definitions of polyamory

[vinsanity0]

I'm still iffy as to whether a person can be polyamorous.

Someone can be acting in a polyamorous manner... someone who's had such a relationship has likely undergone a paradigm shift & could be said to now see the world in a poly manner... a group of people might be said to be polyamorous...

I believe that polyamory is the root concept, needing concision, & everything else is a matter of best practices, as it's been so aptly put.

Interesting point. While I believe that humans are naturally non-monogamous, that doesn't mean we are all polyamorous. That makes polyamory more of a philosophy than anything else.

 

[SlowPoly]

I've not defined poly in the first context the way you suggest because being poly doesn't require anyone's consent. If you are poly, you are poly whether anyone gives you consent or not. Correct?

No. I didn’t suggest that anyone’s consent is required to apply the poly trait label to a person. I suggested that since you define poly relationships in a way that includes consent, it makes sense to define the poly trait as being inclined and/or able to participate in poly relationships as defined. It doesn’t make sense to define polyamorous relationships more narrowly than the same-named trait.

 

[PolyNatural]

No. I didn’t suggest that anyone’s consent is required to apply the poly trait label to a person.

OK. We're on the same page there then. One problem solved.

I suggested that since you define poly relationships in a way that includes consent ...

I don't define poly relationships in a way that includes consent because consent may not always be required or ethical. I do include emotional connections, ethical behavior, and communication as being essential.

... it makes sense to define the poly trait as being inclined and/or able to participate in poly relationships as defined. It doesn’t make sense to define polyamorous relationships more narrowly than the same-named trait.

I don't define poly relationships more narrowly than being poly. There seems to be confusion someplace.

 

[Emm]

Moderator note:

If you're wondering how you didn't notice some of the posts in this thread before, it's because the related discussion hijacking the I'm not finding long-term partners, he is thread has been merged into this one.

 

[Al99]

There seems to be confusion someplace.

It seems to me that the issue in the discussion surrounding the most recent proposal by Polynatual (and the ensuing conversation) is that polynatural is stating that one is poly if - they have:

The natural ability to have multiple simultaneous romantic relationships.

And this may be true - although I believe - based on my own experience -
that the ability can be natural or learned.

Although Ravenscroft makes a good counterpoint in his post:

I'm still iffy as to whether a person can be polyamorous.

Someone can be acting in a polyamorous manner... someone who's had such a relationship has likely undergone a paradigm shift & could be said to now see the world in a poly manner... a group of people might be said to be polyamorous...

I believe that polyamory is the root concept, needing concision, & everything else is a matter of best practices, as it's been so aptly put.

However, saying someone is poly (according to polynatural's definition) is not the same thing as saying that this is also an adequate definition for the practice and philosophy of polyamory - which, by its nature, must contain the ethical components of consent and transparency. Because without these components - as has been mentioned a few times now - there is no differentiation between the polyamory that we discuss here and nonconsensual nonmonogamy - aka cheating. A few more cents worth in this continuing definition dialogue. Al

 

[Ravenscroft]

There'd definitions, then definitions. Look up a common word in the OED, & that entry is likely to be MUCH longer than in the Webster's Pocket. Take the same term & look it up in an encyclopedia, & it'll be much longer than the OED's. Yet who is going to champion the claim that one is "better" than the other?

That's why I propose something brief, to-the-point, & good enough as a"pocket edition" version, hence --

Polyamory is the demonstrated ability to maintain multiple emotionally intimate relationships simultaneously.

I consider this to be something like the "top line" or "lede" or maybe "abstract" of a more complete definition. There is an absolute minimum of question-begging words ("emotionally intimate").

The "second tier" stuff would fold in concepts like honesty (relentless) & communication (blunt & constant) & self-awareness. Each of these needs not only definition, but some supportive terminology that ALSO must be clarified.

Once you dig into the second tier, you're moving past mere definition & well into best practices, "how-to" material. In other words, it's no longer "a definition."

The problem with "ethical" is that it is inarguably judgmental, not to mention varied. For example, in my worldview, & speaking only for myself, I feel that to be closeted & secretive & fearful would be highly unethical.

Worse, "ethical" sets up a hierarchy. Specifically, if polyamory is "ethical nonmonogamy," then that certainly implies that all other forms of nonmonogamy are unethical.

