Okay, I've been ruminating. For me, "open relationship" means that one has a primary relationship, but has been given permission to "interact" with other people to whom they are attracted based on a set of parameters (i.e. no penetrative sex, or no one in the group of friends) Polyamorous means (again, to me) multiple committed romantic relationships between at least two of the parties that has the potential to (and liklihood) to have a physical component. And everybody knows about everyone else.

Does that make sense?

ugg. very frustrating. The stage manager for this show isn't that great of a caller. no warns. few stand by's. So there are long strings of light cues, then all of a sudden, in a panic "sound GO". It's like my finger has to live on the GO button. Which makes me paranoid of twitchy accidental plunges. Uggg.

/theater board op rant.

The provided definition of a poly person needs to be expanded, then. Go beyond being able to love sincerely and simultaneously to being honest about it.

And given how many people, it seems, can cheat without falling out of love with #1, poly possibility is wider than I'd thought.

Which is not to slander polyamory-it's a damned shame that being poly isn't perceived as a perfectly palatable configuration, instead of weird and shameful.

I think as one with Vortex on this issue.

I'm pretty happy with the wikipedia entry on polyamory.

Vortex, that makes sense to me.

GC, I also hear what you were saying earlier about labels. It gets frustrating sometimes, not because I mind the labels themselves, but because of the friction those labels cause when my definition doesn't quite match up with someone else's.

I'm bisexual without a doubt, but I'm in a het relationship and have been for a long time. Am I poly? Yes, in orientation, though in practice ND and I have been pretty monogamous. Do I care what someone else calls me? I wish I could say no, but I do.

I consider myself bi-poly, but I believe that there's a Kinsey for polyamory as well as one for bi/hetero/homo sexuality. I think some people are more inclined to having a central "primary" partner within the poly definition (like me), and others are more likely to prefer multiple, equally-weighted relationships (like Laga).

The problem with attempting to define "poly" or any other label is that the definition is never one-size-fits-all; but it's a fascinating exercise when done with respect, as it has been here.

I consider myself bi-poly, but I believe that there's a Kinsey for polyamory as well as one for bi/hetero/homo sexuality.

If I may ask, why add the sexuality designation? Is that just to clarify that you may be polyamorous with men and women?

Oh no, I just brought that up because of the fact that "bi" is another label people get fuzzy about.

It was clear in my brain, but it's 4 on a Friday. Brain no worky so well right now.

For me, my polyamory and my bisexuality are intertwined. This is not the case for everyone.

I would like to be poly in an intellectual sense, but am definitely not. I would like to be bi in many senses, and am mostly not (though I have moments). I'd more gay than I am poly - about a 1.5 on the gay/straight Kinsey scale and a 0.5 on the poly/mono Kinsey scale (existence be damned), I'd guess. But I've always been fascinated by polyamory, and this conversation is therefore awesome.

I would like to imagine being okay as a monogamous partner to a polyamorous girl, but I've recently decided I couldn't actually do it. I wouldn't be jealous, exactly, but I think I would resent any time given to others.

ETA: Not to derail, but did b.org talk about this NEW JOSS SHOW somewhere and I just... missed it?