Talk:Polyamory/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions about Polyamory. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Slight word change in first paragraph

supporting the "U.N." claim

Apologies; I'm in a rush at the moment, and will have to get to this later.

In reference to UN CEDAW possibly taking a dim view of polyamory, someone tagged the statement

The intent is to make monogamous marriage the only legal form, worldwide

as needing a citation, claiming "convention makes no mention of monogamy and only that women have a right to equal roles in marriage" which is nonsense.

I cannot access my notes so the source of this opinion remains open until I can dig it up again. This is apparently based on articles in Human Rights Committee, General Comment 28, Equality of rights between men and women (article 3), U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.10 (2000):

24. … It should also be noted that equality of treatment with regard to the right to marry implies that polygamy is incompatible with this principle. Polygamy violates the dignity of women. It is an inadmissible discrimination against women. Consequently, it should be definitely abolished wherever it continues to exist.

Polyamory is not a specifically protected practice, and is widely misinterpreted by outsiders to be functionally equivalent to polygamy, a misunderstanding regularly supported by "the poly community." Many "poly" couples seek "our third," a younger woman often "rescued" from an abusive situation. Despite protestations that there will be absolute equality all around, many such couples quickly make clear that the new member will be secondary to the couple — the real relationship. As an article on how Chad violates CEDAW, written by The International Human Rights Law Society (Indiana University School of Law at Indianapolis) says,

Being in a polygamous union automatically demotes the equality of a young bride not only towards her husband, but also towards the older wives, who are considered by the husband to be superior.

I read an article where the foregoing was interpreted as "the U.N. wants to make monogamy the law of the entire planet."

That's where it stands for the moment.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 01:38, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry. Most likely origin (thus far) of this meme is Monogamy#International. Possibly BOTH are synthesis.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 19:52, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

"frubble" redux

too much compersion

the "common-law marriage" meme

Seeing as this recurs, now in Polyamory#Marriage implications (referring to the socalled "United Kingdom"), I drag over my comments from Talk:Group marriage:

Anyone who believes it's somehow equivalent [to group marriage] ought to actually go read up on common-law marriage (and likely Common-law marriage in the United States). Each article has a note The term common-law marriage has wide informal use, often to denote relations which are not legally recognized as common-law marriages which speaks volumes.

And aren't there requirements to qualify? For instance, Colorado specifies four elements substantiating a common-law marriage:

holding themselves out as husband and wife
consenting to the marriage
cohabitation; and
having the reputation in the community as being married

Public presentation is a key element, and recurs through jurisdictions: Iowa requires a public declaration by the parties or a holding out to the public that they are husband and wife. As very few "group marriages" seem to appear in public as though married, they fail fully half the list, so I could argue likely aren't "marriage" in any non-hyperbolic sense.

As usually practiced, polyfidelity and group marriage are expansions of standard monogamous marriage, so "marriage with more people." Though polyfidelity is a type of nonmonogamy, it is not a subset or outgrowth of polyamory, and in fact polyfidelity predates polyamory by two decades (and group marriage was even earlier).

To my knowledge, nobody has yet defined WTF a "polyamorous marriage" would look like, largely because the concept "marriage" is defined so poorly/vaguely, seeming on one hand to indicate nothing more than "shared contractual responsibility" and on another "lifetime commitment, excluding all others" (which is impossible to resolve with nonmonogamy).

As to the unsupported "U.K." claim, Common-law marriage#United Kingdom takes pains to separate out the state of Scots law. Meanwhile, in England and Wales, "The use of the term is likely to have encouraged cohabiting couples to believe falsely that they enjoyed legal rights," so the (unfounded) claim here that it is not known whether these laws could treat some trios or larger groups as common-law marriages falls rather flat.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 00:53, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Removed now. Should a credible source be cited — even though the "common law" stuff is almost always baseless blather — only then will it have a proper chance of survival.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 15:34, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

lists? well... no

Some doubts about "lists of poly people," namely List of polyamorists and List of polyamorous characters in fiction:

