SEASONEDpolyAgain
Well-known member
The thing is, polyhedgehog has misinterpreted much of what they said anyway.
Why Do You or Don't You Self Identify As Poly
- Thread starter hedgehog
- Start date
The thing is, polyhedgehog has misinterpreted much of what they said anyway.
Nobody "once defined it." Morning Glory Zell, an old hippie witch who used to have a "unicorn farm" where she did surgery on baby goats to create and sell "unicorns," wrote an article about her lovestyle, and published it on Beltane in 1990, where she used the (silly, Greek/Latin) word, poly-amorous. No one was, is, or ever will be, compelled to accept her list of RULES about how to practice multiple partnerships. Most of her RULES are good, some suck.
I linked to the article elsewhere on another thread. It's called A Bouquet of Lovers. This woman passed away in 2014.
MG's husband Oberon is still alive. He looks like Gandalf, is a self described wizard, runs a pagan church and an online Wizardry school, and makes and sells art representing Gaia, the earth goddess. This is great! But I don't need to practice poly the way he wife once wrote. I doubt he still does, himself.
That's too bad for you, but you're welcome to your opinion, as long as you don't try to tell the rest of us we are just "swingers!" Or you're going to get banned (again).
Or maybe there is no problem at all?
MG's list of RULES in her Beltane article are not "classical" or "original" polyamory. It's just one woman's opinion. It involves communes. Do you want to live on a commune? Good luck with that.
Right.
Re (from hedgehog):
The definition I use has quite a bit of leeway, so no, it's not *just* "my version" of poly, it covers many people's versions. For example my definition allows for parallel poly, even though "my version" (the kind I practice) is kitchen table poly. My definition is quite open-minded, pretty much the only limitations are that it calls for romantic involvement and mutual consent. And while other definitions (e.g. Wiktionary) are not identical (word for word), 99% of them are close enough to be considered in agreement. That's all I ask.
So yes, my definition works for a lot of people. It just doesn't work *for you.*
The definition I use has quite a bit of leeway, so no, it's not *just* "my version" of poly, it covers many people's versions. For example my definition allows for parallel poly, even though "my version" (the kind I practice) is kitchen table poly. My definition is quite open-minded, pretty much the only limitations are that it calls for romantic involvement and mutual consent. And while other definitions (e.g. Wiktionary) are not identical (word for word), 99% of them are close enough to be considered in agreement. That's all I ask.
So yes, my definition works for a lot of people. It just doesn't work *for you.*
I identify as polyamorous because I am capable of loving more than one person.
Could you be willing to clarify? I'm not sure I get this part.
Are you talking about people who cheat or behave unethically in some way and then and call it "polyamory" in an attempt to "whitewash" their poor behavior?
And this has happened so much where you live, that if you called yourself polyamorous, people would lump you in with that crowd? Like you also would cheat/behave poorly so they don't want to risk dating you?
Is that the problem?
Well, long before I had "polyamory" for a word, I was still polyamorous.
I just used words like "not exclusive" or "not into monogamy."
Use the words you like and work out better for you where you live.
I think sometimes close enough is close enough, and making new labels doesn't change anything. You would still have to calibrate with people how you use this new label so you both are on the same page. Just like you would have to calibrate with new people how you use the word "polyamorous" and what that means to you vs what it means to them. There's lots of ways to do poly relationships and lots of types of Open models.
Like the word "boyfriend."
I have a friend who did not want to call her person her "boyfriend." She called him her "FWB" or her "fuck boy." I asked her if other words were ok and she said she did not like those labels.
I told she could use whatever word in their adult circles to describe each other, but when they were at my house she had to pick something else more neutral. "Partner" or "boyfriend" or "friend" because I wasn't having the kids go around to grandma at a BBQ saying "Hi Grandma. This is Mr X. He is Miss Y's fuckboy." I would go with whatever she picked but pick SOMETHING.
She understood it from my parent POV then. She picked "friend."
Was he actually just her friend? Nope.
But close enough is close enough in this situation. Esp when other than when they come to my shindigs, when would they EVER bump into this grandma?
If the word "polyamory" doesn't work for you when you need to use short hand labels, just don't use that one. Carry on your dating relationships using whatever words you want to use.
Just remember to calibrate how you use words with who you date so you are both on the same page and using it the same way.
Galagirl
Could you be willing to clarify? I'm not sure I get this part.
Are you talking about people who cheat or behave unethically in some way and then and call it "polyamory" in an attempt to "whitewash" their poor behavior?
And this has happened so much where you live, that if you called yourself polyamorous, people would lump you in with that crowd? Like you also would cheat/behave poorly so they don't want to risk dating you?
Is that the problem?
Well, long before I had "polyamory" for a word, I was still polyamorous.
I just used words like "not exclusive" or "not into monogamy."
