definitions of polyamory

If someone is aromantic, I don't see how that person could possibly be polyamorous. Sure, someone who for whatever reason isn't into romantic love could have several sex partners or several domestic partners, but that person would not be polyamorous. Having multiple FWBs (or whatever you want to call those blurry line sexual friendships) isn't polyamory in my mind - it's just being single and uncommitted. Polyamory infers romantic love. It doesn't include love of all kinds, otherwise almost every single person in the world is polyamorous because almost every single person in the world openly loves more than one person.

This seems basically right to me. My only quibble might be the word "romantic," a word with many contending definitions -- and which some folks would prefer not to use.

For this reason, I think it would be nearly (or entirely?) impossible to write out a definition of the word polyamory which would fully satisfy everyone who would call themselves polyamorous.

By most definitions I've seen of "romantic love," I'm not convinced that the term would any longer apply to me, even. In my ideal world, I'd be free to form deeply loving, long term committed relationships with multiple persons ... in which an erotic element might be present. From the outside, these may look "romantic," but I'm not so sure I'm so much inclined toward--or vulnerable to--limerence any longer. That was a thing for my youth, I suppose.

Romantic love, as it is generally understood, seems to involve a lot of limerence -- at least for the first while. And limerence seems to involve a lot of what now seem to me to be highly unrealistic projections and expectations upon a person. This sets up the "lover" for an eventual letdown, or bubble bursting.

Real love is less dependent on a sort of temporary chemical high than limerence. Its a smoother and gentler high which comes with occasional lows ... and a lot of okayness.


EDIT:

I just had the thought that love without limerence can be just as pleasurable as the juicy moments in limerence, but it's a much softer burn or glow. Its gentler, calmer, steadier ... but just as lovely. Probably moreso. There are not a lot of pyrotechnics in it. It's like half a glass of wine rather than two or three bottles.
 
Last edited:
If someone is aromantic, I don't see how that person could possibly be polyamorous. Sure, someone who for whatever reason isn't into romantic love could have several sex partners or several domestic partners, but that person would not be polyamorous.
Actually, I had a very specific person from our local group in mind who claims to be aromantic. He's got two partners, one live-in and one dating I believe, and they are very much an example of the polyamorous best practices as praised here. Also one of the few groups in my city who would identify with the label. His perception is likely close to what River said, not feeling limerence, like ever, but very capable of a partner-y steady kind of love.
Having multiple FWBs (or whatever you want to call those blurry line sexual friendships) isn't polyamory in my mind - it's just being single and uncommitted.
I'd happily call a person who's got a spouse and a fwb polyamorous.
edit: I can see how that's in the grey area between "poly" and just "open". But I also see the smooth transition(s) between fwb and lover and partner.
 
Last edited:
Karen wrote:
otherwise almost every single person in the world is polyamorous because almost every single person in the world openly loves more than one person
.

The Polyamory Weekly Blog/Podcast site adds the words "long term" in their definition - which, I think, probably helps differentiate poly from simply a single person dating more than one person openly. The "loving" part is the phrase that is hardest to pin down - and most likely never will be to everyone's satisfaction - and that's ok, too.....

having multiple long-term, loving relationships with the full knowledge andconsent of all parties involved
(From the "Polyamory Weekly" site).
 
His perception is likely close to what River said, not feeling limerence, like ever, but very capable of a partner-y steady kind of love.

But I'm very familiar with limerence! I went over the top with it a few times. But now I'm past middle age, and stuff changes when the hair begins to grey. :p

AI99:
" ... and most likely never will be to everyone's satisfaction - and that's ok, too....."

Some say love is a verb (not a verb about sex, but a verb about actively caring for a person). Others think of love as mainly a feeling. I think it's a bit of a mix, but I place the emphasis on an ongoing, active caring for a person or persons.

Well, it's also an active caring for other things, such as life, humanity, etc.

I resonate pretty well with what bell hooks says about love here:
https://www.readinggroupguides.com/reviews/all-about-love/excerpt
 
Last edited:
I think what Karen meant was "every individual in the world" not "every person not part of a committed relationship", because almost everyone openly loves multiple family members and friends but we don't count that as Polyamory.


Leetah
 
Last edited:
I think what Karen meant was "every individual in the world" not "every person not part of a committed relationship", because almost everyone openly loves multiple family members and friends but we don't count that as Polyamory.

Correct.

Because if this is polyamory:
"having multiple long-term, loving relationships with the full knowledge and consent of all parties involved"
then I am polyamorous with my kids and my parents and my neighbors. :rolleyes:

Polyamory implies romantic love. Everyone's version of "romance" will vary and need not include losing one's mind, but polyamorous love is romantic and is very different than "loving relationship" love.
 
Correct.
Polyamory implies romantic love. Everyone's version of "romance" will vary and need not include losing one's mind, but polyamorous love is romantic and is very different than "loving relationship" love.

Works for me. I know there will never be a definition that will satisfy everyone. :p

I'd love to have a couple more friends I could cuddle with, with or without the sex part. Platonic cuddling is awesome! And it's been a very long time since I cuddled with anyone apart from my partner of the last 22 years.
 
