definitions of polyamory

Vinsanity wrote:
I think the definition of poly is very straightforward. I don't think that "bad poly' is not poly. There is always room for improvement. I could come on here and try to dictate to others what I think poly is, but who am I to say if you are doing it right or not? The more one tries to narrow it down, the more they are defining poly as the way they do it.

I think this is a very valid point - and similar to the thought that I have been having - that in an effort to "reduce the chaos" (presumably resulting from the current straight forward dictionary definition) by formulating a new and improved definition of polyamory that includes additional ethical/cultural elements, one might actually conclude that even more chaos is being created with the idea that we can simply come up with a new definition that reflect individual (or group) values. After all, another group of experienced poly folks might decide on a competing definition - as we have already seen some differences of opinions on some of the suggested criteria.

Vinsanity wrote:
If you see my response to the thread you referenced, you will see that I asked what I consider one of the most important questions in determining if you are poly or not. How do you handle the thought of your partner having relationships with others? That is pretty key to the whole poly thing. Anyone can want sex or love with someone other than their partner, but not everyone can handle their partner doing the same.

Ravenscroft pointed out the Wikipedia definiton:
The wikipedia definition runs as follows:
Polyamory is the practice, desire, or acceptance of having more than one loving, intimate relationship at a time with the full knowledge and free consent of everyone involved.

However, in a statement designed to further elaborate on the nature and practice of poly - as an augmentation of the basic definition - I think these are two excellent points to consider. 1) Perhaps the true test of poly is how we handle our partner having multiple partners and 2) Poly is not just the practice of having multiple partners - but also the desire and acceptance (whether one is actively engaged with multiple partners or not). Al
 
you've spent this whole thread mocking other people's attempts at defining polyamory
Well, "mocking" is a subjective word, often applied by individuals who have difficulty dealing with disagreement.

In these forums, I am not alone in ridiculing the ridiculous, but highly likely to be criticised specifically for not "going with the flow." I'm mostly cool with that.

Definitions of polyamory are widely taken as Holy Writ, perfect & unassailable. Someone appears in these forums, lays out their approach to nonmonogamy, & soon enough some one thumbnail description of "polyamory" is stretched to fit it, like sweatpants on a rhino.

As outfall, we have people showing up on a regular basis asking us to defend "poly" being used as a justification for relationships that are neglectful, dishonest, manipulative, even outright abusive. You seem to be saying that you SUPPORT that. I'm making clear that I don't.

steadfastly refusing repeated requests for you to formulate a definition of your own.
When I do so, it will be relentlessly nitpicked, in order to take me down a notch & get even for my apostasy (that Holy Write thing again) & as a warning to any others who might harbor doubts of their own.
220px-Apostasialogo.jpg

There will be little interest in refining my proposal into something that can maybe find general agreement, & I expect that any such honest attempts at conversation & negotiation will be buried by the anti-intellectual dogpiling.

I am in no particular hurry to even begin to craft a definition, nor do I see any significant need to be. Explain to me how that could possibly be otherwise.

telling assorted people they're silly or what they say is nonsense when they call you on something
Answering a question to the best of my ability, only to have the words themselves twisted around to claim I said the opposite, is not rewarding.

And if you can find the clause in the TOS that says any of us must respond to EVERY demand, then I'll honor it AND expect everyone else to follow suit. Until then: nonsense; don't be silly. :p

(You could also present the clause that requires you to keep weighing in on a thread you find so grossly unproductive.)

YOU are the expert and the only one who should be listened to
I am not "the expert," & I certainly wouldn't want the job. I'm an experienced researcher. When I have a question, I expect to find firm answers -- not merely what "most people" claim to be firm answers, especially when those pat "solutions" fall apart under even casual interrogation.

When someone else's credentials & c.v. are hoist high as proof of their authority, then I am confident in providing my own -- anyone who makes THEM "an expert" thereby makes ME "an expert." I'm thereby saying that "expertise" is overrated, as anyone with an appreciation for the absurd (or maybe a sense of humor :rolleyes:) can discern.

Stupid is stupid, no matter how many degrees are in play, & wisdom is wisdom.

Even well-intentioned people do not have a clear right to base their prescriptions for how others should live their lives upon flawed concepts that are themselves constructed from poorly defined or undefined concepts.
 
Last edited:
A recurring problem here is that there are definitions, & then there are definitions.

The case could be made that even multiple books -- TES, MTO, etc. -- taken together cannot truly provide a proper "definition" of the concept of polyamory. It's complicated, there's a lot of skills to learn, & there's all sorts of difficult situations that can pop up, which ought be addressed directly & clearly.

