Etiquette

River

Active member
Wikipedia defines etiquette as " ... a code of behavior that delineates expectations for social behavior according to contemporary conventional norms within a society, social class, or group."

In the Wikipedia article on etiquette, under the heading of "Politeness," it says,

During the Enlightenment era, a self-conscious process of the imposition of polite norms and behaviours became a symbol of being a genteel member of the upper class. Upwardly mobile middle class bourgeoisie increasingly tried to identify themselves with the elite through their adopted artistic preferences and their standards of behaviour. They became preoccupied with precise rules of etiquette, such as when to show emotion, the art of elegant dress and graceful conversation and how to act courteously, especially with women.

Naturally, at some point those of the "lesser classes" would poke fun at, and deliberately violate some of the etiquette of the pretentious and the self-proclaimed elite. Much comedy and humor has derived from this proclivity.

Some of our etiquette, though, is pretty much universally subscribed to, regardless of class -- and doesn't really belong to class considerations at all. Most of these expectations (or rules, or guidelines, or whatever we may wish to call them) are so commonly agreed upon because it is genuinely unkind to violate these norms. An example would be to lavish one person at a dinner party with attention while ignoring the other -- or others -- present. Another would be to cough and sneeze incessantly over a brunch table while not bothering to cover one's mouth when doing so. (This is a violation of a commonly held norm because ... well, because of germs! not to mention spittle.)

I started this thread because I think there are often good reasons to violate certain particular social norms (which may fall under the broad heading of etiquette / politeness / manners...). But which ones, and why?

... and because I honestly think we're losing a lot of our necessary common courtesies -- and while some of these are both illegal and potentially lethal in their consequences, they are becoming more and more common violations. Like not looking both ways when at any kind of intersection, such as not to notice pedestrians on the sidewalk, or even the crosswalk. This is more than rude, but in all honesty I experience this about three hundred times a year, at least (as a pedestrian and a bicyclist). Also, I and my friends all agree that in our town it's becoming more and more common to see folks blowing through a red light (in a car) at intersections. This is not simply the violation of a common courtesy or etiquette, of course, but the example shares factors in common with common courtesy -- most especially the active care for others and their needs and desires.

But I'm mostly interested in talking about (and listening in on) topics under the broad heading of etiquette as it relates to friendships, loverly relationships, and the sort of things we discuss here in the Polyamory forum. Topics here may include, "Do most of the same expectations and norms adhered to in mono relationships apply equally in poly ones?" "Aren't these norms generally applicable to non-sexual and non-romantic relationships -- be they platonic friendship or even in relation to the various acquaintances and strangers we see on any given day?"

So it's a very big, broad topic. Feel free to riff on it as you like.

Edit:

Does common etiquette generally boil down to kindness toward others?

Do violations of common etiquette amount, most basically, to meanness?

Is empathy and compassion our best guide in behaving with common courtesy / social etiquette?
 
Last edited:
I am wondering if the old rules about profanity still apply in any situation today. I have many relatives who are not comfortable with profanity. Thoughts?
 
I am wondering if the old rules about profanity still apply in any situation today. I have many relatives who are not comfortable with profanity. Thoughts?

Interesting question!

I have a very recent example of the use of profanity in a very public setting which may help us explore some of the themes I brought up in my opening post.

In short, I told my partner -- rather loudly -- to "fork off!" (only I used the actual F-bomb) right in Whole Foods on Sunday. My exasperated and hurt exclamation was loud enough to get anyone's attention within twenty yards or so. I didn't hold back.

I rarely say such a thing, "fork off!," to anyone. I reserve such speech for those times when I am feeling particularly violated, disrespected or treated with what feels to me at the time outrageous indifference or disregard. (Guess what my "buttons" are.)

Luckily for me, I can now tell my partner Fork Off! without resulting in him running off to Tahiti or Pittsburgh. There was a time when it simply wasn't so. Fork Off! meant, to him, "This is the END, I never want to see your sorry ass again!" I've managed to translate the phrase in my own usage for him.


