Further lexicography

There ought to be a word for “only seeing one other person”, the way that we have “single” to mean “only seeing zero other people”.  Dual?  “I’m dual” doesn’t quite sound right.  “Monogamous but not on purpose” doesn’t really roll off the tongue.  In any event, I’ve had times where I could really use that sort of word, especially when I first started seeing Carrie.  Some lingo would be helpful here, if I could alias to it “I am seeing one or more people but am in fact available to see other people and, in particular, you”.

Maybe if more of the world started using OkCupid’s terminology, and “available” became understood to mean “available but not single”, that would suffice.  I mean, my asking for a word that means “only seeing one person” begs asking why there wouldn’t be more such words.  “I’m triple”.  “I’m triangular”.  “I’m closed-v”.  “I’m a hypercube”.

Plus, I’m starting to realize that, outside of monogamy, “seeing someone” isn’t really a binary.  One can (and generally is) in a sort of suspended state of seeing people, where there may be some time between encounters but there’s still a sort of ongoing togetherness in the ether.  And from what I’ve seen, there’s rarely a cutoff, just a sort of fizzling where it gradually becomes understood that that particular bond is of a different sort now.  I don’t know.

This is by way of saying that I am, for all intents and purposes, newly dual.


10 thoughts on “Further lexicography

  1. Sure, although with some people it doesn’t need to, depending how they comport their relationships.

    I’m sure a word for having relationship-space open would be more generally useful. “Single” is one of those words that isn’t super-enlightening, anyway, as one can be single-and-looking or single-and-content-to-remain-so, or indeed single-and-seeing-someone-new-every-night.

  2. Without weight, everything takes on a vaguely sister-wives feel to me. Not that this is an issue if everything is very serious or everything is very casual, of course.

  3. Right, sure. For what it’s worth, “dual” in this case is indicating one relationship between two people, so weighting wouldn’t be relevant. But it might for “triple” or “hypercube”.

  4. Ah, right, good one. Which implies that I’ve become healthier to ingest.

    And that translates back to monogamy, too. One could be monosaturated or monounsaturated.

  5. Pingback: A relevant conversation | Newly Open

  6. Pingback: Relevant to our interests | Newly Open

  7. Pingback: Stage 13 | Newly Open

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s