definitions of polyamory

[Seinneann]

Ethics as a core facet of polyamory date back not only to its inception with Morning Glory Zell-Ravenheart, and as covered by Franklin Veaux, but also Hardy & Easton, authors of The Ethical Slut, considered by many to be the Bible of polyamory. There is no escaping the historical significance of this fact and therefore it cannot simply be hand waved as irrelevant.

Given that people have been practicing polyamory for hundreds of years before Morning Glory Zell-Ravenheart coined the term and Franklin Veaux decided to write a lot about it, they are not the people who define it. Franklin and Dossie both would balk at the idea that they are defining the term. They write about what they think the best way to practice it is.

(and that's not even getting into the colonialist view that Morning Glory somehow was at the "inception" of polyamory)

Monogamous relationships don't include an ethical component as part of its definition. It is simply about limiting the number of partners. Nothing else, therefore the comparison isn't coherent.

That's a distinction you've chosen to make. There are a lot more books out there about how to have ethical monogamous relationships than how to have ethical polyamorous relationships. What makes the books you cite a defining authority over the relationship structure while these other books aren't?

To proclaim ethics is a useless qualifier in one type of relationship because it's your opinion that it should apply to all relationships is only logically coherent to your particular viewpoint. In order to have an objective definition that applies evenly to those who have other views, the ethical component needs to be stated in no uncertain terms.

You have just said in a fancy way that you disagree. Nothing more. Your argument is based on the fact that you believe ethics is only at the heart of polyamorous relationships and no other ones. I disagree and most monogamous people would also disagree with you. And again, abuse happens in all of these relationship structures. If you think abusive relationships can't be poly, then they can't be mono either.

Again, comparing monogamy to polyamory is not logically coherent as they both have different qualifiers.

In your opinion. Because you have declared that some people who wrote about polyamory and are considered authorities in the matter have written about how it's good to practice it ethically, you have decided that it must be in the definition as differentiated from monogamous relationships (despite the large volumes of books written by authorities on monogamous relationships saying similar things). Your definition only works if you are comfortable holding a double standard between the two relationship models. (Though I do find that people who think poly relationships are inherently superior to monogamous relationships tend to be pretty comfortable with that double standard.)

Monogamy limits its definition strictly to the number of partners involved. Polyamory carries with it an ethical component, and therefore one could rightly claim that unethical behavior with respect to the interpersonal aspect of a romantic relationship would disqualify it as as polyamorous.

Again, *in your opinion*. As someone who likes to point out other parties "hand waving", I'd say that this is a great example of it. You have only addressed the logical inconsistencies of your argument by restating your flawed premise.

And why is this important? Because abuse does happen in polyamorous relationships (more than one thinks) and it is dangerous and enabling of that abuse look at polyamorous relationships with the assumption that they are being ethical.

 

[PolyNatural]

Given that people have been practicing polyamory for hundreds of years before Morning Glory Zell-Ravenheart coined the term and Franklin Veaux decided to write a lot about it, they are not the people who define it. Franklin and Dossie both would balk at the idea that they are defining the term. They write about what they think the best way to practice it is. (and that's not even getting into the colonialist view that Morning Glory somehow was at the "inception" of polyamory).

While it is true that people are naturally non-monogamous and have a natural sense of fairness, I would agree that there have probably been many instances throughout history where people's behavior matches how polyamory has been defined. However that is different from identifying and labeling a particular type of behavior for the purpose of differentiating it from other kinds of behavior. For example natural selection took place well before Darwin gave it a name. Does that mean that everyone therefore has the right to redefine it according to their preference? No. We use labels to identify and differentiate things and concepts and polyamory is no exception.

That's a distinction you've chosen to make. There are a lot more books out there about how to have ethical monogamous relationships than how to have ethical polyamorous relationships. What makes the books you cite a defining authority over the relationship structure while these other books aren't?

