definitions of polyamory

[PolyNatural]

Which you have yet to be able to provide a practical way to define or use since there is not universally applicable definition of "ethical"

There are perfectly applicable definitions of "ethical" in most English dictionaries. What's not universally applicable are the specific terms and conditions that apply to the definition, which is just fine. That's how it should be.

... which makes your condition entirely subjective.

Again, ethics isn't "entirely" subjective as you claim. This was pointed out with the example of conflict of interest, which can have tangible and measurable consequences, and when paired with emotional intelligence, a viewpoint that is far more objective than an offhanded personal self-serving opinion can be reached.

You're operating under the assumption that ethics aren't generally applied in such situations. I'm talking about a baseline. Everything else you offer is merely fluff if you can't apply a clear definition to it. You could replace "ethical" with "moral" or "righteous" or "in line with my religion" and you would get the exact same result, hence it's not useful.

Simply calling the points I've made "fluff" is at best a hand wave.

There are well substantiated opinions on ethics from various well credited philosophers that are in conflict with each other. The field is full of them. If you hold the key to how to decide which is better substantiated than others, I'm sure there are many DPhil students who would love to meet you.

That's fine. Not everyone has to agree, but at least the people who do spend the time to substantiate their views have some reason to be taken more seriously than someone who self-servingly interprets ethical as whatever they deem it to be in the moment.

Ah. I see. You're operating on the assumption that many of us haven't considered these issues in greater depth or that none but you have applied any study to the subject and are merely being self-serving when we hold our positions ...

You're putting words in my mouth and attempting to bait me. It won't work. I'm moving on to other posts.

 

[Seinneann]

There are perfectly applicable definitions of "ethical" in most English dictionaries. What's not universally applicable are the specific terms and conditions that apply to the definition, which is just fine. That's how it should be.

Then your need to include the word continues to lack meaning.

Again, ethics isn't "entirely" subjective as you claim. This was pointed out with the example of conflict of interest, which can have tangible and measurable consequences, and when paired with emotional intelligence, a viewpoint that is far more objective than an offhanded personal self-serving opinion can be reached.

You're creating more and more conditions for your definition then. Why not include "emotional intelligence" as well since you seem to view that as an additional requirement? I'm also interested to see what your objective definition of such a concept is.

Simply calling the points I've made "fluff" is at best a hand wave.

Because that was all it warranted. If you had offered something more substantive, it would have garnered a more substantive reply.

That's fine. Not everyone has to agree, but at least the people who do spend the time to substantiate their views have some reason to be taken more seriously than someone who self-servingly interprets ethical as whatever they deem it to be in the moment.

But it would still be ethical according to how you wish to apply it. So is it only ethical if you judge it to be sufficiently researched and educated? Which philosophers? Which schools of thought are legit in your view? How much constitutes "substantive" enough? What if someone falls *just* under the threshold you deem between "personal self-serving opinion" and "having spent enough time to substantiate their views"? I wonder how you assess such things to begin with without making assumptions.

You're putting words in my mouth and attempting to bait me. It won't work. I'm moving on to other posts.

Just calling it as I see it. I you choose to ignore the feedback, that's your prerogative. But it is *exactly* how you come across in most of your posting.

 

[vinsanity0]

It doesn't say "legal consent" it just says "consent", so now you'd have to add "legal consent" and start drawing up all the rules for all the exceptions in specific terms when it's not necessary. Simply saying "ethical" covers the bases just fine.

I didn't mention anything about legal consent. A 12 year old girl lacks the mental capability to consent to such an arrangement. However, I would argue that the word "consent" covers both legal and otherwise.

As I said before, ethics are subjective. A pedophile will argue that their behavior is ethical because a child can make that choice. People who practice incest will also argue that their practice is ethical. Therefore, you will still have to start drawing up all the rules for all the exceptions, especially if you are going to to rely on a slippery slope argument.

But if you want to add something like "between adults" I would be fine with that.

And again my point is being made for me. It's using the requirement of consent in an unethical manner, which would not be possible if it simply wasn't a requirement in the first place, and the only requirement is "ethical". Otherwise you'd have to say something like "full knowledge and legal or ethical consent" which is completely redundant when "ethical" without specific conditions covers all contingencies.

But is it unethical to say "I will allow you to do this if you do that for me"?

I think you are missing the real point. I would not consent to that behavior, therefore someone who was holding their consent hostage would no longer be in my life. You see, consent works both ways. Your argument illogically assumes the person seeking consent has no choice in the matter.

