What do You call family members

amaSir

New member
My partner and i are discussing having a Poly family. Discussing logistics, etc we have been using Polygomay terms and i am not thrilled with those terms.
It would be me, my man. and another woman. Some people use "sister wives", what else do You use? We discussed i would be the Alpha of two women. Is there another term for this?
Thanks!
 
I suggest you do some reading here and find out what the terms are that are used first. Then you can create your own. It is very difficult to talk to other poly people if you are using a different language however so some tolerance might be in order if you are hoping to be a part of a larger community.

For instance, "sister wives" is a polygamy term, not a poly term. In poly we have "metamours." This term is used for both males and females who are the other partner of our partner. Also, the term "primary" is given for the partner of someone who is of most importance, rather than "Alpha."

I can appreciate that you don't like the terms. Some don't some do... but they are known and understood... there is a whole section on definitions and terms in the stickies, or you could do a tag search for "primary," "secondary," "metamours," "hierarchy," "prescriptive," "descriptive," anything that takes an interest. Oh, "unicorn" is another as that seems to be what you are looking for.
 
Definitions

Thanks Redpepper. I am sorry if it came across as judgemental. NEVER meant that. I know it is not polygamy and thats why i wanted this communities terms. i have been reading and listening here on Your site. Any other info or resources you or anyone else has is appreciated!
 
Just so you know, I didn't take it as such, but thanks for saying so just the same. :D Just as I had to say some stuff just the same, ;)

I call Mono my baby, PN my love, Derby my sweets and Leo, well, just Leo ;) my boy, LB is my bubs. Really there is no need for us to have names other than that...

There is a whole thread on what we call our loves somewhere... can't remember what tag, sorry... if anyone finds it, feel free to tag it.

These discussions come up over and over again. :rolleyes: gotta love the predictable poly world... it's the shit that no one can figure out that gets me... like mono/poly relationships! GAUD, if anyone figures that shit out I will personally come over and bow down to you, for you will be my hero!!:D
 
These discussions come up over and over again. :rolleyes: gotta love the predictable poly world... it's the shit that no one can figure out that gets me... like mono/poly relationships! GAUD, if anyone figures that shit out I will personally come over and bow down to you, for you will be my hero!!:D

Wouldn't it be boring if we didn't have the discussions/disagreements/dissent?

Although dialing it back about 40% would be fine with me...

It's interesting to see how different people learn new information... Some read for hours, and end up with the intellectual understandings. Others jump in and ask questions.. with no research...so the important questions get buried in a stack of trivial questions. A combination of the two is best...

I'll bet we've got people who just watch and read... but never feel confident enough to ask... I wonder what their questions would be.

(okay, I can't tell if I've had too much or not enough coffee... but I'd better head to work.) Have a good day all!!
 
Perception!

\so the important questions get buried in a stack of trivial questions.

i must respectfully disgree with this a bit. What seems Trivial to you is important knowledge to another. As people explore they start slow. I have been reading, on other sites, books. i did not jump directly into deep philosophical discussions. And many of us are just exploring not even planning on this way of life yet. So ALL information is important. And those who really truly decide to keep studying and learn will find a deeper level of education. And since this is the "newbie" section, yes, you will have repeat questions, and they may bore you and cause old timers eye rolls, but they are NEW and important information to some of us.
 
i must respectfully disgree with this a bit. What seems Trivial to you is important knowledge to another. As people explore they start slow. I have been reading, on other sites, books. i did not jump directly into deep philosophical discussions. And many of us are just exploring not even planning on this way of life yet. So ALL information is important. And those who really truly decide to keep studying and learn will find a deeper level of education. And since this is the "newbie" section, yes, you will have repeat questions, and they may bore you and cause old timers eye rolls, but they are NEW and important information to some of us.
I entirely agree and please don't think anyone is bored. We have all been at a beginning and respect that others are too. So please hold off on being frustrated as the intent of posts isn't always what you think.

