definitions of polyamory

What I see being discussed in these recent posts is more like a list of suggested best practices or a proposed definition for "ethical polyamory" - although that definition and what constitutes ethical poly would almost certainly bring serious debate as well.

The whole concept of "ethical" smacks of high-horse-ism to me, but just curious why you call it ethical polyamory? What is unethical polyamory?
 
My definition
v
v
v

Poly= many, amor= love, ous= categorized by, so, categorized by loving many

According to your definition, most people are poly because most people indeed do love two or more at the same time, sometime in their lives. The enormously high love affair rate attests to that. Even higher than the love affair rate is the percentage of people who love more than one and grit their teeth to keep themselves from acting on it.
 
Last edited:
The whole concept of "ethical" smacks of high-horse-ism to me, but just curious why you call it ethical polyamory? What is unethical polyamory?

Hi Karen,

I am certainly no authority on "ethical polyamory" and would not presume to offer an opinion on the ethical way to be poly - not that I see myself as unethical - just that I have very limited personal experience. I used the term based on the subtitle to Veaux's "More Than Two: A Practical Guide to Ethical Polyamory" (which I did read, although not without signficant effort and frustration). It seemed to me that in the discussion in this thread aimed at formulating a more in depth definition of poly, that many of those "ethical themes" in "More Than Two" were being discussed as important to defining poly - so I suggested that it seemed to me that what they were really defining was "ethical poly" - a definition that would reflect these ethical themes - such as found in "More Than Two" - rather than just "generic poly" (multiple loving partners with the knowledge and consent of all involved).

I believe an example of "unethical poly" that is often mentioned is couple privilege in the Unicorn model - where a couple "uses" a woman to fulfill their fantasy of an FMF triad - but where the unicorn is not actually treated fairly and is still essentially subservient to the original couple. Again, I am hardly an authority - just repeating what I heard discussed. Al
 
Do you yet grasp that you are attempting to undermine a discussion of the subject... because it makes you uncomfortable... because it might find some actual flaws in "high church" polyamory?

Actually, I have enjoyed this discussion as it differentiates the understanding of polyamory between an academic style overview of the subject with an objective "dictionary definition" and the subjective value-based understanding of those who have lived in the poly community for many years. Unfortunately, your ad hominem accusations negate the ongoing value of that discussion. So I shall bow out of this particular discussion and leave you to formulate your new and improved definition of polyamory.
 
Suggested revised list:

  • If it has a DADT element, it's not polyamory.
  • If it has veto power, it's not polyamory.
  • If it has couple privilege, it's not polyamory.
  • If the participants seek to avoid social scrutiny, it's not polyamory.
Now I just need an opening statement. How about, "Polyamory = a committed relationship style involving more than two individuals, with their knowledge and consent, carried out sensibly, openly, responsibly, and free of the artifacts of Monogamism." Then the list would follow.

Too long? Too short? Too exact? Too general? What needs to be cut, what needs to be added, and why? Is there a better way to word/arrange it?
 
@ Al99 ... for my part, I value your input, and would consider it a heavy loss if you were to bow out of the discussion.
 
I am mulling over the idea of adding a footnote to the end of the list. Such as, "There are other forms of non-polyamorous nonmonogamy that have their own strengths and/or play to the particular needs of the individuals (and dyads and groupings) involved."

This footnote would serve as a closing statement for the overall definition.

Let me know if this is a good idea, or if it needs revision.
 
@ Al99 ... for my part, I value your input

Thanks for the kind words, Kevin. I have enjoyed the discussion. Unfortunately - at least for me, when a spirited discussion takes a personal turn instead of remaining focused on the topic, it ceases to be meaningful, and experience has taught me over way too many years spent on discussion forums, that the best course at that point is to leave the conversation to others.

And really, as I wrote along the same lines on an earlier post on this topic (different thread, I believe), at the end of the day, I just really have a different perspective - as a relative newcomer to poly without an emotional investment in poly (still under a year - and who really would have preferred not to be poly) - than someone who has invested an adult lifetime as a proponent of poly. Having said that, I do believe, as a reasonably intelligent person with an advanced degree, that I do have an informed opinion after having read half a million or so words on the subject (including 8 books, including "More Than Two", "Ethical Slut", and "Opening Up", numerous web articles, and many, many forum posts).

And while my opinion is more academic than philosophical, I do believe that this significant study of poly has revealed that there is already in existence a pervasive definition of poly in the literature - that being multiple loving partners with the knowledge and consent of all involved (that the words vary slightly from one to the other somewhat does not change the overall thrust of the meaning). Based on that definition, my view would be that the others factors (such as the list you are working on) are not defining factors but better viewed as best practices based on the experience of lifelong polyamorists. However, that does not mean there is not room for an alternative definition of polyamory that encompasses the ethical philosophy of the poly culture and community, although I would suspect the debate may never be completely settled, or at least in the immediate future. So, I will look forward to seeing the finished product. :) Al
 
Thanks Al,

I do see your perspective and appreciate what you've contributed here. I agree that polyamory basically has an established definition, even if, like you said, the wording varies a little from one source to the next. I guess I am mostly still participating out of curiosity. I hope to get a clear idea of what prospective definition we are debating.

