New and Confused

So far as "relationship anarchy"... well, of the few RAs I've spoken with, none associated it with Anarchism, which is a bummer. But the thing is that it's nothing new, & presents yet more ahistoricity --
Free love is a social movement that accepts all forms of love. The Free Love movement's initial goal was to separate the state from sexual matters such as marriage, birth control, and adultery. It claimed that such issues were the concern of the people involved, and no one else.
It was well-known (if not popular) in the mid-1800s. While not much of a success (kinda like the vaunted Sexual Revolution of the '60s), it certainly paved the way for things like polyamory.
Much of the free love tradition reflects a liberal philosophy that seeks freedom from state regulation and church interference in personal relationships. According to this concept, the free unions of adults are legitimate relations which should be respected by all third parties whether they are emotional or sexual relations. In addition, some free love writing has argued that both men and women have the right to sexual pleasure without social or legal restraints. In the Victorian era, this was a radical notion. Later, a new theme developed, linking free love with radical social change, and depicting it as a harbinger of a new anti-authoritarian, anti-repressive sensibility.
Laws of particular concern to free love movements have included those that prevent an unmarried couple from living together, and those that regulate adultery and divorce, as well as age of consent, birth control, homosexuality, abortion, and sometimes prostitution; although not all free-love advocates agree on these issues. The abrogation of individual rights in marriage is also a concern—for example, some jurisdictions do not recognize spousal rape or treat it less seriously than non-spousal rape. Free-love movements since the 19th century have also defended the right to publicly discuss sexuality and have battled obscenity laws.

At the turn of the 20th century, some free-love proponents extended the critique of marriage to argue that marriage as a social institution encourages emotional possessiveness and psychological enslavement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_love

My belief is that RA is just Free Love with the serial numbers filed off. :rolleyes:
 
As for couple privilege... hm.

A term I used long before encountering CP is the couple front or couple-front thinking, which I find to run contrary to polyamory & its ideals. The couple-front is left over from monogamy, where it doesn't work particularly well. I'd for years seen where monogamous people would "dip their toes" into nonmonogamy, but wouldn't commit to validating those feelings, specifically citing that they were encoupled (married, engaged, living together). Most swinging, especially club-based, demonstrates the couple front, with some permeability for "extra" women.

Mostly, couple-front thinking is just a habit. I've seen where, with a little encouragement, couples were willing to let go of this & remember what it's like to be two autonomous individuals.

CP takes the couple front, sanctifies it as holy, & dredges up all the old Monogamist rationalizations about how "natural" & "practical" & "necessary" it is.

Is CP bad? No, not of itself. It's like any other kink: if the people who rely upon it are clear about their dependency, & don't use it to control or manipulate or abuse others, then all is cool. Heck, there's probably people out there who wouldn't mind being a siderial.

Does CP have a place in nonmonogamy? Certainly for some forms, e.g. group marriage & open marriage.

(Not polyfidelity, as that has always had the core expectation of all dyads being primary. CP could only exist therein if one dyad was somehow "more primary," which is ludicrous.)

Does CP have a place in polyamory? No. By definition, CP places firm limits on communication & introspection, & therefore is countervailing to fundamental polyamory.

Should CP be recommended to someone who claims to want polyamory? Certainly not.
 
Thanks Ravenscroft. Thats some good food for thought.

How do you figure couple privilege as you've described it with hierarchical poly,. Or poly practised with 2 equal lovers, along with an outer circle of more casual partners.
 
While it has not been my intent to defend couple privilege - I have questioned the notion that the beliefs that have developed around the best way to practice poly are confused with poly itself - so as to say that if you are not buying into the poly culture's Generally Accepted Poly Standards, you are not really poly - when, by definition, an individual is poly if she has multiple loving relationships with the knowledge and consent of all involved, regardless of their compliance to the generally sanctioned best practice list.
Perhaps we should create a new definition of poly that includes the phrase "and the philosophical and ethical constructs usually associated with such relationships" - or something to that effect. :)

Regardless - I decided to look around for a concise definition of coupe privilege. I could not recall having seen one - but undoubtedly skimmed over one somewhere along the way. I do recall having read of the Unicorn as a classic example of couple privilege more than once - for example, when the Unicorn can only have sex with the couple, but not with either one alone - although the original married couple can have sex together. And I can most certainly see where that would be unfair - unless the Unicorn happened to like the idea - not likely, it seems, but possible I suppose. Still - the answer seems to be fairly straight forward - just refuse to engage in the situation - make it plain from the start. (And, yes, I do get that relationships are not always so simple).

