Poly networking

How about, I am poly, so my heart is big enough to love more than one person, and I am secure enough to admit it. :D
At least that is my version of poly.

Think someone once said "simple truths are the closest to truth" - or something similar. And this is a good illustration of this.

A lot of confusion & debate I see take place here around the whole 'poly' topic seems to me to boil down to a desire of some people to find a term that has been assigned a fixed meaning that they can use both to express who they are and what they believe in a shortcut method without having to get into long complex discussions with people. Associated with that is the huge fear that they will be misrepresented somehow if EVERYONE doesn't have that invariable option to reference to.

This works ok for simple terms and concepts. It NEVER works for more complex terms such as right/wrong, good/bad, tall/short etc !

Take for example a bicycle. If I ask you if you want to borrow my "bicycle", we both have a pretty clear mutual understanding of what a bicycle is. It will consist of 2 wheels, likely a seat (we hope), some steering mechanism - usually handlebars, and probably a chain drive system. And there's probably a 98+ percent chance that in fact, that will all be true. And as long as all those components are intact I can feel pretty good about the chances of a successful ride.

To think we can drill a term like 'polyamory' down to that simplistic list of likely components I feel is just unreasonable. And to stretch that a bit more, I kind of feel that an absolute insistence on that is borderline demeaning. It's almost saying that we question people's cognitive ability & critical thinking skills so much that we have try to push it to a state where the term is self evident - no thinking required.

So if we believe it's so important to do that I can accept Sister's proposal pretty easily. I don't have to analyze that any farther.
Because - as has been noted numerous times before - we can't add anything much more onto this until we define the embedded term that comes with that description.
That being "love".........

So - like saying we are "going for a "bicycle ride" we have a general and reasonable understanding of the device of transport but an almost endless list of possibilities of where and what the "ride" will entail.

But I can't get my head around the bicycle defining the ride - or vic versa.

Ride on...........

GS
 
Last edited:
Can I suggest that perhaps the reason Redpepper is having trouble with assigning the term "polyamory" to a poly-sex party is because of the societal need to lump everyone together under a general term, and that because the poly-sex concept is not one she would like to have associated with polyamory, which does technically mean "many loves", which does not necessarily mean sex?

For example, I was recently an avid homeschooler, and I still believe strongly in homeschooling. When people hear that you homeschool, they assume that your children are poorly socialized and isolated, i.e. stay home 24/7 and never play with children their own age, because this is what society says most often about homeschoolers. This is not normally the case, but is sadly true sometimes--rarely, from my experience, but only the radical neglect cases make the news. Now, if my homeschool support group one day involved the parents finding sitters and then meeting for group sex and the news got out to people who were inclined to stereotype, it's possible that soon everyone would be saying that homeschoolers were into orgies, though I doubt that stereotype would be true. (I will point out that it might be a refreshing change for some homeschoolers to stop hearing, "But what about socialization?" and start hearing, "But how will you get sitters for the orgies?")

By the same token, while some people who practice polyamory are into group sex and/or do not associate sex with emotional commitment, that is more about the individual than the practice of polyamory and perhaps should be more accurately called something else.

Or am I way off base?
 
Can I suggest that perhaps the reason Redpepper is having trouble with assigning the term "polyamory" to a poly-sex party is because of the societal need to lump everyone together under a general term, and that because the poly-sex concept is not one she would like to have associated with polyamory, which does technically mean "many loves", which does not necessarily mean sex?

For example, I was recently an avid homeschooler, and I still believe strongly in homeschooling. When people hear that you homeschool, they assume that your children are poorly socialized and isolated, i.e. stay home 24/7 and never play with children their own age, because this is what society says most often about homeschoolers. This is not normally the case, but is sadly true sometimes--rarely, from my experience, but only the radical neglect cases make the news. Now, if my homeschool support group one day involved the parents finding sitters and then meeting for group sex and the news got out to people who were inclined to stereotype, it's possible that soon everyone would be saying that homeschoolers were into orgies, though I doubt that stereotype would be true. (I will point out that it might be a refreshing change for some homeschoolers to stop hearing, "But what about socialization?" and start hearing, "But how will you get sitters for the orgies?")