Use the words you like and work out better for you where you live.
I think sometimes close enough is close enough, and making new labels doesn't change anything. You would still have to calibrate with people how you use this new label so you both are on the same page. Just like you would have to calibrate with new people how you use the word "polyamorous" and what that means to you vs what it means to them. There's lots of ways to do poly relationships and lots of types of Open models.
Like the word "boyfriend."
I have a friend who did not want to call her person her "boyfriend." She called him her "FWB" or her "fuck boy." I asked her if other words were ok and she said she did not like those labels.
I told she could use whatever word in their adult circles to describe each other, but when they were at my house she had to pick something else more neutral. "Partner" or "boyfriend" or "friend" because I wasn't having the kids go around to grandma at a BBQ saying "Hi Grandma. This is Mr X. He is Miss Y's fuckboy." I would go with whatever she picked but pick SOMETHING.
She understood it from my parent POV then. She picked "friend."
Was he actually just her friend? Nope.
But close enough is close enough in this situation. Esp when other than when they come to my shindigs, when would they EVER bump into this grandma?
If the word "polyamory" doesn't work for you when you need to use short hand labels, just don't use that one. Carry on your dating relationships using whatever words you want to use.
Just remember to calibrate how you use words with who you date so you are both on the same page and using it the same way.
Galagirl
Last edited:
FallenAngelina
Well-known member
No, NaturalHedgehog is talking about people in this forum community.
hedgehog
New member
I'm confident that the vast majority of personalized versions of polyamory sufficiently overlap so as to be inclusive of more than 1 person, but less that the full set of all those who self-identify as poly. So the chances that you or I or anyone else is entirely alone in our views is very small. I know I'm certainly not alone, despite the flak I've taken here. Regardless, the upshot is that the community as a whole ( if there is such a thing ) consists of a collection of cliques, some of which get along, some of which don't. Someone new to polyamory, who isn't aware of this situation is vulnerable to some rather nasty surprises. My initial efforts to try to reduce those circumstances through common denominators and reasoning has led to some inspiring successes, as well as some huge disappointments. Trying to understand these various viewpoints is now my main focus, so thanks for sharing your opinion along with everyone else.
hedgehog
New member
Unfortunately that has not been my experience. In about 20 minutes I could probably find several different different definitions and opinions, some of which vary widely. Last time I was in a group session discussing this with real people, it was also very apparent how widely separated some views are.
The common denominator however, which I personally find very interesting, is that regardless of whatever other differences there are, each version facilitates the views of the person who has adopted it. This can be either positive or negative depending on one's own views about the situation. It is much more complex than I imagined when I first encountered the "movement".
hedgehog
New member
I'm not sure how to reconcile the opinion that nobody once defined polyamory with your reference to the person(s) who clearly did. Also, the lifestyles of the person(s) credited with creating a label and definition are not necessarily relevant to the issue. We could apply a similar sort of argument to Euclid of Alexandria, who was an old man from ancient Greece where they believed in all sorts of strange supernatural things, unicorns included, so why should anything he said be valid today?
The thing is, Euclidean triangles all still have three ( and only three ) sides. The point is that some concepts transcend opinions, and the fundamentals of the concept cannot be changed without destroying it. There are no four or five sided triangles regardless of how much we might want to say everyone has a right to their opinion.
The other important issue to consider here, is that while triangles can be said to be a concept that may have existed prior to them being defined mathematically by Euclid, at some point in our history, someone did define them and as such deserve that recognition. If someone else wants to dismiss the history and the definition that goes along with it, then IMO they need more than an offhanded opinion to validate their position.
All that being said, I am personally of the opinion that when looking at the core concepts intended by the people who first defined polyamory, that it is fuzzy around the edges, and that leaves room for improvement. The issue of course, then becomes, what constitutes an improvement? My view is that trying to bring those fuzzy edges into focus makes more sense than blurring it to the point of a rorschach test, where it can mean whatever the viewer sees in it.
But that admittedly, is just my approach. I was very surprised that it wasn't welcomed by some, and I've trying really hard to understand why. In some cases there's been no question that it's a case of pure self-serving interest and exploitation. But there are also others who have no negative intent in their view, and are good people. I like to include myself in the latter group, and have been both hurt and offended by those who have incorrectly assumed I have any other intent. Fortunately, participation in online forums helps to develop a thick skin.
