.
You know, i've been forced to reconsider my position that polyamory doesn't include the concept of casual sex. i note again that i wholeheartedly endore the concept of casual sex - i just haven't believed that it's part of the concept of polyamory. But someone said something today that made me reconsider that. i'm not entirely convinced, but i'm certainly reconsidering my stance.
i will NOT, however, change my opinion that polyamory involves behaving ETHICALLY and HONESTLY.
And i will continue to get furious at people who help perpetuate the notion that "polyamory is simply cheating" by cheating and then trying to hide their poor behaviour behind the shield of 'polyamory'.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-02 10:47 (UTC)However I try to be diplomatic about it. If a "cheating" person pursues me thinking I am into the same values as them, I excuse myself, saying i don't play with attached popele whose partner's aren't invloved/givng permission.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-03 03:35 (UTC)Yes, well, from what i've been reading, there actually seems to be consensus around that point, and i think it's fairly clear that i will probably have to change my opinion in this regard. :-)
But here's a question for you: would you feel comfortable with someone who only engages in emotionally uninvolved, no-strings-attached casual sex, and doesn't have any other relationships, calling themselves 'polyamorous'?
no subject
Date: 2006-03-03 05:02 (UTC)At the very least they would be non-monogamous
In reality would they call themselves poly? or single?
What if they genuinely had affection/care for some of their "no strings" sexual encouters? That is a big grey area
Are they only having sex once withthier casual partners, or is it ongoing casual?
I think it is a complicated area to be wanting to impose simple solutions.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-03 05:13 (UTC)*nod*
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?
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 . . . .
*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 . . . .