I quote sources and apply critical thinking because it is my opinion a way to more objectively substantiate a point of view than simply barfing out my own biased and personal preferences. Therefore I can say that the views I put forward should carry more weight than unsubstantiated offhanded opinions. I also solicit the views of others in an effort improve the views I put forth, and in doing so, cannot be fairly accused of making self-serving arbitrary decisions. This should be seen as intellectually honest and fair minded. What other way would you suggest that would be better?

You have just said in a fancy way that you disagree. Nothing more. Your argument is based on the fact that you believe ethics is only at the heart of polyamorous relationships and no other ones.

That's not quite accurate. What I actually said is that the way monogamy is defined it doesn't include an ethical component, but only focuses on the number of partners, whereas polyamory specifically includes ethics in no uncertain terms within the definition itself.

Because you have declared that some people who wrote about polyamory and are considered authorities in the matter have written about how it's good to practice it ethically, you have decided that it must be in the definition as differentiated from monogamous relationships (despite the large volumes of books written by authorities on monogamous relationships saying similar things). Your definition only works if you are comfortable holding a double standard between the two relationship models. (Though I do find that people who think poly relationships are inherently superior to monogamous relationships tend to be pretty comfortable with that double standard.)

Your putting words in my mouth there. I'd rather you didn't do that.

 

[Al99]

As to coming to a consensus on the "most accurate" definition of polaymory/polyamorous, the debate has been raging among very intelligent, educated, and interested people since the word came around. I posted this in reference to a quote from an important early activist:

http://www.polyamory.com/forum/showpost.php?p=385704&postcount=170

As to the idea that one person is somehow more qualified than the rest of us (intelligent, educated, interested polyamorists) to state the "correct definition", I will reference my earlier thoughts on the subject also:

http://www.polyamory.com/forum/showpost.php?p=386640&postcount=172

Al

 

[PolyNatural]

As to coming to a consensus on the "most accurate" definition of polaymory/polyamorous, the debate has been raging among very intelligent, educated, and interested people since the word came around. I posted this in reference to a quote from an important early activist:

http://www.polyamory.com/forum/showpost.php?p=385704&postcount=170

As to the idea that one person is somehow more qualified than the rest of us (intelligent, educated, interested polyamorists) to state the "correct definition", I will reference my earlier thoughts on the subject also:

http://www.polyamory.com/forum/showpost.php?p=386640&postcount=172

Al

Thanks for the reply. Very good posts BTW. This might be a good time to point out that when it comes to discussions like this that it's important to separate the issue at hand from the people involved. In other words, I don't expect that any "one person" should be held to have the best answer, but that the best answer should stand on its own as independent of personal bias as possible based on the most objective evidence and reasoning available.

This is my intent. I'm not trying to be some sort of poly guru. I'm trying to contribute ideas that can help facilitate a common understanding that can help increase unity in the poly community because the ideas are themselves coherent and relatively bias free, and therefore should be easy for everyone to agree on. I know that's still a lot to hope for, but maybe it will find favor with others who appreciate this sort of approach.

 

[Ravenscroft]

I'm not trying to be some sort of poly guru.

I've had to explain it over and over so many times to people that I decided to just create a website and link them to that.

 

[Ravenscroft]

Any two-dollar terms like "ethically" have no place in a dictionary-level definition. Most obviously, using messy terms in hopes of clarifying other messy terms is is pointless at best.

Now that the messiness of the terms has been pointed up, continuing to chase this around the circle is oddly familiar --

To beg the question is to assume the truth of the conclusion of an argument in the premises, in order for the conclusion to follow. It is a type of circular reasoning and an informal fallacy, in which an arguer makes an argument that requires the desired conclusion to be true. This often occurs in an indirect way such that the fallacy's presence is hidden or at least not easily apparent.

A fallacy cannot be corrected by piling other fallacies around it, no matter how necessary those little lies are to any person's self-image or worldview.

