jbash said:

Our fundamental position statement hasn't generated a lot of discussion, probably because it's a pretty simple question.The forum on the definition of polyamory is now open for business…

---

There is no reason we can't alter the wikipedia definitions of polyamory and/or polygamy and comment why so that people are less likely to change it back.  I have been tempted to do this since I watch the polyamory entry and see people changing it all the time but don't feel authoritative enough to actually make the change alone, but I would be pleased to make any changes we agree on in this forum and comment that these are changes that have been arrived on by consensus here, which will give them extra weight.

I think the problem with changing the definition to what you prefer is that it is less all-encompassing and more specific.  Polyamory means different things to everyone, and by further defining it, some people may be cut out of the mix

Post edited 9:58 pm – September 7, 2010 by Witan

---

But the definitions used should blur the distinctions. Polyamory includes Polygamy, Polygyny and Polyandry.  Even the term ‘patriarchal polygyny’ does not aid the issue because a polyamorous relationship can follow a patriarchal and polygynous structure.  The term should remain inclusive.  If one is to differentiate between polyamory and not-polyamory within the context of non-monogamy it is not the structure that is the defining characteristic.

 

To my mind the defining characteristic that separates polyamory is that it blossoms from within.  The existent non-monogamous traditions are traditions and love is cultivated along traditional boundaries.  In polyamory, love blooms in the wild.

 

Additionally there are many who identify as monogamous while being involved with a polyamorous individual, therefore I don’t think acceptance should be a qualification that is included.

 

"Polyamory is the practice, desire, or acceptance of having more than one intimate relationship at a time with the knowledge and consent of everyone involved"

 

Could be changed to:

 

"Polyamory is the personal desire to engage in having more than one intimate relationship at a time with the knowledge and consent of everyone involved."

 

This removes those who seek polygamy for traditional reasons, it allows for individuals to self-identify as monogamous while being in a non-monogamous relationship and it centers polyamory where it, in my opinion, belongs: on the individual.  It excludes those who cheat as it indicates that the polyamorist desires for everyone to know and consent.  As a definition it does not mention freedom or egalitarian because these are self expressed through the use of the word personal.

 

I think the polyamory definition from wikipedia is fine the way it is. Any most restriction would exclude some polyamory. Just think about monogamy/monoamory: it includes all sorts of people, and it even includes the abuse.

We can't go around saying "polyamorists never abuse anyone". That's just not true. But they don't do it more than mono people, and therefore the problem isn't the number of people involved, it's the abuse itself.

I was tempted to suggest asking "respect" after "knowledge and consent" (so it would become "knowledge, consent and respect of everyone involved") but I do know poly people who aren't all that respectful… Just like there are mono people who aren't.

I think we should focus on the basic definition, and contrast it with monogamy. For instance, stressing that the only difference is that mono people, when they have several partners, have them one after the next rather than at the same time. In my opinion, that's the only difference that should be made between mono and poly. We don't want to say we are "better", just that we're different.

I personally like that it lists both practice and desire, as polyamory can definitely be the practice (and as far as the law is concerned, that's the relevant one) but you can also be poly and have only a single partner currently. However I'm not sure about the "acceptance" part. It sounds a bit like something you tolerate more than enjoy.

We could add something if it doesn't exclude groups, but rather make things clearer. For instance "not all persons forming the relationship need be involved with everyone else, although they might be, and not all of them need have more than one partner, although they might". Then maybe a statements such as "polyamory exists among people of all sexual orientations" or something?

I'm afraid it might start getting too long if we add too much, I think the basic one should be the wikipedia one, but if we have an extended defintion, adding clarifications could be rather useful.