Polyamory at the British Psychological Society

[Stephen Harris]

I love the comment about time management :-) Full text at:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/04/04/namory04.xml

Here are some snippets:

[snip]

They believe in free love and multiple relationships, but not casual sex
- and enjoy feeling "frubbly".

[snip]

Ani Ritchie and Dr Meg Barker of the South Bank University, London, told
the British Psychological Society annual conference in Manchester
yesterday that up to 2,000 British men and women were openly
polyamorous.

[snip]

"Polyamory is the belief that it's acceptable or even ideal to have more
than one loving or sexual partner," she said. "There's an emphasis on
the recognition of multiple important relationships - it's not about
casual sex.

[snip]

All her lovers - and their lovers - accepted each other, she said,
admitting that time management was her biggest problem.

[snip]

She added: "Some people are so unhappily single. Polyamory takes away
the pressure of one person having to be all things to the other.

[trin]

Post by Stephen Harris
They believe in free love and multiple relationships, but not casual sex

Erm, ackshurelay, some of us DO believe in casual sex.

Post by Stephen Harris
and enjoy feeling "frubbly".

Though for pretty much everyone I've met, the word that tends to get
used is compersion... frubbly's more of a slang term for that, afaics?

Post by Stephen Harris
Despite having numerous partners at any one time, they are emotionally committed and do not cheat on them.

Hmmm... beg to differ, some people're still gonna cheat whether they're
poly or not.

Post by Stephen Harris
up to 2,000 British men and women were openly polyamorous.

Were, or still are?

Post by Stephen Harris
"There's an emphasis on the recognition of multiple important relationships
- it's not about casual sex.

And again there's that bit about it not being about casual sex...
actually, for some of us, it is about that as well/instead.

Post by Stephen Harris
admitting that time management was her biggest problem.

Oh God YES! <wry smile>

Post by Stephen Harris
"Ethical slut" is used to define a woman in an open multiple relationship

No, ethical slut's used to define a PERSON who chooses to use that
label, not all of us do, and not all of that do are wimmin!

Post by Stephen Harris
a lover and their other partners, who are called "metamours".

Amongst other things, the easiest one being OSO, imo.

Post by Stephen Harris
A "wibble" is a jealous feeling but "not a massive sexual threat"

No, a wibble's feeling something's ick, and has been around for yonks
anyway, and not JUST in poly terms.

Post by Stephen Harris
There are no words for what we do

Erm, actually, yes, there are - pretty much the same ones as used in
almost every other relationship on the planet, with (perhaps) compersion
being one of the few exceptions.

Post by Stephen Harris
She admitted that some monogamous friends found the "concept of primary partners and secondary partners" difficult.

As do some poly peeps, since we're not ALL in hierarchal relationships.

Post by Stephen Harris
She added: "Some people are so unhappily single. Polyamory takes away
the pressure of one person having to be all things to the other.

No, that's just recognising that no-one CAN be all things to the other,
whether poly OR mono.

Post by Stephen Harris
"There are relationships where the husband has a lover and the wife agrees so long as it is not talked about - don't ask, don't tell."

Because wimmin NEVER do the other lover bit in DADT scenarios do they...
nooooo.

Sorry, that article, much as I appreciate that it's introduced the
concept of poly to more than knew about it before, has done little, imo,
to help extend the understanding of the concept - and has, in fact, imo,
stated as fact things that, ime, (1) tend to be based on American
versions rather than English versions. (2) are how that particular
person sees things, not how a lot of poly people see things.

[Stephen Harris]

Post by Stephen Harris
They believe in free love and multiple relationships, but not casual sex

[ snippage ]

Actually I quoted extracts from an article in the national press. Please
be more careful with your attributions.

Thanks!

[trin]

Post by Stephen Harris
Actually I quoted extracts from an article in the national press. Please
be more careful with your attributions.
Thanks!

I was being careful in that I was following the thread and quoting that
you had posted it - which wasn't implying in any way, shape, or form,
that it was what you personally had said... heck, I even went back to
the article and included some things that you hadn't mentioned!

[David Matthewman]

Post by trin

Post by Stephen Harris
There are no words for what we do

Erm, actually, yes, there are - pretty much the same ones as used in
almost every other relationship on the planet, with (perhaps) compersion
being one of the few exceptions.

As the person originally said this (at least, I said it to one of the
authors, who thought it was an interesting enough idea to form the basis
for the academic paper), I feel I should defend it a little. The words I
use to describe my individual relationships are indeed the same as those
used in almost every other relationship on the planet. The words used to
describe the interaction *between* those relationships are more elusive.

This is, I think, because they are not words that normal everyday
relationships need. A normal every day relationship does not need a word
for 'partner of a partner'. It does not need a word for the way I feel
about such a person, or for the relationship structure that causes such a
person to exist.

