Polyamory is/is not a feminist movement

[Magdlyn]

I mean, I hear what you're saying. "Just because I am 'polyamorous' (have multiple 'consenting' partners) doesn't mean I support equal rights for women."

However, this board wouldn't exist if your narrow definition was satisfactory. People try to do poly in bad, stupid, coercing, hypocritical, uncaring, narcissistic, unexamined (and even Old Testament) ways. And their polyamory fails.

Polyamory can only be successful if all partners have equal rights and power. Otherwise we just have good old harems, men with several female partners who lack power. And that's not modern polyamory! It's just not. It's polygyny, and that's patriarchal and abusive to women and their children.

You know there's a difference between polyamory and polygyny, right?

We tell people until we are blue in the face that polyamory doesn't mean group sex. Newbies don't understand. They think poly means group sex.

We tell people on the daily that poly can only be practiced with actual informed and joyous consent. If they aren't informed, if they aren't joyous, if they feel coerced to do poly in the way their partner demands, it isn't actually consensual poly. It's abuse. Or at least a mistake.

 

[SEASONEDpolyAgain]

Polyamory can only be successful if all partners have equal rights and power.

But what is the measure of success? Whatever we say it is, whether we agree or not, would be based on our own subjective values.

I do know people in long term happy OPPs. Not even OPP, it is enforced mono/poly by "forum standards". It is true they are kinky too, but I am not sure that kink is the decider either.

I agree that on this board, many of the members do promote feminist ideals in their advice and contributions. But we arent "polyamory". We are "polyamory.com". A website.

 

[SEASONEDpolyAgain]

This is essentially all of my posts concisely summarised.

@Inaniel to be clear, I was appreciative of your post. I didnt mean you were parroting me. I realise it could read that way

 

[Inaniel]

This website existed back when OPPs were discussed often, even by prominent members of the community if I am not mistaken? When I dig through old posts, I see a community that has evolved.

I think polyamory and monogamy are relationship styles that go way way back but both have been influenced by the patriarchy. And I think feminism is advocating for rights and equality for all people in all relationship structures regardless of poly or mono.

If we can say well-done polyamory empowers women; can we also say well-done monogamy empowers women?

Millions of mono people are having the same conversations about joyous consent!

Polyamory can only be successful if all partners have equal rights and power.

If we are defining success in terms of relationship dissolution. I disagree with this. I don’t want to, but my experience tells me this is not always true. I agree it’s ideal. But I think some degree of deviation from the ideal has to be acceptable for most of us to say we have successful relationships.

@Inaniel to be clear, I was appreciative of your post. I didnt mean you were parroting me. I realise it could read that way

I assumed your post was well meaning. Thanks.

 

[AlwaysGrowing]

If we can say well-done polyamory empowers women; can we also say well-done monogamy empowers women?

If the argument is that equal rights for women = feminism, then yes. In monogamy, men and women have the same rights - the right to exclusively be romantic/sexual with one other person.

I don't think polyamory is feminist either. Even well done polyamory. I think it's a relationship structure or identity that feminist humans may be more likely to embrace than non-feminist humans, but in my personal experience I wouldn't even say the majority of polyamorists are also feminists.

 

[Magdlyn]

This website existed back when OPPs were discussed often, even by prominent members of the community, if I am not mistaken? When I dig through old posts, I see a community that has evolved.

Yeah, I've read many old posts from back in 2009-2011ish. The whole Redpepper and Mono thing... that was... Well, it was something.

I think polyamory and monogamy are relationship styles that go way way back, but both have been influenced by the patriarchy. And I think feminism is advocating for rights and equality for all people in all relationship structures, regardless of poly or mono.

Agreed.

If we can say well-done polyamory empowers women; can we also say well-done monogamy empowers women?

Not as obviously. Of course, empowered women can be mono, even married and mono, but when I was first married to a man, and started getting letters addressed to Mrs [his first and last name], I had a thought of, "Oh no, what have I done?" I felt like a sudden possession of his. We'd officially made the choice for me to be Ms "Magdlyn"[my birth family last name [hyphen] his birth family last name], and yet, society saw me as Mrs [his first and last name]. I felt unempowered.

