definitions of polyamory

[Al99]

the heated and failed debates over defining polyamory in a way the way that would satisfy everyone.

And that is nothing but a total cop-out. People WILL stretch the definition in order to wedge themselves into the same room with "the cool kids" -- that doesn't mean that the term is invalid, or that attempts to come up with a clear definition are invalid.

I do partially agree with you - and had intended to include a followup sentence to the effect that a continuing discussion about the defining characteristics of polyamory could still be potentially helpful in creating a more accurate understanding of polyamory, even if a specific definition remained elusive - for the current participants as well as those who might be following along, or come across it in times to come. (My train of thought was distracted by kids running through my office as I was typing ).

However, I would contend that Haslam's judgment of the definition debates of the 1990's still rings true today - not likely that anyone is going to define polyamory in a way that satisfies everyone, with this thread being evidence of just that. And even though discussion of a best definition might still be an admirable goal, I personally find it helpful to remember Haslam's comment - as should anyone who believes that they have personally formulated the authoritative definition of polyamory. (imo, anyway).

Haslam being a medical doctor & a library curator says NOTHING about his ability to speak on the practice of polyamory, except as an outside observer.

The point was not that he was an MD or that he founded Polyamory Archives at the Kinsey Institute of Sex at the University of Indiana - although the fact that he founded the Polyamory Archives at the Kinsey Institute of Sex might suggest that he had some insight into the subject - the point was that he*was* there as a poly activist giving speeches on poly across the country and living a poly lifestyle himself. And because he was there and deeply involved in those debates, he is able to make the statement that he did based on his recollections and judgments. Ultimately being an MD is tangential to the discussion, other than perhaps adding to his credibility as an intelligent and educated individual (not at all uncommon among polyamorous folks, it would seem). Please refer to Hassam's Preface to the book Designer Relationships by Mark A. Michaels and Patricia Johnson - where Hassam goes into a brief recounting of his experiences - for further details.

While there's not any sort of Poly Standards Committee, these forums do in many ways constitute an ad hoc crowdsourcing group for issues of nonmonogamy in particular & relationships in general. From 2000 to ~2007, PMM (apparently launched by Cunning Minx's partner of the time) filled much the same niche; before then, the Loving More site served before they dropped their forums, & before them it was the alt.polyamory newsgroup.

I agree and appreciate the background info in regard to poly specifically. I've always been a fan of discussion forums, and have participated in forums on a number of subjects - from the mudane to the esoteric - going all the way back to the Usenet days. On topics that are subjective by nature - such as poly, I have found these forums to be particularly helpful.

While we may never reach any sort of FINAL conclusion, it's organic discussions such as these that help correct the too-human tendency to bend words (particularly neologisms) all out of shape in hopes of a uselessly huge degree of unwarranted inclusiveness. If EVERYTHING is "polyamory," then there's no such thing as polyamory.

Well said.

The discussion will trudge onward. Nobody is required to participate.

Undoubtedly, and I wouldn't miss it - lots of great input and way too much fun. (Perhaps ultimately polyamory can only be grokked and never adequately defined in a Terran language - anyone speak Martian?)

 

[Al99]

Hi All - I just happened to be surfing around yesterday and ran across this interesting article by "Cunning Minx" of the "Poly Weekly Blog / Podcast" site - which is very much pertinent to this ongoing discussion.

Everyone is doing poly wrong and needs to die in a fire

http://polyweekly.com/everyone-is-doing-poly-wrong-and-needs-to-die-in-a-fire/

Bottom line: this quote from the article:
(With an acknowledgment to the kink origin)

Your polyamory is not my polyamory, but your polyamory is OK.

I am currently reading Polyamory in the 21st Century: Love and Intimacy with Multiple Partners by Deborah Anapol, a followup to her 1997 classic Polyamory: The New Love Without Limits. In this book, she also devotes a chapter to the ongoing Polyamory Definition Debate.

