NationStates

Nakena wrote:

Auzkhia wrote:I feel like i have a particular living space taste, especially as a polyamorous person who wants to live with at least my fiancée and girlfriend, maybe have other girlfriends and metamours.

A what.

People that my partners are dating but I am not.

Auzkhia wrote:

Nakena wrote:
A what.

People that my partners are dating but I am not.

I get it, a paramour of a paramour. This word construction pleases me.

Auzkhia wrote:

San Lumen wrote:
Im more of a city person. Don;t care for suburbs.

I like the cities near me but like I don't wanna be too cramped or crowded. I don't like the house I am in now though it is quiet and nobody bothers you, it's almost rural tbh.

Still, small city or suburban town seems to be a best both worlds, and not a McMansion farm. My partners would need the public transportation too. I like driving but hate city parking.

I feel like i have a particular living space taste, especially as a polyamorous person who wants to live with at least my fiancée and girlfriend, maybe have other girlfriends and metamours.

This disturbs me.

Insaanistan wrote:

Auzkhia wrote:I like the cities near me but like I don't wanna be too cramped or crowded. I don't like the house I am in now though it is quiet and nobody bothers you, it's almost rural tbh.

Still, small city or suburban town seems to be a best both worlds, and not a McMansion farm. My partners would need the public transportation too. I like driving but hate city parking.

I feel like i have a particular living space taste, especially as a polyamorous person who wants to live with at least my fiancée and girlfriend, maybe have other girlfriends and metamours.

This disturbs me.

...What's disturbing about that?

Necroghastia wrote:

Insaanistan wrote:
This disturbs me.

...What's disturbing about that?

Never mind. Forget it.

Insaanistan wrote:

Auzkhia wrote:I like the cities near me but like I don't wanna be too cramped or crowded. I don't like the house I am in now though it is quiet and nobody bothers you, it's almost rural tbh.

Still, small city or suburban town seems to be a best both worlds, and not a McMansion farm. My partners would need the public transportation too. I like driving but hate city parking.

I feel like i have a particular living space taste, especially as a polyamorous person who wants to live with at least my fiancée and girlfriend, maybe have other girlfriends and metamours.

This disturbs me.

How so?

Lots of queer people are polyamorous, like it's not that uncommon.

Auzkhia wrote:

Insaanistan wrote:
This disturbs me.

How so?

Lots of queer people are polyamorous, like it's not that uncommon.

okay.

Insaanistan wrote:

Auzkhia wrote:I like the cities near me but like I don't wanna be too cramped or crowded. I don't like the house I am in now though it is quiet and nobody bothers you, it's almost rural tbh.

Still, small city or suburban town seems to be a best both worlds, and not a McMansion farm. My partners would need the public transportation too. I like driving but hate city parking.

I feel like i have a particular living space taste, especially as a polyamorous person who wants to live with at least my fiancée and girlfriend, maybe have other girlfriends and metamours.

This disturbs me.

Point of order, and I realise this isn't necessarily related to this topic, but are you against polyamory in general?

Caribbean Confederation wrote:

Insaanistan wrote:
This disturbs me.

Point of order, and I realise this isn't necessarily related to this topic, but are you against polyamory in general?

No.

Caribbean Confederation wrote:

Insaanistan wrote:
This disturbs me.

Point of order, and I realise this isn't necessarily related to this topic, but are you against polyamory in general?

A lot of young lgbtqia+ people are polyamorous. It's an adjacent topic for sure.

Insaanistan wrote:

Auzkhia wrote:I like the cities near me but like I don't wanna be too cramped or crowded. I don't like the house I am in now though it is quiet and nobody bothers you, it's almost rural tbh.

Still, small city or suburban town seems to be a best both worlds, and not a McMansion farm. My partners would need the public transportation too. I like driving but hate city parking.

I feel like i have a particular living space taste, especially as a polyamorous person who wants to live with at least my fiancée and girlfriend, maybe have other girlfriends and metamours.

This disturbs me.

While I am not polyamorous in the least, I don't think it's that disturbing. It's a social agreement that marriages in Western cultures are monogamous, but as with any agreement, the terms and deals can be changed. If someone is happy in a polyamorous relationship, that's their business and no one elses.

