what is "in the closet" ?

Hello Flear,

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."
You will note that *I* believe poly has a romantic element. Others do not share my definition of the word, but I do base my definition on what the majority of polyamorists I've talked to seem to define it as.

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.
 
I've read through it and I think that people describing themselves as poly or mono have the same amount of meaning. I don't think that this is a problem with definitions of poly - it's just that if you want to know what people mean by something, you need to ask.

For example - if I felt that way inclined, I think I could legitimately describe myself as mono. Both of the serious relationships I've had in my life have been mono (one lasted 10 years and the other has been going for 4 years). Right now I wouldn't have a partner being poly while I was mono either so any relationship I'm in does need to be physically mono.

So I think I could claim the label monogamous if I so chose.

People could take anything from that. They might think that I was looking for a husband, children, shared home. They might think I wanted to date one person at a time. They might have expectations about length of relationship.

I could mean almost anything. I could mean that I consider myself mono but at the moment I'm interested only in casual sex and any time I choose to shag somebody, it'll be a one night thing or sex as part of a friendship with no other relationship starting from it (I've lived that for years).

Or I might describe myself mono but not be interested in any kind of sexual or romantic relationship other than with myself (I've lived that for years too).

I might mean that I'm looking for a husband and children (highly unlikely in my case).

Or I might be open to starting as friends and seeing where things go.

I could just as easily describe myself as poly if I wanted to. Romantically loving more than one person has always been part of my life and is so now even though I choose not to act on those feelings.

I could describe myself as poly and then explain to anybody that wanted to date me that while I feel poly, I don't want to live it.

In practise I don't describe myself as anything. I don't find it useful. I'd rather just talk to folk as it comes up and explain my situation.

IP
 
to quote another person i spoke with
"... people who use the word poly to be non committal with everyone. It's got a bad rep because of the people who misrepresent it."

but hey, lets ignore that.
 
I don't understand your investment in making people define themselves so YOU can understand it. You clearly have an agenda here.

Spit it OUT.

What is your point? What is your goal here? Are you expecting "certain people" to stop using a term you don't feel they should? Are you trying to slut-shame?

Polyamory is, at its heart, only about being able to love more than one person. Not that you ARE in love with more than one person, nor that you will. Not that you love everyone you're with, nor don't.

Maybe someone feels that sex IS love. And that is the "love" in their many loves.

Who gives you the right to be the authority?

You're saying things that are dismissive and argumentative. And you grab on to the one or two phrases you think validates your agenda... whatever that may be.

So be up front. What's your point, exactly?
 
to quote another person i spoke with
"... people who use the word poly to be non committal with everyone. It's got a bad rep because of the people who misrepresent it."

but hey, lets ignore that.

And that invalidates the term? Or does it mean that we need some good examples as well? If something has a bad rep, does it mean we give up on it altogether? I'm sure there are many religious folks of various stripes who don't feel this way.

I agree with ClockworkDragon and others - what are you getting at, exactly? What is your takeaway point that you're trying to make? Asking open-ended questions and then making snide comments really isn't making your point, but it is making people (including you, evidently) frustrated.
 
Re (quoted by Flear):
"... people who use the word poly to be noncommittal with everyone. It's got a bad rep because of the people who misrepresent it."

Sorry if the word provides wiggle room for people who don't want a lot of commitment. Commitment isn't everyone's cup of tea. I am personally in a poly unit that is very committed (for life), but poly can be many things and that's just one of them.

You might be more partial to the word "polyfidelity," which denotes a lot more commitment than "polyamory" does. Polyfidelity is a subset of polyamory, I think.

Re:
"But hey, let's ignore that."

As you can see, we're not ignoring anything. Does it please you to goad us for crimes we didn't even commit?

Are you going to respond to opalescent's suggestion that different questions need to be asked?
 
Last edited:
as for goading, ... no i don't care to do such things
as for "asking different questions" , don't care to now, i'm settled on what is, isn't, and practice

the practice is the part that frustrated me, so i refuse to be poly anything in any term, polyfidelity or otherwise.

i am not going to be associated with it.

as loving radiances example went, ... ya, that sounds so much less headache, i don't have to prove what i am, or am not, i don't have to define a definition because it's not accurate, ... simplifies everything :)

---

i'm reminded of an english lesson i had years ago, ... something along the lines of people don't really listen to much others say, i found what i was after, i am satisfied, (people missed that), people assumed i said things i never did, ... and everyone seems to have overlooked where i said i'm ashamed to call myself poly, ...

after that i just didn't listen to others.
 