Last edited:
It is noble to want to understand other people's viewpoints, and you say that's what you want to do, so I am going to take you at your word. I think there are at least two big obstacles blocking your way. The first, is that you have an abrasive edge that does not lend itself to the making of friends. I don't think you can see that when you look at yourself, so you'll have to take me at my word if you feel so inclined. The second, is that you have a certain arrogance that blinds you to the possibility that you might be wrong. Or to put it another way, it gives you a sort of confirmation bias. These two obstacles are perhaps interwoven, but even if they are it's probably easier to work on them one at a time. It remains to be seen whether your wisdom (which you do possess in spades) is sufficient to get you around these obstacles. If it is, then maybe I won't have to have so much of a thick skin.
vinsanity0
Active member
I find it interesting that you think her version was fuzzy. I found it to be very rigid. It didn't take into account different people live differently. It was a very base idea based on opening a marriage. In fact, her rules would probably work very well for couples who want to date others on the side. However, those rules don't work very well for people who want more egalitarian relationships, or people who aren't interested in marriage.
SEASONEDpolyAgain
Well-known member
I'd guess what he means is that he would prefer it meant one particular poly relationship structure rather than a term that encompasses all poly structures.
I think I said this on his PolyNatural thread but this urge to gatekeep often comes from a need to control and also deep insecurity. Those two things of course overlap anyway. To those people, it feels like if you could only get people to subscribe to your terminology, then they'd be forced to behave in ways that do not trigger your insecurities. You wouldn't have to take all the risks inherent in relationships such as betrayal or abandonment. And if you were hurt that way, you would have a solid way of proving they did wrong. That's something you don't always have when you break up with someone and feel harmed.
hedgehog
New member
To clarify, I'm looking at the history and other independent sources, applying critical thinking to their concepts, and comparing them to see not only how well they match, and what the potential problems can arise from the resulting situations.
The idea of what you call "gate keeping" is understandable in groups whose members are of a like-mind and want to protect the integrity of their situation ( whatever that may be ). However I would not say that every situation is morally justifiable. As an example, one might cite the NAMBLA people. As a result of such morally contentious beliefs, there exists within any larger culture, a hierarchy of reasonableness with respect to what is ethical.
If ethics are to be part of the foundation of polyamory, then poly people should be free to question them in an effort to understand what constitutes a better or worse situation within the resulting moral hierarchy. That is what I'm trying to do. So in my case SEASONEDpoly can save the armchair psychology, and perhaps instead try some armchair philosophy.
Speaking to the issue of control that was brought up, some control is not necessarily a bad thing. One of the problems I see in leaving the gate wide open, is the potential for wolves to get in and exploit the various factions for their own less than ethical purposes, and it makes me wonder why anyone in the poly community would want to defend that or criticize someone who is trying to find a solution to protect the vulnerable.
Last edited:
SEASONEDpolyAgain
Well-known member
There will always be wolves. Gatekeeping isn't going to stop the wolves. Your idea of making poly mean something very, very specific won't stop a wolf lying about their intentions to access that space.
This goes back to what I'm saying. You're basically ruled by fear so you've convinced yourself that if only everyone would just agree that poly means X, then you wouldn't have to deal with the possibility that your partner is either a wolf, or will generally want something different to you which you will not be able to cope with. Even now when poly refers to a very basic relationship structure without specifics, you STILL have to make sure you are really on the same page with potential matches.
I think the descriptor you should use for people isn't poly or mono, it is 'terrified'.
Al99
Well-known member
It seems that this general discussion is taking place over three current threads on the General Poly Discussion forum - and has generated some really interesting discussion with excellent points being made by a number of different individuals.
Some general takeaways that resonated with me along the way -
Relationship styles that we might currently describe as poly (multiple loving relationships with the knowledge and consent of all involved) have been happening since the dawn of the human race, even if not generally prevalent.
There was a significant amount of "poly type" relationship experimentation during the hippy culture of the sixties. From that general culture, Morning Glory Zell coined the term "polyamorous" and then defined it as
And really - or so it seems to me - she did a really nice job of summing up this certain type of relationship style that had been around for a very long time (but which had received increased attention in the sixties).
And although she wrote about how she practiced polamory, that obviously does not mean that everyone would have to practice poly in the exact same way to be called polyamory by her definition - because that is NOT what her definition says.
And while the Zells should be credited with offering a specific term to describe this relationship structure and then defining it, we must remember that they did not invent it - they just did a nice job of presenting the key characteristics - multiple, loving, knowledge, consent. The term "polyamory' is probably as good as any (despite its mix of Greek and Latin roots) - although I personally don't think it rolls off the tongue very easily.
I suspect that the problems surrounding the defining of polyamory arise from those who to want to add more requirements to what "true poly" should be, above and beyond "multiple, loving, knowledge, and consent". (such as heirarchical poly is not true poly, V's are not true poly, parallel poly is not true poly, etc).
Obviously, however, one should not call "cheating/adultery" polyamory - there is, after all, a definition that is generally accepted throughout the poly community and utilized by the most well known authors. But while it is obvious that adultery is not poly, perhaps we should not be so quick to judge those who have relationships that we might personally find to be less than ideal examples of polyamory. It is a credit to the quality of the Zell's definition that it - along with very close variations - continues to be the most widespread definition among poly authors and the poly community in general to this day.
