The Rules/Foundations of Poly

I guess that we both agree that two (or more) persons can only join a polyamorous relationship on equal footings.
Nice theory, but I have seen some very happy poly arrangements flourish where the footings are, by choice, and by most people's standards, not equal.

Perfect example of what I was trying to say in my previous post. ;)
 
Last edited:
I think we should talk about things being fair rather than equal. Of course fair is subjective, but that's the point: it's not up to an outsider to look at a relationship and decide if it's "equal" enough. It's up to the partners inside of it to make sure they don't feel like they're getting the short end of the stick and they don't feel like someone else in the relationship is getting it, either.
 
When you explicitly don't identify as polyamorous yourself, I can't really understand why you keep on insisting on definitions of polyamory that quite a few polyamourous people, me including, think are plain wrong.

Quite a few but not all is the key and I do own it as my interpretation. I'm not imposing it on anyone else. Lots of people who are not monogamous refer/define the word monogamous on here too; no harm in that but again they do not impose it on me. I respect thier definition and consider it different but not wrong.

Loving is a necessity for all loving relationships not just poly.

I didn't misinterpret Ariakas at all. Sorry I confused you :eek:
 
I love what you are saying Ceil. I agree with your foundations. However the thread is about rules/principles rather than foundations. Actually I like foundations better. After foundations comes rules and principles to me.

I have no problem with people wanting to make symetry a rule/principle. That would be their choice. I have known poly tribes/families (well one) that practice Ds and that has meant they all agree to not be symetrical, so therefore that rule/principle would not fit. That to me would make it not a poly rule/principle then, but really I don't prescribe rules and principles anyways so don't really care that much. I understand that others do though, so they can argue the semantics.

How come there isn't a POP? One pussy policy? Hmmmmmm?! :p That's what we had for a bit. After nerdist came out of a very trying relationship.
 
However the thread is about rules/principles rather than foundations. Actually I like foundations better. After foundations comes rules and principles to me.
So did you just recently change the thread title to foundations, or did I misread it originally?

As long as we're not trying to come up with some universal set of rules, foundations, paradigms and principles (whatever we choose to call them), then I am fine. I was starting to see some pretty broad generalisations and I don't think it behooves us to get into "the right way to do poly" territory. ;)
 
Nice theory, but I have seen some very happy poly arrangements flourish where the footings are, by choice, and by most people's standards, not equal.

Perfect example of what I was trying to say in my previous post. ;)

I think you mix up principle and practice. Footings not equal in principle would be like an emperor entering into a "poly" relationship with a conquered slave. You seen much happiness coming from inequity like that?

In practice, they are never quite equal, and that could even be an important success factor. In practice, perceived "fairness", as Tonberry mentions, is probably a very good working criterion. Because, as she writes
Of course fair is subjective, but that's the point: it's not up to an outsider to look at a relationship and decide if it's "equal" enough. It's up to the partners inside of it to make sure they don't feel like they're getting the short end of the stick and they don't feel like someone else in the relationship is getting it, either.

Exactly. It is possible that this underlying equality is so self-evident to you that it does not need to be mentioned. But I think I see examples cropping up all the time showing that it is not trivial, and therefore, I really can't see any harm in including it in the foundation.

None of these criteria are up to outsiders to decide, anyway.
 
As long as we're not trying to come up with some universal set of rules, foundations, paradigms and principles (whatever we choose to call them), then I am fine. I was starting to see some pretty broad generalisations and I don't think it behooves us to get into "the right way to do poly" territory. ;)

So, then what is, in your view, wrong with Ariakas' suggestion

love - check
ability to love multiple - check
trust/honesty - check
communication - check
my poly is not your poly - check

As far as I can see, the only disagreement is to whether something like balance(equity/symmetry should be added. Not as a testing criterion, as many seem to think, but as a basic principle - which it may seem some would think is unneccessary, as it is so obvious.
 
As far as I can see, the only disagreement is to whether something like balance(equity/symmetry should be added. Not as a testing criterion, as many seem to think, but as a basic principle - which it may seem some would think is unneccessary, as it is so obvious.
We're looking for testing criteria? Why? Is someone about to form some sort of certification board, or litmus test for whether a given relationship is or isn't "real" poly?

