definitions of polyamory

[Emm]

The whole idea of being poly is that new additions to a relationship are supposed to benefit the whole...

Where on earth did you get that idea? Poly relationships don't need to be intertwined to be poly. In a perfect world a new addition shouldn't detract from existing relationships, but nothing says it has to have any positive effect on anyone not directly involved in it.

 

[vinsanity0]

I don't know that it should be restricted to "natural" - as a strong argument can be made that it can be learned. Also - based on the history and established definitions of the word, I do not believe that you can adequately define polyamory without including "knowledge and consent".

However, as it obvious from this very protracted discussion, it really comes down to opinion - but hopefully an educated, informed opinion. Al

I completely agree. There is nothing to differentiate this from cheating if you do not include knowledge and consent in the definition.

 

[PolyNatural]

I don't know that it should be restricted to "natural" - as a strong argument can be made that it can be learned. Also - based on the history and established definitions of the word, I do not believe that you can adequately define polyamory without including "knowledge and consent".

However, as it obvious from this very protracted discussion, it really comes down to opinion - but hopefully an educated, informed opinion. Al

I went through a deliberation of those same concerns and if you read the article it explains why those concerns aren't applicable to the basic definition.

However that doesn't mean your concerns aren't valid on another level. So I'll briefly explain here as well. There's a difference between being polyamorous ( possessing polyamory as a natural ability based on innate traits ), and engineering a poly lifestyle. Engineering a poly lifestyle on top of the innate capacity for polyamory requires laying ground rules where things like "knowledge" and "consent" may indeed play a role. However "knowledge" and "consent" aren't necessary in order to be innately poly.

For example there are plenty of single poly people. Are they not poly because they have nobody to inform or get consent from? Obviously, at their core, we'd probably agree they're poly whether they're in a relationship or not. So what this definition does is form a baseline from which various versions of a poly lifestyle can be engineered. In this sense, as a fundamental definition it remains quite objective.

BTW it should also be mentioned that even when layers of personal preference and opinion are layered on, not all opinions carry equal weight simply because they're opinions ( which you also correctly allude to ), and not all personal preferences are equally valid from an ethical perspective. I'd guess ethics are an important facet to you based on the spirit of your comment, and therefore we'd probably have a lot of common views on what layers are ethical and what aren't.

I completely agree. There is nothing to differentiate this from cheating if you do not include knowledge and consent in the definition.

Your concern is addressed above, but the spirit of your post is still well taken. Once we start adding layers of behavior in relationships onto our innate state of being polyamorous, then the concept of honesty would seem to be at the forefront. However I'm not so sure about consent. I can imagine situations where withholding consent may not be fair, and that disregarding it would be justified. So consent may or may not apply depending on the arrangement between those in the relationship. Personally I'm honest and make decisions that I believe are fair-minded, and am prepared to live with the consequences if others don't like them ( or change my view if someone provides a more cogent reason than mine to do so ).

 

[PolyNatural]

On further reflection of the points made by

��

and

��

I think it would be a good idea to add a second tier definition to the baseline that is in context with a poly lifestyle or relationship and includes some mention of ethics. I'll post it up when I have something, and in the meantime. Thanks for nudging me in the right direction!

 

[PolyNatural]

Updated Definition of Polyamory

OK in the event that honesty and consent are to be included in someone's version of a poly relationship, the second tier definition that includes ethical behavior and communication should cover that contingency:

pol·y·am·o·ry ( noun ) | pol·y·am·o·rous ( adjective )

1. The natural ability to have multiple simultaneous romantic relationships.
2. A romantic relationship between multiple simultaneous partners where intimate emotional connections, ethical behavior, and communication are essential.

 

[Al99]

OK in the event that honesty and consent are to be included in someone's version of a poly relationship,

Polynatural, I do commend you on setting up your own poly website - nice looking format. And it is your website, so you can choose your own definition of polyamory for your site - although I don't necessarily understand the merit in constructing a definition that is different than the definitions of such well established and widely respected poly sites as morethantwo.com and polyweekly.com, not to mention the Oxford dictionary - all of which include some variation of "knowledge and consent".

The issue is - as Vinsanity pointed out - that without knowledge and consent, the "multiple simultaneous romantic relationships" could all be happening as dishonest affairs - plain and simple cheating - hardly what the dictionary and poly community considers to be polyamory.

But, again, you are free to define polyamory as you like on your web site - but some might see it as a disservice to the poly community to postulate that poly is no different than a married person having multiple secret affairs going on, while lying to their spouse about them. Just my two cents.

