Dumping The Label
- Thread starter PolyNatural
- Start date
Re (from PolyNatural):
That's really crappy. It's as if poly doesn't deserve as much of a fair shake as does monogamy.
Re (from PolyNatural):
Hmmm, I have to admit, that's a startling idea. Are you saying that any V is by definition not poly? or just that *some* V's aren't poly? or, that a V (by definition) is partially (but not completely) poly?
That's really crappy. It's as if poly doesn't deserve as much of a fair shake as does monogamy.
Re (from PolyNatural):
Hmmm, I have to admit, that's a startling idea. Are you saying that any V is by definition not poly? or just that *some* V's aren't poly? or, that a V (by definition) is partially (but not completely) poly?
FallenAngelina
Well-known member
Well, I can certainly see why you're having trouble dating.
vinsanity0
Active member
I think you are misreading why you get hate mail.
Ravenscroft
Banned
I'm going to say something that might be startling, but I actually agree with PolyNatural about something --
However, her fiance (poly but at that time very busy) & the four others had no regular sexual partner aside from her.
I cannot see where those four were polyamorous simply from being intimate with a poly person.
I certainly don't see how I was "in a relationship" with all six (actually, I have never in 30 years met one of the guys, though I knew his name).
So (for me at least) it's easy to see where there are certainly going to be vees that are two essentially monogamous relationships, merely happening to have one person in common.
I was involved with a woman who had a fiance & six recurring lovers. I was very poly, & one of her girlfriends had a boyfriend.
However, her fiance (poly but at that time very busy) & the four others had no regular sexual partner aside from her.
I cannot see where those four were polyamorous simply from being intimate with a poly person.
I certainly don't see how I was "in a relationship" with all six (actually, I have never in 30 years met one of the guys, though I knew his name).
So (for me at least) it's easy to see where there are certainly going to be vees that are two essentially monogamous relationships, merely happening to have one person in common.
Hannahfluke
Member
But according to Polynatural's argument, you aren't poly either then, Ravencroft, because the whole group isn't poly and interrelated. By his definition, you and everyone in that group are swingers because you are not all heavily involved with each other and the hinges "swing" back and forth between partners instead of there being the interrelatedness of a traid, quad, or whatever.
I explained my situation, in which my husband has partners, I have partners (him and my boyfriend), and my boyfriend has partners. We (the metamours that have met) are all friendly with each other, but other than one of my boyfriend's other partners, who we might be transitioning to a triad between the 3 of us, the relationships are friendly Vs, and he flat out told me that according to his definition, only the possible triad is poly, the rest are swinging relationships. And that it's the only logical conclusion based on the writings and work of the Ravenhearts, who coined the word poly in the first place.
Last edited:
Ravenscroft
Banned
I'll work my way back around to that.
Going back to the OP, I do find it ludicrous to invalidate the term polyamory. At best, it might make an interesting discussion point. I've never much liked the term (not unlike global warming) as vague & likely to lead to more confusion rather than clear anything up -- my preference has been for responsible nonmonogamy, but "poly" is here to stay, as are the underlying symptoms.
Oh, yah, I grasp that.
I was responding directly to the quoted passage.However, PN does overreach significantly, declaring the "arms" of the vee CANNOT be "in a poly relationship." I liked Annie's boyfriend Bob, & enjoyed living with him for two years, even though there was zero attraction between us. While not a sexual triad, I soon considered him a close friend (& co-conspirator
).Actually, I'm okay with being tagged as a swinger. Maybe others have had negative experience, but I hung around a couple of swing clubs (almost always for the social outings & dance nights; they had a hotel ballroom they both regularly rented) & enjoyed their company.
And I think there's swingers who'd be deeply insulted to be confused with polyfolk.
