Poly and swinging and what's the diff?
Dec. 6th, 2005 08:53 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
trixtahI love it when some (few, thank god) people in the poly community get all holier-than-thou about the fact they're into the relationship, and "heart connection". Apparently, it's not about the sex.
What crap. Of course it's about the sex. Otherwise you'd be living in a commune, or having intense friendships, or whatever. Partner don't need to be actually having sex, but who your partner is having sex with matters.
The only thing that truly differentiates poly people from swingers is that polys admit the fact that emotions do tend to be involved when you're having sex with people. Actually, swingers admit that too, but their mechanism tends to be that of avoiding the whole issue by making rules whose length and complexity wouldn't be out of place in a monastery: sex only when I'm present; sex only with the same sex; sex is only to be m/f/f (rule of certain "high class" swinger parties in London); sex only when you're out of town; sex only when involved in a bdsm scene; no sex with friends; no sex with anyone you know at all; etc etc etc.
Of course, you get those on the "right wing" of the poly world who make as many rules as the swingers in terms of who, when and how. It seems that the poly-fi groupings are most susceptible to it. I've always been intrigued as to how they involve new partners. "Oh, we only have sex with someone who has potential to join our clan." Um, yes, that explains why you've individually and collectively had sex with half-a-dozen potentials in the last year. (True story).
Also, speaking of poly-fis (not my favourite relationship model, you may gather), is it just my experience of them, or do they seem to be somewhat friendship-challenged? I seem to know (and know of) quite a number of poly-fis who don't have any real friends outside their group. Similar to those who need a third (or whatever) to make them "complete". Those individuals seem to have a dearth of friends as well. I can kind of understand if you're living in a conservative small town, and you're the only polys around, but surely your friends don't have to be poly too? Or is the reason you're poly-fi because you aren't really into having friends? Because, I don't know. They're too emotionally demanding? And if you're in a relationship, rather than "just" a friendship, you get to make rules (and thus control how you relate to each other)? I dunno, it might just be an imaginary correlation on my part, but I am curious as to why.
Anyway, what it boils down to is that you're capable of having a sexual relationship with more than one person. The gap between swingers and polys is not as large as some would try and have you believe (on either side of the fence).
What crap. Of course it's about the sex. Otherwise you'd be living in a commune, or having intense friendships, or whatever. Partner don't need to be actually having sex, but who your partner is having sex with matters.
The only thing that truly differentiates poly people from swingers is that polys admit the fact that emotions do tend to be involved when you're having sex with people. Actually, swingers admit that too, but their mechanism tends to be that of avoiding the whole issue by making rules whose length and complexity wouldn't be out of place in a monastery: sex only when I'm present; sex only with the same sex; sex is only to be m/f/f (rule of certain "high class" swinger parties in London); sex only when you're out of town; sex only when involved in a bdsm scene; no sex with friends; no sex with anyone you know at all; etc etc etc.
Of course, you get those on the "right wing" of the poly world who make as many rules as the swingers in terms of who, when and how. It seems that the poly-fi groupings are most susceptible to it. I've always been intrigued as to how they involve new partners. "Oh, we only have sex with someone who has potential to join our clan." Um, yes, that explains why you've individually and collectively had sex with half-a-dozen potentials in the last year. (True story).
Also, speaking of poly-fis (not my favourite relationship model, you may gather), is it just my experience of them, or do they seem to be somewhat friendship-challenged? I seem to know (and know of) quite a number of poly-fis who don't have any real friends outside their group. Similar to those who need a third (or whatever) to make them "complete". Those individuals seem to have a dearth of friends as well. I can kind of understand if you're living in a conservative small town, and you're the only polys around, but surely your friends don't have to be poly too? Or is the reason you're poly-fi because you aren't really into having friends? Because, I don't know. They're too emotionally demanding? And if you're in a relationship, rather than "just" a friendship, you get to make rules (and thus control how you relate to each other)? I dunno, it might just be an imaginary correlation on my part, but I am curious as to why.
Anyway, what it boils down to is that you're capable of having a sexual relationship with more than one person. The gap between swingers and polys is not as large as some would try and have you believe (on either side of the fence).
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2005-12-06 10:32 am (UTC)For me, too, it's about the individuals I have relationships with, on whatever level. "Poly" is the best label so far, but I do wish it didn't have quite so much baggage.