I did not find a concise definition on couple privilege on Veaux's site - although he does address the issue of privilege in general from the usual liberal perspective (for better or for worse) - but not with a concise definition.

But I did find this with a Google search.
From "Psychology Today" :
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...vilege-and-the-ecology-intimate-relationships

Recently, I’m seeing more and more people discussing couple privilege. This is how one blogger defines couple privilege: “The presumption that socially sanctioned pair-bond relationships involving only two people (such as marriage, long-term boyfriend/girlfriend, or other forms of conventional intimate/life partnerships) are inherently more important, “real” and valid than other types of intimate, romantic or sexual relationships. Such primary couples (or partnerships that are clearly riding society’s standard relationship escalator toward that goal) are widely presumed — even within many nonmonogamous communities — to warrant more recognition and support than other types of intimate relationships.” http://solopoly.net/2013/02/05/coup...t-necessarily-make-you-an-asshole-but-it-can/

And from: https://medium.com/@walkerjd235/what-is-couple-privilege-be4c1ef14dac

In a broad sense, privilege can be defined as an advantage that one person has over another person that isn’t specifically earned. Within the context of polyamory, couple privilege can be defined as any unfair, non-consensual or non-negotiable advantage that an established couple enjoys over a new partner who has been added to the pre-existing polycule.

So, my personal take - while a married couple may have to prioritize their responsibilities as a married couple because of kids, financial obligations, career issues, etc - that does not mean that the "other" relationship is any less valid or real in terms of the experience of love and emotion. I believe that I would personally agree with that perspective - it does seem to be a view that is in the "spirit of loving more than one".

A few more cents worth - I may be closing on a buck by now. Al
 
Last edited:
A few more cents worth - I may be closing on a buck by now.l
Okay, for THAT alone I've had my fun. The guffaw scared my cats. :D

It's not that CP is BAD, just that it's NOT a "given", particularly within a polyamorous paradigm.

Yes, BTDT, certainly. I had a longterm partner... with whom I had two children (sadly, they look like me :eek:)... & three properties... oh, & a bookstore.

I mean, HECK, how could we NOT be somehow primary??

Yet, we had a milieu in the store that was wonderful, introducing poly-curuios people to friends & lovers & our kids & whatnot. Basically, we HAD access to CP, but laughed at it -- as (okay, IMNSHO) was appropriate.
 
Hey Al, you mentioned a difference between the definition of polyamory (consensual multiple loves) vs the ethics that some use when practicing polyamory. It reminded me of a thread in the golden nuggets called the problem with "the problem with polynormativity ". The article comes with a lot of anger that I find hard to wade through, but the poly friendly counsellor who writes it points out that not everyone can perform poly without hierarchy. His point seems to be that sometimes hierarchy is necessary. I got the impression that privilege has sometimes been earned. A separate point he makes seems to be that not everyone is white, rich, accepted in society, lives in a society of western values or functions as a psychologically well-adjusted adult. Some people with psychological scars may practice polyamory (or monogamy) in a manner that those without scars would consider unethical. He defends the ethical practice of such clients of his. Some people don't identify with western values and i think he again defends those people's way of practicing polyamory. As long as it works with all parties involved, I think. It's been a while since I read the article.

Not sure I agree with everything he had to say, but the article certainly made me realise there were many ways of practicing polyamory and that what would be considered unethical polyamory for you and me, may find no problems when practised by those with a different world view.
 
Last edited:
Hey Al, you mentioned a difference between the definition of polyamory (consensual multiple loves) vs the ethics that some use when practicing polyamory. It reminded me of a thread in the golden nuggets called the problem with "the problem with polynormativity ". The article comes with a lot of anger that I find hard to wade through, but the poly friendly counsellor who writes it points out that not everyone can perform poly without hierarchy. His point seems to be that sometimes hierarchy is necessary.

Thanks, Shaya - I intend to read the full article but for the moment, I just looked at a few of the takeaways - and one is, I think, a very blunt way of putting the point that I have been making - simply "no one can tell you how to do poly". You're poly if you meet the definition - "by definition". I do believe there exists an attitude among some in the community that if you are not doing it a certain way, then you are not "really poly" - and my opinion is that Veaux's "More Than Two" has a lot to do with that (- and the dogmatic tone of the book really annoys the hell out of me.)

But - again - I do think there is great value to be gained by reading the opinions, experiences, and conclusions of experienced polyamorists - with the understanding that ultimately how one practices poly is an individual decision made in concert with the partners.

