Talk:Polyamory/Archive 4

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 have either none wikilinks or too few I think.--Kozuch (talk) 10:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Symbols of polyamory
 * The fringes and outliers of polyamory
 * Legal status
 * Legal theory
 * Sharing of domestic burden
 * Polyamory and parenting
 * Philosophical aspects
 * Research

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)

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 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)

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)

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)

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". Crazillatalk 00:08, 24 July 2011 (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)


 * I don't think the picture is particularly ugly, but I agree that it should be in a protesting or polyamorous rights section. I think that the picture at the top should ideally be the infinity heart, but if not that, then the poly flag (though how official & widely embraced is the flag compared to the infinity heart?). Violet Fae (talk) 16:44, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that the lead picture of people marching with a banner in a pride parade should be removed from this article. It doesn't illustrate what poly is, forms an association with activism, and expresses a view of poly poly that doesn't apply to all of poly.  It should be elsewhere in a different section or removed completely.  There doesn't need to be a lead picture, or find one of several couples or a bunch of loving poly people doing some activity together, or some famous poly people.  Please get rid of it, it's awful! nycdi (talk) 12:10, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * OK then, I propose that we move the current lead picture to the "legal status" section and move the infinity heart from the "symbols" section to be the new lead picture. We can write "see top of article" or something of that nature in the "symbols" section since the picture won't be there anymore (and there are so many symols there that they bleed into the next section anyway). ★★  Violet Fae   (talk)★★  13:17, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I concur with VioletFae's suggestion, and since the consensus seems to be to move the lead pic, I've boldly gone ahead and made her suggested changes. – RobinHood70 talk 15:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

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)


 * It seems someone did change it to intimate anyway. I agree it should be either "meaningful" or "meaningful intimate". Violet Fae (talk) 14:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think either meaningful or intimate really express what we actually mean, since it's missing the explicit sexual/romantic connotation of polyamory. I have a meaningful, intimate relationship with my sister, my partner has no problem with it, but that's not the relationship that makes me poly. See what I mean? Kate (talk) 15:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Most words will not capture the diversity possible. "Romantic" may be closer to what MOST poly folk intend but "Polyamory" should include casual sexual relations (consented to by all involved) as it is a subset of Polyamory even when I don't define Poly that way for myself. Let "intimate" stand and lovingly accept how others express that. Respectfully, ~d 64.180.149.143 (talk) 18:00, 24 November 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


 * What's called "Polyamory" is nothing but an open relationship, or a non-monogamous relationship. It is a weasel word for an open relationship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.247.198 (talk) 05:11, 5 September 2011‎


 * By definition, polyamory is non-monogamous, as you say. But an open relationship is strictly about relationships where new partners may be added freely. As WarriorPrincessDanu stated, not all polyamory allows for that. The other terms you allude to aren't weasel words, they're descriptions of different relationship models, as you can clearly see if you read this and its related articles. – RobinHood70 talk 06:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * How can you know what terms are being alluded to? If the terms aren't weasel words, then maybe it's because they aren't the ones being alluded to; there are certainly plenty of weasel terms in this article. Chs2048 (talk) 18:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The IP poster right above my response said specifically, "It (polyamory) is a weasel word for an open relationship." It's not. That was my only point. As outlined in this and several of the related articles, there are numerous variations of multi-partner relationships. I don't disagree that the article is a bit POV and there are probably some weasel words in it, but there's a very marked difference in the definitions of polyamory and an open relationship; one is not a weasel word for the other. (And why would you even need a weasel word? Neither has any terrible stigma compared to the other that I'm aware of.) – RobinHood70 talk 20:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I concur wholeheartedly with User:WarriorPrincessDanu and User:RobinHood70. There is definitely a clear difference between the two, as described by the two users above. Violet Fae (talk) 13:30, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Is this difference made clear by the article though? Chs2048 (talk) 18:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think so. Here are two quotes taken from the article to illustrate this point:




