Dumping The Label

PolyNatural

Banned
This discussion is closely related to the Definitions of Polyamory discussion, but also different enough that I felt it deserved its own thread. More specifically, I've recently decided to drop the poly label for myself.

This has come about because there are so many views about what being poly is or what it should mean, or what rules should apply to who. And when those positions are questioned because they don't seem coherent or in keeping with the history, those concerns are simply hand-waved as if they're irrelevant.

Consequently polyamory has become a convenience label to justify whatever sort of behavior suits the people who apply it to themselves rather than a set of well defined and well substantiated principles that the poly community ( if there is such a thing ) on the whole agrees on.

So personally, I've gone back to simply being undefined and I'll probably integrate the PolyNatural site into something larger that covers a variety of relationship types. This has the added benefit of not having less well informed people who assume they know what being poly is about for everyone else map their assumptions onto me.

The downside is that people like to know what sort of relationship someone is after when they're becoming involved with them, and now I'm back to explaining that I either believe in "Alternate Relationships" or don't believe in typical relationships, or something else equally vague.

I'd like to see the poly community get its ducks in a row, but it seems like a dreamer's quest. I'd appreciate any feedback on this. The Poly label is the closest to the way I look at relationships, but some other versions of that same label are so completely off that being associated with it just puts me in the middle of too much controversy.
 
I say that when the monogamists of the world all agree on their principles in a coherent way then polyamorists should do the same.

In the mean time, everyone has to explain what they want out of their relationships on a case by case basis. Use general broad labels to get into the ballpark ,just as we say "I am an American Urbanite" or "I am a Socialist from Amsterdam".* If "Poly" fits in a general way then use it and get into details as you go along.

Leetah

*Well maybe SOMEone says those things.
 
Last edited:
Individual relationships generally do seem to fit on some kind of taxonomy, so to speak. Using biological taxonomy as a analogy, any given relationship type is likely to be of a known "species" or "sub-species" which, by now, have a name.

There is no overarching authority or orthodoxy with regard to the term "polyamorous". It's just a word, and it doesn't frighten me off. If I am in disagreement with someone as to what that term means, or should mean (or not mean) we can discuss the matter.

I find words generally useful. If they require some adjustment, they can be adjusted as needed. Dictionaries do it all the time.
 
It sounds like you are saying that you are rejecting the label "poly" for yourself because the poly community won't collectively endorse one very specific definition of poly that exactly matches the set of guidelines that you use as your relationship philosophy?

If that's what you mean, that sounds very exhausting, mentally.
 
Thank you all for responding! Below is my feedback on the comments so far.


I think the basics of polyamory are clearly defined. The rest is just picking nits.
The problem there is that for some people one issue is just picking nits, while for others the same issue is of major importance. This isn't just with those who identify as poly, but with those who don't as well. So although I wish it were just that easy, when you're dealing with more than just those in your own set of connections, it just doesn't work that way out there in the wider world. For example I've been attempting to date ( mostly online ) for over two years now across four sites ( including one dedicated to a poly lifestyle ) and have exchanged literally hundreds of messages with dozens of people, nearly all of whom have differing views that range from fairly similar to radically different from each other ( including mine ).

I say that when the monogamists of the world all agree on their principles in a coherent way then polyamorists should do the same. In the mean time, everyone has to explain what they want out of their relationships on a case by case basis. Use general broad labels to get into the ballpark ,just as we say "I am an American Urbanite" or "I am a Socialist from Amsterdam".* If "Poly" fits in a general way then use it and get into details as you go along.

Leetah - *Well maybe SOMEone says those things.
Yes, that seems like a reasonable way to approach it, and I've tried that, but the results led me exactly to this same conclusion. Perhaps the most difficult have been those who have self-identified as having been poly in the past, and therefore they know it's not for them because of their singular experience. I usually have to respond with something to the effect of, if that's what they think, then they couldn't have had a very solid understanding of what it means to be poly, because each relationship can be so different from another, that there's no reasonable way to lump them all into a single basket like that. It's like a mono person saying, "I tried being mono once and it didn't work out so I know it's not for me." Of course that approach just starts the whole attempt at initiating a date with an argument that tells them they don't know what they're talking about with respect to their own feelings and experience, which pretty much ends it there. But if you're not up-front about it, then you just end-up at the same juncture later, which can be even worse.