There may never be a consensus definition, but the discussion does have merit in its own right - if it causes us to pause and think and examine. Al

 

[Ravenscroft]

O, damn... another book that needs to be read.

Do not get me wrong: Deb is a great person. I literally would hire her as a therapist.

But (IMNSHO) she is far more optimistic on a bad day than I am at my best, so trends more toward the ideal than the real. If imaginary exellence is your bag, well then...

 

[kdt26417]

As I earlier in this thread posted my own definition of polyamory, I thought it was worth mentioning that I have revised that definition. My aim in revising it was to offer something shorter, clearer, less cumbersome, and more accurate. You can decide if I succeeded.

• Polyamory = "relationships in which any one person is romantically involved with two or more other people, with their knowledge and consent."
• Polyamorous = "practicing, inclined toward, or having to do with, polyamory."
• Polyamorist = "one who is practicing, or who is inclined toward, polyamory."
• Poly = "polyamory, polyamorous, or polyamorist."

(These definitions as of 1/12/2020.)

Previously, I was defining polyamory as "the state of being, or the ability and/or inclination to be, in a romantically-linked set of more than two persons, with the full knowledge and consent of all the persons in the set." (This definition as of 8/5/2017.) In retrospect, I found all this talk about "linking" and "sets" to be unnecessarily cumbersome. Eventually I thought of what I thought was a better way to put it. Also, I decided that the word polyamory is used not so much as a "state, ability, or inclination," as much as just a kind of relationship. Opportunities to pare down the definition; I seized them.

 

[Al99]

Polyamory = "relationships in which any one person is romantically involved with two or more other people, with their knowledge and consent."
Polyamorous = "practicing, inclined toward, or having to do with, polyamory."
Polyamorist = "one who is practicing, or who is inclined toward, polyamory."
Poly = "polyamory, polyamorous, or polyamorist."

These seem to be solid, workable definitions, Kevin, and reflective of Zell's original definition. (Since Morning Glory Zell first coined the word in 1990, it seems to me that has to be the starting point).

Zell's definition:

The practice, state or ability of having more than one sexual loving relationship at the same time, with the full knowledge and consent of all partners involved.

I do like that you include the phrase "inclined to" in your definitions - as a person might self identify as poly even if they are not currently practicing poly (but likely would if the situation arose, or has in the past and is still so inclined, even if not currently involved with multiple partners).

Al

 

[kdt26417]

Thanks Al. I find that the word "polyamory" itself (the noun) is always (as far as I've ever seen) used to refer to the actual practice (of having multiple relationships), while if one wants to refer to being "poly in theory" (i.e., so inclined), the word "polyamorous" (the adjective) is used. This distinction (between the noun and the adjective) is not often observed because people most often just say "poly" and let the context sort it out. And of course then there are those who would object to my use of "inclined toward," those who believe you're only poly when you're a "currently practicing polyamorist." I just personally believe the "looser" definition is the more commonly accepted.

 

[vinsanity0]

And it should be commonly accepted. Is a monogamous person who is not currently in a relationship not monogamous? How about when dating? As a monogamous person is looking for a partner are they not still monogamous? If they date someone but do not end up spending the rest of their life with them, are they not still monogamous?

Granted, in some ways, a monogamist society does tend to make people view themselves as failures if they don't find a partner right away, or if a relationship fails. We shouldn't let that aspect tarnish our polyamorous society. We should feel free to break from cultural norms.

 

[Magdlyn]

And it should be commonly accepted. Is a monogamous person who is not currently in a relationship not monogamous? How about when dating? As a monogamous person is looking for a partner are they not still monogamous? If they date someone but do not end up spending the rest of their life with them, are they not still monogamous?

Granted, in some ways, a monogamist society does tend to make people view themselves as failures if they don't find a partner right away, or if a relationship [fails] ends. We shouldn't let that aspect tarnish our polyamorous society. We should feel free to break from cultural norms.