You certainly have the right to not identify as being anything "poly," and you don't have to answer to anyone but yourself as far as the reasons are concerned.

I don't think anyone here doubts that you have been mistreated in some way by someone who claimed to be poly. I am guessing that this person either cheated on you, or minimized your feelings (not truly getting your consent) when going out and sleeping with everything that moves. But that's just speculation on my part.

I guess the moral of the story, as far as this thread is concerned, is that one can't come out of the closet simply by telling people one is poly. One must explain what poly means, and it would be nice if one could use a reliable definition. It seems apparent to me that you feel that the poly community shouldn't tolerate a definition of poly that includes whorish behavior ... that the definition of poly should expressly exclude whorish behavior ... that there should be rules governing the definition of poly, and those rules should confine poly to serious, loving relationships, not just to going out and having as much sex as one can (with random strangers).

I am sorry that you have been wronged, by whoever wronged you. I'm sorry if a lot of "poly" people have treated you badly. I'm sorry if people on this forum have treated you badly as well. That was not our intent, although please understand that we have feelings too and don't enjoy being spoken to as if we are dense, stupid, naive, oblivious, or whatever. And I know you didn't say (all) those things outright, but sometimes your style of writing seemed (to me at least) to imply them.

I think that when someone has been treated badly enough, for a long time, it makes it hard for them to be gentle with anyone. "No more Mr. Nice Guy," if you will. I've been there before myself and can relate if that's where you are now.

I don't know if we have been of any help, but if we have then I am glad for that at least. I am willing to have a dialog with you at any time if you want or need to. I'd like to be a friend.

Sincerely,
Kevin T.
 
some people don't have to be hurt to see the writing on the wall and know what's coming

till this poly thing passes as a fad, ... and the negative description so many don't want to admit, "ethically sleeping around"

not sure what will come first, ... either the revamped description or it passes as a fad and some new term comes about that's not poly-anything, ... like 'free love' did before
 
Am I to understand, then, that you're opposed to all forms of non-monogamy (even the most conservative forms)? Not a problem if the answer is yes, I just don't want to misinterpret.
 
not opposed to any of it, ...

i'm a little curious (of a sort), why you think me seeing the eventual outcome of poly becoming known as little else other than "ethical sleeping around" means i'm opposed to it.

i'm curious how you made that leap.
i'm curious where you got the idea that i implied anything other than i said
i'm curious why you're so quick to think i am opposed.
 
Oh well, you know, that's me sometimes. Perhaps my life has been an exercise in learning to read between the lines, so by now I just (try to) do it automatically.

Alright, let me ask you another question.

You said,
"... til this poly thing passes as a fad ..."

My question is,
First of all, do you think this poly thing is just a fad?

I mean when I think of something that is "just a fad," I think of bell bottoms or disco dancing. Something that isn't very meaningful in and of itself, but because it's pushed by the fashion industry, everyone wants to be a part of it. Is that what poly is? a superficial fashion that deserves to be forgotten in a few decades? I only ask because of how I interpret the word "fad."

Re: free love ... is no longer spoken of, yet I think it has cast a long shadow. People have very different ideas about sexual matters today than they did in 1960. Kids are learning about sex -- and having sex -- at a much younger age. SSM is making its way across the 50 States. Swing, BDSM, and poly are becoming increasingly considered as viable alternatives in the public eye. We don't live in the 70's but we live in the shadow of the 70's. So in a way, free love is still with us, we've just organized it somewhat and changed the terminology. (Possibly that was in fact the point you were trying to make?)

Re: ethical sleeping around ... is a better description for "open relationships" than it is for "polyamory," if we can equate "sleeping around" with "nonmonogamy." Sure the occasional person will define polyamory in some odd way, but I think the large majority will define it as a relationship model that involves many emotions, especially those of love and romance. Sleeping around in and of itself doesn't necessarily involve love and romance, so you need something more to describe polyamory. Heck, some polyamorists (e.g. asexuals) don't even have sex; it's love and romance, not sex, that sets polyamory apart. That may not be true in everyone's opinion, but I think the vast majority of polyamorists would agree with me on that.