Individual relationships generally do seem to fit on some kind of taxonomy, so to speak. Using biological taxonomy as a analogy, any given relationship type is likely to be of a known "species" or "sub-species" which, by now, have a name.

There is no overarching authority or orthodoxy with regard to the term "polyamorous". It's just a word, and it doesn't frighten me off. If I am in disagreement with someone as to what that term means, or should mean (or not mean) we can discuss the matter.

I find words generally useful. If they require some adjustment, they can be adjusted as needed. Dictionaries do it all the time.
That is a very good approach when one is discussing it on an intellectual level with people who are fair-minded and open to that type of conversation. The problem I find is that the number of people who can do that without getting their undies in a knot are far and few between, let alone when you're trying to initiate a date with them. Poly or mono or whatever the case may be, they all have their own very biased and self-serving ideas, and even getting into a discussion about the subject in the first place is more tricky than your run-of-the-mill small talk.

It sounds like you are saying that you are rejecting the label "poly" for yourself because the poly community won't collectively endorse one very specific definition of poly that exactly matches the set of guidelines that you use as your relationship philosophy? If that's what you mean, that sounds very exhausting, mentally.
As you can see from my responses above, you are absolutely correct. It's why I'm dropping the label. I've had to explain it over and over so many times to people that I decided to just create a website and link them to that. That has been somewhat useful, but most people don't want to deal with that sort of thing when they're dating. To me that approach is totally backward. Why waste a bunch of time and resources creating a connection with someone, just to get to the point where the issue can be discussed, when over 90% of the time it's going to result in rejection on one side or the other? The entire effort has gotten me to the point where I'm totally fed-up with the whole thing. I can still discuss it here because it's controllable and intellectual as opposed to intensely personal.
 
Last edited:
Internally, I tend NOT to self-identify wit any particular labels regarding a number of key aspects of my human existence --- such as sexual orientation, race, and to a lesser extent gender --- despite outwardly being a cis gender female of a certain age, of a specific nationality, who is currently living a non-monogamous lifestyle with two co-primary partners of different genders.

This may be because, coming from a mixed ethnic background and having previously (and very loosely) identified as a straight, monogamous female... I have found the way I view myself and present myself to the world as a female person; who I'm attracted to aesthetically, sexually and romantically; and the way I choose to conduct relationships... all tend to morph and change somewhat over time.

In other words, while I know who and what I am, and am not "confused" about my own identity per se, I recognise that certain aspects of myself tend to be more fluid than fixed.

That said... I usually choose to utilise certain labels, identifers, specific terms and expressions to help OTHERS understand my particular situation, as I think most people do.

Polyamory, and indeed ALL relationships and relationship styles, rely heavily on COMMUNICATION. Sure, there are other forms of communication besides words/speech/terminology (non verbal communication such as facial expression, eye contact, sex, visual art. etc.) --- however, in a DISCUSSION FORUM such as this (just as in books, articles, video and podcasts on the subject of ethical non monogamy/polyamory) we communicate with each other predominantly, maybe solely, via the written or spoken word.

Therefore it's imperative that the "community", such as it is (i.e. those who currently or used to practise, wish to practise, or seek more information about the subject) find some common ground when it comes to terminology and definitions, no matter how loose or flexible that common ground may be. If only so we all know what we're talking about.

If everyone decides on their own label and definition for every possible permutation of non monogamy, it can only increase confusion and hinder communication.

Like many things in life, poly exists on a SPECTRUM. At least the way I see it.

A couple who swings may choose to move towards polyamory rather than pursue sexual encounters with random others purely for pleasure, once they develop feelings for someone they meet in that world. Doesn't mean that one day they're "swingers" and the next they're suddenly "polyamorous". They may be in the process of moving toward a poly mindset and lifestyle at their own pace... and may be "almost there"... yet encounter experienced poly folk splitting hairs about their choice of terminology. I'm not sure this does anyone any favours except to make some feel like they're "not doing it right", and others feel like they're the undisputed keepers of all polyknowledge.