If anyone can make a clear case that ONE book is adequate to advise someone on all the potential upsides & downsides -- not unlike a military medical manual intended for untrained soldiers to save their own life or those of others -- then THAT is a discussion I'd enjoy.

IME, people who're already starry-eyed about "trying poly" might skim one or two of The Books, glossing over what they don't understand (or that "sounds so negative"), & pick out the highlights that support their buzz. To say "they studied the book" is absurd.

Solution? Make smaller books. :eek: And IMO, they're just faster to skim.

The "definition" gets shrunk down. A page... a paragraph... a single sentence...

I have to say that anyone who undertakes major life choices, for themselves AND the people nearest them, on the basis of a meme or a catch-phrase, is foolish.

And anyone who encourages that foolishness is either clueless or sadistic. It spreads misunderstanding & eventually pain. It undercuts clear communication, a supposed keystone of polyamory. It short-circuits introspection by laying responsibility off on faux authority. It neatly avoids the need to engage the intellect.
 
Last edited:
Let's dig down to the very basics.

The Level Zero term is polyamory.

We're overdue for some noob to show up & delightedly crow that since "polyamory" is a bastard term -- well, linguists prefer "hybrid word" in order to avoid unseemly food-fights at the banquet :D -- the concept is invalid. The Wikipedia article Hybrid word has a nice list of common examples, including homosexual, so there ya go.

Most of us have heard "from Greek πολύ poly, "many, several", and Latin amor, "love"" so many times that it's background noise. However, it's faulty.

My Greek is rusty, so I have to rely on Google Translate. I go over & plug in a phrase,
many, some, several, or a few
& what I get back is
Πολλοί, μερικοί, αρκετοί ή μερικοί
or in our rather boring alphabet & pronunciation
Polloí, merikoí, arketoí í merikoí
Okay, poly, polloi, whatever -- close enough for jazz. (Plug in "multiform" & get "polymorfos," from whence we get "polymorphous.")

Most people practicing polyamory don't have "many loves," & many never will in an entire lifetime. It's a theoretical possibility, an upper limit, but is not reflective of verifiable reality.

Despite the term's existence for three decades, & supposed research being undertaken for almost as long, there are not yet credible numbers widely available on the actual makeup of "the poly community." But I say it's an easy guess that most people self-identified as polyamorous each have two loves or less at any given moment.

Therefore, "polloi" is misapplied. Closer to reality are "arketoi" or "merikoi," though I can't remember how to turn these into prefixes.

It remains a really cool term, but functionally it might just as well be feinberg (& props to anyone who recognizes that reference :)). So citing what it "means" is nonsensical, little more than recitation of careworn Scripture.

(oops, afterthought -- it's also questionable to attach a prefix to "amor," but moreso to paste on the "-y" suffix. A quibble, but open to discussion.)
 
Last edited:
Well, "mocking" is a subjective word, often applied by individuals who have difficulty dealing with disagreement.

In these forums, I am not alone in ridiculing the ridiculous, but highly likely to be criticised specifically for not "going with the flow." I'm mostly cool with that.

Definitions of polyamory are widely taken as Holy Writ, perfect & unassailable. Someone appears in these forums, lays out their approach to nonmonogamy, & soon enough some one thumbnail description of "polyamory" is stretched to fit it, like sweatpants on a rhino.

As outfall, we have people showing up on a regular basis asking us to defend "poly" being used as a justification for relationships that are neglectful, dishonest, manipulative, even outright abusive. You seem to be saying that you SUPPORT that. I'm making clear that I don't.


When I do so, it will be relentlessly nitpicked, in order to take me down a notch & get even for my apostasy (that Holy Write thing again) & as a warning to any others who might harbor doubts of their own.
220px-Apostasialogo.jpg

There will be little interest in refining my proposal into something that can maybe find general agreement, & I expect that any such honest attempts at conversation & negotiation will be buried by the anti-intellectual dogpiling.

I am in no particular hurry to even begin to craft a definition, nor do I see any significant need to be. Explain to me how that could possibly be otherwise.


Answering a question to the best of my ability, only to have the words themselves twisted around to claim I said the opposite, is not rewarding.

And if you can find the clause in the TOS that says any of us must respond to EVERY demand, then I'll honor it AND expect everyone else to follow suit. Until then: nonsense; don't be silly. :p

(You could also present the clause that requires you to keep weighing in on a thread you find so grossly unproductive.)


