terminology: words, phrases, & all that crap

[Ravenscroft]

There's plenty of glossaries & FAQs roaming the land (some better than others), but maybe having something local & with room for input would be good.
________________

First up: Yes, we are well aware that "polyamory" is a bastard word. Seems like someone has to raise THAT foul shade a few times a year, & it oughta be appropriately dealt with.
________________

And even polyamory causes misunderstandings. There's the "polyamory" that includes open relationships & polyfidelity & casual sexual relationships, then there's the "polyamory" subset that indicates open-ended intimacy that's a webwork of ongoing relationships in an atmosphere of openness & honesty with maximal communication, rather than a variant or expansion of marriage & monogamy-as-practiced.
________________

Yes, it sometimes seems unfair to dun someone for not knowing the differences implied in triad versus vee. Who says we have to be logical? Sometimes it's best to just stack the bricks & keep moving.

I think I started that mess like 1984 or so, in an article in PEPtalk (later renamed Loving More). We had "dyad" to mean "relational couple," & "triad" had already been floated at least as far back as 1967 (David Crosby), & someone used "quad" in discussing a polyfidelitous group marriage of two preexisting couples.

But I was trying to break down preconceptions, as I felt these inherently limited discussion & in the long run maintained a degree of confusion. Like, if a closed four is a quad, what's an open four? Our swinger friends referred to the "king triad" (fmf) & "queen triad" (mfm), but this seemed to inherently imply little connection between the "ends," being kinda heterocentric, & our growing community had a strong bisexual element.

The best we could come up with was "triad" versus "trine," in order to leave the former with polyfidelity (at the time the dominant thought-leader, because of Kerista & PEP). The latter was intended to indicate dyadic bonds all around, but it didn't catch on.
________________

I'm not a fan of poly-curious. Yes, it might be useful to indicate a "leaning." However, I've had situations where a "curious" person decided that "it's all the same, right?" & started pronouncing as to how people in years-long poly relationships were doing it wrong. So, call me wary...
________________

Another problem with polyamorous: is it a practice, or a philosophy, or does it need to be both?

Many men have at some point had positive sexual experience (as a late teen or adult) with someone of their own gender, & this has been true for... well, always. (Kinsey said it's as high as one-in-four, & that was written in 1948 from earlier research.) Yet we don't assume they are gay.

The Klein grid takes the Kinsey scale of homosexuality (0-6) & makes it two-dimensional:

• sexual attraction
• sexual behavior
• sexual fantasies
• emotional preference
• social preference
• lifestyle preference
• self-identification

He went on to divide this on a third dimension, into actual experience, current practice, & future intentions.

I remember reading the "personals" ads in the late 1970s, when "being bi" became a fad. The columns became loaded with "bi M looking for 2 bi F" ads. Then AIDS happened, & the fad suddenly collapsed.

Now, I am notnotNOT advocating for deciding that someone is "more poly" than someone else, much less that experience makes us somehow "better" (much less smarter).

Polyamory is inclusive, & this grid should maybe make us aware of the huge range of possible flavours & nuances. It's a great exercise for self-awareness, & for parsing out the desires of our intimates. But the downside of inclusivity is that "poly" easily becomes a catch-all term with lots of frayed edges & it's too easy to start adding in "almosts" that stray quite far from ideal polyamory.

 

[nycindie]

Our Glossary thread is here: Glossary and Definitions

 

[Ravenscroft]

Sorry -- forgot to put that link in. But it WAS on my mind when I started this thread.

Hmm. Is someone gonna clean that thing up someday? Nine pages of additions & banter is a lot to go through in hopes of finding a definition, when Google is right there.
________________

For instance, defining "fidelity" as "being faithful" is pretty much useless... especially as "faithful" is NOT defined in the Glossary.

The Oxford says that latter is "loyal, constant, and steadfast."

And nobody puts it in context of relationships, much less marriage & all that guff.