The same can be said for monogamy too though, to a lesser degree.

Can a virgin who's still waiting for "The One" be classified as monogamous, purely because their mindset is a mono one?

Is a married wife of 30+ years "monogamous" even though she had a secret affair ten years ago, or has an emotional bond beyond platonic friendship but not quite romantic/sexual with another person online?

Is bread still "bread" even though it's unleavened, pita, roti, Turkish, a biscuit, a crumpet or croissant?

Despite the variances in what individuals may class as polyamory/ethical non monogamy, those authors and sexologists who first identified and defined the relationship style chose this word because it comprises TWO of the key components of what we've now come to know (and most, to accept) as polyamory: POLY (many) and AMOR (love).

The WORD itself is a tool of communication, and not much else. However, it is necessary to have such words, for ease of communication, as a means of gathering like-minded persons together, as a way of organising, advocating and presenting associated issues to the wider community in a way EVERYONE can understand.
 
Last edited:
Internally, I tend NOT to self-identify wit any particular labels regarding a number of key aspects of my human existence ---
Fabulous post! You've nailed the key points dead on. The only problem is that it still leaves me wondering what the best way to move forward is. My thinking at the moment is to seek out some other opinions ( such as those here ), and in the meantime drop the label, get out of the dating scene, and if some sort of opportunity comes up on its own ( as if that will ever happen - sigh - yes disillusioned ), then use pretty much the same approach as you are. So rather than saying, "I'm polyamorous". I might say something like, "The closest thing I seem to identify with is something called polyamory." Then see where that goes.
 
Last edited:
Have to say that the overwhelming issue seems to be that you cannot accept your definitions are not universal. Trust me, you are not the only one who struggles with this but I have never seen someone react in this way.

Ive read your website. You have made assertions saying that unless metamours are connected or interact or something, it isnt polyamory. And if they do interact, it can never be swinging. Gatekeeping in this way is a horrendous way to communicate. Instead of just stating what you need in a relationship to feel content, you have said what you need in your relationships is the only way to be properly polyamorous implying that people who do not do it that way are fake or stupid.

That is unattractive. Even if I thought we wanted exactly the same things and I thought you were absolutely beautiful, that controlling stance where you gatekeep terms and labels would put me off of getting to know you. Not because of what you want or need, or any major incompatibility in desire, just because you seem inflexible and judgemental when you discuss this.
 
Have to say that the overwhelming issue seems to be that you cannot accept your definitions are not universal. Trust me, you are not the only one who struggles with this but I have never seen someone react in this way.

Ive read your website. You have made assertions saying that unless metamours are connected or interact or something, it isnt polyamory. And if they do interact, it can never be swinging. Gatekeeping in this way is a horrendous way to communicate. Instead of just stating what you need in a relationship to feel content, you have said what you need in your relationships is the only way to be properly polyamorous implying that people who do not do it that way are fake or stupid.

Thanks for the feedback. Here's my response:

The PolyNatural site is the result of an objective look at the way various relationship types have been defined by the predominant views of the groups involved, so it's not so much about what I want it to be about as an analysis that identifies where the boundaries are based on other people's views. I just happened to apply some critical thinking and put it together in one place.

So with swinging, for example, after visiting a number of swingers sites and reading about it from a number of sources, and exchanging messages with actual self-identified swingers, the general consensus is that swingers can indeed be as emotionally connected as anyone else to each other. So it's a myth that swinging is restricted to shallow sexual involvement.

With polyamory, the common denominator is the emotional connectedness of the partners involved. That has been well established from its inception. Therefore if one person has a relationship with two people who are not connected emotionally, there isn't a polyamorous relationship between the two who aren't connected, even if they all self-identify as being poly. I didn't make up these ideas on my own. They are referenced with quotes from the sources.