And as Seinneann points up, any claims that "poly is ethical!!" are potentially poisonous (or at least might induce vomiting ). There are plenty of people who have yet to prove themselves capable of sustaining two (or more) intimate relationships for any amount of time who will happily tell you they're "a poly" & thus on a level with those who have accomplished that feat for decades.

Worse, as with "polys are great communicators!!" the ethicality claim supports those who will pretend that, because they vaguely aspire to something that might look like nonmonogamy, they are therefore superior beings, QED.

At absolute best, "ethical" might belong in an encyclopedia-level definition, where all the fancy words can at least be outlined. However, shoehorning it into a dictionary-level definition borders on dishonest.

 

[Ravenscroft]

Interestingly, someone pointed out to me that the "polys are great communicators!!"/"polys are ethical!!" trap runs into a similar corner with "polys are egalitarian!!/pro-woman!!/anti-racist!!" & so on, which ties neatly to another of my troublesome threads.

In short, declaring oneself poly means that one is instantly & forever beyond reproach. This sentiment is implicit & widespread. It's like seeing religious converts (whether Baptist or Jew or Wiccan) who have their sins washed away by their new-found faith.

Me, I choose to disagree, & firmly. Getting a clean start is one thing -- getting a permanent Golden Ticket is quite another.

 

[Ravenscroft]

A root question has reappeared: How does a person determine whether a person is "really" polyamorous? (Note that this query includes me asking it of myself.)

Rather than bury the lede, let's jump right to my belief:

Polyamory is an objective assessment of a particular relational style.

Therefore, there's really no such thing as "a polyamorous person." Rather, there might be "a person who is in multiple intimate relationships," or (my favorite) "a person who has demonstrated the ability to successfully balance multiple intimate relationships."

Because of that latter, it's readily possible for us to observe someone who is unaware of the term, or who has declined to accept it, yet is doing an excellent job of living in what all of us could agree is a polyamorous situation.

(And I could argue that the label "a polyamorous relationship" is questionable at best. After all, what is "intimacy"? Is sex required, or optional? Can you be "intimate" with your child or sibling? If so, doesn't that mean you can "be poly" with them? At best, there is maybe validity to "acting in a polyamorous manner," but whether a given relationship is of itself polyamorous is a very gray space.)

IMNSHO, someone who wants to have multiple relationship is no more polyamorous than... well, than someone who wants to someday try flying an airplane is therefore "a pilot" or even "an aviation student."

And someone who has been attempting poly but has thus far not succeeded (whether from their abilities or due to outside circumstance) is in actuality about as successful as a student pilot who, while avoiding embarrassing skids off the runway, has yet to get off the ground, much less complete the required hours of solo piloting. That is to say, I certainly won't discourage them from continued attempts, but not everyone will be "a natural" at it, & even the most sincere diligence IS NOT anything close to final success.
________________

Much depends on what is meant by "polyamory" (& here there is no dictionary that will magically solve the problem -- actual thinking might be required, no matter how painful ).

Is polyamory a practice... or worldview... or intellectualized philosophy... or intuitive feeling... or social movement... or religion-like faith? In order to have generalized validity, any of those claims MUST be well-defined, & clearly stated at every use which one we are discussing because they are CERTAINLY NOT "the same thing."

Let me make up a short list of typical claims to polyamory. The following CANNOT be interchangeable.

• "This article says I could have two girlfriends, so I want to get a girlfriend who'll let me do that."
• "Sounds like a really nice idea. Maybe I'll try it someday."
• "My fiancee wants to keep dating other guys. I guess I could be okay with that."
• "After he moved to Toledo for work, our LDR sorta fizzled, & I've been too busy to start dating again."
• "My wife moved her best friend into the spare bedroom, & we're not particularly attracted to each other, but we all get along great."
• "Our commune worked well until it didn't, & now I see that nonmonogamy is a load of crap."
• "I've read all the books, participated actively in the websites, & spent years dating pro-poly people, but I can't seem to hold onto ONE steady relationship."
• "Poly? Oh, no; not really. We have an open marriage."
• "I don't like having sex with my husband & wish he'd get a girlfriend so he'd stop pestering me."

