Re: [UUPoly-L] Too many circles, lines, triangles.....

["Brigitte Fires" <brigittefires@gmail.com>]

What's wrong with platonic?  We connect deeply, and continue to be very
> intimate.
> Love isn't about plumbing.
>
> MG Zell's original description of poly included sexual.
> > When I say I have poly relationships I mean my relationships which
> > are currently sexual, not may or may not be sexual. If you don't like
> > "platonic" for a love, but not sex relationship, then propose another
> > word for it, rather than destroy the sense of poly.
>
>
> I am new to this, but I don't think it "destroys" the sense of poly.
> After all, poly isn't just about the sex. (but the sex is wonderful too!)


This again becomes a matter of opinion and boundries. I do not consider
anyone that I am not sexual with to be someone with whom I am in a
"relationship" (using the narrower term usually meaning 'romantic', but not
necessarily including love or any real romance). That is to say, I have a
friend with whom I connect deeply and am not sexual with, and he is not an
OSO. But I have a friend with whom I DO connect deeply and AM sexual, and he
could be an OSO. I do not feel that any level of connection, comfort, or
even love is grounds for being considered a "partner." (OTOH I don't assume
that because I have a connection with someone and we end up being sexual we
are now partners, but that is a pet-peeve rant for another day.)

However, I am a fully functional young woman, and have the ability to make
that distinction. People who are not sexual for whatever reason may not have
the ability to make that distinction, and so their definitions and boundries
for "partner" could/would change.

All this to say, Being/Identifying as Poly is not JUST about the sex, but to
many people sex is included in their working definition and practice of it.
Taking that part of the definition away from the equation WOULD force me to
stop identifying as poly and find a different term. So in essence, taking
away sex would be "destroying" poly for me. But I'm not going to tell
someone whose definition is different that they cannot ident as poly just
because theirs does not include sex. It's one of those instances where one
must agree to disagree, and really it only needs to be "dealt with" once two
people with different definitions are trying to be emotionally and/or
physically intimate.

And I don't see how it's right that anyone should take offense to that, no
matter which side of it they're on.