I mean no offense by guessing this or that about your posts. Honestly I am just trying to get a better understanding. I apologize if I misread your intent.
 
i've asked tons of questions about poly (from withing the community)

trying to bring some sense of simplification to say this is poly, this is open, this is swinging, etc.

it's like there is 101 terms in poly that make about 5 or 6 real different situations with regards to relationship dynamics, commitment, etc.

of those there are other words to say the same thing that don't have poly as the prefix

also where my major confusion of "what is polyamory?" after i first heard of the word. it was really confusing and took a long while to get an understanding to say "ahhh, polyamory, got it"

then came the dark side, ... people using the word for it's new age kind of sound. people using the word because they could. people using the word because it helped them get laid because it sounded more committal than they really were.

and (in the community) it's considered 'ethical' because you are being upfront and honest with your partners about sleeping around, ... because they're your partner for only as long as it takes to get laid before being done and off to find someone else, ... not cheating right ???

---

when i would (before) set out to ask why not describe yourself, or your relationship as one of the more prior terms that fit exactly what you are doing instead of poly-(something or other) i would hear even more variations of what people were doing under the name of polyamory (or some variation of poly+suffix)

and more and more what people are doing it seems is having a limited number of committed partners and more casual partners.

one of my questions before was in regards to "free love", and how is that different then to what poly is now, ... well once you start to see how casual some of these partners are it really isn't any different, ... a slow shift towards this, but that's the general direction it seems.

---

so in regards to why i think this is more a fad than any lasting 'thing'. why i see it turning into the 'ethical sleeping around', ... no, no one wants to see themselves fitting into a predefined box, but language and psychology are both adament if a more concrete definition is not established, one will be provided by the majority, this definition will be determined by the mind-set of the average with a tendancy to mean what the majority psychological view of how acceptable and moral it is based on the social view of the people at the time.

and we live in a part of the world where that majority is preoccupied with objectification, repression, and sex, ... see the current pressure in the media on how that's going.

till the majority looking at polyamory refuse to associate themselves with it

---

now there's a timeline of the foreseeable outcome and reason behind what is going to happen.

my language skills here may not be on par to make reading easy, but i know myself well enough i would get lost in trying to describe it otherwise.

the monogamous brainwashing has done wonders, at the heart of it is one, maybe 2 long-term committed partners, a few rare people will have more, ... and a vast majority of casual partners to one degree or another (ranging from one-night stand kind of casual, to "while the NRE lasts" casual)

polyamory, as practiced (and defended), is destroying "polyamory"

but that's taboo to address, because "polyamory is different for everyone"

also noticed within the community where my topic came up as it does seem to make calling yourself polyamorist being in the closet still, ... because how you identify to others is so loose and undefined, that people have to ask again what it means.

but loose or rigid definition, a rigid definition will be made, that is inevitable. try to argue with that outcome all you want, ... that is how words are defined in any language, a rigid definition is mandatory, and it may not be a pleasant definition as the majority define it, not those who practice it

it is a fad, and not a pretty outcome, ... then some new term will come out and those who were more akin to the original heart of poly can breath a sigh of releaf as it's no longer got a dirty feeling to come out in the open again, (using the new term), and the cycle likely will repeat itself endlessly till it stops repeating because enough people at the start made a rigid definition that was maintained.
 
if one stops and looks at our relationship makeup, ...

who we are attracted to
what we consider ourselves to relate closer to
how long we maintain relationships
how many partners
if sex is involved
qualities we consider attractive
... a few other things i can't think of at the moment

each of these is a sliding scale, there is no all or nothing in any of these (and more) from 0% to 100%

eg.
strait/gay/lesbian/bi (hetro, homo), ... it's a sliding scale
it quickly says along one axis what a person is interested in, and does so rather solidly.

no one says "i'm non-hetro", people say what they are, not what they are not in regards to this.

except poly has kinda filled 3 or more different axis's, and it's not working very well to say it as "either poly or mono" which has also become some of the argument.

adding 101 different suffix's doesn't fix it either, because you have to ask again anyway, and sometimes even again.
 
