definitions of polyamory

[kdt26417]

Re (from vinsanity0):

"Your definition removes almost everyone in this forum "

Oops, LOL

Let me just remove the "closeted" part of the list

Proposed --

Polyamory is a committed relationship style involving more than two individuals, with their knowledge and assent, carried out openly, sensibly, responsibly, and free of the artifacts of Monogamism.

• If it has a DADT element, it's not polyamory.
• If it has hierarchy, it's not polyamory.
• If it has veto power, it's not polyamory.
• If it has couple privilege, it's not polyamory.
• If the participants seek to avoid social scrutiny, it's not polyamory.

There are other forms of non-polyamorous nonmonogamy that have their own strengths and/or play to the particular needs of the individuals (and dyads and groupings) involved.

Re (from Ravenscroft):

"As I detest suspense, I might have to sit down and actually make up a definition. "

Do it ...

 

[Ravenscroft]

I guess it's been on my mind for years. We used to have a rather bare-bones list (verbal) that we worked from, not unlike a mantra. It went something like

• openness
• honesty
• communication
• introspection
• empathy
• fearlessness
• striving

That last was implied, never explicit. We'd determined, as individuals, that even if we achieved some sort of perfection, it has a way of creeping away when you least expect it, & there you are trying again to reach the peak. Best therefore to simply embrace the fact as a positive & enjoy the effort. (Again, my statements that people are imperfect, therefore no person can truly be "polyamorous," though their interactions with others may be.)

We explicitly took a rationalist stance (practically Bourbaki, in fact): no highfalutin' terms, no arm-waving, no misty-eyed appeals to emotion.

I feel more comfortable defining & explicating any of those words, as opposed to common "definitional" words, like relationship or romantic or loving or intimate or equality or commitment or consent or partners or even responsible.

We felt that all people close to us thereby deserved to be treated as well as we could manage, whether we were fucking them, had fucked them, or hoped to fuck them in future. (If the coarseness offends, substitute "love" for "fuck." )

 

[Ravenscroft]

Oh, darn, I didn't get back to this --

Just because it's bad poly from my point of view doesn't make it NOT poly.

Nope. Polyamory is an ideal. A failed ideal is... well, a failed ideal. Any "bad polyamory" is by definition NOT polyamory.

And I'll keep repeating that polyamory, even as an ideal, is NOT inherently superior in an ethical or moral (or even logical) sense. People are remarkably analogue beings; or to put it another way, not everyone ought to want to undertake what is in a way a somewhat monastic life (introspection, self-awareness, ruthless honesty, risk-taking...). There's PLENTY of room for people to go happily on their way in some form of nonmonogamy. However, calling it "poly" when it's NOT polyamory (1) confuses the situation at hand AND (2) encourages others to take undue advantage of that confusion in order to manipulate others. I support neither & in fact loathe the latter.

(Even DADT can be, as long as all partners know there ARE other partners)

I'm somewhat inclined to agree, & as with "couple privilege" see this as just another (if boringly lowbrow & pedestrian) kink. But as another member pointed out a couple of months back, attempting to impose DADT on anyone is inherently disrespecting them, therefore calling to question whether "love" is completely valid in their relationship -- certainly NOT trust.

 

[Ravenscroft]

Whew. I looked back & noted I'd jotted down seven items on my list. That triggered a few memories.

Did I forget to mention that my household was hardcore Wiccan & OTO...?

The Seven-Step Path to Better Decisions

1. stop and think
2. clarify goals
3. determine facts
4. develop options
5. consider consequences
6. choose
7. monitor and modify

http://josephsoninstitute.org/med-4sevensteppath/

Such a simple, logical list, yet it removes most need for ethics (& probably morals as well, though I'd argue that such an action list is an expression of morality).

The following is just a brief adaptation of classical Buddhism, but you'll get the idea -- our goal was not to escape this plane, but to immerse ourselves in it.