But as I said already, people will resist dispassionate analysis in favor of their own biases, so I wonder why I should have even bothered to do anyone the favor of sorting it out, when all too often it evokes more criticism than appreciation. I suppose that if nothing else, I can at least say that my own views are better substantiated than most others I've run across. And the ones that are better substantiated than mine, I also happen to agree with ( I'd be a fool not to ).


That is unattractive. Even if I thought we wanted exactly the same things and I thought you were absolutely beautiful, that controlling stance where you gatekeep terms and labels would put me off of getting to know you. Not because of what you want or need, or any major incompatibility in desire, just because you seem inflexible and judgemental when you discuss this.

I'm not "gatekeeping". I've simply done an analysis of the situation based on historical references and what appears to be the majority views of others, and presented that evidence along with some critical thinking. However, the sort of criticism you make is not uncommon. So far, I've assumed it's because people have their own biases and don't like it when something conflicts with that. So rather than address the issues, they criticise the writer ( In this case me ). That's okay with me. I'm one of the people who chooses the red pill instead of the blue pill.

In other words I'm willing to accept the criticism provided I honestly believe I've done my best to illuminate the truth ( not simply state my unsubstantiated opinions ). I'm also willing to change my views if someone can provide a more substantiated set of reasons for me to do so than simply saying it's "unattractive" or off-putting because it doesn't fit their paradigm. So actually I'm very flexible. If you can point out some factual errors or flaws in the analysis, by all means please do so. It's a work in progress and all constructive feedback is welcome. Or even if you can give me an idea of how to get the same points across more "attractively", that could be very helpful. I've been trying to improve on my EQ ( emotional intelligence ) blind spots.

In the meantime your criticism does underscore how trying to have an intellectual conversation with people about the various facets and views on relationships isn't usually well received in the dating world. It's been my experience over the last couple of years that people are more interested in simply having their own particular set of criteria fulfilled by whomever might fit their paint by number dreams, which are usually not well thought out or realistic, and generally destined to fail because of that. But rather than get ahead of that by tackling it right from the start, they'll take whatever fun they can get until it gets "serious", and that's when they run into trouble.

BTW: The comments on the PolyNatural site range from hate mail to high praise. The most reasonable people ( to me ) are those who have said how refreshing it is to see someone who actually thinks about relationships and the world. Apparently for many people in the dating world, it's not something most people do. They just fumble through it on their gut instinct, which is largely the result of socialization and social conditioning. Then wonder why they run into so many problems. More often than not it seems they end up associating those problems with something about each other rather than recognizing the root causes are societal.
 
Last edited:
If you were interested in dating me and I had to read your whole website before we could get past general chitchat, it'd be a nope from that point on. I am attracted to intelligent people but you come off as overbearing and pedantic in addition to intelligent, which are turn off.

A few concrete examples of gatekeeping language from your website:

Your insistence over and over again that polyamory is the natural state of human emotions.

The entire discussion about if metamours haven't met, then you fall closer on the line to swinging than polyamory, along with a quote from the Ethical Slut to back you up. Though I do find it a little humourous that you spend several paragraphs establishing how More Than Two defines interconnected much more loosely than you do and then come back to the idea that if there is no in person interactions, or not much interacting at all, you're closer to swinging.

After that I couldn't read your website anymore. It's difficult to swim through the poorly formatted information about what you think poly should be with randomly pulled quotes referenced in ways that back up what you think.
 
If you were interested in dating me and I had to read your whole website before we could get past general chitchat, it'd be a nope from that point on. I am attracted to intelligent people but you come off as overbearing and pedantic in addition to intelligent, which are turn off.

A few concrete examples of gatekeeping language from your website:

Your insistence over and over again that polyamory is the natural state of human emotions.

The entire discussion about if metamours haven't met, then you fall closer on the line to swinging than polyamory, along with a quote from the Ethical Slut to back you up. Though I do find it a little humourous that you spend several paragraphs establishing how More Than Two defines interconnected much more loosely than you do and then come back to the idea that if there is no in person interactions, or not much interacting at all, you're closer to swinging.