Maybe that doesn't happen to newly-married women as much these days. That was a few decades ago. But I am sure there are similar things that happen that might make a married mono woman feel "lesser than" her man.

Millions of mono people are having the same conversations about joyous consent!

Are they? Like, marriage vows? Or something else?

If we are defining success in terms of relationship dissolution, I disagree with this. I don’t want to, but my experience tells me this is not always true. I agree it’s ideal. But I think some degree of deviation from the ideal has to be acceptable for most of us to say we have successful relationships.

I don't think a relationship needs to last for one's entire life to be seen as successful. But it does need to feel mainly positive, not abusive, not coercive. The partners need to feel like partners, not father and daughter, cop and criminal. (Again, kinky role play excepted.)

 

[Magdlyn]

If the argument is that equal rights for women = feminism, then yes. In monogamy, men and women have the same rights - the right to exclusively be romantic/sexual with one other person.

That's one right they supposedly have, except it's always been more acceptable for men to cheat and stray, and for women to be expected to blame themselves for it, and accept it, and forgive it. But if a woman cheats, the consequences for her are historically more harsh. (Most men have a horror of being "cuckolded.")

However, this is evening out a bit, thanks to feminists bringing change through a lot of hard work.

I don't think polyamory is feminist, either, even well-done polyamory. I think it's a relationship structure or identity that feminist humans may be more likely to embrace than non-feminist humans,

Any why would they? Why is it more attractive to feminists?

but in my personal experience, I wouldn't even say the majority of polyamorists are also feminists.

They think they aren't feminists, while enjoying rights won by feminists and progressives. Younger people take hard-won rights that feminists fought for, for granted. Again, look at the rights I listed above that didn't come to us by magic. People (mostly women, a few male allies) marched, protested, rallied, made speeches, wrote articles and pamphlets, raised money, or used their own money, berated their congressMEN, were abused, beaten, arrested, jailed and suffered to win these rights for all women, rights that are now taken for granted by young people. Unless you happen to take a women's studies college course, or happen to do some googling during March (Women's History Month), you can just be blissfully unaware.

Take a look at many Middle Eastern and other Muslim countries, where women do not have the rights we take for granted. We used to be there too.

"Ohhh, feminists? Those stern, hairy-legged, serious, unsmiling, unfeminine women? (*cough* lesbians *cough*) Oh no, I am not one of those!"

 

[SEASONEDpolyAgain]

"It doesn't automatically challenge or dismantle patriarchal structures or systems of oppression. It doesn't inherently address broad issues of gender inequality or power dynamics within relationships. Unequal distribution of emotional labor, domestic responsibilities, or decision-making power is still common. Poly does nothing to specifically target and deconstruct the notion that women should be nurturing and accommodating regardless of whether multiple partners are involved."

If we go back to these standards helpfully listed by @Inaniel, I dont see how just being polyamorous (even equally open on both sides) meets that.

You have to actually do things that challenge the norm which I suppose poly people have somewhat more motivation to do. Dad/Husband has to be able to handle dinner, bath, bedtime for the kids so Mum/Wife can date, too. That doesnt automatically happen as a result of being poly though. Even though more dads are "hands on", I dont think thats associated with polyamory as such.


I think being openly poly is another thing. If you present to the world as a monogamous couple, you arent really challenging ideas about female sexuality or anything like that.

 

[LoveBunny]

I don't think polyamory is feminist, either, even well-done polyamory. I think it's a relationship structure or identity that feminist humans may be more likely to embrace than non-feminist humans,

@Magdlyn responded: Any why would they? Why is it more attractive to feminists?

Because we've been brainwashed to believe monogamy=patriarchy because the patriarchy weaponized monogamy into a form of slavery.

But, I'd argue, monogamy is NOT inherently anti-feminist any more than poly IS inherently feminist.

@Inaniel: If we can say well-done polyamory empowers women; can we also say well-done monogamy empowers women?

YES!!! Yes, I believe we can.

Ok, take a typical "vee," situation, which can easily create a power imbalance where a hinge can, intentionally or not, pit his/her/their two partners against each other in a contest as to who can be the least demanding. We've all seen it here: Is your nesting partner bugging you to participate more in the relationship? Well, over there is someone you can go spend time with who is just happy to see you, because you're still new & shiny to them! Got a spouse who is stressed out from doing too much domestic work? Why listen to them nagging when you can just go off for a sexy weekend with your partner who doesn't have kids!