And I do think "More Than Two" is an important read in poly because of the subjects it brings to light - despite it's flaws.

Al
 
It reminded me of a thread in the golden nuggets called the problem with "the problem with polynormativity ".
Here's the actual article:
The Problem with "The Problem with Polynormativity"
FWIW, I will gladly continue making the case for polynormativity.

Like "jealousy," accusing someone of "polynormativity" is a way to END discussion & huff away in a snit of righteousness. It's a shibboleth.
simply "no one can tell you how to do poly". You're poly if you meet the definition - "by definition".
See, that's where you smack into the wall again. :eek: It's like speaking to Janus: one mouth says "definitions are BAD!!" as the other says "definitions are GOOD!!" A third mouth may be necessary, as you just got done saying "there is no definition!!" :confused:

Let me draw an analogy to a popular canard. While it CAN BE a good thing for a given relationship to "grow at the pace of the slowest," this also gives that person a HUGE degree of potential control over everyone else in the relationship. If that power is exercised, a relationship not only lurches to a halt but can be dragged backwards.

People who claim to be polyamorous are not all saints. There are users & fools, & there are many who're simply overwhelmed. Offering each to do whatever the hell they're gonna do is one thing... but I must call to question the sanity of anyone who would claim "it's all the same" much less that validity is somehow homogenous.

The gross error is often made to the effect that somehow polyamory ought to be for everyone. Therefore, corners ought to be cut, exceptions made, & people can generally slap the POLY label on just about ANYTHING, & nobody else has the right to even raise an eyebrow.

As a result, people squawk (sometimes happily, sometimes in frustration) about how "there is no single definition for polyamory."

Well, I call BS. :p

There's a term I quite enjoy --
Liberty Hall, a nickname for a place where one is free to do as one wishes. A. Bertram Chandler's John Grimes novels frequently used the phrase, "Come in. This is Liberty Hall; you can spit on the mat and call the cat a bastard!" P.G. Wodehouse also used to be fond of the expression.
And THAT is nonmonogamy, of which there's ALL SORTS of flavors & options & wiggle room. There's practically room for diametric opposites!!

Online, some have griped that the word is mononormative. I disagree: though superficially negative, nonmonogamy has the effect of banding together every individual who has EVER strayed outside the walls of Monogamism. It's a "blanket term" that is unifying in much the same way as queer.

Pretty much ANYONE can be nonmonogamous. They can make as few or as many rules as their little hearts desire. They can make up names for their Vision & wear funny hats & have secret handshakes, & that's totally groovy.

And polyamory IS one of those hat-wearing cliques, whether you like it or not. Sure, some of us tweak our hat a little, with a peacock feather or maybe some glitter, & off to one side there's a bunch that once a month celebrates Hat-Free Friday & giggle naughtily about it.

Saying "nobody has a right to define polyamory for others" in in fact defining polyamory for others & therefore cannot stand before its own logic. I declare it invalid on the face of it.

Increasingly, I am of the belief that there are NO "polyamorous people." There ARE people who subscribe to polyamorous beliefs (which either means there are beliefs to which they CAN hew, or they're a just bunch of useless airheads :eek: -- choose one), & attempt to apply these to their relations with others, to the way they view the world, to the way they examine their own lives. I know, I readily use terms like "polyfolk" but (increasingly at least) merely for quick typing.

I'll take a few more steps toward definition. There most assuredly ARE skills that will greatly ease a person's experience in polyamory. Maybe not everyone needs the entire toolbox, or to be a whiz at any of them, but "more is better & better is better," & having few or none is likely Doom writ large -- including sowing pain & confusion upon others, which I cannot easily stomach.

So, let's splodge a few out:

People with poor communication skills will probably suck at polyamory. Those who avoid learning such skills will REALLY suck.

People who live in morbid fear of error will probably suck at polyamory.

People who avoid confrontation will probably suck at polyamory.

People who can't define the words they use will probably suck at polyamory.

And the list could easily continue. However, my point is, if you take each such item, turn it around, rephrase it as a positive affirming statement, it looks a LOT like a RULE. Stick a handful of those rules together, & (voila!) we have a DEFINITION.

Yes, there are people who are emotionally or mentally challenged who may not be up to developing such skills. And there is certainly plenty of room for them under the huge tent of nonmonogamy, where definitions can be made to help them grow as they can & otherwise simply bring them a little solace.

Polyfidelity, though, is a special case in that tent. It is NOT a generic, it is NOT meant to include everyone, & attempts to do so are covert means to demonize those with the brazen gall to find that the definition suits them well.