Merely because one person acts in a polyamorous manner DOES NOT mean that all that person's sexual/emotional connections (however deep) are "poly," and further DOES NOT mean that it's somehow "a poly relationship," and DOES NOT mean that everyone connected to a nonmonogamous person is therefore nonmonogamous, let alone "poly." For instance, one person could have two dozen recurrent intimate partners, NONE of whom wants/claims to be poly, and are each therefore fundamentally monogamous in belief and practice, simply non-possessive.
- There's no indication that everyone who acts in a clearly polyamorous manner WANTS to "join the club," so foisting the label on them is not only highly questionable, but (if they are living) is a clear BLP violation.
It's basically impossible for someone to have "been polyamorous" before the invention of the concept. As such creation was a sort of on-the-fly situation, an approximation of the concept's birth would substitute, so 1990. (I've never seen the argument made that "polyamory" was at all intended in some evolutionary manner, though I would truly enjoy reading any contemporaneous account.) Dragging up some corpse in order to paste on a label is clearly synthesis and probably original research.
- An analogy: Nobody could have "been a Scientologist" before 1952, even if she had been around Hubbard since he created Dianetics (1930s, maybe earlier) and remained highly placed in CoS for the rest of her life.
- The argument will likely be made that previous terminology such as responsible nonmonogamy somehow weasels this in. If so, then the instant that claim is made, the article's name will become List of responsibly nonmonogamous people; lacking that, please don't even make the claim.
In order for someone to be (or have been) polyamorous, they must at some point have figuratively stood up and said "I am polyamorous." Lacking that, they must have claimed to accept (if not willingly and actively perform) the tenets and practices that define the concept polyamory. Lacking even that, the individual IS NOT polyamorous.
An open relationship IS NOT THE SAME AS a polyamorous relationship. A couple can be "open" with one or both actively cheating, and an agreement (tacit or explicit) to "ignore" it so long as the home situation continues along satisfactorily, what is sometimes called a DADT (don't ask, don't tell) agreement; there is no commitment to mention their encoupled status to their hookups, therefore (FFI see below) it's not polyamory, Q.E.D..
- Per the stated premise of List of polyamorists, in casual hookups there's no "strong, deep, close and true loving, romantic, and/or intimate relationship," and in DADT there's no inherent "full knowledge and consent of all involved."
In like manner, being inarguably polyamorous DOES NOT mean that the relationship is open. Since there is absolutely no verifiable evidence, we're stuck with popular conceptions and media reports, which heavily spread the belief that MOST polyamorous people are involved in a three-person CLOSED triad (almost always FMF). Portrayals are more marriage with more people (extending the premises of monogamy and marriage, as polygamy/polyandry), a highly circumscribed form of non-monogamy.

As with so many W'pedia List pages, the best argument for the continued existence of this is that it's an excellent means to keep fanboy trivia and ephemera from clogging up the actual, useful, credible information — here, Polyamory.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 14:30, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

coatracking?

terms STILL need definition

For example, seeing as it is central to the article's core premise, can anyone provide me a twenty-words-or-less summary of exactly w.t.f. is meant by consent?

Waving the reader over to Consent (criminal law) is vastly insufficient, not least because that article is a such a poorly edited semi-random collection of vaguely related factoids. The opening line (which happens to be the entire article-summary section) clearly states that consent may be used as an excuse and prevent the defendant from incurring liability so hardly seems consonant with the high degree of Pollyannaism so common in "the poly community." It also manages to beg the question of precisely how polyamorous people are inherently required to rely on a criminal defense. Given any thought at all, the takeaway here is that polyamory is illegal, or immoral, if not both, and should be undertaken only after consulting an attorney and a priest.

Furthermore, if not actually a matter of criminal law, that still leaves us riding off in all directions:

This could be remedied by providing an explicit brief definition, and should have been done long ago. As there's undoubtedly some brain trust lurking around here, protecting the Sacred Official Definition of polyamory — try shifting a comma, if you don't believe it — they clearly should create something that suits their high standards.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 16:33, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Asking the easy questions I see. Man, with consent I'm not even sure where to start. It is interesting that consent is precisely what the criticism section's sources touch on in a few places (i.e. that people may enter into these relationships willingly, while in their heart not wanting to), despite being a major part of the main definition. Best source I can think of for a reliable definition is a basic psych textbook (or three).Legitimus (talk) 12:18, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

IRL, I've tried to teach the concept of "writing for the naïve reader" — for user manuals, how-to guides, FAQS, and suchlike. A key point is to avoid sending the reader constantly flipping to the Glossary or Index (or worse, needing to find a dictionary), particularly in the early passages. Sometimes that mindset resurfaces. In this article, that reader has never been exposed to anything other than overt monogamy, so "consent" hasn't appeared except for parental-permission slips and TV crime dramas, and she considers nonmonogamy part of a very vague "stuff that weirdos and hippies do" category.

