I'll be back with my definition later, or maybe it will mean the same thing to me that it does to someone else, and all I'll have to do is write "Me too!"

Tags: compersion, ethical non-monogamy, loving more than one, polyamory

Views: 222

Replies to This Discussion

Thanks to books like Emotional Infidelity, the idea of having no opposite-sex friends has become much more mainstream and is considered by more people.
Ewwww!
That's disgusting! I didn't realize there was a book like that.
This is prettymuch exactly my view. Viewing another human being as property is unethical. One should communicate with ones partners to come to a relationship structure where all parties feel free and secure. And where all parties involved remain their own distinct individuals, rather than being reduced to being just part of a larger group.
Agreed. I hear people referring to their lovers as "sweeties", and I think... geez, don't they get their very own terms of endearment, or do they have to make do with the generic bulk variety?
I hate generic pet names!! Ones that are created in a relationship are much better, and mean much more. One I use is I call my wife "Love Bunny" or saying good bye I say "love you bunny." It was actually a slip of the tongue early in our marriage but she liked it so. . .
I agree for the most part, I don't think anything of it if someone calls their lover Hon or some such offhandedly (I've probably even done it), but yes for the most part I believe that pet names should be unique to the individual. I think every lover should have a special name that embodies how they make you feel (actually I tend to give all my platonic friends nicknames too).
In fact I had one relationship where our pet names for eachother became so prevalent that it sounded weird when one of us would use another's real name.
This was the same relationship where my pet name for one of my lovers was "Piggy", which we found hilarious, because everyone thought I was calling her fat, when really it was a quote from Invader Zim, "I loveded you Piggy" (We where doing a marathon the night we first hooked up).
Hon is o.k., but Hun always makes me think of Attila and the Mongol hordes.

I've seen that Zim episode! One of the ways I make it through the holidaze is to watch "The Most Horrible Xmas Ever"
I won't say what I call my sweet patootie, but I don't think I've ever heard anyone call someone that as an endearment.

I agree.... endearments should be created in the relationship, and be person specific.
Ha. I thought "sweet patootie" was your term of endearment for that lucky person. Would I be correct to think of your "pet names" as things best said in private? (hmm. I suppose that's a judgment call. If anyone ever called me so much as a patootie in public, I might feel unhappy about it).

Many of my relationships haven't even had one of those. In one non-romantic relationship, I invent new pet names as a matter of routine. The manifest chastity of the relationship keeps me from feeling embarrassed.
Not sure where to ask this, so thought I would start here. Did anyone listen to the Minx on Polyamoryweekly this week and hear the guy that was saying that true Christians can be sex positive? I love listening to The Minx, but this guy seemed to have little understanding of his own tradition. I would be interested in others' views who listened.
For me being polyamorous is about being genuine with the people I care about--as opposed to saying "I'm married now so I can't really hang around with this friend b/c that might get weird", etc. It also means having whatever kind of relationship feels right for us, instead of putting it into little categories.

I don't have as many detailed or theoretical discussions as some people. I just happen to have a few different relationships and it's one detail of my life. I don't need to talk about it; I just live it! I also don't like to act like polyamory is superior to monogamy (although the idea of "emotional infidelity" does rather make me puke). Maybe polyamorous people are reacting to the monogamous dismissing us as sex addicts, unable to commit, etc--but in reality there are pluses and minuses to both relationship types and some people really do prefer to be in a one-person relationship. Some have described this preference for mono or poly as similar to sexual orientation

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

AJY

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service