The practices in the Noble Eightfold Path are

1. Right View: our actions have consequences
2. Right Resolve: giving up reliance upon family and adopting the life of a mendicant in order to follow the path; peaceful renunciation into an environment of non-distraction, non-ill-will (to loving kindness), away from cruelty (to compassion) -- aiding contemplation of impermanence, suffering, and non-Selfishness
3. Right Speech: no lying, no rude speech, no telling one person what another says about him, rather speaking that which leads to salvation
4. Right Conduct: no killing or injuring, no taking what is not given
5. Right Livelihood: work to benefit Self without pushing others down
6. Right Effort: guard against obsessive or destructive thoughts
7. Right Mindfulness: never be absent minded, remain conscious of what one is doing
8. Right samadhi: practice four stages of meditation (dhyāna) toward unification of the mind

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_Eightfold_Path

 

[vinsanity0]

Oh, darn, I didn't get back to this --

Nope. Polyamory is an ideal. A failed ideal is... well, a failed ideal. Any "bad polyamory" is by definition NOT polyamory.

And I'll keep repeating that polyamory, even as an ideal, is NOT inherently superior in an ethical or moral (or even logical) sense. People are remarkably analogue beings; or to put it another way, not everyone ought to want to undertake what is in a way a somewhat monastic life (introspection, self-awareness, ruthless honesty, risk-taking...). There's PLENTY of room for people to go happily on their way in some form of nonmonogamy. However, calling it "poly" when it's NOT polyamory (1) confuses the situation at hand AND (2) encourages others to take undue advantage of that confusion in order to manipulate others. I support neither & in fact loathe the latter.

I'm somewhat inclined to agree, & as with "couple privilege" see this as just another (if boringly lowbrow & pedestrian) kink. But as another member pointed out a couple of months back, attempting to impose DADT on anyone is inherently disrespecting them, therefore calling to question whether "love" is completely valid in their relationship -- certainly NOT trust.

Whew. I looked back & noted I'd jotted down seven items on my list. That triggered a few memories.

Did I forget to mention that my household was hardcore Wiccan & OTO...?

http://josephsoninstitute.org/med-4sevensteppath/

Such a simple, logical list, yet it removes most need for ethics (& probably morals as well, though I'd argue that such an action list is an expression of morality).

The following is just a brief adaptation of classical Buddhism, but you'll get the idea -- our goal was not to escape this plane, but to immerse ourselves in it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_Eightfold_Path

But none of this is specific to poly or defines poly in any way.

 

[Al99]

Ravenscroft:

Polyamory is an ideal. A failed ideal is... well, a failed ideal. Any "bad polyamory" is by definition NOT polyamory.

Vinsanity:

But none of this is specific to poly or defines poly in any way.

It seems to me that this an important issue in this discussion - the defining of polyamory as a subjective ideal - or as a more objective description of a relationship model. Ideals, by their nature, obviously may vary by individual - and so part of this discussion has been to try to come to a consensus as to what characterizes that ideal - opinions have (not unexpectedly) varied.

Which begs the question - who gets to define "bad polyamory", along with assertion that bad poly is, by definition, not poly. We certainly don't say that bad ice cream is by definition not real ice cream - or that bad music is by definition not real music - or that a bad marriage is not a real marriage...etc... ad infinitum.... because what is bad to one will not be so to another (chocolate or vanilla).

However, I do appreciate the effort to define an ideal for polyamory that reflects the general consensus of long term polyamorists - while acknowledging that not achieving that ideal does not mean that it is not polyamory - and that defining such an ideal, while perhaps augmenting an understanding of polyamory, does not supplant the more objective dictionary definition.

 

[Rockit49]

Speaking for yourself only!

But none of this is specific to poly or defines poly in any way.

For the most part.. Yes it does help define poly.

 

[Ravenscroft]

Look at a basic & common term: communication.

O, heavens, back in the '90s, you couldn't put two self-styled "polys" together for five minutes without hearing one or both rolleyes parrot a mantra, typically "Communicate, communicate, communicate!" or "Communication is key!!"

Yet IME most people who claim to polyamory often SUCK at communicating, particularly in their early attempts.

So, if the at-hand definition uses the word "communication," then those people are most assuredly NOT polyamorous, QED -- right? After all, there's nothing that gives a Golden Ticket to someone who is a lousy communicator, or who sees no reason to learn proper communication skills, or who "is trying to do better": all plain FAIL.