(Kevin wrote)
And further - that general definition defines the ethics of polyamory - knowledge and consent (one does not have to go any further). For a relationship to be poly (by definition), there must be knowledge and consent. Any other "ethical requirements" beyond that are superfluous and just a matter of personal preference.
(That said, I also have certain personal preferences and biases - but would not seek to impose them on others - other than pointing out the inherent issues in a polite, open discussion, such as recommending certain resources to the newbies who arrive in search of unicorns).
Just a few more cents worth,
Al
Some general takeaways that resonated with me along the way -
Relationship styles that we might currently describe as poly (multiple loving relationships with the knowledge and consent of all involved) have been happening since the dawn of the human race, even if not generally prevalent.
There was a significant amount of "poly type" relationship experimentation during the hippy culture of the sixties. From that general culture, Morning Glory Zell coined the term "polyamorous" and then defined it as
And really - or so it seems to me - she did a really nice job of summing up this certain type of relationship style that had been around for a very long time (but which had received increased attention in the sixties).
And although she wrote about how she practiced polamory, that obviously does not mean that everyone would have to practice poly in the exact same way to be called polyamory by her definition - because that is NOT what her definition says.
And while the Zells should be credited with offering a specific term to describe this relationship structure and then defining it, we must remember that they did not invent it - they just did a nice job of presenting the key characteristics - multiple, loving, knowledge, consent. The term "polyamory' is probably as good as any (despite its mix of Greek and Latin roots) - although I personally don't think it rolls off the tongue very easily.
I suspect that the problems surrounding the defining of polyamory arise from those who to want to add more requirements to what "true poly" should be, above and beyond "multiple, loving, knowledge, and consent". (such as heirarchical poly is not true poly, V's are not true poly, parallel poly is not true poly, etc).
Obviously, however, one should not call "cheating/adultery" polyamory - there is, after all, a definition that is generally accepted throughout the poly community and utilized by the most well known authors. But while it is obvious that adultery is not poly, perhaps we should not be so quick to judge those who have relationships that we might personally find to be less than ideal examples of polyamory. It is a credit to the quality of the Zell's definition that it - along with very close variations - continues to be the most widespread definition among poly authors and the poly community in general to this day.
(Kevin wrote)
And further - that general definition defines the ethics of polyamory - knowledge and consent (one does not have to go any further). For a relationship to be poly (by definition), there must be knowledge and consent. Any other "ethical requirements" beyond that are superfluous and just a matter of personal preference.
(That said, I also have certain personal preferences and biases - but would not seek to impose them on others - other than pointing out the inherent issues in a polite, open discussion, such as recommending certain resources to the newbies who arrive in search of unicorns).
Just a few more cents worth,
Al
Last edited:
SEASONEDpolyAgain
Well-known member
People have even dropped the "consent" aspect and stuck with "knowledge" because "consent" implies permission.
Maybe some people have, but I haven't seen that. I do not equate consent with permission, at all. Consent implies a contract between equals. Permission implies ownership.
More common nowadays is to add the term "joyful" to "consent," to lessen the idea of coercion.
SEASONEDpolyAgain
Well-known member
I'd say consent strongly implies that one person has the power to stop the other from proceeding with whatever they are asking.
If your nesting partner decided she wanted to close your relationship, and you didn't agree to closing, but neither of you officially ended the relationship, would it no longer be polyamorous if you proceeded to date other people?
Joyful consent can also compromise autonomy.
To me, knowledge is more encompassing without telling people how they should feel.
You'll see this argument more in RA type circles.
You're welcome to your opinion. Asking for consent, in my opinion, in no way implies a power imbalance. It's just polite.
Bill: Hey babe, I want to go meet my platonic friend so and so at the local brew pub on Thursday. Is that OK with you?
Barb: Sure. But can you go after 7? I wanted you to help me move that heavy plant out to the deck after I get home from work.
Where is the power to limit Bill's actions there? He could say, "Sure, no problem." Or, "I can only see my friend from 6:30 til 8:30, since they won't be available otherwise. Can we move the plant another time?"
I don't see why adding romance to the equation changes the negotiation.
I don't understand what you're asking. That's a very complicated specific situation. If one wants to close and other doesn't, they end the relationship, or keep talking until they reach a compromise, or one of them decides to cheat. Where is the power imbalance?
You mean requesting joyful consent to your dating? Are you fine with angry resentful "consent" followed by tears, passive aggressive punishment, etc.? What is your ideal practice and outcome?
"I know you are dating so and so, and I hate her, and I hate how you act around her, but go ahead, I'll be fine!"
Yeah, right.
Telling someone how to feel is moronic. Who is suggesting that?