Talk:Polyamory/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between 2003 and May 2005.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Please add new archivals to Talk:Polyamory/Archive02. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. Kit 21:17, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Contents

A Polymory FAQ

FREQUENTLY-ASKED QUESTIONS re Polyamory by The Ravenhearts Oberon@mcn.org

1-Q: Is it correct that you coined the word “polyamory?” If so, in what year did you come up with the term, and how? (Is there a small tale behind the coining of the word? For example, what, if any, were some of the terms you initially considered, and why did you subsequently abandon them?)

1-A: It was our senior wife, Morning Glory, who officially coined the terms “polyamory” and “polyamorous.” This was in an article she wrote for our Church magazine, Green Egg, which was published in the May, 1990 issue. The article was titled “A Bouquet of Lovers,” and it was written in response to a request from our third partner/wife of the time, Diane. Morning Glory was always referring to “The Rules” of such relationships, and Diane, who was at the time Editor of the magazine, asked her to set them down in writing so everyone would know what they were.

During the process of composing the article, Morning Glory needed a simple term to express the idea of having multiple simultaneous sexual/loving relationships without necessarily marrying everyone. This sounds so obvious, but strangely, there had never been any such word. Since “monogamy” means, literally, “marriage to one,” the obvious corollary would seem to be “polygamy,” meaning “marriage to many.” But people can be very sloppy in their use of the language, and they often use the word “monogamy” even to refer to steady dating, which might be more properly described as “monamory” (“love of one” –Oberon’s term).

Other people had tried to tackle this semantic problem before. In the ‘70s, Geo of Kerista coined the useful term “polyfidelity” (“faithful to many”). Polyfidelity actually meant (most of the time) a sexually fidelitous group marriage of co-equals—all equally bonded to each other member. The specific social contract that defined any particular “polyfi” group marriage could vary on all other variables, but not these points. (In Kerista, this also meant equitable rotational sleeping schedules, and no same-sex lovemaking--all set down in a book of 86 elaborate rules.) These days many people who find loyalty to their group marriage a key shared value still use the term polyfidelity, but with this altered definition.

In the mid-‘80s, Darca Nicholsen coined the term “omnigamy,” which means, literally, “marriage to everything.” (We’ve never been sure just what she meant by that, and we haven’t seen this word in use since MG came up with “polyamory.”)

Loving More magazine (first a newsletter, then the magazine) began in 1984 and used the term polyfidelity for those doing that specifically, and “open relationships” or “intimate networks” for those doing other variations of multiple-adult committed relationships. In The Polyfidelity Primer, published in 1989, these terms were defined (and reprinted in Anapol’s Love Without Limits). Loving More started using polyamory as an umbrella term for the wide range of styles of group relating as it became more well-known, mostly via the online poly community.

Around 1990, Deborah Anapol was using the phrases “non-monogamy” and “intimate networks” to describe the idea of having several simultaneous ongoing lover relationships, without requiring exclusivity or commitment. Deborah was one of the first authors to pick up on “polyamory,” and she reprinted Morning Glory’s 1990 article, “A Bouquet of Lovers,” in the first edition of Deborah’s book, Love Without Limits (1992).

Around the same time, Michael Aluna coined the word “panfidelity,” meaning “faithful to all,” which he proceeded to define most eloquently in a series of articles (which we published in Green Egg in 1993-94), in terms very reminiscent of how we have been discussing polyamory.

What we were all trying to come up with was an inclusive term that encompassed ALL forms of multiple love/sex relationships—and, perhaps most importantly, of being the kind of person capable of romantically loving several people simultaneously. We were NOT trying to define another exclusive lifestyle or specific pattern for such relationships, other than to emphasize openness and honesty in their practice. We needed a word that simply meant “having multiple lovers.”

Morning Glory and Oberon had both studied Latin in high school, and know a smattering of Greek as well. When we need to coin words, we naturally look to Greek and Latin roots. However, the Latin for “loving many” would be “multi-amory,” which sounded awkward; and the Greek would be “polyphilia,” which sounded like a disease.