I am not "the expert," & I certainly wouldn't want the job. I'm an experienced researcher. When I have a question, I expect to find firm answers -- not merely what "most people" claim to be firm answers, especially when those pat "solutions" fall apart under even casual interrogation.

When someone else's credentials & c.v. are hoist high as proof of their authority, then I am confident in providing my own -- anyone who makes THEM "an expert" thereby makes ME "an expert." I'm thereby saying that "expertise" is overrated, as anyone with an appreciation for the absurd (or maybe a sense of humor :rolleyes:) can discern.

Stupid is stupid, no matter how many degrees are in play, & wisdom is wisdom.

Even well-intentioned people do not have a clear right to base their prescriptions for how others should live their lives upon flawed concepts that are themselves constructed from poorly defined or undefined concepts.

I'm not sure who you are confusing me with but the message you quoted is the first time I've posted on this thread, so it hardly qualifies as continuing to weigh in on a thread I find unproductive. Which I never said, by the way, I've thoroughly enjoyed most of the comments on this thread.

I really don't think it'd matter if we as a board came up with a more precise definition, in terms of lowering the number of people misusing the word to cover actions it shouldn't. I doubt most of those people are getting their first exposure to the word from our board but are getting it from popular press or fiction.
 
I was over on a guitar-player site, & tripped across something that struck me as potentially relevant here.
Back when I had serious hopes of 'making it' our manager said there was three modes to creativity: freedom; discipline; freedom.

Original freedom comes from knowing no rules - throwing stuff together and haphazardly finding interesting things.

Learning to reproduce these initial successes leads you to the 'discipline' phase - you understand by rote what you're doing, and can reproduce it at demand.

Ultimately, a proper instinctive understanding of what you want to achieve yields the third phase of freedom, which has to be your ultimate goal.
This reminds me of the old apprentice / journeyman / master model for learning a craft or trade.

To me, this suggests that maybe there are similar "phases" as well in learning polyamory. Maybe there needs to be a sort of chaotic introduction, to make all the theory & book-learnin' something personally real to the individual. Leap in with minimal forethought, make every rookie error -- once!! -- & learn hands-on how to fix it.

Then, take this hard-won gut-level knowledge, & build strong, positive longterm relationships. As that becomes second nature, change the "rules" as desired, with a very good idea of the risks & rewards this may provoke.

This also suggests that there may be "different polyamories" depending on the experience level of the individual & of those in a given relationship.
 
We're overdue for some noob to show up & delightedly crow that since "polyamory" is a bastard term -- well, linguists prefer "hybrid word" in order to avoid unseemly food-fights at the banquet

Or the well noted objection that it mixes Greek and Latin roots. :) I have seen some discussion on the Net that some folks don't like the term "polyamory" just on aesthetic grounds - they just don't like the way it phonically sounds - and I do somewhat relate to that (I would not have minded a different word - but don't have any suggestions as to what that might have been) - but it is well established now so it is what it is.

The case could be made that even multiple books -- TES, MTO, etc. -- taken together cannot truly provide a proper "definition" of the concept of polyamory. It's complicated, there's a lot of skills to learn, & there's all sorts of difficult situations that can pop up, which ought be addressed directly & clearly

I think there is a certain validity to this point in that a straight forward dictionary definition (that attempts to put forth the most essential elements of a given concept) cannot truly encapsulate the meaning of a concept - especially one as complex and nuanced as polyamory. Similarly, can a dictionary definition even begin to truly encapsulate the meaning of Buddhism - or Christianity...? It is fair to say that not even multiple books might begin to do that.

However, if 500 (laborious) pages of "More Than Two" covering the very same ethical topics being discussed on this thread - or a 1000+ pages of "More Than Two", "Ethical Slut", and "Opening Up' - do not adequately define polyamory, then certainly any definition of a paragraph or two that we devise on this board is unlikely to either. :) So, I'm ok with the bare bones dictionary definition that covers the key elements of multiple loving relationships, and knowledge and consent.

What might also be interesting is a discussion of polyamorous ideals and best practices - perhaps stated in a relatively concise form.... Al
 
Last edited:
I very much like the idea of a "poly best practices" guide. :)

The problem I foresee lies in concision. If it's laid out neatly & simply, it'll be attacked from all sides as "forcing YOUR definition of polyamory on EVERYONE."

If instead it's presented couched in all sorts of caveat & IMO & long-winded soothing lead-up... well, it'll still get attacked (see above) AND lots of people will ignore the parts that don't kiss up to their preconceptions. Much extra work for no clear benefit.

