Polyamory
I feel too unqualified to write about polyamory. I simply can't go into detail. So I'm just going to cut off the other pieces and put the strict definition down here. I didn't bother cleaning it up beyond an HTML detail; I just pulled it from my wiki and pasted.
Polyamory (poly + amory) literally means "many loves". The word "love" is used exactly the same as it is used here. I consider polyamory to be a base status. That is, to define it differently, polyamory is any connected set of loving relationships with no definitional restrictions.
The first restriction on a connected set of loving relationships (assume that prepositional phrase every time I say "restriction" in this section) is sexual orientation. Heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, whatever. It's the requirement that all parties involved have this sexual orientation or that.
The second restriction is contract. That's where the "-gamy" suffix comes from: it refers to a matrimonial bond of exclusivity, whether social or sexual. While we immediately think of monogamy, again we must take a step back and look at polygamy. Polygamy is the practice of many marriages.
The third restriction is gender. While this may be implicitly enforced by the first restriction, we have things like polygyny (many women) and polyandry (many men). In these situations, the typical practice is having one member of the counterpart gender. Thus, polygyny typically involves one man and many women, though the word does not require this. (It is a notion based on the assumption of heterosexuality.) A dozen homosexual men would be polyandrous.
This definition is not agreed upon: a quick glance at the dictionary informs you that the common usage is "many wives" and "many husbands" respectively. I do not place this restriction because it assumes the second restriction, and that's less flexible. Regardless, this distinction has no significant affect on the remainder of this paper.
The fourth restriction is number. Now we see monogamy, but we also see monogyny, which is effectively what pre-marital relationships (such as those found amongst teenagers and young adults) are.
There are further restrictions, such as ethnic race, social class, nationality, economic status, age, and so forth that do not even have their own terms. These are generally considered either implicit or abolished: we see many mixed race marriages, and there have been plenty of Cinderella stories about cross-class relationships. Unsurprisingly, I expect and advocate that this trend continue, where such necessary restrictions are removed.
Needless to say, the more restrictions, the less polyamorous. The fewer, the more. Perhaps the least polyamorous scenario is the scenario of arranged marriages, where every restriction noted above is brought into play, plus the fiat of your choice being handed to another. (There are some reasonable arguments in favor of arranged marriages, by the way. You can probably find them, if you look.)
These restrictions are not necessarily ordinal, as you may have noted: but this is generally the order in which they are applied, and they also happen to be the direction in which restrictions are being removed.
The only restriction I'd place on a polyamorous relationship is from the FAQ: "according to the desires and agreements of the individuals involved". Now wait, you might say, aren't desires and agreements exactly what the above restrictions list? You'd be right, too.
That's all I'll give. I'm simply not qualified to actually speak on the subject. I'll probably end up doing it anyways; just not as its own subject.
Polyamory (poly + amory) literally means "many loves". The word "love" is used exactly the same as it is used here. I consider polyamory to be a base status. That is, to define it differently, polyamory is any connected set of loving relationships with no definitional restrictions.
- "Loving relationships" refers to my definition of love as a type of relationship.
- "set" is used just as it is in set theory: that is that all elements are similar: they are loving relationships.
- "connected" means that there exist a finite number of degrees of separation within the set. "degrees of separation" refers to the idea of "six degrees of separation", wherein you supposedly know everyone in the world through a chain of six people. We assume that this hypothesis is false, even though I think it's true. (This has implications which will be elaborated later.)
- And finally, the big one, "no definitional restrictions" refers to the various other types of loving relationships that may exist.
The first restriction on a connected set of loving relationships (assume that prepositional phrase every time I say "restriction" in this section) is sexual orientation. Heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, whatever. It's the requirement that all parties involved have this sexual orientation or that.
The second restriction is contract. That's where the "-gamy" suffix comes from: it refers to a matrimonial bond of exclusivity, whether social or sexual. While we immediately think of monogamy, again we must take a step back and look at polygamy. Polygamy is the practice of many marriages.
The third restriction is gender. While this may be implicitly enforced by the first restriction, we have things like polygyny (many women) and polyandry (many men). In these situations, the typical practice is having one member of the counterpart gender. Thus, polygyny typically involves one man and many women, though the word does not require this. (It is a notion based on the assumption of heterosexuality.) A dozen homosexual men would be polyandrous.
This definition is not agreed upon: a quick glance at the dictionary informs you that the common usage is "many wives" and "many husbands" respectively. I do not place this restriction because it assumes the second restriction, and that's less flexible. Regardless, this distinction has no significant affect on the remainder of this paper.
The fourth restriction is number. Now we see monogamy, but we also see monogyny, which is effectively what pre-marital relationships (such as those found amongst teenagers and young adults) are.
There are further restrictions, such as ethnic race, social class, nationality, economic status, age, and so forth that do not even have their own terms. These are generally considered either implicit or abolished: we see many mixed race marriages, and there have been plenty of Cinderella stories about cross-class relationships. Unsurprisingly, I expect and advocate that this trend continue, where such necessary restrictions are removed.
Needless to say, the more restrictions, the less polyamorous. The fewer, the more. Perhaps the least polyamorous scenario is the scenario of arranged marriages, where every restriction noted above is brought into play, plus the fiat of your choice being handed to another. (There are some reasonable arguments in favor of arranged marriages, by the way. You can probably find them, if you look.)
These restrictions are not necessarily ordinal, as you may have noted: but this is generally the order in which they are applied, and they also happen to be the direction in which restrictions are being removed.
The only restriction I'd place on a polyamorous relationship is from the FAQ: "according to the desires and agreements of the individuals involved". Now wait, you might say, aren't desires and agreements exactly what the above restrictions list? You'd be right, too.
That's all I'll give. I'm simply not qualified to actually speak on the subject. I'll probably end up doing it anyways; just not as its own subject.