Talk:Polyamory

This article was nominated for deletion on 9 July 2006. The result of the discussion was speedy keep. An archived record of this discussion can be found here.

Talk Page Archives

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

from the lead: should we change this to intimate relationship

Polyamorous perspectives differ from monogamous perspectives, in that they respect a partner's wish to have second or further meaningful relationships and to accommodate these alongside their existing relationships. Meaningful relationship redirects to relationship, and I think the implied meaning is that of intimate relationship.--Vidkun 15:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The word "meaningful" is in there to indicate an emotional attachment, not just a casual sex partner. Intimate relationship would include sexual but non-loving relationships (ie, swinging and such). I don't think it needs to be changed at all, but perhaps "meaningful intimate relationship"? Ocicat 19:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

2004 New Jersey Domestic Partnership Act

A Question about the mention of the NJ DPA in this article. (4th paragraph in the Legal Status section) It states that the NJDPA can be combined with a marriage status to some number of expansions to achieve a legal status of poly-partner arrangement... I am wondering if there is a citation for this legal analysis and specifically any further citation under the NJ DPA

I found the text for the NJ DPA here: http://www.state.nj.us/treasury/pensions/newlaw03.htm#246

and one of the numerous requirements (which must be satisfied in entirety) states: "Neither person is in a marriage recognized by New Jersey law or a member of another domestic partnership;"

Did I miss something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.18.43.225 (talk) 23:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Even if it's true, with no citation it has to be removed as WP:OR. The Wednesday Island 00:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Symbols of polyamory

I just added the image and information about the poly pride flag. This image is also in the German Wikipedia for this article. Taric25 06:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I just want to clarify a white heart suit (♡) is different from a black heart suit (♥). Taric25 13:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Division of love

I do not support User:Peoplesunionpro's edit stating, “This contains an assumption that romantic love is the same thing as familial love, which is false.”, because this user does not verify this information with a relaible source. Simply liking to other Wikipedia articles is insufficent, per Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Self-published sources, “Articles and posts on Wikipedia or other open wikis should never be used”, so I have removed the information, because Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Information that does not cite sources is original research. In addition, per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, since we already reverted Peoplesunionpro's edit, it is now Peoplesunionpro resposibility to discuss the issue and allow use to examine any sources. I am more than happy to show both sides to express a neutral point of view, as long as it follows policy by verifying that information with a reliable source in the form of a citation. Thank you. Taric25 13:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree in this case. Besides the issue that it's an unsourced retort to a sourced claim, the point is that it's an analogy, and isn't intended to equate familial and romantic love, just to compare similar situations involving them. Dcoetzee 23:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Polyamorous culture?

Can someone familiar with this topic help with the Polyamory section at Sexuality and gender identity-based cultures? Some of the info under "Polyamory as a lifestyle" is probably relevant. Thanks! --Alynna (talk) 02:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikify

Sections

• Symbols of polyamory
• The fringes and outliers of polyamory
• Legal status
• Legal theory
• Sharing of domestic burden
• Polyamory and parenting
• Philosophical aspects
• Research

have either none wikilinks or too few I think.--Kozuch (talk) 10:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

External Links

It seems to me there are a few poly resources that deserve mention here. Among others, the podcast and blog page of polyamory weekly. Besides being informational, it has become a center for the polyamorous culture to meet and share ideas and opinions, as well as stay up-to-date on the latest news concerning the lifestyle. In addition to polyamory, her show and blog cover a variety of different lifestyles and kinks, and prides itself on open and frank discussion that is "not all about the sex". The host, who is known as Cunning Minx, is well known and respected in the poly community, and has been quoted in such mainstream news media as the Sun-Times and others.Tosus (talk) 22:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Webster

Webster dictionary's entry mentions multiple relationships but says nothing about consent: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/polyamorous - How do we work this into the article? WhisperToMe (talk) 05:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Poly is not an orientation

