Jump to content

Talk:Polyamory/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9

"Non-consensual" Polyamory

This also is missing the criticism of the religious basis of marriage validity, it is a marriage is religious belief. That impacts the civil rights and religious freedom of groups like Atheists; therebing no god, there is no religion, there is no truth in religious described reltionships.

The disclosure and transparency is not required for a the belief and practice of Polyamory. All that is required is consent of sexual encounters.

Since many sexually based behaviors begin with the same behavior - seeking a partner, it is premature to judge consent. Especially where a member may form the belief of Polyamore after being inside a marriage, before the new belief was expressed. People have the right to change and grow personally, even if it's not encouraged by a portion of society. As the LGBT+ community shows that the negative aspects of disclosure provide justification to not disclose the belief (severe objections and critical response), especially to a marriage partner who does not share that belief; or where the importance of the domestic situation is more important than disclosure, like protecting tranquility for the sake of dependents. The luxury of a simple divorce may not be in the best interest of the child in a marriage. And the choice of a closet polyamore to sacrifice happiness is a choice that is valid. Further a marriage my be an economic survival method and there for prejudicial, and economically discriminatory. So describing Polyamory as serial non-monogamy is just inaccurate. Removing the religious underpinnings of Pollyamore is required or else there needs to be a new term for this.

"Protected Polyamory" or "Reserved Polyamory" or "Private Polyamory" or "Select Poly" are terms which can make a distinction between consent and disclosed vs no consent. Disclosure and consent with all partners is not a basis of a being a Polyamory. 35 million members of the recent data dump are proof that there is a great segment of society that does not believe disclosure or consent of all partners is required. The reasons include, that sexless marriages carry little if any risk, re response to a non-monogamous partner to equalize a double standard for equalization of rights, as a freedom of speach issue that people are not property and in defiance of a religious precept of marriage among many others.

But no matter how it's described there are many subcategories of Polyamore that is defined on its face by sex. This includes the fact a married member may only be having sex with one partner - even if it's not their spouse. In that regard, there is not Polyamore, but Polyrelational with or without consent, with or without sex, with or without love per-se.

The discussion of this in generally is objectionable to romantic concepts of marriage, but because the law allows what is essentially a contract of terms, it can not override the basic civil rights of an individual. a group contract may have terms, but they are sub to the primary individual rights. Laws reflecting this are updating in modern society. Sourcing Special status by the Supreme Court regarding LGBT+ status.

Wikipedia which does not include this separation in distinction, discriminates against this protected class and violates religious freedom and civil rights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.231.62.169 (talk) 17:38, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing polyamory with polygamy and with cheating. Polyamory has no specific religious basis, nor does it necessarily have anything to do with marriage. Also, what you term "polyamory", and the situations you're applying it to, is generally referred to only as "cheating", not polyamory. It's a common misunderstanding. Polyamory, as commonly defined, requires that all parties be aware of the openness of the relationship and that they consent to it (though not all partners in a polyamorous relationship are necessarily polyamorous themselves). It's not just anybody who sleeps with multiple partners, which is what you're referring to with the Ashley Madison case. That, again, is just cheating. For that matter, polyamory doesn't even require that there be sexual relationships between all partners, there can be intimacy without sex for some people.
If you have evidence to the contrary which backs up your assertions, please provide that evidence and we can incorporate it into the article. Please remember that such evidence must not be original research (such as your assertion that Ashley Madison users represent some kind of polyamory) and that they must be from reliable sources. – Robin Hood  (talk) 21:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
There are cheaters out there that claim they are polyamorus and cite being polyamorus as there reason for cheating. I've talked to these people face to face. Their logic was that they consider it their sexual orientation and drew an analogy to a "closeted" homosexual person being in an opposite-sex marriage for sake of appearances, and then having same-sex affairs without the spouse's knowledge or consent. But thinking that all cheating is polyamory is obviously incorrect and not supported by any reliable source. At best the individuals I met represent a teeny tiny portion of the cheating population. Cheating is complex and happens for many reasons.Legitimus (talk) 15:24, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Good point, and I've met a couple of people like that as well. But I think the common view by practising polyamorists is that cheaters sometimes throw the word "polyamory" around as a way to try to excuse their cheating, but wouldn't actually have any interest in an open, consensual, multi-partner relationship—their kick comes from the cheating itself. There probably are a few genuinely polyamorous people who, as you say, are cheating because they aren't happy with only a single partner but can't/won't make it an openly poly relationship, just as there are in the LGBT community and the BDSM community as well. But these are the minority and don't generally merit any mention, since the cheating isn't part of the core identity. – Robin Hood  (talk) 18:38, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Another note, more for the OP, I was just looking at the article on infidelity and it has cited notes in several places that the distinction between cheating and polyamory or open relationships is, indeed, the knowledge and consent of those involved. – Robin Hood  (talk) 18:50, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Removed pride flag symbol and explanation

