The Rules/Foundations of Poly

Why would you not use "multiamory"?

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. :)

One last question:
Why would you not use "multiamory"?

In practice, we do the same things, have very like views etc. I think it would be much easier if we could agree on some basic foundational things, and using "multiamory" as the more general term would, in practice, resolve a lot of issues, I think. Why not take the simplest approach here?
 
well continuing along with the semantics, here is my argument and hope that we change the focus of the thread, and future threads like this as well.

You have the semantics of a title and the semantics of the definition of an idea...Arguing the title of a polyamorous relationship, or the "principles" or law of when you call a relationship poly, is FAR LESS important than debating what RULES make a poly relationship WORK.

The semantics of a title is one thing. In the previous examples it would, "discussing the laws of WHO a poly person is, or WHAT a democratic nation is, or WHAT a poly relationship is"

The thing is...these aren't really up for debate. Discussion yes, and maybe eventual change of definition, but fundamentally not debatable. For instance, the argument that the u.s isn't "really" democratic, it's a republic. But technically it's a grey area, because a representative democracy(us) is like a republic. And basically(since only whites could vote), we were a republic. What made it us into a democratic republic were the MASS AMOUNTS of amendments over hundreds of years.

Those amendments weren't made by asking "what makes us democratic". They were made by asking, "what makes us a better democratic society"

Same thing goes for polyamorous relationships. We shouldn't be asking what makes a relationship poly. But rather, when multiple people engage in a romantic relationship, what are rules of conduct to make it work, according to the "polyamorous" model? The polyamorous model being, when in relationship with multiple people you must have, love, honesty, and trust(etc, etc). Going back to my U.S government example, they kept going back to the constitution, and made amendments for the better(or worse when some crooks got in). In this way, I think we as a community should discuss what makes poly work in the way of laws like the constitution.

another u.s government example...
"Democracy is about communication. Communication power is political power, because the power to influence the beliefs and perceptions of populations has proven to be the most effective political weapon of the century. That's why democracy works, but though it can range from positive and negative, it by far the least destructive form of government seen to this day, and therefore has lead way to the most effective evolving of society we've seen in thousands of years."

So given the above example, that argument for what makes poly and what kinds of "laws" we should have for it would be...
"Polyamory is about...this is why polyamory works."

Hell, maybe we should have a poly constitution hahaha. Anyway, i'm just saying...don't get so caught up on titles, jeez.
 
Why polyamory is wrong ;)

polyamory_is_wrong_tshirt-p235838933475364492cxkc_400.jpg


On a somewhat more serious note, that linguistic hybrid

1. Guarantees that nobody can say what the term "really" means. There is no such meaning. It is a construction, and the meaning is up to us users to decide.

2. Makes room for more "proper" non-hybrid terms. Like "multiamory" to denote the more general "multiple love with no strings attached whatsoever". The issue is not whether such forms can work or not, for they clearly do for some, but whether the terms are useful for what we are struggling with. And because I don't think we can make a poly foundation work without the "my poly is not your poly" principle, i think we will make communication extremely difficult for ourselves if we can't assume a "poly" built on - for example - communication.

Original link: http://kat-feministfatale.blogspot.com/2010/03/menage-trois.html
 
Last edited:
I think I have been thinking of this in terms of poly love rather than relationship. If someone is mono in the relationship then it doesn't matter if the poly partner is able and wanting to love more than one. The fact of the matter is that they need support to do so.

I would say that the foundation of poly relationships is not only the capacity to love more than one, but the ability to not take ownership and possession over ones partner.

This includes compersion, but I'm not sure that is a foundation but a result of a good foundation. Does that make sense?
 
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.

I think partly why is that there are so many of us who are poly that do define it exactly that way, me including and I daresay his Lilo also.
Obviously if his Lilo who is poly defines herself that way-and he's her mono partner, it's a good thing that he defines it the same as she does. ;)
 
I like the word multiamory. I wouldn't be against using the words "multiamory" and "mono(?)amory" instead of polyamory and monogamy, respectively. Although mono is greek, isn't it? What would it be in Latin?

But really, I'd rather use words that most people understand than words I like best. Why? Because words are just tools to communicate. What you want to communicate is meaning, not certain letters or sounds in a certain order. If I suddenly decide that black means white, I can't go around using the word and expect everyone to understand me.
 
