Dumping The Label

[PolyNatural]

Let's remove the whole sentence you quoted from the discussion, since it seems to be what you fixated on.

You spend the first three or so paragraphs of the interrelatedness page defining what interrelatedness is using quotes from More than Two. After the paragraphs with those quotes, where you establish interrelatedness as being able to be something as simple as sharing the same partner, you quote The Ethical Slut and do a complete 180°, stating that interrelatedness must involve actually relating in a personal way with your partner's other partners.

I found that entire 180° turn in the course of one paragraph humourous because you've spent many posts on this board talking about how people contradict themselves and the real meaning of poly all the time, including saying if you started a poly group in your area, it would only be open to people who agree with the real definition of poly as written about on your website. However, even on your website, in the intro and interrelatedness pages I scanned, you suffer from the same thing you very loudly and often accuse other people of doing, not being firm in their definition.

Yes. As I explained before. I'm not flip-flopping on my personal view. That might indeed seem laughable. The purpose of including the contradicting points of view is simply to lay the groundwork that illustrates that there are such opposing points of view so that we can identify which ones are the most coherent and arrive at some sensible conclusions.

Or perhaps you mean that given the entire situation, there is so much chaos that it is somewhat laughable? At times it certainly does seem that everyone has their own self-serving interpretation that can be entirely contradictory to someone else's. So sure, some people can snicker, but what about those of us who try to take the whole thing more seriously? Of what use is it when the present situation causes more confusion than helping to establish mindfulness? Shouldn't someone try to sort it out?

IMO the community as a whole needs to do better before I'm comfortable being identified as part of it, and quite frankly, call me a pessimist, but I don't see that ever happening. Not that any other type of relationship is any better. That's why I'm pretty much just fed-up with the whole thing at the moment. I've made a sincere effort to try to sort out the common problems, and for that some people see me as the bad guy while others see it as admirable. I guess we can't make everyone happy can we?

On your comment about me not being firm on the definition of polyamory. That discussion is better left to the definition thread, but I will acknowledge that in order to have the best definition possible, it needs to be open to change if a more well substantiated version can be constructed. I've done a more thorough job than any other writer I've run across so far, but that doesn't mean there isn't still some other better definition than the one I've proposed out there someplace. I just haven't seen it.

Lastly, the foundation of any group I'd like to form wouldn't be based on adherence to my views, but dedicated to the aim of resolving these sorts of issues through evidence, critical thinking, and emotional intelligence. And I would hope I would learn as much from others as they might from me. I'm not into pointless bickering. I think there needs to be a much more clear stand on certain issues within the poly community if it is going to withstand the test of being as ethical as it claims to be.

 

[Hannahfluke]

Yes. As I explained before. I'm not flip-flopping on my personal view. That might indeed seem laughable. The purpose of including the contradicting points of view is simply to lay the groundwork that illustrates that there are such opposing points of view so that we can identify which ones are the most coherent and arrive at some sort of sensible conclusion.

Or perhaps you mean the entire situation that there is so much chaos is somewhat laughable? At times it certainly does seem that everyone has their own self-serving interpretation that can be entirely contradictory to someone else's. So sure, some people can snicker, but what about those of us who try to take the whole thing more seriously? Of what use is it when the present situation causes more confusion than helping to establish mindfulness? Shouldn't someone try to sort it out?

IMO the community as a whole needs to do better before I'm comfortable being identified as part of it, and quite frankly, call me a pessimist, but I don't see that ever happening. Not that any other type of relationship is any better. That's why I'm pretty much just fed-up with the whole thing at the moment. I've made a sincere effort to try to sort out the common problems, and for that some people see me as the bad guy while others see it as admirable. I guess we can't make everyone happy can we?

The problem I see with your writing, if the above is true about the part I was talking about is that no where in the paragraphs I talked about did it state that the system set out by the quotes from More Than Two was something that you didn't believe in. If I had to get more than 5 paragraphs in to find that information, which I apparently did, you need to learn about writing more of a summary and then about expounding on your ideas, because otherwise, your ideas are getting lost in the sheer number of words you use before clearly stating them.