On 17 July 2015, the Symbols section was edited to remove discussion of the polyamory pride flag, with the comment that the removal was of "extensive discussion of some guy's flag design, cited only to his own defunct home page." While the cited page has been removed, it has been archived at The Internet Archive. Moreover, a quick web search on "polyamory pride flag" reveals it in wide use via merchandise, and is almost universally included in catalogs of pride flags. At the very least, where the actual design of the flag is not used, the blue-red-black color scheme has been adapted for use with other polyamory-related symbols. At the very least, a discussion of the color scheme and its origins is warranted. MusicInHarmony (talk) 15:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

@MusicInHarmony: Thanks for posting here, as I requested in my reply to you on Twitter. While the flag may be in use in places as you describe, material on Wikipedia is required to be referenced to reliable, secondary sources, which typically take the form of printed books, newspapers, or online publications by reputable institutions. As such, the existence and design of the flag would need to be discussed in one or more of those before it can be covered in this article. I also need to point out that as the creator of the flag in question, you have a conflict of interest under our editing policy, so please read that before making any edits on the topic. Thank you.  — Scott • talk 16:55, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm afraid I've had to undo the changes you just made - blogs aren't considered reliable sources, and this one in particular derives its material on the polyamory flag from an older version of this very article, which is circular reporting. I also notice that the user account Aemok has suddenly started editing this article after being dormant for seven years. I'm assuming good faith, but please be aware that it could be taken as a sign of recruiting external assistance to get your way. Thanks.  — Scott • talk 18:08, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Scott As a national sex educator and researcher I have to disagree with the removal of the mention of the poly flag under the symbols section of this article. Much like the leather or gay pride flags the poly flag cited to Jim Evans' is a symbol which is nearly universally identified within the poly and ethical non-monogamy communities, along with the poly heart, as a symbol of polyamory. By your reasoning ALL of the symbols in this article should be removed. Since research and publishing in the history of polyamory is relatively new there are fewer options for citation though it does not make it any less accurate. If you are going to remove information from a page you should consider making sure you are consistent with your editing choices. The changes were made without external influence as I am currently working on a pride flag representation project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aemok (talk • contribs) 18:15, 26 January 2016‎ (UTC)
@Aemok:, I believe this is your post above?
Without wanting to sound rude, your qualifications as a sex educator and researcher don't actually carry any weight on WPedia. Because anyone can edit this encyclopedia, Wikipedia articles are all about reliable (secondary) sources. If those are not available, then any editor can legitimately remove the material. Now, I think we'd all be happier if you could find reliable sources for the removed material and were therefore able to reinsert them, and as a sex educator and researcher I'm sure you can find them if anyone can!
If you feel unsourced material should be removed, you can certainly do that. My general preference is to add a "citation needed" tag unless I have reason to believe something is actually false, but that's a matter of preference rather than policy, as far as I know.
(I modified the formatting of your post slightly to keep the indentation smooth. I hope that's OK)
Best regards,
*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 19:15, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
@Septegram Yes, sorry that was my post. Forgot to check formatting and no rudeness taken. I absolutely understand from an academic stand point why reliable citation, and not just the word/opinion of someone who works in the field, is needed. Had a citation needed tag been used in the removal or edit I would have absolutely understood. Instead it was removed because a single paragraph describing the design of the flag was noted as "extensive discussion of some guy's flag design." Every flag is designed by "some guy." I have since updated the citation to match another on the page also discusses in detail the Poly Flag in question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aemok (talk • contribs) 20:10, 26 January 2016‎ (UTC)
Aemok, please sign your posts by typing ~~~~.
I've removed your addition once again, because the reference that you provided is not a reliable source. If you can find a reliable source, please re-add the material to the article. Otherwise, it can't be included.  — Scott • talk 12:22, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
I think it could have been left up with a "citation needed" tag, at least temporarily. Aemok, do you think you can find a reliable source? If not, I think it'll have to stay gone.
*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 15:43, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Symbols vs. People