Daarwyrth wrote:

Insaanistan wrote:
This disturbs me.

While I am not polyamorous in the least, I don't think it's that disturbing. It's a social agreement that marriages in Western cultures are monogamous, but as with any agreement, the terms and deals can be changed. If someone is happy in a polyamorous relationship, that's their business and no one elses.

I'd would love to be married to multiple wives though I could only have that in name only and not recognized as a legally binding marriage. Socially, there's nothing stopping me from saying I have wives.

Auzkhia wrote:

Daarwyrth wrote:While I am not polyamorous in the least, I don't think it's that disturbing. It's a social agreement that marriages in Western cultures are monogamous, but as with any agreement, the terms and deals can be changed. If someone is happy in a polyamorous relationship, that's their business and no one elses.

I'd would love to be married to multiple wives though I could only have that in name only and not recognized as a legally binding marriage. Socially, there's nothing stopping me from saying I have wives.

What disturbed me was less the idea you having multiple partners and more the idea of you having multiple parts who have partners other than you.

Your right to do so, sure. Just my opinion.

Insaanistan wrote:

Auzkhia wrote:I'd would love to be married to multiple wives though I could only have that in name only and not recognized as a legally binding marriage. Socially, there's nothing stopping me from saying I have wives.

What disturbed me was less the idea you having multiple partners and more the idea of you having multiple parts who have partners other than you.

Your right to do so, sure. Just my opinion.

Some of them do, yes, though most of them are long distance and haven't really been seeing much of them as often in the past year obviously, though I try to see my primary fiancée as much as I can.

People may take on risks but still, we take health and safety seriously. No need to worry about it.

Insaanistan wrote:What disturbed me was less the idea you having multiple partners and more the idea of you having multiple parts who have partners other than you.

Your right to do so, sure. Just my opinion.

People aren't yet used to this idea, which is why we're disturbed by it. But I believe one day in the future people won't bat an eyelash at things like this. I wouldn't want a partner who has other partners, I'm still "old school" like that. However, I have no qualms about others living that way.

Heck, the concept has even been discussed in Star Trek with the Denobulans. I know it's fictional, but still, apparently it's a way of life that humans can feasibly conceive

Auzkhia wrote:

Caribbean Confederation wrote:Point of order, and I realise this isn't necessarily related to this topic, but are you against polyamory in general?

A lot of young lgbtqia+ people are polyamorous. It's an adjacent topic for sure.

There are heterosexual people who are non-monogamous, also. There is nothing inherent about homosexuality which leads to non-monogamy, and vice versa. I see no notable link here.

Ainland wrote:

Auzkhia wrote:A lot of young lgbtqia+ people are polyamorous. It's an adjacent topic for sure.

There are heterosexual people who are non-monogamous, also. There is nothing inherent about homosexuality which leads to non-monogamy, and vice versa. I see no notable link here.

There may not be causation but I'd hesitate to say there's no correlation.

Zul-ar wrote:

Ainland wrote:There are heterosexual people who are non-monogamous, also. There is nothing inherent about homosexuality which leads to non-monogamy, and vice versa. I see no notable link here.

There may not be causation but I'd hesitate to say there's no correlation.

If you accept there is no causation, then I don't see the relevance in even thinking about the second part of your sentence. There could be many reasons for that.

Fortunately, in many countries, gay people are now able to get married. So young people who happen to be gay, increasingly know that their sexual orientation doesn't need to define them. They can live regular, responsible lives, in their local communities, get married, have a monogamous committed relationship etc.

Or, they can reject monogamy, they can be promiscuous, irresponsible, etc. Just like plenty of heterosexual peolle. But no longer can that be conflated with homosexuality.

Zul-ar wrote:

Ainland wrote:There are heterosexual people who are non-monogamous, also. There is nothing inherent about homosexuality which leads to non-monogamy, and vice versa. I see no notable link here.

There may not be causation but I'd hesitate to say there's no correlation.

I suspect it's more about acceptance (to oneself or to the others) of having a "non-standard" lifestyle. Monogamous heterosexuality is the society's norm, and anyone diverging from it will risk some amount of rejection, bullying and hostility. When you already admit (to yourself or to others) being LGBT, admitting being also polyamorous doesn't make it much worse. While when you're heterosexual, it does mean jumping out of the safe zone.