For the moment, I will reroute "consent" to Consent (BDSM). Though I deeply disagree with the recurrent popular notion that connects polyamory directly to Kink (sexuality) and Paraphilia and Sexual fetishism (nonmonogamy being "a non-normative sexual behavior"), at the moment it's the closest relevant usage in WP. (This maybe deserves a See Also once the term is properly defined here.)
Weeb Dingle (talk) 15:55, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Darn: I just noticed that "closed relationship" not only has no definition, it's not even used here. No easy solution, either: someone who goes looking for Closed relationship might well wind up with Close relationship which fetches unhelpfully up at Interpersonal relationship. I may have to work the open/closed thing in here and route readers to the relevant article.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 16:19, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

…and anyone who doesn't like it is absolutely free to do some WORK like an actual EDITOR would, like provide an explicit brief DEFINITION IN THE ARTICLE, rather than whacking the UNDO button and skulking away.

In the spirit of reasonableness, I have rerouted it to Sexual consent, though (sigh) the argument will probably now be made that "polyamory isn't just about sex!!" or something similarly bizarre.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 16:28, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Update on the linking matter seen here, here, here and here. Followup note here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:06, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

flawed lede claim

The last sentence of the first graf makes wild claims:

People who identify as polyamorous believe in an open relationship with a conscious management of jealousy; they reject the view that sexual and relational exclusivity are necessary for deep, committed, long-term loving relationships.

"identify" is a weasel — individuals either CLEARLY ARE polyamorous, or (less than a hundred words in) the page is already devolving into uselessness
- we wouldn't get away with talking about people who identify as Catholic or homosexual or guitarists or NRA members
even more weaselly is that there has been no wide-ranging study of people living in a polyamorous manner (much less thinking they might at some point in the vague future become polyamorous) so there is no firm basis for sweeping claims about what "they" believe (and Sheff's papers don't count; I've read them)
when I look up the cited source, all I get is a browser page that's blank but for a title block
the "conscious management" claim is likely major overreach, and certainly needs a VERY explicit source and preferably an actual attributed quotation to that effect
- in any case, it's a very recent (and likely limited) phenomenon, as until quite recently the emphasis has been explicitly on SUPPRESSION OF and DENIAL OF THE EXISTENCE OF jealousy, with such feelings seen as shameful
oh, yeh, some very basic fanboyism there too: most pro-nonmonogamy discussion sites make quickly clear that MOST people who claim to be seeking multiple relationships are in fact of the belief that a closed threesome is their sole goal, therefore "belief in an open relationship" does not hold in the least
a basic editing comment: note that open relationship appears with no attempt to explain w.t.f. "open" at that point, or even in the article body — remember that "the average user" for this article is most likely NOT nonmonogamous, and had NEVER knowingly met a nonmonogamous person, so as stated previously therefore NEEDS to have these words EXPLAINED… like (ahem) consent

As I am not allowed to make such changes (per View History), perhaps someone not so blessed could find reason to not immediately delete that entire sentence.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 18:58, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

flawed fundamental premises

This is going deeper into the very fundamental terminology problem. Namely, the more I try to pin down one "everyone knows what THAT means!!" term, I quickly find myself tangled in philosophy knots such as the fundamental nature of Reality.

It is impossible to examine polyamory if we don't have a stable and consistent usage of root concepts such as monogamy. However, per Monogamy#Varieties in biology:

Recent discoveries have led biologists to talk about the three varieties of monogamy: social monogamy, sexual monogamy, and genetic monogamy.
Monogamous pairs of animals are not always sexually exclusive. … This is called extra-pair copulation.
These discoveries have led biologists to adopt new ways of talking about monogamy….
Whatever makes a pair of animals socially monogamous does not necessarily make them sexually or genetically monogamous.
Social monogamy, sexual monogamy, and genetic monogamy can occur in different combinations.

