Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:19, 2 December 2004

Archive

/Archive 1

Polygamy is about marriage, not sex

When making edits on the polygamy article, it is important that the post understand that polygamy is about marriage, not sex. Only those who do not know about polygamy are the ones who think it is about sex. Those who do know what polyyamy is about, know it is not about the sex.

Also, many things which actually apply to polyamory are being posted as if it is about polygamy. Doing so is incorrect. Before posting such things to the polygamy article, posters should make sure that it is only about polygamy.

Lastly, for NPOV, it is irrelevant to make any reference to group sex. To say that polygamy "may or may not" involve that is as irrelevant as it would be to say that monogamy may or may not involve that. It would also be as biased as saying "Christianity may or may not involve devil worship." To even imply that hint is to display a bias toward thinking that polygamy supposedly does mean "group sex," when it does not. Again, only those who do not really know anything about polygamy would assert that polygamy has anything to do with that.

Misplaced Pages posts are supposed to be NPOV. Please make sure such posts stay that way.

That's fine, but what I wrote in "Bisexuality and polyamory" was no more sex-oriented than the version that preceded it, to which you then reverted. My interest was not in adding or removing information from the article, but to remove the mistaken claim that such relationships are novel and to improve on some awkward phrasing.

For instance, "this uncommon form is simply the means to an end for individuals seeking this kind of polyamory relationship" is pretty much meaningless. *Any* relationship could be described as "the means to an end for individuals seeking this kind of relationship".

If sex is irrelevant to this article, then it seems to me that the whole section is superfluous; ignoring sexual arrangements, all it says is "some people have multiple spouses", which adds nothing to what's already been written. Why not remove it entirely? --Calair 02:26, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You did a good job of simplifying, Calair -- especially given that you were working with what was already there. If the segment is indeed to even be kept, then, for clarity, the paragraph needed to begin with the opening clause and to close with the last sentence. (Like you reasonably ask, I am not sure if it will indeed stay, but we'll see.)

For it to stay, though, readers need to be informed right off the bat that what then follows is not what most polygamists do. The concluding sentence explains the polyamorists' motivation in that situtaion so as to help the reader further understand why it is not typical of actual polygamy. Frankly, I am with you, as I am inclined to think that the topic of this section may be more appropriate only for the polyamory listing instead.

Finally, the point of my talk-post here was also for preceding a removal of another sentence elsewhere in the article -- where someone was trying to suggest that polygamy may possibly involve group sex. That one and other similar posts in the article have been suggesting things about polygamy which are only steroetypical misinformation. So, this talk-post was not saying that about your post.

I generally liked the simplification you made (such as in grammar), and I only corrected the portions where necessary. But you did fine. Thanks. -- Researcher99

Ah, right. Misunderstanding was my fault - I looked at your two edits combined, and only saw the explanation for the second. I still feel the final sentence is superfluous, though - the point that this isn't typical of polyamory has already been made, and doesn't need to be made again. The repetition seems unnecessarily defensive.

There are some grammatical issues, but honestly, polyamory already covers much of this, and I think it's easier to shift the rest there. Will replace with a little bit on the distinction between polyamory and polygamy. --Calair 23:55, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I understand. I had actually solved your last concen by adding, "polyamory relationship." However, the issue is moot now that it is all removed anyway. Good job. -- Researcher99

Why was the section on the Oneida Community removed? It might not have been a typical form of polygamy, but each member of the community certainly had multiple spouses; as such, it fits the definition of 'polygamy' rather better than it fits 'polyamory'.

Also, rather than directing 'group sex' examples to polyamory, please point them instead to group sex. There is some overlap between the two terms, but they're not interchangeable. --Calair 13:17, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I can understand why and how someone might make that simple mistake. "Group marriage" does not meet the definition of polygamy, as it is neither polygyny nor polyandry. Instead, it is a unique concept completely on its own and separate from polygamy. Just as monogamy means one with one, polygamy means one with many. Hence, in polygamy, there is either one husband with many wives (polygyny) or one wife with many husbands (polyandry). On top of that, just as one would not start listing off Jim Jones' group or David Koresh's group as examples for defining Christianity, listing off very rare and fluke isolated examples of off-topic possibilities is similarly not applicable in a definition for polygamy. But it doesn't matter anyway because "group marriage" is not polygamy; the point is moot. Again, though, I do understand how one can make that mistake. Your help is very much appreciated.

On your recommendation about not referring 'group sex' examples to polyamory, but to group sex instead, I agree. Thank you for the very good idea on that. -- Researcher99

As it stands, the article defines polygamy as "a marital practice in which a person has more than one spouse simultaneously". Merriam-Webster similarly defines it as "marriage in which a spouse of either sex may have more than one mate at the same time". Neither of those definitions require or even suggest that only *one* person within the marriage may have multiple spouses.