In discussing this whole semantic dilemma, Morning Glory had the brilliant insight to combine both Greek and Latin roots into “poly-amory.” This sounded just perfect. So she used it in the article. And the rest, as they say, is History...

Note:

Other people have coined "polyamory" independently -- it's a fairly obvious coining once you think of the idea of creating a word for it. The most notable and verifiable case is Jennifer Wesp's creation of alt.polyamory in 5/1992.

Cites:

--aahz@pobox.com

2-Q: What, in your view, is the essence of polyamory? How does it differ from swinging?

2-A: Here is Morning Glory’s current definition, which she gave to the Editor of the Oxford English Dictionary (although there is no definition of polyamory included in the OED) when they contacted her in 1999 to enter the term:

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

This term was meant to be inclusive, and in that context, we have never intended to particularly exclude “swinging” per se, if practitioners thereof wished to adopt the term and include themselves. As far as we have understood, swinging specifically does not involve “cheating,” and it certainly does involve having “multiple lovers”! Moreover, we understand from speaking with a few swinging activists that many swingers are closely bonded with their various lovers, as best friends and regular partners.

The two essential ingredients of the concept of “polyamory” are “more than one;” and “loving.” That is, 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. This term is not intended to apply to merely casual recreational sex, anonymous orgies, one-night stands, pick-ups, prostitution, “cheating,” serial monogamy, or the popular definition of swinging as “mate-swapping” parties.

Polyamory is about truthful communication with all concerned parties, loving intent, erotic meeting and inclusivity (as opposed to the exclusivity of monogamy and monamory). On the basis of our own personal friendships with a few participants in the very large, diverse groundswell of human energy sometimes called the “Swinger’s Movement,” many—perhaps most—self-identified “swingers” do seem to fulfill our criteria of being polyamorous.

However, Ryam Nearing of Loving More says: “In all my talks with swingers it seems that the traditional (and most widespread) way of swinging is not polyamory as it is primarily sexual and specifically not relationship oriented. Some swingers and some locals allow for/choose more emotional connection, but they are the exception rather than the rule.”

Terminology

According to this Wiki, the term "polyamory" has not been recognized by the Oxford English Dictionary (OED). However, according to the Guardian, http://www.guardian.co.uk/women/story/0,3604,1085003,00.html (When two just won't do, Friday November 14, 2003):

  The Ravenhearts are devotees of "polyamory", the practice
  of having a romantic relationship with more than one person
  (coined by Morning Glory, the term has now entered the OED).

-- unsigned by 172.148.125.24 (talk · contribs)

Song Lyrics

I don't think that the song lyrics belong in the article. To me, they seem only barely related to the topic. I won't remove them for now, but we might want to think about removing them from this article.

Looks on-topic to me. - Patrick 21:22, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I rather agree about the off-topicness, actually. They make the article seem a bit more like an opinion essay, and add nothing in terms of explaining the concept. - Ian Maxwell, 2004-07-27
In my opinion, the song lyrics should stay. -- Mike Rosoft 09:14, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Also, I don't know what the FAQ excerpt is doing on the talk page. Did it come off the Internet somewhere? Is there some info in it that needs to go in the article (no, I didn't read it all)? —Frecklefoot 14:19, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Definition of 'polyamory'

Where do the connotations of honesty and responsibility enter into 'polyamory'?

The people involved simply don't call a relationship that's not honest and responsible polyamorous. Instead they use words like 'cheating' or 'abusive'. -- smurfix

