hotloader Posted March 27, 2012 Posted March 27, 2012 I'm seeing this word being used quite often by women on the dating websites, and I laugh every time. I actually prefer the old word myself. It's a lot easier to spell and it doesn't take as long to type: Slut. 2
Mme. Chaucer Posted March 27, 2012 Posted March 27, 2012 Really? Must you start a whole new thread for this crap? I heard sosuave is back now; why don't you go there where you and all the other playahs can high five and trash women. While the rest of us are having sex and / or love with likeminded people. 6
Anela Posted March 27, 2012 Posted March 27, 2012 I'm seeing this word being used quite often by women on the dating websites, and I laugh every time. I actually prefer the old word myself. It's a lot easier to spell and it doesn't take as long to type: Slut. Does that go for the men involved, too? I certainly hope so. 4
Feelsgoodman Posted March 27, 2012 Posted March 27, 2012 I have also noticed that it is only women who use the word "polyamorous". Women seem to think that all they need to do is to come up with a new name for promiscuity and all the negative connotations associated with such behavior will magically disappear.. 2
RiverRunning Posted March 27, 2012 Posted March 27, 2012 As long as everyone is open about their intentions and desires, I see nothing wrong with it. I do hope the women are operating in a limited pool (to stave off disease), using protection and getting regular testing, but beyond that it's none of my business. It would be kind of cool to find a polyamorous guy and play around for a little while, testing the waters, so to speak. But eventually, I'd like to settle down monogamously. Still, there is a big difference between a woman sleeping around behind her boyfriend's back and being upfront with him, which I think is commendable. Not all of us are keen on a monogamous lifestyle, and people shouldn't have to adopt to those conventions because someone not even involved in the situation thinks it's right.
ariadne999 Posted March 27, 2012 Posted March 27, 2012 I'm seeing this word being used quite often by women on the dating websites, and I laugh every time. I actually prefer the old word myself. It's a lot easier to spell and it doesn't take as long to type: Slut. the only reason you want to put down women for being "sluts" is that you can't get free sex anywhere anytime anyplace. Even a fat, short ugly girl can get laid as much as she wants, just for being a female. Sucks to be a man, doesn't it. Do you hate dogs cos they can lick their nuts? Because you hate women just cos we can get sex and you can't? At least not without paying (either in money or something else) Men can brag about how many chicks they bang. Sorry men, it's time the ladies get that right too.
RedRobin Posted March 27, 2012 Posted March 27, 2012 I'm all for more honesty... whatever people want to call it. If people can't or don't want to settle down with one person for whatever reason, then at least put it on the table so that the rest of us who DO sincerely want to find one person can do that without dealing with the subterfuge and everything that goes along with that.
Feelin Frisky Posted March 27, 2012 Posted March 27, 2012 Step right up an announce your immaturity. Every definition I looked at mentions "love"--not just sex. And someone who engages in sex for its own sake with multiple partners is promiscuous--not a slut. That's a term for an misogynous ignoramus (or some guy really mad at his wife for taking on the entire football team behind his back.)