@Scott: I see you moved the infinity/heart symbol to the bottom and replaced it with "something more dynamic." I agree that an image of people is more dynamic than a symbol, but the symbol is more universal than any individual or grouping of individuals. Other groups have their symbols at the top of the page, even those as obscure as, say, Lojban. Admittedly, polyamory is more of a movement than a group, but I still think the symbol is a better representation than a photograph of a specific event. I'm not worked up enough about this to undo your work, but I'm wondering if I can persuade you to :)

Alternatively, can we find an image that keeps our subcultures straight (so to speak)? Let's not risk conflating gay pride with polyamory...

Best regards,

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 19:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that there's no evident reliable source for the infinity heart to merit it having such prominence. The CNN reference is extremely weak - it doesn't discuss the symbol at all, but only mentions it briefly. It's better for us not to imply anything about any particular symbol without good reason to. I also think that it's highly unlikely that our readers would be confused simply because a sign saying polyamory happens to be at a pride event in a photograph.  — Scott • talk 20:19, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
*sigh* I suppose you're right. I just don't have to like it LOL...
*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 22:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Origin of the term "polyamory"

The cited source is not a reliable source. Whilst onus is on those including information to provide a reliable source, I would note that even a trivial Google books search reveals references for decades before 1988, and the same site being used as a source for this claim also ran an earlier article which cites the Macmillan dictionary as evidence of usage as far back as the 1960s. ~Excesses~ (talk) 15:14, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea why you're adopting such a didactic tone rather than attempting to talk like a normal person, but whatever. Your pedantic approach to this issue could easily be resolved by rephrasing the material to discuss the word's multiple coinings, but I really don't care enough.  — Scott • talk 15:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Historical precedents for polyamory suggestion

This article makes little mention of societies throughout history which widely accept(ed) non-monogamous relationships. A good starting point could be the article on polyandry, which lists dozens of societies (both historical and extant) which practice non-monogamy. Richard☺Decal (talk) 19:04, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Note: I found this has been previously suggested in the archives a few years ago... Richard☺Decal (talk) 19:08, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Values section in the main article

I would suggest modification of the current last two Values: Gender Equality and Non-Possessiveness.

The first part of the Gender Equality paragraph is fine, observing that it's a common characteristic of polyamory to grant all genders equal rights, in contrast to some other forms of non-monogamy. The rest of the paragraph giving examples and a concept that any assymetry (even a negotiated one) is temporary, seems more questionable and less universal, so I would nominate that for deletion. It would be good to cite a reference for the retained portion of this paragraph.

I would nominate the value "non-possessiveness" for deletion. It's true that a portion of the polyamorous community has that value, but it does not seem to be close to a universal characteristic as phrased. Quite a few polyamorists have agreements which could be interpreted as "possessive" in that they may restrict the freedom of partners to engage in whatever sexual or romantic relationships they desire. So I think this is a value which polyamorists are nearly as likely to omit as to endorse, and as such it does not belong in this list.

The earlier values in the list do seem to be common enough to be "typical" or "characteristic" and could be retained as is. They also have references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.36.130.110 (talk) 04:34, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Intro section changes

I have just modified the intro section to the Polyamory article.

Most of the changes were intended to make this section more concise. I have also added several citations to support claims that were previously unsourced. Beyond those changes, I have also added an acknowledgement of the contested nature of the term "polyamory", with supporting citations, and removed the claim that "Although sometimes misperceived as a relationship orientation (much like gender or sexual orientation) it is not". In fact, some believe that polyamory should be considered an orientation or identity. I have changed the text to indicate this ("some believe that it should also be considered an orientation or identity") while adding relevant citations for support.

See my my edit here.

PostScarcity (talk) 00:44, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Removed original research from "Geographical and cultural differences" section

I removed some original research from the Polyamory#Geographical_and_cultural_differences section.