I realize all genders can & do act this way. But, as pointed out previously, women less often have the luxury because they're struggling to close the pay gap while saddled with more child & eldercare responsibilities, etc...

When men already have more power in society, a male hinge to two females carries an uncomfortable amount of power.

This is all personal, subjective stuff I'm about to say, but I never felt less feminist than when I let myself get talked into sharing my live-in male partner with another monogamously-minded female. As per society, he already had more power, plus he made more $$ than both of us put together, plus I was sexually submissive to him (with enthusiastic consent,) & though he had kids (neither of us women did,) he never had to care for his offspring thanks to his ex-wife. I personally had zero desire to take on another partner, but I did. I took another man into my bed in an attempt to not feel completely marginalized within my own relationship. My secondary lover happened to be an even wealthier married white man, & I suspected that man's wife wasn't thrilled with being poly, but he made the good money that let her not work & travel, they had kids together, so she learned to be ok ....

I also felt a gender-equality imbalance when I was very young & in a triad. Technically, my girlfriend was our hinge, but I had sex with the man too. Yet everywhere the 3 of us went together, he got clapped on the back as "the lucky one," & it was assumed that we women were jostling for position with him; he had the $$$, the nice loft we lived in, we girls couldn't afford anything nearly as nice. Because my bi girlfriend enjoyed her heterosexual privilege (and/or she loved him more than me,) the whole "throuple" often ended up swinging towards his preferences & desires, because she was always trying to please him while I was always trying to please her. We quickly went from an equal triad to them being primary, me secondary. My desires were least important in that triad.

So I'm noticing $$$ plays into this. People with more $$$ have more power, & more often, the people with more $$$ are (white) men. In fact, thinking of the people I've dated who either didn't make a lot of $$$, or who were POC's, or strictly lesbians, or any other marginalized group....I can only think of one who was poly, but he was a celebrity with $$$ who hid his bisexuality on the down-low. If poly were truly a tool to end oppression, why does it seem so attractive to well-off white folk? Perhaps nothing can be truly equal in a capitalist society where systematic racism/misogyny has kept entire groups of people poor.

I also admit when I've been dating multiple men, I felt powerful.

When I've shared my bisexual boyfriends with my gay-guy besties, I also felt powerful, probably because I was enjoying my heterosexual priviledge.

When I briefly was a hinge to my husband & my solo-poly girlfriend, that also felt powerful, but also my husband was monogamous to me, while the girlfriend had a couple boyfriends.

I should mention I DID feel power imbalance when I was monogamous to my exhusband, but that was because he brought little effort to the r'ship, figuring his bigger-than-mine paycheck was enough.

Strangely, I feel extremely equal & powerful in my current monogamous, D/s dynamic, though he does make somewhat more $$ than me. Perhaps because he is not interested in splitting his resources with anyone but me. And I realize as I say it, when I say "resources" I don't just mean $$$, but also time, energy & EFFORT. My voice in this relationship is heard & my desires matter.

 

[Magdlyn]

"It doesn't automatically challenge or dismantle patriarchal structures or systems of oppression.

I disagree. As soon as a woman is allowed/encourage/celebrated to openly have more than one partner, especially male partners, that part of the patriarchy, the ownership of women's bodies and sexuality, is automatically being challenged and dismantled.

It doesn't inherently address broad issues of gender inequality or power dynamics within relationships. Unequal distribution of emotional labor, domestic responsibilities, or decision-making power is still common. Poly does nothing to specifically target and deconstruct the notion that women should be nurturing and accommodating, regardless of whether multiple partners are involved."

I am not saying polyamory, heterosexual MF poly, cures sexism. I am saying it is part of feminism, an outgrowth of the ideals of feminism. It automatically guarantees that women have more autonomy. (Again, I am talking actual polyamory, not FMF, polygyny.)

Those other areas will still need to be addressed.

If we go back to these standards helpfully listed by @Inaniel, I dont see how just being polyamorous (even equally open on both sides) meets that.