...but if "communication" is an ideal, never to be perfectly reached, then anyone who's making a sincere & constant & full-hearted ATTEMPT at it is at least in the ballpark.

Go through the above, & slot in other terms, even the ones I prefer like honesty or empathy or introspection or whatever. People are imperfect; by definition, they cannot maintain all those things, in perfection, at all times -- we all have our off days, we all have moments of sadness or insecurity or fear or inattention.

If they are absolutes, then failure is damning.

If they are relative -- to the unapproachable zenith of an ideal -- then "success" is relative, & there's leeway available.

I'll resurrect the "driving a car" analogy. How many drivers here have NEVER driven faster than the posted speed limit, not even a smidge? Okay, how about in the past year? the past week?

Should people who driver faster than the posted limit have their licenses permanently revoked? How about if they do it repeatedly? or, worse, regularly? Flagrant violation of statute & all that.

Some states actually have it stated in law that driving the posted limit, when this is significantly slower than ambient traffic speed, constitutes "hazardous driving" & can lead to arrest.

That's ideal vs. real, absolute vs. relative.

I am seeking for clear definitions because they ALLOW flexibility, as opposed to mere chaos.

Anyone who wants to support chaos is free to do so, though that begs the question of why they'd feel the need to glom onto ANY terms at all.

 

[kdt26417]

Polyamory = "openness, honesty, communication, introspection, empathy, fearlessness, and striving." Is that it?

Polyamory = "an ideal that one can approach but never arrive at." Is that it?

I guess I'm confused. What is the definition?

Polyamory = ""

What goes between the quote signs?

 

[Rockit49]

This is still the trying for info to eventually arrive at a hopeful definition!.?

Polyamory = "openness, honesty, communication, introspection, empathy, fearlessness, and striving." Is that it?

Polyamory = "an ideal that one can approach but never arrive at." Is that it?

I guess I'm confused. What is the definition?

Polyamory = ""

What goes between the quote signs?

I like most of your attempts at it Kdt!
To me it's still just the finding direction process.

I'm one of those that will distinguish between good poly and bad attempts at it! And just the plain simple fact that lots of folks come here without a real clue of what a good poly means!
But hey.. We are here trying at least!
It would behoove us to agree on a Definition! Just to have a minimum sealing! For the forum group health I think!?
I'm just one though

 

[kdt26417]

And in the meantime, we still don't know what goes between the quote signs.

What's wrong with having a working definition that we can discuss (and modify if needed)?

 

[Rockit49]

Yours work for me Kevin! It's a start

And in the meantime, we still don't know what goes between the quote signs.

What's wrong with having a working definition that we can discuss (and modify if needed)?

The only thing I have issue with is the " can't be closeted"
It's just me..I have reasons..
I'm private..I don't give anyone the right to share my personal info! It's just the way I was brought up! The poly part doesn't matter... It's just the privacy policy we've had between us! To reach there own!

I'm not here to be the outer face of poly! I just love my life .. And not going to apologise for my personal relationship style of course. Unless it paid.. Lol

 

[Ravenscroft]

And in the meantime, we still don't know what goes between the quote signs.

Last I checked, I'm the only one who's actually working on it & I'm not exactly in top physical form right now, which cuts into my focus. As most appear to have been plenty happy with the same regurgitated BS for 30-some years, I figure I've got plenty of leeway.

What's wrong with having a working definition that we can discuss (and modify if needed)?

Didn't some troublemaker say

Do it ...

like only four days ago...? Try filling the blank.

 

[kdt26417]

@ Rockit49 ... yes, I offered a possible definition -- see http://www.polyamory.com/forum/showthread.php?p=367549 -- and note that I removed the "closeted" part -- but I suspect that my offering is far away from what the original poster had in mind. Not that I mind starting with what I offered, if that's what everyone wants to do. Is it?

Alas Rockit49, you may be my only supporter. Of course, I do appreciate your support.

