definitions of polyamory

Oh, before I forget: more definitions. :eek:

Polyamory Society --
Polyamory is the nonpossessive, honest, responsible and ethical philosophy and practice of loving multiple people simultanously.
Loving More --
Polyamory refers to romantic love with more than one person, honestly, ethically, and with the full knowledge and consent of all concerned. Polyamory often involves multiple long-term committed relationships, either separately or together, but it can also come in many different forms.
More Than Two website --
A polyamorous person is someone who has or is open to having more than one romantic relationship at a time, with the knowledge and consent of all their partners.

A polyamorous relationship is a romantic relationship where the people in the relationship agree that it’s okay for everyone to be open to or have other romantic partners.

Polyamory is the idea or practice of being polyamorous or having polyamorous relationships.
More Than Two (book) --
having multiple loving, often committed, relationships at the same time by mutual agreement, with honesty and clarity.
Sheff again--
a relationship style where people have more than one partner with the full knowledge and consent of all their partners.
Sheff once more --
the practice of, or desire for, intimate relationships where individuals may have more than one partner, with the knowledge and consent of everyone involved.

Has anyone else noticed how many definitions invalidate someone? Asexuals miss the Zell definition. Solo-poly, because how can they be considered "committed"? (Another great undefined word. :rolleyes:) Naturally, having any number of longterm FWBs doesn't count, failing the test at committed or serious or loving or romantic. And those of us who don't have at least two "serious" "partners" right this very second fail some definitions.
________________

Hmm. Looking back in the thread, I found this curious note --
Dr. Elisabeth "Eli" Sheff
(Widely respected polyamory researcher, author of "The Polyamorists Next Door" and "Stories From the Polycule".)
  • "respected" by whom?
  • vas ist das "respect"?
  • how "widely" are we talkin'?
  • am I the only one who has read neither of these books?
  • does this Authority make her definition... umm, definitive?
  • if so, which one?
Looks like another of those situations where people just blithely repeat stuff they've heard other people repeating until it becomes "true." ;)
 
Original quote from Al - who was just making an attempt to show why her opinion might matter. :) (After all, she's someone other than Veaux)
Dr. Elisabeth "Eli" Sheff
(Widely respected polyamory researcher, author of "The Polyamorists Next Door" and "Stories From the Polycule".)

Ravenscroft responded
"respected" by whom? et al
Iirc, I first heard of her on Minx's Poly Weekly - who had some quite respectful things to say about her - and Minx's 500+ podcasts over 10+ years would seem to qualify her to have an educated opinion - at least in my humble newbie opinion. And I believe that I recall seeing some positive reviews on Amazon as well. I did read her "Pamphlet" - "When someone you love is polyamorous" and do intend to read at least one of her other books (in the queue). However, your post did cause me to pause and look around for perhaps a more creditable opinion. So, here is what Emory University said about her:

Elisabeth Sheff
VISITING INSTRUCTOR
Adjunct or Visiting, Behavioral Sciences/Health Ed.


Dr. Elisabeth “Eli” Sheff is the foremost academic expert on polyamory in the US, and the worldwide expert on polyamorous families with children. Sheff’s first book, The Polyamorists Next Door: Inside Multiple-Partner Families and Relationships (2014), details her 15-year study of poly families with kids and was just reprinted in paperback, and her second book Stories from the Polycule: Real Life in Polyamorous Families (2015) is an edited anthology of writings by poly folks. An expert witness and Guardian Ad Litem with a background in academic sociology, Dr. Sheff specializes in gender and sexual minority families, kink/BDSM, and issues facing trans* people. She is the CEO and Director of Legal Services at the Sheff Consulting Group, a think-tank of experts specializing in unconventional and underserved populations. You can find her blog on Psychology Today at http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-polyamorists-next-door

Media worldwide recognize Dr. Sheff as an expert on polyamory, with interviews in US outlets like the Huffington Post, Newsweek, The Boston Globe, CNN, and National Public Radio, and international sources such as Semana magazine in Columbia, Mente e Cervello (the Italian edition of Scientific American), Elle magazine in Quebec, and the Sunday London Times. Dr. Eli has also done numerous interviews with online magazines like Momlogic.com and Seattle Met, and podcasts like The Sex Geeks, Polyamory Weekly and How Stuff Works. Her media appearances include several HuffPost live online chats, film documentaries about polyamory and BDSM, and television shows like CNN news, National Geographic’s series Taboo, and the Sunrise morning show in Sydney, Australia.