 

[vinsanity0]

Worse, "ethical" sets up a hierarchy. Specifically, if polyamory is "ethical nonmonogamy," then that certainly implies that all other forms of nonmonogamy are unethical.

I disagree. It only implies that some forms of nonmonogamy are ethical and some are not. Polyamory falls into the former category. ("a form of ethical nonmonogamy in which the ...")

Have you ever explained why you consider being in the closet as unethical?














9

 

[Al99]

Polyamory is the demonstrated ability to maintain multiple emotionally intimate relationships simultaneously.

But if we just stop there - then the married guy with a couple of secret mistresses that he truly loves - but who is doing so without telling his wife also gets to claim polyamory (even though she would say he is cheating, and file for divorce) - because he meets the definition - but I doubt that many of us who do practice poly with knowledge and consent would agree with that.

Which is why it seems to me that the base definition has to include knowledge and consent - to establish that differentiation from nonconsensual nonomonogamy (aka cheating - which could fit in the definition quoted above).

As to the rest - hierarchy, couple privilege, etc - that seems to me to properly belong under best practices. Al

 

[JaneQSmythe]

Response to PolyNatural in the "Relationship transitions?" thread

.... The second is agreeing to abide by those terms by giving an oath and a signature before a group of witnesses to prove that you endorse it ( when in fact you really don't ). If one is going to agree to something with such specific terms and in such an official manner, perhaps even swearing before God that they will abide by it, then there is a serious ethical issue in breaking that contract or covenant...

It's not just OK to make promises and sign contracts that you don't agree with because you want some fringe benefits out of it or whatever the case may be. After all, something as important as marriage vows can be interpreted as anything anyone wants, how can you trust them not to interpret other types of formal agreements in an equally self serving manner? Personally I don't agree with marriage so I won't have anything to do with it. But if I did sign the contract and agree to the terms I'd damn well honor my vows.

For the record (part 1) - my marriage vows did NOT include any nonsense about "forsaking all others" (I should know - I wrote them myself!) We never promised anyone that our marriage would be monogamous and anyone who thinks we did is making some pretty big assumptions (which I may or may not feel the need to correct. (Gods/Goddesses certainly didn't come into play as we are both agnostic/atheists.) We knew exactly what we were promising to each other - which, in my mind, is all that really matters (the rest is just insurance and tax breaks).

I agree that historically in the U.S. "legal marriage" has implied monogamy, it also has implied heterosexual unions. The society/culture generally changes before the legal system does. I wholeheartedly agree with the statement that "legal" and "ethical" are not always the same. I don't give a flying fuck what the government thinks about marriage - as far as I'm concerned it is none of their business - they should stick to contract law and if any number of people want to register a domestic contract then that is covered.

For the record (part 2) - you may want to do a little more research...even here ("in the West") marriage laws vary a LOT geographically. In Pennsylvania, where we live, since 1973 "adultery" is no longer a crime (nor is "fornication"). Marital infidelity is a CIVIL matter that affects divorce proceedings (but "alienation of affection" is not..hmmm.) Bigamy ("legally marrying" more than one person) is a misdemeanor of the second degree and you can face up to two years in prison.

PS. If anyone is interested - PA is NOT a "community property" state and, as of 2005, abolished "common law" marriage (although will recognize common law marriages entered into prior the enactment of the law).

 

[Ravenscroft]

the married guy with a couple of secret mistresses ... meets the definition

I've been trying to straighten this stuff out in my head, mulling the terminology over for 30+ years now. One outfall is that my usage can carry all sorts of unobvious weight.

In the case of my profferred definition, "emotionally intimate" is really demanding. Specifically, subterfuge means that emotional intimacy has failed, QED.

Have you ever explained why you consider being in the closet as unethical?

Closeting is done from fear, whether of actual loss or of mere inconvenience (the effort to justify myself). IMO, others will take it to mean that I believe my thoughts (feelings, actions) are shameful & must be hidden from "decent" people. This apparent vulnerability invites attack -- closets are death traps.

I'm confident of my own abilities to fend off self-righteous moralistic snoops, but don't feel I have the right to speak on behalf of my loved ones, much less others who act/feel pretty much the same as me. That would be unethical.