Facts such as these beg the question of how EXACTLY polyamory might possibly be distinguished from socially standardized monogamy — not least being that a couple actively involved in multiple intimate relationships is almost always going to be publicly presented as a stable couple, therefore socially monogamous. How is it that someone can simultaneously be monogamous AND polyamorous?

And though life-long monogamous commitment is regularly waved about as being "natural" because "all the animals do it," apparently there's plenty of serial monogamy (one partner after another) and outright extra-pair copulation (which is NOT "cheating" because no human can speak for the details of a contract undertaken between a pair of finches).

(FWIW: there appears to be plenty of cheating in nonmonogamy and even polyamory, because claiming a cool-sounding label does nothing to wash away human stupidity. At best, being openly nonmonogamous appears to deflate most of the thrills-and-excitement content of adultery, and covert behavior is replaced by overt, but there's always going to be someone of shriveled ego who feels the need to demonstrate autonomy by pushing a lie past someone else.)

It is vastly insufficient to say, "well, it's not Wikipedia's mission to look into such questions — we merely catalogue the facts as presented elsewhere" when the reality is that WP is popularly upheld as an utterly credible source, often given an undeserved level of trust, most egregiously illustrated in the citogenesis phenomenon. WP's face validity is robust to say the least, and editors MUST take responsibility for their rôle in this.

This brings us full circle, and I reiterate:

monogamy — married to (only) one (other person)
monoamory — loving (only) one (other person)
monosexuality — having sex with (only) one (other person)

Nothing dictates that individuals must hew to all three, and indeed many don't: many swingers are both monogamous (having one day-to-day intimate partner) and monoamorous (eschewing emotional entanglement outside the couple) yet NOT monosexual. As well, people can love others deeply without needing to express it sexually or to be bound by a contract.

The popular tendency is to use poly-, "many" (from polloi as in hoi polloi), so following the above troika, we have

polygamy ("marriage to more than one")
polyamory ("loving more than one")
polysexuality would be "sexually involved with more than one" but has been misappropriated to remove "bisexuality" from the inherent gender dichotomy thing

So, there we are.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 19:05, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Another thing I've noticed is how heavily pro-Monogamy the Monogamy article is. There is virtually no criticisms offered (least not that I saw) compared to this page, which has a gigantic block of criticism replete with bullet-points... --Abbazorkzog (talk) 23:48, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

That's a sidebar but, yes, that's my impression as well. (You'll have to dig a page or two into the Talk archives for most of my comments.) For intellectual balance there ought to be Criticisms sections for at least (off the top of my head) Monogamy and Marriage and Heterosexuality and Dating and Romance (love) and Human sexual activity and Masturbation. To lack any such indicates an inherent bias toward the "normal" behaviors, thus a normative bias:

designating some actions or outcomes as good or desirable or permissible and others as bad or undesirable or impermissible.

Supporting that bias would be anti-WP. All have downsides, pitfalls, many examples of discouraging experience, and literature expounding on such.

To their credit perhaps, more than a few polyamorists are explicit saying essentially, "There's nothing wrong with monogamy; it's just not suited to everyone."

On the other hand, unlike most of my examples, polyamory has been accused of inherent bias on the basis of race and economics, for instance articles by Melitta Noel ("Polyamory: Considering Issues of Diversity") and Elisabeth Sheff ("The privilege of perversities: race, class and education among polyamorists and kinksters"), and Kevin Patterson's Love's Not Color Blind: Race and Representation in Polyamorous and Other Alternative Communities. (Again, I raised this awhile back.)
Weeb Dingle (talk) 06:53, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Sometimes we can't win. There was no criticism section in this article for a long time (and before that, a straw-man-y one) and readers repeatedly complained about that being biased too.

Another opinion: "Polyamory is for Rich, Pretty People" though to be honest it's a 2014 editorial from someone nobody seems to care much about, but it was briefly discussed, especially by people who rely on Rolling Stone for cutting-edge hipness.