Since you are so stuck on using the word "ethics", who will be the defining authority on those ethics? Do you propose a Polyamory Board of Ethics to review each and every relationship to determine if it passes muster? Who decides what is ethical in terms of polyamory?

 

[Ravenscroft]

I was thinking about this last week at work, & I have a better grasp of the root miscommunication.
________________

I do believe that it's necessary to clearly & consistently define the word "polyamory." That'd be a dictionary entry.

I do also believe that it's necessary to clearly & consistently define the concept "polyamory." That'd be an encyclopedia entry.
________________

This thread has persisted for 17 pages, gaining 5,600+ views thus far. Here & elsewhere, discussion of "what do you mean by that?" is repeatedly derailed by flip-flopping between those two levels.
________________

Here's an example. Literally hundreds of times (maybe more) since 1984, I have heard/read self-congratulatory quacking about "communication is key!!" & "communicate, communicate, communicate!!" as though choosing to "try poly" instantly confers this & other vital skills.

Indeed, a near-obsessive level of communication is central to polyamory, particularly as cohabitation enters the scene or the intimate network grows more densely interconnected.

One person with two unconnected sex partners? Not so much need to talk at all. In fact, no need to call it polyamory; more like "multiple monogamy."

Anything beyond that low degree of complexity needs to have access to these skills, with communication -- clear, immediate, honest -- being near the top of the list.

But to actually SAY that means that soon enough some boob (probably incensed about how "you're trying to tell others how THEY should live their lives!!!") will pop up, whip out one of the dictionary definitions, & bloviate about how the word "communication" never appears.

Ironically, that tends to derail discussion of communication, & we drag each other away from the CONCEPT in order to wrangle over WORDS.
________________

Just as easily, attempts to discuss the words that are used -- sometimes terms so uselessly vague or even ambiguous that intelligent discourse is impossible -- are readily derailed by appealing to grand concepts rather than using relatively simple words to clarify relatively simple words.
________________

And matters can become more complicated. There's a third level after the two which which I began this post: I believe that it's necessary to clearly & consistently define the practice of "polyamory."

Speaking of levels. I believe it's a great notion that there should be a sort of "poly best practices" guidebook. There's a few of us who've gained our share of emotional scars from error, & have seen many outright disasters; while first-hand experience is a GREAT teacher, everyone should have every ability to avoid pain.

However, there are things that really NEED to be learned in order to have any real chance at happiness (sometimes called "success"). These are not mere "best practices." The Wikipedia article has an interesting list buried about 1/3 the way in, the "Values" subsection of "As a practice":

• Fidelity and loyalty
• Communication and negotiation
• Trust, honesty, dignity, and respect
• Boundaries and agreements
• Gender equality
• Non-possessiveness

Most of these aren't mentioned in the dictionary definitions, & therefore often shrugged off as somehow trivial, even unnecessary. Minimizing them is counterproductive to having multiple intimate relationships, & thus undermines polyamory.

 

[Al99]

Ravenscroft wrote:

I was thinking about this last week at work, & I have a better grasp of the root miscommunication.
________________

I do believe that it's necessary to clearly & consistently define the word "polyamory." That'd be a dictionary entry.

I do also believe that it's necessary to clearly & consistently define the concept "polyamory." That'd be an encyclopedia entry.

Well said. There is a place for a general, basic, brief dictionary definition - as best as can be done - and still convey the most basic essentials. I find the current dictionary definitions passable for this. This definition might be useful for the person who comes across the word for the first time and needs to look it up - and then has no further interest in it.

However, this dictionary definition barely even begins to touch the "concept" of polyamory, much less the practice of polyamory. This certainly becomes more and more evident the more deeply one becomes involved in polyamorous situations.

I also like the idea of a "poly best practices list". Someone should write a book (but - please - not as ponderous or opinionated as "More Than Two"!). Sign me up for the ebook. Happy MLK Day Weekend to all the USA folks!
Al

 

[Tinwen]

Did this long and convoluted thread arrive at a consensus?
We're cooperatively writing a FAQ in our local community and someone proposed (translated, not 100% word for word):

Polyamory in translation means many loves. It's an attitude to life and a relationship arrangement that allows having multiple partners at once. All people involved knowingly and voluntarily agree to the negotiated rules.
Polyamory does not include relationships which someone only accepted forced by circumstances. The basis of polyamorous relationships is trust, empathy and willingness to communicate about difficult situations.