Since there's at least a half-dozen brief definitions that "everyone agrees on"
rolleyes, it's possible for someone to "cherry pick" from them, attaching a phrase here to a sentence there & crowing about how official the ghastly mutant is.Then there's creative word-bending. Leaving aside the self-serving redefinitions, the "sex stuff" has been a point of contention all along -- in polyamory, polyfidelity, group marriage, intimate networks... -- even if actively ignored. Some definitions duck around the "sex qua sex" issue by pretending that all non-abusive interactions are therefore "loving" & thus also "romantic."
Others reserve "real poly" only for those relationships intended to last forever... even if someone's average for such "commitment" rarely lasts five weeks.Such a messy clause certainly appears in Morning Glory's definitions. One person can look at the words & declare MG says polyamory only involves serious committed lifetime relationships (their definition of "loving"), yet another person can claim MG says random sex with nameless strangers is of itself polyamory (the "loving" that's probably closer to MG's intent, as she elsewhere includes swingers).
I guess they'd both be... right, sorta, though reality is probably somewhere in the middle. But, that's a problem with relying on crib-notes rather than actually studying.
Hannahfluke
Member
I don't have a problem with swingers or swinging. It's not something I've done, outside of a very small, intimate friend group who all left a repressive religion at the same time and were exploring their sexuality together in what felt like a safe environment with loving friends. I wouldn't be opposed to going to a swinging club, I just haven't done it.
That said, what I do have an issue with is having someone say that my own self-identity as polyamorous isn't correct simply because I'm part of a V instead of a triad. I don't agree that everyone has to be involved with everyone else in order for the individuals who identify as polyamorous and have more than one relationship to be in polyamorous relationships. Sure, the relationship between my husband and boyfriend isn't poly, but that doesn't mean that the relationship I have with each of them isn't poly.
That said, what I do have an issue with is having someone say that my own self-identity as polyamorous isn't correct simply because I'm part of a V instead of a triad. I don't agree that everyone has to be involved with everyone else in order for the individuals who identify as polyamorous and have more than one relationship to be in polyamorous relationships. Sure, the relationship between my husband and boyfriend isn't poly, but that doesn't mean that the relationship I have with each of them isn't poly.
And there's another source of confusion:
When we debate whether somebody or a particular relationship is "polyamorous", are we talking about... a situation where the person or people concerned are currently, actively IN a poly relationship/situation (i.e. they have more than one, regular, loving sexual/romantic relationship at the same time)?
OR... are we talking about a person's natural inclination or "orientation", rather than what their current personal sexual/romantic situation may indicate? (i.e. A person who may be inclined towards loving, non monogamous situations; have been in these types of relationships in the past; or believe they will be again if the opportunity arose - even though they may NOT currently have more than one partner).
Because it seems clear to me that a person may not be currently engaged in active polyamory (say, they're the arm of a V, and the hinge is their only love interest/partner) - yet THEY THEMSELVES may still identify as "polyamorous" by orientation.
In my particular situation, I do not "identify" as "poly" - yet I am actively polyamorous, being the hinge of a "V". My female partner is more naturally inclined toward polyamory and has had more than one relationship at a time in the past, yet is currently only in a relationship with me. My male partner, Jester, on the other hand, has had a number of casual sex partners at one time in the past... yet has never had more than one loving, intimate relationship at a time, and does not consider himself polyamorous. He is currently monogamous with me.
When we debate whether somebody or a particular relationship is "polyamorous", are we talking about... a situation where the person or people concerned are currently, actively IN a poly relationship/situation (i.e. they have more than one, regular, loving sexual/romantic relationship at the same time)?
OR... are we talking about a person's natural inclination or "orientation", rather than what their current personal sexual/romantic situation may indicate? (i.e. A person who may be inclined towards loving, non monogamous situations; have been in these types of relationships in the past; or believe they will be again if the opportunity arose - even though they may NOT currently have more than one partner).
Because it seems clear to me that a person may not be currently engaged in active polyamory (say, they're the arm of a V, and the hinge is their only love interest/partner) - yet THEY THEMSELVES may still identify as "polyamorous" by orientation.