Those were among the first words we parsed to death. I mean, how does loving more than one person countervail loyalty & support? How is it that "polyfidelity" can so easily claim these factors & deny them to all other nonmonogamous relating?

What both buzzwords mean in practice is "no outside nookie," with common implcations that there won't ever be any vague interest at all in someone other than The Spouse.
________________

Q -- Why start this thread?
A -- The Glossary definition of "polyamory." #1 is the overarching poly, #3 is the subset poly.

Also, I dislike the Merriam-Webster "more than one open romantic relationship at a time," which slips the word "open" (a component of the subset version) into the superset. Contrast with Oxford: "being in love or romantically involved with more than one person at the same time."

The superset might better be referred to as ethical nonmonogamy, though (a) it's not trendy, & (b) it's clunky. In any case, the Glossary don't got it.

An older Oxford still widely cited says poly is "the practice of engaging in multiple sexual relationships with the consent of all the people involved." IME, there's polyfolk who prefer to gloss completely over the sex part, either because they ain't as sex-positive as they say or because they don't want to be seen as sex-crazed stereotype swingers.

What's wrong with a sex-laden relationship with a beloved close friend? Yet in both dictionaries, all sex has been replaced with Romance... also not in the Glossary in any conjugation.
________________

And for as often as the word is slathered around, I have yet to find the Glossary entry for love.

 

[nycindie]

Nine pages of additions & banter is a lot to go through in hopes of finding a definition . . .

It's only two pages for me, because I set my options to view 50 posts per page. That makes reading long threads much easier. We can even set our viewing option to 100 posts per page.

For instance, defining "fidelity" as "being faithful" is pretty much useless... especially as "faithful" is NOT defined in the Glossary.

The Oxford says that latter is "loyal, constant, and steadfast."

And nobody puts it in context of relationships, much less marriage & all that guff.

Well, it is user-contributed, just like Wikipedia, and isn't perfect. We don't have a Glossary Committee. People found definitions where they could and added them. Wouldn't that make our Glossary "something local & with room for input?"

What is considered on-topic for discussing polyamory on these forums is described here in our Guidelines: http://www.polyamory.com/forum/showpost.php?p=16420&postcount=1.

I don't know exactly who wrote the part of our Guidelines that defines polyamory, as it was written before I discovered this site and way before I became a Moderator, but I suppose it was a collaboration between the people moderating back then (2009) and Olivier, the site owner.

 

[kdt26417]

My definitions are (as of this moment):

• Polyamory = "the state of being, or the ability and/or inclination to be, in a romantically-connected group of more than two adults, with the full knowledge and consent of all the adults in the group."
• Polyamorous = "practicing, inclined toward, or having to do with, polyamory."
• Polyamorist = "one who is practicing, or who is inclined toward, polyamory."
• Poly = "polyamory, polyamorous, or polyamorist."

I use "romantically" because I can love a rainbow, I can love my dog, I can be in a loving relationship with my parents, siblings, or close friends. "Polyamory" is more specialized than that, it needs something that sets it apart from any other kind of love. I would use "sexually" as well but I'm trying to make room for asexual polyamory.

 

[Spork]

My definitions are (as of this moment):

• Polyamory = "the state of being, or the ability and/or inclination to be, in a romantically-connected group of more than two adults, with the full knowledge and consent of all the adults in the group."
• Polyamorous = "practicing, inclined toward, or having to do with, polyamory."
• Polyamorist = "one who is practicing, or who is inclined toward, polyamory."
• Poly = "polyamory, polyamorous, or polyamorist."

I use "romantically" because I can love a rainbow, I can love my dog, I can be in a loving relationship with my parents, siblings, or close friends. "Polyamory" is more specialized than that, it needs something that sets it apart from any other kind of love. I would use "sexually" as well but I'm trying to make room for asexual polyamory.

