The Rules/Foundations of Poly

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 :)

Sure, got any suggestion? You see how bad I am at finding words conveying my intention..
 
Why relax on the ordinary use of the word?

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?

Lots of sense. But I suggest we call that minimal thing something else, like "multiamory", which would be pure Latin, or "polyerotics", which would be based on Greek. By the very hybrid nature of the word "polyamory", it is a construction with an intention behind it, and not merely something that "means loving more than one person".

Language is not static, and it it surely possible to have influence on the use of words and concepts.

I really don't see any reason for us here to relax on the ordinary use of the word, like it is reflected in Wikipedia
Polyamory (from Greek πολυ [poly, meaning many or several] and Latin amor [love]) is the practice, desire, or acceptance of having more than one intimate relationship at a time with the knowledge and consent of everyone involved.

Polyamory, often abbreviated to poly, is sometimes described as consensual, ethical, or responsible non-monogamy. The word is occasionally used more broadly to refer to any sexual or romantic relationships that are not sexually exclusive, though there is disagreement on how broadly it applies; an emphasis on ethics, honesty, and transparency all around is widely regarded as the crucial defining characteristic.

If people here are not comfortable with the Wikipedia way, I really think they should speak out about it.
 
Sure, got any suggestion? You see how bad I am at finding words conveying my intention..

Thats a good question. I can't think of one word that represents a fair agreement based on all the wants/needs of parties involved that does not necessarily represent symmetry.

I am going to need to do some reading today it seems
 
reciprocity - A mutual or cooperative interchange of favors or privileges, especially the exchange of rights or privileges of trade between nations

Since it doesn't mention those terms need to be balanced, but cooperative.
 
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?

It's not about emotions and needs being met, really :) I get a bit frustrated here at times mostly because of two things:
1. When someone says something that doesn't seem to make sense, there is often preciously little effort invested in finding interpretations where it does make sense. When I say something to you that does not make much sense, like "rules" or "symmetry", the easiest is to respond based on the immediate meaning the words have for you.
That's perfectly natural. But, if that does not make much sense, you are really assuming that someone (me) is talking nonsense/meagersense to you. Maybe the intention was something else? The challenge in communication is not to find interpretations where things said are wrong - that's not communication, that's verbal combat.
The challenge is to find the interpretations where it might be right, at least to some extent, and continue the communication from there. (There are challenges with opinions we agree with, too.)
2. A tendency to "privatization of concepts". Like this very thread. In a thread about foundations of poly, I really believed the standard definitions/understandings were to be presupposed, so that any deviation from that should be made explicit. It's not about not challenging established views, it's about doing that explicitly, and saying clearly why. I guess it it the difference between passive and active tolerance that is the underlying issue for me. Passive tolerance very easily leads to not investing the efforts necessary to find common ground, and for me, that defeats much of the meaning with communication.
 
reciprocity - A mutual or cooperative interchange of favors or privileges, especially the exchange of rights or privileges of trade between nations

Since it doesn't mention those terms need to be balanced, but cooperative.
YES!
Think that's very good - in my mind close to mine really, but not so prone to misinterpretations. And more "relational" - that's all for the good! Thanks!! :)
 
I am totally happy with the definition:

"Polyamory is the practice, desire, or acceptance of having more than one intimate relationship at a time with the knowledge and consent of everyone involved."

I think that that applies to any and all of the discussions we have had so far. This is the "minimal thing" that you seem to be describing. So maybe you and I are talking about the same thing?

It recommends, but does not require trust, honesty, open communication and all those other good things. But my point is that while I wouldn't want it for myself, I have seen functioning polyamorous relationships (using the Wikipedia definition) where not all of those are in place.

Language is not static, and it it surely possible to have influence on the use of words and concepts.
Sure, but what this feels like is that you are saying "What you understand as poly isn't what I understand by poly, therefore we're going to have to come up with some new word for yours, because I already know what it means to me and that's the right way."

I really don't see any reason for us here to relax on the ordinary use of the word, like it is reflected in Wikipedia
And I have no issue with using the Wikipedia definition as a reference point - looks like we are in agreement there. :)
 
I love where this thread went :)

I think the main issue about foundation is that the English language is rather limited in this particular field. Most language handle the concept of relationships and "love" (or rather the feelings that are associated with deep relationships) as very separate concepts. I'll use greek for an example since people like to throw out that language all the time lol. There are 4(some would argue 5) kinds of terms for love, and these loves are defined and spoken in completely different contexts. philia, eros, storge, and xenia.

Philia is a brotherly love, "young lovers", lifelong friends, fellow voyagers or soldier"

Eros is a passionate love, also called marital love.

Storge is natural affection, like that felt by parents for offspring, or similiar to philia, but not learned through time or experience, but innately felt by circumstance. It often is referred to as the "god love" because it's basically unconditional and comes from nothing but the simple fact that it exists(the fact that you're baby exists or has existed is the only needed for you to love him/her).