Dr. Sheff has spoken at many academic conferences like the American Psychiatric Association and the American Sociological Association, as well as conventions like Poly Living, Frolicon, and DragonCon.

https://www.sph.emory.edu/faculty/profile/#!ESHEFF

I've only read the one pamphlet, so I don't really have much of an opinion about her so far - although it does seem that there are some others who do think well of her. Al
 
Last edited:
Maybe it's just the painkillers, but the Loving More entry is defying my logic --

Polyamory often involves multiple long-term committed relationships, either separately or together

In all puzzled :confused: seriousness, can anyone explain that sentence to me?

It is undoubtedly confusing. Perhaps the point that the author was attempting to make was along the lines of "poly as a V" or "poly as a triad" ? Just a thought, but really .... also confused.

Al
 
Well I'm thinking they are trying to include triads, quads and whatever more than those are called.

Never heard of Sheff. I couldn't tell you the name of any authors of poly books without looking them up. I was familiar with Cunning Minx through BDSM, but that is a hard name to forget.

The reality is the only expert on my relationships is me.

Ravenscroft, there will always be a "what about __________?" aspect to any definition. I have a romantic relationship with someone i don't have sex with and neither of us are asexual.

Maybe some things can't be clearly defined.
 
Iirc, I first heard of her on Minx's Poly Weekly - who had some quite respectful things to say about her - and Minx's 500+ podcasts over 10+ years would seem to qualify her to have an educated opinion - at least in my humble newbie opinion. And I believe that I recall seeing some positive reviews on Amazon as well. I did read her "Pamphlet" - "When someone you love is polyamorous" and do intend to read at least one of her other books (in the queue). However, your post did cause me to pause and look around for perhaps a more creditable opinion. So, here is what Emory University said about her:



https://www.sph.emory.edu/faculty/profile/#!ESHEFF

I've only read the one pamphlet, so I don't really have much of an opinion about her so far - although it does seem that there are some others who do think well of her. Al

I've met her and attended some of her presentations. I also have read some of her books. She is working on a longitudinal study of poly families - it's been in progress since the 1990s. To my knowledge, she is only one doing such a study. There have been many who have done snapshots of poly folks via surveys and such. But Dr. Shef goes back every 5 to 10 years and interviews the people in her study, including the children in poly families (done in an age appropriate manner and with the parent's permission).

So, yes, she is very impressive. Go to a presentation of hers if you get the chance. Her books are well written and interesting.
 
Re (from Ravenscroft):
"And here we are, 35 years later, & nobody's seen fit to get behind ONE clear, solid, verifiable definition of polyamory. People show up here & claim some of the most outrageous crap is 'poly' & someone else quacks about how 'that's true because everybody does poly different,' & when noobs latch onto THAT & go make their own idiotic mistakes, nobody steps up & says 'maybe this nonsense ought to finally CEASE.'
And THAT is what I'd like to see."

Sounds like we need a definition that is rather exclusive. Perhaps it would include a statement on the order of, "Authentic polyamory is invariably carried out sensibly, responsibly, and free of the artifacts of Monogamism." It might also include a list of things that have no place in polyamory. I imagine the list would include some of the following.

  • If it has a poly-fi element, then it's not polyamory.
  • If it has a DADT element, then it's not polyamory.
  • If it has veto power, then it's not polyamory.
  • If it has couple privilege, then it's not polyamory.
  • If it involves unicorn hunting, then it's not polyamory.
That's all I can think of at the moment. I'm not saying I'd get behind such a definition, I'm just wondering if I have the right idea.
 