The biggest issue I have with your whole definition of poly is that it seems to exclude anyone who isn't dating as a big giant group. I have 2 cisgendered heteroflexible male partners. They know each other, they talk at parties, but other than that they don't really interact. I have much the same relationship with my husband's several partners. My boyfriend has 3 partners besides me. 2 of them I haven't even met yet. One of them my boyfriend and I have had 3 date nights with, 2 of which ended up in threesomes. If I'm understanding you correctly, the only truly poly relationship out of all of these, by your definition, is the last one, because it's the only one that has significant amounts of overlap.

If so, that's exactly why you've been accused of gatekeeping language and actions. I love both my husband and my boyfriend. My husband loves his partners. My boyfriend loves me and cares about his other partners (all three are less than 6 month old relationships and it takes him a while to develop love). Why does the one that has had 2 threesomes count more than the others? I should note that this relationship, that has the most overlap, is the one of shortest duration also, comparing 6 months to 3 years, 7 years, 9 years, and 28 years (if we're adding in my relationship with my husband). I don't think length of relationship is the only thing that matters but neither is the interconnectedness of every single metamours to every other metamours.

 

[PolyNatural]

The problem I see with your writing, if the above is true about the part I was talking about is that no where in the paragraphs I talked about did it state that the system set out by the quotes from More Than Two was something that you didn't believe in. If I had to get more than 5 paragraphs in to find that information, which I apparently did, you need to learn about writing more of a summary and then about expounding on your ideas, because otherwise, your ideas are getting lost in the sheer number of words you use before clearly stating them.

The biggest issue I have with your whole definition of poly is that it seems to exclude anyone who isn't dating as a big giant group. I have 2 cisgendered heteroflexible male partners. They know each other, they talk at parties, but other than that they don't really interact. I have much the same relationship with my husband's several partners. My boyfriend has 3 partners besides me. 2 of them I haven't even met yet. One of them my boyfriend and I have had 3 date nights with, 2 of which ended up in threesomes. If I'm understanding you correctly, the only truly poly relationship out of all of these, by your definition, is the last one, because it's the only one that has significant amounts of overlap.

If so, that's exactly why you've been accused of gatekeeping language and actions. I love both my husband and my boyfriend. My husband loves his partners. My boyfriend loves me and cares about his other partners (all three are less than 6 month old relationships and it takes him a while to develop love). Why does the one that has had 2 threesomes count more than the others? I should note that this relationship, that has the most overlap, is the one of shortest duration also, comparing 6 months to 3 years, 7 years, 9 years, and 28 years (if we're adding in my relationship with my husband). I don't think length of relationship is the only thing that matters but neither is the interconnectedness of every single metamours to every other metamours.

Thanks again for your constructive commentary. Now that we've had a bit of a chance to communicate, we're understanding each other a bit better ( I think ). I admit I have difficulty getting to the points of things quickly sometimes. That's because I'm one of those people who needs reasons before believing things, so I tend to think most other people are like that too. But in reality they're not. A lot of times they can just intuit what the intent is without all the background. I'm trying to get better at that rather than being so analytical, but it's not that easy for me. And I do appreciate it when people make an effort to bear with me through it as you have.

One thing that IMO is of crucial importance is when you ask: "Why does the one that has had 2 threesomes count more than the others?" It is really important here to emphasize that the importance of individuals to each other on an interpersonal level is something completely separate from trying to identify what sort of category a relationship falls into. Using the swinging example again, I was somewhat surprised to find that swingers can be very involved and very important to each other romantically and that such relationships can involve as few as only two people.

It seems there are often exceptions to our existing notions that require us to change our views. At one point I sort of looked down on swinging as a relatively superficial type of relationship. I no longer do that. I see it as a spectrum that goes all the way from the shallow end to the deep end, and every spot between can be as ethical as the next. This is one of the things I like most about exploring these issues. Learning something that changes the way I think for the better is a wonderful thing.

So if you feel very connected to more than one person, by all means I agree completely that the label that goes on it does nothing to diminish that value. I'm not even a fan of poly hierarchies for that very same reason. I prefer to believe that we're all special in our own unique ways. Maybe that's a bit too idealistic. I'm not sure. I just don't like the idea of making someone feel less valued than someone else who I might love in a different sort of way.

 

[kdt26417]

Hi PolyNatural,

If I am reading you right, I am hearing you say that you are frustrated with the poly community because we do not adhere to one consistent definition of "polyamory." And maybe this inconsistency has spilled over into the dating scene, where you have tried to tell the person you're dating that you're polyamorous, and then they argue with you about what polyamory means, and maybe you don't have a solid consistent definition to fall back on that is endorsed by the entire poly community or at least by most of the poly community. If I am reading you correctly when I say all of that, then I have to sympathize with you, a label (poly) isn't worth much if its definition isn't consistent, and without that label how are you supposed to identify yourself to a new dating partner. How are you supposed to even know if you qualify to be a member of the poly community?