What would it be in Latin?
Multiamory or polyphilia would be the latin and greek-derived words.

So, mixing and matching, we also have polyamory and multiphilia. Not sure how well that last one would go down, considering the other words that end in -philia.... *grin*
 
Multiamory or polyphilia would be the latin and greek-derived words.

So, mixing and matching, we also have polyamory and multiphilia. Not sure how well that last one would go down, considering the other words that end in -philia.... *grin*

Maybe "multiphilia" would go in the direction of "Casanova syndrome"? Like with "polyamory", there's no "correct" meaning in hybrides, they are new creatures..
 
The Creator's view

A little background info, from www.patheos.com

Morning Glory Zell-Ravenheart coined the term "polyamory" in this pioneer article, which originally appeared in 1990. She has been a priestess of the Church of All Worlds since 1974, travelling extensively to teach about C.A.W., Paganism, Polyamory, and the Goddess. She currently hosts "Great Goddess Weekend Retreats" in her home in Northern California. For the past 37 years she has been in a happy poly-relationship with her husband, Oberon Zell-Ravenheart, with whom she forms a triad with her dear friend and lover, Julie Epona. Morning Glory and Oberon sell their God and Goddess statues and jewelry through their website Mythic Images.

Here it is:http://original.caw.org/articles/bouquet.html

Just for the record, I don't subscribe to the Ravenhearts' religous ideas, but when someone invents a new word, I think it is good to follow the intentions when using it. Otherwise, we should invent a new one for our intentions, if they deviate.
 
A little background info, from www.patheos.com



Here it is:http://original.caw.org/articles/bouquet.html

Just for the record, I don't subscribe to the Ravenhearts' religous ideas, but when someone invents a new word, I think it is good to follow the intentions when using it. Otherwise, we should invent a new one for our intentions, if they deviate.

Language is fluid, if this was the case in language we would still be speaking...well something else. :)...man imagine if the english language hadn't adapted at all to the tremendous changes from the times of the roman until now...have you ever tried to listen to welsh...holy craptastically poor language...
 
Language is fluid, if this was the case in language we would still be speaking...well something else. :)...man imagine if the english language hadn't adapted at all to the tremendous changes from the times of the roman until now...have you ever tried to listen to welsh...holy craptastically poor language...
So, then: Because of the fluidity, you just let basic concepts, lik "democracy", "energy", "uniform convergence" (mathematics) etc flow along and mean whatever the speakers feel they should mean at any instant?

Happy communications, then! ;)

Edit, to be more precise:
Language changes, more or less rapidly, but always for a reason. May be "good" or "bad", but it's always there. And it's not always that rapid. In philosophy for instance, it would not make much sense to study Heraclitus, Socrates and Aristotle if there were no connection whatsoever between the way they used the words and what we understand with them today. There is always development, so interpreting over milennia is of course not trivial, but it's not impossible.

And in the actual case, we are barely two decades away. Which still may warrant substantial changes in the meaning of a newly coined word, but not by just invocation of fluidity of languange, you have to say WHY.
 
Last edited:
Multiamory or polyphilia would be the latin and greek-derived words.

So, mixing and matching, we also have polyamory and multiphilia. Not sure how well that last one would go down, considering the other words that end in -philia.... *grin*

Thanks, but my question was about "mono", not "mutli"/"poly".
Monoamorous is also a hybrid isn't it? What's the equivalent of "mono" in Latin? That's what my question was.
 
So why did "gay" go from meaning,

"having or showing a merry, lively mood"

To: "homosexual"



What about the word "virgin"?

Why did it go from meaning,
"an unmarried girl or woman"

to: "a person who has never had sexual intercourse"


I think that the problem here in this thread is that what WE (you/I) think the words SHOULD be or SHOULD mean-has little bearing on what they DO MEAN to the MAJORITY-because we aren't the majority.

We COULD agree to our own words for this board-but we've already seen enough people pissed off about how "judgmental" we are when we argued against one night stands not being love relationships.........

Told we were being closed-minded, unreasonable, insisting on putting OUR definitions on other people's lives when the board professes to be a place for ALL people to share about their poly-relationships.