I believe that
"Polyamory typically consists of having honest, usually non-possessive relationships" in the top paragraph is strongly POV
One can be decidedly polyamorous while being unfaithful to those commitments that you have agreed with one or more partners; one can be decidedly polyamorous while possessive with regard to one or more partners.
In other words, you can 'cheat' and be 'abusive' while polyamorous. They're not mutually exclusive. Mysteronald 23:53, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I see your point - the difference between "supposed to be" and reality. Any better now?
I also modified the bit about "non-possessive" relationships because I'm aware of e.g. D&S-based poly relationships in which possession is a big part of things. Non-possessiveness is a crucial part of some forms of polyamory, but I don't think it's a central part of the definition in the way that multiple partners and informed consent are. --Calair 00:14, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
But what does "non-possessive" actually mean, anyway? Does it add anything to the article? The term seems too ambiguous to be useful to me. --NoUserID 7:05, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
As opposed to a relationship in which participants 'belong to' one another (in which case, multiple partners threaten that 'ownership' by diluting it). I think the concept *ought* to be in the article, since it's a big part of many people's 'philosophy of polyamory', but it probably should be better explained; I'll have a go at this tomorrow. --Calair 11:45, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the changes, I withdraw my dispute. I agree with the above NonUser, though... what exactly do you mean by "non-possessive". Even as you describe it, it wouldn't seem to be an intrinsic part of polyamory, and as such I still don't think it deserves mentioning above the contents. It might be worthy of a 'philosophy of polyamory' section, as you suggest - perhaps it fits into 'Values of Polyamory'.
Within polyamorous relationships - from what I have seen - partners can be highly possessive. Feelings of sexual jealousy in one partner or another are exacerbated by polyamorous agreements - I don't think possessiveness is always diluted. I accept that a general idealism of polyamory may include non-possessiveness, which may warrant some mention in the article. I don't think that should be above the fold, though.Mysteronald 18:23, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Agreed; so far I've been leaving it in the definition out of inertia rather than because I think it should be there. I'll have a stab at it. --Calair 00:52, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Monamory?

Would anyone be offended if I created a stub article monamory and changed the wording of this page accordingly? Monogamy is defined on its page as "[having] only one spouse at a time" and later "having only one sexual partner during an entire lifetime". Not exactly the same thing as having only one romantic/sexual/etc. partner at a time. --Ian Maxwell 12:33, 2004 Sep 17 (UTC)

Never seen the word before. Unless it's in common use, or at the very least, used by experts in the field (what field is this?), I'd avoid creating words like that. As a reference work, we describe the language and culture; we don't create it. grendel|khan 16:57, 2004 Sep 18 (UTC)
Very ditto. I think someone (perhaps me) will have to undo the monamory changes you have done, if you do not do it yourself.--Dittaeva 17:40, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Undone. Sorry. --Ian Maxwell 02:09, 2004 Sep 19 (UTC)
If anything, it would be better to use "serial monogamy" to note the difference between single-partner-for-life and single-partner-at-a-time versions of 'monogamy', with a brief note and pointer on 'monogamy' to the effect that "this term is used for both single-partner-for-life and serial monogamy". No need to invent new words when there's already an expression for this purpose. --Calair 00:02, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)


In the navy...

Is what this section describes really polyamory? I know the term is a fuzzily-defined one, but it seems to be generally agreed that polyamory doesn't just mean having multiple sexual partners, but also an emotional relationship based on *acceptance* of multiple romantic relationships, and this section seems to be describing a sexual arrangement.

"When their ship returns to its home port, the married members (both male and female) go back to their land-based spouses, act in an exclusive way in regards to them, and pretend nothing happened out at sea and expect their sea lovers to act likewise. When their ship sails out again, the polygamy relationships start up again as they were before" - most polyamorists of my acquaintance would call this not 'polyamory' but 'cheating'.

Remembering that Wikipedia's role is to describe usage, not create it - *are* such relationships commonly referred to as "polyamory"? If so, it merits discussion here (along with acknowledgement of the conflicts with 'mainstream' polyamory); if not, it should be moved to another page. --Calair 12:55, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

