Polyamory.com Forum  

Go Back   Polyamory.com Forum > Polyamory > Press and media coverage

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03-30-2018, 05:03 PM
Ravenscroft Ravenscroft is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: NW Minnesota
Posts: 1,724
Lightbulb maybe time to separate the "marriage" from the "open"

Okay, so it's about Wikipedia, therefore I figured "eh... media."

I keep an eye on "old school" pre-MySpace stuff because (at an educated guess) lots of people form early impressions of "poly" from these, & perhaps put too much faith in them. I went to WP this morning from passing curiosity about how they portray polyfidelity as separate from polyamory.

Then I figured to compare to other concepts, like open marriage. Now, I am NOT a fan of the "open marriage" idea -- among other faults, it supports "sacred dyad" Monogamist thinking, therefore immediately veering away from core ideals of polyamory. When people talk "open" couplehood they really ought to stick closer to the "couple" part, & avoid confusing people (themselves & others) with claims to poly-anything.

Anyway, I go up to the WP search box, start typing in "Open marriage"... & a few letters in wind up with a list of articles --
For the most part, each article seems unaware of the others, happily wasting bytes at both re-chewing the same cud & directly contradicting each other. All I can figure is that "an idiot with a hammer thinks everything looks like a nail." Each is likely someone's "wild hair" project or hobbyhorse, or dragged over from their blog, deliberately ignoring the existence of other headings that'd serve as well (if not better).

Here's how I figure it: go back to the root & take the "marrriage" part out entirely. File it all into headings under the open relationship article.

Though Monogamism demands that couplehood is the ONLY POSSIBLE form of relating -- & everything else thereby a rude challenge, or a momentary aberration, or somehow "on the border" of the True Faith without actually stepping over -- it's at best secondary whether any given person is a solo individual (momentarily or circumstantially or intentionally) or part of a larger group, whether that group has two or three or seven or forty members.

Meantime, I really ought to find someone who knows more about Wikipedia & ask if these rather fluffy & self-serving essays can be rolled into one ghastly mass as being "about the same thing," in hopes at least that the redundancies can be cut.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 03-31-2018, 11:12 PM
Ravenscroft Ravenscroft is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: NW Minnesota
Posts: 1,724
Default

Hey, amazing. I guess I notified the right people, as there's been work done that will (hopefully) lead to the whole mess going under Open relationship

Wow, there does need work to be done. Like, one article basically says that "polyamory is a type of open marriage." That is just wrong on multiple levels...
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-01-2018, 12:08 AM
vinsanity0's Avatar
vinsanity0 vinsanity0 is offline
Spaminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: South Florida
Posts: 1,858
Default

But polyamory can be a type of open marriage.
__________________
Vince 55/het/m
Bella 52/f mono seriously dating
Mary 55/het/f/married platonic LDR
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-01-2018, 05:19 PM
Ravenscroft Ravenscroft is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: NW Minnesota
Posts: 1,724
Default

No, that's bass-ackwards, like claiming that polyamory is a subset (or variant) of polyfidelity. Open marriage can be a type of polyamory.

IMO, the world still has lots of underlying assumptions that somehow monogamy came first, & everything else is either an extension or a perversion (or maybe an evolution) of The One True Way. This attitude helps deflect the peons from noting the inherent artificiality (not to mention constant failures) imposed by Monogamism.

More "liberalized" beliefs work from the thesis that "there must be TWO people at the center" & "firm relational boundaries are natural" -- neither of which is particularly polyamorousness. While "polyfidelity" was coined long before "polyamory," the latter practice (though uncodified) has certainly been around MUCH longer.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-01-2018, 06:23 PM
vinsanity0's Avatar
vinsanity0 vinsanity0 is offline
Spaminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: South Florida
Posts: 1,858
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenscroft View Post
No, that's bass-ackwards, like claiming that polyamory is a subset (or variant) of polyfidelity. Open marriage can be a type of polyamory.
Except polyfidelty has no variants that I am aware of. Both polyamory and open marriage have variants. If we were to construct a chart we would find each under the other heading.
__________________
Vince 55/het/m
Bella 52/f mono seriously dating
Mary 55/het/f/married platonic LDR
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 04-02-2018, 12:46 AM
GalaGirl GalaGirl is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,783
Default

I think it's good you pointed out the mess and that Wikipedia people are considering how to clean that area up some.

So the new "bullet list of links" could go how? Like this?