By the same token, while some people who practice polyamory are into group sex and/or do not associate sex with emotional commitment, that is more about the individual than the practice of polyamory and perhaps should be more accurately called something else.

Or am I way off base?

Makes great sense to me as a homeschooler.
 
For example, I was recently an avid homeschooler, and I still believe strongly in homeschooling. When people hear that you homeschool, they assume that your children are poorly socialized and isolated, i.e. stay home 24/7 and never play with children their own age, because this is what society says most often about homeschoolers. This is not normally the case, but is sadly true sometimes--rarely, from my experience, but only the radical neglect cases make the news. Now, if my homeschool support group one day involved the parents finding sitters and then meeting for group sex and the news got out to people who were inclined to stereotype, it's possible that soon everyone would be saying that homeschoolers were into orgies, though I doubt that stereotype would be true. (I will point out that it might be a refreshing change for some homeschoolers to stop hearing, "But what about socialization?" and start hearing, "But how will you get sitters for the orgies?")

If homeschooling parents were suddenly assumed to have orgies because some group somewhere in the belt of sin was reported doing this, trying to say "I'm not a homeschooling parent because I don't do orgies" is kind of tacitly saying that there is truth to the unfounded assumption that orgies among homeschoolers are a wide practice.

In other words deciding to define ourselves based on other people's assumptions (which are usually not reflective of the reality) rarely does much to dispel the the untruths and the assumptions. In fact, it usually perpetuates them.

Which is why I prefer to dispel the assumption directly rather than change the word so that people can continue to incorrectly assume the meanings or the practices behind the original word.
 
Last edited:
Makes great sense to me as a homeschooler.

LOL. Duly noted.

If homeschooling parents were suddenly assumed to have orgies because some group somewhere in the belt of sin was reported doing this, trying to say "I'm not a homeschooling parent because I don't do orgies" is kind of tacitly saying that there is truth to the unfounded assumption that orgies among homeschoolers are a wide practice.

In other words deciding to define ourselves based on other people's assumptions (which are usually not reflective of the reality) rarely does much to dispel the the untruths and the assumptions. In fact, it usually perpetuates them.

Which is why I prefer to dispel the assumption directly rather than change the word so that people can continue to incorrectly assume the meanings or the practices behind the original word.

Granted, disassociating yourself from the word doesn't dispell the stereotype. However, there is also the side point that if homeschooling is used to mean orgy, then it loses its original meaning. This does make it difficult when you're looking for more homeschooling families, as you will have to wade through an awful lot of people looking for orgies, thus wasting time and energy you could have spent elsewhere. This can be discouraging for everyone involved.

I'm actually just playing devil's advocate, here. I see what you're saying, I see (obviously) what I'm saying, and I don't think there's any easy answer. I think that because there is sex involved, there is extra social stigma and therefore maybe more of a gut-level reaction to distance oneself from the thing that would make your lifestyle "bad" in the eyes of society--or I guess in this case it would be "worse" since polyamory is already "bad".
 
However, there is also the side point that if homeschooling is used to mean orgy, then it loses its original meaning. This does make it difficult when you're looking for more homeschooling families, as you will have to wade through an awful lot of people looking for orgies, thus wasting time and energy you could have spent elsewhere. This can be discouraging for everyone involved.

For me, this would then turn into a dynamic of oppression. Who gets to define what homeschooling means? People who know little about it but have lots of opinions about it or people who are actual practicing homeschoolers?

If we continue to allow ourselves to be defined by the people who have little knowledge but lots of opinions about us, we are tacitly allowing their definitions to be the truth rather than ours.
 
For me, this would then turn into a dynamic of oppression. Who gets to define what homeschooling means? People who know little about it but have lots of opinions about it or people who are actual practicing homeschoolers?

If we continue to allow ourselves to be defined by the people who have little knowledge but lots of opinions about us, we are tacitly allowing their definitions to be the truth rather than ours.