 

[PolyNatural]

Any two-dollar terms like "ethically" have no place in a dictionary-level definition. Most obviously, using messy terms in hopes of clarifying other messy terms is is pointless at best.

Now that the messiness of the terms has been pointed up, continuing to chase this around the circle is oddly familiar --

A fallacy cannot be corrected by piling other fallacies around it, no matter how necessary those little lies are to any person's self-image or worldview.

And as Seinneann points up, any claims that "poly is ethical!!" are potentially poisonous (or at least might induce vomiting ). There are plenty of people who have yet to prove themselves capable of sustaining two (or more) intimate relationships for any amount of time who will happily tell you they're "a poly" & thus on a level with those who have accomplished that feat for decades.

Worse, as with "polys are great communicators!!" the ethicality claim supports those who will pretend that, because they vaguely aspire to something that might look like nonmonogamy, they are therefore superior beings, QED.

At absolute best, "ethical" might belong in an encyclopedia-level definition, where all the fancy words can at least be outlined. However, shoehorning it into a dictionary-level definition borders on dishonest.

[FONT="Arial]That fallacy does not apply in this instance because no particular claim X is being made that assumes X is true in every case. That is an assumption on your part that is not implicit in the definition.[/FONT]

 

[PolyNatural]

Interestingly, someone pointed out to me that the "polys are great communicators!!"/"polys are ethical!!" trap runs into a similar corner with "polys are egalitarian!!/pro-woman!!/anti-racist!!" & so on, which ties neatly to another of my troublesome threads.

In short, declaring oneself poly means that one is instantly & forever beyond reproach. This sentiment is implicit & widespread. It's like seeing religious converts (whether Baptist or Jew or Wiccan) who have their sins washed away by their new-found faith.

Me, I choose to disagree, & firmly. Getting a clean start is one thing -- getting a permanent Golden Ticket is quite another.

No we're getting into rather pointless semantics, but I'd say that to declare one's self as poly in the way you've suggested is different than simply self-identify one's self as poly in the sense that identifying with it implies that we agree with it in principle. That doesn't mean a person will always get everything right, but the intent seems reasonable enough.

 

[PolyNatural]

A root question has reappeared: How does a person determine whether a person is "really" polyamorous? (Note that this query includes me asking it of myself.)

Rather than bury the lede, let's jump right to my belief:

Therefore, there's really no such thing as "a polyamorous person."

I beg to differ. The overwhelming evidence indicates that humans are innately non-monogamous and have an innate sense of fairness, which together is sufficient IMO to call them innately polyamorous. Whether we embrace our poly nature or not isn't relevant. No amount of mono socialization is going to change our nature. Also it's not relevant that humans are also other things that we'd consider counter to being poly. Humans have more than way one natural way of behaving.

Rather, there might be "a person who is in multiple intimate relationships," or (my favorite) "a person who has demonstrated the ability to successfully balance multiple intimate relationships."

Because of that latter, it's readily possible for us to observe someone who is unaware of the term, or who has declined to accept it, yet is doing an excellent job of living in what all of us could agree is a polyamorous situation.

(And I could argue that the label "a polyamorous relationship" is questionable at best. After all, what is "intimacy"? Is sex required, or optional? Can you be "intimate" with your child or sibling? If so, doesn't that mean you can "be poly" with them? At best, there is maybe validity to "acting in a polyamorous manner," but whether a given relationship is of itself polyamorous is a very gray space.)

That's why the definition I use doesn't use the word "intimate". It uses the word "romantic"

Much depends on what is meant by "polyamory" (& here there is no dictionary that will magically solve the problem -- actual thinking might be required, no matter how painful ).