--

While most (but not all) land-based partners are in the dark as to the multiple ship-based sexual relationships, members of that ship's crew are not. Due to the confined living quarters on navy ships, everyone knows everyone else's business and who's doing who on the ship. The male ship-based partners know of the other male ship-based partners and accept this as a condition of their relationship with the primary woman. If they don't accept it, the woman simply drops them. The ship-based relationships described in the segment are semi-exclusive in that once they're established, they tend to remain that way for long periods of time, up to and including their entire tour of duty shared by both on that ship. Ask any sailor that has served on a sea-going navy ship that has women onboard and you'll hear about these relationships. Navies do not like publicizing this fact due to fears of negative press and public reaction thus actively do not try to collect data on such relationships. However, ever so often, information that points to it does get out about the sexual environment on ships as illustrated by USS "Love Boat" Acadia during the first Gulf War. Another thing you need to realize is that sailors view their ships as separate worlds and thus how they can view what goes on the ship as something not connected to their land-based lives and not something not to be discussed off the ship (a spin on the Las Vegas motto: "What happens in Las Vegas, stays in Las Vegas").

There's a saying: 'polyamory is not polyfuckery'. So far, AFAICT, what we're talking about here is a chiefly sexual arrangement; is there a significant *non*-sexual angle to these relationships?
I don't mean to play "my alternative lifestyle is better than your alternative lifestyle" here; what makes people happy and doesn't hurt anybody is fine with me. But there seems to be a general consensus that it takes more than sex to make polyamory - swinging, for instance, isn't automatically recognised as polyamory, even when it's a long-standing arrangement. If these naval arrangements do typically go beyond sex, that needs elaboration. If they don't, then this might be better described as "a related phenomenon" than "polyamory and the modern navy". --Calair 22:53, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

--

You're assuming that they only have sex in the quarters and never talk. Note in my description the couples normally spend the night in one or the other's quarters. You're also assuming that the women only choose their male sex partners solely on how they perform in bed.

I made no such assumptions. I pointed out that as the section stands, it gives quite a bit of information about the sexual side of these relationships and precious little else. Having never served in the navy, all I can judge it on is what it says, and it doesn't say much beyond the sex. --Calair 07:11, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
So you're saying a platonic relationship can be considered part of a polyamory relationship?
I'm saying that by established usage, the 'amory' part of 'polyamory' is not satisfied simply by sex; love without sex has a better claim to 'polyamory' than does sex without love. As a very simple test, would the partners involved be likely to tell one another "I love you"? --Calair 22:40, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
This is now just getting ridiculous.
The word 'polyamory' is specifically constructed to communicate the idea of multiple *loves* (of the romantic kind, not the brotherly kind). If these relationships aren't based on love, then they don't belong here. If asking whether they're based on love seems ridiculous, then you may want to consider the possibility that 'polyamory' is not what you think it is. --Calair 05:40, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
No, this is just ridiculous. Nothing more and nothing less. Period. You're trying your damnest to try to degrade these relationships as much as you can. You have some ideal form of what you consider to be a relationship that is just simply ridiculous.
Which bit do you find ridiculous? The insistence that a polyamorous relationship involves love, or something else? --Calair 11:29, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It is along the lines of saying that unless they swear to kill themselves than live without each other, it isn't a love relationship.
It is nothing of the sort. Unlike the extremity you nominate, it's usual for partners in romantic relationships (both monogamous *and* polyamorous) to say "I love you" to one another. If that's *not* typical of the relationships you're describing, then no, they probably aren't polyamory.
Let's try this from a different angle: what do *you* think the definition of 'polyamory' is, and where does that definition come from? --Calair 11:29, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Again, you're being ridiculous and condescending to these relationships.

As for needing to elaborate on how extensive their relationships are to fit your definition of what qualifies as a polyamory relationship, I see that as unnecessary and as an attempt to do exactly what you say you're not trying to do. That being "my alternative lifestyle is better than yours" game.