I agree with your use of "romantically." Because personally, I don't feel that swingers, or even players who are just having sex with multiple partners with no relationship intent, are doing polyamory. I feel that they fall under the same umbrella of "ethical non-monogamy" or "consensual non-monogamy" where they stand cheek by jowl with poly folks. But it's not quite the same.

 

[Ravenscroft]

dissent

My definitions are

A really good definition. But (for me, anyway) what separates inclusive superset polyamory from clear-defined subset polyamory is the latter's recurring expectation of clear & open communication, self-awareness, empathy, & all THAT stuff. Without that, it feels like you've just got a subgroup of ethical nonmonogamy.

The "romance" part doesn't quite work for me. I was once "involved" with a guy for a year or so, & we shared a LOT, like guitars & music & lovers & some rather good sex. There was inarguably love there. But there was NONE of the long hand-holding walks along River Road or cuddling on the sofa watching TV or staring deeply into each other's eyes at a fancy restaurant.

While I loathe coming across as thin-skinned, it does rankle me a little to find that this could be seen as somehow not "real polyamory." Apologies, but facts is facts.

 

[Spork]

A really good definition. But (for me, anyway) what separates inclusive superset polyamory from clear-defined subset polyamory is the latter's recurring expectation of clear & open communication, self-awareness, empathy, & all THAT stuff. Without that, it feels like you've just got a subgroup of ethical nonmonogamy.

The "romance" part doesn't quite work for me. I was once "involved" with a guy for a year or so, & we shared a LOT, like guitars & music & lovers & some rather good sex. There was inarguably love there. But there was NONE of the long hand-holding walks along River Road or cuddling on the sofa watching TV or staring deeply into each other's eyes at a fancy restaurant.

While I loathe coming across as thin-skinned, it does rankle me a little to find that this could be seen as somehow not "real polyamory." Apologies, but facts is facts.

I think there could also be some disconnect in interpretation of the word "romance." I see romance and romantic interaction as being loving-emotions-plus-sex...like what you describe, enjoying each other's company and having a meaningful connection, as well as intimate physical contact or desire, is romance/romantic to me. One need not check off the "flowers, candy, walks on the beach, fancy restaurant eye-staring" boxes in my opinion. One need also not be doing escalator stuff or trying to pair-bond.

It's a means to differentiate that kind of love, from the love you might have for family members, and friends.

But that's just my opinion.

 

[nycindie]

And then there is "Not quite poly: lovers & friends w/ benefits . . ."

 

[kdt26417]

For what it's worth, I don't think that long hand-holding walks along River Road or cuddling on the sofa watching TV or staring deeply into each other's eyes at a fancy restaurant are necessary/definitive components of romance. In my definition of poly, I say "romantic" merely to indicate a feeling or a state of mind. There's plenty of ways people can demonstrate this feeling or state of mind, including declining to demonstrate it at all. Ultimately, only the people in a romantic relationship are qualified to call it romantic, and they can decide the reasons.

Of course not everyone will agree with my depiction of romance. I don't purport to define polyamory (and romance) in such a way as to get universal agreement. Indeed I think it's impossible to get universal agreement, on anything but especially on word definitions. I hope to define things in such a way as to get the most agreement possible, but I don't know how much agreement that is. Those who disagree are welcome to say so, and to explain why they disagree if they feel so inclined. If in the course of that discussion I see need/reason to adjust my definitions I will. In the meantime I'll just try to clarify what perspective I am coming from.

 

[Ravenscroft]

And then there is "Not quite poly: lovers & friends w/ benefits . . ."

... which is definitely "superset polyamory."

It's not a terrible discussion, btw. However, it falls short of the mark. The first post clearly states the root assumption that "polyamory" = "committed life partnership" & therefore seems to say that ANY intimacy without a Lifetime Guarantee ain't "real polyamory."



So it kinda looks like there's no such thing as single poly...?