Instead, I'd rather be open, & accept the difficult conversations. That (for me) is the moral act, dictated by my ethical convictions. IME, one person willing to draw a line in the sand often leads a few others to "be out"; when it's a few, then more will be encouraged.

 

[Dagferi]

Also in PA. We also have this little thing called self uniting marriage. That is the ceremony Murf and I have had. We just havent bothered with legal paperwork.

 

[vinsanity0]

Here in Florida poly is technically illegal. Granted, the laws are archaic and rarely enforced. That is why I question the statement that not being "out" is unethical and therefore not poly. I suppose one could argue that breaking the law is not ethical, though I am firmly in the camp of laws rarely have anything to do with ethics.

 

[Al99]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Al99
the married guy with a couple of secret mistresses ... meets the definition

Ravenscroft replied:

I've been trying to straighten this stuff out in my head, mulling the terminology over for 30+ years now. One outfall is that my usage can carry all sorts of unobvious weight.

In the case of my profferred definition, "emotionally intimate" is really demanding. Specifically, subterfuge means that emotional intimacy has failed, QED.

(Emphasis mine - Al)

This is a really interesting point of view with a lot of merit. I suppose the only issue is that probably few would have that same admirably high standard (?) - and maybe that is why we need the knowledge and consent qualifiers for the general public or those who are either new to poly or view it in a superficial sort of way....

Interesting thought.... Al

 

[PolyNatural]

For the record (part 1) - my marriage vows did NOT include any nonsense about "forsaking all others" (I should know - I wrote them myself!) We never promised anyone that our marriage would be monogamous and anyone who thinks we did is making some pretty big assumptions (which I may or may not feel the need to correct. (Gods/Goddesses certainly didn't come into play as we are both agnostic/atheists.) We knew exactly what we were promising to each other - which, in my mind, is all that really matters (the rest is just insurance and tax breaks).

I agree that historically in the U.S. "legal marriage" has implied monogamy, it also has implied heterosexual unions. The society/culture generally changes before the legal system does. I wholeheartedly agree with the statement that "legal" and "ethical" are not always the same. I don't give a flying fuck what the government thinks about marriage - as far as I'm concerned it is none of their business - they should stick to contract law and if any number of people want to register a domestic contract then that is covered.

For the record (part 2) - you may want to do a little more research...even here ("in the West") marriage laws vary a LOT geographically. In Pennsylvania, where we live, since 1973 "adultery" is no longer a crime (nor is "fornication"). Marital infidelity is a CIVIL matter that affects divorce proceedings (but "alienation of affection" is not..hmmm.) Bigamy ("legally marrying" more than one person) is a misdemeanor of the second degree and you can face up to two years in prison.

PS. If anyone is interested - PA is NOT a "community property" state and, as of 2005, abolished "common law" marriage (although will recognize common law marriages entered into prior the enactment of the law).

Okay. First off, I had asked for my account here to be deleted because one of the mods ticked me off with an inaccurate interpretation of some content that I posted on another thread. But nobody has taken me off the board, so I figured OK fine, I'll respond and whatever happens makes no difference because the worst that could happen is I'll get what I asked for in the first place.

Secondly, for the mods who don't have the time to review all the content but have to deal with some complaint or another. This is a discussion about marriage in the context of the way polyamory is defined. Objective and constructive criticism is fine because unlike a lot of other people I recognize this is a discussion of a contentious nature. I welcome opposing and substantiated views, not offhanded personal attacks or attempts to get me in trouble by complaining to ( you ) the mods. Lastly, this is the definition thread, so it seems to me to be fine here, but if you want to move it someplace else do whatever you think you need to do.

With that out of the way, you ( JaneQSmythe ) make some valid points. The analysis I did uses very specific examples that include objectively independent definitions of marriage that are generally applied in Western legal marriages, and very specifically the way it's been defined here in Canada.

Where such laws are applicable it isn't excusable to simply ignore them in favor of one's own self-serving opinions. It's hypocritical. That's not a judgmental opinion either. It's a fact based on clear cut definitions of what the typical legal marriage is according to the law of the land, and the definitions of polyamory, virtually all of which are diametrically opposed, and the definition of hypocrisy.