1. In the Polyamory#Geographical_and_cultural_differences section, User:Shantoo had added the following:

"The practice of polyamory is as diverse as the people who practice it, even within one relationship cluster individuals may have different ideas and practices than the rest of the group but it can still work if every individual is committed to the key components of trust, loyalty, mutual respect, honesty and compassion. Even though these key concepts can each be interpreted differently, as long as they are understood and agreed upon within a poly cluster and everyone adheres to them, then cluster should work. Every relationship that has these core values can arguably to be considered polyamorous, therefore as in all romantic relationship, geographic and cultural differences only impact on external forces such as legal or social issues but will not stop people practicing polyamory."

This is original research. If User:Shantoo wishes to explain "the impact of Geographical and cultural differences on the practice of polyamory" (as was noted on the original edit summary) then they should do so by drawing from existing research on the subject.

PostScarcity (talk) 13:31, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I removed an external link added by PolyTany because I believe it is inappropriate for Wikipedia, based on External Link guidelines. For example, social networking sites are among the "Links normally to be avoided" and the external link is primarily a social networking site. Here is the link in question (see edit in question):

It's worth noting that I am not the first to remove this link. History of its removal:

PostScarcity (talk) 23:48, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

---

Hi PostScarcity, thanks for letting me know that your remove the link. I would like to ask you why? because the page I added is relevant to the Polyamory. I also read the guidelines and I will be appreciate if you tell me why am I wrong. Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PolyTany (talk • contribs) 00:08, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

---

Hi PolyTany, Wikipedia is not a link directory and it is not a place for the promotion of your personal projects. The External Link is also primarily a social networking site, which is listed among the "Links normally to be avoided" in the External Link guidelines. Please read what Wikipedia is not. You may want to submit your link to the relevant category at the Open Directory Project (dmoz.org) and link back to that category from the Polyamory article using the dmoz template.

PostScarcity (talk) 00:24, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Inclusion of information on swinging

Dear all, please follow the rules in not biting the newcomer ;) I am a PhD student in the field of sexuality and I noticed the "dubious - discuss" link on the current page regards swinging. Everything therein seems to be listing the differences between swinging and polyamory as if comparing apples and oranges (which should not, unless I'm horribly misinformed about fruit, appear on each other's pages). There is currently no academic basis to consider swinging a form of polyamory.

Klesse, C. (2006). Polyamory and its “Others”: Contesting the Terms of Non-Monogamy. Sexualities, 9(5), 565–583. https://doi.org/10.1177/1363460706069986

Rubel, A. N., & Bogaert, A. F. (2015). Consensual Nonmonogamy: Psychological Well-Being and Relationship Quality Correlates. The Journal of Sex Research, 52(9), 961–982. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2014.942722

Moors, A. C. (2016). Has the American Public’s Interest in Information Related to Relationships Beyond “The Couple” Increased Over Time? The Journal of Sex Research, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2016.1178208

Barker, M., & Langdridge, D. (2010). Whatever happened to non-monogamies? Critical reflections on recent research and theory. Sexualities, 13(6), 748–772. https://doi.org/10.1177/1363460710384645

Mogilski, J. K., Memering, S. L., Welling, L. L. M., & Shackelford, T. K. (2015). Monogamy versus Consensual Non-Monogamy: Alternative Approaches to Pursuing a Strategically Pluralistic Mating Strategy. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-015-0658-2

Conley, T. D., & Moors, A. C. (2014). More Oxygen Please!: How Polyamorous Relationship Strategies Might Oxygenate Marriage. Psychological Inquiry, 25(1), 56–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2014.876908

https://doi.org/10.1177/1363460706069986, https://doi.org/10.1177/1363460706069986

In fact, I do believe any researcher daring to do so would be heavily criticized.

In short, I think the page could be improved by removing this link. Please see the referenced articles which all discuss swinging and polyamory.