I am not going to get into debates over individual things about what is, and isn't poly - I used to try to do that and got frustrated when I couldn't. I am merely trying to point out that, in my experience, trying to do so is folly, and I am willing to provide some counter-examples. I actually like that we can't come up with some box-like definition of what is and isn't, or how it should or shouldn't work, or what the underlying paradigms are beyond it being loving, responsible non-monogamy. As an old debating "foe" of mine used to say, as soon as you draw a box around it, you exclude people who could otherwise feel included.

Maybe I missed something in a post (I am only on here a limited amount of time a day), but what is your motivation/need to lay things down this precisely?

So... what are we trying to do here? Are we trying to come up with recommendations for principles and paradigms of how most people find poly work well, or are we trying to come up with a set of criteria to define what poly should be? Because those are two very different discussions, and I am pretty confused. (Doesn't take much, I know! ;) )
 
So did you just recently change the thread title to foundations, or did I misread it originally?

As long as we're not trying to come up with some universal set of rules, foundations, paradigms and principles (whatever we choose to call them), then I am fine. I was starting to see some pretty broad generalisations and I don't think it behooves us to get into "the right way to do poly" territory. ;)

No Ceil, I am an idiot and forgot the name of my own thread! Such is the life of a phone using forum writer I'm afraid. *embarrassed*

My intent on this thread was to find out peoples personal thoughts on what they think poly is about at its base. In an attempt to better explain the differences between poly and other relationship styles.

I figured there would be generalisations, but I personally don't mind so much as long as its said they are. I am hoping to put to words what *I* think *my* poly rules/foundations/priniciples are... Its coming together slowly.

Thanks for clarifying that there is generalizations. I think that needed to be said at some point and now you've said it. Thank you.
 
We're looking for testing criteria? Why? Is someone about to form some sort of certification board, or litmus test for whether a given relationship is or isn't "real" poly?

I am not going to get into debates over individual things about what is, and isn't poly - I used to try to do that and got frustrated when I couldn't. I am merely trying to point out that, in my experience, trying to do so is folly, and I am willing to provide some counter-examples. I actually like that we can't come up with some box-like definition of what is and isn't, or how it should or shouldn't work, or what the underlying paradigms are beyond it being loving, responsible non-monogamy. As an old debating "foe" of mine used to say, as soon as you draw a box around it, you exclude people who could otherwise feel included.

Maybe I missed something in a post (I am only on here a limited amount of time a day), but what is your motivation/need to lay things down this precisely?

So... what are we trying to do here? Are we trying to come up with recommendations for principles and paradigms of how most people find poly work well, or are we trying to come up with a set of criteria to define what poly should be? Because those are two very different discussions, and I am pretty confused. (Doesn't take much, I know! ;) )

I notice that you did not answer my question, but choose to go out on a tangent that I explicitly said was not my intention. So I'm not going to repeat it.

You seem to be, in a very general way, against the very idea of finding out whether there are some foundational things we could agree upon. Could you accept that such a question may be meaningful to some, and that maybe somebody might be content with answers that you personally don't like? Oh well, probably not.

But just a small reminder, in some kind of faint hope:

In the last of these "criteria", "My poly is not your poly", your basic position is codified. I really don't understand how you could read that and still ask "or are we trying to come up with a set of criteria to define what poly should be?"

I also don't really understand how you get the impression such that you ask "Are we trying to come up with recommendations for principles and paradigms of how most people find poly work well". We're not.

Simple exercise: Negate each one of Ariakas' points. Still say this is poly?

Can keep love out of it - check
No ability to love multiple - check
No need for trust/honesty - check
No need for communication - check
No respect for my poly is not your poly - check
 
If we're focusing on poly relationships, I think the only single difference with a mono relationship, as far the the general rules/foundations go, is that more than 2 people can be part of it. Doesn't mean they have to be, mind you, there might only be 2 partners at some point, but the relationship will still be "open" to more of them.

The rest, be it honesty, trust, fairness, communication... That's just part of relationships, not specific to poly relationships at all. That's the way I see it at least.
 
