[PT: New versions of -amory/-gamy flags!! /End PT.]
Hello non-monogamous community!
You know how we have a new flag for polyamory now?
(Don't mind the fact I slightly tweaked the heart because it wasn't symmetrical, and there was an extra pixel between the blue and pink stripe).
It's been around for a while now, and is pretty well-known at this point.
However, I started lamenting the fact the other nonmonogamous identities got no update; they were mostly still in the old format with greek letters in the middle. I thought: why not update all of them? So I started brainstorming.
And then it hit me: the white chevron here kinda looks like a P in a spiky font. Do you see it? The heart is like the hole of the letter.
P, as in Polyamorous.
So I decided to stick with the "chevron represents the first letter of the label" theme, and here's what I came up with!
(Note: all previous flag colour symbolism stays the same. For flag-makers: I'll post the .png's of each element of the flags soon; bear in mind I will probably make -affectionate versions of all of these myself at some point, but no-one stops you from trying too!)
Ambiamorous:
The chevron is supposed to look like a capital A rotated 90 degrees to the right. Old flag to the right (also slightly tweaked to make it the same size as the other flags I have saved in my gallery). I mixed the colours of the fade to make it look more like it has 3 stripes, so it fits better with the model of the other flags.
The term is common enough that I actually did see an updated version, but it didn't fit this letter model so I made my own anyway (sorry).
For those who don't know what the term means, you can click here for a thorough definition, but in short it's "not having a preference between monogamous and polyamorous relationships".
Syndeamorous:
This is harder to make out but it's a squareish S. I used the colours of a second alt version (right pic) of the original flag. You can find the first original flag and a definition here.
In short: "defaulting to the -amory of your partner or partners e.g. being monogamous if you enter a relationship with a monogamous individual, polyamorous if your partner is polyamorous, etc.". It's a subset of ambiamory or amoryflux.
Nonamorous:
This one is DEFINITELY hard to see, but the chevron represents a capital N rotated 90 degrees to the right (and slanted, I guess)! It could also be interpreted as an A, as in agamous.
Instead of using a heart, I used a circle. It' supposed to represent being whole without a partner. This flag is also decisively different from the other ones, since nonamory itself is quite different from other types of nonmonogamy.
Amoryflux/Gamyflux/Fluxamorous:
I referenced the letter F for this since it's common across all terms. Think of a graffiti F with the top stroke longer than the bottom stroke!
There is a different original flag also in use, but I based it off this one on the right, instead of the one found here, because it explicitly mentions nonamory being part of the design, while the pink-blue-white-gray-black one does not. Amoryflux CAN include nonamory too!
Definition: "fluctuating between different -amory types". See also here for more details.
Demiamorous:
This time it's not an A, but a pointy capital D. I used a heart but fused it with a circle to reference the nonamory flag, and the roundness if creates hopefully helps make it look more like a D! Original flag on the right; I didn't change the stripes at all.
Definition: "being in-between monoamorous/monogamous and nonamorous/agamous". Check the wiki definition here.
Mesoamorous:
The Chevron is clearly a capital M rotated 90 degrees to the right. I also didn't change anything about the original (right pic) in terms of stripes. I used the circle-heart fusion again to reference nonamory.
What it means, from my understanding: "falling between amorous and nonamorous e.g. not actively seeking a relationship (nonamorous), but if having found someone one clicks with, being potentially open to any kind of relationship (ambiamorous)". It's explained much better here.
Equiamorous:
This uses the letter E, overlapped to the original stripes.
Definition: "wanting to be in a pluriad, a.k.a. a polyamorous relationship where all members are in a relationship with one another". More details here.
Moving on: not non-monogamous, and didn't need a PRIDE flag because it's the majority relationship orientation, but I needed it for the last combo flags and possibly other things…
Monogamous/monoamorous:
No definition needed. It's again a capital M, rotated 90 degrees to the left this time, and it's on the right side of the flag to distinguish it from non-monogamy flags and also to make it usable for combo flags. I used grayscale because of course.
Polymonoflux:
I used the F again; it is technically a subset of amoryflux, after all. Original flag to the right. I used the stripes from the new polyam flag followed by my monogamous flag grayscale.
Definition: "being fluid between polyamorous and monogamous". Wiki entry here.
Monopoly and Polymono:
This is what I meant by combo flags! The first could be used by those who call it "monopoly" and/or have a preference for monogamy, while the latter can be for those who call it "polymono" and/or have a preference for polyamory.
Definition here. It's the same as ambiamorous, but with the possibility of having a preference.
Omniamory/omniamorism (or omnamory/omnamorous/omnamorism): enjoying being in either polyamorous or monoamorous relationships; be open to share love and non-sexual intimacy with anyone regardless of gender or orientation.