Maybe it's just the painkillers, but the Loving More entry is defying my logic --
Polyamory often involves multiple long-term committed relationships, either separately or together
In all puzzled :confused: seriousness, can anyone explain that sentence to me?

I believe that that sentence refers to all poly that's linked (the same way that I say it's based on a linked grouping) no matter how thick or thin the strand.

"Together" would be a triad, quad, or whatever that lives together in the same home.

"Separately" would be poly where one home is NOT shared so the poly situation is multiple separate groups that are linked.
 
  • If it has a poly-fi element, then it's not polyamory.
  • If it has a DADT element, then it's not polyamory.
  • If it has veto power, then it's not polyamory.
  • If it has couple privilege, then it's not polyamory.
  • If it involves unicorn hunting, then it's not polyamory.
Actually, that's a really darned good list. :) but, some cavils.

Iimagining a Venn diagram, I can readily see where there's polyfidelity that is highly consonant with the ideals of polyamory, & as well polyfidelity that remains trapped -- perhas happily :eek: -- within the strictures of Monogamism. IMO, it's a disservice to BOTH to act as though they're somehow identical because of superficial similarities.

And as for unicorn hunters... well, heck, gods bless 'em. I try to believe they're sincere, & good-hearted people. And maybe they WILL find "our girl" & never again even attempt to deal with the rabble of general polyamory.
 
I'm surprised the unicorn hunters got off so easily. :D Anyway that list is a wild guess, I'm satisfied if it was at least partially right.

I'm curious as to how one might discern whether a given instance of polyfidelity is trapped within the strictures of Monogamism (regardless of whether it's happily so). Do we need another list, or can we use the existing list? Are there more items to be added to the existing list?
 
FWIW, I'll say again that I don't see anything "wrong" with non-polyamorous nonmonogamy. Other forms have their own strengths &/or play to the particular needs of the individuals (& dyads & groupings) involved. It'd NOT be a positive to try to squish them into some weird shape to fit "polyamory," & certainly no better to constantly rework "polyamory" to be all-inclusive.

Generally, the "couples seeking" are good people overwhelmed by Romantic fantasy. While I believe that these notions MUST be be halted ASAP in order to avoid catastrophe (or at least stop the bleeding), & I do sometimes get frustrated when they'd rather cling to the delusion than actually do what they claim they're trying to do, I don't see them as failed human beings. (If anything, maybe all too human.)

Then there's PF. For a long time, I've said glibly that "polyfidelity is a closed relational form." By that I meant "no sex outside the family."

But people I've met who want or have polyfidelity have shown quite a range of "closed"-ness. Some live in abject fear of being "found out" by family or neighbors or Child Protective Services. They take pains to not be seen with "their other," who's maybe directing all mail to a PO box; if they all live in an apartment, they might avoid using the same entrance.

It's just IMO, but I figure living in that siege mentality of fear/shame will quickly enough -- no matter how righteous & proud the people are at the outset -- beat them into fear & shame, & maybe outright paranoia. Avoiding social scrutiny is functionally a way of avoiding full-on commitment. Overall: not polyamory.

There's couples who have plainly stated that they were only going to be socially active within "the poly community" until they found "their girl," & then they'd all run off to some remote cabin or farmstead or island or Third World country & live happily forever with minimal contact with the outside world. (Terms like "off the grid" are often heard.)

To me, this sounds somewhat cultish -- will anyone have an "out" if things go bad? what if (say) one wants medical attention but the other two refuse? -- & highly likely to fail. And, again, no social scrutiny. Not polyamory.

I also know sexually closed vees/triads who casually go out in public in 3s & 2s, shop together, chat with neighbors, hang out when inlaws visit, maybe even go to family get-togethers. Openness, responsibility, commitment... yeah, polyfidelity as a subgroup of polyamory.

(My partners both worked at the same corporate office of American Express. Their shifts overlapped, so they'd go for a coffee or talk a bit, maybe holding hands. I guess that was brave for 1985, but it seemed natural to us.)