But it's just a conjecture, I don't have any hard data to back it.

Ainland wrote:

Zul-ar wrote:There may not be causation but I'd hesitate to say there's no correlation.

If you accept there is no causation, then I don't see the relevance in even thinking about the second part of your sentence. There could be many reasons for that.

Fortunately, in many countries, gay people are now able to get married. So young people who happen to be gay, increasingly know that their sexual orientation doesn't need to define them. They can live regular, responsible lives, in their local communities, get married, have a monogamous committed relationship etc.

Or, they can reject monogamy, they can be promiscuous, irresponsible, etc. Just like plenty of heterosexual peolle. But no longer can that be conflated with homosexuality.

You write like polyamory/polygamy necessitates promiscuity and irresponsible behavior, marriage and monogamy are superior to other lifestyles, and promiscuity is somehow inherently a bad thing.

Zul-ar wrote:

Ainland wrote:If you accept there is no causation, then I don't see the relevance in even thinking about the second part of your sentence. There could be many reasons for that.

Fortunately, in many countries, gay people are now able to get married. So young people who happen to be gay, increasingly know that their sexual orientation doesn't need to define them. They can live regular, responsible lives, in their local communities, get married, have a monogamous committed relationship etc.

Or, they can reject monogamy, they can be promiscuous, irresponsible, etc. Just like plenty of heterosexual peolle. But no longer can that be conflated with homosexuality.

You write like polyamory/polygamy necessitates promiscuity and irresponsible behavior, marriage and monogamy are superior to other lifestyles, and promiscuity is somehow inherently a bad thing.

Well I think you're focusing more on how I'm writing than the substantive point, which is that sexual orientation should not be conflated with things like monogamy/promiscuity/responsibility/behaviours/or any "lifestyle' factors.

Ainland wrote:

Zul-ar wrote:You write like polyamory/polygamy necessitates promiscuity and irresponsible behavior, marriage and monogamy are superior to other lifestyles, and promiscuity is somehow inherently a bad thing.

Well I think you're focusing more on how I'm writing than the substantive point, which is that sexual orientation should not be conflated with things like monogamy/promiscuity/responsibility/behaviours/or any "lifestyle' factors.

One certainly shouldn't stereotype a sexuality with certain behaviors, it's fine to acknowledge that there's a good percent of polyamorists who also identify and LGBT. It doesn't mean that LGBT are all into polyamory, it just means what it means.
It also seems like you're dodging the question. It appeared to me you were biased against the polyamorous and that was your reason for denying the correlation.

Zul-ar wrote:

Ainland wrote:Well I think you're focusing more on how I'm writing than the substantive point, which is that sexual orientation should not be conflated with things like monogamy/promiscuity/responsibility/behaviours/or any "lifestyle' factors.

One certainly shouldn't stereotype a sexuality with certain behaviors, it's fine to acknowledge that there's a good percent of polyamorists who also identify and LGBT. It doesn't mean that LGBT are all into polyamory, it just means what it means.
It also seems like you're dodging the question. It appeared to me you were biased against the polyamorous and that was your reason for denying the correlation.

The reason I am opposing conflation between certain behaviours with homosexuality, is because there is nothing inherent about homosexuality which causes those behaviours. My own views on those behaviours is totally irrelevant to that. We should not be conflating homosexual with those behaviours, and I think it is a very important point to make. If people do have a problem with certain behaviours, they should be clear in understand that it's those behaviours they have a problem with, and not homosexuality. And if people want to engage in certain behaviours, whether gay or straight, that's up to them, but let's not pretend it has anything to do with being gay. That is harmful, not only to acceptance of homosexuality, but to young people confused about their sexuality whose only impressions of homosexuality is a certain culture and behaviours they do not wish to identify with.

I resist answering your question about my own views on non-monogamy, promiscuity, etc. as it has no relevance to my point, and I resent you asking it as it implies it would be the only good reason for making this important point.

this raises the question though, is a cishet polyamorous person included in the lgbt+ community?

Wink Wonk We Like Stonks wrote:this raises the question though, is a heterosexual polyamorous person included in the lgbt+ community?

Yeah, I’m thinking no.