Why is this article in the category sexual orientation? Polyamory is not an orientation, it is a sexual lifestyle choice; polys can be of any orientation. Furthermore, it is misleading to have the sole photograph on the article depicting polys as LGBT people at a gay pride march; there are many thousands of heterosexual polys. F W Nietzsche (talk) 07:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

What is a sexual orientation? Before 1976 homosexuality wasn't an orientation, it was a form of mental illness (per the DSM). So it even wasn't an orientation then. At the risk of using weasel words, I think that from the point of view of many poly people, they would view polyamory as an orientation. Some people tend to have multiple mates. Is that a biochemical motivation they can't help and are genetically predisposed to? Or are they just willing themselves to do it? Or is it just life-experience? I think it's probably some combination of all three that forms a continuum. So just as homosexual people tend to be attracted to people of the same gender (and sometimes this changes throughout an individual's life), poly people tend to be attracted to long-term loving relationships with multiple people. Many polyamorous people do happen to be bisexual and see polyamory as the most ethical way to express their bisexuality. I don't think this discounts or marginalizes the many heterosexual polyamorous people. I think rather it's polyamorous people identifying with and supporting people in their struggle to obtain social acceptance. --70.3.139.91 (talk) 18:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the above. I'd like to see less of the "lifestyle" thing. I only know one polyamorous person (that I am specifically aware of), who has much the same problems as homosexuals had (and still have to some extent) - the closet thing, only telling your absolute best friends, fear of reactions etc. If it's just a lifestyle choice, it's a pretty stupid one in a society that celebrates monoamory in a more universal and obsessive way than any other social ideal. My impression is that there is another "poly" aspect to polyamory - a very limited ability do distinguish between platonic and romantic love (and very real annoyance and frustration when the subject is broached). I couldn't live in a polyamorous relationship for long - I have the same inherent expectation of exclusiveness (read: ownership, mutual or not) that other monoamorous people have (however you deal with it), and I would not be able to block or shut off or "cure" the jealousy when this sense of ownership is challenged - an emotional response normal to monos that polyamory doesn't seem to be able to understand, but has to live with amongst the vast monoamorous majority to avoid getting deeply and seriously hurt by the people you love most - so a poly's chosen lifestyle would be one of monoamory.

Is it love illiteracy amongst polies, or unnecessary baggage amongst monos? I don't know, and that's POV anyway. The nature/nurture argument will be no easier to solve than in homosexuality, but whatever the cause, it's clinically irreversible if the similarity goes that far. I'm monoamorous and I could never change that; why would I ever think that polyamorous people could? The "lifestyle choice" argument confuses the symptom and the cause.

I also wish there would be less confusion between poly/monogamy and poly/monoamory, these are only superficially comparable concepts (much the same way as love and sex are not the same thing). Confusing the two is laziness at best, inflammatory at worst. DDWP (talk) 11:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi all, re that photo, I cringe every time I see it. It's just horrendous, and not a representation of what poly people generally do when you put them in the same place. Most of what they do is talk about relationships, eat food and hold conferences. Most do not, and would not, march in a pride parade. Re orientation, while not listed in DSM (it's not a disease, despite what some would say), it is clearly a way that one is oriented and I think that if looked at honestly will give us a new dimension or at least angle on the concept of orientation. I was polyamorous from around the time many homosexual people know they are what they are, from about the third grade; having never heard of the topic, concept or issue. Dioxinfreak (talk) 02:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Wealth / looks / gender