Sincerely Ceoli, I do not mean this as a challenge or any type of attack. I simply don't understand the resistance to defining words and terms. To use this example, the majority will define what homeschooling will ultimately mean. Through majority understanding the term will be defined and come to have meaning. Without majority understanding the idea of homeschooling means nothing. The same can be applied to any word. Some people will feel excluded, that is inevitable in all areas of life. All inclusive is a myth.
 
Sincerely Ceoli, I do not mean this as a challenge or any type of attack. I simply don't understand the resistance to defining words and terms. To use this example, the majority will define what homeschooling will ultimately mean. Through majority understanding the term will be defined and come to have meaning. Without majority understanding the idea of homeschooling means nothing. The same can be applied to any word. Some people will feel excluded, that is inevitable in all areas of life. All inclusive is a myth.

I don't see it as a resistance to defining words or as an attempt to be all inclusive. I'm simply speaking to differentiating between the actual definition and the assumptions attached to a definition. If we had always let people's identities and the definitions attached to those identities be governed by the false and often uninformed assumptions of "the majority", we would probably be still be considering many people as second class citizens and people in Australia would still be classifying the indigenous people there as fauna.

In fact, I see the approach of allowing assumptions to govern defining of terms as fairly resistant to the idea of defining terms.
 
I have been trying to get to this thread for days now but life got too busy. I seem to be at a better place than I was before about these differences. Thanks to my friend. I understand it now as a sway from being more casual and less committed to others about ones sex life and a sway to being connected and bonded to certain partners. It has been suggested to me that we are all a part of a poly network and we can sway one way or the other sometimes. We can do this depending on the partner or persons we are with.

This lead me to think about boundaries and sexual self care. I think it is important for anyone, but especially those that identify as poly to think deeply on how they can practice self care in their sex lives.

So this lead me to my own self care... I think that mine revolves around my partners for sure. If such time arises when their need for certain boundaries makes my self care unhealthy then it is time to discuss or move on. Or both. I will remind myself of those boundaries and my own when engaging with a person on a sexual level. We will all remember that they are a work in progress in part and possess values that are exclusive to all of us.

So the other part of self care is to stay in my body and think about my psychological make up. Just because I have a lot of sexual experience and am very comfortable with just about anything, provided the safety and respect involved, does not mean that I should DO everything anyone asks.

I had a chance to say "no" twice this week. Once to a man half my age that started to flirt with me and to another long time friend who wanted to practice "yoni" massage (massaging of the genitals) on me. I love anything sexual and was thrilled at both, but it was not in the context of our group boundaries to pursue either and I had to respect that. I was disappointed at first, but now feel very secure in the integrity, thoughtfulness and compassion I had for my loves. My friend even told me that he was impressed that I was so.

The other important aspect I think is to remember to ask to be commended when I say no to activities that are unsuitable to my boundary agreements. Also to commend others too. I often find that I am left feeling like I am not being "cool" or that I am missing out and that is just not the case. There is no reason I have to engage in everything as soon as it comes up. I can be patient, wait, let it filter and then see how I feel. Quite often I realize that I have done it before and am not missing anything and besides, I don't have to follow what the crowd is doing... I just have to follow what I need/want and what is right for us. In doing so I keep my integrity.

So all this has come to the culmination of two things... I have started the process of creating a workshop on "sexual self care- knowing your boundaries and knowing when to push them" and a communication workshop based on NVC for poly people in my community. Oh this is so like me.... turn my shit into a workshop... I'm lucky, it looks like my friend wants to help and he is a doctor of sexology! I get to use some old skills I have a masters degree in too! Must dust off the old suitcase and use my brain for a different function. We will see where it goes. Early stages yet.
 
In fact, I see the approach of allowing assumptions to govern defining of terms as fairly resistant to the idea of defining terms.

I'll agree that assumptions are not good. That is why I like to define words very specifically. This causes some level of exclusion but I am willing to accept that in order to create clarity. I am also willing to accept my own exclusion if I do not fit the ultimate definition. I'll find something else that applies :)

If such time arises when their need for certain boundaries makes my self care unhealthy then it is time to discuss or move on. Or both.