I notice that you did not answer my question, but choose to go out on a tangent that I explicitly said was not my intention. So I'm not going to repeat it.
I am merely trying to establish a basis for the conversation, and trying to avoid it going down a futile path. If people are trying to come up with universally-upheld criteria, then I'm not going to bother. Been there, burned the t-shirt and all that. My purpose of answering the way I wanted (rather than the way you wanted) was to try to establish an understanding for me of the basis for the conversation and confirm before continuing.

If we are comparing notes as to what works for US, then sure, no problem.

I just want to make sure we're clear on that, before I continue.

You seem to be, in a very general way, against the very idea of finding out whether there are some foundational things we could agree upon.
I'm sorry if I seem that way to you, but that is not true, as I have hopefully just shown.

Could you accept that such a question may be meaningful to some, and that maybe somebody might be content with answers that you personally don't like? Oh well, probably not.
Since you seem to want to answer the questions you ask me, I won't bother correcting you ;)


But just a small reminder, in some kind of faint hope:
I love to be reminded of things, especially when it's laced with condescension... :rolleyes:

OK, since you are badgering me to answer your question, here it is:

Are the following, in my opinion and based on my experiences, fundamental and necessary criteria for poly:
love - yes
ability to love multiple - yes
trust/honesty - no
communication - no
my poly is not your poly - no
need for basic equality - no

Now, please note that I didn't say GOOD poly. But who am I to judge whether someone's poly is good or not, or to tell them they are not doing it properly? I have seen people in functioning poly relationships that I wouldn't touch with a bargepole where they weren't being honest with each other, open communication just wasn't there, and they were poly-evangelists and one-true-wayers.

Now, are they desirable in my opinion for my poly to work? Absolutely!

I get hung up on the idea of there having to be rules or criteria in order to make it "poly", so if you are seeing reticence on my part then it is because of that.

If we're focusing on poly relationships, I think the only single difference with a mono relationship, as far the the general rules/foundations go, is that more than 2 people can be part of it. Doesn't mean they have to be, mind you, there might only be 2 partners at some point, but the relationship will still be "open" to more of them.
Yes (he says, pointing at the screen emphatically) THIS! THIS!

The rest, be it honesty, trust, fairness, communication... That's just part of relationships, not specific to poly relationships at all. That's the way I see it at least.
Oh my THANK YOU for saying this.
 
Last edited:
If we're focusing on poly relationships, I think the only single difference with a mono relationship, as far the the general rules/foundations go, is that more than 2 people can be part of it. Doesn't mean they have to be, mind you, there might only be 2 partners at some point, but the relationship will still be "open" to more of them.

The rest, be it honesty, trust, fairness, communication... That's just part of relationships, not specific to poly relationships at all. That's the way I see it at least.

I'm agreeing with you on this one ton. For me there seems like there is no need to add anything.
 
What about classical double standards, like one-dick policy? Leaving symmetry out of the foundations would allow such things to be basic forms of polyamory, rather than arrangements agreed upon by equal partners.

I guess that we both agree that two (or more) persons can only join a polyamorous relationship on equal footings. But none of your other criteria necessarily imply this. That's why I think it belongs to the foundations. And, as a prerequisite, only there - any actual relationship must reflect the needs of the individuals involved, which may differ a lot. So, while symmetry in an actual relationship may make for better dynamics, it may not be attainable. Nor desirable. And if it is not in the foundation either, it may result in permanent, non-intended skewness of the whole contruction.

Symmetry is the wrong word. Not all poly relationships has symmetry. Some are unbalanced by the choice of the people involved. Some people live the OPP by choice...some live OVP...some people are permanent secondaries by choice. In all my reading, while symmetry looks good, it isn't a requirement :)
 
Symmetry is the wrong word. Not all poly relationships has symmetry. Some are unbalanced by the choice of the people involved. Some people live the OPP by choice...some live OVP...some people are permanent secondaries by choice. In all my reading, while symmetry looks good, it isn't a requirement :)

Sure - the "by choice" here is the central thing, and I must be very bad at expressing myself since you didn't get it - that the symmetry for me starts - AND ENDS - down in the foundation, that people can do things by choice, and they have equal rights of choosing there. As I have said, maybe it is all too obvious to mention, but I have seen enough examples where it is forgotten.