There are sports in which I've never been able to compete (even locally or informally) because of my eyesight & my back. I do NOT thereby have any right to modify the rulebook to suit my inability. When my eyesight finally goes, I will stop driving -- it'd be ludicrous to create special circumstances so that people like me can continue exercising our "right."
 
Hmm. The above-cited blogger refers to an article that's been moved. I found its current address --

"The Problem with Polynormativity"

Now, here's something interesting: I do not think it means what I think it means. :D

In the post, Andrea Zanin calls to question stereotypes & mistaken notions that've been hung on polyamory, & calls THOSE "polynormative."
  • polyamory starts with a couple
  • polyamory is hierarchical
  • polyamory requires a lot of rules
  • polyamory is heterosexual(-ish). Also, cute and young and white. Also new and exciting and sexy!

Upon reflection, I can ssssorta see it... but maybe it's the people who make those errors who are the "norming" part of the equation, & (intentionally or not) do so to shape the definition of "polyamory" to be more mononormative.

One response wonderfully references Terry Pratchett: "once outside of the mononormative crab bucket we create polynormative crab buckets because of the desire to grasp hold of something safe when we feel (socially) precarious and uncertain."

But by "something safe" I see a lot of "let's make the new bucket look more like the old bucket so that they won't be mean to us!" That means importing a whole bunch of weird bric-a-brac from Monogamism: True Love, Romance, My Needs, babymaking, poly marriage, Forever, couplism, One Big Family, control issues, The Spark, secrecy, furtiveness... :(

Every DAY noobs wash up on the beach that is this website, lay out their unique story... & we've already seen (possibly at first-hand) 90% of it. Most of the troubles are caused by mistaken notions & smileyface propaganda.

The responder also goes with something curious: "Interesting the group at OpenCon felt that there were beginning to be two poly crab buckets – one very couple and rules-based (perhaps based on the desire to keep the couple safe and secure), and the other based on a rather rigid and over-simplified idea of freedom. In the second one there could be ideas such as that no experience of jealousy was ever okay, or that everyone must be completely free to what they like without considering ethical responsibility to others, or that nothing that sounds like a rule or contract is ever permissible."

But maybe the word needs reclaiming. I'm "queer"? Very well, then: I am queer. A "deviant"? Fine; deviant I happily am. I'm being "polynormative" for wanting to improve chances of good people finding actual happiness? Cool; I guess I'm polynormative then.

And setting the word aside, I feel I'm not far away from Zanin --
Right now, though, you can google “polyamory” and get a whole lot of nearly-identical polynormative hype articles, and you can meet up with locals who’ve read the same articles you just did, and you can all get together and do polynormative poly exactly the way the media told you to.

And if that’s all you ever bother to do then essentially you are selling yourself short. You are trading in the monogamous norm for polynormativity, which relatively speaking isn’t all that much of a stretch, and stopping there because you may very well think that’s all there is (and you already racked up a whole bunch of cool points anyway). You aren’t encouraged to really think about this stuff without any imposed models at all, which means you never get to figure out what actually might work best for you.

As such, the most fundamental element of polyamory—that of rejecting the monogamous standard, and radically rethinking how you understand, make meaning of and practice love, sex, relationships, commitment, communication, and so forth—is lost in favour of a cookie-cutter model that’s as easy as one, two, three.
 
Last edited:
I think I get what you're saying, Ravenscroft. There can be unethical ways to do polyamory and then when everything falls apart... well, that doesn't feel like a polyamory anybody would want to be part of.

To my naive mind, I still feel there is a practice or a style of poly that is neither monogamy nor the poly that experienced people practice. By this I mean the transition phase for (as an example) a couple that were previously monogamous and now want to practice poly. They're not going to suddenly be as ethical in their polyamory as an experienced person like Franklin Veaux is. The polyamory they choose to practice will be flawed in Franklin's eyes, but it may be the only form of polyamory the couple can practice during those first 4 months of transitioning. The couple would be neither monogamous, nor the type of poly you are due to your senior experience. They are in a transition phase. I wouldn't go as far as to call their poly wrong. People don't change their monogamous viewpoint overnight. Give them a year or two and they may be different people and begin to practice poly the way Franklin does. But in that transition phase? They're probably practicing a form of 'transitional poly' that still recognises them as a couple, especially the one who is more reluctant to open up. The pace of poly will probably move at the slowest person's speed to give that person more control.