I told him to fork off because I had repeated something another someone said to me earlier which wildly violated (it was a 9 on a 10 scale violation) my sense of common kindness. Well, my partner, K, didn't want to hear about it and so a Great Wall (not unlike the one in China, but invisible) suddenly appeared between K and I. None of this repeating could be heard even two yards away, it was barely over a whisper, and my mood wasn't half as bad as K probably assumed.

I can't stand that Wall, especially when what I'm asking for (if obliquely) is empathy and compassion. It (the Wall) triggers me where it hurt most when I was a kid, where there is still a festering, unhealed wound about not being treated with empathy, compassion and kindness half as much as I needed it then. Thus all the flying forks. But no one ever gets really hurt in these outbursts. No actual forks are involved.

Maybe, sometimes, profanity is nothing more than exasperation manifest as syllables? That's how I generally use it, anyway. It seems a relatively minor offense, as contrasted with actually being gouged with a fork.

Eh, I can barely give a shit enough to get worked up over profanity. Profanity may, in fact, prevent some folks from harming themselves or someone else. It may serve as a release valve for a moment when nothing else will do without causing real harm.
 
Last edited:
I just have to share this quote from the aforementioned Wikipedia article, because it causes me great, uproarious laughter!

Says Wikipedia "Chesterfield epitomised the restraint of polite 18th-century society, writing, for instance, in 1748:

I would heartily wish that you may often be seen to smile, but never heard to laugh while you live. Frequent and loud laughter is the characteristic of folly and ill-manners; it is the manner in which the mob express their silly joy at silly things; and they call it being merry. In my mind there is nothing so illiberal, and so ill-bred, as audible laughter. I am neither of a melancholy nor a cynical disposition, and am as willing and as apt to be pleased as anybody; but I am sure that since I have had the full use of my reason nobody has ever heard me laugh.

Edit:

And since I can't help myself I'll also mention that the Wikipedia article also goes into "Types" of manners, one of which is "Courtesy Manners" which " – demonstrate one’s ability to put the interests of others before oneself; to display self-control and good intent for the purposes of being trusted in social interactions."

But I think, more often than not, we should NOT put others' interests before our own. Sometimes we should, perhaps. But not as a matter of generalized habit. Where I see people violate basic kindness (which has much to do with manners and etiquette) most often is in actions which disregard the "interests" of others. Usually, there is no real incompatibility of "interests" in relationship/s. I've got to take good care of you to take good care of me, in most cases. And vice versa. Life hardly seems like a "zero sum game" to me.
 
Last edited:
Etiquette isn't always clear cut. As I said in the previous thread, it would be just as polite and considerate for the OP to defer her need for constant equality (or superiority) as she has more time with the hinge partner than the new person. It all depends on your views and relationship structure.
 
Etiquette isn't always clear cut. As I said in the previous thread, it would be just as polite and considerate for the OP to defer her need for constant equality (or superiority) as she has more time with the hinge partner than the new person. It all depends on your views and relationship structure.

Yes, many questions of social etiquette are "situational". That is, it depends on certain variables in the unique particular situation how and whether certain norms are to be applied. But this doesn't mean that we can or should simply behave with obliviousness to these norms. The norms are usually there for a reason, and it is the reason for the norms which allow us to apply them with situational specificity.

It is GENERALLY rude and mean to heap one person in the room with a lot of attention while basically ignoring another one in the room. That's the norm, and it can be applied situationally only if applied with knowledge and sensitivity to the overall situation.

One only carries an umbrella if it looks like rain. That's not etiquette, but it does provide some hint at what I mean by "situational". If it's a bright sunny day with zero chance of rain it can look rather silly to be carrying an umbrella.

The situation mentioned above was mentioned here: http://www.polyamory.com/forum/showthread.php?t=109335

Here's an excerpt from the opening post in that thread:

Because I'm new to this lifestyle, and I know I struggle hardcore with my self confidence, im not sure if this is something that is normal, to be ignored in front of a potential metamour, and im just being jealous; or if this is an actual issue that I should bring up to him.