But, well, perhaps ought to be done anyway.
________________

As may be apparent, I was never a big fan of the neologism polyamory.

My experience is that jargon is very handy as a shorthand amongst actual peers, who wish to communicate efficiently, especially on something they talk about a lot -- it beats perpetually rehashing, which is often a distraction & generally a nuisance. (FFI: jargon)

But when used with people outside the group, it's often exclusionary, setting the insiders as "the Cool Kids" who know what's really going on. (This is where argot stems from.) Often, wannabees cop the terms with a poor understanding of the nuances, or even the core definition, & paint themselves as "cool too" by peppering their speech with the (misused) words to impress those even less clueful.

IMNSHO, "polyamory" (much worse than "polyfidelity") had every potential to simply muddy the water yet add very little to productive conversation.

One more swing through Google Translate, curious if I can get to "multiple loves" rather than the overreaching "many loves."

I turned many loves, multiple loves into Greek, & got back pollés agápes, pollaplés agápes. For manyfold & multifold, I get pollaplí or pollapló (depending on the surrounding words).

Hmmm... nah, it'll never sell. Though more accurate, & actually somewhat clearer, "pollaplomory" just doesn't trip lightly off the tongue. :eek: I guess we'll leave Level Zero where it stands.
________________

I am, though, heartened to find a small rise in usage (online & in print) of responsible nonmonogamy, which could be a sort of resurgent neologism; per the WP article (paraphrasing closely):
A trigger that motivates coining a neologism is in order to disambiguate a previously existing term that may have been obscure or vague due to having multiple senses.
Now that "polyamory" is an established WORD, I'd contend that the variant (& often clashing) "definitions" bandied about demonstrate that it has become clearly vague. Worse with the rising usage of "polyamory" to mean "putting the spice back in a serious & committed two-person relationship by having casual sex with others." :mad:

The term is regularly applied to the entire range of nonmonogamous behaviors, beliefs, & even vague daydream desires, including secretive infidelity (& to "open" couples exhibiting clear emotional manipulation), & this usage drifts past many (most?) self-decribed polyfolk without comment. On the face of it, the word is meaningless, & as well now insubstantive in usage. (For instance, find ONE standard definition for "love," as in "many loves.")

Meanwhile, responsible nonmonogamy has potential to actually be parsed out, & applied to practice. While a "negative definition," nonmonogamy at least clearly claims it somehow violates the rules of Monogamism, likely with intent. And "responsible" begs a question which is a good one to be begged. All in all, I'd say the term invites discussion, calls out to users to actually figure out what it means to them, in their situation, while polyamory is a conversation-killer, inherently discouraging examination because "it's already been defined."
 
Now that "polyamory" is an established WORD, I'd contend that the variant (& often clashing) "definitions" bandied about demonstrate that it has become clearly vague. Worse with the rising usage of "polyamory" to mean "putting the spice back in a serious & committed two-person relationship by having casual sex with others."

The term is regularly applied to the entire range of nonmonogamous behaviors, beliefs, & even vague daydream desires, including secretive infidelity (& to "open" couples exhibiting clear emotional manipulation), & this usage drifts past many (most?) self-described polyfolk without comment. On the face of it, the word is meaningless, & as well now insubstantive in usage. (For instance, find ONE standard definition for "love," as in "many loves.")

Seems so to me as well. While still new to the actual practice of polyamory, I have read a very substantial amount of material on poly over the last several months, and it does seem to me that I also see the term "polyamory" being used to describe things that are not even poly according to the basic dictionary definition.

Meanwhile, responsible nonmonogamy has potential to actually be parsed out, & applied to practice. While a "negative definition," nonmonogamy at least clearly claims it somehow violates the rules of Monogamism, likely with intent. And "responsible" begs a question which is a good one to be begged. All in all, I'd say the term invites discussion, calls out to users to actually figure out what it means to them, in their situation, while polyamory is a conversation-killer, inherently discouraging examination because "it's already been defined."

I have also seen variants of this such as "ethical nonmonogamy" and "consensual nonmongamy" - the latter of which had evn earned its own abbreviation to CNM in one article that I read.

I very much like the idea of a "poly best practices" guide.

The problem I foresee lies in concision. If it's laid out neatly & simply, it'll be attacked from all sides as "forcing YOUR definition of polyamory on EVERYONE."

Perhaps "suggested best practices" would be less controversial. And no one is "required" to follow the best practice guide - so a lot less "judgmental" than implying that someone is not poly because they don't meet a specific "crafted definition". But there is certainly a potential for many to find such a list helpful in better understanding the actual practice of actual polyamory - and perhaps avoiding some heartache along the way.