Our difference of opinion may be because you're so senior, and Al and I are relatively junior, with Al and I wanting our partners to go slow. Al and I seem on board with the philosophy of polyamory, but identify that the poly for us at the moment is the go slow variety - the one that gives the less willing partner more control. I get the sense that having control over your partner is something you don't really like, and I get that. Personally, I'd be looking to shed my control over my partner... but that would be a goal for later. As I said before, maybe a year or two.

I'd like to think that the poly I would choose to practice would still be poly despite the control I would have over my partner and the control I would have over rules and boundary settings for both of us. I would like to think that over time these would be renegotiated so that there would be less and less control as I get more and more comfortable. I'd like to think that this is still poly, or at least 'transitional poly'. To do it quicker with less control may actually lead to a break up and therefore serial monogamy rather than poly. I'd like to think that the poly practice needed for a transitioning couple, with its inherent couple privilege can still be called poly, provided all parties are consenting, that there is room for renegotiation, and that poly is achieved in the end rather than serial monogamy.

Just my thoughts, and as always, my thoughts are always in evolution. More than happy to hear what more experienced people have gone through. I'm sure many of you would have first hand experience of this transitional phase.
 
Polyamory = "the state of being, or the ability and/or inclination to be, in a romantically-connected group of more than two adults, with the full knowledge and consent of all the adults in the group."

That's poly in my opinion. Other characteristics are optional.
 
One response wonderfully references Terry Pratchett: "once outside of the mononormative crab bucket we create polynormative crab buckets because of the desire to grasp hold of something safe when we feel (socially) precarious and uncertain."

But by "something safe" I see a lot of "let's make the new bucket look more like the old bucket so that they won't be mean to us!" That means importing a whole bunch of weird bric-a-brac from Monogamism: True Love, Romance, My Needs, babymaking, poly marriage, Forever, couplism, One Big Family, control issues, The Spark, secrecy, furtiveness... :(

Every DAY noobs wash up on the beach that is this website, lay out their unique story... & we've already seen (possibly at first-hand) 90% of it. Most of the troubles are caused by mistaken notions & smileyface propaganda.

The list of everything my husband and I are re-evaluating: True Love, Romance, My Needs, babymaking, poly marriage, Forever, couplism, One Big Family, control issues, The Spark, secrecy, furtiveness

Noobs....thank goodness you take time for the shipwrecked. Sure, I could stumble around on my own with no map. I'm forever grateful that I don't have to.

I've been able to get a more robust concept of these things, thank you.
 
There's (okay,IMNSHO) nothing wrong with "transition." By all means: explore nonmonogamy, work toward the complexity of polyamory, if so desired.

Compared with the strictures of Monogamism, so often utterly irrational, random non-mon cannot possibly help but be a vast improvement.

Not everyone can be prepared --especially on the first few times out the gate -- for the utter sh!tstorm that polyyamory can be. But for those who're brave & persistent, even when rebuffed, they deserve every inch of support.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Al99
simply "no one can tell you how to do poly". You're poly if you meet the definition - "by definition".
Ravenscroft replied -
See, that's where you smack into the wall again. It's like speaking to Janus: one mouth says "definitions are BAD!!" as the other says "definitions are GOOD!!" A third mouth may be necessary, as you just got done saying "there is no definition!!"

So - it appears we have some misunderstanding - as my point is that there is a commonly accepted definition of polyamory. And while it is worded somewhat differently between sources (dictionary sites, wikipedia, poly sites) - the key points remain the same - in that the definition includes multiple loves in loving relationships and knowledge and consent of all involved.

So again, it seems to me, that if these criteria are met, that the folks involved in the relationship(s) involved are poly, regardless of how they feel about any of the philosophical or ethical constructs that surround this basic definition.

My very first post (even before my intro) asked this very question. My wife wanted to "open" our marriage so we could maintain our marriage and family while she had a relationship with old bf at the same time. She had no concern about poly in general - or moving on to someone else if the thing with old bf didn't work out. So, she didn't care what it was called (although she has a long term openly poly friend so she was not clueless about poly) - she just wanted this one additional relationship. But - it was, by definition, poly - multiple loving relationships - knowledge and consent of all involved. So, I posted the question - "Is it poly?"
http://www.polyamory.com/forum/showthread.php?t=85283
The consensus response was that it was indeed poly - it met the criteria.

But, at the end of the day, I think we come from different places - you have years of experience in poly relationships and in the poly community (at least this forum) - and poly means more to you than just the dictionary definition. It is also seems to encompass the philosophical and ethical system that has grown up in the poly culture. And I have fully appreciated your thoughts on the subject - and certainly as they apply to finding the best way to navigate the difficulties of poly.