I'm only asking this for clarification:

Do you mean polyamory as a *concept* is a fad, or do you mean that the fad is using the word "polyamory" as opposed to some other word or words?
 
both, at least both for a bit.

first the concept will be too associated with the word, and that will turn everyone away, then over time it will resurface with a new word

Edit:
it's easiest seen currently with the trend of people referring to polyamory as "ethical non-monogamy", that seems to be taking a bigger title in the course of things, a total no limits, no expectations, no boundaries (beyond personal comfort zones), ANYTHING goes that is different from monogamy. ... this is an easy trend to see as more and more people are defining themselves to be associated with "ethical non monogamy" and fewer and fewer are using "polyamory", ... but (despite this apparent contradiction), they are being used interchangeably. so if you are paying attention you can see what's going on too.

as for the whole assumption on what's going on with polyamory, ... it's not just me, more and more are finding a struggle to be identified with loving more than one (emphasis on loving) and finding everywhere they turn polyamory means more and more that there's less commitment given to partners (aside from primaries).
 
Last edited:
Re (from Flear):
"It's like there is 101 terms in poly that make about five or six real different situations with regards to relationship dynamics, commitment, etc."

Do you mean that there's an overabundance of terms in the poly vernacular? (because I could probably agree on that point.)

Or do you mean that the poly vernacular needs more terms that address the important stuff -- the relationship dynamics, commitment, etc.?

Or do you mean that the vernacular has too many terms with a "poly" prefix?

Or something else?

Re:
"Of those there are other words to say the same thing that don't have poly as the prefix."

So -- we could dispense with the words that do have poly as the prefix? (Not trying to put words in your mouth, just asking.)

Re:
"People using the word for it's new age kind of sound. People using the word because they could. People using the word because it helped them get laid because it sounded more committal than they really were."

Yeah I agree there are people who do that ... and they shouldn't.

Re:
"And it's considered 'ethical' because you are being upfront and honest with your partners about sleeping around ... because they're your partner for only as long as it takes to get laid before being done and off to find someone else ... not cheating right?"

Well when you describe it like that, it doesn't sound very loving or romantic. Which in my mind pushes it out of the realm of (how I define) polyamory. Is it cheating? I would say yes, if the person doing all this sleeping around isn't getting genuine consent from each and every (partner and) play partner.

Re:
"More and more what people are doing it seems is having a limited number of committed partners and more casual partners."

Hence poly is becoming more and more like free love -- I think I see your point.

Well that hasn't been my experience, although I respect that it may have been yours. I mean sure, plenty of people have few committed parners and many casual partners, but to my mind there are also people in exclusive lifetime commitments with permanent partners. I think there is a lot of both kinds of people in the "poly world."

Re:
"If a more concrete definition is not established, one will be provided by the majority; this definition will be determined by the mindset of the average with a tendency to mean what the majority psychological view of how acceptable and moral it is based on the social view of the people at the time."

Okay, a couple of questions for you:

  • What do you think the definition for the word polyamory should be?
  • How could we go about establishing that definition?
  • Should we do away with the word polyamory and start fresh with a new word?
  • Is there a word already established that we should be using instead of polyamory?
Re:
"The monogamous brainwashing has done wonders, at the heart of it is one, maybe two long-term committed partners, a few rare people will have more ... and a vast majority of casual partners to one degree or another (ranging from one-night stand kind of casual, to 'while the NRE lasts' casual)."

Interesting observation and there's probably something to it. Although, keep in mind, some of us "polyamorists" don't have any casual partners at all. Count me as one in that group, and I know there are others.

Re:
"Also noticed within the community where my topic came up as it does seem to make calling yourself polyamorist being in the closet still ... because how you identify to others is so loose and undefined, that people have to ask again what it means."

I admit that the definition (as I understand it) leaves a lot of wiggle room. So no, calling myself poly doesn't narrow my relationship model down much. All it says is that I am open to having multiple loving partners (and that I would get their consent).

I still think polyfidelity is a better word for closed/committed poly units, but I know you'll probably say nuts to that.

Re:
"But loose or rigid definition, a rigid definition will be made, that is inevitable."

So, do you foresee that "polyamory" is going to end up being (rigidly) defined as a loveless playing of the field? ... and if so, do you fault the poly community for not getting a better grip on the word to keep that from happening?

Is the fad you speak of the currently loose definition of polyamory? or, is the fad you speak of the very use of the word polyamory? Will the corruption of the word eventually force true polyamorists to use a new word?