Al

 

[Ravenscroft]

Yah, polyfidelitous at best.

 

[PolyNatural]

Where on earth did you get that idea? Poly relationships don't need to be intertwined to be poly. In a perfect world a new addition shouldn't detract from existing relationships, but nothing says it has to have any positive effect on anyone not directly involved in it.

It's fairly common in the reference material. Here's a couple of quotes:

"The two essential ingredients of the concept of polyamory are 'more than one;' and 'loving.' That is, it is expected that the people in such relationships have a loving emotional bond, are involved in each other's lives multi-dimensionally, and care for each other."

"The goal of a responsible Open Relationship is to cultivate ongoing, long-term, complex relationships which are rooted in deep mutual friendships."​

The sources are both from the Ravenhearts, arguably the founders of polyamory, and it's clear from concepts like "deep mutual friendships" and "each other's lives" in the context of "more than one" that they're not simply talking about isolated individuals who share a common partner. There are other sources as well, including Easton and Hardy ( authors of The Ethical Slut which is basically the Bible of the poly community ) who count the interrelatedness of multiple partners as a benefit to everyone involved. It's also portrayed in poly symbols where multiple hearts are intertwined or joined together in a unifying manner, and in numerous portrayals of numerous people all gathered together in a group embrace, or lying in bed together, and on and on.

In contrast when someone simply has numerous girlfriends or boyfriends what they're really doing is forming a harem or a stable of studs that are available for the picking. It's no different than keeping a little black book of numbers that can be called on demand. That's not the spirit of polyamory. It's just simple non-mongomay that isn't differentiated from swinging, Article, which the Ravenhearts clearly exclude from their idea of what a poly relationship is about.

"This term is not intended to apply to merely casual recreational sex, anonymous orgies, one-night stands, pick-ups, prostitution, “cheating,” serial monogamy, or the popular definition of swinging as 'mate-swapping' parties."​

So where did I get that idea? How could someone not get that idea?

 

[Emm]

My interpretation of the quotes you cite is quite different from yours. I can, for example, be multidimesionally involved with someone without also being involved in anything to do with their other partners.

In any case, I refer you to the latter part of item #11 in the User Guidelines , specifically the line about not judging the validity of other people's poly.

 

[Seinneann]

The sources are both from the Ravenhearts, arguably the founders of polyamory, and it's clear from concepts like "deep mutual friendships" and "each other's lives" in the context of "more than one" that they're not simply talking about isolated individuals who share a common partner. There are other sources as well, including Easton and Hardy ( authors of The Ethical Slut which is basically the Bible of the poly community ) who count the interrelatedness of multiple partners as a benefit to everyone involved. It's also portrayed in poly symbols where multiple hearts are intertwined or joined together in a unifying manner, and in numerous portrayals of numerous people all gathered together in a group embrace, or lying in bed together, and on and on.

The Ravenhearts are known for bringing their particular brand of polyamory (one rooted in pagan beliefs and values) to public light. They are not the founders of polyamory. People were practicing that relationship style long before the Ravenhearts and continue to practice polyamory with no relationship to how the Ravenhearts do it.

And having spoken with Dossie Easton about network poly, she also conceded that there are times when all partners being inter-related is *not* beneficial for all. For some, it's a great relationship structure to aim for. For others, it's a nightmare. One style is not more authentically poly than the other.

 

[PolyNatural]

The Ravenhearts are known for bringing their particular brand of polyamory (one rooted in pagan beliefs and values) to public light. They are not the founders of polyamory. People were practicing that relationship style long before the Ravenhearts and continue to practice polyamory with no relationship to how the Ravenhearts do it.

And having spoken with Dossie Easton about network poly, she also conceded that there are times when all partners being inter-related is *not* beneficial for all. For some, it's a great relationship structure to aim for. For others, it's a nightmare. One style is not more authentically poly than the other.

Not exactly. The word "Polyamory" is a derivative of the term poly-amorous, coined by Morning Glory Zell-Ravenheart who used it in an article that appeared in the May 1990 edition of Green Egg a periodical of the Church of All Worlds, an American Neopagan religion. This is well established historically. Anthropologically, non-monogamous behavior extends back much further, but the details aren't clear enough to know the extent to which it was practised with the same principles outlined by the Ravenhearts. As for the comment by Easton, the situation that interrelations aren't always beneficial doesn't negate the validity of the principle of the point I made.