I am the new guy from a mono marriage - reluctantly agreeing to a poly marriage. But I am reasonably intelligent and well educated and my personality dictates that I must understand what I have gotten myself into - so I proceeded to read about half a million or so words on the subject (six books, this forum, web articles, etc). This does not replace years of experience - but it does give me an overview - and for the new guy who is wrapping up the first phase of an academic exploration of poly - it starts with the dictionary definition:
From dictionary.com:
the practice or condition of participating simultaneously in more than one serious romantic or sexual relationship with the knowledge and consent of all partners..
All else is just about the best way to do that - helpful but not necessary to meet the definition. And, I do agree that the various factors you listed are helpful - if not essential - to actually practice polyamory. And I agree that not everyone could do it.

And, I do understand - again - that to many experienced poly folks, you just can't stop at the dictionary definition in truly defining the poly "experience".

More cents - surely over a buck by now. Al
 
Last edited:
The troubles appear because undefined/poorly define terms are used to build the definitions. "There is always a well-known solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong."
multiple loves in loving relationships and knowledge and consent of all involved.
the practice or condition of participating simultaneously in more than one serious romantic or sexual relationship with the knowledge and consent of all partners.
  • multiple loves
  • loving
  • relationships
  • knowledge
  • consent
  • all involved
  • participating
  • simultaneously
  • serious
  • romantic relationship
  • sexual relationship
It's impossible to keep up on the posts on this site alone to NOT see that ALL those words are often used loosely, at best.

Many misunderstandings develop directly from two (or more) parties relying upon the flimsy superficiality of "everyone knows what THAT means" words. For starters, how is it that "loving relationship" & "romantic relationship" & "sexual relationship" & "intimate relationship" are used interchangeably by just about everyone?

(How about "relationship" itself? By dictionary definition, you have an interpersonal relationship with the guy who's usually behind the counter at your favorite restaurant.)

IMO, Zanin gets much closer than most "official" :rolleyes: definitions, so I'll put it up again --
As such, the most fundamental element of polyamory—that of rejecting the monogamous standard, and radically rethinking how you understand, make meaning of and practice love, sex, relationships, commitment, communication, and so forth—is lost in favour of a cookie-cutter model that’s as easy as one, two, three.
 
Instead of getting hung up on precise definitions I try to live by one philosophy. I question if what I am doing is harming others.
 
I question if what I am doing is harming others.
But cheaters will rationalize that being honest with their spouse is the worse option, & secrecy a kindness. And (as people have posted here) their lover might echo this, & in fact call it polyamory. :(

And clearly, some will say that nobody has any right to say it's NOT polyamory.

QED: polyamorists support cheating.

As I don't agree in the least, then I say there's something corrupt here. Further, it should be halted before it gains any more popularity.
 
But cheaters will rationalize that being honest with their spouse is the worse option, & secrecy a kindness. And (as people have posted here) their lover might echo this, & in fact call it polyamory. :(

And clearly, some will say that nobody has any right to say it's NOT polyamory.

QED: polyamorists support cheating.

As I don't agree in the least, then I say there's something corrupt here. Further, it should be halted before it gains any more popularity.

Well I can't help if other people lie to themselves. I can only control my own behavior.

FWIW, there is no such thing as cheating in my brand of polyamory, assuming that we are talking about sexual or romantic cheating. Makes things simpler that way.
 
But cheaters will rationalize that being honest with their spouse is the worse option, & secrecy a kindness. And (as people have posted here) their lover might echo this, & in fact call it polyamory.

Sometimes it might be a kindness to keep a secret - but I can't see keeping cheating a secret to be one of those times. The greater kindness would be simply not to cheat - if you are in a mono relationship. If you decide you can't live with mono and that is more important than the relationship - then try to negotiate for poly or breakup if absolutely necessary.

And (as people have posted here) their lover might echo this, & in fact call it polyamory. .... And clearly, some will say that nobody has any right to say it's NOT polyamory
.

Absent knowledge and consent, it is not poly - by definition. (oops... that word again...) :) Al
 
Instead of getting hung up on precise definitions I try to live by one philosophy. I question if what I am doing is harming others.

Much appreciated - I often say that the moral code that I aspire to is simply to "be kind and do no harm".

Sounds like a great philosophy for poly also - even if not clearly defining what poly is - but it seems there are different thoughts on that as well. :) Al
 
Back
Top