I'm not suggesting that we use magic. I'm suggesting that we use a combination of logic and critical thing to arrive at the best definition possible given the situation. It may never be perfect, but few things are. One thing seems certain, and that is that there has been room for improvement and it seems to me that progress is being made in that regard ( here - not in the community at large ).

Is polyamory a practice... or worldview... or intellectualized philosophy... or intuitive feeling... or social movement... or religion-like faith? In order to have generalized validity, any of those claims MUST be well-defined, & clearly stated at every use which one we are discussing because they are CERTAINLY NOT "the same thing."

That seems reasonable

Let me make up a short list of typical claims to polyamory. The following CANNOT be interchangeable.

• "This article says I could have two girlfriends, so I want to get a girlfriend who'll let me do that."
• "Sounds like a really nice idea. Maybe I'll try it someday."
• "My fiancee wants to keep dating other guys. I guess I could be okay with that."
• "After he moved to Toledo for work, our LDR sorta fizzled, & I've been too busy to start dating again."
• "My wife moved her best friend into the spare bedroom, & we're not particularly attracted to each other, but we all get along great."
• "Our commune worked well until it didn't, & now I see that nonmonogamy is a load of crap."
• "I've read all the books, participated actively in the websites, & spent years dating pro-poly people, but I can't seem to hold onto ONE steady relationship."
• "Poly? Oh, no; not really. We have an open marriage."
• "I don't like having sex with my husband & wish he'd get a girlfriend so he'd stop pestering me."

LOL. There are all sorts of claims, and that's the exact problem I'm attempting to tackle by having a concise and accurate definition with as few loopholes as possible. So far the objections you've raised, although reasonable, have not been applicable in the context of the definition that's been proposed. They have however been applicable to a whole range of other self-serving interpretations that people think are good enough for them because of the spurious notion that nobody has a the right to object to their opinion, or that it carries equal weight to everyone else's ( when it doesn't ).

So far, I see you offering observations, but not any solutions, as if it is your view that the subject should be left open to whatever personal interpretation suits whoever wants to use it for whatever reason they want. If that's the case we simply don't agree and never will. I am with those who believe that if there is to be a type of relationship and/or social movement we refer to as poly, that it should be grounded in a well defined and defensible manner that has consensus within the poly community. If you're not onboard with that, that's okay too. I'm basically an anarchist in principle and at present I don't self-identify as poly ( in the communal context ) anyway. At least not until these problems have been reconciled by the poly community. So I would respect your position ( if that's the sort of position it is ), even if I don't necessarily agree with it.

 

[Seinneann]

While it is true that people are naturally non-monogamous and have a natural sense of fairness, I would agree that there have probably been many instances throughout history where people's behavior matches how polyamory has been defined. However that is different from identifying and labeling a particular type of behavior for the purpose of differentiating it from other kinds of behavior.

There's a word for that: Columbusing. Simply because Ravenheart's label stuck doesn't mean that she was the first to differentiate poly relationships from mono relationships.

For example natural selection took place well before Darwin gave it a name. Does that mean that everyone therefore has the right to redefine it according to their preference? No. We use labels to identify and differentiate things and concepts and polyamory is no exception.

That's not a very good comparison to use. The theory of natural selection describes a process that happens outside of any societal context. To compare Ravenheart coining the term term polyamory to natural selection assumes that there were never any people who consciously differentiated their relationship style before she made the word up. That's simply not true. Franklin Veaux even talks about how he was practicing this style of relationship before he knew there was a word for it (and before Ravenheart even coined the term). Would you say that he was not conscious of the relationship style he chose because he didn't have a coined term for it?

I quote sources and apply critical thinking because it is my opinion a way to more objectively substantiate a point of view than simply barfing out my own biased and personal preferences.

Except how you're choosing to apply those quotes and apply your critical thinking is quite biased. Especially when the authors of the sources don't actually agree with the points you draw from them.