The rarity of group marriages in comparison to "one-to-several" marriages inevitably means that 'polygamy' is most commonly used for the latter, but Googling shows that it is also used for the former. For instance, the | Columbia Electronic Encyclopaedia describes the OC's complex marriage as 'a form of polygamy'.

Misplaced Pages's role is to reflect usage, not dictate it. If dictionary definitions, usage, and even the article's own definition encompass "several-to-several" forms of marriage, then it seems that the article should acknowledge group marriages as a form of polygamy.

I think I see a possible compromise, though - will have a stab at this on the main page and see whether it's mutually acceptable. --Calair 23:17, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The more apt reason that that link might say a "form of polygamy" is because polyamory is not in most dictionaries. Anthropologists, when speaking of polygamy, usually only refer to either polygyny or polyandry. When the circumstance is any other configuration, they usually identify it individually.

Maybe I can explain myself better with a biological parallel. Biologists, when speaking of mammals, usually only refer to either placental mammals or marsupials. When speaking about any other form (i.e. monotremes) they usually identify it individually.

But this doesn't mean monotremes aren't mammals. It's because they are rare (so 99% of mammal-related discussion is about placentals and/or marsupials) and they're unusual (so when monotremes *are* under consideration, biologists prefer to use the narrower and much more informative term). The label 'mammal' is quite correct when applied to monotremes; it's just that there's rarely an occasion when it's the most useful word.

IMHO, group marriage is a similar thing. It's rare enough and atypical enough that it's usually identified individually, but that shouldn't make the broader label invalid. However, I've tried to word that bit to explain how it differs from 'conventional' polygamy without actually declaring whether it is or isn't polygamy. --Calair 06:08, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

When looking for a word to give a reader a closer understanding of such individual configurations, perhaps one might say other configurations are a "form of polygamy," but that's only to try to help the reader try to get a grasp of it using a word they might recognize -- but they do not use the circumstance to to define polygamy itself. And again, many are not familiar with the word, polyamory, and it is not in many dictionaries.

Where you wrote, "'polygamy' is more often used to refer to codified forms of multiple marriage (especially those with a traditional/religious basis)," I think it might be better to make the distinction that polygamy refers to either polygyny or polyandry -- making it much clearer.

For the most part, though, I like most of what you've done on this. Please give me a day or so to figure out what I think further about it. Thanks for a good job though! -- Researcher99

I'm not sure that substituting in 'polyamory' does much to resolve things. It's not much better than 'polygamy' or 'group sex' as a catch-all term; each of them takes in some of that "everything other than standard monogamy", but none of them covers it all. Sex, love, and marriage are closely related phenomena, but any of them can exist without the others. --Calair 06:08, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think I understand your point and you make an excellent example with the biology anecdote. I find, however, I still am unable to agree that the comparison is the same. It is more likely that polyamory would be more comparable to the "mammals" in your example. It could probably even be said that polygamy is the "subset of polyamory," even though polygamy makes up a larger portion than all other subsets "in polyamory" combined. (This would also explain why the rarity of polyandry is also welcomed in the online polyamory community than in polygamy in general.)

That 'larger portion than all other subsets' may be true, but it seems to me that it'd be very hard to confirm. Counting polyamorous relationships is a very tricky thing; I'm not sure if anybody's even given it a serious try. --Calair 00:20, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I can agree with your point. I was thinking more that it is more likely from a historical, cultural perspective (per all known history) that polygamy is the "larger subset."

On the internet, when I read through the many communications and articles in the polyamory community, I find that they do intend to be the "catchall" to be everything else that polygamy is not. They do hold themselves out that way and they openly seek to accept other non-standard forms.

(I'd like to distinguish between 'accept' in the 'That's OK' sense and the 'recognise as a form of polyamory' sense. I agree that most polyamorists are very accepting of non-standard forms in the former sense; the latter sense, not quite so much, and that's the one we're debating here. --Calair 00:09, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC))

I understand your differentiation. In the latter sense, I think it is important to remember that polyamory is a put-together word that means "multiple loves" -- specifically because they did not want the definition to be too limited, as polygamy limits to marriage. They let the cat out of the bag with that definition and word-creation and they really can not put it back. As it is said, they can't have their cake and eat it too. Ideas other than polygyny or polyandry fall within that broad definition of polyamory far more easily than such things ever could be "recognizable" as polygamy.

"Polyamory" is not in most dictionaries. Polygamy does not offer -- nor do polygamists welcome it as being -- the "catchall" answer (by polygamy being only polygyny or polyandry). Anthropologists use "polygamy" as either being polygyny or polyandry. Now that there is such a word, "polyamory" (which still needs to enter dictionaries), it gives anthropologists and everyone else a term that they are now able to use when they need to label other "poly" configurations. Those in the online polyamory community very much view and encourage its use (i.e., polamory) this way as the "catchall," as well. Because of these reasons, it makes sense to me to use it that way, too. -- Researcher99

What you describe doesn't match my experience. If you've been following polyamorous discussions, you've probably already encountered the usually-derogatory term 'polyfuckery', which almost always occurs in a "things polyamory isn't" context. Many polyamorists who might see nothing wrong with 'polyfuckery' (and even some who practice it) do not recognise it as polyamory. Many others do accept the catch-all usage, but it's certainly not a consensus.

