Is there a better label than "polyamorous"?

[lil_jenni]

The key for him it sounds like is honesty and boundaries, and having some part of you to himself. I'd label you Ethically Non Monogamous to avoid trying to shove it in a box it doesn't fit.

Yes and yes.

I don't know if my wife could separate sex to that degree. She's always been on the side of wanting emotional connections (would romantic and emotional equate to the same for you?) for people she sleeps with.

Yes and no. I have emotional connections with women with whom I am sexual. It kinda needs to be that way for me. That was especially true of my first GF after Hubby and 8 came to our agreement. In fact, that was edging toward more romantic type situation when it ended. I have since been more carefully, because it took me by surprise how I felt when it ended.

With guys? I need to like them, but emotional connection? Not really. I mean, I was kind of a sexual mentor to a younger man, and we liked each other, and still talk occasionally, but it's not a big emotional connection. And to date, there have only been two other men besides that younger man, and they were both on my cruise this week. I doubt I will have any lasting connection, although the second one is a very nice guy.

But men are different for me. Except Hubby, it has always been casual with men.

 

[m_and_em_stories]

Labels can help in some cases, but I'm finding more and more I don't really like them. Am I straight? no. Am I gay? no. Am I bi/pan? closer but it doesn't really feel like it fits me then, so then you get into qualifiers. Romantic vs sexual attractions differing between the sexes, even the desires to do similar acts differ between the sexes on a purely sexual level. Really I find just saying I'm 'open' fits me best, as my boundaries and desires change depending on the situation and people involved.

In a hypothetical world that I/we could shove away our insecurities, I'd love to have an open marriage and hear the details of my wife's adventures and share my own without restrictions. In reality, we're monogamous with an interest in occasionally branching out and involving/exploring with others but as a couple or together even if one role is passive or just watching. Hopefully we can move from our current reality towards our hypothetical with experience and time. Calling us monogamous, or soft swingers, or some other similar label probably suits but they all have things that don't feel like they fit us.

TLDR: I think we should worry less about labels, although they can be useful tools for discussion. I think people have a tendency of limiting themselves to the labels they embrace when finding their own identities.

 

[Britva415]

Labels can help in some cases, but I'm finding more and more I don't really like them. Am I straight? no. Am I gay? no. Am I bi/pan? closer but it doesn't really feel like it fits me then, so then you get into qualifiers. Romantic vs sexual attractions differing between the sexes, even the desires to do similar acts differ between the sexes on a purely sexual level. Really I find just saying I'm 'open' fits me best, as my boundaries and desires change depending on the situation and people involved.

In a hypothetical world that I/we could shove away our insecurities, I'd love to have an open marriage and hear the details of my wife's adventures and share my own without restrictions. In reality, we're monogamous with an interest in occasionally branching out and involving/exploring with others but as a couple or together even if one role is passive or just watching. Hopefully we can move from our current reality towards our hypothetical with experience and time. Calling us monogamous, or soft swingers, or some other similar label probably suits but they all have things that don't feel like they fit us.

TLDR: I think we should worry less about labels, although they can be useful tools for discussion. I think people have a tendency of limiting themselves to the labels they embrace when finding their own identities.

Yet, we have to communicate sometimes. That was what predicated this particular question - an actual, real-life communication situation.

Labels can go a long way toward aiding communication - or, as the other edge to that sword, they can impede it, when the wrong ones are being imposed, or, when there isn't a right one.

I'm in a very similar situation to OP, though for different reasons. I don't like calling it an "open marriage" because that implies things, to me and to a lot of other people, which aren't relevant to what I'm looking for, how I conduct myself, what my wife and I have agreed to, etc etc etc. It's also not polyamorous, except in the most asinine "yuh huh dummy 'cause tEcKnIkCaLy..." kind of a way. (A little bit like what happened to OP, only the reverse.) And I don't precisely label it. Instead I describe it.

If I ever hear a label which captures the parts I want to communicate and which eliminates the parts I don't want a label to imply, then I would 100% adopt it whole heartedly. It falls under the umbrella of "ENM," but that's a huge umbrella and doesn't decribe anything at all except for precisely what it stands for, no more, no less: "Ethical Non-Monogamy." So it's a label that I do use but it isn't the right one, or a complete one. It's just part of the wordier description.

One label, "hall pass," comes kinda close, and sometimes I use it when I don't need to convey any more nuance than that, but it too is an inadequate label.

 

[m_and_em_stories]

Life is too complex for labels but communication is impossible without them.

As things go it's about a balance which most of us will never find.