I was in a similar relationship. I called them "potato chips" whereas she called them "crisps". Needless to say we broke up.

Lol, winner, both Dan and seandr!

Yeah, this isn't really a question about mono versus poly as it is two people way too caught up in needing tidy labels for things. The two of you just need to ask each other, "I want to do a b c, with people x y z, are you cool with that?" and if both of you say yes, keep seeing each other.

I don't know why the labels are so relevant here. For shit's sake, your grandmas would disagree with both of your definitions of monogamy.

In short, "Shut up and don't ruin a good thing by over thinking it."

@ 1: As George and Ira Gershwin said: "You say 'tom-ah-to' and I say 'shut the hell up.'"

What if he decides he eventually wants to be monogamous (his definition) with her, and she agrees but (by her definition) keeps up all those things she doesn't consider 'sex'? Then the definitions do count...

@6: No, when and if they decide to fluid-bond with each other only but kink play with thirds, they use complete sentences and it's all good.

I'll bet the LW has a Tumblr. That's a hotbed for people who really, really need their labels validated.

"Fluid-bond"
*snort*
Apparently for some people the semantics IS the sex. Back when I was young we used to call it "mind-fucking."

"Fluid-bond"
*snort*
Apparently for some people the semantics IS the sex. Back when I was young we used to call it "mind-fucking."

@8/9 Does it count as sex if you let semantics get all over your face but don't swallow?

Government/s have been known to seriously wobble on semantics of what "having sex" is. Still, I think LW has nothing to worry about as for now. Apart from finding a label for the labelling kink.

I'm bisexual, my girlfriend is pansexual, is our relationship doomed? ;)

Ms Fan - From what I've seen, that's likely the biggest in-war going at the moment.

@12, as long as you aren't pansexual/ demisexual mixed couple. That would create a pan-demic situation.

Some people would rather be "right" than happy.

See, I've always thought of poly as something like what they do in "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" - committed relationships with more than one partner. What LW is describing (without the kink part, I'm not very kinky) is what I used to call, when I was young, "single".

I think this guy is all kinds of confused and confusing. No wonder Dan missed that they haven't actually done anything besides talk....
Most of the first paragraph is totally unnecessary. He is poly maintaining multiple relationships that he considers sexual, great.
He is chatting up new person and they have different definitions of what sex is, welcome to the real world. Lots of people consider kink play sex and lots don't... I would think if he was in the kink scene for any length of time this would have come up like a bazillion times already.

He then states, "So while I maintain only one fluid-bonded partner at a time for STI-risk-management purposes, I don't really consider this practice monogamy." Does he even have any idea what "fluid bond" means? Does he know different people define it differently (some consider fluid bond, basically non barrier use for anything beyond kissing, some only for PIV/PIA, and anywhere in between)? Is he trying to say he only has oral, PIV,PIA, (whatever else one might consider sex or not) with one person at a time?

If LW is reading these comments for fucks sake get a copy of " more than two" and figure your own self out before you try to put labels on others.

@16-exactly. Goddamn y'all can we quit with the label madness? Just be honest with your partner(s) and do what works for you. Seriously, who gives a fuck what you want to call yourself?

>> She thinks that play parties at the local dungeon don't count against monogamy.

>> [I have] a recurring playmate over to my house to tie up and consensually torture.>>

Their dispute is over more than semantics, it seems to me. If they start dating, it sounds like she'd want him to stop having intimate play with other people in private. And maybe no blow jobs from other people.

I think they should talk more about their different relationship expectations, not skip that part to go straight to playing.

Geez, well I've talked to people who don't even think monogamy or poly revolves around sex, but rather, intimacy+closeness, so yeah, definitions.
Also if the powers that be thought s/m was sex (just like you know, penetration) or there'd be a lot of dommes out of a job! Why does everything have to be the same, just because it's all vaguely in the same category?

Sounds like a controlling douchebag! Red flag for domestic violence if you ask me, this inability to agree to disagree.

That's my thought, EricaP. They need to work some hard stuff out before they start fooling around with each other. Since they're spending hours talking, it's starting to sound like a real relationship to me.

#10 That's hilarious!

#3 That made me laugh. I guess my grandma would disagree about virtually everything I do.

@16: That's my definition, certainly. What it sounds like he's talking about is an open/nonexclusive relationship, where he gets to have fun with other people, as long as that fun falls under certain conditions. Which it also sounds like is what she's talking about. So their personal philosophies don't really matter so much, you'd think. I'm philosophically and practically mono in a relationship with a man who's philosophically and practically poly. So we agree on what that is going to look like for each of us, and do what we do.

I think many of the commenters are missing this.
"I've been maintaining multiple relationships with various degrees of seriousness. Some of my partners are people in the local kink scene "

SOME, which means he has non kink partners as well.... He sounds fully poly... While some people can do mono/poly... It isn't an easy thing. I doubt he would be ok with only doing oral, piv/ pia etc.... With just one person.

@14 Hahaha...can't believe nobody else has commented on how good that was.

So is he or is he not banging multiple people? He says that he is fluid-bonded with just one person at a time. But that tells us only that he doesn't use barrier methods during sex with just one person. That doesn't tell us whether he has sex with barriers with any others. I think the writer confused Dan and Dan didn't call him on his weirdly non-specific "fluid-bonding" comment.

It often seems that it's the committed part, not the multiple part, of poly relationships that is difficult for monogamists to understand, while it's the uncommitted "dating around" part of monogamy (or "being single," as agony points out we used to call it) that appears odd to polyamorous people. But as long as we accept whatever it is, without having to understand or embrace it or make other people use our labels, we can in fact not just coexist but sometimes even fall in love with each other.

@27: But polyamororous persons also "date around".