So here obviously someone did their best to include some "best practices" into a rather short definition (although it certainly could be more polished).

And... I must say the last two sentences rub me the wrong way To me they seem to describe a superhuman ideal, because, well, where do you draw the line for 'forced by circumstances'? And if you have trust issues in a certain situation you cease to be polyamorous? If communication is not perfect, you suddenly have no basis of the relationship?
I just don't want them as part of the definition, and as I'm writing this I'm trying to get clear on the 'why'. And the answer seems to be basically... I don't want to exclude people who are not perfect. Which is pretty much all of us.

 

[Rockit49]

Sure

Does lowering the basketball goal to 6 ft high make anyone a better basketball player if the game requires a 10' goal?

 

[Tinwen]

...if the game requires a 10' goal?

Well does it?
I'm not appreciating the irony.

Anyway, after consideration I left the 'forced by circumstances' part intact and inserted 'The basis of GOOD polyamorous relationships is respect, trust... ' and I'm just a little bit happier with that text.

 

[Ravenscroft]

Did this long and convoluted thread arrive at a consensus?

Nah. And I kinda figure that's a GOOD thing: better for the world if people think -- nothing wrong with disagreement so long as they disagree intellgently, & reasonably, & respectfully.
________________

But "consensus" is (IMNSHO ) vastly over-rated.

I was part of a Wiccan group that existed mostly to put on open rituals & events, linking to other Twin Cities Wiccan & Neopagan groups & to solos. Maybe 40 of us regulars & as many associated individuals.

I was also central to a University of Minnesota Neopagan student group & maintained a small office space at the student center. Keeping this running made me aware of the wide range of personalities that needed to be kept included, something the "adult" group had slid away from, & was becoming insular.

At one meeting of the bigger group, fourteen people showed up, & I saw a topic tabled by three people in particular who often led discussion, often with the comment "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" after which everyone (or nearly so) would dutifully say "aye" & follow along.

When it happened again, I stopped them (appealing to the rules of order), & said "saying that doesn't give anyone the opportunity to ask for clarification as to whether it ISN'T in fact broken, or at least less-than-ideal."

To my surprise, I heard someone mutter "I thought it was just me!" It was put up for vote again, & turned out that most of them indeed had doubts, two or three rather strongly so.

In my experience, that's how consensus often actually works: a small handful of strong-willed people take charge, hold fast, & press for THEIR view to prevail, sometimes dragging the debate out until enough people are tired of hearing it that they simply cave.

In discussions on this site, there's no vote. And while nonmonogamy has been part of the condition since forever, polyamory still has plenty of details to be "filled in." The discussion of those details will likely never end, & I feel that's a GOOD thing.

 

[Al99]

While on the exercise bike at the gym this afternoon, as usual I opened up my Kindle to do some reading while peddling along to nowhere. Today I started on a new book in the poly spectrum, "Designer Relationships" (Mark Michaels).

The Foreword is by Kenneth R. Haslam, MD, founder of the Polyamory Archives at the Kinsey Institute, Indiana University. He joined the "poly movement" in the 90's and became an activist, flying about the country giving lectures on poly, and established the Polyamory Archives at the University of Indiana's Kinsey Institute of Sex.

I found this background interesting and enjoyed reading a bit of his tenured perspective - then literally laughed a bit too loudly out loud (the fellow next to me gave me an odd glance) when I read the following:

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.

Seems our long and wandering thread is hardly the first go round at this slippery goal. Al

 

[PolyNatural]

While on the exercise bike at the gym this afternoon, as usual I opened up my Kindle to do some reading while peddling along to nowhere. Today I started on a new book in the poly spectrum, "Designer Relationships" (Mark Michaels).

The Foreword is by Kenneth R. Haslam, MD, founder of the Polyamory Archives at the Kinsey Institute, Indiana University. He joined the "poly movement" in the 90's and became an activist, flying about the country giving lectures on poly, and established the Polyamory Archives at the University of Indiana's Kinsey Institute of Sex.

I found this background interesting and enjoyed reading a bit of his tenured perspective - then literally laughed a bit too loudly out loud (the fellow next to me gave me an odd glance) when I read the following:

Seems our long and wandering thread is hardly the first go round at this slippery goal. Al

You are so right. Although I've painstakingly researched the origins and evolution of the word polyamory, and compared it to other types of relationships, including swinging, and have identified the point of differentiation between the two, there are people who simply dismiss it as relevant and believe that polyamory is pretty much whatever they want it to be for them.