After that I couldn't read your website anymore. It's difficult to swim through the poorly formatted information about what you think poly should be with randomly pulled quotes referenced in ways that back up what you think.

Thanks again for your criticism.

The quotes I used are not "random" and again, because they're quotes from other people, they're not simply my personal opinion. Critical thinking also attempts to put personal bias aside and deal with what things say objectively. If there's someplace you don't think I've done that, then something more specific would be helpful.

I've also used a variety of sources and perspectives to show how points of view are sometimes in opposition to each other, as well as outlined the pros and the cons involved. So how it is that you've mapped it all onto "what I think" isn't clear to me. I'm not flip-flopping in my own point of view. I'm illustrating the inconsistencies in the way different people view the issues, and how sometimes they may even be justified, even if it doesn't make as much logical sense. There's some editorializing, but I don't see where any of it is unfair. Maybe I need to somehow be more clear on what my intent is there. Some people get it right away and don't make the sorts of assumptions you have. Others have more trouble. I wish I knew how to better address that.

Also, I'm not sure why you find the differentiation between poly and swinging humorous, but perhaps you could explain that in clearer terms. On dating you: I don't know you. I like that you express your likes and dislikes clearly though. It beats the usual small talk and gets straight to the heart of the matter. But that's just me because I've been looking for a serious relationship rather than something superficial. I don't want someone to entertain me when I have space in my daytimer or visa versa. I'm also pretty much fed-up with the whole dating scene at the moment anyway. But I do appreciate you sharing your perspective, even if I'm not exactly sure where it's coming from.

BTW: On the formatting. The site was originally supposed to be a single page, which would have been fine, but it grew and I had to adapt. I realize it needs some tweaking, but it works okay on a regular PC or laptop. If I may ask: What formatting features are you having the most problem with?
 
Last edited:
I find it humourous that you spend several paragraphs establishing that interconnectedness can be as simple as dating the same person, only to turn around and argue that if you don't meet or have significant interactions in some way if meeting is impossible, you are closer to swinging than polyamory.

I say they are random quotes because I'm sure I could find quotes in the same books and by the same people that back up my own definition of polyamory, which is more inclusive than your own, which I'm not sure I'd even qualify as poly under, since I haven't met 2 of my boyfriend's partners.
 
And the dating thing was merely a hypothetical posed to explain to you why you may not be having the best luck in finding people to date, not anything more. If you need a huge website to explain what poly means to you, that's going to be off putting to more dating partners than not, in my experience. It's a lot of investment to even get to a conversation to find out if you are compatible. I was offering my opinion on why it would be off putting to me if you were a hypothetical dating prospect of mine.
 
I find it humourous that you spend several paragraphs establishing that interconnectedness can be as simple as dating the same person, only to turn around and argue that if you don't meet or have significant interactions in some way if meeting is impossible, you are closer to swinging than polyamory.
Do you mean on the interrelatedness page when I say:

"If we remove the interrelatedness we end up with an unconnected set of partners that cannot be differentiated from a picking pool, and that is closer to swinging than polyamory."

I don't see the conceptual problem with that. Or is it someplace else? Maybe it would help if you explained your views so I could compare them. I'm open for a fair-minded friendly discussion if it will help improve things.


I say they are random quotes because I'm sure I could find quotes in the same books and by the same people that back up my own definition of polyamory, which is more inclusive than your own, which I'm not sure I'd even qualify as poly under, since I haven't met 2 of my boyfriend's partners.

I think I see what you're saying now. I've tried to avoid cherry picking by cross referencing sources and including conflicting opinions, but there are no doubt other ways to look at the whole subject. It's a lot to jam into a few pages so I needed to have something specific at the start from which other concepts could be mapped.

So rather than attempt to use a nebulous collection of interpretations, I went straight to the most basic sources ( like the people who created the word in the first place ) and took a historical approach. I go through that problem on the into page, but it's a rather dry analytical approach that tends to lose the reader unless they're also into how important the conceptual framework is to the overall coherence of the subject. I'll try some revisions to get to the point quicker and see if that helps.
 