Anyway, I think I understand your decision to bow out and I respect it. Perhaps you'll still lurk on this thread and see what we come up with. That would be cool, but would certainly be your call.

Much regards,
Kevin T.
 
Suggested revised list:

  • If it has a DADT element, it's not polyamory.
  • If it has veto power, it's not polyamory.
  • If it has couple privilege, it's not polyamory.
  • If the participants seek to avoid social scrutiny, it's not polyamory.
Now I just need an opening statement. How about, "Polyamory = a committed relationship style involving more than two individuals, with their knowledge and consent, carried out sensibly, openly, responsibly, and free of the artifacts of Monogamism." Then the list would follow.

Too long? Too short? Too exact? Too general? What needs to be cut, what needs to be added, and why? Is there a better way to word/arrange it?

Honestly, no. I'm as anti couple privilege, live out loud, no veto, no hierarchy as they come, and I think it's the only ethical way to be...but I certainly don't think that other choices aren't polyamory. Just because it's bad poly from my point of view doesn't make it NOT poly.

(Even DADT can be, as long as all partners know there ARE other partners - exact details may not be relevant to a particular situation.)
 
@ icesong ... I actually tend to agree with you. My only intent here is to arrive clearly the definition Ravenscroft has in mind, so that we all know what we're debating.

I have three more detail changes to suggest at this time.

  1. To the opening statement, say "assent" instead of "consent" ... per http://www.polyamory.com/forum/showthread.php?p=366486
  2. To the list, add, "If it has hierarchy, it's not polyamory." This is just something I forgot to add previously.
  3. To the list, add, "If it's closeted, it's not polyamory." Because I think keeping one's polyness in the closet is tantamount to avoiding social scrutiny.
If those changes are approved, the final result will look something like ...

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

  • If it has a DADT element, it's not polyamory.
  • If it has hierarchy, it's not polyamory.
  • If it has veto power, it's not polyamory.
  • If it has couple privilege, it's not polyamory.
  • If it's closeted, it's not polyamory.
  • If the participants seek to avoid social scrutiny, it's not polyamory.
There are other forms of non-polyamorous nonmonogamy that have their own strengths and/or play to the particular needs of the individuals (and dyads and groupings) involved.

@ Ravenscroft ... let me know if this fits what you had in mind. If it does, hopefully we can continue our discussion with greater clarity.
 
Personally, I find the "closeted" part of the definition to be problematic. People have a lot of legitimate reasons for being closeted to whatever degree.

For example, we've only officially been non-monogamous for three months. I'm leery of coming out until I know that what I have with L and with M1 will last. I'm also respecting R's wishes; she's said to me that she's "done telling people." If I had my druthers, all my friends and our mutual friends would know. (I would defer to her when it came to coming out to her friends.) I would like my family (including R's mother and daughter) to know eventually, but I'm not sure now is the time yet. I'm also a little leery of being out at work and elsewhere because I work in local government, volunteer, and am somewhat active in the LGBTQQIAAP2S+ community and the progressive political community, but I wouldn't rule it out.

Does this mean that we're not poly?
 
Last edited:
Personally, I find the "closeted" part of the definition to be problematic. People have a lot of legitimate reasons for being closeted to whatever degree.

Good point - some folks might fit all the other criteria for "ethical/cultural poly" yet still have to remain closeted to protect jobs, child custody, social standing, church membership, etc.... Al
 
No worries guys, I'm in the same boat ... my poly-fi V is in the closet, with a few rare exceptions. Am I poly? I guess it depends who you ask.
 
LOL thank you for explaining to me that you live in a fact-based world! That is not dismissive or condescending at all, of course.

I am still confused, though. I am not in a poly group that is connected by any one unifying element or common thread. With my partner, his partners, their partners, and THEIR various partners, etc, some of them love each other romantically, some are just casual sex partners or kinky play partners, some just started dating, some have deep friendships with a sexual element, some are asexual with romantic friendships, some are platonic life partners, some are in the process of breaking up, some relationships have shifted from love to ex to friendship while still considering each other partners. Etc. It's very fluid.

I can't identify the common thread that connects all these people. Please explain it to me, so that I can fit my life into your fact-based world.