Last edited:
Because if this is polyamory:
"having multiple long-term, loving relationships with the full knowledge and consent of all parties involved" [Polyamory Weekly definition of poly]

then I am polyamorous with my kids and my parents and my neighbors.

Polyamory implies romantic love.

I do certainly agree that polyamory implies romantic love (however slippery that term may be) - and, while I realize that you are just making a point, I do feel that I should make clear that the implication of romantic love is certainly present in the phrase "loving relationships" in the above definition, i.e. "loving (sexual/romantic) relationships". And I am actually not just inferring this. I've read Minx's (the site owner and host of the podcasts) book, listened to at least a hundred of her podcasts, and exchanged a few private emails as well - so I feel comfortable in stating that romantic and sexual love are implicit in her use of the phrase "loving relationship", as I'm sure any of her regular listeners would agree.

I do personally like this reasonably straight forward definition, including the use of the phrase "long term" (as I believe it helps differentiate poly from merely "dating" multiple partners) - but perhaps to be more accurate - or to more fully convey the point - "loving" may need further elaboration - with either modifiers or an added parentheses (perhaps - "romantic, sexual, emotional"). Even though there will be some debate - isn't romance just chemically induced limerence? - what about asexuals? - are emotions valid?, etc.... :) Just have to get the best consensus we can, I suppose. Al
 
Last edited:
Updated Definition

I've recently updated the definition of polyamory and the explanation for the PolyNatural site as follows:

  1. pol·y·am·o·ry ( noun ) A type of romantic relationship that is open to multiple ethically interrelated partners.
  2. pol·y·am·o·rous ( adjective ) Having a capacity or preference for polyamory.
 
Okay, so we're back to the dictionary definition. ;)

A core problem is that people like to use "everyone knows what THAT means!!" words.

And then -- worse!! -- use them to define each other.

Take a step back. I can define limerence as "that giddy, nervous feeling I get when I'm around (or even think of) someone I find attractive." Many people are capable of grasping this in both an intellectual & empathetic manner, often relating totheir own experience. It's 17 words.

Certainly, therefore, I feel it's not unreasonable to expect that any credible dictionary-type definition ought to be able to define EVERY word used in the classic "25 words or less." Have a go --
  • romantic
  • love
  • relationship
  • ethical
  • consent
  • long-term
  • dating
  • committed
...for starters. :D
 
Okay, so we're back to the dictionary definition. ;)

A core problem is that people like to use "everyone knows what THAT means!!" words.

And then -- worse!! -- use them to define each other.

Take a step back. I can define limerence as "that giddy, nervous feeling I get when I'm around (or even think of) someone I find attractive." Many people are capable of grasping this in both an intellectual & empathetic manner, often relating totheir own experience. It's 17 words.

Certainly, therefore, I feel it's not unreasonable to expect that any credible dictionary-type definition ought to be able to define EVERY word used in the classic "25 words or less." Have a go --
  • romantic
  • love
  • relationship
  • ethical
  • consent
  • long-term
  • dating
  • committed
...for starters. :D

Point well taken and to emphasize how much I agree with it I also have a whole page dedicated to the word "commitment" in relationships, plus several other sections that deal with the meaning of consent, ethics, and romance. It's often taken for granted that we have a reasonably in-depth understanding of these topics, and yet further investigation often reveals that they are much more complex.

That is why getting a grip on them is so important. One of the main reasons that mono culture is able to maintain its status in Western culture is because the general population has a consensus on what it means. That makes it easy to communicate in a single word a mono person's relationship preference. it also facilitates a general understanding for the purpose of legal definitions that include the concept of monogamy e.g. marriage as the union of two people to the exclusion of all others.

In other words a big part of why the mono community is united is because it has a unified view of what it means to be monogamous. This is in sharp contrast to my experience with the poly community. The lack of consensus in the poly community on core concepts leaves so much open to individual interpretation that using the label is of little practical value, and IMO is a primary reason why it has problems gaining traction as a social movement.

As mentioned on another thread, I've personally dropped the poly label because the social politics of poly culture have caused more problems for me than they've resolved. I continue to be involved on an intellectual level in the hope that these attempts to provide unifying elements ( like concise and accurate definitions and clarifications of core concepts ), will help provide a focus for unity. If someone else can do a better job that's fine too. I'll be more than happy to update my thinking and throw my hat in with them.
 
Polyamory = "the state of being, or the ability and/or inclination to be, in a romantically-connected group of more than two adults, with the full knowledge and consent of all the adults in the group."

That's my definition.

If you've reviewed the explanation behind the concise definition I've proposed you might find that you could simplify your definition considerably without compromising anything while making it more coherent at the same time. Again for your reference:

  1. pol·y·am·o·ry ( noun ) A type of romantic relationship that is open to multiple ethically interrelated partners.
  2. pol·y·am·o·rous ( adjective ) Having a capacity or preference for polyamory.

That being said, you seem to have the right idea. The weak spots are in the number required, specifying particular conditions deemed ethical that may or may not in-fact be ethical in all circumstances, and in using the same word in different contexts. We can discuss these issues if you like.