Nor, to be fair, do many people who have partners-of-partners. The press
(wrongly) made out that there's some secret language that all people
involved in the cult of polyamory use, like some sort of masonic code.
There isn't, as I suspect everyone reading this newsgroup knows well. I
know that, and both Meg and Ani - the authors of the paper - know that
two.

The point is not that such words are needed; the point is that they're
*useful*. Not to everyone, but to sufficient people that they get used if
they're coined. We don't *need* a single word for 'polyamory', but many
people find it useful enough that it's passed into common usage. And that,
in itself, is an interesting process. It's interesting which words have
succeeded and which haven't. 'Compersion' was well-established at the time
'frubbly' came along, but was sufficiently disliked that frubbly - coined
almost by accident and certainly never intended to be a serious term for
the feeling - has stuck and is at least as commonly used these days.
'Metamory' - a proposed term for the same thing - fell with a dull thud,
but generated 'metamour' which is pretty much a standard term now (along,
as you point out, with the much older OSO which is still a term that
wouldn't get used in a normal relationship). Endless debates are had about
the terms 'primary' and 'secondary', and many poly people find them deeply
objectionable, but that doesn't change the fact that for many people
they're a concise description for their relationship structure which
otherwise would take a sentence long description.

If the new terms that had been coined weren't useful, they wouldn't get
used. They are, and they do.

It's certainly possible to talk about polyamorous relationships without
using neologisms, but it's often a lot harder and less concise. And if
it's harder for me to talk about my relationships, it's harder for me to
discuss those relationships with the people who matter to me, which is not
just my partners, but my children, my parents, my siblings, my friends, my
work colleagues: a whole host of people who will be struggling to
understand unfamiliar concepts and who may - *may* - be helped by having
word-size labels for them, rather than sentence-size labels.

[Chris Croughton]

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 09:47:32 +0100, David Matthewman

Post by David Matthewman
It's certainly possible to talk about polyamorous relationships without
using neologisms, but it's often a lot harder and less concise. And if
it's harder for me to talk about my relationships, it's harder for me to
discuss those relationships with the people who matter to me, which is not
just my partners, but my children, my parents, my siblings, my friends, my
work colleagues: a whole host of people who will be struggling to
understand unfamiliar concepts and who may - *may* - be helped by having
word-size labels for them, rather than sentence-size labels.

But don't you have to define them for yourself anyway, and probably
differently from the way other poly people might use them? "The partner
of my partner" seems fairly self-explanatory to me, whereas OSO isn't.
The same with 'frubbly' and 'compersion', I doubt that anyone would
understand them without explanations. And unless the word is used often
people won't generally remember the meaning, just as most of my family
don't understand programming terms even though I use them once a month
or so when I talk to them. If they know more than one poly person they
may well get even more confused, because people use them in different
ways.

(Heck, I managed to forget what 'frubbly' and 'compersion' are supposed
to mean within 5 minutes of reading the article...)

Chris C

[David Matthewman]

Post by Chris Croughton
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 09:47:32 +0100, David Matthewman

Post by David Matthewman
It's certainly possible to talk about polyamorous relationships without
using neologisms, but it's often a lot harder and less concise. And if
it's harder for me to talk about my relationships, it's harder for me to
discuss those relationships with the people who matter to me, which is not
just my partners, but my children, my parents, my siblings, my friends, my
work colleagues: a whole host of people who will be struggling to
understand unfamiliar concepts and who may - *may* - be helped by having
word-size labels for them, rather than sentence-size labels.

But don't you have to define them for yourself anyway, and probably
differently from the way other poly people might use them? "The partner
of my partner" seems fairly self-explanatory to me, whereas OSO isn't.
The same with 'frubbly' and 'compersion', I doubt that anyone would
understand them without explanations. And unless the word is used often
people won't generally remember the meaning, just as most of my family
don't understand programming terms even though I use them once a month
or so when I talk to them. If they know more than one poly person they
may well get even more confused, because people use them in different
ways.

Yes, that's a fair point.

Still, if I only have to explain the terms a few times before they get
them, that's still an improvement on having to use the long version every
time. And many people I'm talking to will *want* there to be a term for
having more than one partner, and so will be more likely to remember it
when it comes up, especially if it's in a context that they can relate to
because they know me.

Also, my family are language geeks who like playing with new terms, and
shared language in-jokes.

In any case, the point is not that we need the words (because we don't).
The point is that the words *do* exist and *are* used, despite the fact
that many people don't need them and indeed are openly hostile to their
use. And it's interesting (to me) to discuss why that is; as I've said
before, I think it's at least partly because some people find it useful to
have words for things they do, even if those things are:

a) non-mainstream, and not things that most people would need to describe
b) things that can be explained in a longer phrase of existing words