Nope. "That's inferior to polyamory" is not at all the same statement as "That's not polyamory". Words have meanings and usages; even 'polyamory', as fuzzy as the boundaries are, has its limits. So far there's nothing in the section to show the reader how this arrangement falls within those limits, and a couple of things which are rather at odds with the article's description of polyamory. --Calair 07:11, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
No, your previous statement about that polyamory is more than just sex would indicate that you believe there has to be more than sex for it to be considered a polyamory relationship.
I certainly do. But 'more' and 'better' are not equivalent concepts; since 'more' is often used to insinuate 'better', I wanted to make it clear that that was not my intent here. --Calair 22:40, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
My reading of your other statements tells me otherwise.
Please elaborate. --Calair 05:40, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It would be pointless since it is clear discussing anything with you will not change your position whatsoever.

Also, it is very likely they have far more in common to talk about than people in civilian polyamory relationships due to them working in the same environment, experiencing the same ship-wide events, having both gone through basic military training, living the same shipbound lifestyle, and so forth.

Differences also make fodder for talk. But if we have to *hypothesise* about whether people in such relationships talk much to one another, without knowing so much as whether they *do*, it seems to me that this is awfully speculative stuff. --Calair 07:11, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
To even think that they do not talk is just simply ridiculous.
Then why the "it is very likely" in the first place? Presenting it like that makes this sound like second- or third-hand knowledge (as do one or two other things in the text); if that's what it is, it shouldn't be here until it's better-substantiated. --Calair 22:40, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
No, it simply stating a fact. It is the same as saying there is an increased probability. Again, this is just getting ridiculous.
And talking about 'probabilities' implies that one lacks certainties, which implies that one is speculating rather than writing from knowledge. Misuse of a naval term exacerbates this impression. --Calair 05:40, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Not even worth a comment.

Now is there any other objection(s) to returning the segment back to the article?

I didn't remove it. I'm content to discuss this particular objection here before modifying the main page, but note that this one wasn't the reason for its removal. --Calair 07:11, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Then who did and why? To remove it and not discuss it here is just simply wrong.
On the top tab-bar, to the right of 'edit this page', there's a 'history' tab. This will show you the history of the page, including who made each edit and any comments they attached to that edit, and allow you to compare versions to see what's changed. (Article & Discussion pages each have their own separate history page). Reading article history before making edits is strongly recommended.
In this case, it was removed by Dittaeva, and the comment applicable to your edit was "please document navy section in talkpage, linebreaks in source". To that I would add "please proofread before posting".
I am new to being a contributor here. Sorry, I don't know all the ins and outs of this website.
And that's OK; everybody starts that way. However...
Thank you for the put-down. My respect for you raises even further.
When you post material that's poorly formatted and chock-full of spelling, grammatical, and other errors, you leave other editors with the job of cleaning it up. Even if English isn't your first language, spellchecking would have picked up quite a few things, and every language I know of uses something akin to paragraph breaks. One doesn't have to be a Wikipedia veteran to see that there isn't much "respect" in leaving others to tidy up after you. --Calair 05:40, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Point out what unforgiveable errors I made. Otherwise, this is just more put-downs from a jerk.
There are three errors just in the first sentence: "Since navies have allowed women to be onaboard battleships, sexual relationship have naturally developed between female and male sailors." "Onaboard" should be "on board" or "aboard", "relationship" should be pluralised, and - as anybody writing about naval matters ought to know - a 'battleship' is a specific type of vessel, and the last of the USA's battleships was decommissioned in 1992. The correct word here would be "warship" or simply "ship". The other errors are annoying; this one suggests that you're not familiar with what you're writing about, which emphasises the needs for supporting documentation. Without it, this section is about as credible as Letters to Penthouse.
The rest of it is equally bad. I'm not going to go through the whole thing again now for your benefit, because it's your responsibility to do that before posting it. --Calair 11:29, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
BTW, you can sign material by adding two hyphens and four tildes thus: --~~~~ (or just use the "Your signature" button on the toolbar); this makes it easier for others to see who's talking to who. --Calair 22:40, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
And why does that matter? Are we now going to attack the contributor?
No. It matters because it's a lot easier to follow discussions when it's clear to all who's saying what. --Calair 05:40, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You must be new to the internet.
If you're going to plead "I'm new here and I don't know all the ins and outs of this place", you don't then get to be obnoxious the moment somebody attempts to *tell* you the ins and outs; even a newbie understands that. I was working on the assumption that you wanted to learn the ropes; if that assumption's incorrect, then this discussion serves no useful purpose. --Calair 11:29, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Criticisms of Polyamory