This gives us details and particulars of the situation. She's new to this approach to relationships and has trouble with self-esteem. So this is therefore not an appropriate situation for bending the etiquette convention. The convention (treating people more equally regards attention and affection) should have been applied in this situation. It wasn't, and that hurt. Because GeekonFleek is both unaware of how etiquette may shift situationally in a "polyamorous" context, and because she's got difficulty with self-esteem, she wasn't even sure she had a right to be treated more sensitively and kindly than she was. That makes the usual etiquette convention even more important in this situation.
 
Last edited:
Equally, someone could believe in "starting as they mean to go on", and showing their new to poly live in partner that they aren't going to be central when other partners come to visit.

It's a way of creating etiquette. There isn't any set etiquette for non monogamy as it isn't a norm.
 
It's a way of creating etiquette. There isn't any set etiquette for non monogamy as it isn't a norm.

Over many years of reading and talking (for example, here in this forum) about polyamory, I've come to believe that while not all poly folk agree on all aspects of a common etiquette of polyamory, most of us agree that the etiquette of relationships in general applies to poly or mono about equally. There seems to be a basic common code of conduct in relationships which we all draw from to decide how we should relate to one another.

Don't you think so?

I'd say about 95% of relational etiquette basically reduces to "be kind" (with kindness including terms like respectful, considerate, thoughtful, fair, empathetic, compassionate, etc.).

Unfortunately, many of us just don't know how to be kind very well, so we need something like a set of rules as a reminder. That set of rules are mostly just a list of examples of what it looks like when folks are being kind.
 
"Don't you think so?"

No. People do both monogamy and non monogamy so differently that I would say there is no normal etiquette. I've met swingers that identify as monogamous yet I've met other monogamous people who think it's abnormal and inappropriate for someone in a monogamous relationship to make a new friend of the opposite gender. I've met polyamorous people who have closed relationships only. I've met poly people where it's okay for non live in partners to expect the live in partner to clear the house on request. I've met poly people where other partners aren't allowed in their city with the hinge, let alone the house.

I don't think there is a common etiquette.
 
"Don't you think so?"

No. People do both monogamy and non monogamy so differently that I would say there is no normal etiquette. I've met swingers that identify as monogamous yet I've met other monogamous people who think it's abnormal and inappropriate for someone in a monogamous relationship to make a new friend of the opposite gender. I've met polyamorous people who have closed relationships only. I've met poly people where it's okay for non live in partners to expect the live in partner to clear the house on request. I've met poly people where other partners aren't allowed in their city with the hinge, let alone the house.

I don't think there is a common etiquette.

Most or all of these examples are examples of pure idiosyncrasy among individuals and small groupings. What do such idiosyncrasies have to do with the question of a common etiquette in human relationships, generally? To my mind, listing a few idiosyncrasies in particular relationships you know of doesn't seem to contribute to an inquiry into possible common relational etiquette or norms.

I'm sure this topic has come up a lot in poly discourse. I think I'll "google" it.

... yet I've met other monogamous people who think it's abnormal and inappropriate for someone in a monogamous relationship to make a new friend of the opposite gender.

Now there's a great example of the train leaving the station only to go completely off the rails in Kookieville. And if you don't believe me, do a survey of opinion on it. Perhaps we should survey those here in this very forum?
 
Last edited:
Turns out there is a lot -- well, some -- about polyamory etiquette to be found online, including some discussion of how etiquette may differ between "kitchen table" versus "parallel" polyamorous folks -- and the overlap.

https://jessmahler.com/the-polyamory-etiquette-guide/

There's also this: http://www.misspolymanners.com/

I think just because some folks don't agree with common "manners" is no reason to throw out the baby and the bathwater.