Therefore I can say that the views I put forward should carry more weight than unsubstantiated offhanded opinions.

Yeah, no. Because you're applying really crappy logic and poor critical thinking skills to it. I know that you will disagree with this and come back with another circular argument, but I'd say that's the broad consensus of most of the people reading your stuff. And I'm curious where you have come across these "unsubstantiated offhanded opinions".

I also solicit the views of others in an effort improve the views I put forth, and in doing so, cannot be fairly accused of making self-serving arbitrary decisions. This should be seen as intellectually honest and fair minded. What other way would you suggest that would be better?

Perhaps actually listening to the views of those you solicit instead of assuming that their opinions are "unsubstantiated and offhanded"?

Your putting words in my mouth there. I'd rather you didn't do that.

Please do point out exactly where I put "words in your mouth".

 

[PolyNatural]

There's a word for that: Columbusing. Simply because Ravenheart's label stuck doesn't mean that she was the first to differentiate poly relationships from mono relationships.

Interesting. However I'd point out that there is use in labeling things that have been around forever so that when we refer to them we know what we're talking about e.g. evolution has been around forever too, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't use it or define it in no uncertain terms.

That's not a very good comparison to use. The theory of natural selection describes a process that happens outside of any societal context. To compare Ravenheart coining the term term polyamory to natural selection assumes that there were never any people who consciously differentiated their relationship style before she made the word up. That's simply not true. Franklin Veaux even talks about how he was practicing this style of relationship before he knew there was a word for it (and before Ravenheart even coined the term). Would you say that he was not conscious of the relationship style he chose because he didn't have a coined term for it?

The context is of no relevance to the point. A term might just as easily be from astronomy, anthropology, or psychology. The point is that regardless of the context, labels are useful for reference to specific things or ideas, provided of course that the label has a clear definition that is accepted within the context it's being used.

Except how you're choosing to apply those quotes and apply your critical thinking is quite biased. Especially when the authors of the sources don't actually agree with the points you draw from them.

You'd need to be more specific before that comment carries any weight. Otherwise it's merely a proclamation.

Yeah, no. Because you're applying really crappy logic and poor critical thinking skills to it. I know that you will disagree with this and come back with another circular argument, but I'd say that's the broad consensus of most of the people reading your stuff. And I'm curious where you have come across these "unsubstantiated offhanded opinions".

That's simply another unsubstantiated proclamation. To be of value, you need to be more specific, and while you're at it, rather than simply being critical, perhaps you can offer a better solution? At least I'm attempting to do something positive for positive reasons. If you're aim is to simply tear that down, then at least replace it with something that does a better job.

 

[PolyNatural]

Updated Definition - V3

In the absence of other constructive commentary, I've incorporated part of kdt26417's view and updated the definition I'm using as follows:

1. pol·y·am·o·ry ( noun ) A type of open relationship where all partners are ethically and romantically connected.
2. pol·y·am·o·rous ( adjective ) Having a capacity or preference for polyamory.

At present this definition appears to be the most concise, coherent, and accurate definition so far. As always, comments that provide specific reasons and examples as to how it could be improved are welcome.

 

[Seinneann]

Interesting. However I'd point out that there is use in labeling things that have been around forever so that when we refer to them we know what we're talking about e.g. evolution has been around forever too, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't use it or define it in no uncertain terms.

I never claimed that that there isn't a use in labelling things or that polyamory shouldn't be defined. I'm disputing your assertion that because Ravenheart coined the term, that she has become the authority on exactly how polyamory should be defined and labeled.

The context is of no relevance to the point. A term might just as easily be from astronomy, anthropology, or psychology. The point is that regardless of the context, labels are useful for reference to specific things or ideas, provided of course that the label has a clear definition that is accepted within the context it's being used.

The context is very much relevant because you are comparing a process that happens regardless of what people know or think about with a relationship practice that many people consciously know they do even if they didn't have Ravenheart's name for it. There is a big difference.

