Recently I have been having a great twitter exchange with the amazing Gracie X and the wonderful folks at Multiamory about metamour relations and then, what constitutes a metamour. This follows the recent Multiamory podcast on metamour relations.
I said I think that the definition needs to be fuzzy.
Here's why I said that:
If we refer to it as (only) "your partner’s partners being your metamours" that means we apply a test to the principles here.
Here is a real situation...
I have a friend who has a husband and two very close male friends, one of whom is me. Even though we have never gone beyond a kiss on the cheek I love this woman very much, I never forget her special days, we have our own things to do, etc.
If defining metamour relations means defining metamours, which means defining partners, which means defining polyamory...
That's way too many tests. The three of us men love this woman very much. Who among us is having sex with her is immaterial in the context of this. I am the only one of the three of us men who has had any experience with being and having real metamours. All these two other guys have to fall back on is testosterone, and they can be real jerks.
So, meta, means referring to itself. Amours means lovers. If the shoe fits. We are all lovers of this woman (as in people who love.) I wish we got along better. I don't care what label needs to be applied here to make that happen?
No comments:
Post a Comment