The 'criticisms of polyamory' section has a rather dubious POV. It appears to be written by someone (s) who clearly wishes to defend polyamory, and does not really contain realistic criticisms - indeed in its current form I would prefer it to be retitled 'Defense of polyamory'. It reads rather like an FAQ written by someone who has made up their own questions and only described them as 'frequently asked'. I get the impression that people need to be more willing to allow polyamory to be criticised a bit more in order to present an unbiased and fair view on this page. --Mysteronald 20:50, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Mea culpa, to some extent. I wrote much of that section, and as I'm pro-polyamory I'm not a good person to write convincing criticisms. But IMHO, without *something* on criticisms, the article would be more POV than it is. None of the people better suited to write such a section had actually done so, so I took a stab at it. I would be delighted if somebody could improve on it.
It's not a matter of 'not allowing' criticism; so far, AFAICT, aside from one or two clear-cut cases of vandalism, nobody has shown up here to present an anti-polyamory viewpoint.
But I object to the suggestion that these criticisms are unrealistic and/or 'made up'. All of these are criticisms of polyamory that I and/or polyamorous people of my acquaintance have encountered repeatedly, from multiple different sources who believed in what they were saying. --Calair 00:11, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't think the criticisms sound "made up" either. They're exactly the kinds of criticisms that friends and others have made to my face, so I can vouch for that much. I don't see any problem with the neutrality here either. The article is describing the concept of polyamory and how the practitioners see it. How else can it be described? --Trxi

Anybody still feel the page deserves a NPOV tag, or can it be removed? --Calair 05:46, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Polyamorous criticisms of monogamy

It may be helpful to include, in the interest of presenting both sides, common polyamorists criticisms of monogamy, some of which are prevalant even in this article. That may help with the NPOV situation. A few:

1. That monogamous relationships are based on possessiveness and jealousy.

This is incorrect - monogamous relationships are based on two people who desire to be with each other, not two people who are trying to keep the other from developing relationships with new partners. This is a surprisingly common misconception among polys, probably due to the fact that a desire to be with only one person is somewhat alien to the poly mindset, so it's assumed that this desire is being sublimated by the person's partner. Forcing another to be 'faithful' to you when they don't desire that is as alien to the monogamous philosophy as 'cheating' is to the poly philosophy.

2. That people who are poly 'love more' than those who aren't.

This is not only incorrect, but patentedly insulting to those outside of the community. For proof of this, take a look at the name of the polyamorous magazine in the article - "Loving More". Loving more than who? Well, obviously people who aren't polyamorous. This is another mistake that's surprisingly common, and actually breaks the "apples and oranges" poly philosophy - if love isn't less available when spread among multiple partners, the obvious correllary is that it also isn't any less available when devoted to one person. If this idea was proposed to a married, loving monogamous couple who'd been together for 30 years, they would very likely laugh themselves into stitches. The 'children' argument holds well here - just because a person only has one child instead of two doesn't mean that they have any less love to give that child.

3. That monogamous relationships overwhelmingly occur due to societal or religious pressure.

This one isn't as blatantly wrong as the above two, but there are many people who are well outside of allowing themselves to be governed by such forces that honestly follow monogamy as a lifestyle and philosophy, and it's as much a part of their identity as being poly is to many people. Just because it's the 'norm' doesn't mean that it can't be an important and fulfilling part of a person's emotional makeup.