You'd need to be more specific before that comment carries any weight. Otherwise it's merely a proclamation.

As you have proclaimed that Ravenheart's definition of the word polyamory is the only applicable one despite the fact that numerous writers on the topic (including Franklin Veaux who you have cited) have moved past that definition and made a more relevant one? As you continually proclaim that you are applying critical thinking skills while dismissing any points that might ask you to examine those skills? When I have the time or inclination, I'd be happy to provide you with a list of quotes from yourself that demonstrate a lack of critical thinking (in fact they more demonstrate a rigidity of thinking) and generally faulty logic. Though I don't expect that will change anything for you, since these things have already been provided for you numerous times and you continually dismiss and gloss over the flaws as if they don't exist when everyone else can clearly see them. But now I have a dinner to cook and a partner to spend quality time with, which is far more of a priority to me than setting you straight. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

That's simply another unsubstantiated proclamation. To be of value, you need to be more specific, and while you're at it, rather than simply being critical, perhaps you can offer a better solution? At least I'm attempting to do something positive for positive reasons. If you're aim is to simply tear that down, then at least replace it with something that does a better job.

As I've said there have been specific points made that you choose to either ignore or hand wave in dismissal. Which is fine if you wish to not truly challenge your views (which is pretty evident by your posting pattern). And while I'm sure you've put a lot of work into your website in an effort not to be a poly guru, suffice to say that it's a dinosaur that is not descriptive of how the majority of people practice polyamory. And while your assessment of that is that they "don't have their ducks in a row", the rest of the world is pretty much assessing your views as out of date and irrelevant.

(and yes that is a criticism, as you have not been able to respond in any meaningful way to actual arguments that disagree with your views)

 

[Ravenscroft]

Franklin Veaux even talks about how he was practicing this style of relationship before he knew there was a word for it (and before Ravenheart even coined the term).

Exactly!! MGZR first used the term in print in 1990. Unless a person (most probably a NeoPagan of some sort) had a subscription to the small-press magazine Green Egg (or knew someone), it's highly unlikely that there was any exposure to the term.

Just as the Americas didn't exist (or had been somehow misplaced ) until Columbus "discovered" them, there was no "responsible nonmonogamy" before MGZR stuck her flag in it & gave it a name the natives had never heard before.

Annie & I were cohabiting & openly nonmonogamous by 1984, & we had a short-lived triad with JW. We were in touch with PEP (specifically Ryam) & Kerista. In 1985, both Annie's girlfriend & my girlfriend moved in, & we found ourselves figuring out how to make this situation work optimally. We decided that we had no interest in polyfidelity -- that's where our "just marriage but with more people" wisecrack stems from -- so created the bulky-but-clear term responsible nonmonogamy.

We did steal the "sleeping schedule" concept from Kerista, but rather than a pinwheel randomizer, we posted an actual calendar, first to indicate who'd be sleeping with who (though sex was neither required nor limited to those dates), & soon to remind each other when we had evening social obligations or were planning to spend the night elsewhere. (Actually, I had nothing to do with it: I worked evenings, & my incredible partners created it.) It didn't occur to us how unusual this was, until friends caught on to its purpose & marvelled at our openness.

I mention that because it's indicative of how we had already worked out our standards of cohabitation, ethics, & mutual responsibility YEARS before the word showed up. Our dream was to create an intimate network across the nation, so we always brought each other back to a need for replicability, rather than just the game-rules that suited just us four.

We were VERY active Wiccans, but did not encounter the term "polyamory" until 1994, & then from Deb Anapol. We never thought it'd catch on: the definition managed to come across as both a bit highfalutin' AND based in "clap for Tinkerbell" wishful thinking.

 

[ref2018]

And *i* hung out with Raven Kaldera when he was still a woman, and i always thought s/he owned the word.