In my particular situation, I do not "identify" as "poly" - yet I am actively polyamorous, being the hinge of a "V". My female partner is more naturally inclined toward polyamory and has had more than one relationship at a time in the past, yet is currently only in a relationship with me. My male partner, Jester, on the other hand, has had a number of casual sex partners at one time in the past... yet has never had more than one loving, intimate relationship at a time, and does not consider himself polyamorous. He is currently monogamous with me.
If you really mean it, you should go get yourself a domain and an obnoxious purple wordpress template. Nothing says "I'm right and i know it" like an obnoxious purple wordpress template.
I know what the second sentence refers to... but exactly what do YOU mean by "if you really mean it"? If I really mean what?
For the record, Lunabunny's post doesn't convey that message at all to me.
Thank you, Tinwen.
I was simply trying - and obviously failing - to point out that in the great Polyamory Terminology Debate, an additional source of confusion is the difference, perceived or otherwise, between those who are currently living a polyamorous lifestyle (they themselves have multiple loving/sexual relationships) and those who consider themselves polyamorous by orientation, but who, due to circumstance or choice, are NOT currently involved with more than one partner.
Is all.
River
Well-known member
Yup. This marks exactly the spot where PolyNatural's thinking (and its resultant definition) went off the rails.
It's a shame none of us managed to alert PN to her pretzel logic prior to the pile up of smoking box cars. But I think my post in a sister thread may just have nailed it (?).
What do you think?:
http://www.polyamory.com/forum/showpost.php?p=386752&postcount=175
vinsanity0
Active member
I'm pretty sure it was a joke.
You made a good point though. I do identify as poly. I am not currently in a poly relationship but I'm still poly. I conduct my poly much like mono people do. I date and see where it goes. Unlike mono people I am not on a mission to have partners. So my "polycule" can be all over the place with relationships in various stages of development.
So when I had a wife, a steady girlfriend, and a not quite definable relationship, I considered that poly. My wife was more casual, but open to something serious. I considered her poly. My gf was definitely poly, yet I had no relationship with my metas. Elle wasn't quite on board with the poly so I didn't consider her to be poly. If she had been on board I would have considered her poly based on the fact she would have been in a poly relationship with me.
Hannahfluke
Member
I don't think it would have mattered if we had gotten the point across to Polynatural. They were so convinced that their definition is right because it fits the historical meaning of what the Ravenhearts REALLY meant when creating the word polyamory (I'm still not convinced of that), that they would not consider the fact that they were wrong.
I do think your post about dictionaries was good.
River
Well-known member
I'm not convinced of it either (nor do I think many folks here would be convinced), which makes PN's case even weaker than it would be if this strict historicist approach had a strong argument, which I think it does not. Strong historicism in regulating the usage of a term is often not a good argument, though a weaker historicism can help form a strong argument.
The reason? Words belong to their users in a community of users. Word usage is an ongoing process of negotiation... in a context in which dictionaries are players.
Even dictionaries get words wrong, sometimes. But no one player in this game can claim to hold all negotiating power.
I know what the second sentence refers to... but exactly what do YOU mean by "if you really mean it"? If I really mean what?
It was the general "you", not "you" as in a specific person on this forum.
Sorry to have offended you. Had I known you (in this case, you specifically, lunabunny) were so easily confused, I'd have been more careful. I'll try not to make the same mistake again.
Yah, and it really isn't so hard for the average person to understand, with words. That's why I think "a person who is trying to point out something that a 5-year-old could wrap their mind around" might benefit from an obnoxious purple wordpress template. I mean, I don't think it's "you" who is "failing" to point that out. It's others who have decided they don't believe in it. No matter how many times someone re-types it, people *do* GET it. It has nothing to do with typing out a well-formulated explanation.
I'm not even sure why this thread is getting so much attention (it's another one of polynat's soapbox threads, after all). I just think it's entertaining to watch, like a Netflix Original. I didn't mean to get you all worked up.