I'd write it myself, but I don't think I'd be able to maintain NPOV. Does anyone feel up to the task of adding this in, as a balancing factor for monogamous criticisms of polyamory? Myrkabah

Nitpicking, I think the 'more' in 'loving more' could just as easily be taken as "a greater number" - "loving more people" - as "a greater amount". That aside, the whole "poly folk are more evolved!" bit merits a mention, and I'll see if I can write a paragraph or two. I don't think we need to fully parallel the "criticisms of poly" bit with an equal-depth "criticisms of mono" section on this page, however - that would be most appropriately placed on Monogamy, with a link from here. --Calair 00:54, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Right, I was just tossing out examples. The problem with placing it on Monogamy is that it seems to take mostly an anthropological stance rather than a philosophical one, which makes it kind of hard to segue into the opposing aspects of the philosophies, which are already hinted at here. In any case, I appreciate you looking into is to add to the article, as I feel that the quite common concept among the community that "polyamory > monogamy" should be discussed. (The whole 'loving more' thing isn't nitpicking, tho, but it doesn't directly relate to editing this article, so I won't discuss it with you here. If you'd like to talk more about it, I use this alias as an email address at Gmail, so you can feel free to drop me a line. ) --Myrkabah 02:33, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I meant that I was nitpicking, not that you were :-) I've taken a stab at it - how does it look to you? --Calair 01:06, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
That actually looks fantastic - well done! Thanks! --Myrkabah13:42, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hybrid words

Removed para: The word 'polyamory' itself is quite an object of debate. Were it a consistent word, it would necessarily have to be changed to 'polyphilia' or 'multiamory'. This regretable lack of consistency (typically a rule for many neologisms comming from english-speaking countries), condemns the whole ideology to failure (since the word itself is perceived as quite ridiculous for people from non-english speaking countries)

Hybrid words are an established part of the English language. We watch television, our doctors treat neonates and diagnose gingivitis, fibroma, and silicosis. Chemists refer to polyvalency, and others study sociology. We are entitled to opinions about whether this is regrettable, but it is a fact of life; if linguistic inconsistency could condemn anything to failure, the English-speaking world would have been lost long ago. (Speaking of inconsistency, language flames should be carefully checked before posting; I count two spelling mistakes and three grammatical errors in the above paragraph.)

From the 'other languages' links, it would seem that the same hybrid construction is also used in German ('polyamorie'), French ('polyamour'), and Polish ('poliamoria'), which casts doubt on the claim that "the word itself is perceived as quite ridiculous for people from non-english speaking countries". --Calair 22:38, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It seems more likely that those are germanizations etc of the English word, not independent constructions. grendel|khan 04:24, 2005 Feb 5 (UTC)
If they're germanizations, that's hardly support for the claim that non-English speakers think the word is silly.
In any case, the word "polyamory" does get debated often enough, but the end result is almost always someone dragging out a list of proper English words that mix latin and greek. There is nothing in the traditions of English that says it has to be consistent in where it gets new words. I wish I could think of some now, but my greek and latin are shaky enough that I can't think of any off the top of my head.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 10:19, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

A nit-pic

Upon seeing the picture here, my first impulse was to remove it. Then I realized it was generally Not Nice to remove parts of an article based on my sense of aesthetics. However, I'm not sure that having a picture adds anything to the article. Do we need an example of what polyamorous people look like? To me it's more distracting than anything, makes the article look a bit like a propaganda page, and I can't see it increasing anyone's understanding of polyamory. (My second impulse was to replace it with a better picture, but I can't think of one that would actually be enlightening. Any suggestions are welcome.) --Ian Maxwell 17:12, 2005 Feb 4 (UTC)

I'm not sure it adds much, its people with a banner. But given its an encyclopedia, and a picture is often of value just fopr breaking up the text, Id say keep it. It adds something, and it harms none. My $0.02. FT2 23:30, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

I personally like the picture and I think it is relevant, but that's probably just because I was one of the people in the picture. One of my girlfriends, who is in the middle in the picture, sewed the banner. But ego reasons aside, this particular picture illustrates the often political attitude that poly people take about their lifestyle choices, as well as the strong connection that polyamory has to the queer community. Neither of these points is mentioned in the article. When I get around to doing that picture of 100 naked people out on a beach spelling out "POLYAMORY", we can add that too. On a bit more of a serious note, getting some "poly family" pictures up (with three or more people hugging or whatnot) would definitely add some value. inki 01:57, March 8, 2005 (UTC)

The connection to the queer community probably is worth a mention (by somebody who knows it better than I do); I've reorganised to create a 'related groups and concepts' section, and some discussion of poly-queer links & maybe poly politics generally could go there alongside the BDSM bit. --Calair 03:12, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Definition (opening paragraph)

Currently this appears as the first sentence of the article:

Polyamory is a neologism, signifying having more than one long term sexual loving relationship at the same time, with the full knowledge and consent of all partners involved.