--80.112.188.158 (talk) 12:23, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

The problem stems from common usage of "polyamory" in two senses. Popularly, polyamory refers to just about any form of nonmonogamy, whether sexual or relational or Romantic or whatever. In that sense, the term does indeed clearly contain swinging.
Among the polyamorous, though, polyamory indicates necessity of qualities like self-awareness, interpersonal communication and blunt honesty. These are not explicitly fundamental outside of polyamory. It's hardly the "go do whatever you want, dude, it's all cool" relationship anarchy image as commonly held.
The "apples/oranges" analogy fails. Are tangerines oranges? How about kumquats? pomelos? Do people often conflate them? If so, then this conflation should be addressed in one or more of the relevant articles.
FWIW, I feel citing research in the Talk page is pretty much pointless, though well-intentioned.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 08:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

"frubble"? Nonsense.

Compersion (or, synonymously, frubble) is silly. A feeling of compersion is much more specific than a vague "feeling of happiness at others' good fortune." At least mudita is a Buddhist concept AND focuses on joy… though again not directly relevant to polyamory.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 17:49, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Polyamory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:51, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Polyamory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:37, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

overreach, hype, original research

Given the high standard of research claimed hereabouts, I move to simply strike all unsubstantiated claims as they appear. For instance, consider the following (my emphases) --

No single definition of "polyamory" has universal acceptance. Although many individuals would define polyamory as a relationship practice or form, some believe that it should be classified an orientation or identity (like sexual orientation or gender identity).<ref> Most definitions of polyamory center on the concepts provided by Ravenheart's definition.[citation needed] Areas of difference arise regarding the degree of commitment, such as in the practice of casual sexual activities, and whether it represents a viewpoint or a relational status quo (whether a person without current partners can be considered "polyamorous").[citation needed] Polyamorous relationships can be open in which the committed partners agree to permit romantic or sexual relationships with other people, or closed, in which the participants do not engage in relationships outside of the defined set of committed partners. The practices of engaging in closed polyamorous relationships is sometimes called polyfidelity.

Looks to be at least ten sources short of credible.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 19:28, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Agree this is lacking sources. Even the one source provided in the paragraph is from Vice magazine (no disrespect, but I'd expect something stronger).Legitimus (talk) 22:08, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Updating the definition

The current definition of "polyamory" on this page is unsourced and is not in keeping with current writing on the topic. The following definitions are from prominent books and websites:

  • From the Polyamory Society: "Polyamory is the nonpossessive, honest, responsible and ethical philosophy and practice of loving multiple people simultanously."
  • From the nonprofit 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."
  • From the 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."
  • From the book When Someone You Love Is Polyamorous: Understanding Poly People and Relationships by Dr. Elisabeth Sheff (glossary, p. 39): "a relationship style where people have more than one partner with the full knowledge and consent of all their partners."
  • From the book More Than Two: A Practical Guide to Ethical Polyamory by Franklin Veaux and Eve Rickert (chapter 1, pp. 7-8): [Polyamory] "means having multiple loving, often committed, relationships at the same time by mutual agreement, with honesty and clarity."

None of these definitions refer to a single relationship with multiple people, as described in the definition currently in the lede: "Polyamory...is the practice of, or desire for, intimate relationships involving more than two people..." Each of these definitions refer to multiple partners or multiple relationships.

Dr. Sheff is a longtime researcher in polyamory and polyamorous relationships and the author of three books on the subject. Her work is therefore a reliable source, and I am drawing on it (and citing it) to propose the following definition:

"Polyamory (from Greek πολύ poly, "many, several", and Latin amor, "love") is the practice of, or desire for, intimate relationships where individuals may have more than one partner, with the knowledge and consent of everyone involved."

I am replacing the definition in the lede and making other minor adjustments as necessary to the rest of the page to be consistent with the new definition.

Margareta (talk) 01:35, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and let's not forget the OED definition: "The fact of having simultaneous close emotional relationships with two or more other individuals, viewed as an alternative to monogamy, esp. in regard to matters of sexual fidelity; the custom or practice of engaging in multiple sexual relationships with the knowledge and consent of all partners concerned." Margareta (talk) 01:47, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

This still cries for clarification: engaging in multiple sexual relationships with the knowledge and consent of all partners. Is this supposed to mean "all partners know about every other partner", or "all of a person's partners are aware that said person is acting nonmonogamously"?
Weeb Dingle (talk) 08:40, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