The thing you've got really right is "romantically-connected". Although you could simply say "romantic". But then again if one uses "romantically-connected" they don't really need to use "interrelated". That simplifies things in more plain language. I like it. Let me contemplate that a bit. I might try fitting that in there somehow.

Perhaps:

pol·y·am·o·ry ( noun ) A type of open relationship where all partners are ethically and romantically connected.

I'm liking it. Thoughts? My only quibble is that the original above starts out specifying the type of relationship right away e.g. "A type of romantic relationship ... " But I'm still liking this one ( a lot ). Let's see if we get any votes for it!
 
Last edited:
Nope. Sorry (though not actually :D). You're still taling 'round in circles as though that makes any sense. Please review this post, where you have opportunity to score a mark at one chance from eight. :rolleyes:

I did reply to that already. Perhaps if we discuss your concerns in more detail one issue at a time? Which would you like to start with?
 
Last edited:
Given that I have seen people engage unethically in both monogamous and polyamorous relationships without those relationships losing their definition of being monogamous or polyamorous, adding "ethically" as a qualifier is not useful. It doesn't define the nature of the relationship, but rather provides your opinion of what you think such relationships should look like.
 
Given that I have seen people engage unethically in both monogamous and polyamorous relationships without those relationships losing their definition of being monogamous or polyamorous, adding "ethically" as a qualifier is not useful. It doesn't define the nature of the relationship, but rather provides your opinion of what you think such relationships should look like.

Thanks for the feedback. The concept of behaving ethically in the context of a romantic relationship is a core concept of polyamory, and therefore perhaps your view of what is ethical is different from the views of those in the poly relationship you were judging. Or perhaps it wasn't the ethics of the relationship you're referring to, but another context? Hypothetically a group of bank robbers could all be in a perfectly poly relationship from a romantic perspective, yet behave unethically with respect to other aspects of their lives.
 
Thanks for the feedback. The concept of behaving ethically in the context of a romantic relationship is a core concept of polyamory,

As defined by whom? By Morning Glory Zell-Ravenheart? By Franklin Veaux?
There are lots of people who write about ethical ways they think polyamory should be practiced, but if monogamous romantic relationships can exist without ethics being at the core of it, then so can polyamorous ones.

This is not to argue that ethics shouldn't be at the core of polyamorous relationships. Ethics should be at the core of all relationships, which is why it is a useless qualifier for a definition of polyamory.

and therefore perhaps your view of what is ethical is different from the views of those in the poly relationship you were judging. Or perhaps it wasn't the ethics of the relationship you're referring to, but another context?

Abuse happens in monogamous relationships. This does not stop them from being monogamous in nature. Abuse happens in polyamorous relationships. This does not stop them from being polyamorous in nature. Unless you want to argue for abusive relationships being ethical, it is useless to attempt to create a qualifier of ethics to a definition that merely describes the number of people both parties have consented to being romantically involved with.

Hypothetically a group of bank robbers could all be in a perfectly poly relationship from a romantic perspective, yet behave unethically with respect to other aspects of their lives.

This is irrelevant. I haven't said anything about the ethics of actions outside of the relationship. I have only spoken about whether one is conducting the relationship ethically. If you think my perception of unethical relationship is merely a subjective mis-perception and everyone sees different things as ethical, you are only serving to make the inclusion of that word even less useful.
 
As defined by whom? By Morning Glory Zell-Ravenheart? By Franklin Veaux?
Ethics as a core facet of polyamory date back not only to its inception with Morning Glory Zell-Ravenheart, and as covered by Franklin Veaux, but also Hardy & Easton, authors of The Ethical Slut, considered by many to be the Bible of polyamory. There is no escaping the historical significance of this fact and therefore it cannot simply be hand waved as irrelevant.
There are lots of people who write about ethical ways they think polyamory should be practiced
Yes. And they should.
... but if monogamous romantic relationships can exist without ethics being at the core of it, then so can polyamorous ones.
Monogamous relationships don't include an ethical component as part of its definition. It is simply about limiting the number of partners; nothing else. Therefore the idea that the same principles apply to both isn't logically coherent .
This is not to argue that ethics shouldn't be at the core of polyamorous relationships. Ethics should be at the core of all relationships, which is why it is a useless qualifier for a definition of polyamory.
To proclaim ethics is a useless qualifier in one type of relationship because it's your opinion that it should apply to all relationships is only logically coherent to your particular viewpoint. In order to have an objective definition that applies evenly to those who have other views, the ethical component needs to be stated in no uncertain terms.
Abuse happens in monogamous relationships. This does not stop them from being monogamous in nature. Abuse happens in polyamorous relationships. This does not stop them from being polyamorous in nature. Unless you want to argue for abusive relationships being ethical, it is useless to attempt to create a qualifier of ethics to a definition that merely describes the number of people both parties have consented to being romantically involved with.
Again, comparing monogamy to polyamory is not logically coherent as they both have different qualifiers. Monogamy limits its definition strictly to the number of partners involved. Polyamory carries with it an ethical component, and therefore one could rightly claim that unethical behavior with respect to the interpersonal aspect of a romantic relationship would disqualify it as as polyamorous ( as it should ).
 
Last edited:
Back
Top