A definition that has been greatly confused....

[moral_decision]

Polyamory is the practice of having more than one loving relationship at the same time, with the full knowledge and consent of all partners involved. The relationships are long-term, intimate, and usually (but not necessarily) sexual. Persons who consider themselves emotionally suited to such relationships may define themselves as polyamorous,

Comments

all you need is...

[rick_day]

well, personally I do think you can have sex with someone without some sort of emotional attachment. Nor do I think it matters what you call yourself. Its only a label, even if self-imposed.

After all, you have to be attracted to and willing to be physical with, someone before you fuck them, correct? Those are emotions that are the deepest roots of love - the foundation, so to speak.

I think the true question here is what level of 'love' is involved in a situation. Example, if you were on bottom, and saw an item was about to bounce off the headboard and hit your partner in the head (even, say, a paperback book; nothing harmful long term) would you tell your poly partner? Your fuck Buddy? How about a stranger on an adult web cam you are observing this happening to? It depends on the 'love' levels shared by both.

As there are different levels of relationship, there are different levels of 'love'. Unfortunately each of us has their own definition of that word, which is why we are still in the phase of the Lone Wolf.

Re: all you need is...

[moral_decision]

My point here is... fucking a whole bunch of people without an emotional attachment is *not* polyamory. I'm so fucking tired of people thinking that's what it is.

The boldened phrase in the definition is exactly the point I am trying to make.

Yes, I could fuck anyone that I found attractive, that would not make me polyamorous, that would make me a slut. Mind you, I don't think slut is a negative term, but I wouldn't be polyamorous.

THANK YOU.

[drakkenmaw]

People misuse all these terms so very, very much. Being polyamorous is a lifestyle decision that comes with its own rules and conduct, and I can't imagine that many in that group are too immensely-happy with the idea that they've become synonymous with "universal unattached sex

[stacycat69]

Are you insinuating that those that sleep with many people cannot mean that you are poly?

I am poly. I enjoy multiple emotional relationships with many people. I am also a slut, I enjoy sex with my friends. But, I always have some sort of connection to those that I sleep with, friends or otherwise.

Yes, if I slept with a bunch of people, but then once I was emotionally attached, stopped sleeping with the others, then that is not poly.

but, poly, swinger, fuck buddy, they are all on the continium of sex wth emotions and sex without emotions. how you choose to define each of them is your own preference, and how I choose to define you is my preference.

[moral_decision]

No, I'm downright stating that those that have *no* emotional attachments with those whom they are sleeping with are *not* polyamorous.

Definitions are not something I can easily see as being twisted. There's a definition for people who want to sleep with others without emotional attachment, it's mentioned in the journal entry above, it is not polyamory.

[stacycat69]

But, definiations that depend on feelings are easily twistable. Was I "poly" when I didnt have emotional sex, only FWB?

I define myself as poly because of how I feel, not necessarily what current relationships I am in. I can be poly in a monogamous relationship, I can be a swinger in a committed network, I can be bisexual without having any sex.

But, I can see your point in that some people will say that they are poly, while running from any emotional attachments. If they are after just the sex, not wanting any emotions, thats not poly.

[moral_decision]

That is my point. That is what I am trying to get at. And to be honest, this post is really directed at one person that needs to see the light.