I would prefer more of the Kitchen Table poly than of the parallel, myself.

http://kimchicuddles.com/post/116304001735/do-you-prefer-parallel-poly-kitchen-table-poly

But I'm also totally willing for there to be some overlapping between the two. I'm exploring a new relationship now. And I have a partner of many years. The new relationship is more of a FWB type of thing than a "full blown" capital R Relationship, but it's also one where we're wanting to connect as whole people, with some real emphasis on the F part of FWB -- more than is commonly given to FWBs. That is, we're wanting to explore a real, intimate friendship -- not just have sex.

Anyway, I see no reason to involve my partner at this stage. Other than to say where I'm going to be spending the day -- or a few hours. In fact, my new (emerging) friend and I might spend many hours or days together before my partner and he meet. And if and when they should meet, it's really up to them how they want to relate with one another.
 
Last edited:
As I see it, the common etiquette in polyamorous relationships is a contextual particularization of the common etiquette and ethos of adult loving relationships, generally.

I just wrote about that ethos here:

http://www.polyamory.com/forum/showpost.php?p=408316&postcount=10

What you will notice in what I wrote (linked above) is that I'm advancing a principle of wholeness (integrity). A whole is more than a collection (or sum) of parts. It is also not a random scattering of bits and pieces of relatively unrelated stuff. Not by a long shot. A whole is a gracefully intertwined pattern of relatedness. It is the pattern itself which is primary and which establishes a whole.
 
I think what SP is saying is that each group creates their own etiquette. There is no universal etiquette.

And I think that would have to be only half true at best. It's true that in the specifics and details of local relationship etiquette varies quite a lot from one couple or polycule, culture or subculture to another. However, if we explore etiquette and the ethos into which etiquette is set, I think what we discover is no less astounding in its implications than what Noam Chomsky discovered in linguistics.: That there is a common linguistic / syntactical structure underlying the world's various human languages.

The basis to Chomsky's linguistic theory is rooted in biolinguistics, holding that the principles underlying the structure of language are biologically determined in the human mind and hence genetically transmitted.

Since the 1960s, Chomsky has maintained that syntactic knowledge is at least partially inborn, implying that children need only learn certain parochial features of their native languages. Chomsky based his argument on observations about human language acquisition, noting that there is an enormous gap between the linguistic stimuli to which children are exposed and the rich linguistic knowledge they attain (see: "poverty of the stimulus" argument). For example, although children are exposed to only a finite subset of the allowable syntactic variants within their first language, they somehow acquire the ability to understand and produce an infinite number of sentences, including ones which have never before been uttered.[188] To explain this, Chomsky reasoned that the primary linguistic data (PLD) must be supplemented by an innate linguistic capacity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky

I haven't (yet) generated an actual, fully elaborated theory from my strongly evidence-based hypothesis, but I think what Chomsky said about language is also true of ethics and aesthetics. The differences from one culture or sub-culture of ethico-aesthetic evaluation are not random but principle-based, and the principles follow a discoverable and mappable common logic, or system. Ethics, in other words, is as whole as language and nature is. So is "value" and "meaning". We are, according to this hypothesis, all very human. Ethical considerations are not meaningless and random, but common across cultures.

This, of course, by no means suggests that we're all agreed on how people should be treated! But we are agreed on what the underlying theme is in our disagreements here. And that theme is POWER. Those who subscribe to the common, basically universal ethos (ethical culture) share the same underlying structure of thought and methods of analysis, which have to do with power (and, ultimately, its abuse). Many don't actively subscribe to this universal and common structure of thought and discourse because they are committed to the abuse of power, not its distribution and sharing. Domination and oppression make "perfect sense" to such people.

Once we see this it becomes rather obvious, and rather obviously structures most of what we call "stories" in our human world, from myth to religion, movies to songs....

Ethics, in other words, is universal and human. We vary only in local details, not universal human structures.

I would go further and say that ethics really is about kindness. Kindness is the basis of all human ethics. And it has reason and logic all its own, and is not just a collection of random parts without actual, knowable relations to one another. It's "whole". Not fragmented, chaotic and random.

It appears to be fragmented, random and chaotic only because of the widespread abuses of power and authority which are, sadly, quite "normal" in our world -- and have been for millennia.
 