 * and






 * 123.3.76.172 (talk) 17:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

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

 * Interesting... I couldn't find where the discussion is taking place. Can anyone enlighten me? Thanks! 123.3.76.172 (talk) 17:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I can only guess that this was the result of the lack of source information. If you look at the history of the file on Commons, you'll see where source and permissions tags were added, then removed shortly after. One of those tags mentions that if a source isn't found, the article can be speedily deleted. I don't know how things work on Commons, but it appears to me as though no discussion was actually ever necessary, so didn't occur (despite what the bot, above, would have you think). – RobinHood70 talk 17:56, 5 December 2011 (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)


 * There is a funny t-shirt that reads "POLYAMORY IS WRONG" with the subtext "it should be multiamory or polyphilia". However, I have to agree with Zazaban. Mixed etymology is quite common and acceptable. Seehart (talk) 13:30, 13 December 2011 (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)
 * (Also "original research"): As a long time experienced member of the polyamory community, I can personally confirm Dcoetzee's observation. Also, here's a reference: http://www.serolynne.com/polyvspolygamy.htm Seehart (talk) 13:41, 13 December 2011 (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)
 * In the context of polyamory, it is actually very common for a woman to have multiple male lovers (from my own extensive experience, so this first comment is original research - citation anyone?). Although mistress nor cicisbeo patterns technically fit within the definition of Polyamory, neither are typical of actual self-identified polyamorists, who value sexual equality . A note regarding POV and definitions: since the term polyamory arose from within the polyamorous community, it seems reasonable to define and use the term as it is used by polyamorists themselves. So for example, it is quite incorrect to associate polygamy with polyamory since members of neither of these groups consider themselves members of the other. Seehart (talk) 17:44, 13 December 2011 (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)
 * I would be opposed to the inclusion of Webster dictionary's entry on the grounds that the

definition is incorrect. I'm surprised that the people at Webster didn't bother to research the topic. Seehart (talk) 17:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Not NPOV
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)


 * I agree, this isn't NPOV; It showers the term with vague positives. As such, I've added a POV tag, and renamed this section from 'slant' to 'Not NPOV' chs2048 (talk) 17:42, 10 Nov 2011 (GMT)


 * I disagree with the assertion that this article takes a non-neutral point of view. I think it is written in neutral language which neither advocates polyamory nor decries it. For instance, in the examples given above, the writers are simply pointing out the differences. It is you above who are assigning a higher value to the aspects emphasised within polyamory - eg., "fluidity", "individualised", "highly varied", etc. are neither good nor bad; depending upon the values, needs and/or beliefs each person has they may think "fluidity", etc. is good, bad or neither.


 * To the first poster in this thread (Lauriellen), polyamory is most definitely not just a new word for all types of non-monogamy. You actually answered your own (was it rhetorical?) question in your choice of quote: "What distinguishes polyamory from traditional forms of non-monogamy..." - so obviously, polyamory is one specific form of non-monogamy. Also, though you may not mean it to, your post does come across (at least to me) as quite judgemental/biased.


 * I propose that the POV tag be removed. 123.3.76.172 (talk) 17:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I second the motion to remove the POV tag. Polyamory is a practice that does not condone cheating. Thus while it is possible for cheating to take place in a polyamorous relationship, the act of cheating (violating mutual agreements) is not part of the definition of polyamory any more than it part of the definition of monogamy. On the other hand, the broader term non-monogamy includes "cheating". Polyamory is clearly defined by the person who coined the term, and so correct application of this definition cannot be taken as biased. Seehart (talk) 13:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, if someone feels that a particular section is POV, that section should be POV-section. But I can't see how POV could apply to the entire article, unless a complete misunderstanding of the term Polyamory exists. A reading of some of the references is recommended. Seehart (talk) 14:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Jeez, it really does sound like a pamphlet. I don't expect anything to change so I will say no more. 122.58.170.203 (talk) 04:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I also second the motion to remove the POV tag. I found the article very informative, which is probably why it sounds like a pamphlet.  But I never got the sense that the article was suggesting that Polyamory was right, or that it was better than monogamy.  I believe the quotations above that other users have problems with were read in the wrong light.  The distinction is one I've found on my own in trying to explain my beliefs (I chose to be polyamorous without knowing there were other people or communities that did this).  Often people who have not encountered the concept of polyamory break it down in to terms that they understand.  I don't know how many times I've gotten 'so basically you just want to be able to cheat without feeling guilty'.  The above quotations show the general rational of those that are polyamorous in direct counter point to the 'typical' response from monogamous individuals.