A relationship is not a failure if it ends. All relationships end, sooner or later.

A person, whether poly or mono, is not a failure if they aren't lucky or savvy enough to be in one relationship, much less several concurrently, that last (happily) until the death of one of the partners.

 

[hedgehog]

Poly·a·mor·y ( noun ) A romantic quagmire.

 

[kdt26417]

Good one hedgehog.

Re (from vinsanity0):

"Is a monogamous person who is not currently in a relationship not monogamous?"

And what if a polyamorous person has two partners and then breaks up with both? Does that person therefore become monogamous? How about if that person only breaks up with one of those partners?

Just some additional thoughts I had on that subject.

 

[vinsanity0]

A relationship is not a failure if it ends. All relationships end, sooner or later.

A person, whether poly or mono, is not a failure if they aren't lucky or savvy enough to be in one relationship, much less several concurrently, that last (happily) until the death of one of the partners.

I don't agree that people can't fail at relationships. I do agree that the end of a relationship isn't necessarily a failure.

 

[vinsanity0]

Good one hedgehog.

Re (from vinsanity0):


And what if a polyamorous person has two partners and then breaks up with both? Does that person therefore become monogamous? How about if that person only breaks up with one of those partners?

Just some additional thoughts I had on that subject.

This is why I've always viewed it as more of a mindset than being defined by practical application.

 

[Wishfuldreamer]

Can I butt in? I like this question - is polyamory a nature state, or orientation, or a choice. One of my partners and I talk about it often.

I was monogamous for a long time...but at various points I've been attracted to other people, but didn't act on it (until towards the end of my mono relationship, I did, and felt very guilty about it).

One of my partners definitely struggled as a young person to understand why it wasn't ok to just date multiple people. The social convention had to be pointed out to him, and he really, genuinely didn't get why people got hung up on it, but kind of 'learnt' it and put himself in a box, until it all came tumbling down in his early 30s. My other partner/lover (not sure what the right label is...) is poly because, in part, he has a lot of trouble staying faithful...and this is the way he deals with it. But he's less comfortable with the idea of having lots of people he's 'in love' with. He has much more conflict within himself as to the 'traditional' part of himself and the less conventional one.

For me, I can't confess to ever thinking that monogamy itself was pointless. But i didn't ever believe in lifelong monogamy. I understood that relationships often ended, and i didn't think it was a personal failing when people changed, and moved on. And I definitely understood that it was possible, and that I was, attracted to other people even when i was in a monogamous relationship. I just understood it as a 'sacrifice' that one made for the benefits of a monogamous relationship. But my relationship was long distance, and we weren't very entangled in terms of finances or life in general, and I liked that. So in many ways, I'm 'accidentally' suited to polyamory - especially the non-nesting, solo-ish poly that i'm currently practicing as a baby polyamorist. But I don't know that it's an orientation...I think maybe I could be monogamous again. But I don't really *want* to be. But I can't say that this is something I've always known about myself, or that it's an identify I've been fighting.

I also don't know about the whole 'people aren't meant to be monogamous'. I kind of think it's a choice. People get attracted to other people, but they decide they want a different kind of life. And for some people there is consciousness in that decision.

Hmmm...food for thought.

 

[kdt26417]

My personal theory is that polyamory (the orientation) exists along a continuum, where you can be 100% polyamorous, 100% monogamous, or anywhere in between (e.g., 80% poly and 20% mono). Someone who is 50% poly can live comfortably either as a mono or a poly, someone who is 80% poly can tolerate a mono life, but not so easily. (Hopefully this description makes sense.) Also I think the percentages can change over the years, at least in some people. So you could start out as monogamous (e.g., 80% monogamous), and then gradually evolve into a polyamorous orientation.

That's all theory though, and I've had people strongly disagree with me.

