Your impression of Solo polyamory?

[Mi****]

I’m being constantly mistreated for having that mentality, not that I intend to change myself, just sharing my experience so far…

[Ki****]

I think the problem is that people shorten it to the prefix poly, which leads to confusion on meaning. It’s trying to put too many nuances into one tiny partial word. Also the reason people create other subsets and names to define their type. If you were to say that you were polyamorous, I would understand that you are capable of and comfortable practicing having multiple relationships at once. The specific nature of those relationships and whether you are in any at the moment is for further discussion.
 

I think it’s wise to be upfront that you are polyamorous. Putting the solo on it, with the way you described it, makes me think you either haven’t found someone you want to be in a relationship with or you have something blocking you from taking that step. If it’s the former, then you’re just having sex with multiple partners. I don’t think you should be shamed for being yourself and being honest, but I do see why you get the reaction that you have been. If you’re just between relationships, I probably wouldn’t put the solo label on it. It makes it sound like you just want the sex but not the person. That doesn’t seem any different than dating, swinging, or NSA to me. But the point is to communicate with your potential partners and figure out what works for all of you. Our opinions don’t matter. 

[bi****]

I think calling it polyamory is true but introducing yourself as single and attractive whould be allot less confusing to people.

Since that is what you are.
Also you are being promiscuous and why would you need any ecscuses. There is nothing wrong with that now that we can test who is the father of the children.

(The following might not be socially exaeptable)

Humans are programmed to want and have children. You might not be aware of this need but it is there unless you have a verry verry weird genetic mutation.

At some point (its not going to remain possible) society wants you to help yourself and another person to fullfil your core programming. Which is why people are trying to make you feel shame for living the single lifestyle.

[Ro****]

Yesterday at 03:41 PM, Kitanya said:

I think the problem is that people shorten it to the prefix poly, which leads to confusion on meaning. It’s trying to put too many nuances into one tiny partial word. Also the reason people create other subsets and names to define their type. If you were to say that you were polyamorous, I would understand that you are capable of and comfortable practicing having multiple relationships at once. The specific nature of those relationships and whether you are in any at the moment is for further discussion.
 

I think it’s wise to be upfront that you are polyamorous. Putting the solo on it, with the way you described it, makes me think you either haven’t found someone you want to be in a relationship with or you have something blocking you from taking that step. If it’s the former, then you’re just having sex with multiple partners. I don’t think you should be shamed for being yourself and being honest, but I do see why you get the reaction that you have been. If you’re just between relationships, I probably wouldn’t put the solo label on it. It makes it sound like you just want the sex but not the person. That doesn’t seem any different than dating, swinging, or NSA to me. But the point is to communicate with your potential partners and figure out what works for all of you. Our opinions don’t matter. 

I am not solo by circumstance ( in between relationships), I choose solo because I prefer not to follow the expectations of the relationship escalator. I have relationships. It's just not the typical primary or nesting. I feel they are all important and have no hierarchy to the connections.

[Ro****]

3 hours ago, bighonesty said:

I think calling it polyamory is true but introducing yourself as single and attractive whould be allot less confusing to people.

Since that is what you are.
Also you are being promiscuous and why would you need any ecscuses. There is nothing wrong with that now that we can test who is the father of the children.

(The following might not be socially exaeptable)

Humans are programmed to want and have children. You might not be aware of this need but it is there unless you have a verry verry weird genetic mutation.

At some point (its not going to remain possible) society wants you to help yourself and another person to fullfil your core programming. Which is why people are trying to make you feel shame for living the single lifestyle.

I have had my children during a 20-yr monogamous marriage. My kids are grown, leaving me as an empty nester, and I find I'm happiest solo. I do not feel ashamed that I don't comply with societal standards. If someone wants to judge me on that or shame me, that's fine. It's in their head, not mine. I follow my own standards.

[dominionhub]

7 hours ago, bighonesty said:

I think calling it polyamory is true but introducing yourself as single and attractive whould be allot less confusing to people.

Since that is what you are.
Also you are being promiscuous and why would you need any ecscuses. There is nothing wrong with that now that we can test who is the father of the children.

(The following might not be socially exaeptable)

Humans are programmed to want and have children. You might not be aware of this need but it is there unless you have a verry verry weird genetic mutation.

At some point (its not going to remain possible) society wants you to help yourself and another person to fullfil your core programming. Which is why people are trying to make you feel shame for living the single lifestyle.

The programming might be social as much as anything.

Regardless, not everybody is running the same code.

I like kids. They are fun to have around and observe. But, I do not want kids, ever. (Frankly, I neither want nor am I up to the responsibility.)

If Lynx is happy in her situation, then good for her. I would not be. But, that ain't her problem. (Notice how she has never complained about her actual situation.)

[bi****]

You will find out when you are about to die you are running exactly the same code as everyone else.

Its not necessarily going to make your head explode but every living creature has this programming even plants.

[Ro****]

2 hours ago, bighonesty said:

You will find out when you are about to die you are running exactly the same code as everyone else.

Its not necessarily going to make your head explode but every living creature has this programming even plants.

That seems very narrow minded view. Even as we speak, I have just as much family, friends, and close loved ones in my life. What I refuse is that I "need" someone to complete me. I am a whole person. Yes, it's nice and appreciated that I have people. I'm the same person with or without. It's ridiculous how normalized society sees you as less as a single or solo person.

[dominionhub]

10 minutes ago, RogueLynx said:

That seems very narrow minded view. Even as we speak, I have just as much family, friends, and close loved ones in my life. What I refuse is that I "need" someone to complete me. I am a whole person. Yes, it's nice and appreciated that I have people. I'm the same person with or without. It's ridiculous how normalized society sees you as less as a single or solo person.

I was told to "start a family", as a way to "grow up" and be more responsible, a few years back.

There is also a "responsibility" to have kids, even though there are ~10 billion people on the planet (and we really do not need more, especially in modern economies).

If being single-poly works for you, that is fine.

But, (as seen in this thread) the public perception is going to vary and often range negative.

Years ago, a friend of mine, who was in an open marriage, ran for office. I had no moral issue with it. But, my first question was who else knew, and I was open to "encouraging" them to stay quiet. (I was *not* going to let her lose votes on that.)

[bi****]

September 1, RogueLynx said:

That seems very narrow minded view. Even as we speak, I have just as much family, friends, and close loved ones in my life. What I refuse is that I "need" someone to complete me. I am a whole person. Yes, it's nice and appreciated that I have people. I'm the same person with or without. It's ridiculous how normalized society sees you as less as a single or solo person.

I was talking to the ither guy on having kinds, not to you about having mire then 1 partner.