There isn't a defition for the board-therefore we can't really hold to any one specified definition to be "agreed upon" in this venue either.

(And GOd knows my personal opinion is stricter than MANY of the opinions I've read on here, but it's not MY place to name another person's relationship)
 
So why did "gay" go from meaning,

"having or showing a merry, lively mood"

To: "homosexual"

I think for this specific one, it was when there needed to be a word for gay people to recognise each other, but without saying what they were in a flagrant way since it wasn't accepted. "Gay", having another, positive meaning, was a great euphemism.
It ended up staying because when people define themselves in a specific way, it makes sense to use that same meaning when talking about them.

I'm more curious as how it ended up meaning "lame" to some people (like, "that book is so gay" or things like that).

What about the word "virgin"?

Why did it go from meaning,
"an unmarried girl or woman"

to: "a person who has never had sexual intercourse"

I'm pretty sure these two were supposed to be the same thing. In other words, if you were unmarried, you had never had sexual intercourse. So it makes a lot of sense, when the two became separate things, that they each had their own word.

But yeah, language evolves, it's useless trying to control it. What matters is using the words in such a way that other people understand you. If you're the only person who understands what you're saying, you fail at communication.
 
I think for this specific one, it was when there needed to be a word for gay people to recognise each other, but without saying what they were in a flagrant way since it wasn't accepted. "Gay", having another, positive meaning, was a great euphemism.
It ended up staying because when people define themselves in a specific way, it makes sense to use that same meaning when talking about them.

Ton-it seems to me that this would promote the idea that if someone says that they are polyamorous-then they are and trying to rename them for your (general your-not you specifically) own comfort of definition is pointless...

I'm more curious as how it ended up meaning "lame" to some people (like, "that book is so gay" or things like that).
Yet another great question. I'd LOVE to hear that one explained in a point-ful manner.What I mean is-someone explain how that was a productive change in the COMMON understanding of the meaning of the word.

I'm pretty sure these two were supposed to be the same thing. In other words, if you were unmarried, you had never had sexual intercourse. So it makes a lot of sense, when the two became separate things, that they each had their own word.
Except that they definitely were not the same. Virgin in the time of Rome meant unwed-it did not mean you hadn't had sex.
But virgin now quite definitely means that you haven't had sex and its meaning has nothing to do with if you were or were not married.

But yeah, language evolves, it's useless trying to control it. What matters is using the words in such a way that other people understand you. If you're the only person who understands what you're saying, you fail at communication.

:) I agree, very much so.
Unfortunately this is a HUGE issue in relationships-any type of relationships. We all have such different histories and our life experience impacts what we think a word means. This crops up all of the time in day to day life-but even more so on here where so many of us are from different places too. The words that have common meaning where I live-aren't the same words with that common meaning where RP lives for example. And the words that mean one thing here, mean something totally different there.
So we all have to be VERY certain that we understand and accept that it IS different in different places, in different circumstances and we need to allow people the grace to be real in whatever way is "right" where they are in life-not by trying to make them fit our definition. ;)
 
Except that they definitely were not the same. Virgin in the time of Rome meant unwed-it did not mean you hadn't had sex.
But virgin now quite definitely means that you haven't had sex and its meaning has nothing to do with if you were or were not married.

But in the meantime Christianity happened, where both had to be the same. I really think that's how it happened.

In French, for instance, "fille" used to be used for unmarried women and "femme" for married women. That's how you have the word "vieille fille" (literally "old girl", meaning "old spinster").
But now it has changed into "has had sexual intercourse", basically. Being married or not doesn't really change anything.

I think in cultures that were influenced by Christanity, marriage and sex ended up so tied together that the meaning of words shifted from one to the other to accommodate when the normed stopped being "no sexual intercourse before marriage".

Similarly, "virgin" can also mean "unsoiled", which goes with the belief that sex is wrong and a sin, which there again comes from Judeo-Christian influences (possibly because sex without being married was (ad sometimes still is) considered a sin, possibly because enjoying sex is sometimes - depending on who you're reading - considered a sin as it should only be for procreation).

Nowadays beliefs have changed from then, of course, but the influence on some words I think remains.

I think etymology is fascinating, either way.
 
Back
Top