Another theory (that some people hold) is that everyone is (potentially) polyamorous, but not everyone puts that orientation into practice. I also have a theory about what's called "poly-saturation." Poly-saturation is when you have the largest number of poly partners that you can satisfactorily maintain. If you exceed that number, one or more of the resulting relationships starts to suffer. Everyone has a different "saturation number," some people can be satisfied with how they maintain a large number (five? ten?) of partners, others are, say, highly quality driven, and as such, are poly-saturated at just two or three partners. I adhere to that theory, and, I posit that a monogamist is actually just a polyamorist whose poly-saturation number is one. One partner. They are saturated at one.

It's impossible to say how many people have this or that saturation number, or how many have this or that percentage number, especially with all the mononormative brainwashing (indoctrination, conditioning, programming) that occurs in mainstream society. My guess is that the numbers are skewed towards monogamy, for example someone could believe they are 100% monogamous (apparent percentage) whereas deep down, they're much closer to 80% monogamous (actual percentage). But when looking at saturation numbers, I tend to think that lower numbers are more common than higher numbers. For example a V seems to be the most common type of poly configuration; that is, the hinge seems to have a saturation number of two (two partners). If so, then one might venture that one partner (monogamy) is an even more common saturation number. But who knows, maybe it's a bell curve that peaks out at two partners. Then the apparent numbers are skewed (by indoctrination) towards (a saturation number of) one partner.

As I said, all theories and guesses.

 

[Al99]

Wishfuldreamer wrote:

I like this question - is polyamory a nature state, or orientation, or a choice......

I was monogamous for a long time...but at various points I've been attracted to other people, but didn't act on it...
....

and that I was, attracted to other people even when i was in a monogamous relationship. I just understood it as a 'sacrifice' that one made for the benefits of a monogamous relationship. ...... But I don't know that it's an orientation...I think maybe I could be monogamous again. But I don't really *want* to be

I also don't know about the whole 'people aren't meant to be monogamous'. I kind of think it's a choice. People get attracted to other people, but they decide they want a different kind of life. And for some people there is consciousness in that decision.

(Italics, bolding, and ellipses are mine)

And Kevin wrote:

Another theory (that some people hold) is that everyone is (potentially) polyamorous, but not everyone puts that orientation into practice.

I think Wishfuldreamer very succinctly makes the point - that virtually everyone can be attracted sexually or romantically to more than one person at a given time. I would go so far as to say that this is the natural human condition. (See "Sex at Dawn" by Christopher Ryan for an in depth discussion of this topic). And I actually see this as more of an observation of human nature rather than just theory - as I would suspect that even the most devout monogamist would not at some point at least feel some sort of sexual or romantic attraction to someone else - even if they never even remotely entertained the notion of acting upon it.

And to reiterate Kevin's point - it is the choice to act upon the attraction and be open to multiple partners in an ethical manner that makes one polyamorous - not the simultaneous attraction to more than one person itself - that is simply the human condition. Those who don't act on these attractions have chose to be monogamous.

I certainly would not call poly an orientation in the sense of a sexual orientation - as virtually everyone experiences multiple attractions at some point - again it seems to simply be the human condition. If there is an orientation - it might be that some would be more inclined to choose for monogamy while others might be more inclined to choose for polyamory - when confronted with multiple attractions. But, even then, I would contend that these preferences are far more likely to be culturally based than biologically based.

Just a few more cents worth.... Al

 

[hedgehog]

FWIW I think poly people tend to overthink things. What reason would we have to think that only some humans ( poly people ) have the capacity for multiple concurrent romantic relationships? It seems to me that it can happen to any biologically normal person regardless of their beliefs. It's probably happening right now to a bunch of people who swore before their God, country, and a room full of friends and relatives, that they were only going to love one ( and only one ) person forever. Are we supposed to believe that some magical force came along and suddenly endowed them with the capacity to love more than one? Or is it more reasonable to suggest their capacity was there all along, but repressed by layers of socialization, usually since childhood, until nature simply took its course? Believe whatever else you want, but put me in the latter category.