Open relationship
  • List of various types of open models.
  • Open marriage (is on the list at this level as another open model.)
    • Open marriage styles
      • swinging (open for casual sex only)
      • polyamory (open for sharing love, maybe also sex)
    • Open marriage acceptance
    • Open marriage incidence
    • Open marriage jealousy

Galagirl

Last edited by GalaGirl; 04-02-2018 at 01:52 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 04-02-2018, 01:04 AM
kdt26417's Avatar
kdt26417 kdt26417 is offline
Official Greeter
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Yelm, Washington
Posts: 15,815
Default

I think the categories are squishy, and one may be thought of as a subset of another or the other way around. Or more accurately, two categories can be thought of as intersecting each other.
__________________
Love means never having to say, "Put down that meat cleaver!"
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 04-02-2018, 06:25 AM
Leetah Leetah is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Western US
Posts: 620
Default

Venn diagram time!

Leetah
__________________
" I know you think you understand what you thought I said but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant"
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 04-02-2018, 03:22 PM
Al99's Avatar
Al99 Al99 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 1,277
Default

Quote:
While "polyfidelity" was coined long before "polyamory,"
I just recently read this same bit of data in "Designer Relationships" (just a couple of days ago - synchronistic) - and found it interesting as polyfidelity is often portrayed in the literature and in the forum discussions as a subset of polyamory.

Here's a relevant Wikipedia quote that Google popped up.
Quote:
Jennifer L. Wesp created the Usenet newsgroup alt.polyamory in May 1992, and the Oxford English Dictionary cites the proposal to create that group as the first verified appearance of the word. The term polyfidelity, now considered a subset of polyamory, was coined in the 1970s by members of the Kerista commune.
Which also points out polyfidelity being viewed as a subset of polyamory.

Patricia Johnson and Mark A. Michaels, in their book "Designer Relationships" just refer to the term polamory as being from the 90's and polyfidelity as being from the 70's. I am about a third of the way through this book, and thus far have found it quite interesting and engaging - hope this bears out through the rest of the book. Al
__________________
Dramatis Personae:
Me: Al99, poly, heterosexual male, 50's
Becky: married to Al99, poly, heterosexual female, late 30's
Bouncingbetty: ldr girlfriend to Al99, poly, pansexual female, early 30's
Ben: Becky's medium-ldr bf, heterosexual male, 40's
_________________________________________


My Introductory Post - An Unexpected Introduction to Poly.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 04-03-2018, 02:22 AM
Ravenscroft Ravenscroft is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: NW Minnesota
Posts: 1,724
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GalaGirl View Post
So the new "bullet list of links" could go how? Like this?
Oh, no, much simpler. There are five articles that are little but subtopics of Open marriage, & in fact already have their own sections in that article.

In turn, Open marriage is clearly just a special case of Open relationship.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Al99 View Post
polyfidelity is often portrayed in the literature and in the forum discussions as a subset of polyamory.
Polyfidelity is a special case of group marriage. (Interestingly, neither of these relies for definition on a preexisting marriage certificate, or even on a preexisting dyad. ) Group marriage is a specific form of consensual nonmonogamy.

I've brought up before that a recurring "poly problem" is that the term polyamory is often misused to mean all forms of responsible nonmonogamy, or even all nonmonogamy like cheating. So, in the popular mind, polyfidelity certainly has become a subset of polyamory.

FWIW, polyamory is MUCH better defined than polyfidelity. The latter largely stops at "marriage with more people" & therefore often Monogamist in thinking, dragging along stuff that doesn't work at all well in standard closed-dyad marriage & clinging to failure. (Also, & IME, polyfi people generally don't socialize much amongst themselves, wary of poaching & of being told they're "doing it wrong"... possibly projecting their own tendencies. I've seen pervasive zero-sum belief & an "I got mine" mentality.) There can be marked "man in charge" thinking.

But people drawn to polyamory have evolved the concept as both highly individualistic & vaguely communitarian. Emphasis is on negotiation, rather than creating & enforcing rules.
________________

Eventually, the five subsidiaries ought to be better integrated into the more-general topic. Certainly stuff like "jealousy" & "acceptance" must apply to more people than those who merely happen to have a marriage certificate.

In all seven articles, there's a fair bit of doubletalk & "flexible fact." Repeatedly, it's clear that the concept "marriage" largely obscures the concept "relationship." For instance --
Quote:
Styles of open marriage are distinctions between open marriages based on the motives for participating in open marriage and on the nature of extramarital relationships.
Quote:
Polyamory is motivated by a desire to expand love by developing emotionally involved relationships with extramarital partners.
Quote:
Couples in open marriages may prefer different kinds of extramarital relationships. Couples who prefer extramarital relationships emphasizing love and emotional involvement have a polyamorous style of open marriage. Couples who prefer extramarital relationships emphasizing sexual gratification and recreational friendships have a swinging style of open marriage. These distinctions may depend on psychological factors such as sociosexuality and may contribute to the formation of separate polyamory and swinging communities.
Quote:
Several definitional issues complicate attempts to determine the incidence of open marriage. People sometimes claim to have open marriages when their spouses would not agree. Couples may agree to allow extramarital sex but never actually engage in extramarital sex. Some researchers define open marriages in narrower terms than others.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:41 AM.