Here's your common thread that you can't see:
\/------------------\/----------------\/-----------------\/
You...............Your love..........their lover....... that person's lover

(especially if everyone exchanges bodily fluids an ANY way)

It's like a ball that's passed from the one that has it to the one that doesn't, each and every time two people out of the group make love... if the ball starts with you, it will EVENTUALLY return to you. If they weren't in your group, they'd never get your ball.
 
And by THAT definition, I must necessarily alert ALL of those people (& apparently receive their explicit approval!!) BEFORE I even THINK about pursuing a possible intimate relationship -- with "intimate" yet to be well-defined -- else it's NOT "polyamory."

Q.E.D. ;)

I disagree... whether notice is or is not required is something that differs among the various groups.

That requirement of fully informed and fully consented may fit in with "ethical non-monogamy" or "ethical polyamory"... where the ethicality of not getting permission may come into question... but it's not a requirement for just "polyamory"... one word, defined as "loving many".
 
So,
  1. nonsense. :p I cannot believe your brain is so tiny that something bigger than ~25 words constitutes "a dictionary"... though of course you're free to dispute that. :D
  2. are you saying there'd be something WRONG with that? that all "polyamorists" are somehow either so omniscient they will never need it OR they're intellectually incapable of handling such a HUGE conceptual burden? :rolleyes:

What is a dictionary? A list of words and their definitions.

So...let's say you come up with a 40 word definition. With all the nitpicking going on it will be full of holes. I mean, arguing over what constitutes a "group"? :confused: So now a significant number of those forty words will need to be defined. That makes it a dictionary.

So far, DDDM has the only simple dictionary definition. So you are not looking to define the word. You are looking to define the concept, or philosophy. That makes it more of an encyclopedia entry.

What I am saying is wrong with this is there is no one true poly way. This isn't a religion. It is probably easier to say what is not poly than come up with a clear definition of what poly is. Even then, some of those exclusions may not be truly exclusive. You demonstrated that with "poly-fi", for example. But what binds those things together? Usually some lack of consent, or perhaps autonomy.
 
Kevin, I've never got the impression that you guys are "closeted" in the way I use the term. You just seem too mellow to be living in "that siege mentality of fear/shame" that I mentioned.

I've never gone out of my way to push my (for lack of a better word) lifestyle into others' faces; that "anti-proselytizing" thing again. :D If they see me out with one lover on Sunday & another on Thursday, they're free to make of it what they will -- which of course, they WILL, no matter what. :rolleyes: If they ask (or make some snarky comment), I might briefly say I'm nonmonogamous, & sometimes suggest they chat with my OSO if they feel "concerned." The few who want to know more might receive a more complete understanding.

There's a rather large chunk of turf between "skulking in the shadows" & "banner waving" (or "doing jumping-jacks in an open kimono" as Scott Adams once said :eek:) I won't respect the false dichotomy.

I can see the utility of defining ethical nonmonogamy, not drastically unlike my use of responsible nonmonogamy, in order to distance what we were doing from affairs & cheating, & maybe "open relationships" as well -- after all, there's "sexually open" DADT as opposed to allover openness where we communicated freely amongst ourselves about our other partners.

But "ethical polyamory" instantly begs the question what does that exclude? I've rarely seen that necessary question addressed, much less answered, yet the damnable term persists. What would "unethical polyamory" look like? If it's not ethical, how is it "polyamory" by ANY sensible definition? I certainly won't dogpile on "unicorn hunters" here.

Incidentally, Veaux is NOT God. :p

I tend to stay away from "ethics" because I believe in morals. Morality is an ideal to be constantly approached (much like polyamory ;)), ethics is RULES handed down from some Authority, with penalties & punishments (implied or explicit). A discussion for another day. :cool:

As for definitions, again I get the impression that even questioning "The Definitions" is instantly held up as my trying to impose MY "definition" upon others. Logically, this does NOT scan nor rhyme.

As I detest suspense, I might have to sit down & actually make up a definition. :eek:
whether notice is or is not required is something that differs among the various groups.
What are these "groups" of which you speak? :confused:
it's not a requirement for just "polyamory"... one word, defined as "loving many".
So, now you NEED to define "loving." :)

I've never felt a need to know every little thing my various partners are up to when we're not physically together. Sure, if something is going to interfere with our time together or our relationship, I much prefer to be at least informed, if not brought into the conversation... but that's hardly limited to sex or "love" or whatever!! If someone's considering a different job, or taking night classes, or moving to another city, such things are plenty important to our relationship, but nobody's running around insisting they HAVE TO tell me OR they don't really care about me.
 
What are these "groups" of which you speak? :confused:
As any Lawyer worth his/her salt has probably said in a courtroom at least once... "Asked and answered".

Maybe not asked by you and maybe I didn't reply the answer to you... but the question and the answer already exists within this thread.

So, now you NEED to define "loving." :)
No I don't. That's the best part of variety... what loving means to each group is up to that group to decide.
 
Back
Top