First of all I would like to make one thing quite clear. I never explain anything. - M. Poppins

[nullalux]

As promised, a brief analysis and summary of responses to my Ideologies and Affiliations Poll.

Ethnicity: My mother is Filipina and my father, German. I lived in the Philippines before we settled in the US. My journal layout is in Ancient Greek only because I studied Classical Languages in college. According to poll results, both people who have and have not met me mostly thought I was some sort of generic Caucasian, which I find interesting, as I identify very strongly as Asian. Must be the light-colored eyes.

Religion: I identify as a Jewish atheist, meaning I value culturally Jewish rituals but consider myself a secular humanist. Most folks checked either Jewish or Jewish Atheist.

Sexuality: I'm a solid 3 on the Kinsey Scale. Most respondents answered bi, whether they've met me or not.

Dietary choices: I am vegan, both for health and ethical reasons. Those who have not met me primarily thought I was vegetarian or vegan. Those who have met me overwhelmingly chose vegan.

Political affiliation: Moderate. In high school, I was Republican. By college, I'd shifted to Libertarian, but became frustrated by the two-party system and eventually registered as Decline to State. According to the poll, most people considered me politically liberal, with a smattering each for moderate and socialist.

Relationship model: Polyfidelity seems the closest fit, since I've heard 'polyamory' defined as 'multiple relationships without commitments' (which seems problematic at best). Those who have met me all answered with some form of poly, although more favored polyamory. Of those who have not met me, 68% chose polyamory and 23% polyfidelity.

Regarding the amusing Relationship Poll, several respondents seem to have very ambitious projections regarding my stamina in such matters! In truth, I have varying levels of intimacy with some of my lovely cuddlesome friends, but I maintain only a few more serious connections. I also feel compelled to note here that Spencer is my cat, and further, while he is quite a handsome gentleman, we have a strictly platonic relationship.

Comments

[karenbynight.livejournal.com]

Relationship model: Polyfidelity seems the closest fit, since I've heard 'polyamory' defined as 'multiple relationships without commitments' (which seems problematic at best).

Interesting. I've never heard that definition. My understanding of the terms is that polyamory is multiple relationships with commitments, with other people who don't necessarily have commitments to each other; while polyfidelity is multiple committed relationships which form a closed group. So, if Bry, Sarah, and I dated only each other, we'd be polyfi, but since we have other relationships with people who aren't necessarily connected to our other partners or their partners, we're polyamorous.

[juverna.livejournal.com]

*nod* That was more or less my understanding, as well.

[blue-estro.livejournal.com]

My understanding of the terms is that polyamory is multiple relationships with commitments

I have encountered a sufficiently large number of people who use use "polyamory" as explicitly implying no commitments that 'polyfidelity' ends up being a more accurate descriptor in terms of the root words.

Given that calling folks out on the important distinctions between polyamory and polyfuckery is often not reacted to well, just using (even if slightly incorrectly) another 'poly'-prefixed word is easier.

[chalepa-ta-kala.livejournal.com]

Agreed.

[karenbynight.livejournal.com]

Interesting. Almost all of my friends use and are comfortable with swinging vs polyamory for that distinction, but I've certainly met people who aren't so happy with swinging as a term. I'm happy to take up terms that cause the least confusion.

However, I don't think using polyfidelity in that sense helps, as I think the meaning I suggest is already widespread(*), and that the differences between those two relationship structures are large enough that interchanging them would cause quite a bit of confusion.

*at least, among those likely to discuss alternative relationship structures at all

[dicedork.livejournal.com]

These are the only ways I've ever really heard the terms (and those distinctions) as long as I've been hearing them. My understanding of polyfidelity was that it was a completely closed relationship (with no real chance for add-ons) that happened to involve more than two people. Though I think that line between "swinging" and "poly" is a far more contentious debate, to be sure.

[chalepa-ta-kala.livejournal.com]

As I mentioned to karenbynight, I seem to identify as polyfi because, while I'm not in a strictly "closed" relationship, it's awfully rare for me to get involved with someone past smooching at a club, etc.

"Soon will be the foxes!"

[shoutingboy.livejournal.com]

'...I've certainly met people who aren't so happy with swinging as a term...'

I have to admit, the term always makes me think of Steve Martin as Yortunk Festrunk, the wild and crazy Czechoslovakian. "Let's swiiing!"

But maybe that's just me...

[kest]

I think I've just decided that 'poly' has enough spectrum that as a description it is only slightly more useful than 'alternative', and have fallen back to rule one of poly - clearly communicate your own personal boundaries and expectations.

[blue-estro.livejournal.com]

With potential partners/lovers, of course and always, (I think this should happen even if one identifies as even the most vanilla varieties of monogamous)

However, in casual conversation where the just a gist is needed for context I much prefer quasi-accurate is to full detailed disclosure.

