Hello Flear,
For what it is worth, I will tell you what I think the definition of poly is.
If someone chooses to define it differently than I would, there's really nothing I can do to stop that person from defining it that way. If someone wants to say a cat is a chair, I guess they can. There are no language police to enforce correct usage of the English language. And the word polyamory is relatively new, so it is evolving. I feel I have to grant people a little leeway in how they want to define it.
When entering into a conversation about polyamory, I generally assume everyone's gonna use my standard definition of polyamory, unless I specifically find out that someone's gonna use an alternative definition. In which case, I'll cooperate with that person, in the interest of at least having a coherent conversation with them. So that one of us isn't saying "cat" while the other says "chair."
I believe that polyamory frequently involves long-term commitments -- but not always. That's why I don't mention commitment in my definition. I also believe that polyamory tends to involve small groups of people -- in fact three people being the most common number. But again, there are also more than a few cases of a sizeable web of people in a poly group, so I don't say anything about that in my definition either.
From what I've heard, most polyamorists consider primary/secondary relationship models to qualify as polyamory just as much as all-primary models qualify.
For some people, a one-night stand is just a roll in the hay. For other people, it can be a romantic experience with deep emotional connections. In which case, it does fall within the bounds of my poly definition as listed above.
I think that polyamory is generally seen as a broadly-defined (not narrowly-defined) category. So, maybe the way I do polyamory looks a lot different from how someone else does it. But the definition I gave above leaves room for both contrasting approaches. Which is okay, as far as I am concerned.
Oh and it's worth noting, someone can be polyamorous and practice other forms of responsible non-monogamy (e.g. swing) at the same time. Now that doesn't mean poly and swing are the same thing (because they're not).
I haven't told many mainstream people about my poly living. Notably, when I've had counselors in the past, I've told them, but I didn't even bother to use the word "polyamory" (which few mainstream people have ever heard anyway); I just described the situation in plain old-fashioned terms. Maybe polyamory will become a handier word to use in mainstream conversations, but that day is not today.
The word "open" is even more variously defined than the word poly. It means all kinds of things depending on context. With the advent of the book "Opening Up," it has become popular for "open" to denote any kind of responsible non-monogamy. That would make polyamory a subset of open relationships.
The word "polygamy" generally denotes legally marrying more than one person. A mere commitment ceremony would not suffice for the definition of polygamy. The word polygamy has often been erroneously used in place of "patriarchal polygyny," but now I'm getting off on a tangent.
Re (from Flear):
Without the knowledge and consent of all involved parties, you do not have responsible non-monogamy (swing, poly, or whatever). If someone has more play partners than they can keep track of, then they at least need to inform each of their play partners, "Hey, you should know that I have so many play partners that I can't keep track of them all." I don't know of any polyamorist that would condone less notification than that.
Re (from Flear):
Who says it ever got accepted? I never got that memo. It wasn't accepted by me.
Re (from Flear):
I don't know; lust I guess.
For what it is worth, I will tell you what I think the definition of poly is.
- Polyamory = "the state of being, or the ability and/or inclination to be, part of a romantically-connected group of more than two adults, with the full knowledge and consent of all the adults in the group."
- Polyamorous = "practicing, inclined toward, or having to do with, polyamory."
- Polyamorist = "one who is practicing, or who is inclined toward, polyamory."
- Poly = "polyamory, polyamorous, or polyamorist."
If someone chooses to define it differently than I would, there's really nothing I can do to stop that person from defining it that way. If someone wants to say a cat is a chair, I guess they can. There are no language police to enforce correct usage of the English language. And the word polyamory is relatively new, so it is evolving. I feel I have to grant people a little leeway in how they want to define it.
When entering into a conversation about polyamory, I generally assume everyone's gonna use my standard definition of polyamory, unless I specifically find out that someone's gonna use an alternative definition. In which case, I'll cooperate with that person, in the interest of at least having a coherent conversation with them. So that one of us isn't saying "cat" while the other says "chair."
I believe that polyamory frequently involves long-term commitments -- but not always. That's why I don't mention commitment in my definition. I also believe that polyamory tends to involve small groups of people -- in fact three people being the most common number. But again, there are also more than a few cases of a sizeable web of people in a poly group, so I don't say anything about that in my definition either.
From what I've heard, most polyamorists consider primary/secondary relationship models to qualify as polyamory just as much as all-primary models qualify.
For some people, a one-night stand is just a roll in the hay. For other people, it can be a romantic experience with deep emotional connections. In which case, it does fall within the bounds of my poly definition as listed above.
I think that polyamory is generally seen as a broadly-defined (not narrowly-defined) category. So, maybe the way I do polyamory looks a lot different from how someone else does it. But the definition I gave above leaves room for both contrasting approaches. Which is okay, as far as I am concerned.
Oh and it's worth noting, someone can be polyamorous and practice other forms of responsible non-monogamy (e.g. swing) at the same time. Now that doesn't mean poly and swing are the same thing (because they're not).
I haven't told many mainstream people about my poly living. Notably, when I've had counselors in the past, I've told them, but I didn't even bother to use the word "polyamory" (which few mainstream people have ever heard anyway); I just described the situation in plain old-fashioned terms. Maybe polyamory will become a handier word to use in mainstream conversations, but that day is not today.
The word "open" is even more variously defined than the word poly. It means all kinds of things depending on context. With the advent of the book "Opening Up," it has become popular for "open" to denote any kind of responsible non-monogamy. That would make polyamory a subset of open relationships.
The word "polygamy" generally denotes legally marrying more than one person. A mere commitment ceremony would not suffice for the definition of polygamy. The word polygamy has often been erroneously used in place of "patriarchal polygyny," but now I'm getting off on a tangent.
Re (from Flear):
"What if there are no partners who have a say, or know, because no one is a partner to them?"
Without the knowledge and consent of all involved parties, you do not have responsible non-monogamy (swing, poly, or whatever). If someone has more play partners than they can keep track of, then they at least need to inform each of their play partners, "Hey, you should know that I have so many play partners that I can't keep track of them all." I don't know of any polyamorist that would condone less notification than that.
Re (from Flear):
"When did it get accepted that polyamory also meant no desire to love another at all?"
Who says it ever got accepted? I never got that memo. It wasn't accepted by me.
Re (from Flear):
"What is it called when there is no love?"
I don't know; lust I guess.