mostlyclueless Posted March 27, 2012 Posted March 27, 2012 I don't think I even know what "slut" means any more. Is it just a girl who has more sex than you do? 2
dasein Posted March 27, 2012 Posted March 27, 2012 Agree with OP, but don't like the "slut" part. It's the new "FWB." Women, just own your sexual behavior instead of dragging out yet another obscure term to rationalize it or euphemize it as some "belief system," or "way of life" or "alternative quasi relationship." If your promiscuity is based in impulse control problems, you have a problem. Address that. If OTOH you just want to f-ck alot NSA, own it. No one worth your while, or rather no one compatible with you, male or female, is judging you for it any more. Stop being so self-absorbed that you need to feel like "god's perfect creature" every waking moment. Choose consistency. 1
Mme. Chaucer Posted March 27, 2012 Posted March 27, 2012 There are plenty of men using the word "ployamory," and lots of people who are sincerely interested in exploring real relationships based upon the concept. I'm not one of them, but I don't see the purpose in using this idea as yet another platform for bashing women. The model of the nuclear family and traditional monogamous marriage are not thriving. Some people want to try other ways. 1
dasein Posted March 27, 2012 Posted March 27, 2012 I don't doubt men are using the term, just haven't seen any. Men gladly latched onto FWB... when talking to women. When talking to men, "this chick I'm banging" does the trick without any need for needless window dressing. I've never heard an adult man, talking to other men, use either the term "FWB" or "polyamory." It's not men who think they need terms like "FWB" or "polyamory," other than in the process of manipulating women, and despite the fact you think that anything that draws attention to female faults is "bashing," I think my post was positive. Women need to own their behavior and stop trying to shoehorn sex into terms that have ego salving "quasi relationship" connotations. Just own it. 3
mostlyclueless Posted March 27, 2012 Posted March 27, 2012 What do you guys think people should call it when men or women have more than one intimate, emotional, romantic relationship with one another and everyone knows what's going on and wants it that way?
dasein Posted March 28, 2012 Posted March 28, 2012 What do you guys think people should call it when men or women have more than one intimate, emotional, romantic relationship with one another and everyone knows what's going on and wants it that way? Without exclusivity, it's simply NSA sex among consenting adults. If people seek to create a new type of relationship structure with self-defined subjective terms, that can include multiple partners, that's fine, but it will be very hard to assign an accurate label that means anything objective to that arrangement other than "not monogamy." This is because the participants are free to negotiate and renegotiate the terms at any time, as they are bound only by their mutual agreements and not by the state. But why needs there a term at all? It would seem people open minded enough to enter such an arrangement wouldn't need to compartmentalize it, would even resist doing so. Isn't the whole point to escape the context of traditional categories? My objection to the term is its popular use does not generally conform with what you describe above, but merely window dressing a quasi relationship on top of NSA sex or promiscuity, just like the term FWB doesn't actually play out to be two friends who get together and f-ck, but rather a euphemism for "the dude I met at the club last week that I don't want to call a one night stand." 1
ThaWholigan Posted March 28, 2012 Posted March 28, 2012 For what it's worth, considering the circles I move in, I never hear the word polyamory. Ever You're either a Wife (or Mrs), GF, SO, F-Buddy, or link.
Feelsgoodman Posted March 28, 2012 Posted March 28, 2012 What do you guys think people should call it when men or women have more than one intimate, emotional, romantic relationship with one another and everyone knows what's going on and wants it that way? Swinging? (10 characters)
mostlyclueless Posted March 28, 2012 Posted March 28, 2012 It's hard to call NSA when there are strings attached. Polyamory pretty much DOES mean "not monogamy." As anyone in the poly community will tell you, there are as many ways to be polyamorous as there are polyamorous people. Just like we have the term "night" instead of simply "not day," we have the term "polyamory" instead of simply "not monogamy." I have seen no evidence that polyamory is "window dressing" for anything.
mostlyclueless Posted March 28, 2012 Posted March 28, 2012 Swinging generally does not include intimate, emotional connections. I agree it could fall under the broad umbrella of polyamory, though.
Jane2011 Posted March 28, 2012 Posted March 28, 2012 Well, I know of some polyamorous couples who live together and share mortgage payments, bank accounts, etc. They may not be traditional, monogamous, and exclusive, but what they are can't quite be put in some meaningless FWB, NSA category when there are, in fact, strings and commitments involved (and they've been together for years upon years). I guess it depends on the people involved. I recently had my students read an article on polyamory (my clever way of dovetailing some personal experience I've been through with what I have to read about in their papers), and I was surprised that half of the female students who responded to the article said they thought it was acceptable. Few of the boys wrote about the article at all, but that may have been lack of interest. (I generally give them several article options to write about). One of my female friends believes that polyamory is a lot more likely to be acceptable to females in general because they don't have the same degree of sexual possessiveness as men do. Men kill and/or beat the crap out of other men who have sex with their girlfriend or wife. Women just don't feel as strongly about it. I'm just generalizing, of course. I'm not exactly "on board" with polyamory, but I'm not exactly on board with traditional marriages either.