Hence, my case that "polyfidelity" is at best partly inside polyamory & partly outside. And maybe it'd be best for both populations -- from a therapeutic standpoint at least, but also for finding suitable dating partners -- if there was clear separation possible.
 
And here we are, 35 years later, & nobody's seen fit to get behind ONE clear, solid, verifiable definition of polyamory

Well... while wordings vary somewhat, nevertheless, in the definitions put forth by such leading poly voices as Sheff, Veaux, and Minx, as well as various dictionaries, and the original definition used by the creator of the term "polyamory", we find the definition contains the key components of multiple loving partners and knowledge and consent off all involved. These definitions do not extend to encompass the various poly culture philosophies that have evolved through the years that propose to formulate an ethical system for the practice of polyamory. Certainly they do not suggest that there is one best/true way to practice poly that is the most authentic (and, wow, would that word stir up some flame wars if applied to any number of other subjects).

What I see being discussed in these recent posts is more like a list of suggested best practices or a proposed definition for "ethical polyamory" - although that definition and what constitutes ethical poly would almost certainly bring serious debate as well.

Or perhaps - if these views are pervasive enough, the dictionary poly should be changed to have numbered definitions as some words do - with 1. being the current dictionary definition and 2. encompassing the philosophical and ethical constructs surrounding the first definition. Al
 
Bolded:
I didn't say "your words" I said "your definition"... I'm guessing that you copied that definition from some dictionary source... so it would be their words copied by you.

It's important because I live in a fact based world.


Non-bolded:
You've explained why you don't believe that they apply to you, yes. I fully agree with you there. I accept that YOU don't believe that they apply to YOU. However out in the real world where facts matter they do apply to you, as shown.

There's enough false information and crap passed off as "the truth about Poly" that those that believe in Poly shouldn't perpetuate the passing of it too.

I don't believe a "chain of people" = "Cohesive group" either... but they represent a group unified by a common thread (which falls in line with that definition you provided). You seem to caught up on the word "cohesive"... when that word isn't actually in the definition of "group"

As "Poly" means "many", there's only one basic principle to poly... it will be in a group... because a "group" is "anything more than 1" with "some unifying characteristic" (from YOUR definition). Anything and everything else about it... I agree... that's up to each group to define for themselves.

ETA: Hell... technically speaking even Monogamy is a "group activity"... because there's two people involved... and two is a group. It's a SMALL group, but it's still a group.

LOL thank you for explaining to me that you live in a fact-based world! That is not dismissive or condescending at all, of course.

I am still confused, though. I am not in a poly group that is connected by any one unifying element or common thread. With my partner, his partners, their partners, and THEIR various partners, etc, some of them love each other romantically, some are just casual sex partners or kinky play partners, some just started dating, some have deep friendships with a sexual element, some are asexual with romantic friendships, some are platonic life partners, some are in the process of breaking up, some relationships have shifted from love to ex to friendship while still considering each other partners. Etc. It's very fluid.

I can't identify the common thread that connects all these people. Please explain it to me, so that I can fit my life into your fact-based world.
 
Apologies, MeeraReed, I intended to respond...:eek:
Islands that Meera Has Visited.
Totally liking the analogy. :)
If I am dating 3 people, that does NOT mean that I am dating "a group of people." Sure, you could identify those 3 people as "the group of humans who are dating Meera," but that would be a very artificial construct.

They would not think of themselves as a group, I would not think of them as a group, and the 4 of us would not form "a group" unless we decided to all live together or something.
Yes; exactly my feeling. And the way you subsequently parse this out is totaly consonant with what I'm saying (but I don't want to clog up the thread with overquotes. ;))
 
So you don't want a definition. You want a complete dictionary. :rolleyes:
So,
  1. nonsense. :p I cannot believe your brain is so tiny that something bigger than ~25 words constitutes "a dictionary"... though of course you're free to dispute that. :D
  2. are you saying there'd be something WRONG with that? that all "polyamorists" are somehow either so omniscient they will never need it OR they're intellectually incapable of handling such a HUGE conceptual burden? :rolleyes:
 
So technically speaking, poly-anything is, by definition, "group based"... whether the group is tightly knit or barely held together by the most infinitesimally small thread.
And by THAT definition, I must necessarily alert ALL of those people (& apparently receive their explicit approval!!) BEFORE I even THINK about pursuing a possible intimate relationship -- with "intimate" yet to be well-defined -- else it's NOT "polyamory."