However most people it seems aren't capable of being self-critical enough to recognize their own hypocrisy. I do. I know I make compromises and contradict my own principles from time to time out of self-serving convenience. I might even get married myself if it were sufficiently advantageous, but I'd still recognize my hypocrisy on an intellectual level, accept the criticism, live with consequences, and hope anyone interested in discussing the issue is open minded enough to understand and empathize with my situation. But, most people aren't like that. They just get offended and launch some sort of attack.

Then there's still the non-legal situation with marriages where monogamy is assumed rather than stated in explicit legal terms. Where there's such an understanding, the hypocrisy isn't any less serious. Perhaps more.

Then there's the simple assumption of marriage as neither mono nor poly or anything else like that, but as a celebration that emphasizes the feelings and other facets of the romantic relationship between partners. On the surface this seems fine, but there are also ethical considerations there as well, not the least of which is the perceived extra-specialness of a particular person, and that particular relationship, which by it's very nature divides those in that relationship from others. It's an intensely egocentric ritual which puts those getting married at the center of all the attention. To me this seems completely backward from the poly principle of including others, and finding joy in the happiness of others.

And before commenting, I've been a facilitator at more marriages than you can count, so it's not like I have no personal experience observing and studying the behavior. But fine, on some level it's okay to just throw a party where everyone can share in the joy of the love of others ( including you ). But that's the only loophole I can think of, and that leaves a lot of room for people's ulterior motives and human failings to sneak in as well. Not to mention that like any other marriage it still has a chance of failure over the long term, which means having to get out of it somehow emotionally and psychologically ( if not leagally ). How is that supposed to work?

To me ( and this is where I editorialize ) marriage is just a whole other set of problems that are better avoided in favor of more sensible alternatives.

 

[PolyNatural]

Also in PA. We also have this little thing called self uniting marriage. That is the ceremony Murf and I have had. We just havent bothered with legal paperwork.

Interesting. Thanks for that. Some brief research indicates that it's held in the Quaker tradition and according to this source ...

http://www.quakersintheworld.org/quakers-in-action/170/-Quakers-and-Sexuality

... self uniting marriages are monogamous by tradition.

Here in Canada we have something called "Common Law" which my last relationship fit the definition of, and in Alberta something called an 'adult interdependent relationship' where people:

• share one another’s lives
• are emotionally committed to one another; and
• function as an economic and domestic unit.
• The relationship does not have to be conjugal (sexual) to meet these criteria; it can be platonic.

It's implied that it's monogamous, but not stated explicitly. I need to do more research on this.

 

[PolyNatural]

Updated Definition

In continuing to formulate the best definition possible I've updated the one on the PolyNatural site to the following:

1. pol·y·am·o·ry ( noun ) A label for the innate ability to form multiple simultaneous appreciably interrelated ethical romantic relationships.
2. pol·y·am·o·rous ( adjective ) A type of ethical romantic relationship involving multiple simultaneous appreciably interrelated partners.

I'm still not perfectly happy with it, but competing definitions don't hold-up better under analysis. I also added an analysis of the importance of interrelatedness in polyamory and how interrelationships form the line between polyamory and swinging.

As usual, comments, constructive criticisms, and suggestions are welcome.

NOTE TO MODS: This isn't "promoting my website". This is using the forum for the purpose in which it appears to be intended, which is to network with the poly community by seeking out their opinions and views in a cooperative manner on a public forum to help improve everyone's understanding about polyamory (including mine). The links are to the source material to help illuminate the reasoning in greater detail without having to post walls of text. Interpreting it as "promotion" would be inaccurate.

 

[Al99]

pol·y·am·o·ry ( noun ) A label for the innate ability to form multiple simultaneous appreciably interrelated ethical romantic relationships.
pol·y·am·o·rous ( adjective ) A type of ethical romantic relationship involving multiple simultaneous appreciably interrelated partners.

I like this refinement - as it includes the generally accepted components of poly - multiple, romantic/sexual, and ethical (knowledge and consent). Given that, I don't know that it is anyway superior to the current Oxford dictionary definition quoted on Morethantwo.com:

the custom or practice of engaging in multiple romantic relationships with the knowledge and consent of all partners concerned.