You have to actually do things that challenge the norm, which I suppose poly people have somewhat more motivation to do. Dad/Husband has to be able to handle dinner, bath, bedtime for the kids so Mum/Wife can date, too. That doesn't automatically happen as a result of being poly though. Even though more dads are "hands on", I don't think that's associated with polyamory as such.

I think as men are expected to do more traditionally "feminine" chores, such as cooking, cleaning, childcare, taking kids to appointments and after school activities, and actually learning to deal with their emotions, and women are able to do more traditionally "masculine" things, such as driving cars, working longer hours at a real career, wearing pants and flat-soled comfortable shoes, working out at a gym, etc., it makes people more open to ENM. It's kind of a feedback loop.

Again, polyamory doesn't define or fix sexism. It is part of feminism. I am not sure how to make this more clear.

I think being openly poly is another thing. If you present to the world as a monogamous couple, you aren't really challenging ideas about female sexuality or anything like that.

True. You are also not helping men, who might remain ashamed of "sharing their woman," and being thought to be weak, a cuckold.

 

[SEASONEDpolyAgain]

As soon as a woman is allowed/encourage/celebrated to openly have more than one partner, especially male partners, that part of the patriarchy, the ownership of women's bodies and sexuality, is automatically being challenged and dismantled.

Or she just ends up sexually serving two men with little reciprocation (orgasm gap). So she has to find sexual partners who are cognizent of this imbalance. Not just poly men. Brb battery

 

[SEASONEDpolyAgain]

It is part of feminism.

I think I and some others disagree.

Look, if you take a married couple, where both work full-time but like most married couples, the woman does most of the labour. Especially when it comes to looking after dependents. You factor in that women earn less than men so the women in polyamory are generally at a financial disadvantage and need to be at least partially carried by their male partner(s). They can rarely carry anyone. So the wife in this situation does more work, and earns less.

If this couple sit down and make an agreement that both parties are free from that moment to seek out new intimate relationships with other people, it doesnt automatically mean that the barriers that the woman has (in and outside of her marriage) that prevent her from developing such relationships will disappear.

She still has less money to date.

She still is at increased risk of negative stigma

She still lacks time and energy through the unequal labour issue at home.

To correct those things, both parties have to continue or start what I will term "feminist actions". The husband has to think about making sure they have equal leisure money, time and energy and they have to construct their lifestyle in a way that actually allows her the freedom to act on this new agreement.

It doesnt just come from agreeing that you are poly or will have a poly relationship. So the "feminist" actions have to happen alongside the agreement for your poly to promote feminist ideals and vitally, you can promote them while being mono or even as a single co-parent. That is why I dont see them as associated.

the ownership of women's bodies and sexuality, is automatically being challenged

This suggests that poly women are automatically having uncoerced, enjoyable sex with their poly partners. I dont think they are. Being poly doesnt erase the issues between couples when it comes to feeling obliged to have sex or even sexual abuse.

 

[Magdlyn]

@Magdlyn responded: Any why would they? Why is it more attractive to feminists?

Because we've been brainwashed to believe monogamy=patriarchy, because the patriarchy weaponized monogamy into a form of slavery.

But, I'd argue, monogamy is NOT inherently anti-feminist any more than poly IS inherently feminist.

I'm glad you took the time to post again, LoveBunny! Your personal detailed stories have really helped bring nuance to the subject.

It's true, the patriarchy and "civilization" have suppressed women's rights, marginalized groups, caused extreme stratification of society.

I've been thinking about that a lot since we started this conversation. Also, I just went to an Iroquois Museum last weekend and got more information about how a non-Christian, non-European society was structured around government and gender roles. I don't know enough about this; I am just digging into it. But my understanding is that men and women held equal power despite having roles in different parts of society.

Anthropologists also point out that the indigenous Americans didn't have a Neolithic period that was identical to the late Stone Age in Europe/the Middle East. There were differences in crops, what kinds, how they were grown, and animal husbandry (there were no herds of cattle or goats in the Americas, wild game was the focus for meat, except for turkeys, apparently), and metallurgy (there was none, except a little copper in one small area), which made for a less stratified society. Also, generally speaking (and I'm a newbie, so if anyone knows differently, please share), there was also much less of a focus on ownership of things, be it land, or animals, or people, children or mates. This, to me, seems healthier for a society.