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)

I would like to know, WHY is the picture of the 'Poly Parrot' (reference 17) used for this Wikipedia article. It is an image used on a website which has "more information"... not a very convincing reason for it's retention. I would like to flag it for deletion, but am too noob to know the proper protocols. (Hopefully someone who reads the page edits will reply to me here). 124.171.236.129 (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll be happy to reply to you here, without taking any position on whether the image should be removed or not. First, I'll have to distinguish "deleting the image" from "removing the image from this article", I think you'd be happy with the latter, and will focus on that.  (The other case is where you want the image to never be used on Wikipedia for any purpose.)  Whether an image is or isn't included within an article is generally decided the same way textual comments are decided, by the back and forth of editors either editing the article or having a discussion on this page which reaches WP:CONSENSUS.  Putting it out there, "hey, should we keep including this image on the page?", as you've pretty much done here, is a great way to get that conversation going.  Other editors will simply be WP:BOLD and make a change, then if someone disagrees, they can revert the change and begin a discussion here, we even have a name for this, "Bold, Revert, Discuss".  I hope this helps!   Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if I can explain more, I'll try and check back here, but with around 9,500 pages on my watchlist, I miss things.  --j⚛e deckertalk 18:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Many of the symbols on this page are sourced from fan or club sites, not reputable secondary sources. It would be a good idea to consider the credentials of each one, and to remove those for which significant coverage by unbiased sources does not exist. sonicwav (talk) 03:08, 7 December 2012 (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)

Unsure if this is the same text being described by the other talk-ers in this section, but I just removed the following line: "New Jersey's 2004 Domestic Partnership Act could in theory be used to legally connect more than two persons (albeit imperfectly), perhaps using a combination of marriage and domestic partnership. However, no case law in support of this theory yet exists." ... from this article. There was no citation on this claim. Meanwhile, I found this page at the ACLU, which looks citable: http://gbge.aclu.org/relationships/new-jersey and states "In fact, you have to swear when applying for a [New Jersey] civil union license that you are not currently married or joined in a union with someone else." Awk (talk) 07:47, 28 February 2013 (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 Reliable 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 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)
 * Well it cannot be an analogy if there isn't some sort of equation. Analogies only work because the things compared are similar. If romantic love is not similar to familial love, then the whole analogy crumbles, for what is good for the goose would not be good for the gander. When I first read this argument about parental love I was almost convinced, but the point raised here reintroduced doubts, which means it's a good addition to the article. Perhaps someone could find some reliable source or material about this dichotomy?Sapienza (talk) 07:12, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

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)

hey folks, i am an educator on many fronts intersecting here - specifically LGBTQAI perspectives, polyamory, and BDSM - and have a few ideas on how to expand this section of the article. there are several commonly accepted myths, practices, and perspectives in my experience which are omitted here; if anyone has notes on my edit or ideas beforehand, lemme know :) i will not be in a rush... — Preceding unsigned comment added by KateSassyPants (talk • contribs) 19:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Criticism section is very biased.
This is only my personal opinion, and I am sure people will disagree, which of course is okay, but I feel the Criticism section only sets up straw men and knocks them down in a very POV way. I am sure something as controversial and contrary to popular social norms as Polyamory has some better criticisms than "The Pope doesn't approve(so get a new Pope)", and "People say I can't love all equally(but I SO can)". The Perceived Failure Rates sub-section is slightly better in tone, but its references consist of broken links and POV articles (which themselves are not proper references but have references of their own). I am not against it by any means but it most certainly is not for everyone and there are real reasons for that. Reasons that could be presented in this section. It would really help the article to feel more balanced as a whole and not look like an pamphlet published by the "World Polyamory Advancement League" if there were such a thing.