I do take issue with the idea that the ability to practice polyamory is innate - personal experience has shown me that it can also be a learned ability. I might agree that the ability to love more than one (as opposed to actually practicing a relationship) may be innate - but I might tend to believe that it is is innate in almost everyone - just as almost everyone can love more than once child simultaneously.

The use of the single word "ethical" is also interesting. While using "knowledge and consent" might be more practical in explaining poly to the general public - ethical might indeed be more nuanced, and appealing to those who believe that that polyamory - at least at its best - entails more ethical considerations than simply knowledge and consent.

I just finished reading the new book "It's Called "Polyamory": Coming Out About Your Nonmonogamous Relationships" (by Tamara Pincus and Rebecca Hiles). Their definition of polyamory, which I also thought well of, is:

The practice, state, or ability of having more than one loving, romantic, and/or sexual relationship at the same time, with the full knowledge and consent of all partners involved.

While a full consensus on this topic may never be reached, the ongoing discussion is surely thought provoking. Al

 

[PolyNatural]

I like this refinement - as it includes the generally accepted components of poly - multiple, romantic/sexual, and ethical (knowledge and consent). Given that, I don't know that it is anyway superior to the current Oxford dictionary definition quoted on Morethantwo.com:

I've got Veaux's book. It's very good and I even got permission to reproduce some of the content for the PolyNatural website. I think the intent of the definition there is good, but not the best because of the same issues I covered in the explanation on the PolyNatural site.

I do take issue with the idea that the ability to practice polyamory is innate - personal experience has shown me that it can also be a learned ability.

That is a very keen observation and one I wrestled with it at some length before settling on the current definition, and I agree with you in one context, which I'll get to in a moment, but the key here is that being poly isn't a learned ability. It's a natural ability. In other words we naturally fall in love. We're naturally non-monogamous. We naturally form relationships. And we have a natural sense of fairness ( ethics ). Put that all together and label or no label, we get polyamory.

In contrast monogamy is the result of socialization and social conditioning. It is most certainly a learned behavior through and through, and it conflicts with our natural non-mono selves.

Now all that being said, I completely agree that in addition to our innate ability, a poly relationship can and does involve elements of learning and adaptation. But that is in a different context than the baseline. And it is the purpose of the root definition to form a neutral baseline rather than a bias to a specific situation. FWIW I'm not completely comfortable with it either, but I do think it's the best I've run across so far, and it doesn't really conflict with the other good ones out there. It's just a little more refined ( IMO ).

I might agree that the ability to love more than one (as opposed to actually practicing a relationship) may be innate - but I might tend to believe that it is is innate in almost everyone - just as almost everyone can love more than once child simultaneously.

Exactly.

The use of the single word "ethical" is also interesting. While using "knowledge and consent" might be more practical in explaining poly to the general public - ethical might indeed be more nuanced, and appealing to those who believe that that polyamory - at least at its best - entails more ethical considerations than simply knowledge and consent.

Exactly. The explanations for these nuances are on the PolyNatural site, and you are intuiting it quite accurately. Thank you for your constructive and friendly comments!

I just finished reading the new book "It's Called "Polyamory": Coming Out About Your Nonmonogamous Relationships" (by Tamara Pincus and Rebecca Hiles). Their definition of polyamory, which I also thought well of, is:

While a full consensus on this topic may never be reached, the ongoing discussion is surely thought provoking. Al

I will have to check that out. Thanks again. A very refreshing and intelligent post.

 

[Ravenscroft]

Of course, I have to stick with my notion that inserting any conjugation of "ethical" is tertiary at best, & almost always very poorly defined, yet another one of those "everyone knows what THAT means" words.

Ethics or moral philosophy is a branch of philosophy that involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong conduct.

Ethics seeks to resolve questions of human morality by defining concepts such as good and evil, right and wrong, virtue and vice, justice and crime.

Three major areas of study within ethics recognized today are:

1. Meta-ethics, concerning the theoretical meaning and reference of moral propositions, and how their truth values (if any) can be determined
2. Normative ethics, concerning the practical means of determining a moral course of action
3. Applied ethics, concerning what a person is obligated (or permitted) to do in a specific situation or a particular domain of action

Now, where is "poly ethics" thus properly explained in twenty words or less? or fifty? or two hundred?