And I should clarify that, as a longtime student of "deviant subcultures," I've seen similar fingers wagged at swinging, BDSM, Wicca, juggling (!!), lake fishing, comic-book fandom, and gay rights, and I point out that at least 90% of "reality TV" programming might as well be lumped together as Those Wacky Wonderful Whitefolk who may not be rich BUT with funding from the production company have nothing better to do than act out in front of the cameras so I'd call that "financial privilege."
Weeb Dingle (talk) 08:52, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

call for submissions: terminology

"mainstream Christianity" and Nashville Statement?

possible sources for inclusion

NPR affiliate WAMU's show The 1A broadcast "The New Sexual Revolution: Polyamory On The Rise" on 18 Feb 2019; I have not yet found a transcription. It relies heavily on "Eli" Sheff and Janet Hardy, so grain-of-salt seeing as their work is low in relevance to polyamory, and two decades old anyway; they are supported by two younger people, key players in Black And Poly. I'm not quite halfway through and find nothing that would improve the present article.

I also found an interesting-sounding paper, "Attached to monogamy? Avoidance predicts willingness to engage (but not actual engagement) in consensual non-monogamy" (2014). But it opens up with so many weasel-words that every second sentence wouldn't live up to W'pedia standards. A surprising amount of content is just paraphrases of other papers, and the authors try to skirt past the apparent fact that many of the "studies" rely upon self-reporting, with all the bias problems therefrom. I'm still slogging my way into it.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 20:21, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I've not been able to look at the first proposed source yet, but the second one (Moors et al) is actually already cite #84 in the article. This paper was once featured more prominently due to it being one of relatively few at the time, but has since taken more of a backseat in the articles current form since other sources have been added. And I would agree that Moors has the data of a very good paper but is definitely titled and written in a very weaselly way, as well as engaging in a lot of "spin" in the article body that tries to carefully avoid outright saying what the findings actually imply (i.e. the self-report and self-enhancement bias problem).Legitimus (talk) 23:13, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

You are of course correct! I leapt into the text without even noting the authors. I'd really like to find a piece (even a blog) where someone dug into the paper to figure out what it's saying and put it in plainer English; unfortunately, it seems like polyamorous people stop right about at "Oh look, they're talking about us, now we're validated."

I mean to add the Patterson book tonight (Thorntree Press (March 30, 2018), 978-1944934460). In reading reviews, I found anther article at BET's site: "Here's The Real Truth About Polyamory In The Black Community". And the Black & Poly site is straightforward: http://blackandpoly.org/
Weeb Dingle (talk) 00:42, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

here's a POV discussion: maintaining maintenance flags

…but, yeah, it was probably much overdue to scratch that "POV issue" off the header, so I agree with 75.104.71.155.

Maybe it needs to go further. On reviewing Polyamory, this has become a half-decent article in recent years. The big banners interfere visually, provide no markedly useful information, and in fact have probably dragged progress to a halt.

My recommendations:

Cut the "original research" header, as that stuff has pretty much been cleared out.
And though somewhat more apt, the "cleanup needed" is also a bit long in the tooth and needs at least reconsideration.
Even the "refimprove" header for Marriage implications seems shaggy.
Seeing as people have been making credible incremental edits, it'd likely aid that effort if those grand sweeping banners were replaced with individual small flags at each of the specific "hot spots" that are perceived to remain.

In some cases, a banner appeared because multiple editors agreed that a section was significantly problematic, but fell to squabbling over which specific claims needed proper support and whether a source was credible. Though the big flags mollified everyone, this also amberized many of the remaining rough spots, so overall I say move it along.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 16:34, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Weeb Dingle, first off, I like and may well shamelessly steal the "amberized" term. I just had a read through the article, and don't see any glaring issues with large amounts of unreferenced text or apparent original research, so I would agree that the problems called out by the tags appear no longer to exist. I would support removing them. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:54, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Use the term freely. Likely, I swiped it from some Silver Age science fiction author.

Having seen no objections, I will remove the "original research" header. Any sections and statements that run afoul of OR should of course be flagged for correction. I'll get around to making some changes (idem) to deprecate the "more citations" header.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 16:55, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

What about closed polyamory?