This is an awesome statement and one that everyone no matter what approach to relationships should always keep in mind!

In doing so I keep my integrity.

No amount of external love or affection can replace this.

I have started the process of creating a workshop on "sexual self care- knowing your boundaries and knowing when to push them" and a communication workshop based on NVC for poly people in my community. .

This is great Lilo! I love the idea of sharing experiences and hopefully aiding in another persons journey.Very excited for you:)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'll agree that assumptions are not good. That is why I like to define words very specifically. This causes some level of exclusion but I am willing to accept that in order to create clarity. I am also willing to accept my own exclusion if I do not fit the ultimate definition. I'll find something else that applies :)

Being specific and being clear are not always synonymous. In the case of polyamory, pretty much everyone agrees that it means multiple loving relationships. That definition seems pretty clear to me. The confusion comes in when people start trying to be specific about which relationships qualify as loving relationships and which don't. The more specific we attempt to be in the definition, the more we undermine the actual meaning of the word and leave assumptions unaddressed.

The trouble is people keep trying to make words mean more than they actually mean. This may be in the name of trying to define a word more specifically, but I've yet to see an instance where this actually clarifies things. Generally, all it does is create more confusion and debate.
 
Generally, all it does is create more confusion and debate.

No argument there! I totally get your point. And so the cycle continues where my need to have definites results in my inability to fulfill my needs in this area.
Yet again I am left with explanations as opposed to terminology. My brain really doesn't like vagueness....it actually hurts :eek:
 
My brain really doesn't like vagueness....it actually hurts :eek:

The thing is, when I let go of the assumptions, there's nothing vague about it at all to me. A broad term is not the same as a vague term. Nobody takes the word "man" and calls it a vague term that can't be defined very well even though there are hugely different ways the word "man" can manifest in reality. It's because it is designed to be a broad term and most people don't expect the word "man" to create a specific description of ALL the aspects of masculinity. We don't confuse the actual word with examples of the word.

It is entirely possible to create a more specific word that falls underneath the broad term of polyamory without rejecting the broad term itself but being included in it. I'm wondering where this need to exclude people from a broad term comes from.
 
I'm wondering where this need to exclude people from a broad term comes from.


AHA! I think we figured this out. It is not about excluding people from a broad term, it's about finding a narrow term that defines my relationship. It does include separating that word from the umbrella for me though. This again is to avoid confusion. And yes, wanting to disassociate with something usually implies a certain judgment or conflict of values. I admit that. So I am in affect judgmental; I admit that too. But in order to overcome harmful judgmentS I must first be completely honest that they exist. I must also recognize that I do not consider all judgments harmful.
 
And yes, wanting to disassociate with something usually implies a certain judgment or conflict of values. I admit that. So I am in affect judgmental; I admit that too. But in order to overcome harmful judgmentS I must first be completely honest that they exist. I must also recognize that I do not consider all judgments harmful.

I don't consider all judgments harmful either. But I do consider inaccurate and misinformed assumptions to be harmful and that's more what this is about for me. For me, disassociating from the umbrella term because of the assumptions attached to it means I'm tacitly saying that there is truth to the assumptions made about it when that's not the case. For me, there's more integrity in sticking to the truth of the term rather than yield to the assumptions attached to the term.
 
For me, disassociating from the umbrella term because of the assumptions attached to it means I'm tacitly saying that there is truth to the assumptions made about it when that's not the case.

I think this perfectly describes a fundamental difference between you and I. You seem to have a certain passion and desire to protect the umbrella, where I do not.

In truth there are few things I am passionate about so my willingness to surrender things and move on is indicative of my nature.
 
I think this perfectly describes a fundamental difference between you and I. You seem to have a certain passion and desire to protect the umbrella, where I do not.

I think my passion would be more accurately described as a desire to dismantle the harmful effects that prejudice and inaccurate assumptions can create in individuals, groups of people and society in general.

This isn't a poly-specific passion of mine :) It's why I'm a teacher and facilitator and why I work in sexuality education. It informs a lot of what I do in life.
 
Back
Top