The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy states that the word ethics is "commonly used interchangeably with 'morality' ... and sometimes it is used more narrowly to mean the moral principles of a particular tradition, group or individual."

The word ethics in English refers to several things. It can refer to philosophical ethics or moral philosophy—a project that attempts to use reason to answer various kinds of ethical questions. As the English philosopher Bernard Williams writes, attempting to explain moral philosophy: "What makes an inquiry a philosophical one is reflective generality and a style of argument that claims to be rationally persuasive." And Williams describes the content of this area of inquiry as addressing the very broad question, "how one should live"

Ethics can also refer to a common human ability to think about ethical problems that is not particular to philosophy. As bioethicist Larry Churchill has written: "Ethics, understood as the capacity to think critically about moral values and direct our actions in terms of such values, is a generic human capacity."

By that last outline, everyone has the ability to be "ethical," so "ethical relating" is redundant.

A couple of highlights from the W'pedia article --

Hedonism posits that the principal ethic is maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain. There are several schools of Hedonist thought ranging from those advocating the indulgence of even momentary desires to those teaching a pursuit of spiritual bliss. In their consideration of consequences, they range from those advocating self-gratification regardless of the pain and expense to others, to those stating that the most ethical pursuit maximizes pleasure and happiness for the most people.

Therefore, since hedonism is an ethical system, stepping on other people is ethical.

Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that argues the proper course of action is one that maximizes a positive effect, such as "happiness", "welfare", or the ability to live according to personal preferences.

Utilitarianism is the paradigmatic example of a consequentialist moral theory. This form of utilitarianism holds that the morally correct action is the one that produces the best outcome for all people affected by the action.

Deontological ethics or deontology is an approach to ethics that determines goodness or rightness from examining acts, or the rules and duties that the person doing the act strove to fulfill. This is in contrast to consequentialism, in which rightness is based on the consequences of an act, and not the act by itself.

In deontology, an act may be considered right even if the act produces a bad consequence, if it follows the rule that "one should do unto others as they would have done unto them", and even if the person who does the act lacks virtue and had a bad intention in doing the act.

According to deontology, people have a duty to act in a way that does those things that are inherently good as acts ("truth-telling" for example), or follow an objectively obligatory rule (as in rule utilitarianism). For deontologists, the ends or consequences of people's actions are not important in and of themselves, and people's intentions are not important in and of themselves.

So, let's everyone present their pocket-dictionary definition of "poly ethics."

 

[PolyNatural]

Of course, I have to stick with my notion that inserting any conjugation of "ethical" is tertiary at best, & almost always very poorly defined, yet another one of those "everyone knows what THAT means" words.


Now, where is "poly ethics" thus properly explained in twenty words or less? or fifty? or two hundred?

It's nice to see someone using their brain and exercising some critical thinking skills! This sort of ethics question is one I also considered, and as you keenly point out, how do we explain that concisely? Because notions about ethics tend to be heavily influenced by cultural and personal factors ( including bias ), ultimately I felt that in the context of a relationship, it is up to those in the relationship to draw those boundaries in more specific terms. This means that different relationships might have differing boundaries, but are still ethical to those within them. I think that is good enough to form the baseline definition.

By that last outline, everyone has the ability to be "ethical," so "ethical relating" is redundant.

A couple of highlights from the W'pedia article --

Therefore, since hedonism is an ethical system, stepping on other people is ethical.

Perfect example. I would say that if that is actually the case for those within the relationship, then they're entitled to that interpretation ( for them ), but that doesn't mean it extends to others. This isn't to dismiss the idea that there seem to be some interpretations that are better substantiated than others. From outside any specific relationship, I think it can be reasonably maintained that some are more ethical than others.

Anyway. Thank you for bringing this up in the forum. I think it deserves some further illumination on the PolyNatural site, and will add something as it becomes clearer how it should be presented. I imagine an entire page on ethics could be in order, but that would be better explored in the book. I'd like to keep the site more concise, but still fair minded and accurate.

So, let's everyone present their pocket-dictionary definition of "poly ethics."

Fabulous post. Perfect idea!