just look at him! gazing off into the distance, pondering, reflecting, musing.

it's the cat-scholar/professor!

probably either a fear of commitment, an unwillingness to give up what has been convenient, or a genuine distaste for having only one partner forever/at a time.

I’m monogomaous as F

Would feel a bit bashful if the kiddos saw me humpin anyone other than their mom

do the kiddos frequently see you hump??

you were right.

<3 be free and live your life <3

Not the actual humpage, c’mon

But like the fore- and -aft hump, yknow? Kids pick up on those vibes

hey man what do i know other than what you tell me

I have been told that I ....."just took every white fem trope and stereotype and rolled it into one. Now you love pink. Now you hate men."

i do like Pink. The artist and the color. Although I like red more. I have both my arms sleeved in red rose tattoos.

I don't hate men. I just don't want to have relationships with them. Or waste my time with them. Or have to experience their body odor. Or talk to them regularly.

If being gay and poly is a roll of stereotypes then I am one big gay poly avocado roll

I am currently dating two people. One is into relationship anarchy, which I'm not sure I really understand. I also go on dates with new people a couple of times a month.

I don't think I could have a strictly monogamous relationship again. The expectations and jealously and close-mindedness of it just made me sad and lonely.

are you still a neolib tho

I wish you well on your journey

Short version: polyamory means having multiple romantic relationships at the same time whereas non-monogamy can mean just having one partner but also allowing each other (or one allowing the other if that’s what works for a particular couple) to have sexual experiences with other people, either separately or together.

^ That's wrong though. Polyamory basically means consensual non-monogamy. Some people might prefer one term over the other for various reasons, but there's no widely-agreed difference between them.

^ but if some people prefer one term over the other and there's no widely-agreed difference... Eulo's definition isn't wrong for how he defines it!

OK, i'm still monogamous

The wife and I are monogamous. Being bi, of course I'm still attracted to the same sex, but that is not an avenue open to me in this relationship.

Outside of our relationship (before, after, and during separation), while I was dating or seeing other people, I assumed an expectation that the person I was seeing and I were free to see other people, unless specified. I think it takes a healthy self of steam to be able to handle that, though. I have been in situations where it was not spoken and one of the parties felt slighted.

But in general I am a relationship-type person. I like being exclusive with one person. I don't think I could handle an open relationship.

No you’re wrong. Sex doesn’t require love (amory)

I found this, because I'd never heard the term, and I'm still a little confused

Like there's this directive to never compromise, but then lots of communication is encouraged, so maybe you just work out among partners what's a reasonable way to achieve everyone's goals

I'm probably telling you, MyOneAndOnly, nothing you haven't already talked about — I just figured other people might be curious

Relationship anarchy means avoiding hirarchy in relationships. Many poly people recognize primary and secondary relationship types. With primaries tending to overrule or take precidence over secondary relationships.

Primarily relationships tend to look a bit like monogamous relationships. Many of my poly friends have primary partners they live with or are married to and they date secondaries. It would look to mono people like an "open marriage".

Relationship anarchists don't use any of those terms and don't put one relationship before another. Each relationship is what it is and has its own terms. There is no hirarchy. This means each relationship is negotiated independently.

I think this actually makes a lot of sense in concept. But it's hard to practice. For example how do you do this when you have kids and there are legal issues tied to one relationship to the exclusion of relationships? It makes more sense when it involves young childless people. It seems less complicated.

Like the idea of political economic/anarchy this kind of thing seems to not make sense in day to day practice. People have different wants and needs. How do you form anything more than casual relationships with multiple partners without those relationships starting to overlap and force compromises? There is not way to negotiate one relationship independently of others. Everyone's needs and expectations are different.

It feels like a recipe for perpetual casual relationships, or for behavior that is effectively no different from typical poly but pretends it's otherwise.

Either way I'm slowly finding out. The person I see the most subscribea to this.

I prefer this style too, and since I am not a (very) young and childless person, I cannot really date this way anymore. I have her feelings to consider. I can't have men and women in and out of her life with no real defined relationship to her besides "mommy's friend"....for the first time in my life I've been considering monogamy (maybe with a little agreed upon openness occasionally) just to create a stable environment for a person who is already going to be growing up without her biological father. Or I could just find a person who wants to be her second parent and have another one or two and get a dog, and become reliably boring. I don't hate it.

I hope it was clear that I only said that because that’s what was said to me essentially

and monogamy doesn't require marriage (gamy).

Polyamory can mean multiple serious relationships but the term can also be correctly used by people in a commitment exclusive but sexually non-exclusive relationship.

Source: myself

Some loves require armory tho

I just don’t see it that way. Agree to disagree!

I think that to some extent, depending on how you define "casual", your relationship with a relationship anarchist needs to be more casual than the one between two hierarchical primary partners. This casualness has nothing to do with your depth of feeling, connection or significance to each other. It's more about being upfront about the fact that no one person is going to be prioritized by default? When dealing with conflicting interests, there is no automatic assumption that the stability of one relationship is going to be your priority.

I've been in a relationship with a partner for 15 years, and we've lived together for 9. An important part of our relationship has to do with being able to rely on each other financially. In this sense alone, they are very likely to be my priority - they don't have any veto power over what I ultimately decide, but I take the fact that we've chosen to rely on each other very seriously. The other people I love can rely on me to some extent - I'd do everything I could in a time of need - but we all know this help is a little bit more conditional, at least for the time being.

Emotionally, this is simply not true. Most of the time, it's very possible to be smart managing your time and resources so that no one feels uncared for. But sometimes you just can't be in two places at the same time, and you need to make a call. I make this call based on (1) where I myself want to be the most, (2) who will benefit more from my presence. I'm very committed to not being a jerk, but no one who is close to me is under the impression that their needs will always come first, nor that they can somehow make this decision for me based on some rigid relationship hierarchy.

I don't think so? This is a bit like the difference between bisexuality and pansexuality. Both words are by and large synonyms, but they highlight slightly different aspects of attraction. I can totally see why someone would choose to identify as pan rather than bi. As someone who primarily identifies as bi (though pan wouldn't be wrong), I can see how "pan" would feel more comfortable for some people.

But pan people don't get to say: "the difference being bisexuality and pansexuality is that bisexual people are only attracted to people who adhere to gender binary." This is factually wrong. This is not what most bi people mean when they identify as bi. This is not what bisexuality has historically meant. And it'd be quite arrogant for them to say, "Sorry, I just don't see it that way!"

:banging: this has been true for me. it's just the "label" that feels right and felt right over half my life ago when I claimed it. the lingo has changed, but i have always meant "I'm bi" similar to the way "pan" people describe themselves now. I don't know what will be the new way to say it in 15 more years, but I will still be what I am. I guess whoever is concerned can just ask for me details, but there's been a lot of pressure of bisexuals to justify and define themselves. Plus the usual erasure and complete dismissal of us. It's dumb.