When I posted last night I had to laugh because I work very hard at tagging and making sure that stickies are available for everyone to find easily. The search engine on here sucks and I am well aware of it. I have been here from the beginning (four months off) and know everything (just about) that has been written on... sometimes I don't bother tagging conversations because they appear to be casual and then they pop up over again a year later, just has yours has and I have to just laugh... not at you, but at the irony...

Anyone can tag thread that they think are important. I suggest tagging them with many words so others can find them and learn also. What I think is important is not what others find important and I want to be as inclusive as possible.

Please carry on... I don't mean to hijack, but just remember to ask if you feel judged as quite often the tone that comes across on posts is not intended as you think.
 
Poly Family

Thanks redpepper and i know the writer was not trying to be mean in any way. i just used the opportunity to remind others that ALL questions are important. i was a HS teacher for 6 years. i taught History to 5 classes a day. the SAME thing 5 times a day. it could get frustrating answering the same questions over and over. i had to remind myself that to Period 5 it was just as new as to those in Period 1. i was bored as i had already answered it 4 times.
This is not the only forum that has that issue. Most do. i have a hard shell and was not offended i assure you. BUT many others would be scared off, offended or hurt. and this is a very personal touchy subject. no one wants people who really need help to be scared away.
So far this forum has been great and i did use the glossary last night and shared it with my partner. So thanks for that!
we actually discussed discussed using the "rules" as a skeleton and making up our own family patterns. What fits and works best for us. But this site has really brought up wonderful discussions and ideas!
 
I've sometimes used "co-husband" or "co-wife" instead of metamour. While people in the poly community are familiar with the concept of a metamour, they can have trouble understanding while you're talking about, even when you explain. I find "co-husband" and "co-wife" more straightforward.
 
Isn't polygamy covered under polyamory?

"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."

Just feels weird when someone says "that's a polygamy term not a poly term".
 
Yes, I would agree that polygamy is a form of polyamory, but a lot of poly (non polygamous) people feel reluctant to be associated with very religious polygyny that's sometimes forced on young girls, etc.
Personally I see it in the same was as monogamy not necessarily meaning forced marriages even if we all know that can happen. As far as I'm concerned, any poly relationship in which at least one person has more than one primary qualifies as polygamy.
 
Isn't polygamy covered under polyamory?

"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."

Just feels weird when someone says "that's a polygamy term not a poly term".
Polygamy involves conjugal unions, ie: it's a form of Marriage.

Polyamory is about relationships...romantic, and generally intimate. But as any long married person could tell you, romance and marriage don't necessarily have anything to do with each other. ;)
 
Polygamy involves conjugal unions, ie: it's a form of Marriage.

Polyamory is about relationships...romantic, and generally intimate. But as any long married person could tell you, romance and marriage don't necessarily have anything to do with each other. ;)

But since marriage to more than one person isn't allowed in most western cultures, I think using that term for marriage-like relationships as well makes a lot of sense. After all, even what's commonly thought of as polygamy isn't legal polygamy.
 
But since marriage to more than one person isn't allowed in most western cultures, I think using that term for marriage-like relationships as well makes a lot of sense. After all, even what's commonly thought of as polygamy isn't legal polygamy.

That's why the anti-polygamy laws in Canada are so contentious for org's like the CPAA. While the gov may not recognize or allow multiple conjugal unions legally, it doesn't prevent defacto unions from being made anyways, if by a non-recognized ceremony or by something more resembling common law marriage.

Either way, the key distinction between polygamy and polyamory at a basic level will be that polygamy is dealing in multiple spouses, regardless of legality, recognitions, or cause.

While some polyamorists may be interested in and even enter into marriage type situations, the scope of polyamory is more broadly focused on the ethical conduct of multiple relationships. A lot of polyamorist relationships have no resemblance to marriage.
At the same time, as can be seen in some of they testimony around the reference case in BC, polygamy doesn't always resemble ethical either.

Polyamory and polygamy have subsets that intersect, but neither is directly related to the other. They're close cousins, not entirely unlike poly & swinging, or ham and jam (Both can be great in Sandwiches, but there's many other options too).
 