 

[PolyNatural]

Polynatural, I do commend you on setting up your own poly website - nice looking format. And it is your website, so you can choose your own definition of polyamory for your site - although I don't necessarily understand the merit in constructing a definition that is different than the definitions of such well established and widely respected poly sites as morethantwo.com and polyweekly.com, not to mention the Oxford dictionary - all of which include some variation of "knowledge and consent".

The issue is - as Vinsanity pointed out - that without knowledge and consent, the "multiple simultaneous romantic relationships" could all be happening as dishonest affairs - plain and simple cheating - hardly what the dictionary and poly community considers to be polyamory.

But, again, you are free to define polyamory as you like on your web site - but some might see it as a disservice to the poly community to postulate that poly is no different than a married person having multiple secret affairs going on, while lying to their spouse about them. Just my two cents.

Al

The interpretation you allude to by Vinsanity is in no way in context with the definition I've offered. To clarify further, as you have pointed out, there are a number of competing definitions, and we've probably both seen plenty more that are misleading and self-serving. Therefore there is confusion in the community as to what constitutes the baseline. So I took it upon myself to analyze this problem and offer a solution.

It seemed to me that the first step should be to identify what being poly means. This isn't the same as defining what a poly relationship is. So we have two separate contexts. The way you say Vinsanity was interpreting things was to apply the definition of what being poly means onto what a poly relationship is in a way that assumes "romantic" doesn't necessitate "ethical".

To illustrate further. Unconnected poly individuals have nobody to get consent from or provide knowledge to, but few of us would say such poly individuals aren't poly. So being poly doesn't require that anyone provide knowledge or consent. It's simply an innate ability. Not all species appear to have this ability. In fact we don't know if any other species has the capacity for a "romantic" relationship.

However because the point was made that poly relationships may have ethical rules like knowledge and consent, and because it's true that the word "romantic" provides a loophole that might allow for unethical behavior, it seemed reasonable to create a second tier definition that emphasizes ethics in a relationship context, which could include a number of rules such as honesty, disclosure, etc. based on agreements between participants.

So rather than do any disservice to the poly community, I'm actually offering a solution to the definition problem that is well substantiated by history and critical thinking. Those factors should impart more value than the popularity or authority of pre-existing versions. But not everyone values that sort of analysis. However you'll find me ( and maybe a few others ) in the crowd that does. Further improvements to the definition are also welcomed, and if the reasons make sense I'll amend the definition again and again, until we get it perfect. Nothing irks me more than people who call themselves poly just to have indiscriminate sex with whomever and whenever and maintain that their opinion is just as valid as anyone else's.

 

[Seinneann]

Not exactly. The word "Polyamory" is a derivative of the term poly-amorous, coined by Morning Glory Zell-Ravenheart who used it in an article that appeared in the May 1990 edition of Green Egg a periodical of the Church of All Worlds, an American Neopagan religion. This is well established historically. Anthropologically, non-monogamous behavior extends back much further, but the details aren't clear enough to know the extent to which it was practised with the same principles outlined by the Ravenhearts. As for the comment by Easton, the situation that interrelations aren't always beneficial doesn't negate the validity of the principle of the point I made.

Yep. *As I said- brought their particular style of polyamory into public light. Coining a term is not synonymous with inventing the practice. And there is a lot of documentation of people living non-monogamously in history.

The principle of the point you made is not universal and does not apply to everyone who practises polyamory. That is what Easton meant. So I do believe it does negate the validity of it if you insist that it needs to be universally applied to the definition of polyamory.

 

[SlowPoly]

Unconnected poly individuals have nobody to get consent from or provide knowledge to, but few of us would say such poly individuals aren't poly. So being poly doesn't require that anyone provide knowledge or consent. It's simply an innate ability. Not all species appear to have this ability. In fact we don't know if any other species has the capacity for a "romantic" relationship.

However because the point was made that poly relationships may have ethical rules like knowledge and consent, and because it's true that the word "romantic" provides a loophole that might allow for unethical behavior, it seemed reasonable to create a second tier definition that emphasizes ethics in a relationship context, which could include a number of rules such as honesty, disclosure, etc. based on agreements between participants.

Poly relationships *may* have ethical rules? But you included ethics in your "second tier" definition. So, why define polyamorous relationships in terms of ethics (as vastly most definitions do), and then not define ployamory the trait with the same constraint? Like this: The ability to have multiple romantic relationships with the consent of all involved.