Text in the into paragraph says "People who identify as polyamorous believe in an open relationship" but surely this ignores the existence of closed polyamorous relationships and therefore isn't always true. Also, while the source describes polyamory as including open relationships, I don't think the source defines them as such nor says polyamorous people all 'believe' in an open relationship. 111.220.74.238 (talk) 14:52, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

You are correct that yhis is missing. Sometimes polycule refers to a closed polyamorous group. We also have not discussed the concept of fluid bonding [see * Holland, Kimberly (2019-05-30). "A Beginner's Guide to Fluid Bonding". Healthline. Retrieved 2019-11-10.]. Peaceray (talk) 15:21, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

No, really: you'd actually have to dig through the Archive pages to see how thoroughly ALL that has already been discussed. I am not totally in agreement with the definition of polyamory as used in the article, but I am clearly in the minority on this, and it's a bit late in the game to start redefining.

Popularly, the term has been frequently abused in order to somehow equate most (even all) forms of nonmonogamy, for which there's (surprise!) an article headed Non-monogamy. Polyamory is clearly a subset of nonmonogamy, and not the superset.

Anyone who wants to claim that there's such a thing as "a closed polyamorous group" ought to first become acquainted with the predecessor term polyfidelity, which refers to a form of group marriage. Individuals can be polyamorous and choose to live in a closed relationship; that there exists "closed-boundary polyamory" does not mean redefining the core term.

The idea of "fluid bonding" likewise predates polyamory, and was a central and flawed tenet of polyfidelity, as I detail at Talk:Polyfidelity#the "fluid bond" superstition. It is in no way a significant part of polyamory, and trying to make it so on W'pedia is variously original research and citogenesis.

A "polycule" is not inherently closed. The term refers to a housing situation or a grouping not unlike a Kerista B-FIC. A couple in an open relationship is a polycule; four people who are most commonly intimate amongst themselves can be a polycule, even if one or more has an "outside" relationship.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 23:46, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

comments buried in Revision History

another thing has to go:

IMO, no such thing as "parallel polyamory"

History

There's very little about the history of polyamory in this article, but the concept is certainly not new. Émile Armand is said to have promoted polyamory in the early 20th century. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:06, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I think part of the issue with that is the term didn't really exist until the 1980s or 1990s. I'm also unclear if, for example, Armand's views fall within the definitional framework of what the term actually means. I'm not saying it does or it doesn't, I'm saying I'm not confident my understanding of the definitions is good enough to make that call, so I leave that to other editors.Legitimus (talk) 16:21, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Again: archives. Nobody could have been polyamorous before the concept was defined, just as nobody could have "been a Scientologist" before 1952, or "been a swinger" before the early 1950s, or "been a Christian" before Jesus was born, even if what they were doing bears strong resemblance.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 23:55, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

No one could have been a Scientologist before Hubbard created it, and no one could be a Christian before Jesus, but polyamory and swinging are descriptions of things that existed, whether there was a tidy term for them or not.

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions*

Nope. Swinging did not exist before swinging existed. Polyamory did not exist before polyamory existed. To say "sort of like" is somewhere between weaselling and original research. Barely permissible would be to say "According to ----" rather than to support the specious claim as established truth.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 08:57, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Swinging existed before the term "swinging," and polyamory existed before the term "polyamory." The terms describe behaviors that already existed. The words did not create the behavior; they described it.

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 00:55, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

What is a WP article about? WP is an encyclopedia, and Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary states: "Each article in an encyclopedia is about a person, a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing, etc., whereas a dictionary entry is primarily about a word, an idiom, or a term and its meanings, usage and history." I think that this article, Polyamory is about the concept of polyamory. Some when did the concept of, as opposed to the word or term polyamory come into being? Maybe it depends on how the people involved think of themselves, or maybe that is not the only consideration. The articles Homosexuality, Incest, Zoophilia, Marriage and probably other similar, go back probably before the modern concept existed, and I think that this article should follow those precedents. So I support this article dealing with times before the term "polyamory" existed. FrankSier (talk) 17:42, 27 August 2020 (UTC)