Have you ever been accused of being "bad at poly"? When/why?

[hedgehog]

Seems to me that polygamy could qualify as polyamorous if there is true consent - and I am certain that in some polygamous marriages, true consent does exist, and the polyamory label would apply.

Unfortunately, through the ages, and even today, polygamy has often been practiced in an oppressive patriarchal mode - where true consent does not actually exist (coerced consent is not true consent) - and in these cases it would obviously not qualify as polyamorous.

A few more cents worth.

That all makes sense to me. However I don't know enough about the details of the laws and doctrines of cultures which permit it to be able to comment on specific cases, but in principle, both polygamy and polyandry as individual concepts would seem to fall under the umbrella of polyamory provided that the laws and doctrines of their surrounding society and culture permit multiple partners in a single marriage.

Outside of that, e.g. where the laws and doctrines specifically define marriage as the union of two people to the exclusion of all others, there exists an ethical dilemma. It seems that in Western culture that dilemma is often ignored by married people who choose to self-identify as polyamorous.

To be clear again here, these are just my observations. I'm not evangelizing or "one true poly-ing" ( whatever that is ).

 

[vinsanity0]

Well said - very few polyamorists would argue that a V is not true poly. In fact, I'm trying to figure out how anyone would even draw that conclusion. Obviously the hinge is poly as that the hinge has two lovers - but then somehow we are going to say that the hinges are not poly because they don't currently have multiple lovers - or because they are not involved together in a triad. Obviously if they have the capacity and ability to have multiple loving, consensual relationships - they are still poly, whether they actually have multiple relationships at any given time or not - at least according to the most widely accepted understanding. And the hinges certainly would not have to be involved with each other to "qualify as poly".

Al

It was argued by another poster here, Ravenheart, that the only poly person in a V is the hinge. His thinking was that the arms of the vee didn't have multiple relationships. However, he refused to take into account that the whole was a polycule.

 

[hedgehog]

It was argued by another poster here, Ravenheart, that the only poly person in a V is the hinge. His thinking was that the arms of the vee didn't have multiple relationships. However, he refused to take into account that the whole was a polycule.

DISCLAIMER: These are observations not an evangelization of my personal biases or "one true poly-ing" ( whatever that is ). At some point I hope I will become known well enough here for that to be assumed, so that I don't have to always include this disclaimer.

On the subject in question:

It seems to me that the historical distinction between polyamory and other types of relationships originally hinged on interrelationships. Based on that model, where there is no interrelationship, there is no polyamory, and the situation matches swinging. Today however, especially on this forum, the concept of interrelationships is often given zero weight. This represents a major split in the conceptual underpinnings of polyamory by those usually credited with creating and defining the term. This blurs the boundaries significantly.

 

[vinsanity0]

DISCLAIMER: These are observations not an evangelization of my personal biases or "one true poly-ing" ( whatever that is ). At some point I hope I will become known well enough here for that to be assumed, so that I don't have to always include this disclaimer.

On the subject in question:

It seems to me that the historical distinction between polyamory and other types of relationships originally hinged on interrelationships. Based on that model, where there is no interrelationship, there is no polyamory, and the situation matches swinging. Today however, especially on this forum, the concept of interrelationships is often given zero weight. This represents a major split in the conceptual underpinnings of polyamory by those usually credited with creating and defining the term. This blurs the boundaries significantly.

Well that's a damn shame

 

[Al99]

It was argued by another poster here, Ravenheart, that the only poly person in a V is the hinge. His thinking was that the arms of the vee didn't have multiple relationships. However, he refused to take into account that the whole was a polycule.

In addition to his missing the point about the V being a polycule, his argument fails to take into account that either or both of the hinges might have the capacity and ability to engage in multiple, loving, consensual relationships - making them, by definition, polyamorous - as one doesn't not have to be actively engaged in multiple relationships at any given time to be poly - another discussion that has surfaced here recently.

Although - it is possible that either or both of the hinges could conceivably be mono - just as there can mono-poly relationships. But, one certainly cannot logically make a blanket statement that the hinges in all V's are not poly.

I think of our official greeter, Kevin, a leg in a MFM V. Not only is he a member of the polycule who self identifies as poly, he has publicly stated that he is open to and has even sought additional relationship (again, making him poly, by definition).

Al



Al

 

[FallenAngelina]

This represents a major split in the conceptual underpinnings of polyamory by those usually credited with creating and defining the term.

I don't see a split in the poly community because the "old guard" is so rarely cited or even thought about. Sounds like there's been an evolution in the common definition, but a split - no. You have to have sizable factions in order to have a split and the "everyone needs to be intimately interrelated" faction is practically nonexistent.

 

[Magdlyn]

I don't see a split in the poly community because the "old guard" is so rarely cited or even thought about. Sounds like there's been an evolution in the common definition, but a split - no. You have to have sizable factions in order to have a split and the "everyone needs to be intimately interrelated" faction is practically nonexistent.

When hedgehog speaks of the "history of polyamory," they are only going back a few decades. They are not speaking of the polygyny of the Mormons or of the ancient Middle East.

Morning Glory Zell-Ravenheart and her husband Oberon were Californian pagan hippies, who lived on a bus and in communes in the late '60s onward. They were the founders of the modern polyamory movement, as far as writing about it went. Of course, many hippies back in the 1960s and 1970s were trying to make "Free Love" and communes work. But it seems the Zell-Ravenhearts were more committed than most, and more successful than most.

For a period of time, I'm not sure how long, Morning Glory and Oberon lived with 4 or 5 other lovers of theirs. Morning Glory's daughter from her first marriage, Rainbow, eventually changed her name to Gail and moved out of the commune to live with her bio-dad.

Communes are notoriously difficult. Communes where everyone are lovers often fail spectacularly.

Morning Glory published her manifesto on the subject of polyamory, A Bouquet of Lovers, in 1990. I just reread it. Here's the link: http://caw.org/content/?q=bouquet

Here's her bio on wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morning_Glory_Zell-Ravenheart

Her writing strikes me as well-meaning, sweet, naive, and outdated in some ways.

- There are RULES
- She assumes there is a Primary couple, and then in lesser roles, Secondaries and "satellite" lovers.
- She even allows for one night stands.
-The Primaries' needs come first.
- One Primary should get the permission of their Primary for a new partner. They have to meet and be approved.
- One Primary may veto a Secondary up to "a year and one day" of that relationship.
- A Primary "brings a new lover in" to their shared home with their Primary
- The goal is for an entire poly network to live together and be committed loving friends, if not lovers.

Obviously, this model is extremely utopian and outmoded, not to say unrealistic. (And perhaps frightening to the children lol)