This has led me to conclude that there's only two avenues to pursue as a resolution. One is to form a united poly community based on a consensus agreement of what it means to be poly, or to abandon the whole concept and come up with something else. But what?

I'm really struggling with this at the moment. Once I get fed-up trying to get through to people using critical thinking, I just write the whole idea off as the ranting of a bunch of self-serving flakes and look for something better. The problem is that being poly, according to what I've determined it means at the core, is the closest thing to the way romantic relationships not only should be, but would be, if we were to remove the socialization and social conditioning that tells us they should be about some sort of disneyfication of the morals prescribed by the church and state.

 

[Al99]

Although I've painstakingly researched the origins and evolution of the word polyamory, and compared it to other types of relationships, including swinging, and have identified the point of differentiation between the two, there are people who simply dismiss it as relevant and believe that polyamory is pretty much whatever they want it to be for them.

No doubt that the term polyamory is often misused in ways that almost all of us who self identify as poly would find inappropriate and sometimes perhaps even offensive.

My observation is that there are a lot of really smart people on this forum, and throughout the poly community - some undoubtedly with "genius level" IQ's, Mensa memberships, advanced degrees, and the like who appear to be very well read and present themselves as very articulate - and who have also spent a great deal of time living and studying poly. Understandably, such individuals would have formulated their own educated, and well thought out opinions regarding the nature, definition, and practice of poly. But, all involved being human, these opinions are likely to vary from one individual to another - and, ultimately, who is to say which opinion is most correct?

Certainly, however, if any one individual shows up claiming to have solved the problem for all of us, and arrived at the "one true correct definition" of poly, these same intelligent and educated individuals who have put in their own time and effort to study poly, are unlikely to accept such a claim, but will instead respond with their own view, pointing out the deficiencies in the other's view point. Fruitful discussion would still be possible, but unlikely, if any one of the participants believes that their view is the absolute truth - especially since serious poly folks have been debating the same issue from the beginning, and are apparently still unable to arrive at a definition that all can agree on.

In a related thread, the comment was made on which was preferable - a definition proposed by a single individual who had conducted significant research on the subject or the consensus definition (presumably of the "poly community"). For my part, given that the poly world is populated by a significant number of very intelligent, very educated, and very experienced poly folks, the consensus opinion makes more sense to me. However good and well intentioned that individual's research and processing might be, it still comes down to an individual interpretation of that research - and I will take the collective wisdom of the poly community, which seems to include a base definition of multiple partners with knowledge and consent of all involved, as inadequate as that still may be - but with the understanding that above and beyond that base definition there are many best practices that most poly folks would likely agree on (the encyclopedia article, perhaps.). Just a few cents worth.

 

[kdt26417]

I'm with you Al, I tend to favor the descriptive definition over the prescriptive. That is, the most-often-used definition.

 

[FallenAngelina]

Certainly, however, if any one individual shows up claiming to have solved the problem for all of us, and arrived at the "one true correct definition" of poly, these same intelligent and educated individuals who have put in their own time and effort to study poly, are unlikely to accept such a claim, but will instead respond with their own view, pointing out the deficiencies in the other's view point. Fruitful discussion would still be possible, but unlikely, if any one of the participants believes that their view is the absolute truth - especially since serious poly folks have been debating the same issue from the beginning, and are apparently still unable to arrive at a definition that all can agree on.

.....above and beyond that base definition there are many best practices that most poly folks would likely agree on...

And therein lies the difference between a CULT and a social movement.

 

[River]

The makers of dictionaries have a rather tough job at times. I'm no expert on what that job is in the fine details, but I'm supposing they apply something of a statistical method to their art. As such, they seem to have decided that a word (at least generally) means what people use it to mean, but in a statistical majority sense. If I'm right, their job is like the job of a climate scientist gathering data and making that data basically useful. There is nowhere to put a thermometer to gauge the global average atmospheric (or sea) temperature, so they place their thermometers very nearly everywhere, in great number, and then they apply statistical methods to arrive at what the average is.

If one goes online to read "the definition of the word polyamory," one will find many definitions, but they will all have tremendous overlap in describing what this word means. There will only be a very small amount of deviation on some details, but the core principles will be exactly the same in most cases.