Last edited:
The implications of what I just said, above, are ... astounding. If true -- and I do believe it is true -- we would have a very strong basis for distinguishing ethics, so defined, from "morals". Morals are local, cultural / anthropological differences not to be mistaken for "ethics".

I've also alluded (rather obliquely so far) to an evolutionary theoretical setting for ethics -- with cultural evolutionary processes being understandable in relation to naturalistic and universal ethical principles. Human ethical principles--, not mere accidents of culture over time and place. My currently incipient ethical theory is therefore knowable and testable using natural scientific principles, as in linguistics, biology, medicine, ecology....

Despite our many local differences, we're all so much more alike than we tend to believe.

I'm not the first to begin to explore this intersection of Chomskian linguistics and ethics.:

https://www.reddit.com/r/chomsky/comments/6q1zca/whats_chomskys_opinion_on_metaethics/

Edit:

What do I mean by "evolutionary" in relation to ethics -- and how do "ethics" ultimately distinguish from "morals" in what I'm saying? And how does this relate to "etiquette"?

It's a well known fact that from ancient times, people have travelled from one culture to another, intermixing with varying success and challenges. The ancients had extensive trade routes. "Globalization" is different today only in its degree or extent ... and distances of mixing and mingling. From ancient times, folks have known that customs and etiquette and morals have varied widely from place to place, people to people, culture to culture. So much so that it has often been suggested that moral and ethical principles themselves are not held in common across cultures, that "It's all relative". But notice what just happened. I said "moral and ethical principles," as if these two words more-or-less pointed at the same thing.

They don't -- according to the theory I'm proposing. This, despite the fact that "ethics" has often been used interchangeably with "morality" in university departments. "Moral philosophy" has long been treated as synonymous with "ethics" in universities and colleges. It seems a shame, there being two words. Why not allow one of these words to refer to something different -- especially given that "morality" has traditionally been the parlance of local customs and religions which don't even interest themselves in cultural differences, but only seek to impose their "morals" on all of those other people who "Just don't understand".

Did you know that in Thailand it is considered very rude, and taboo, to have the bottoms of your feet (shod or unshod) be "pointing at another person" in most normal situations?

https://www.kohsamuisunset.com/thailand-feet-shoes-etiquette/

This is for particular, local, and knowable reasons particular to Thailand. And there's no good reason not to respect the Thai custom, generally, when visiting there from afar. This is one of the senses of "etiquette". But is it the only one? Perhaps. But the world is changing, and one of the ways and reasons for this change is that cultures have been mixing and interacting now for a VERY long time. And the fact of biological evolution is now well known. We know that all humans are of a common lineage and that "race," as it was once conceived, doesn't really exist. So we now know (not merely suspect, but KNOW) that we are all of one common humanity -- with many cultures and their differences. In short, we know about biological evolution -- which has provided the basis for us to understand, in context with history, that cultures also keep changing, just as our species has continually changed from its inception, biologically. Everything is in flux. And this gives rise to the concept of "cultural evolution". Cultures change and differ, and yet they share common, knowable roots and similarities. Difference is present, but so is sameness. The concept of "cultural evolution" makes all kinds of things understandable, knowable, which were previously not available for us to think about or know.

Cultural evolutionary processes have allowed us to discover that not only are we more similar than we used to believe, but we're all evolving together in a cultural way, not merely in a biological way or sense. New "adaptations" have arisen through cultural evolutionary processes, such as the dawning recognition, gradual as it has been over millennia, that ethical reasoning really isn't the same thing as local customs and etiquette, and that there are common principles to which humans basically all adhere. Ethical principles, not merely accidents of local custom. These common principles share much in common with other universal, human discoveries -- such as mathematical and logical reasoning. 2 + 2 always = 4 whether one is in China, Africa or New Zealand. Water always boils at the same temperature at sea level, regardless of where you live. And ethical principles are really, ultimately, the same wherever we are. This discovery happened gradually, in an evolutionary way, in cultural evolution -- which is just as real and meaningful and profound as biological evolution.