[chalepa-ta-kala.livejournal.com]

My understanding of the terms is that polyamory is multiple relationships with commitments, with other people who don't necessarily have commitments to each other

What about V-triads? I was in a "closed" triad for nine years with tutordennis and Blake, but they weren't intimate (although we shared a household). Would you say that was polyfi?

[karenbynight.livejournal.com]

Yep. The term as I know it doesn't require a fully-connected graph, just one known to be and intended to be closed.

[goldenmean.livejournal.com]

I've always thought that people would find graph theory more interesting if only the problems were presented in a sexual nature.

Though the number of NP hard jokes made about the Traveling Callgirl/boy problem would really be out of control.

In regards to the original commentary, I've always understood polyamory to be the practice of maintaining multiple loving relationships at once, whereas polyfidelity is the subset of polyamory in which the relationships form a closed system. It is a source of much frustration to me that people tend to use polyamory when what they are actually participating in is polyfuckery. But that's humans for you.

[chalepa-ta-kala.livejournal.com]

I've always understood polyamory to be the practice of maintaining multiple loving relationships at once, whereas polyfidelity is the subset of polyamory in which the relationships form a closed system.

As I mentioned to karenbynight, I seem to identify as polyfi because, while I'm not in a strictly "closed" relationship, it's awfully rare for me to get involved with someone past smooching at a club, etc.

It is a source of much frustration to me that people tend to use polyamory when what they are actually participating in is polyfuckery. But that's humans for you.

SRSLY. Damn those humans and their opposable thumbs.

[karenbynight.livejournal.com]

I've always thought that people would find graph theory more interesting if only the problems were presented in a sexual nature.

My college friend group not only drew the "who's having sex with whom" chart, they recorded it as tuples and ran least path analysis algorithms on it.

It is a source of much frustration to me that people tend to use polyamory when what they are actually participating in is polyfuckery.

Here's the thing I really don't understand: why do you care? It's certainly useful to make a distinction when, say, responding to requests for relationship advice. But outside of that, and outside of negotiating commitment with one's partners, when does the distinction matter?

[chalepa-ta-kala.livejournal.com]

One could argue that it reflects poorly upon non-commitment-phobic, safer-sex-practicing poly folk.

[karenbynight.livejournal.com]

One could also argue that characterizing people who want casual sexual relationships as commitment-phobic and non-safer-sex-practicing is both prejudicial and non-factual. At least, I would certainly argue so, for the sake of the longstanding relationship commitments I have with two partners who also engage in casual sexual relationships, and whose safer sex practices are beyond reproach.

Here's why *I* care: I worry that when it comes time for large-scale political battles, like formalizing financial commitments for groups larger than two, or simply guaranteeing the standard parental rights for adults audacious enough to have non-standard romantic or sexual relationships... we'll all be here infighting over whether having had a non-romantic sexual relationship last year makes you too immoral to sign our petition.

In any case, I think we're the only ones for it to possibly reflect badly to. The argument "we're not just having sex; we're having relationships" IME doesn't work well for convincing strictly-monogamy-minded people that polyamory is ethical; from my experience, their insurmountable issue with it is not generally sex outside of relationships, but simultaneous sexual relationships, whether casual or committed.

[goldenmean.livejournal.com]

My college friend group not only drew the "who's having sex with whom" chart, they recorded it as tuples and ran least path analysis algorithms on it.

That's awesome. I actually found one of those sorts of charts from the late 90s while digging through some old gaming books a couple of months ago. Though it included shorthand of the "Person x <-> The entirety of ren-faire" variety, which doesn't make it incredibly amenable to hard analysis.

Here's the thing I really don't understand: why do you care?

My main gripe really is that it serves to muddy the language. I know what someone means when they refer to an object as being of a certain color (philosophical ramblings on the nature of objective reality aside), but if someone refers to themselves as being polyamorous, it's barely enlightening at all. Polyfuckery/swinging/what have you doesn't necessarily involve love (or to my ears at least even imply it), so it's just a bit of a pet peeve when it's used interchangeably with polyamory, which has love as one of the root words in its construction.

[chalepa-ta-kala.livejournal.com]

I still identify as polyfi, I think. While we're not in a strictly "closed" relationship, it's awfully rare for me to get involved with someone past smooching at a club or making out at a party.

[dicedork.livejournal.com]

*looks for his comment* Huh. It scampered off! :-p

Anyway, this reply is almost identical to the one I got in my inbox, so I'll reply here. :-)

The trouble with these made up words (well, really any word, but more so these) is that they really mean what the people using them mean them to.

Obviously I'm on the outside looking in, but it seems like your little unit has had a lot of wonderful add-ons lately.

But like I said, it's less about "what-label-means-what" and more about how people are using a term when it comes to stuff like this.