There is very little in the article about financial considerations and different levels of demand for this lifestyle within each gender. I feel sure that most straight men want to be polyamorous, yet most are not. That must be because they are unable, in practise, to be poly. Women are considerably more picky than men in their choice of sexual partners; women typically demand / expect men to pay for so many things, and are attracted to rich, high-status men. In many thousands of cases, a woman married to / cohabiting with a man much richer than herself is willing to allow him to sleep with other women because of the prestige, high standard of living, and huge number of expensive luxury gifts she receives from him, even if she doesn't like him having sex outside the relationship and would ideally prefer to have an exclusive / closed relationship with him. In general, women prefer to share a rich man and don't want poor men, unless they are handsome. An straight ugly poor man has no hope of becoming poly - he's lucky if he gets laid at all! It needs to be pointed out on this article that, among heterosexuals, there are millions more men who want to be poly than women. Hence, there is great competition between such men, and it is the richer, more handsome men who get the lifestyles they want (including many women), whilst poor and unattractive men don't. In contrast, a woman who is poor and is of average / below average looks would not have difficulty (except in extreme circumstances), in having concurrent sexual relationships with several men, should she so desire. F W Nietzsche (talk) 09:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you might be missing the point a bit. In polygamy, this is the case. But polyamory isn't about getting as many gals as possible, it's about having loving relationships with multiple people, creating extended family, etc. The one thing that many guys don't see (and it's not entirely out fault - culture keeps these blinders on us), is that sex is just the tip - what matters more is the relationship, the support, the friendship, etc. If you don't have that, then the sex is empty and pointless and you'd might as well just be wanking or seeing a hooker. And although women may be more choosy (because they have the greater reproductive cost), I don't think it follows from this that the poor ugly guy always gets the shaft. Human sexuality is wonderfully diverse. Maybe some women are into ugly (conventionally unattractive) guys? Maybe he's ugly but a good person? Who knows? Maybe he's ugly but buff? I think that maybe you should go out and date a bit ... overcome your fear, anxiety and feelings of discomfort, it might change your opinion of things ;) --70.3.139.91 (talk) 18:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I generally agree with these comments by 70.3.139.91, but there's a more central overriding point for WP. As much as F W Nietzsche might find his youthful speculations interesting, or even intuitively obviously, they are quite precisely original research. It's not our place to speculate on such matters of status, attractiveness, etc. On the other hand, if some actual study existed of number of partners or whatnot among people who identify as poly, we could talk about including it. I think it's unlikely such data actually exists, but who knows (as opposed to something very different that FWN seems to be discussing like "number of partners correlated with wealth/attractiveness", which probably has been studied). LotLE×talk 19:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Polygamy

Would it be correct to say that polygamy (if allowed) would be an example of polyamory? Debresser (talk) 15:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a contentious issue - traditional polygamy has cultural roots very different from those of the modern polyamory movement, and due to some high-profile criminal cases that some isolated polygamous cults have ended up in, the polyamory community is eager to dissociate themselves from polygamists. Traditional polygamy is also typically asymmetric (a man may have many wives but not vice versa) whereas most polyamorous relationships are symmetric (both people may date others). Polygamy is also about marriage in particular, and is not concerned with relationships prior to marriage. This is all original research, since it's from my personal experience, but hopefully it's a starting point. Dcoetzee 07:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

(Disclaimer: All personal observation from one polyamorous person and that person's families, and several polygamists amongst my friends and acquaintances)

I'd say it goes further than that. Cultural polygamy is more than just asymmetric, it's based on gender roles that are considered obsolete in modern western society; in modern society, polygamy just means sex with many, which usually amounts to practicing an "open relationship" allowing sexual adventures (that is, without any further commitment or emotional investment) outside of a monoamorous relationship. It requires that everyone involved can make a clear distinction between love and sex, and knows where one ends and the other begins; it isn't that uncommon. Unlike polygamy, polyamory binds sex to love, relationship and commitment as much as conservative monoamory does. That's a difference as fundamental as the defining difference between polyamory and monoamory. Humans being complex, there's nothing that says a complex relationship can't have polygamous and polyamorous aspects, but they're still not the same thing. It's a distinction that's difficult to explain, but immediately recognizable if you know the people involved, and the relationship structures they live in. DDWP (talk) 10:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I have added a hyper link and brief reference to both polygyny and polyandry to expand the heading, as the explanation of polygamy only included information about polygyny thus only representing one side of polygamy. There is a diverse tradition of polyandry in the world both currently and historically which is an equally important aspect of polygamy and part of the context of polyamory.123.243.102.2 (talk) 13:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Historical precedents

I added a link to Marriage and Morals under "Philosophical aspects", but I think a section on the historical precedents of polyamory would be really helpful. Polyamory is not a new idea and people who come upon the wikipedia page because it is new to them should be able to quickly discern that from the Table of Contents. Polyamory has strong philosophical roots and there should be a place for them to be flushed out in a clear, concise fashion.Cmashend (talk) 03:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

In zoology

I followed a link from a page talking about animals and ended up on a page about human social patterns. How about some disamb or similar near the top for those who want to know, for example, which animals mate for life and which don't? Sunnan (talk) 18:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Polyamory = Queer?