@26 - "is he or is he not banging multiple people?" He is. What he's saying is that he only has unprotected penetrative sex with one partner. He has penetrative sex with other partners but uses condoms. This is fairly common terminology within poly circles.

Personally, IMO, there is a difference between having sex & doing something sexual. If there is no genital stimulation it's not "sex" ... which doesn't mean it's not sexy or arousing. Making out, watching a porno together, tying somebody up, these are all sexual activities, but they are not "sex" in my book. "Sex" is handjobs, blowjobs, footjobs, jobs, and/or fucking.

As long as they both agree on what's okay and what isn't with other partners, why worry about semantics?

If they only have PIV/PIA/oral with only each other at a time but engage in kink with others, and they agree on what's acceptable with others and what's not, why worry if he thinks he's poly and she thinks she's mono because she only has penetrative sex with one person at a time?

BTW, "fluid-bonded"? Really? I'm not very knowledgeable about kink, but I have to wonder about the possibility of bloodshed and if it violates the whole fluid bonding thing.

@30.....
I'm sure his current partners might have some opinions on things. It isn't just about if him and new person agree, current people do, ya know, give a shit about their relationships and what does and does not happen. Particularly if changes are made.

And it does sound like you don't know much about bdsm/ kink stuff.
I am not really in the scene, so I am just giving my take on what I have personally seen and experienced. If a bottom/ sub likes the kind of play that could draw blood they often have their own implements that are used on just them.
Or something like different interchangable tips on say a single tail whip ( my boyfriend has different ones for each person he uses his single tail on, as it can break skin).

Rope is another matter.
I am not sure how common this is but.... I have rope that I bought ( stays in bf's bag, it's a different color than the rest of his rope) that is ONLY used on me, for use around my genital region ( or elsewhere on me). He does not use his own rope for genital area ties... Subs/ bottoms get to buy their own for that sort of thing.

People do care about, think about and take action to minimize fluid/std issues in this regard. Does everyone, of course not.... I find it presumptuous that you seem to think nobody does. Please correct me if I misunderstood your statement.

@30: " BTW, "fluid-bonded"? Really? I'm not very knowledgeable about kink, but I have to wonder about the possibility of bloodshed and if it violates the whole fluid bonding thing."

It means exactly what it states. If you are *exchanging* fluids, you are fluid bonded.

"Bloodshed" sounds like a bit of an exaggeration for casual play.

secret agent @26: "is he or is he not banging multiple people?"
Yes he is. At any given time there may be one who is his main squeeze and he doesn't use condoms with her, but he uses condoms with the others.

DanielleinDC @30: "BTW, "fluid-bonded"? Really? I'm not very knowledgeable about kink, but I have to wonder about the possibility of bloodshed and if it violates the whole fluid bonding thing."

You may not know anything about kink, but you are right that "fluid-bonding" is a squishy term. I think it came out in a column here not too long ago that some people are using it as a synonym for "bareback sex," which is not very helpful.

If you and I fluid-bond, I would expect that you not kiss other people on the mouth and that beyond that you protect any contact you have with another person's mucous membranes with condoms, gloves, dental dams or saran wrap. I would expect you to be scrupulous about any play that might draw blood, milk or other fluids. This works well as long as we only have genital sex with each other but play with other people at fetish parties.

If we are poly and you fall in love with a regular partner and want to fluid bond with them as well, that means I have to trust that your new partner will be as scrupulous with all their partners as I expect you to be even though I have no leverage of any kind with this third person. "Mistakes" will be made; problems and mayhem will ensue.

So yeah, talking in specifics ("condoms for PiV and PiA but not PiM" vs "fluid-bonding") is essential. As are regular check-ins to catch "mistakes" early.

Alison @33: "talking in specifics is essential" -- yes. And regular check-ins -- yes. And a regular schedule of testing, too.

In my circles, yes, I think "fluid-bonded" is basically a synonym for "bareback sex" (PIA/PIV).

EricaP @34 So in your circles it would make perfect [semantic] sense to say, “I fluid-bonded with a stranger in the bathroom of a bar last night — I'd better get checked out.” To me, it makes no sense at all.

Because to me fluid-bonding is a contract between committed partners, not an act that can be performed with a stranger.

*** *** ***
Be concrete, people! Dump the jargon! It’s nice to sound cool and all, but the goal is communication!

It is what it is. Stop poly proselytizing. She has the right to call it whatever shes want. She most likely is getting sick of the discussion to the point of telling him to fuck off.

#10 & #14 FTW!

What you do matters a whole hell of a lot more than what you call it. Adapt accordingly.

To be fair to the LW, I get a mild impression that maybe he's worried about being maneuvered into an open-for-me-but-not-for-thee relationship ("I get to play with other people, because I don't consider that sex; you don't because you do.") The solution's the same, though.

Alison @35, lol, no, I misspoke. In my circles, "fluid-bonded" partners reserve unprotected PIA and PIV (ie, bareback sex) for each other, even if they do unprotected oral with other people.

Thanks, EricaP. Some people do use "fluid-bond" to simply refer to any bareback sex with anyone, so you and yours might easily have been among them.

My feeling is using condoms for PiA and PiV is easiest and most-straightforwardly referred to as "using condoms" or "being safe." In my case, "My husband asked me to use condoms with my boyfriends and I agreed."

Someone who is specifically hauling out "fluid-bonding" jargon with its much wider scope suggests (to me) someone who needs that breadth because "using condoms" just doesn't cut it for what they do. It implies a more complicated lifestyle.

Yeah, I tend to be pretty specific. Back when I was looking for casual sex, I would say something like: "I use condoms for sex, but not for oral, along with testing at least every six months, including HSV even when that's not part of the panel. Also I share graphic details about my extramarital sex with my husband. And I can't host but I can share the costs of a hotel room."