DADT might be a good example. Although DADT would imply a "blanket consent" and thus be poly by the basic definition ("consent of all involved") - my impression is that experienced poly folks would be almost unanimous in agreeing that DADT is *not* a best practice.

Yes, compiling a list might invite discussion and debate - but that is not necessarily a bad thing. Al
 
Last edited:
I like the idea of a best practices guide. I'm surprised it hasn't been done. Ironically, the first google result is a guide to best practices for a couple to negotiate polyamory :rolleyes:

The only problem with "responsible nonmonogamy" is that it encompasses so much more than poly. Are you suggesting doing away with polyamory in favor of a much broader term because polyamory is so misused anyway?
 
I was lately discussing the concept of "community" with someone. Along the conversation, he made an interesting suggestion:
Polyamory is the demonstrated ability to maintain multiple emotionally intimate relationships simultaneously.
I'm gonna have to mull it over awhile, but that seems to be heading the right direction:
  • It leaves out sex as irrelevant (thus including asexuals, demisexuals, etc.)
  • It is inclusive of people who have had positive experience being deeply involved with two or more but aren't doing so right at the moment.
  • It excludes those who find polyamory attractive but haven't actually tried it.
Considering the "honesty" & "trust" & "communication" angles, these seem to be rather deeply implied in the "maintain" part, as in maybe an emotionally intimate relationship can't properly exist without those things.
 
Polyamory is the demonstrated ability to maintain multiple emotionally intimate relationships simultaneously.
Nice one, but "emotionally intimate" seems to include, for example, relationships to siblings (if they are close of course). I can see where you prefer it over "romantic" (but disagree on that).
 
Polyamory is the demonstrated ability to maintain multiple emotionally intimate relationships simultaneously.

It excludes those who find polyamory attractive but haven't actually tried it.

In contrast to the Wikipedia definition that includes the phase "or desire for" - which, iirc, seemed to receive a fair amount of approval in the protracted discussions about the best definition of polyamory.

Wikipedia:
The practice of or desire for intimate relationships with more than one partner, with the knowledge of all partners.
 
There can't be consent without knowledge, but there can be knowledge without consent.
 
Wikipedia:
Quote:
The practice of or desire for intimate relationships with more than one partner, with the knowledge of all partners.

There can't be consent without knowledge, but there can be knowledge without consent.

I agree, Kevin, I think the Wiki definition would be more complete if it read "knowledge and consent"

However, In fairness to Wikipedia, the followup sentence to the basic definition is:
It has been described as "consensual, ethical, and responsible non-monogamy"

So they do cover the consent aspect in the sentence following the basic definition. Al
 
By 'Breakneck pace' I mean that (on both sides) sometimes we introduce the possibility of 2-3 new potential partners a week. Or that sometimes we are dating over 4 other people. They don't ever seem to get too serious (in part probably because we have strong boundaries on time and because they are spread thin due to how many). Each new potential partner takes time and energy to adjust to.

Another repeat here of a common theme. The whole idea of being poly is that new additions to a relationship are supposed to benefit the whole as opposed to a single person, otherwise what ends up happening is that one partner has a whole stable of girlfriends or boyfriends and you're just another one in the corral. Somehow I don't think that's what you had in mind for a poly relationship.

Therefore in my view, it seems that re-engineering your relationship to unify the people involved, as opposed to simply having it be an arbitrary decision that's assumed to be fine with you, should be on everyone's agenda. That would be showing the appropriate amount of respect that you deserve in the relationship. Either that or you need to find someone who recognizes that you're not just another addition to his string of pearls.
 
Definition Of Polyamory

After giving some in-depth thought to how to best define polyamory as concisely, accurately, and objectively as possible, I examined the word's origin and history in the context of critical thinking in relation to the principles behind it. The result is an easy to remember definition that covers all bases in terms of a baseline from which more complex personal versions can be engineered:

pol·y·am·o·ry ( noun ) | pol·y·am·o·rous ( adjective )

The natural ability to have multiple simultaneous romantic relationships.

---------------

This definition may be freely copied and distributed

Source: http://www.polynatural.org/
 
Last edited:
The natural ability to have multiple simultaneous romantic relationships.

I don't know that it should be restricted to "natural" - as a strong argument can be made that it can be learned. Also - based on the history and established definitions of the word, I do not believe that you can adequately define polyamory without including "knowledge and consent".

However, as it obvious from this very protracted discussion, it really comes down to opinion - but hopefully an educated, informed opinion. Al
 
Back
Top