While the term polyamory ought to have a clear definition in order to proceed, I am beginning to doubt that laying out a detailed explication at the beginning of the article is proper, or simply serves to bog everything down in jargon, specious claims, and excessive punctuation. I set up my case atthe bottom of this Talk page.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 20:53, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

critical variants to definition

Margareta has clearly put commendable effort into crafting a proper definition of polyamory. Problem is, it tends to cover up some serious problems in examining the topic in a logical, consistent manner. Therefore, to launch thought I offer five attempts in response. Hopefully, others can see where discussing the concept "polyamory" is perilous if nobody seems to be using the term consistently, and in fact to mean different (even opposing) things.

per Morning Glory:

The practice, state or ability of having more than one sexual loving relationship at the same time, with the full knowledge and consent of all partners involved.
This term was meant to be inclusive, and in that context, we have never intended to particularly exclude "swinging" per se, if practitioners thereof wished to adopt the term and include themselves. As far as we have understood, swinging specifically does not involve "cheating," and it certainly does involve having "multiple lovers"! Moreover, we understand from speaking with a few swinging activists that many swingers are closely bonded with their various lovers, as best friends and regular partners.
The two essential ingredients of the concept of "polyamory" are "more than one" and "loving." 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 [incorrect] definition of swinging as "mate-swapping" parties.

In stark contrast, polyamory.com says that

Polyamory is NOT swinging
There is a major distinction to be made between what is called "Swinging" and Polyamory. In swinging, the intent is to engage in non-monogamous sexual behavior without the development of love, affection or personal intimacy between oneself and the secondary partners. Swingers generally seek to engage in recreational sex without emotional intimacy. With polyamory, there is no such restriction, and the intent IS to allow such emotional intimacy to exist, develop, and grow between the people involved.
Polyamory is a relationship style that involves an openness to be being involved with more than one person at the same time. Polyamory is about responsible non-monogamy. Polyamory is not about cheating, or dishonesty. Polyamory pre-supposes that all people involved consent to this arrangement, and are honest about what is going on.

per PolyMatchmaker.com:

The non-possessive, honest, responsible ethical philosophy and practice of loving multiple people simultaneously. Based on the conscious choice of how many partners one wishes to be involved with

per alt.polyamory:

This love may be sexual, emotional, spiritual, or any combination thereof, according to the desires and agreements of the individuals involved…. "Polyamorous" is also used as a descriptive term by people who are open to more than one relationship even if they are not currently involved in more than one. (Heck, some are involved in less than one.)

per Wordnik.com:

Any of various practices involving romantic or sexual relationships with multiple partners with the knowledge and consent of all involved.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 21:02, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

cut Forms section

I recommend removing the Forms list entirely. It looks like the case is being surreptitiously made that polyamory is a form of nonmonogamy, yet magically polyamory contains almost all forms of nonmonogamy!! There's plenty of argument (online and in print) over whether many of those are actually polyamory or just "polysorta." This therefore adds to the confusion already surrounding the term polyamory, which I don't believe is a vital part of the WP mission.

Furthermore, the entries overlap heavily with the list that makes up the bulk of Non-monogamy. The info here would be better merged over to that article.

Finally, the list (both, actually) cites no source(s) to justify the inclusion of any of those entries in the list, much less to claim that the list is in some way complete or even representative of the variants.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 19:33, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

how is "triad" relevant?

For the use and analysis of a triad relationship in sociology, see Triad (sociology).
Mmmm... nope. Makes more sense in Non-monogamy and I wouldn't put it there either. It makes about as much sense as flagging Troy Polamalu or Polomolok or Palomar just in case someone got confused. Please justify.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 01:14, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

wtf: Purple Mobius

When did that goofy-looking strip of paper appear?? Anyway, let's have a quick run through why I'm planning to remove it sometime this weekend.

  • its presence is TOTALLY unsubstantiated — where's even one reference?
  • it was used to replace the "Infinity Heart" (now tacked onto the end of the article) which I've never liked BUT appears at the top of every other language's WP article on polyamory including the mammoth German version
  • yet the mobius DOES NOT appear in ANY polyamory article other than English
  • per Google, its major appearance on the Internet is to (gasp!) sell teeshirts bearing the logo; the second hit is the Wikimedia image file; #5 is Non-monogamy, #6 Polyamory

At best, the symbol dates back to 2012, and in any case was presented as a symbol of nonmonogamy. In case someone's not yet up to speed, let me point out that "polyamory" and "nonmonogamy" ARE NOT interchangeable.