You've probably also noticed that polyamorists place a very high premium on the principle of free and informed consent. This is unfortunately *not* found in all the practices one would like to fit into a catch-all. For instance, descriptions of the Oneida Community use words like "compelled to accept" in describing the arrangement whereby senior community members initiated virgins. I suspect most modern polyamorists would deplore such an arrangement and be very reluctant to recognise it as true polyamory. Ditto, practices like concubinage.

Naturally, there's a degree of image control in this. Nobody wants to share a pigeonhole with David Koresh ;-) But since 'polyamory' seems to have been coined largely for purposes of self-description, the self-described polyamorists do have a lot of say in what it means. For that reason, a broader meaning encompassing practices that most self-described polyamorists find deeply objectionable is unlikely to achieve general acceptance any time soon. --Calair 00:09, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Despite what some polyamorists may prefer, the word itself implies itself as the "catchall" -- "multiple loves," which is far more "inclusive" than polygamy's meaning of "multiple marriage." That's why "multiple marriage" can reasonably be thought of as a subset of "multiple loves" but not vice versa. Hence polygamy can only be thought of as a subset of polyamory and definitely not vice versa. (I am hoping we can both avoid semantics in my use of "multiple" here, as I was only trying to be brief in my explanation here, rather than digress into re-explaining the "multiple" part again.) :)

Its role as a catchall extends as far as 'loves' (at least, the 'eros'/'amor' version; as the alt.polyamory FAQ says, "you needn't wear yourself out trying to figure out ways to fit fondness for apple pie, or filial piety, or a passion for the Saint Paul Saints baseball club into it.") I agree that it's a *broader* category than polygamy, but neither is entirely a subset of the other. There are many reasons why people get married, and love isn't always one of them. --Calair 23:51, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As a group, polyamorists tend to also be far more inclusive themselves than polygamists would ever be on these issues, specifically because polyamory is indeed more of an inclusive "catchall" and less specific than polygamy. This is not to say I am voicing an opinion about the validity or invalidity of such inclusiveness or non-inclusiveness. It is just that polyamorists do rather tend to be quite politically liberal while polygamists tend to be politically conservative. (No judgement being passed, only observation.) That explains why those with a more liberal perspective tend to be more "inclusive" by their dogma anyway. It is only that, but their very definition and behaviors, polyamorists tend to be and promote that inclusiveness as part of their beliefs.

Agreed. I tried to get at this in the 'polygamy vs. polyamory' section - although the definitions of the words suggest a great deal of overlap, IRL they're usually attached to two quite different groups of people. --Calair 23:51, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Of course, I understand that even polyamorists may have their limits too, as you rightly pointed out with the profane variation. Certainly, polygamists would exclude such things too, and likewise for the Oneida Community example you mention as well. But just because such things may be the point at which polyamorists "draw their line" in their definition, it still does not deny the end result that ultimately, it is probably much more accurate to view polygamy as being an (albeit unwilling :) ) subset of polyamory, and not vice versa.

If I had to choose between 'polygamy as a subset of polyamory' and 'polyamory as a subset of polygamy', I would choose the former. But given the third option, I would much rather pick 'neither'. Polyamory is the broader set and mostly contains polygamy, but not completely so. --Calair 23:51, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. It would seem that both polygamy and polyamory include impalatable things to both. For polygamy, the definer is either polygyny or polyandry. But that can be true whether or not love is involved, which is distasteful to most polygamists who very much define marriage by love. For polyamory, the definer seems to be the criterion of "love" of any number of individuals (regardless of marriage). But being such a more inclusive "catchall," it does also include forms which are distasteful to polyamorists, as well. The common denominator simply appears to be the "poly." -- Researcher99 - 2 Dec 2004

If not, though, then perhaps we need a third term to be equally on par with polyamory and polygamy, all as parallel but individually separate (none being a subset of the other two). That would certainly be acceptable to me. Any ideas?

Missed something here. What group would this third term be describing? --Calair 23:51, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps something like "poly alternatives." These could include those other forms which do not fit into either polygamy or polyamory. Or, perhaps, we could just create a "poly" article as the hierarchical "parent" of polygamy and polyamory, with the other alternatives listed as miscelleneous items of that "parent." I am only putting this out as a possible idea for discussion on possible ways to address the issue. -- Researcher99 - 2 Dec 2004

The most key point about polygamy itself, though, is that it is really only polygyny or polyandry.