This post is on the Other BDSM web board.
| 26 Aug 10, 11:40 AM verte UK(E), 8 yrs |
Depends which post-modernists you're thinking of. For instance, Nietzschean-influenced Deleuzians do everything other than not care, I'd say...
Anyway, back to relationship categories... "Well-behaved women rarely make history" Edited 26 Aug 10, 11:41 AM by verte | |||
| 26 Aug 10, 12:12 PM Rhoobarb UK(FK), 12 yrs |
Language is ever changing. "Gay" used to mean something other than it does now. One can be monogamous without loving the person one is with.
So, historically, (originally) the suffix '-gamy' had to do with marriage, and not really to do with love. Which is where I have problems with all of these definitions. Every definition is someone else's way of looking at it and, from inside, the relationship may appear otherwise. I don't class myself as poly, although I do have other sexual partners and I have close friends who I'd say I do love, as much as I am able. I don't even really class myself as 'bi' although I have had sex with women and will probably continue to do so. I know my view of it is probably incorrect but it is MY view. My primary partner is almost certainly always going to be a man (I say 'almost' as none of us can know what the future will hold) and any woman I do anything sexual with is a passing flirtation, a bit of fun and frolics or even someone I feel a great deal of affection for but they are highly unlikely to ever have the position of my primary partner. I have no idea what this tells the OP about me or my view of me! edited to remove an errant apostrophe. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Edited 26 Aug 10, 12:13 PM by Rhoobarb | |||
| 26 Aug 10, 12:15 PM toothbrush UK(LS), 3 yrs |
The "isms" and "ists" can sometimes be useful academic vocabulary, but can often be restrictive artificial constructs that block out our real personalities. In short, I'm with Verte on this one. Edited 27 Aug 10, 12:30 AM by toothbrush | |||
| 26 Aug 10, 2:00 PM Aumentou UK(S), 2 yrs |
The rules of the relationship are the rules of the relationship. They need talking about regularly. It's not really possible to generalise more than that. This, frankly, ought to go for mono people too. I was looking at OKCupid the other day, and there were quite a few questions that were basically about what was and was not allowed within a mono relationship. Silly things like "Is it okay to go to dinner with your ex?" and "Is it okay to hug other people of the sex(es) you're attracted to?". You can solve all the problems like that by saying "What's allowed is what we've agreed is allowed, what's not allowed is what we've agree is not allowed, and anything that's not on either list we'll discuss when it comes up."... and then having a long discussion. The whole thing irritates me quite a lot, because it usually comes down to people trying to define what a "proper" relationship is, and telling other people that their relationships aren't right or aren't valid because they don't fit the metric. ------------------------------------------ Anyway, to answer the actual question: 1) Poly. I live with my primary and no-one else. 2) I will hold no others before my primary, either in emotion or in time spent together or by any other metric. My primary will have a rough idea where I am and what I'm doing when I'm with others, and I will show up at home by an agreed time (and we have defaults if I don't agree anything specific). Within these bounds, I may do as I (and the other) choose. The same rules apply the other way round too. Fascinating Aida. Look them up (NSFW). Thank me later. Edited 26 Aug 10, 2:08 PM by Aumentou | |||
| 26 Aug 10, 2:28 PM Aumentou UK(S), 2 yrs |
Funny, I would have defined that subgroup as "lying cheating weasels". ETA:
I though "post-modern" and hence "post-modernist" was an oxymoron. Fascinating Aida. Look them up (NSFW). Thank me later. Edited 26 Aug 10, 2:34 PM by Aumentou | |||
| 26 Aug 10, 2:31 PM Rhoobarb UK(FK), 12 yrs |
I like this definition. This is what I'm aiming for, for both of us, I think. It's pretty much what I do already. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | |||
| 26 Aug 10, 4:13 PM ThedaVamp UK, 6 yrs |
Don't mislabel those weasels! They're much nicer than cheating cunts! Perverted Pederast Puppetmistress Pimp Pandering to the Patriarchy... apparently | |||
| 30 Aug 10, 10:20 AM Rapunzel UK(WC), 9 yrs |
I think I'd call four people a 'menage'. It would be my ideal! Rapunzel - all round bad girl.... Fawcett Hall Lowewood Academy A Kinky Girl's Guide to Life Follow me on Twitter @FawcettHall (if you have nothing better to do!) | |||
| 30 Aug 10, 10:21 AM Rapunzel UK(WC), 9 yrs |
I also like this - I think it describes me quite well! Rapunzel - all round bad girl.... Fawcett Hall Lowewood Academy A Kinky Girl's Guide to Life Follow me on Twitter @FawcettHall (if you have nothing better to do!) |