Xenia means guest-friendship or stands for a "hospitality" love. Reading the word in the right context in many greek novels and religious texts(i'm a historybuff/anthro major), the word is basically used for the common love for mankind. The love you display when someone is broke down on the road, and you feel OVERWHELMINGLY compelled and stop where you're going and help them, regardless of what going on. that feeling is Xenia.

The point in these examples is that alot of this is a semantics issue. We don't put enough time into really interpreting what others are TRYING to say to us, and english words that have infinite amounts of meanings doesn't help. The dichotomy of love is so vast, that when people makes statements like, "polyamory is the ability to love multiple people.", in reality that statement is not really saying alot. Polyamory and love are so ubiquitous that the sentence becomes moot.

hrm...new post
 
What I find interesting is that "phillia" apparently means brotherly love, which doesn't prevent it from being used for pedophilia, zoophilia, necrophilia, which are pretty much purely about sex.

Goes to show that the origin of words isn't necessarily always as important as the fact that people have an agreement about what they mean right now.
 
in a quick response tonberry...the greek versions of the english "love" aren't necessarily the root origins. The words describing the feelings involved in relationships big and small used by greeks were used as an example that CONCEPTS or IDEAS which are basically what you're expressing when you use language are complicated. And with such complication comes an inexplicable difficulty when using singular words with infinite defintions. The purpose of the above post was to not bring out any explanation of the root of the english word love.
 
Thanks cap for letting me know your thoughts. I'm surprised as I wasn't assuming anything actually and was trying to understand, rather than thinking what you say is nonsense. Interesting take. I checked in with you about my assumptions first actually... As to tolerance? Well, I'm personally not *tolerarting* anything. I don't generally tolerate things really. I speak up. Just sitting back and reading with interest in the differing view of others. Silence in a thread doesn't equal tolerance to me. If that's what you mean. Differing opinions doesn't equal tolerance either to me, if that's what you mean.
Anyway. Back to catching up on what has been said. Thanks again cap :)
 
I am totally happy with the definition:

"Polyamory is the practice, desire, or acceptance of having more than one intimate relationship at a time with the knowledge and consent of everyone involved."

I think that that applies to any and all of the discussions we have had so far. This is the "minimal thing" that you seem to be describing. So maybe you and I are talking about the same thing?

It recommends, but does not require trust, honesty, open communication and all those other good things. But my point is that while I wouldn't want it for myself, I have seen functioning polyamorous relationships (using the Wikipedia definition) where not all of those are in place.

Sure, but what this feels like is that you are saying "What you understand as poly isn't what I understand by poly, therefore we're going to have to come up with some new word for yours, because I already know what it means to me and that's the right way."

And I have no issue with using the Wikipedia definition as a reference point - looks like we are in agreement there. :)

Your feeling is not correct.
You didn't mention how you think about the last, and less agreed about, part:

Polyamory, often abbreviated to poly, is sometimes described as consensual, ethical, or responsible non-monogamy. The word is occasionally used more broadly to refer to any sexual or romantic relationships that are not sexually exclusive, though there is disagreement on how broadly it applies; an emphasis on ethics, honesty, and transparency all around is widely regarded as the crucial defining characteristic.

The issue for me is, do we want to regard these as crucial defining characteristics?
I do, if for nothing else, then simply for practical reasons. I want to work with something that has the best chances of succeeding with the least restrictions, and for that, I really don't think we can omit anything from the foundations mentioned here.

If that's too restrictive as "polyamory", it's OK for me to have another name for it. I suggest to go for this more restricted sense of the word, as it seems to conform with the "widely regarded" thing, and it is really easier to find a new word for the looser form of consensual non-monogamy. But either way goes.
 
OK, then I will spell out for you how I see the rest of that description can be interpreted:
Polyamory, often abbreviated to poly, is sometimes described as consensual, ethical, or responsible non-monogamy.
(emphasis mine) I have no personal issue with that, although differing people have different interpretations of what is "ethical" and "responsible". And note that this is "sometimes" which implies not always, which implies that there are some for whom it does not apply, but who still can be considered to be poly. I think that phrasing is quite deliberate.

The word is occasionally used more broadly to refer to any sexual or romantic relationships that are not sexually exclusive, though there is disagreement on how broadly it applies;
This phrase very clearly says that there is no overall concensus for this to be part of the definition, implying that there are those for whom it does not apply.

an emphasis on ethics, honesty, and transparency all around is widely regarded as the crucial defining characteristic.
Again, not universally, implying that there are some who do not who can legitimately call themselves poly.

So I can find myself in agreement with the Wikipedia definition, and the part that I have broken apart here. I think that most of the members on here also agree with that. I see no reason to make efforts to change it, either.

But none of this, and I mean none of this implies that these traits are a requirement for being poly, in fact they are worded to very clearly indicate that this is not part of the universally-accepted definition.