 

[Seinneann]

Also:

1. pol·y·am·o·ry ( noun ) A type of open relationship where all partners are ethically and romantically connected.
2. pol·y·am·o·rous ( adjective ) Having a capacity or preference for polyamory.

You have effectively removed any distinction between polyamory and monogamy with this definition, since in a monogamous relationship between two people, all partners are romantically connected.

And your continued use of "ethically" and your insistence that all people in a polyamorous relationship should be romantically involved continues to be prescriptive and merely attempts to pass off your opinion as fact.

Definitions are supposed to be descriptive, not prescriptive. This is why dictionaries continually revise themselves and re-define and add words. So regardless of how many times you assert your "authority" via "research and critical thinking" in this, your definition will remain extremely inaccurate.

 

[Al99]

As the discussion/debate trudges onward, I keep coming back to this quote -

We also discussed what I call the swing/poly wars, during which activists argued over the differences between swinging and polyamory, as well as the heated and failed debates over defining polyamory in a way the way that would satisfy everyone.

-- Kenneth R. Haslam, MD, founder of the Polyamory Archives at the Kinsey Institute of Sex, University of Indiana.

A bunch of really smart and well educated folks didn't come to an agreement in the 90's, following the introduction of the term "polyamory" - and we're unlikely to now.

Now, Polynatural recently posted:

In the absence of other constructive commentary, I've incorporated part of kdt26417's view and updated the definition I'm using as follows:
1. pol·y·am·o·ry ( noun ) A type of open relationship where all partners are ethically and romantically connected.
2. pol·y·am·o·rous ( adjective ) Having a capacity or preference for polyamory.

At present this definition appears to be the most concise, coherent, and accurate definition so far. As always, comments that provide specific reasons and examples as to how it could be improved are welcome.

So, he has his (most recent) definition for his website - all well and good, it's his website, after all - although I agree with what has been posted about "ethical' being too nebulous a term to be included in the definition (just my opinion, mind you). I still prefer the phrase "with the knowledge and consent of all involved" (which appears frequently throughout the polyverse) as being more precise and more basic (imo). I do think that there is most certainly a place for a discussion of ethics in the best practices list that should appear in the upcoming encyclopedia article.

I do think that phrases such as:

At present this definition appears to be the most concise, coherent, and accurate definition so far

perhaps are best qualified as opinions or viewpoints rather that stated as a fact that we should all see as obvious.

I, among others, might with good reason prefer a different definition. And ultimately, there is no Higher Court to decide this one.

Al

 

[Ravenscroft]

the heated and failed debates over defining polyamory in a way the way that would satisfy everyone.

And that is nothing but a total cop-out. People WILL stretch the definition in order to wedge themselves into the same room with "the cool kids" -- that doesn't mean that the term is invalid, or that attempts to come up with a clear definition are invalid.

Waving that "MD" around is an argument from authority --

in which a claimed authority's support is used as evidence for an argument's conclusion.

Haslam being a medical doctor & a library curator says NOTHING about his ability to speak on the practice of polyamory, except as an outside observer.

A couple of pages back, I put up a list of terms that are easily demonstrable as being just as capable of causing "heated and failed debates." Nobody has yet stepped up to clarify even ONE, so by the offered logic they all are invalid, right?

While there's not any sort of Poly Standards Committee, these forums do in many ways constitute an ad hoc crowdsourcing group for issues of nonmonogamy in particular & relationships in general. From 2000 to ~2007, PMM (apparently launched by Cunning Minx's partner of the time) filled much the same niche; before then, the Loving More site served before they dropped their forums, & before them it was the alt.polyamory newsgroup.

While we may never reach any sort of FINAL conclusion, it's organic discussions such as these that help correct the too-human tendency to bend words (particularly neologisms) all out of shape in hopes of a uselessly huge degree of unwarranted inclusiveness. If EVERYTHING is "polyamory," then there's no such thing as polyamory.

The discussion will trudge onward. Nobody is required to participate.