(At the very least, by the thread's premise, it's "not REALLY polyamory." )
________________

As for JW & me, it looks like misassumptions might be creeping into the thread. Publicly (especially amongst friends), we weren't averse to the occasional kiss, & in passing might get in a brief hug or fanny-pat. It's not like we were hiding PDA; it's simply not how we responded to each other.

Were we "in love"? Dunno -- never occurred to us to worry about it. Was there love? Yep.

If there's gotta be a shorthand label, I'd say lovers, though intimate friend perhaps more accurate.

Now that I think: there was more than once where I'd show up at a gig, spot JW chatting with a woman or three, & when I strolled up he'd look past them, grin, & say, "Hey, lover!" before diving into a hug.
________________

It seems to me that so much of the labelling is along the lines of - "oh - getting together with other couples just for sex isn't poly, poly is more evolved." Or "oh - having sex with some of your friends means you don't love them in the right and proper way. That's open, not poly. Poly is more evolved." Or "oh - you and your partner only have sex with each other. That's monogamy. Poly is more evolved." Or "oh - you don't have sex with anybody. That means you're asexual and not capable of real relationships. Poly is more evolved."

 

[nycindie]

... which is definitely "superset polyamory."

What do you mean and why roll your eyes?

It's not a terrible discussion, btw.

Well, that's big of you.

However, it falls short of the mark. The first post clearly states the root assumption that "polyamory" = "committed life partnership" & therefore seems to say that ANY intimacy without a Lifetime Guarantee ain't "real polyamory."



So it kinda looks like there's no such thing as single poly...?

(At the very least, by the thread's premise, it's "not REALLY polyamory." )

Falls short of what mark? Some standard you think it should meet?

I posted that link here because the thread was started by MeeraReed (a solo) as a complaint about the attitudes people have about what poly "should" be, and because many of us have lives that don't fit into what other people think or believe poly is supposed to be about.

 

[Spork]

Wow...

I just keep right on encountering this notion, in one variant or another.

I just wrote a big ol' thingie about this on my fetlife profile. Somebody in a convo from a while back had said, with regard to my occasional habit of falling in love quickly and wanting to be expressive of it, "I'd think you were crazy if you told me you loved me in the first two weeks. What kind of person knows you for only two weeks and thinks they want to spend the rest of their lives with you."

And when I bumped back into that comment, it hit me like a ton of bricks!

People actually seem to believe that the L-word means an intent to hop on the escalator and ride to the grave with a person! What the crap?? Where is the room for all of us who don't want to do that, at all??

I keep on saying and saying, "My love is not a trap. I don't want to marry, cohabitate, pick out china, have babies, etc." but there still seem to be folks who do not get it, even in poly communities. I swear. Well, to come back around to something kdt26417 said, we can try to bracket in on what some ideas basically mean, so that we can communicate more or less effectively, but we're not always going to agree on everything and that is ok. I just wish that people in lifestyle communities where (in my opinion) we should know better than to apply One True Way-isms to other people's relationships, would get the notion that we're kinda making up the rules as we go.

I mean I see it this way... A person need not do behaviors X, Y, and Z, in order to experience a "romantic" relationship, nor to be experiencing love in a way that is meaningful to them, nor must one ride the escalator to have a "serious" relationship.

Some monofolk don't think that polyfolk have commitment in their relationships.
Some escalator relators don't think that solo poly can have "serious" relationships.
Some people think that poly = sister wives, or swingers, or simply promiscuous or even "greedy."
And some would say that since I don't believe in lifelong commitments in relationships, and I'm not possessive, I don't know how to love or what love is, or that I am not capable of love as they know it.

We can't even agree, really, on the definition of LOVE.

Ultimately I think there's got to be a point where...some general conceptual agreement aside...we need to have an understanding that there's grey area in our individual understanding of various concepts. Your <definition> is not my <definition>...and that's ok.

 

[kdt26417]

Re:

"We can't even agree, really, on the definition of *love.*"

Oh hells yah, love is probably the most contested word in the English language. (Probably other languages too.)