I might grant it a reprieve IFF someone can provide some provenance — like maybe the name of the designer, its IPR status, date of creation or initial public presentation, prominent usages, and thusly.

I may leave it at Non-monogamy awhile (it's a minor article), but the symbol still needs at least a passing attempt at substantiation else good WP form dictates removal.

However, until it appears in the German article, it's living on borrowed time here.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 16:17, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Removed. Weeb Dingle (talk) 20:26, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

definitional confusion: a published example

I was sure that Kinsey Inst could help clear the fog. Huh. This is all that popped up.

Kinsey Confidential, November 27, 2013

I’m assuming you mean that you are exploring the possibility that you may prefer, or be most inclined to, love and/or be sexually involved with more than one person at a time.
Some people use the term to describe specific relationships they are in. In that sense, they may be in a monogamous relationship at one point in their life and, at another point in time, they may be in a polyamorous relationship.
Other people seem to use the term as an identity – in this sense, they may always consider themselves to be a polyamorous person even if they are sometimes in a monogamous relationship. Weeb Dingle (talk) 00:09, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

changes made

I've removed the opening claim to more than 500,000 polyamorous relationships … in the United States. The actual statement to which this refers (a 2009 Newsweek.com blog) states that "researchers" estimated "half a million" "polyamorous families". Problematic that none of the terms is defined, deadly that the blog doesn't attribute that number to ANY researcher. The WP editor who put this here is either dishonest or inept to have presented this, particularly in the overview. Find me a researcher.

The word typically ought to be forever banned from Wikipedia EXCEPT in a quotation. It almost always indicates baseless overreach. Again, whoever used it THREE times in the opening is dishonest or inept — please don't simply revert this.

In a few instances I have removed "romantic" from romantic relationship(s) as the term is NOWHERE defined (or even linked) despite appearing 13 times in the article. Not helping is that in most instances it's presented as equivalent to (and possibly interchangeable with) sexual relationships, another discussion-critical term that remains unexplained.

As these terms are used to fundamentally define Polyamory, I contend that the article is fundamentally flawed, perhaps fatally so, despite its bulk.

Meantime, in most instances intimate relationship would likely be far superior, accounting more than adequately for exceptional closeness whether sexual or emotional or whatever.

I've begun an effort to remove weasel words. Take the opening statement, before and after:

Polyamory is typically the practice of, or the desire for, romantic relationships where individuals may have more than one partner
Polyamory is the practice of or desire for intimate relationships with more than one partner

Potential weasel: tacking to the foregoing …with the knowledge and consent of all partners. If "consent" is to be used, it ought be defined immediately, clearly, succinctly, and more importantly contrasted to assent. (Should a person indicate (explicitly or impicitly) "let me do as I see fit, else we're through," this may achieve assent, but NOT consent, therefore NOT polyamory, QED.) That probably ought to be addressed in the article proper, rather than opening that particular can of worms in the intro then ignoring it. In any case, "consent" is clearly a fnord in this article, so "knowledge" will suffice in theintro, and the fuller definition can be presented and explained in the body..

I've cut However, the meaning of polyamory is also an issue of ongoing debate … (analogous to sexual orientation or gender identity). This doesn't belong in the abstract (summary) portion, and repeats what is more fully discussed further in. If brought back, please fold it properly into the article.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 20:15, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

A detailed legal theory of polyamorous marriage is being developed. The "dyadic networks" model… Hype, editorializing, overreach. The cited article was published 2010; the term dyadic networks model is hardly well-known (182 hits on Google). Yet it's set up to appear as somehow important here. To me, this exemplifies the flaws throughout the Marriage implications section, much of which cries out to be rewritten or heavily edited or removed outright.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 19:45, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I couldn't bring myself to link mention of a triad to either Threesome or Ménage à trois. The former term applies to sex alone rather than emotional relationship. The latter term should be about what we today mean by "triad," but popular usage equates it to "three-way" sex.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 00:17, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Polyamory/Archive_6&oldid=1144098510"