I call my husband, Maca, "honey" or "M". I introduce him as my husband or his given name.

I call my boyfriend, GG, "M'ebe". I introduce him as my boyfriend or his given name.

I call Mimi my sister. I introduce her as my sister. (she's part of our poly-quad-family, but she's not sexually involved with any of us).

Our kids:
I call Spicy Pea "idjet" (been her nickname since she was born).
I call Salty Pea "D" (cause that's what the baby calls him and it's cute).
I call Sweet Pea "sweet pea" or "my sexy baby" (cause when he was 2-3 he thought it wasn't fair I said his daddy was sexy)
I call Sour Pea "love bug" or "baby".

:)
 
Either way, the key distinction between polygamy and polyamory at a basic level will be that polygamy is dealing in multiple spouses, regardless of legality, recognitions, or cause.

I think most here understand what polygamy is, I just feel that polyamory covers polygamy under its scope. They aren't separate, it's similar to something like poly fidelity being a subset of polyamory. People may not want to associate polyamory with polygamy for various political reasons, but until the the definition of polyamory changes or adds some limiters it's fairly obvious (to me anyhow) polygamy is a form of polyamory.

I've even seen people here and in other poly circles eagerly awaiting the results of the polygamy trials to see if it will affect them (how could it affect them if what they were doing wasn't related?).

In reality, polyamory is too broad a term and doesn't explain much about a relationship or what you're into really. It can easily confuse someone if you say you're polyamorous because you're instantly related to every single fringe relationship type that exists if they do some research.

Due to the current small size of the poly movement we would lose a lot of power if we started splintering into our own subsections and started fighting purely for them, I would think?
 
Due to the current small size of the poly movement we would lose a lot of power if we started splintering into our own subsections and started fighting purely for them, I would think?
Movement? Power? Fight? Not all of us are activists.

This argument does not help the OP with their question, so I'm sorry to contribute the threadjack! Preciselove, maybe you should start a new thread on the topic.
 
What bugs me with the idea that polygamy and polyamory are two completely different things that just happen to intersect is that to me polygamy is a subscategory of polyamory, and it can be done wrong, just like poly can be done wrong and lead to trouble.

But to me, polyamory means the ability to be in love with more than one person at a time, or the practice of having more than one partner at a time. It's not a "movement", it's a relationship orientation. And as much as people want to include "equality of the sexes" and things like that into the definition, I disagree, unless we redefine monogamy to exclude the possibility of inequality between the sexes as well.
Some polyamorous, non-polygamous relationships aren't egalitarian. Some are one way (you can date women but not men/ I can date other people but you can't) and everyone involved is fine with the decided rules, as much as it might seem unfair from the outside.
Religious polygyny seems unfair from the outside to a lot of people, but I entirely believe that it has the potential to be done right, with the consent and knowledge of everyone involved, which is what polyamory is all about.
The fact that there can be abuse in polygamy doesn't make it a different category in my opinion, as there can be abuse in all relationships and that doesn't cause them not to be considered relationships anymore.

Polyamory is about having more than one partner. Polygamy is about having a marriage-like relationship with more than one partner. Therefore polygamy is a form of polyamory, just like monogamous marriage is a form of monogamy, and both polyamory and monogamy are types of relationships.

If you take your all arguments and replace "polyamory" with "monogamy" and "polygamy" with "monogamous marriage", I'm sure you can see that "monogamy and monogamous marriage are two different entities that just happen to intersect" sounds wrong. (Unless you think it doesn't because forced marriages exist and it somehow makes it nonmonogamous, and then I'd love to hear your reasoning).
 
But to me, polyamory means the ability to be in love with more than one person at a time, or the practice of having more than one partner at a time. It's not a "movement", it's a relationship orientation. And as much as people want to include "equality of the sexes" and things like that into the definition, .

This! And of course this is only my opinion (errr and obviously Tonberry's) and binds no one else to subscribing.
 
Back
Top