Q.E.D. ;)
 
such leading poly voices as Sheff, Veaux, and Minx
Nope, don't see it. Again, use of vague arm-waving words. It's right up there with "well-known poly activist." :rolleyes:
as well as various dictionaries
Generally based off OED, right? :eek:
and the original definition used by the creator of the term "polyamory"
...of which I have at least three in my notes, with some disagreement between them -- not unlike the Sheff defs I've already quoted in this thread.
we find the definition contains the key components of multiple loving partners and knowledge and consent off all involved.
...& to repeat myself, entirely avoiding consistent definitions of
  • multiple
  • loving
  • partners
  • knowledge
  • consent
  • all
  • involved
These definitions do not extend to encompass the various poly culture philosophies that have evolved through the years that propose to formulate an ethical system for the practice of polyamory.
So, why DON'T they??? :eek: Why is spinelessness so readily accepted as A Good Thing?
Certainly they do not suggest that there is one best/true way to practice poly that is the most authentic
...thus, essentially, skating neatly past any need to employ the very definition of the very word "definition." :(
What I see being discussed in these recent posts is more like a list of suggested best practices or a proposed definition for "ethical polyamory"
Do you yet grasp that you are attempting to undermine a discussion of the subject... because it makes you uncomfortable... because it might find some actual flaws in "high church" polyamory?

Wow, now that I think of it, I never thought I'd have to define a parallel to Monogamism -- call it Polyamorism -- where the words of The Holy Zell & her (self-appointed) acolytes are sacred & must not EVER be looked at too closely (much less questioned).

But then I get confused when I get confronted for "trying to define the word for everyone" specifically because I'm questioning the "accepted" definitions.

The depressing irony is that I got a 186,000-word book (plus the bibliography) published, yet never explicitly tried to define the term. :(
 
Apologies for redundancy, but it keeps slipping past.

Zell's use of "poly-amorous" was first published in 1990.

I have been openly nonmonogamous since ~1983. My B.Sci. paper (1988) was a study of the rise of the term "group marriage" in popular media; my proposed M.Sci. paper was on the interpersonal dynamics within a nonmonogamous household. I've corresponded with Larry Constantine, Robert Rimmer, & Roger Libby.

If primacy is important, then I win, & by a pretty good margin. :cool:

I've had better things to do than being an "activist" -- in part because I have always detested proselytizers, whether Bible-wavers or Scientologists or Moonies or Krishnas or Adventists or Republicans or Mormons.

As a result, I've never been particularly interested in being "a poly voice" or any such nonsense, & would probably laugh loudly & derisively at such a label heading my way.

...but I certainly do know what I'm talkin' about.
 
Well... while wordings vary somewhat, nevertheless, in the definitions put forth by such leading poly voices as Sheff, Veaux, and Minx, as well as various dictionaries, and the original definition used by the creator of the term "polyamory", we find the definition contains the key components of multiple loving partners and knowledge and consent off all involved. These definitions do not extend to encompass the various poly culture philosophies that have evolved through the years that propose to formulate an ethical system for the practice of polyamory.
I think you nail it and I agree completely.

Ravenscroft, with no dispute to your primacy, why the hack do you need the philosophy to be part of the definition?

Definitions are, in their nature, very basic and never explaining all the implications, nor the rites associated with the practice.

They are also, since we are using language, always imperfect.

If you want to, you can attempt to define more diverse terms (like "Monogamism-based polyfidelity" or whatever) within the umbrela of polyamory, which, regardless the wording involve "multiple loving partners and knowledge and consent off all involved".

If you originally intended to define the terms otherwise, but the other "activists" and various users of the term have settled for something less then you envisioned? I'm sorry for that. It's what it is.
 
Back
Top