So, the "rules" for poly, in terms of absolutes of who is and who isn't poly, come down to that first part that I quoted previously.

The issue for me is, do we want to regard these as crucial defining characteristics?
If you want to, then please add those in to your definition of what your poly is. That's the beauty of this, from my perspective. Me, I don't add them in as crucial, defining characteristics of the global definition of polyamory, no.

The foundations for me for GOOD, working, healthy poly, are the same thing as the foundations for good, working healthy relationships: trust, honesty, transparency, openness, commitment, and the other great things that have been mentioned already - just with more people involved. It's as simple and as complicated as that.
 
So, the "rules" for poly, in terms of absolutes of who is and who isn't poly, come down to that first part that I quoted previously.

Why are we discussing that? I assumed we were discussing the rules of a poly relationship, for purpose of functionality.

If we are arguing labels, then we should just stop this thread. You can't argue labels...they're not even real, they're virtual mechanisms.
 
If you want to, then please add those in to your definition of what your poly is. That's the beauty of this, from my perspective. Me, I don't add them in as crucial, defining characteristics of the global definition of polyamory, no.

I guess we have different sense of aestethics. To me, I have had more than enough of the "beauty" of that sloppyness and all kinds of wreckages following from it. I have spent enough time trying to help sorting out the consequences.

And there is no way I will associate myself with that mess, because it contradicts my concept of love and only contribute to others getting perplexed. And that's not by principle, but by experience.

Seems to me that the "widely regarded" conception of polyamory needs another name then. If the great majority of polyamorous people are not allowed to hijack that hybrid word and operationalize the concept in the direction it was intended.
 
Why are we discussing that? I assumed we were discussing the rules of a poly relationship, for purpose of functionality.
Yes, that was how I assumed the original discussion was to be, but it seemed to get into criteria and requirements for "being poly" and that was where I felt we needed to make sure we didn't get lost in the one-true-wayer weeds.

If we are arguing labels, then we should just stop this thread. You can't argue labels...they're not even real, they're virtual mechanisms.
Very good point, yes. I agree.

I guess we have different sense of aestethics.
We more than likely do, yes. vive la différence

To me, I have had more than enough of the "beauty" of that sloppyness and all kinds of wreckages following from it. I have spent enough time trying to help sorting out the consequences.
I agree - I, too, have a much narrower working definition for myself and will not tolerate these types of behaviours in anyone who is close to me - the risks and consequences are far too painful.

And there is no way I will associate myself with that mess, because it contradicts my concept of love and only contribute to others getting perplexed. And that's not by principle, but by experience.
Well, that is your choice, of course. I was shocked when I first joined various poly discussion groups as to how broad the definition was and had quite a few "but wait, that's not poly!" moments myself. Over time I can accept that their poly doesn't have to be mine, but that doesn't mean that I want to do anything socially with them.

So... here's the nub - are we trying to come up with "founding principles" or "best practices"? - I sort of got the feeling that this thread started out as the second, but developed into the first.
 
Last edited:
That there are disagreements about a definition, does not mean we just have to accept everything that is asserted about. Rather to the contrary, disagreement may force us to be more clear about what our take on it is.

To take an analogy: The initials of the former DDR meant "Deutsche Demokratische Republik". Self-declared democrats. Should we therefore accept their rule as a kind of democracy and consider this as part of the "beauty" of democracy, or should we take a discussion about democratic principles?

Edit:

I really think multiamory would be a much better word for the "foundationless" version of polyamory. Would give a better mental image of where it is heading. And we could easily sort between "multi" and "poly" people. I think that would be practical. Would tell a lot about the intentions and ambitions involved. If there were not such widespread agreement on the foundations of polyamory, it would be a more doubtful enterprise. But there isn't really, and most people trying to make it work also end up with about the same principles. But one size definitely doesn't fit all in "loving" non-monogamy - therefore the category multiamory in addition to "traditional" poly.
 
Last edited:
So... here's the nub - are we trying to come up with "founding principles" or "best practices"? - I sort of got the feeling that this thread started out as the second, but developed into the first.

Guess you feeling is wrong. I think I was the one who triggered it, and it was about foundations, basically. Exploring common ground. But not exclusively.
 
Guess you feeling is wrong. I think I was the one who triggered it, and it was about foundations, basically. Exploring common ground. But not exclusively.
Yes, you are correct. I went back and re-read what RedPepper quoted from you.

Then I guess I am done with this discussion, having stated my case. :)
 
When I first exploring the definitions of poly I also was aghast that people who I consider dating or whom I considerrd swingers would describe themselves as poly. I fought for my version. I even abandoned the term for a bit. Then I realized that I just need to make sure that anyone coming into my life knows what my poly is and that I find out what theirs is. If its compatible, great, if not then discussions would have to follow.

When I discovered I didn't have to fit a box, I was good...
 
Back
Top