Of course, no given word has to be defined exactly the same way all the time in order to be useful. If you look up the same word in two different dictionaries, you will get two slightly different definitions. The important thing is, that hopefully, both dictionaries contain the same basic components of that word, and don't contradict each other. Whereas with poly, you are seeing a contradiction.

In my own experience, most of the definitions I've seen have featured two main components: multiple partners, and informed consent. So, that's the definition that I usually use. If someone I know defines it otherwise, then when I talk to that person, I use their definition. But most of the time I don't have to, I can rely on the multiple-partners-with-informed-consent definition, even if any two sources differ on it in the details. And even though some polyamorists bicker over the definition, I still believe that the silent/quiet majority generally agrees. None of that helps you, though, if your experience has been different from mine.

Some people say that polyfidelity is not polyamorous, and since I am in a poly-fi V, I guess I'm not poly. At least not to those people. I find that fact somewhat annoying, but in the end I realize that I can draw my own conclusions about things, without others' approval. Again, multiple partners, informed consent. Sounds a lot like the V I am in. Although some would argue that while the V is poly, I am not, because I (a leg of the V) only have one partner (the hinge of the V). [shrug] I don't get that detailed, I consider myself poly because I'm a willing part of a poly arrangement. Even a single person can be poly at heart.

Re: swingers ... some poly people do look down the nose at swingers, but I don't have a problem with swinging. If swingers can have emotional bonds with each other, that's cool. But even if it were just casual sex, it wouldn't bother me. The only requirement I have of anyone is that they do things with each other's consent. If any two people want to engage in casual sex, that is okay because they both agree.

I know, that's a little off-topic. Anyway, I do sympathize with your situation. Hopefully the poly community will serve you better in the future, or at least, if it doesn't, you'll still find a good way to describe yourself to your dating partners.

Sincerely,
Kevin T.

 

[Hannahfluke]

But that's my entire point. I don't identify as a swinger, no matter what spin you put on it. I have two romantic partners and I identify as polyamorous. Just because those partners don't sleep together or have a strong friendship, it doesn't mean that I myself am not polyamorous. Sure, the relationship between the two of them isn't a polyamorous one but I totally fail to see how that makes it so that my relationships with them aren't loving, romantic ones, which seems to be the dividing line for you between swinging and poly - romance. Just because I conduct my romance on a one to one basis with them doesn't suddenly make my relationship with them swinging. That has to be the weirdest definition of swinging I've ever read (the one on this thread about it being swinging because you go back and forth between your partners instead of being one big happy relationship all together).

I'm not saying don't support your points with analytical information. I'm saying provide a summary of your ideas first so that you don't get so bogged down in examining the analytical data that you lose your audience before they even see the point you are trying to make.

 

[PolyNatural]

Hi PolyNatural,

If I am reading you right, I am hearing you say that you are frustrated with the poly community because we do not adhere to one consistent definition of "polyamory." And maybe this inconsistency has spilled over into the dating scene, where you have tried to tell the person you're dating that you're polyamorous, and then they argue with you about what polyamory means, and maybe you don't have a solid consistent definition to fall back on that is endorsed by the entire poly community or at least by most of the poly community. If I am reading you correctly when I say all of that, then I have to sympathize with you, a label (poly) isn't worth much if its definition isn't consistent, and without that label how are you supposed to identify yourself to a new dating partner. How are you supposed to even know if you qualify to be a member of the poly community?

Of course, no given word has to be defined exactly the same way all the time in order to be useful. If you look up the same word in two different dictionaries, you will get two slightly different definitions. The important thing is, that hopefully, both dictionaries contain the same basic components of that word, and don't contradict each other. Whereas with poly, you are seeing a contradiction.

In my own experience, most of the definitions I've seen have featured two main components: multiple partners, and informed consent. So, that's the definition that I usually use. If someone I know defines it otherwise, then when I talk to that person, I use their definition. But most of the time I don't have to, I can rely on the multiple-partners-with-informed-consent definition, even if any two sources differ on it in the details. And even though some polyamorists bicker over the definition, I still believe that the silent/quiet majority generally agrees. None of that helps you, though, if your experience has been different from mine.