 

[kdt26417]

And then there are those who remain contentedly monogamous throughout their lives. Among these, are those who would be sick at the thought of their spouse having another partner. There are those who are polyamorous themselves (and have multiple partners), who do not want any of their partners to have other partners. A harem, if you will. There are those who have no partners at all, and never will. Among these are the aromantic/asexual, but it could also be people who find any relationship to be too much of a hassle, and not worth it. There are those who are nonmonogamous but not polyamorous, such as swingers, and such as those who prefer casual sex over relationships, and have one or even zero relationships (zero partners), while having casual sex with multiple people. NSA/ONS. Fuck buddies. And there are many other possible types and varieties.

Of the people described in the paragraph above, many defy categorization. Many are not polyamorous. It is hard to make a blanket statement saying that everyone is polyamorous, or even that everyone is nonmonogamous. Having said that, there are people who are polyamorous who don't realize that they're polyamorous, such as those who think they're monogamous but only as a result of mononormative indoctrination. But there's always an exception to every rule. Humans are the cousins of both bonobo chimps and of non-bonobo chimps, and there's a vast diversity of individual types of humans, of preferences, tendencies, and desires. Having said that, the vast majority are probably polyamorists who think they're monogamists, although that is sheer conjecture on my part. I am basing that on the widespread mononormative indoctrination that characterizes this world.

No, there's no magical force that comes along and suddenly endows people with the capacity to love more than one. But people can and do change. People develop capacities and skills that they did not have in the beginning. That is a part of the human condition, the capacity to learn and grow. As Sylvester Newel (Pardner -- Clint Eastwood) says (in between vigorous swigs of whiskey) in Paint Your Wagon: "I'm changin'!" and while a change does speak to a potential for polyamory, it is only a potential. It's like me saying I could become an astronaut; technically I could, but I probably never will, and right now I have very few of the required capacities. I have potential capacities. Meanwhile, preferences can definitely change. I can prefer monogamy during one part of my life, then change and prefer polyamory during the next part. Just some thoughts ...

 

[Al99]

No, there's no magical force that comes along and suddenly endows people with the capacity to love more than one

Really excellent post, Kevin. However, I would differ somewhat here. I suspect that - based on my personal research (including notably, "Sex at Dawn, but a lot of other sources as well) and observation, that virtually everyone has this capacity - or at the very least, the capacity to be attracted to more than one. But really, I would guess that almost everyone experiences romantic attraction/feelings for two or more people at the same time at some point in their adult life - although not often acted upon.

But this hardly makes one polyamorous. And as you also noted, if these attractions are acted upon, there are many ways this can express, both consensually and non-consensually.

We see so many come to this board and post in their intros "I think I've always known that I am poly" or something similar - but, in reality, most mean that they've always been attracted to or had feelings for multiple individuals at the same time. But that's not poly - that is simply the human condition, even if one prefers to ignore these attractions and practice monogamy. Polyamory is the specific practice of having multiple romantic partners with the knowledge and consent of all involved. And while those who are polyamorous may not actually be practicing poly at any given time (or even has yet to have the opportunity) - I suspect that many of those who believe they aspire to poly because they want to have multiple lovers, really would not have the capacity to do all of the work that goes into full knowledge and consent.

A few more cents worth.

Al

 

[kdt26417]

Polyamorous, then, is, "having both the intention and the ability to consensually handle multiple romantic relationships," and in some cases, "currently consensually engaged in multiple romantic relationships."

 

[Al99]

Polyamorous, then, is, "having both the intention and the ability to consensually handle multiple romantic relationships," and in some cases, "currently consensually engaged in multiple romantic relationships."

Yes, but the ability aspect is probably implicit in the definition without having to state it specifically? Just my initial reaction - but would have to think about it. But certainly many people who believe that they are poly undoubtedly find that they cannot really manage the ethical aspects - and may even have issues with their partners having other partners. They really just like the idea of having multiple lovers and think that this is "being poly".

Al