TLDR: A genuine effort in the criticisms section is lacking and will lend greater credibility to this article. 67.164.216.166 (talk) 20:57, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more - this entire article reads more like an advertorial advocating polyamory than anything else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geenfietsen (talk • contribs) 02:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed here too: the article exalts polyamory and undermines monogamy (monamory). It makes a number of implied assumptions (such that jealousy and possessiveness are always evil and cannot be healthy - I myself beg to differ), it then contradicts them (for there to be an element of "trust" there must necessarily be an element of "possessiveness" - if I have no control or say on an action, there is nothing to trust. Trust introduces a certain right independent and above the free will of the other - though this paradoxically reaffirms the free will of both parties.)


 * I understand that this would be too philosophical (I probably did a bad job of explaining my position and understand that it would lengthen the article considerably to present proper arguments and counterarguments) but as it stands the criticism is merely a red-herring. Some more practical counters should be offered, especially on definitions, on the reduction of concepts (taking the "relationship" parts out of the relationship make polyamory sound akin to friendship), on appeal to nature arguments (being more natural doesn't make it more right), and on values (commitment and different interpretations of, sacrifice and the value of human constructs - in both poly and mono amory.) Sapienza (talk) 07:30, 13 May 2013 (UTC)


 * p.s. I think Zizek has written something on this, on love being a journey and involving sacrifices - I'm not sure if there were any implications on polyamory. I'll try to find and report back. It does seem to me that there might be a link between instant gratification culture and polyamory as argued from a monoamorist perspective. Though I can also see valid counters from the polyamorous side. It would make the section more balanced if we could find such evidence though. Sapienza (talk) 07:35, 13 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Definitely agree as well, I came to the talk page specifically because there was hardly any real criticism and indeed, the whole article reads as wholeheartedly advocating polyamory. There is also not one single mention of sexually transmitted infections/diseases. That's a massive oversight. Lewis06593 (talk) 16:27, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * STIs don't tend to be as much of a factor in polyamory vs. monogamy as you might think. By definition, polyamory isn't simply indiscriminate sex, so STIs don't occur as frequently as they might in other multi-partner scenarios. Nevertheless, whether confirming popular belief or refuting it, it's certainly something that should be mentioned, provided a reliable secondary source can be found. In a quick Google of "sexually transmitted polyamory", I found the following, at least of sources that weren't obviously poly websites:
 * New Sexual Revolution: Polyamory May Be Good for You
 * The Truth about Polyamory
 * Neither of them strikes me as particularly effective sources, however. I'm not sure if the first counts as reliable, and the second, while by a PhD, is nevertheless an opinion or blog-like piece. Does anyone have anything better? – RobinHood70 talk 18:26, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Polly in Pop Culture Section
I think there might be a case for a poly in pop culture section. Off the top of my head, I can think of the David Crosby song "triad" that was one of the reasons he was fired by the Byrds. It was also sung by Grace Slick. Sigh. And there is quite a bit of poly in the novels of Robert Heinlein. I've seen it elsewhere in SF and will find where if I decide to write the section. 65.79.173.135 (talk) 19:50, 6 September 2013 (UTC)Will in New Haven65.79.173.135 (talk) 19:50, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Love, romantic love, sex, monoamory and polyamory are different concepts!
Ok, this is getting bad. Last time I checked Wikipedia there was an article for each but now a lot of people are confusing romantic love with sex. These are totally different concepts and Monoamory should not be merged to Monogamy. Monogamy is about sex with one partner, not having romantic love with only one person. It is possible to be polygamous and mono-amorous for example.

I request the article for monoamory to be split from Monogamy. And also request an emphasis in the difference between platonic or romantic love and sex among all those articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.245.181.225 (talk) 08:11, 7 October 2013 (UTC)