Some people say that polyfidelity is not polyamorous, and since I am in a poly-fi V, I guess I'm not poly. At least not to those people. I find that fact somewhat annoying, but in the end I realize that I can draw my own conclusions about things, without others' approval. Again, multiple partners, informed consent. Sounds a lot like the V I am in. Although some would argue that while the V is poly, I am not, because I (a leg of the V) only have one partner (the hinge of the V). [shrug] I don't get that detailed, I consider myself poly because I'm a willing part of a poly arrangement. Even a single person can be poly at heart.

Re: swingers ... some poly people do look down the nose at swingers, but I don't have a problem with swinging. If swingers can have emotional bonds with each other, that's cool. But even if it were just casual sex, it wouldn't bother me. The only requirement I have of anyone is that they do things with each other's consent. If any two people want to engage in casual sex, that is okay because they both agree.

I know, that's a little off-topic. Anyway, I do sympathize with your situation. Hopefully the poly community will serve you better in the future, or at least, if it doesn't, you'll still find a good way to describe yourself to your dating partners.

Sincerely,
Kevin T.

Thanks for the fabulous post. I was hoping you'd comment because your views are always so fair minded and constructive. Also you are correct in your assumptions about much of what I'm saying, but it's not just about me having to describe how I look at relationships to other people on the dating scene, but how other people are describing it to me from their perspective.

Of particular frustration ( as already mentioned in another post ) are those who claim to have "tried polyamory and found it's not for them", as if every poly relationship will be just like the one they already had. It seems to me ( and correct me if I'm wrong ) that each relationship ( poly or otherwise ) is as unique as the individuals in the relationship. Can we imagine a mono person saying, "I tried a mono relationship once and it didn't work out, so I know it's not for me." The level of thought that goes into those kinds of statements just makes me shake my head and wonder sometimes.

In your situation, I'd say that poly-fi is different than basic poly. They just both have the same prefix "poly" at the beginning. So does polygamy, and we know that is different too ( but more radically so in my estimation ). I also think a person can be polyamorous and have a poly-fi relationship. It just depends on whether or not they're in agreement with the rules that make it less open. Also I don't feel your post is off-topic at all. It's perfectly relevant.

 

[PolyNatural]

But that's my entire point. I don't identify as a swinger, no matter what spin you put on it. I have two romantic partners and I identify as polyamorous. Just because those partners don't sleep together or have a strong friendship, it doesn't mean that I myself am not polyamorous.

I agree completely with that.

Sure, the relationship between the two of them isn't a polyamorous one but I totally fail to see how that makes it so that my relationships with them aren't loving, romantic ones, which seems to be the dividing line for you between swinging and poly - romance.

I accept that your relationship is exactly as you describe ( loving and romantic ).

Just because I conduct my romance on a one to one basis with them doesn't suddenly make my relationship with them swinging.

Actually, from a dispassionate logical perspective it does. But that isn't to say there is any moral connotation to it. I think that's something you're reading into my words that isn't there.

That has to be the weirdest definition of swinging I've ever read (the one on this thread about it being swinging because you go back and forth between your partners instead of being one big happy relationship all together).

It was almost as surprising to me to come to the same conclusion, but the logic seems to be intact. The important thing is to remove the negative social stereotyping from the idea of swinging. It sounds like you have a couple of amazing relationships, and that you are poly, and that is all just fine. It's just that in its totality, the situation doesn't fit the poly definition due to a lack of interrelatedness between two of the people involved. That doesn't make it less valuable or less moral. It's just what it is. I imagine it's a beautiful thing.

I'm not saying don't support your points with analytical information. I'm saying provide a summary of your ideas first so that you don't get so bogged down in examining the analytical data that you lose your audience before they even see the point you are trying to make.

That is a totally fair point and I've been working on taking a different approach to the actual book I'm working on by illustrating points more with stories and allegories than ( A,B,C ) therefore ( x,y,z ). Any pointers would also be helpful, and I appreciate you sharing your own situation. Maybe I could ask a few questions about it now that we're more on the same wavelength?

 

[River]

Actually, from a dispassionate logical perspective it does.

Huh? WHY?

Folks can have polyamorous relationships with people without the metamours being involved either romantically or platonically. The term, polyamory, does not require that the metamours are deeply connected in any sense whatsoever.