Mme. Chaucer Posted March 28, 2012 Posted March 28, 2012 (edited) Without exclusivity, it's simply NSA sex among consenting adults. blah, blah, blah. No, it's not. Tell me. Why are you the self-appointed expert on all things LoveShack? Please, give it a rest. If people here want to understand what is known as "polyamory" by those who practice it, they are right here on the Internet, right now. They can read and learn - from people who might even know what they're talking about. They don't need you to pontificate about what it "simply" means, especially since you have no clue. Your professorial stance is misguided. Edited March 28, 2012 by Mme. Chaucer
RedRobin Posted March 28, 2012 Posted March 28, 2012 My understanding of swinging is similar to mostlyclueless says... that it generally involves sexual interaction (either together or separately) with people who are not your primary partner... but that is where it ends. They are not generally added to one's day-to-day life or emotional life. Among the 'swingers' I've met, they seem to have 'rules' that do not allow for anything other than sexual activity with those outside of their primary relationship and to do otherwise is a form of cheating. Lying about having feelings would be a form of cheating. Or even, sexual activity that was outside the bounds of what is agreed upon would also be cheating. For instance, some 'swingers' only agree to outside sexual activity if the other partner is present. It is my understanding that polyamory goes a step further in that there is multiple physical and/or emotional connections. I'm not sure what would be considered 'primary' or otherwise... but would agree that my observation is that poly has an extra layer.
Jane2011 Posted March 28, 2012 Posted March 28, 2012 I was involved for six weeks in a polyamorous situation. In my situation, it was the guy who was (according to those who are vehemently against polyamory) "having his cake and eating it too." [He had two women. A blond-haired white woman, and me, a dark-haired ethnic woman. He got two whole different girl-vibes in his love life. One day I asked him how he felt about everything, and he said "I just feel sooo lucky." Neither of us 'slutty' women had any other man.] There's decided intent from the outset to create an emotional connection. He was courting me like so many Romeo Montagues. He wanted to go on road trips with me, asked if he could call me his girlfriend, texted me and called me every day, cooked dinners for me, gave me back massages, held my hand in public, talked about his dreams and hopes, wanted to hear about mine. He gave me a toothbrush and I was welcome to spend the night at his place any night. He was a sweetie and three-fourths, truth be known. 1
ScreamingTrees Posted March 28, 2012 Posted March 28, 2012 What exactly was the point of this thread? From my perspective, if a girl was going elsewhere to have her physical/emotional needs met, what the hell am I worth to her? I might as well just not bother with her at all, it wouldn't seem genuine to me. It's easy for someone to take another for granted when they can go elsewhere to get other needs met. Doesn't seem very personal at all to me, as if the bond between us is not unique.
RedRobin Posted March 28, 2012 Posted March 28, 2012 I've had the option to have an open relationship before and turned it down. Every relationship based on trust has rules of some kind. I just figured it was easiest and most straightforward to draw the line at sex. I am a little weird according to some here... I'm open to having same sex friendships. For some bizarre reason, this seems to let off any cheating-potential steam. Or enough of it to make it not take hold. I agree with saving something for that one person. For me that one thing is sex and everything that comes with it. Just simpler for me.
threebyfate Posted March 28, 2012 Posted March 28, 2012 Not into this style of relationship but I'll add what I've heard. From the top down, open relationships encompass both polyamory and swinging. With polyamorous relationships the partners are free to pursue romantic and sexual liasons with others. With swinging, the partners are free to pursue sexual liasons but not romantic ones. In both, there are usually rules set out for and by partners, although less so with swinging. 1
Recommended Posts