So, in a more egalitarian society, I could see either a form of monogamy, or promiscuity of some sort, being equally fair and empowering for any gender.

@Inaniel: If we can say well-done polyamory empowers women; can we also say well-done monogamy empowers women?

YES!!! Yes, I believe we can.

Ok, take a typical "vee," situation, which can easily create a power imbalance where a hinge can, intentionally or not, pit his/her/their two partners against each other in a contest as to who can be the least demanding. We've all seen it here: Is your nesting partner bugging you to participate more in the relationship? Well, over there is someone you can go spend time with who is just happy to see you, because you're still new & shiny to them! Got a spouse who is stressed out from doing too much domestic work? Why listen to them nagging when you can just go off for a sexy weekend with your partner who doesn't have kids!

I realize all genders can & do act this way. But, as pointed out previously, women less often have the luxury because they're struggling to close the pay gap while saddled with more child & eldercare responsibilities, etc...

When men already have more power in society, a male hinge to two females carries an uncomfortable amount of power.

Yes, this is something I just pointed out above, I believe. FMF polyamory, which is basically polygyny, can be unempowering to women because the male hinge has access to two sex partners, and probably makes more money than either woman. He may well be out working, while the women are kept home raising babies, cooking for the man and the kids, cleaning the house, doing his laundry, packing his lunches, etc. Now, they may enjoy staying at home. Or one or both may work outside the home. And maybe there are no kids involved.

There can be a difference between poly being practiced in a FMF V model, when the partners are all of child-bearing ages and raising kids vs a FMF V that is composed of older people who don't have kids, or have adult kids. That would definitely level the playing field, right?

This is all personal, subjective stuff I'm about to say, but I never felt less feminist than when I let myself get talked into sharing my live-in male partner with another monogamously-minded female. As per society, he already had more power, plus he made more $$ than both of us put together, plus I was sexually submissive to him (with enthusiastic consent,) & though he had kids (neither of us women did,) he never had to care for his offspring thanks to his ex-wife. I personally had zero desire to take on another partner, but I did. I took another man into my bed in an attempt to not feel completely marginalized within my own relationship. My secondary lover happened to be an even wealthier married white man, & I suspected that man's wife wasn't thrilled with being poly, but he made the good money that let her not work & travel, they had kids together, so she learned to be ok ....

I also felt a gender-equality imbalance when I was very young & in a triad. Technically, my girlfriend was our hinge, but I had sex with the man too. Yet everywhere the 3 of us went together, he got clapped on the back as "the lucky one," & it was assumed that we women were jostling for position with him; he had the $$$, the nice loft we lived in, we girls couldn't afford anything nearly as nice. Because my bi girlfriend enjoyed her heterosexual privilege (and/or she loved him more than me,) the whole "throuple" often ended up swinging towards his preferences & desires, because she was always trying to please him while I was always trying to please her. We quickly went from an equal triad to them being primary, me secondary. My desires were least important in that triad.

So I'm noticing $$$ plays into this. People with more $$$ have more power, & more often, the people with more $$$ are (white) men. In fact, thinking of the people I've dated who either didn't make a lot of $$$, or who were POC's, or strictly lesbians, or any other marginalized group....I can only think of one who was poly, but he was a celebrity with $$$ who hid his bisexuality on the down-low. If poly were truly a tool to end oppression, why does it seem so attractive to well-off white folk? Perhaps nothing can be truly equal in a capitalist society where systematic racism/misogyny has kept entire groups of people poor.

These are all very good points.

I also admit when I've been dating multiple men, I felt powerful.

Yes. It's different than being in a FMF V or triad! This is interesting. Thanks.

When I've shared my bisexual boyfriends with my gay-guy besties, I also felt powerful, probably because I was enjoying my heterosexual privilege.

When I briefly was a hinge to my husband & my solo-poly girlfriend, that also felt powerful, but also my husband was monogamous to me, while the girlfriend had a couple boyfriends.

So you and the woman didn't feel highly competitive. You weren't enemies. You didn't feel defensive.

I should mention I DID feel power imbalance when I was monogamous to my ex-husband, but that was because he brought little effort to the r'ship, figuring his bigger-than-mine paycheck was enough.