Last edited:
""If we remove the interrelatedness we end up with an unconnected set of partners that cannot be differentiated from a picking pool,"

This part of your quote could be described as a truth. Your truth, but a truth nonetheless.

"and that is closer to swinging than polyamory."

This part is categorically not true. What might be true is that you need a more connected poly network to feel content.
 
Do you mean on the interrelatedness page when I say:

"If we remove the interrelatedness we end up with an unconnected set of partners that cannot be differentiated from a picking pool, and that is closer to swinging than polyamory."

I don't see the conceptual problem with that. Or is it someplace else? Maybe it would help if you explained your views so I could compare them. I'm open for a fair-minded friendly discussion if it will help improve things.

Let's remove the whole sentence you quoted from the discussion, since it seems to be what you fixated on.

You spend the first three or so paragraphs of the interrelatedness page defining what interrelatedness is using quotes from More than Two. After the paragraphs with those quotes, where you establish interrelatedness as being able to be something as simple as sharing the same partner, you quote The Ethical Slut and do a complete 180°, stating that interrelatedness must involve actually relating in a personal way with your partner's other partners.

I found that entire 180° turn in the course of one paragraph humourous because you've spent many posts on this board talking about how people contradict themselves and the real meaning of poly all the time, including saying if you started a poly group in your area, it would only be open to people who agree with the real definition of poly as written about on your website. However, even on your website, in the intro and interrelatedness pages I scanned, you suffer from the same thing you very loudly and often accuse other people of doing, not being firm in their definition.
 
""If we remove the interrelatedness we end up with an unconnected set of partners that cannot be differentiated from a picking pool,"

This part of your quote could be described as a truth. Your truth, but a truth nonetheless.

"and that is closer to swinging than polyamory."

This part is categorically not true. What might be true is that you need a more connected poly network to feel content.

You've identified where the point of division is between polyamory and swinging. It is the degree of interrelatedness between partners. That point is explored in some detail and substantiated as follows using a triad as an example:

We begin by acknowledging the original intent of polyamory by the Ravenhearts, the people who created the term - to quote:

"That is, it is expected that the people in such relationships have a loving emotional bond, are involved in each other's lives multi-dimensionally, and care for each other. This term is not intended to apply to merely casual recreational sex, anonymous orgies, one-night stands, pick-ups, prostitution, “cheating,” serial monogamy, or the popular definition of swinging as 'mate-swapping' parties."

Notice how the above clarification refers to swinging as the "popular definition". When exploring that further it turns out that swinging has gotten a rather bad rap because some swingers are as emotionally connected as those between married or poly people, and that such connections can involve as few as two people. So there's no negative connotation to the concept of swinging in my usage. If other people want to look down on it, that's their business. So far as I'm concerned, even if there's no significant connection, swinging can still be entirely ethical from a conceptual point of view.

Regardless however, it is clear that a poly relationship requires a romantic component and therefore if we have a triad of self-identified poly people with an emotionally and physically unconnected side, the case is as follows:

  • A is connected to B
  • A is connected to C
  • B is not connected to C

then logically ( not simply "my truth" or "my opinion" ) it is the case that:

  1. A is in a two person poly relationship with B
  2. A is also in a two person poly relationship with C
  3. B is in a two person poly relationship with A
  4. C is in a two person poly relationship with A
  5. B and C have no relationship with each other

Therefore part of the whole arrangement ( Item 5. ) is logically not poly. What is actually happening is that poly person A is swinging back and forth between B and C. This is not a moral judgement. It just fits the criteria established by the meanings of the words according to the available sources. And although I might be accused of picking sources to support the analysis, at least critical thinking and sources independent of my personal opinion do support it. That is a step up from simple editorializing.

Therefore substantial counterpoint to the reasoning above needs to show either a flaw in the logic and/or that the source material is invalid. It's not enough to simply proclaim it's just other people's opinions. That's because not all opinions carry equal weight. Some really are better than others. And if we're going to be fair-minded, we need to accept that, and when it's appropriate, be prepared to change our views. I'm most certainly ready to do that if you or anyone else can show me something better.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top