Re: the trend of people referring to polyamory as "ethical nonmonogamy" ... my understanding is that polyamory is a subset of ethical nonmonogamy; or, it is one kind of ethical nonmonogamy. Just because a rabbit is a mammal doesn't mean all mammals are rabbits; it's the same principle.

I am curious: Do you equate love with commitment, or at least hold that there cannot be love where there is no commitment?
 
i'm usually very good at picking up and identifying other people, ... but when i point it out, i am horrible at making it sound nice, which is often met with defensive anger & storming out after saying "you don't know me", with nothing else to say.

this isn't about my experience, it's what i am picking up from others, a whole empathy thing, a feeding/receiving the emotional state of others & their intentions.

polyamory ?, what it should be ?, ... in the trash

if you are commited, there is a word for that "polygamy"
if you are commited to your primary, and have others that are more casual, there is a term for that "open relationship"
if you are commited to your primary & have recreational sex (or if you don't have a primary and have recreational sex), there is a word for that too "swinger"
if you have sex with friends, well people you know to some degree of familiarity & you know them for having sex with "Friends with benefits"

or there is polyfidelity, poly - this & poly that, ...

but well polyamory and it's multitude of sub-terms and definitions, all go under the umbrella of polyamory, ... so polyamory is a range of things, ... and the majority outside of poly, look at it and will give polyamory a rigid meaning, it may not be pretty.

but those other words and terms "swinger, open relationship, polygamy", ... those are well known, each has their own meaning, and a rather rigid meaning at that, ... they've also been around awhile, ... like it or not, agree or not, everyone looks at those and knows what they are.

that cannot be said about polyamory
so saying you're a polyamorist (or into polyamory), your first task is to defend "wait, it's not like what you think", ... has no one thought about what that actually says about it ???

people are too busy saying "i'm poly(suffix) and defending how they shouldn't have to change anything, ... including people like jane earlier who jumped to some imaginary accusation i never made and coming offas defensive to (lets have a look at psychology for a moment) being defensive because of an imaginary accusation means you feel guilty and are trying to convince yourself it's alright
---

i guess that's a bigger issue than where i started with this

don't just give something a word and say "there done, now i don't have to think about it anymore!"

if you are relying on a word as the complete description of everything you are, ... you are in very sad shape, mentally you are really screwed up (sorry to be a little harsh), because you have never spent a moment to ignore the word and look "wait, what is it i actually feel?", ... and if you stop at "i'm happy, or sad or angry", well lets go back to how mentally screwed up you are.

no one is happy or sad or angry (or whatever other surface feeling there is) there's a reason for it, something that is pushing that feeling to the foreground.

and if you are going to stop at the first thing that pops up, well we're human, a mix of conflicts we hold dear, a mix of emotions and drama, a mix of the lies we tell ourselves so we can go to sleep at night, to justify what we are doing because the easy way out was so much more convenient than doing the hard work to really look at it and ask "wait does that really describe what i am feeling/going through/doing ???"

because if we stop convincing ourselves of the stories we want to believe, and look at what we are actually doing, ... well the world becomes a different place, we are different, we understand more fully and completely, instead of telling ourselves what we did before because it sounded better to our ears

---

polygamy is not a religous term, it is a term of being commited to several partners, ... once religion comes in it says there is a right way and a wrong way to have several partners, (must only be multiple men, or multiple women, must be sanctioned and with these limits and restrictions, etc. etc.)

polyandry - multiple husbands
polygyny - multiple wives
... there is only more new terms for having each, there aren't established old terms for each as the idea of men with men and women with women generally were never accepted in history - with exceptions under conditions

these are established terms, not new age, but old, even centuries old
 
Last edited:
Okay I have another query: What's the best word for someone who has multiple primary partners *plus* recreational sex on the side?

And I take it you predict that people outside of poly will give a poly a more rigid (and undesirable) meaning even if we don't want them to?

And, the problem with "polyamory" is that people use it as a pretty shortcut word to describe everything they are without having to think about it?

Re: polygamy ... is not necessarily a religious term, I agree on that point; it's just that it's a word that denotes "husbands," "wives," and "marriage" -- as in legal marriage. You can adapt it I suppose to mean non-legal marriage (e.g. handfasting), but that's kind of squishing the meaning of a word that's already been solidly established. Isn't it?

Just sayin' ...
 
Back
Top