I think we should use the same method as dictionaries do to decide what the word polyamory means. And this would include that aspect of their method which allows for the next edition of the dictionary to have marked changes if such changes are called for. Words, after all, are always in flux -- like most everything else in our world.

The American Heritage dictionary defines polyamory as ...

"the practice or condition of participating simultaneously in more than one serious romantic or sexual relationship with the knowledge and consent of all partners."

Merriam-Webster Dictionary leaves something crucial out of their definition. I suspect they didn't use enough thermometers!:

"the state or practice of having more than one open romantic relationship at a time"

What Merriam-Webster left out, which is crucial to a fine grain analysis of the available data, is the "knowledge and consent of all partners".

Keep this in mind next time you buy a dictionary.

....

By the way, I don't always agree with even what the majority of dictionaries have as their definition for the word "wealth". I would change the word's emphasis away from piles of stuff (gold, money, houses, private jets) and place the emphasis on well-being, instead. Wealth is well being, and any good etymological dive into the word will make my case for me. I think I will sue the dictionary publishers!

 

[River]

Hi Kevin,
The thing about poly is that everyone has to find their own definition of it.

If I may be permitted to pic nits here, I'd prefer to day that "everyone has to find their own practice of it," rather than their own definition of it. In other words, if it is to be a useful word it has got to have a commonly understood meaning. Else why have a word at all?

Fortunately, some (not all!) dictionaries provide a good enough and succinct definition for the word. (The publishers of other dictionaries should receive mail from us.)

As for the practice of polyamory? The default setting is to allow for great diversity in application. Hardly anyone wants to default toward a more restricted sense of the word than the very simple and concise basics.

 

[Al99]

If one goes online to read "the definition of the word polyamory," one will find many definitions, but they will all have tremendous overlap in describing what this word means. There will only be a very small amount of deviation on some details, but the core principles will be exactly the same in most cases.

Yes, there are a number of definitions out there in dictionaries and elsewhere. This long and convoluted thread began with us listing various definitions found online - see the first page of this thread (and then again on page 3 of the thread). I personally found value in determining the most commonly found elements among the various definitions - which it seemed to me to be multiple loving (or romantic/sexual - it gets slippery here) partners with the knowledge and consent of all involved. Al

 

[River]

I personally found value in determining the most commonly found elements among the various definitions - which it seemed to me to be multiple loving (or romantic/sexual - it gets slippery here) partners with the knowledge and consent of all involved.

The elements of "consensus polyamory":

1) multiple loving (or romantic/sexual - it gets slippery here) partners

2) with the knowledge and consent of all involved.

This does seem to be the very simple essence of "consensus polyamory" to me.

However, element 1 may be less arbitrary or vague than some may think. It seems to me to be the consensus that polyamory is, in fact, about "loving relationships" rather than recreational sex. It also seems to be the consensus that some people who are polyamorous (or who have poly relationships) can ALSO engage in recreational sex which is "ethically non-monogamous". But the consensus would have it that the recreational sex relationships themselves are not "polyamorous," per se.

I think LOVE, not sex, is at the very core of "consensus polyamory". Sharing that core is the value of HONESTY and CONSENT.


Love, Multiplicity, Honesty, Consent.

 

[Tinwen]

It seems to me to be the consensus that polyamory is, in fact, about "loving relationships" rather than recreational sex. (...)

I agree with what you have written. It also gets slippery on the other side though - if no sex is shared. Some people are asexual, some are aromantic, some are none of these but have very blurry lines between friendship and partner. Not to mention fwb. But yeah, romantic and/or sexual relationship is clear enough to most to explain the concept, and then some people will just be ... in the grey area, having 'somewhat' polyamorous relationships.

You, of course, get that grey area when it comes to 'honesty' and 'consent' too. I know all too well.

 

[FallenAngelina]

Some people are asexual, some are aromantic, some are none of these but have very blurry lines between friendship and partner.

If someone is aromantic, I don't see how that person could possibly be polyamorous. Sure, someone who for whatever reason isn't into romantic love could have several sex partners or several domestic partners, but that person would not be polyamorous. Having multiple FWBs (or whatever you want to call those blurry line sexual friendships) isn't polyamory in my mind - it's just being single and uncommitted. Polyamory infers romantic love. It doesn't include love of all kinds, otherwise almost every single person in the world is polyamorous because almost every single person in the world openly loves more than one person.