@ Ravenscroft ... it sounds like you need some more time to come up with a definition, I'm fine with that and I look forward to reading the definition in the future. As I said I don't mind if it's not perfect, just an adjustable working model will do. But even coming up with that may take some time. Which I can live with. Let me know if you'd like me to adjust what I offered (above).

 

[Ravenscroft]

The only thing I have issue with is the " can't be closeted"

I'm private..I don't give anyone the right to share my personal info! It's just the way I was brought up! The poly part doesn't matter... It's just the privacy policy we've had between us!

Again, that's kinda stretching "closeted" to cover a wide range of behaviours & their underlying motivations.

I don't have ANY banner on my house, not even a flag, & never have. (I may someday get hold of the banner of the Dutch town my family hails from, as that's also where we get the surname. ) I don't have any sneaky bumper stickers or buttons or shirts that hint broadly at one "secret" or another. The last guy who asked me about polyamory actually wanted to know how he'd get his book (on gambling strategy) published.

Am I "in the closet"? Some would affirm it heartily, some would deny it as absurd.

The first reference to "closet" on this thread, five days ago:

To the list, add, "If it's closeted, it's not polyamory." Because I think keeping one's polyness in the closet is tantamount to avoiding social scrutiny.

My point had been that "avoiding social scrutiny" was most likely a symptom of living in that siege mentality of fear/shame, & it's that mentality that works against polyamory.

Kevin represents himself (& tacitly his household) here; there are "poly" people who're literally fearful of appearing on a site like this, or even one like PMM used to be where the forums were protected from search engines & the users kept as anonymous as they wanted to be (moreso, actually, but that's another story). Therefore, I don't agree in the least that Kevin -- or Rockit49 -- is in that way "closeted."

And I'm pretty certain Kevin's said he or some part of his family has gone to poly-friendly potlucks. Well, heck, REALLY not closeted. (In fact, that's been one of the grains of inspiration prodding me toward starting a poly Meetup group in this little four-stoplight town.)

Can people be cowering in the eaves & yet be polyamorous? Sure... kinda... for a while. But the fear WILL weigh on them, they will avoid more & more potential "problem" topics for fear of misspeaking, until they can't even feel safe talking to each other. I've watched it happen. I'd rather discourage it from the start, just as I would ANY enshrinement of "couple-first" thinking -- both are at best distantly peripheral to polyamory.

(If Sheff's doing anything useful, she's certainly examined the reality of these issues, right?)

 

[vinsanity0]

For the most part.. Yes it does help define poly.

How so? To me it reads like a way to do life, whether you are poly or not.

 

[Rockit49]

Yes! Of course it's a way of doing life.. mono or poly!

How so? To me it reads like a way to do life, whether you are poly or not.

This is about poly.. Though.. Specific... Hence why he also mentioned what isn't poly valid to him! And since we are here defining and trying to find a good definition .. is also helpful to mention what doesn't seem to be Poly at all! Again ... Because as he mentions... Some people would take advantage of what might be close to poly... But... Yeah... It ain't.
Just reference a new into here today.... he's asking if we think it's poly or just horny. I think it will help him to look over the definitions.... And along the way.. The this ain't poly talks will also help shape the actual "poly" definition for him
What do you think, Vince?

 

[vinsanity0]

This is about poly.. Though.. Specific... Hence why he also mentioned what isn't poly valid to him! And since we are here defining and trying to find a good definition .. is also helpful to mention what doesn't seem to be Poly at all! Again ... Because as he mentions... Some people would take advantage of what might be close to poly... But... Yeah... It ain't.
Just reference a new into here today.... he's asking if we think it's poly or just horny. I think it will help him to look over the definitions.... And along the way.. The this ain't poly talks will also help shape the actual "poly" definition for him
What do you think, Vince?

What you originally quoted from me was a response to "The Seven-Step Path to Better Decisions" and "The Noble Eightfold Path". I still don't think they are specific to poly.

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.

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. Does that mean that if someone is struggling with it they are not poly? Not in my opinion.

The bottom line is I am secure enough in who I am to not have to dictate to others how they should be. If they are following some basic criteria (a form of ethical non-monogamy in which the potential for loving other partners exists) it's good enough for me.