Can those with knowledge of polyamory give opinions on the Queer talk page at Talk:Queer#Polyamory = Queer? on how the concepts are related, and if/how this should be included in the Queer article. Thanks!YobMod 08:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Lead picture

The lead picture should be removed; it is better placed lower in the article at a section about protesting or something —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.165.179 (talk) 11:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

This image is best placed in the lead: Image:Love Outside The Box.svg|thumb|200px|The "love ouside the box" symbol for Polyamory, non-monogamy, and LGBTQ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.165.179 (talk) 16:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Just concurring a second time that this lead picture is misleading, ugly and ridiculous; a turnoff and not an accurate reflection of anything much. Dioxinfreak (talk) 02:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Quote

Perhaps include this quote:

If spouses did not live together, good marriages would be more frequent -Friedrich Nietzsche

Homosexual polyamory

I would be interested in obtaining some reliable sources on the phenomenon of homosexual polyamory. It could be argued that many LGBT communities have been practicing a de facto polyamory for a long time now, and that it mostly remains unacknowledged. It is mostly a structural issue in those gay communities. Many heterosexual swingers also tend to do the same thing, which is to have multiple partners but never recognize it as a given social fact. ADM (talk) 06:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

How does this comment related to the contents of the article, or what you would like to see be the contents of an improved article? LotLE×talk 06:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

He's saying that polyamory is prevalent among LGBT communities and that it should be mentioned in the article. Zazaban (talk) 06:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, but how does that differ from the current section "Polyamory in a same-sex setting"? Well, that's a terrible section title, to my mind, but it seems to discuss exactly what ADM mentions above. I definitely think the article could use lots of improvement, I'm really just not clear what is actually being proposed here. LotLE×talk 16:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Umm ... that part about same-sex settings will do, that was probably what I had in mind. If it is already there, then I would say nevermind. ADM (talk) 20:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Homosexual polyamory, proposed word change

I'm thinking this section might be more clear if we change the first word from "Polyamory," to "Non-monogamy," and also clarify that we are talking, in this case, about same-sex gay male couples. This is essentially what the rest of the section says, making the first sentence very misleading. Additionally, this is closer to the truth, as in gay-male subculture non-monagamy is fairly accepted but emotional non-monagamy, or polyamory, is little known. Quizoid (talk) 15:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Mixing two languages.

This article makes it clear that "poly" is Greek and "amory" is Latin. Why is there no discussion to the error of conjoining two words from two different and seperate languages? The term would be spelt πoλu-amory (correct me if I am wrong) which makes no sense at all. Its no different from mixing up Chinese and Japanese by using Wade-Giles and Romanji to create a meaningless word. Is this only accepted because of the the Romanisation of Greek? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.73.105 (talk) 16:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Plenty of terms are mixes of greek and latin, like 'television' for example, it's hardly unusual. I I have trouble comprehending your logic, it's quite bizarre. I wouldn't see anything particularly wrong with conjoining a term taking from chinese and one taken from japanese either. Zazaban (talk) 19:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The article Hybrid word contains a bunch of examples of mixed Latin/Greek etymology of English words (including polyamory). I'm sure there are others than those listed on that article, but it's an interesting collection. LotLE×talk 22:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

no Triad section or article at Wikipedia?