If we disagree on this point, I want to see the argument to the contrary.

Now, if I were to have two (or more) loving partners, I'd prefer (not demand that) my two (or more) partners are on decent and easy terms with one another. Ideally, they'd be exploring a friendship -- or 'more'. But that'd not be an expectation or a demand. And if they did not have that it certainly would not disqualify my relationships from being called polyamorous.

It's just that in its totality, the situation doesn't fit the poly definition due to a lack of interrelatedness between two of the people involved.

This claim seems to me to fall far afield from the consensus of views I've witnessed over many years within the "poly community" in all of its diversity. The consensus I speak of is not 100% agreement, but more like 98% or 97%, which is a large enough number for me to be satisfied that it is an consensus.

 

[Hannahfluke]

I agree completely with that.
I accept that your relationship is exactly as you describe ( loving and romantic ). Actually, from a dispassionate logical perspective it does. But that isn't to say there is any moral connotation to it. I think that's something you're reading into my words that isn't there. It was almost as surprising to me to come to the same conclusion, but the logic seems to be intact. The important thing is to remove the negative social stereotyping from the idea of swinging. It sounds like you have a couple of amazing relationships, and that you are poly, and that is all just fine. It's just that in its totality, the situation doesn't fit the poly definition due to a lack of interrelatedness between two of the people involved. That doesn't make it less valuable or less moral. It's just what it is. I imagine it's a beautiful thing. That is a totally fair point and I've been working on taking a different approach to the actual book I'm working on by illustrating points more with stories and allegories than ( A,B,C ) therefore ( x,y,z ). Any pointers would also be helpful, and I appreciate you sharing your own situation. Maybe I could ask a few questions about it now that we're more on the same wavelength?

You can ask me questions about my situation. I'm still going to approach it and answering those questions from the framework of my understanding of the definition of polyamory, because I don't agree with the extremely limited and limiting definition that you give to the word. I won't agree with you that network polyamory is really swinging just because my partners aren't heavily involved with each other. As long as you understand that I'm not agreeing with your definition but am in fact agreeing to disagree with you on the definition and answer your questions anyway, I'd be interested in seeing what questions you have and answering the ones I'm comfortable with.

 

[PolyNatural]

Huh? WHY?

Two people who aren't in a romantic relationship with each other cannot by definition be in a polyamorous relationship. That part is very self-evident. And simply tacking a third party on who swings back and forth between those two doesn't make the entire thing poly.

Folks can have polyamorous relationships with people without the metamours being involved either romantically or platonically. The term, polyamory, does not require that the metamours are deeply connected in any sense whatsoever.

There's a conflating of concepts going on there. Certainly a person who identifies as being poly can engage in a number of different kinds of relationships. Until dropping the poly label for myself, I self identified as being poly but was in relationship with a mono person on and off for two years. Simply because I'm poly doesn't make that relationship polyamorous.

Similarly a poly person can swing back and forth between two unconnected partners and have a deep and meaningful relationship with them, but that doesn't make the whole affair polyamorous because two of the partners simply have no relationship with each other, and interrelatedness is the constant concept in polyamory that has been there from its inception. You can go back and read the quotes from the people who created the word. If we are to abandon historical references to the actual word origin and simply decide being poly is whatever suits our personal biases, then polyamory as a label is meaningless.

If we disagree on this point, I want to see the argument to the contrary.

That has already been provided in a previous post with a direct quote from the Ravenhearts ( the creator of the term ) where they clearly say that, "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." If that's not happening then it's not polyamory, and simply hand-waving that isn't substantial counterpoint.

Now, if I were to have two (or more) loving partners, I'd prefer (not demand that) my two (or more) partners are on decent and easy terms with one another. Ideally, they'd be exploring a friendship -- or 'more'. But that'd not be an expectation or a demand. And if they did not have that it certainly would not disqualify my relationships from being called polyamorous.

The situation you describe wouldn't "disqualify" you or any of your partners from being polyamorous, but a lack of interrelatedness in the relationship as a whole would not meet the criteria set out by the people who created polyamory in the first place. So while everyone involved might be polyamorous as individuals, the relationship as a whole wouldn't be.

This claim seems to me to fall far afield from the consensus of views I've witnessed over many years within the "poly community" in all of its diversity. The consensus I speak of is not 100% agreement, but more like 98% or 97%, which is a large enough number for me to be satisfied that it is an consensus.