While I generally agree with that definition for something that often escapes definition, I really don't think "long term" is a necessary part of the definition. I understand the need to distinguish it from "flings" and swinging, but in truth there's quite a bit of overlap. Further, I've known poly people who have had legitimately poly relationships (honest and more-than-one-at-same-time) that were not long-term. This seems unnecessarily longevity-biased.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 02:34, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Given its part of the definition quoted in the article, we dont really want inconsistent definitions if avoidable.. FT2 05:17, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

Reverted an edit that removed 'sexual' from the MGZR quote, on the assumption that the edit was a matter of "I don't think 'sexual' should be part of the definition" rather than "MGZR has been misquoted, and I have a good source to support this". If I assumed wrong, feel free to provide source and edit back. --Calair 22:56, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Here are my thoughts on the matter. A lot of poly people feel that relationships dont need to be sexual to be poly. There some good reading on this subject in general here: A Phenomenology of Polyamorous Persons On page 100 & 101 of this thesis, Matt Keener goes into this in explicit detail talking about how the meaning of polyamory changes for the people (in this study) over time as well. The second paragraph in this section begins: "Intimacy: Not Just Sex and Not Swinging: Several participants expressed the personal meaning that polyamory is not just about sex; rather, polyamory is about intimacy" appears to be accurate and quite telling on this subject.

IMO, using the word sexual will not include a number of people who state they are polyamorous, and taking it out would also exclude a group.

The common theme I see is some form of commitment and intimacy. I believe it would be more fair, accurate, and inclusive to state "committed romantic relationships that are usually sexual in nature" vs. stating up front that all these relationships are sexual in nature. Magicalspirits 01:35, Apr 20 2005 (MST)

As a polyamorous monogamist, I wholeheartedly agree with this change. Yes, polyamory is predominantly sexual in nature, but not always. Myrkabah 00:07, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I noticed that someone else added to this section almost what we're talking about here. The one thing that IMO is still vague in the definition is that it leaves out the word commitment. One of the things of note from Matt Keener’s thesis is that poly people are very clear that what they do is not swinging. Obviously, there are various levels of commitment within poly relationships, but they all seem to have some level of commitment, and I believe leaving this word out of the definition obscures the meaning. Magicalspirits 13:52, May 21 2005 (MST)
I have to disagree that commitment is part of the definition. It may be so in some ways of doing poly, but not in all ways. A multi-person relationship that is honest but is not committed and isn't just about recreational sex would still qualify as a polyamorous arrangement to me and a number of other poly people I know. So, commitment is a very common component, but it's not a necessary part to qualify and so shouldn't be in a canonical definition. Perhaps the definition could be rewritten to allow that there are a few variants of the definition, and that for some people but not others, commitment is a necessary part of the definition?  — Saxifrage | ☎ 22:19, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
The word "sexual" definitely needs to be out; you could have physically disabled people who simply talk or type to one another and whose communications were very intimate and romantic in nature, but who were physically unable to have sex, and that would still be polyamory. As for committment, IMO polyamory exists at all commitment levels just as monoamory does. Like monoamory, commitment (polyfidelity) is a state many people aspire to. If commitment is a necessary part of polyamory then it would have to be a necessary part of monoamory as well, and we all know that isn't true. Something along the lines of "Like monoamory, polyamory can involve varying levels of commitment; a fully committed polyamorous relationship is characterized as polyfidelity" would be appropriate.