And - what I also think is important: People can choose again, if they want. That 24/7 slave contract you entered into may have been ideal for you for a long time, but then, some day, you may want something else.. :)
 
It's OK for you, a contradiction in terms for me

Are the following, in my opinion and based on my experiences, fundamental and necessary criteria for poly:
love - yes
ability to love multiple - yes
trust/honesty - no
communication - no
my poly is not your poly - no
need for basic equality - no


It's OK for you, a contradiction in terms for me.
"Love" without trust/honesty
"Love" without communication
etc
I just can't make it work.
And if this is a common understanding here, I think I'd better go somewhere else.

Either,
the term is kept for what you call "polyamory", and a new term is used for what is built upon this foundation,
or
another term is used for your concept, "emotional non-monogamy" I think would fit rather well, and "polyamory" is used for what we discuss here. I think the last option is most in line with the intentions of those who introduced the concept, and the common use.
 
Sure - the "by choice" here is the central thing, and I must be very bad at expressing myself since you didn't get it - that the symmetry for me starts - AND ENDS - down in the foundation, that people can do things by choice, and they have equal rights of choosing there. As I have said, maybe it is all too obvious to mention, but I have seen enough examples where it is forgotten.

And - what I also think is important: People can choose again, if they want. That 24/7 slave contract you entered into may have been ideal for you for a long time, but then, some day, you may want something else.. :)

Copy that, and in fact thats what I assume you mean. I would suggest, however, finding a different word. You want to build a foundation or rules so "other" people understand. Symmetry does not convey what you want it to...

I do believe we are on the same page, just in disagreement about verbiage :)
 
It's OK for you, a contradiction in terms for me.
"Love" without trust/honesty
"Love" without communication
etc
I just can't make it work.
Fair enough - as I said before, neither can I. Doesn't make it a necessary condition, though, because you and I and a whole bunch of others don't see it that way.

And if this is a common understanding here, I think I'd better go somewhere else.
I think that the common understanding here is that there are multiple views on this poly thing, and that we're not going to exclude people based on one person's, or a group's definition of it.

Either,
the term is kept for what you call "polyamory", and a new term is used for what is built upon this foundation,
or
another term is used for your concept, "emotional non-monogamy" I think would fit rather well, and "polyamory" is used for what we discuss here. I think the last option is most in line with the intentions of those who introduced the concept, and the common use.
Polyamory means loving more than one person, beyond that it's all up for grabs. If your personal definition needs to narrow it down further, then that's perfectly legitimate for you, but that doesn't necessarily have to apply universally. I see people doing what they call polyamory that I couldn't have anywhere close to my life, but that doesn't mean it's wrong and it doesn't mean that it's not poly, as far as I'm concerned - it's just not my poly, which is fine - it's not my life, either. :)

Part of the ebb and flow in poly discussions is finding the people whose variety of poly is most akin to yours, where there are shared values and paradigms, because those are the ones with whom you have the most in common and who are in the best place to "get" where you care coming from. That doesn't make everyone else "not poly", though.

All of the criteria listed here are things that are best for any romantic relationship to work well, not just poly. As Tonberry said, the only difference is the number of people involved.

Edit to add:
Listen, I applaud people coming up with what they regard as necessary things to be in place to make their poly work. And the chances are that many here would agree. My caution and concern is that we not try to see it as some over-arching thing which alienates some folks who think differently, but are still poly by the basic definition. Part of the reason for forums like this is to provide people who feel excluded by society a safe place to come and talk about their polyness - having some sort of extra criteria may work to act against that goal. Does that makes sense?
 
Last edited:
Capricorny I'm hearing a tone of frustration and aggression in your posts and I'm wondering about it. Do you feel that the discussions you have been having here in some way threaten you? I am finding myself not wanting to engage in conversation with you because I don't want to irratate you further. I too didn't understand your post on symetry and thought perhaps I would wait to see if I was just unable to grasp a concept? Or that I was not the only one. I was afraid you would be sarcastic with me and frustrated as you seem to be with others on here and didn't want to engage because of it. I'm sorry if in some way you aren't getting your needs met. Perhaps you could explain why if you are ready to move on? Or, if you've had enough and don't choice to then I will respect that also. I ask because I understand this space a place to challenge my ideas about things in an emotionally safe environment . Perhaps you see it differently?
 
Back
Top