Unfortunately consensus opinion can be as badly substantiated as individual opinion. This is why I combine critical thinking with historical facts and cross reference those with opinions on both sides of the issue in order to arrive at a well substantiated conclusion that is relatively free of personal bias.

However the negative feedback from people who seem to hold opposing opinions based on less well substantiated views is one of the reasons I've decided to dump the label. The whole concept has shifted from something well grounded and true to human nature to a free-for-all of opinions that all claim to be equal, when a closer look reveals they're clearly not. Some people get so upset with this that I've had hate mail over it. Yup. I can really feel the love there.

 

[Emm]

You certainly have strong opinions on the matter, so it is fortunate that you've decided to rebrand yourself and leave the poly label for the rest of us.

 

[Hannahfluke]

Polynatural,

What writings of the Ravenheart are you using as the basis of your historical foundation for your definition of polyamory? I'm curious because when I read the Wikipedia article on Morning Glory Tell Ravenheart, it linked to this archive of A bouquet of lovers, one of her writings where she talks about the two foundations of polyamory: firstly, honesty and openness and secondly, all members of the primary relationship must embrace polyamory (she doesn't feel like polyamorous/monogamous primary relationships work). She does start the article talking about open relationships but begins talking about polyamory when she starts talking about the guidelines.

She then goes on to talk about rules that are good for the primary relationship and divides these rules into whether they apply to a committed secondary relationship or a one night stand or temporary love affair. I guess I'm puzzled about how all polyamorous relationships have to have interrelatedness, according to the founders of the movement and if they aren't, we're moving away from the historical meaning, when in less than 5 minutes on the internet I found an article that one of the founders of the movement wrote that includes her polyamorous rules for one night stands.

Sorry about putting Ravencroft instead of Ravenheart.

 

[PolyNatural]

You certainly have strong opinions on the matter, so it is fortunate that you've decided to rebrand yourself and leave the poly label for the rest of us.

I imagined that the prevailing opinions would be unfavorable because people prefer to have their personal views validated rather than questioned, even when evolving their views might be more beneficial for them or their cause. I'm just tired of running into windmills of one form or another. I recently watched a movie on an unrelated topic that demonstrated the same sort of bias. It was called Concussion. A forensic pathologist acquires evidence that football players are sustaining serious concussions and in an effort to raise awareness and prevent the injuries he becomes the target of much disdain. It's based on a true story. Will Smith does an amazing acting job too.

I do of course realize that my attempts to resolve some the most controversial issues with respect to polyamory aren't nearly as important as Sunday night football, but they were important enough to me to dig into them and get to the bottom of them. If the community is bothered by the results, then that's their problem, and it just makes it easier for me to distance myself from it. It won't however prevent me from writing more about it and the way the community responds. So I'll be sure to add your sentiments to the mix. That is unless you might have something more constructive to say?

 

[River]

PolyNatural:

Two people who aren't in a romantic relationship with each other cannot by definition be in a polyamorous relationship. That part is very self-evident. And simply tacking a third party on who swings back and forth between those two doesn't make the entire thing poly.

I'd be VERY surprised to learn that the Ravenhearts coined the term "polyamory" to mean that three or more people have got to be romantically involved with one another for polyamorous relationships to exist. So that remains to be shown.

BUT, so what if they did? (Which I doubt) As I said, there has arisen out of the initial use of "polyamory" by the Ravenhearts a globally manifested discourse of polyamory in which the word is clearly not restricted to this narrow sense. The Ravenhearts can coin a term and ... allow a few decades and that term can evolve, change. The word belongs to those who use it, after all. Things evolve and change. Words have never been fixed for all time, but have always evolved and changed. That does NOT mean that North can arbitrarily come to mean South, or that Up can Come to mean Down willy-nilly. That's not how word meanings change over time.

The word "polyamory" has a consensus meaning, with a vast majority agreeing on what the term means. The consensus does not mean that there must be three or more people all involved with one another "romantically". Triads and quads are merely among the many variants which are known as polyamorous. Another variant would be those who have more than one love in their life. That person would be polyamorous -- or would be "practicing polyamory". That person's relationships would thus be polyamorous, because he or she is not monogamous and otherwise meets with the consensus view of what polyamory means.

That said, triads are cool, as are quads, etc. I'm glad there are people doing that. I wish I had had such an opportunity, myself.