 

[Ravenscroft]

This is an interesting take --

I've had bookmarked for some time Maxine's Journal (emanix.livejournal.com & happened to fetch up there recently looking for something else entirely -- such are search engines. So I dug around a little, & found that Maxine had tackled "the definition problem" back on 2009 (26 Aug) & put a unique spin on it. The piece is Defining my Terms 2: Polyamory.

She begins from the Wikipedia opening of the time, then parses it out from there -- which sets her apart from the swathes of people who simply take a definituion at face value & blithely pretend that "I know what THAT word means" AND "so does everyone else" AND "we're all on the same page on everything." (These are excerpts, & I've made elisions.)

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.

Being 'poly' is tied to my definition of what Love is. I believe that if you love someone, you want them to be happy, whether that means they are with you or without you - this applies both in the long-term, as in 'who would I like to spend the rest of my life with?' and the short, as in 'who would I like to spend this evening with?'. To me, loving someone means facilitating their happiness, or giving them space to create their own, in the best way you can.

To me, 'fidelity' is about making sure you have enough time and energy for all the partners you're committed to. For some it's just one and that's fine, for others it may be half a dozen or more. For some people, that may even be nobody. What I do see as wrong is trying to force someone else into being what they're not, whichever direction that goes in.

I don't see what makes sex different to any other activity that makes people happy, as long as they're being sensible and not endangering my health (and preferably not theirs either)

I'm going to feel happiest knowing that he or she is enjoying life to the full - and I've worked on developing the communication skills to make sure I'm not losing out too. And for me, the thing that makes me happiest is freedom to choose.

I put a lot into my relationships with people. I have platonic friendships that I consider to be on the same level as my love relationships, even when I haven't seen the person in question for a year or two at a time, and that makes sense to me.

I would normally not consider sleeping with someone I didn't care about, because I have no personal investment in making them feel happy. I also have no particular inhibitions about sleeping with friends, because ultimately I believe all of my friends care more about my happiness, and I about theirs, [than] to let an orgasm or two get in the way of that.

Coincidentally, she has another entry from a couple of months later on how she became an Agent of SAMOTURE. I appear to have unwittingly joined.

The acronym stands for 'Self-Appointed Member Of The Unseen Ruling Elite'.

In the 'Future of Polyamory' discussion at Polyday there were a lot of audience comments that ran along the lines of 'this thing is bad, somebody should do something', or, slightly better 'we should do something' - but still clearly with no intention to follow through on a personal level.

I found myself looking from side to side along the panel and realising that the half-dozen people alongside me were near enough the only 'they' available, and every single one leads far too busy a life already to take on any more of the world's troubles.

There is an assumption that somewhere there is an invisible group of people who just live to do this work.

I'm aware that not everyone who was asking those things has the capacity to achieve what they were asking for, but I'm also aware (now more so than ever) that most of us have more capacity to change the world than we know, and I think it's important that everyone also realises, at the end of the day, nobody is going to fight our corner except us, and we're all a part of that us.

But there aren't enough people who realise they can change the world.

So I've got a plea:

The next time you catch yourself thinking 'somebody should do something about that' - whatever it is - and the next time, and the next, just think after it 'could I do something about that?'

In the Comments afterwards, she adds "what I object to is the idea that it's always somebody else who should do the work," to which I'd add "& take all the flak for doing it wrong, or not quickly enough, or not the way 'everyone' likes."

 

[Hannahfluke]

In the Comments afterwards, she adds "what I object to is the idea that it's always somebody else who should do the work," to which I'd add "& take all the flak for doing it wrong, or not quickly enough, or not the way 'everyone' likes."

I do find your addition here at the end a bit ironic, given that you've spent this whole thread mocking other people's attempts at defining polyamory, telling assorted people they're silly or what they say is nonsense when they call you on something, and steadfastly refusing repeated requests for you to formulate a definition of your own. All while writing all over the board about how YOU are the expert and the only one who should be listened to because you've been poly since the 80s and wrote a book on the subject (while mocking other "self-proclaimed experts" because all they've done is research the subject for years and written books about it).