And that's what I mean by "evolutionary ethics". Ethical knowledge grows over time and universalizes. Just as it is in science and math.

Through cultural evolutionary processes, we've discovered that humans are much more alike -- more similar -- than we used to believe. This has suggested to us that the way we treat "others" should rightly be more similar in character than was our previous custom. Previously, it was considered quite "natural" to oppress and dominate and exploit others. Now it is dawning on us that this just is not so. Women and LGBT people, along with "other races" are being more and more commonly understood as belonging to one single human family -- which itself is but one species among many... and so on and so forth. One planet. One life. Unity. Home.
 
Last edited:
I am wondering if the old rules about profanity still apply in any situation today. I have many relatives who are not comfortable with profanity. Thoughts?

Interestingly to me, today (Thanksgiving) I noticed MrS's niece (15?) using profanity (specifically the word "Fuck") in front of her parents, grandparents (my inlaws), aunt (me) and uncle (MrS) as well as Dude. That is not acceptable in my family of origin (although I certainly used the same words with my friends at that age). At what age do people generally accept profanity from their kids? I still don't say "Fuck" in front of my mother (and I am 44 - she is 72, and the only swear word I have heard from her is "Damn" - usually when she breaks a dish or is passionate on a subject).
 
Sorry but I think Chomsky is full of shit on that.

You might possibly be correct on that.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.co...of-language-wrong-pinker-weighs-in-on-debate/

No one seems to know one way or the other. The question is less settled than I had thought.

Nevertheless, I think I am correct to think that there is a common human basis for ethics and that ethics could serve as a basis for relational etiquette, and often actually does.

My thinking on this has to do with the radical commonality of human needs. Human needs are at the root of so much of human ethics. But any theory of this kind will probably always be controversial because it may be impossible to apply "hard science" to the question, "What are human needs?" We can apply hard science to human biological needs, of course. But how can we do that in relation to human psychological needs? Strong arguments can be made about human psychological needs, but they will never have the "force" of the physical sciences, I suspect.

But if folks don't need "proof" I think it can be basically demonstrated that what we hold valuable in human relationships has a pattern of integrity (wholeness) in it. I think that's really important. What this means is that the whole (of relational values) is more than a collection of random, unrelated parts or particulars. The parts and particulars inform one another and constitute a knowable whole.
 
Apparently, the early Chomsky believed in a universal grammar (UG), and assumed its universality was a result of human genetic heritage (it's in our genes).

If, indeed, there is a UG (which is still open to question), I think it's more plausible to say "It's in the total environmental field," after all, we live together on this planet with all of its various shared particulars, constants and dynamics. And we dwell here with very similar bodies with a common sets of needs and preferences. I see no need to look to the genes for all of our commonalities across cultures. We have MOST things in common: gravity, the need to eat and drink and seek shelter, on and on and on.... Nature abides by knowable "laws" and principles in which we have the setting for our entire existence.

It is this total environing field which I would posit as being responsible for commonality of ethical and etiquette principles across time and cultures.
 
Last edited:
Interestingly to me, today (Thanksgiving) I noticed MrS's niece (15?) using profanity (specifically the word "Fuck") in front of her parents, grandparents (my inlaws), aunt (me) and uncle (MrS) as well as Dude. That is not acceptable in my family of origin (although I certainly used the same words with my friends at that age). At what age do people generally accept profanity from their kids? I still don't say "Fuck" in front of my mother (and I am 44 - she is 72, and the only swear word I have heard from her is "Damn" - usually when she breaks a dish or is passionate on a subject).

I'm 56 and have never cursed in front of my mother. I don't think my mother has even ever uttered a curse word. It always made me feel weird when people my age cursed in front of their parents at any age.

I noticed my 26 year old daughter saying fuck in casual conversation with me over the phone. I don't think I've ever said that to her, but she has probably overheard me using it. She never did that when she was younger.
 
Back
Top