 

[PolyNatural]

PolyNatural: I'd be VERY surprised to learn that the Ravenhearts coined the term "polyamory" to mean that three or more people have got to be romantically involved with one another for polyamorous relationships to exist. So that remains to be shown.

You can find the quote I referenced on the Ravenheart's site.

BUT, so what if they did? (Which I doubt) As I said, there has arisen out of the initial use of "polyamory" by the Ravenhearts a globally manifested discourse of polyamory in which the word is clearly not restricted to this narrow sense. The Ravenhearts can coin a term and ... allow a few decades and that term can evolve, change. The word belongs to those who use it, after all. Things evolve and change. Words have never been fixed for all time, but have always evolved and changed. That does NOT mean that North can arbitrarily come to mean South, or that Up can Come to mean Down willy-nilly. That's not how word meanings change over time.

That is a reasonable observation. The position I've taken on it is that yes, the original definition needs revamping, but the original intent doesn't. That's because abandoning the original intent makes the label pointless. We can therefore have a pointless label for a subculture where every individual defines it according to what suits their personal biases and agendas, or we can have a meaningful label backed by historical evidence that hold true to a set of principles that differentiate it from other relationships. Personally I'm with the second group ( however small that might be ).

The word "polyamory" has a consensus meaning, with a vast majority agreeing on what the term means. The consensus does not mean that there must be three or more people all involved with one another "romantically".

As mentioned in another post, consensus opinion can be as poorly substantiated as an individual opinion, so which do we choose, a poorly formed consensus opinion or a better substantiated one? Again, I'm in the second group, even if it is a minority.

Triads and quads are merely among the many variants which are known as polyamorous. Another variant would be those who have more than one love in their life. That person would be polyamorous -- or would be "practicing polyamory". That person's relationships would thus be polyamorous, because he or she is not monogamous and otherwise meets with the consensus view of what polyamory means.

That is all possible depending on the degree of interrelatedness. If polyamory abandons interrelatedness then what distinguishes it from swinging? A mere preference fore a less offensive label?

That said, triads are cool, as are quads, etc. I'm glad there are people doing that. I wish I had had such an opportunity, myself.

Quite agreed. Labels aside. There are lots of amazing relationships and connections going on. I'm just putting a finer lens on them to identify where the boundaries are. So long as it's ethical I don't have a problem with any relationship. Of course that opens a whole other can of worms.

 

[Hannahfluke]

I was chatting with my boyfriend tonight and he did find the idea that if we all aren't having sex, which seems to be what interrelatedness comes down to in this discussion, we're all swingers humourous. It's usually the opposite argument that is heard, that polyamory isn't just about the sex. Or would it be enough for the interrelatedness if we were all best friends forever? And what happens when something comes along that breaks the trust or friendship between metamours? All of the sudden, sometimes after years, you're suddenly not poly anymore but swingers?

 

[Emm]

I'm just tired of running into windmills of one form or another.

And yet you continually go looking for them. If you no longer identify as poly then you have no horse in the race and can safely stop. Continuing to do so looks a lot like trolling, which I need not remind you is against the rules here.

If you want I can take a look at your user settings and see if I can remove the offensive portion of your screen name for you. You'll probably need to change any saved username details in your devices to UndefinedNatural, though.

 

[PolyNatural]

Polynatural,

What writings of the Ravenheart are you using as the basis of your historical foundation for your definition of polyamory? I'm curious because when I read the Wikipedia article on Morning Glory Tell Ravenheart, it linked to this archive of A bouquet of lovers, one of her writings where she talks about the two foundations of polyamory: firstly, honesty and openness and secondly, all members of the primary relationship must embrace polyamory (she doesn't feel like polyamorous/monogamous primary relationships work). She does start the article talking about open relationships but begins talking about polyamory when she starts talking about the guidelines.

She then goes on to talk about rules that are good for the primary relationship and divides these rules into whether they apply to a committed secondary relationship or a one night stand or temporary love affair. I guess I'm puzzled about how all polyamorous relationships have to have interrelatedness, according to the founders of the movement and if they aren't, we're moving away from the historical meaning, when in less than 5 minutes on the internet I found an article that one of the founders of the movement wrote that includes her polyamorous rules for one night stands.

Sorry about putting Ravencroft instead of Ravenheart.