If you are trying to capture "unethical polyamory" in your "baseline" definition, then you're pretty much ignoring every shared definition of the word in favor of an arbitrary level of broadness that renders it fairly meaningless. Don't see what purpose it serves except to blur the line between poly and cheating. That's not some outcome of objective process. It's a decision you're making.

 

[Al99]

Therefore there is confusion in the community as to what constitutes the baseline. So I took it upon myself to analyze this problem and offer a solution.

I appreciate your effort and I do understand the point you are making after reading your explanation. However, I am quite certain that you will find a good number of intelligent and experienced poly folks who will disagree with your analysis and solution. Others may agree, others may prefer the traditional definition, and some would be more likely to agree with Ravenscroft and his contention that poly should be even more narrowly defined. Lots of opinions.

My take is that the definition of poly widely embraced in slightly different wordings is not about "being poly" - but about the practice of having multiple loving relationships (with the knowledge and consent of all involved.) I do understand your point, but I do not agree with that interpretation.

Your mileage may vary.

Al

 

[PolyNatural]

Poly relationships *may* have ethical rules? But you included ethics in your "second tier" definition. So, why define polyamorous relationships in terms of ethics (as vastly most definitions do), and then not define ployamory the trait with the same constraint? Like this: The ability to have multiple romantic relationships with the consent of all involved.

I've not defined poly in the first context the way you suggest because being poly doesn't require anyone's consent. If you are poly, you are poly whether anyone gives you consent or not. Correct?

If you are trying to capture "unethical polyamory" in your "baseline" definition, then you're pretty much ignoring every shared definition of the word in favor of an arbitrary level of broadness that renders it fairly meaningless.

On the contrary, I'm including ethical in a broad sense so that every conceivable definition of what constitutes ethical doesn't need to be included. Besides, as already mentioned, the requirement of consent may not always be ethical, so sometimes certain conditions may not apply to a given relationship.

Don't see what purpose it serves except to blur the line between poly and cheating. That's not some outcome of objective process. It's a decision you're making.

I don't see how the lines between cheating and being poly are at all blurred because cheating is clearly unethical, so that's clearly covered. But in some rare instance when cheating might for some unknown reason have an ethical reason ( maybe in order to save someone's life or whatever ), then it's also covered. This is advantageous because we don't want 4000 different self-serving definitions. We want something clear, accurate, and concise that applies evenly to everyone.

 

[PolyNatural]

The principle of the point you made is not universal and does not apply to everyone who practises polyamory. That is what Easton meant. So I do believe it does negate the validity of it if you insist that it needs to be universally applied to the definition of polyamory.

If we go down that road then what happens is that we're on a slippery slope where people will self-servingly interpret polyamory to be whatever satisfies their particular bias, and it can erode to the point where as I described, there's no difference between having a little black book, a harem, or a stable full of studs, none of whom are connected and simply amount to a swinger's pool.

Also, I completely disagree with the idea that the origin of a particular word or phrase and the intent behind it aren't key points in validating what it means. Language is not so non-specific that anyone can take any word they want and make it mean whatever they like simply because they prefer it that way. So while you may be of the opinion that people can do that all they want, that opinion isn't really all that well substantiated, and one of the things that irks me most about the poly community is those who simply make-up the rules as they go on the assumption that they're opinion about what being poly is is as good as anyone else's, despite good reasons why it may not be.

 

[Ravenscroft]

Every time a new term (or modifier thereof) is introduced, a new question is being begged.

If they are going to be championed, these terms ought to be defined clearly & unequivocally:

• natural
• ethical
• loving
• consent
• romantic
• communication

I think I have seen all of them twisted out of shape at one time or another on these forums.

 

[Ravenscroft]

I'm still iffy as to whether a person can be polyamorous.

Someone can be acting in a polyamorous manner... someone who's had such a relationship has likely undergone a paradigm shift & could be said to now see the world in a poly manner... a group of people might be said to be polyamorous...

I believe that polyamory is the root concept, needing concision, & everything else is a matter of best practices, as it's been so aptly put.

 

[PolyNatural]

Every time a new term (or modifier thereof) is introduced, a new question is being begged.

If they are going to be championed, these terms ought to be defined clearly & unequivocally:

• natural
• ethical
• loving
• consent
• romantic
• communication

I think I have seen all of them twisted out of shape at one time or another on these forums.

No doubt, and exactly why any meaningful definition needs to be well substantiated, and that's done in the explanation of the definition where the word history and principles are analyzed. The last thing I want is for the definition I'm working on to be just another self-serving version that can be used to advanced my own personal agenda, because I see that tendency as a significant problem in the poly community.