Polyamory article includes "Triad" link which goes to Threesome#Triad, but Threesome article does not have Triad section. Went to Triad, which included "Triad (relationship)" link which forwards to Polyamory. --EarthFurst (talk) 12:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Obvious Omission: Female privilege

Whereas almost any woman can enjoy multiple lovers, a lot of men have difficulty acquiring even one partner. 69.228.251.134 (talk) 21:40, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Got sources relating that to polyamory? Yworo (talk) 22:39, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the anon editor claimed females are able to enjoy bisexual/lesbian love affairs, but married men in a mutual agreement to have a "Co-wife/sister wife" is more socially accepted than let say a married woman have a "co-husband/boyfriend" in which is completely rare. You do hear about bisexual males in straight marriages have access to gay love affairs outside the marriage and the wives are comfortable with the idea, as long she's in equal partnership with him to keep their marriage contract in progress.

The usual terms in medieval times were "Mistresses" usually are live-in sexual partners for husbands belonging to nobility and upper-class elites, but there is a rare but well-known role for an open relationship of straight women/wives involved with another man: "Sisebo" (Cicisbeo) for male lovers of married women in the same social status. In such marital arrangements, cicisbeos have secondary or equal access to romantic and sexual expressions with their lover, as well cicisbeos do not see other women. 71.102.26.168 (talk) 09:16, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Slant

Is polyamory a movement with generally good/noble characteristics? I thought it described the nature of non-monogamous relationships, which existed before the word "polyamory" was coined. Parts of this article read like a pamphlet patting polyamory on the back.

(Note: I have nothing against polyamory. I just find it troubling that it's presented here as "good" when it seems no more inherently "good" than monogamy.)

Examples:

"Polyamory, on the other hand, is a different outlook grounded in such concepts as gender equality, self-determination, free choice for all involved, mutual trust, equal respect among partners, the intrinsic value of love, the ideal of compersion, and other mostly secular ideals."

"What distinguishes polyamory from traditional forms of non-monogamy (i.e. "cheating") is an ideology that openness, goodwill, intense communication, and ethical behavior should prevail among all the parties involved. Powerful intimate bonding among three or more persons may occur. Some consider polyamory to be, at its root, the generalization of romantic couple-love beyond two people into something larger and more fundamental."[citation needed]

"In practice, polyamorous relationships are highly varied and individualized. Ideally they are built upon values of trust, loyalty, negotiation, and compersion, as well as rejection of jealousy, possessiveness, and restrictive cultural standards." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lauriellen (talk • contribs) 09:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I also have nothing against polyamory, and have been practicing various forms of it for about 8 years, but you can also add this portion as an example of "slant."

"Such relationships are often more fluid than the traditional "dating-and-marriage" model of long-term relationships, and the participants in a polyamorous relationship may not have preconceptions as to its duration."

This needs a source for data showing this.Agr3.14 (talk) 05:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Same Sex Polyamory

I have to agree with one of the posts below about Same sex Polyamory , they don't really have much information about Same sex Polyamory , they talk about how Same Sex couples have open relationships to were they have sex with other people while still being committed to there partner, but that's not the same as gay Polyamory, its too bad that there aren't many resources or studies on that, because there are gay couples out who are open to that , there open to the relationship aspect and not just the sexual one, I should know I am one of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Empathy400 (talk • contribs) 01:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Redundant citation?

The 500,000 figure is attributed to two sources, but the second (George's article) merely cites the first (the Newsweek article). Does the second serve any other purpose? It's not cited elsewhere in the article though it might be under "Criticisms". Crazilla^{talk|contribs} 00:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Poliamory pride in San Francisco 2004.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Poliamory pride in San Francisco 2004.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 5 August 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Weasel Words

Polyamory is nothing but another term for an open relationship or a non-monogamous relationship so why all the weasel words? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.247.198 (talk) 06:37, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

This is not really true. There are closed polyamorous relationships. There may be three or more people involved, but no new people are allowed to enter the dynamic, so it's not the same as an open relationship (where new people are allowed to enter the dynamic). Polyamory is a broad term, so it covers any kind of honest relationship that involves more than two people. WarriorPrincessDanu (talk) 01:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)WarroiorPrincessDanu

Agreed, what's called "Polyamory" is nothing but an open relationship, or a non-monogamous relationship. It is a weasel word for an open relationship.