Strangely, I feel extremely equal & powerful in my current monogamous, D/s dynamic, though he does make somewhat more $$ than me. Perhaps because he is not interested in splitting his resources with anyone but me. And I realize as I say it, when I say "resources" I don't just mean $$$, but also time, energy & EFFORT. My voice in this relationship is heard & my desires matter.

I can see that after all your struggles with balancing power in your past, monogamy seems more restful. I come from a 30+ year monogamous MF relationship/marriage, where I was a feminist, and bi/pansexual, and capable of loving more than one. But I made the choice to be mono. I ended up in a fairly traditional role. I love children, I love to cook, I love to be in my own domestic environment, gardening, decorating, baking, doing art, I homeschooled our kids, I did volunteer work. I breastfed, I was a stay-at-home mom for part of the marriage. Or I worked part time outside the home.

It was a good life that suited me in many ways. But my husband took advantage of me. He refused to cook, clean, do laundry, do much with the kids except play with them. Like you mentioned, he seemed to think his big paycheck was enough.

So, once the kids were pretty much grown, I left him and started my poly life. He got a gf too but she doesn't do as much for him domestically as I did. He has had to learn to cook, clean, etc., for himself. ha

And I got to date women and men and share household things MUCH more equally and eventually end up with 2 partners who pretty much meet all my needs and respect me a helluva lot more than my ex-h ever did. So, I feel empowered. I had to empower myself through therapy to leave my financially comfortable mono marriage and strike out on my own finally, at 53.

 

[Magdlyn]

Or she just ends up sexually serving two men with little reciprocation (orgasm gap). So she has to find sexual partners who are cognizent of this imbalance. Not just poly men. Brb battery

This is an excellent point, and I think marks the difference between the "free love" movement of the 1960s and the expectations people have for polyamory today, as shown here, in 21st century books on poly, on poly podcasts, etc. I have definitely read words written by women (hippies) who were in that movement in the '60s and '70s, and found it was more empowering for men than women. Men could go from woman to woman like a bee to flowers, and the women would get fucked and then left, often pregnant. That wave of feminism had not addressed adequately how women were expected to do the brunt the domestic and child-rearing chores either. Again, I want to address modern 21st century poly, not 1960s "free love." I mean, the '60s were cool, they were an idealistic time. But they got some things wrong.

Polyamory as reflected in say, the book Opening Up, is not reflected in mainstream media, however. Mainstream media, fiction, or documentaries about sex clubs or cults, do not reflect the modern polyamory movement accurately. It is designed to titillate (men), and sell ad revenue. Unfortunately people come here, men and women and other genders, thinking that FMF triads ARE what polyamory IS. And we try to disabuse them of this concept.

 

[Inaniel]

@Mags

You keep referring to FMF as polygyny. I don't know if that's meant to be a slight or if I'm just being sensitive. Regardless, I think the statement "FMF = Polygyny not polyamory" both narrows the definition of polyamory and broadens the definition of polygyny.

When I describe my polyship as FMF, it is from my perspective as the hinge. It does not infer anything about my partner’s sexual autonomy.
I don't keep up with Bird's orbit; that would be exhausting, and I don't care to. Her orbit is her business. My poly experience is FMF because I cohabitate with two women. Both of my partners refer to themselves as feminists; Bird is LGBTQ+ and Daisy out earns me by 50%. My polyship does NOT represent traditional patriarchal plural marriage practices.

There are a million reasons why a relationship configuration might look the way it does. And I think making broad statements reducing "real poly" to three simple letters makes an already exclusive community even more exclusionary.

The debate is becoming a bit repetitive, so I'll summarize my final thoughts:

Voices advocating for feminist principles in “modern” Polyamory do not eradicate all of the poly relationships you personally find to be invalid. Triads, MFM, OPPs (you know... the dark side of polyamory). They are real people in real relationships, all of which fall under the umbrella term of polyamory, and they are all a valid representation of polyamory regardless of whether they represent the specific values of polyamory.com or choose to participate here.

I think we have established that polyamory can empower women, and that polyamory can also be suppressive for women. If the average of the two extremes is a sliver of conditional sexual autonomy; is it a feminist movement? Hardly in my opinion, if at all.