This term is older than panamorous and ambiamorous, however it can be used synonymously or as an umbrella term. Sometimes analogous to omnivore (plus carniamorous/herbiamorous), but doesn't have to.
I am 17. I am a trans guy. I am bisexual biromantic polyamory. I am Italian, living in Italy. I'm autistic and have adhd. I'm a writer and screenwriter and an aspiring director. I study cinema and photography. I am a swiftie, directioner, louie/harry/horandog/liamer, potterhead, poppunker, DisneyFan, pjo fan, MCU fan.
Prefacing with while I don't read poly stories, that does not mean I find anything morally wrong with them. I just prefer to read love stories between two people. Now, I see Len as being as very possessive over someone he was in love. I struggle to imagine him being ok with sharing his lover. Do you think there are canonical clues that prove he'd be into a serious poly relationship? My inability to see Lenlike that could very easily just be not having a strong understanding of poly relationships
I think this is one of those things that our personal experiences and identities mean we see what we want (or don’t) want to see in a character and narrative? Which is great! It allows us to identify with characters and see ourselves in them and gain meaning from stories. But it also means we can take the same signs, symbols, actions, and stories - and come away with really different interpretations of them, all of which are valid.
Because I absolutely think Len would be okay with a serious poly relationship, but don’t have any clues at all from canon to back that up. We barely have clues from canon to back up the fact that he’d be okay with a relationship at all, and the only clue we do have is one scene between him and Sara in Legends where he talks about envisioning a future with her. Up till late Legends S1, I actually thought the most close reading of canon would have been an aromantic Len...
And the thing about “would Len be open to poly” is that a lot of the time, you can’t tell if someone would be poly on the surface? I don’t think there are always obvious “signs” or anything like that, short of seeing that person in a relationship and their relationship structure, or else them talking about it and their feelings related to relationships, openness, jealousy etc.
We interpret Len as possessive (or I do, at least) but we don’t have much from canon to support that except how controlling he is over Mick, and how put out he is when The Flash doesn’t direct attention his way.
Would that translate into a relationship? An unhealthily controlling relationship (like he sometimes has with Mick) is a problem regardless, and I’d honestly hope that whoever Len was in a relationship with, he’d learn to trust them a bit more than that.
Would he be jealous? Possibly. But he might also find a poly structure works better for him because there could be (not saying this is true for all poly relationships, just is possible in some) less pressure to fill his partner’s needs and to be “on” all the time for a partner, and would be able to maintain more of his own time and space if he were ‘sharing’ his partner. He might also feel less tied down by monogamy and less like he’s likely to fuck up and ruin something, if he’s not carrying 50% of the weight of making it work (which is a little ironic because to make poly work, people typically have to communicate even better with their partner(s), but it might curtail Len’s self-sabotaging instincts a bit).
It’s also likely that a lot of his past encounters haven’t been in serious monogamous relationships, so he might not have a strong basis for wanting/expecting monogamy and might prefer a certain degree of openness?
But it’s also possible that the opposite is true for all of these - that he would be possessive and that “sharing” might make him feel less like the focus of his partner’s attention, and might make him insecure. Without having many (any?) serious monogamous relationships, he might crave being someone’s sole focus and single partner and might not feel comfortable in a more open or poly relationship where he doesn’t get that sole connection from a partner.
I can’t think offhand of any canonical evidence for one or the other, though others might try to make arguments in favor of one either way. But I really think it’s one of those things where we get the joy of figuring out what works best for us in terms of interpreting a character, and making that our headcanon or reading fic that fits that interpretation.
Chaser: a slang term meaning that someone seeks out partners for romantic and/or sexual relationships based on one particular quality that someone else has.
The term is often used pejoratively within trans* community to denominate transamorous people (gynandromorphophiles, andromimetophiles, gynemimetophiles, transvestophiles), but also reclaimed a lot within bear gay male subcultures for slim/hairless men interested in bear guys.
This may overlap with speciosexual/specioromantic, and exogamy/transculturalism.
Attraction - the action of attract - is not always about liking. The opposite of it is repelling.
Presential and impersonal attractions are not essentially affectional, but they can be.
Odious (as in -odium) is the opposite of amorous/love (-amory/-amour/amato-), fluitic people can experience oscillating between love and hate in forms of attraction.
-odious attracted people can be in relationships with people they feel this attraction. -relational/-relatious is not always -amourous/-gamous.
Odium is a subtype of ecstatic/emotional attraction, but is not opposed to repulsion, someone can be odium-aversed, -favorable or -neutral/ambivalent. This could be circumstantial, spiritual/spirituic or mental/noetic too.
Many people use this politically or (un)ironically (as in poliodio), I'm not the coiner.