Yes, you're on the right track there. In addition to the other info on the Internet I also went straight to the source at The Church of All worlds and exchanged emails with Oberon, who was Morning Glory's husband. The quote I have on the PolyNatural site is from those materials. There's also no question that some of the ideas seem contradictory or incongruous not only from the inception of polyamory, but over time as the movement ( for lack of a better term ) has evolved. These are the very issues that are contentious both inside and outside the poly community today.

I like to tackle those sorts of problems with a view to better understanding them and hopefully providing reasonable proposals for solutions. Taking all that into account as well such things as the views expressed on sites like this, I believe I've made an honest effort to be constructive and take into account a wide variety of views. That being said, perhaps someone might be able to substantiate equally well ( or better ) another position, but to explore all of those various options was simply too much for a small introductory website, so I had to make a decision, and my thinking on that went something like this:

• Go back to those who created the word and find the common denominators among the various ideas that are most important.
• Get a solid grasp of the underlying concepts behind those ideas.
• Compare those ideas to other alternative type relationships to see what separates polyamory from them
• See how those factors have evolved over time to determine if they are as relevant to the fundamentals today as they were then.

When I did that I came up with all the stuff on the PolyNatural site. People are free to make whatever use they can out of it. None of it prevents poly people or mono people or whomever, from having a one night stand. It's just that such relationships don't fall under the more specific principles that the Ravenhearts outlined for poly relationships, and therefore although those in a poly relationship might be perfectly fine with someone in that relationship having a one night stand, I don't think that the person with whom the member of the group made out with would necessarily qualify as a member of their group. I imagine they'd be seen as more of a passing interest.

So please don't get the wrong impression. I'm not trying to be authoritative. If anything I'm trying to help people gain a clearer and more responsible and hence more ethical perspective on some of the more controversial issues. This should be considered a good thing right?

For example, take a few moments to consider the amount of time I spend on the "wolves in sheep's clothing" types. These are the ones who simply use the poly label as a relatively innocuous catch-all term for whatever behavior gets them into bed with someone. There's no genuine connectedness in their intent, but people have been misled by them. They are the ones I get the worst hate mail from because they think I should have no right to judge their behavior because polyamory is whatever they want it to be and if it works for them who the %#@ am I to tell them otherwise?

Get the picture? Without some well established principles on connectedness and interrelationships, the virtue in poly relationships is compromised, and I personally think that would be a tragedy because at it's core I don't think it ought to be about one night stands or other superficial behavior at the shallow end of the relationship pool. I think there is wisdom in taking the best principles from the historical documentation and preserving them into the future. But that's just me. Apparently not everyone is on board with that.

 

[PolyNatural]

And yet you continually go looking for them. If you no longer identify as poly then you have no horse in the race and can safely stop. Continuing to do so looks a lot like trolling, which I need not remind you is against the rules here.

If you want I can take a look at your user settings and see if I can remove the offensive portion of your screen name for you. You'll probably need to change any saved username details in your devices to UndefinedNatural, though.

Alluding to me as a troll when I'm just trying to get feedback from people on a perfectly valid issues that matter to me in a thread I created specifically for that is unfair. Not everyone has to agree with me. And I've been very civil, even with those who have expressed some dissatisfaction. As explained above. I'm not trying to be authoritative. But at the same time I believe I should have the right here to freely express my views and respond to the feedback of other forum members. Is that not what a discussion is about? Sometimes new and valuable insights come from exploring opposing points of view. This is a time tested tradition in analytical philosophy dating back to the debates of ancient Greece. What would you prefer I talk about? The weather? Either back off or ban me ( again ). I could care less either way. So far as I'm concerned it will only go to show a lack of tolerance for fair-minded discussion and debate on contentious issues. In fact let me save you the trouble. Anyone who wants to contribute constructive ideas or exchange views can send me an email.

 

[Emm]

I'm not trying to be authoritative.

Really? You keep saying you're the only one being objective and that everyone who doesn't agree with you is wrong. That sounds like a textbook example of someone who is trying to be authoritative.

Either back off or ban me ( again ). I could care less either way.

When were you banned? You have a total of 3 expired infraction points, which wouldn't have caused a ban. Also, I'm not going to back off if you persist in picking away at the edges of the user guidelines. Either play nice or move on.

ETA: I take it from your edit that you have decided to stop deliberately seeking out windmills to complain about. A sensible choice, and I wish you well with it.