 

[ref2018]

regardless of whether they represent the specific values of polyamory.com or choose to participate here.

There are no "specific values of polyamory.com." Polyamory.com is a website and is not capable of having "specific values" of its own. The moderators here are also real people and their personal views and opinions would not constitute "specific values of polyamory.com" even if such a thing did exist. The closest thing that comes to "specific values of polyamory.com" can be found here:

https://polyamory.com/forums/user-guidelines-forum-features.23/

This is just a discussion. It is not intended to establish the "specific values of polyamory.com."

 

[Inaniel]

There are no "specific values of polyamory.com." Polyamory.com is a website and is not capable of having "specific values" of its own. The moderators here are also real people and their personal views and opinions would not constitute "specific values of polyamory.com" even if such a thing did exist. The closest thing that comes to "specific values of polyamory.com" can be found here:

https://polyamory.com/forums/user-guidelines-forum-features.23/

This is just a discussion. It is not intended to establish the "specific values of polyamory.com."

I believe that online forums can develop a distinct culture. Regular users establish unwritten rules and norms that subtly govern behavior. The reactions of regular users to posts, including simple actions like likes/dislikes and tone, can create feedback loops that reinforce certain expressions while discouraging others.

'Values' wasn't the best word choice. What I am trying to convey is the userbase at polyamory.com may not accurately represent the broader polyamory community. As in the representation of relationship models on this website may not scale to the broader community 1:1.

I know this is becoming a rant but we have all experienced how social media operates on algorithmic content recommendations tailored to our preferences, right?. (not this website, but social media platforms in general). So, when I search for 'throuple” on instagram a million poly triads flood my feed (and now throuples are going to be in my feed for the next month!) If I didn't know better, I might assume that throuples represent the “modern polyamory movement” because that's mostly what the algorithm will show me.

I bring this up to challenge notions like 'real polyamory' and 'modern polyamory.' When such statements are made, my immediate reaction is to ask: Says who? Who has the authority to define that? I do not think such observations are representative of the entire community, I think it is the result of only exposing oneself to a specific reference group within the poly community or outright refusing to recognize entire groups within the poly community. I don't know how else to interpret statements like that.

 

[Evie]

Here, our regular users very frequently refer new users who come here seeking advice to resources from across the web. There is a sticky of articles that is available for anyone to add to.

Nothing is ever representative of the entire community, and certainly not our corner of the web. Of course we don't have every relationship model here. Furthermore, noone here is representative even of our subset of the community or speaks for all of us. Dear god, that's why we argue so much amongst ourselves and why this thread even exists.

As for likes on posts shaping culture, that's the current incarnation if the internet. Again, of course it happens here, but it also shifts from day to day, week to week, month to month.

Our culture has shifted a lot in the time I have been here because we are very good at listening to the experiences of new members and integrating their knowledge rather than negating it. Admittedly, there are some exceptions at the moment (refer: polyamory with AI thread) but I suspect even that is not universal or permanent.

Debates over terms like "the modern polyamory movement" are just that, debates. And as a Xennial, I recognise that there IS a modern polyamory movement compared to the the lived experiences of the Boomers and that the GenZs and Alphas - when they are ready (both of whom are largely on TikTok, not here) - will experience something different, and more "modern", again compared to my lived experience.

To my mind, modern polyamory is evolving. It's indefinable, and poorly described due to the appalling research surveys out there.

I reiterate that there are no specific values of polyamory.com outside of the user guidelines and infractions table (which mods haven't used in a very long time).

 

[SEASONEDpolyAgain]

I do think the no true Scotsman fallacy has crept in here as it often does with similar debates. We can't just keep "polyamory" for the relationship styles we agree with.

The problem is that the E in ENM makes one believe they have to find a relationship ethical before it can count as polyamory.

 

[SEASONEDpolyAgain]

On the topic of poly literature, I do think that a lot of the literature poly forums direct users to is written from the perspective of a poly woman/femme trying to maximise their automony in relationships with poly cis men who may already be partnered.

I do think this exacerabates the issue of "feminism" only applying to the newer female partner while further trapping existing partners into the negative aspects of the wife/mom role. Even the wife is reading things that says she has to make space for her husband's new partners.