Talk:Polyamory/Archive 1

message: DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.
This archive page covers approximately the dates between 2003 and May 2005.
Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.
Please add new archivals to Talk:Polyamory/Archive02. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. Kit 21:17, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

message: It may be helpful to include, in the interest of presenting both sides, common polyamorists criticisms of monogamy, some of which are prevalant even in this article. That may help with the NPOV situation. A few: 
1. That monogamous relationships are based on possessiveness and jealousy.
::This is incorrect - monogamous relationships are based on two people who desire to be with each other, not two people who are trying to keep the other from developing relationships with new partners. This is a surprisingly common misconception among polys, probably due to the fact that a desire to be with only one person is somewhat alien to the poly mindset, so it's assumed that this desire is being sublimated by the person's partner. Forcing another to be 'faithful' to you when they don't desire that is as alien to the monogamous philosophy as 'cheating' is to the poly philosophy.
2. That people who are poly 'love more' than those who aren't.
::This is not only incorrect, but patentedly insulting to those outside of the community. For proof of this, take a look at the name of the polyamorous magazine in the article - "Loving More". Loving more than who? Well, obviously people who aren't polyamorous. This is another mistake that's surprisingly common, and actually breaks the "apples and oranges" poly philosophy - if love isn't less available when spread among multiple partners, the obvious correllary is that it also isn't any less available when devoted to one person. If this idea was proposed to a married, loving monogamous couple who'd been together for 30 years, they would very likely laugh themselves into stitches. The 'children' argument holds well here - just because a person only has one child instead of two doesn't mean that they have any less love to give that child.
3. That monogamous relationships overwhelmingly occur due to societal or religious pressure.
::This one isn't as blatantly wrong as the above two, but there are many people who are well outside of allowing themselves to be governed by such forces that honestly follow monogamy as a lifestyle and philosophy, and it's as much a part of their identity as being poly is to many people. Just because it's the 'norm' doesn't mean that it can't be an important and fulfilling part of a person's emotional makeup. 
I'd write it myself, but I don't think I'd be able to maintain NPOV. Does anyone feel up to the task of adding this in, as a balancing factor for monogamous criticisms of polyamory? Myrkabah
::Nitpicking, I think the 'more' in 'loving more' could just as easily be taken as "a greater number" - "loving more people" - as "a greater amount". That aside, the whole "poly folk are more evolved!" bit merits a mention, and I'll see if I can write a paragraph or two. I don't think we need to fully parallel the "criticisms of poly" bit with an equal-depth "criticisms of mono" section on this page, however - that would be most appropriately placed on Monogamy, with a link from here. --Calair 00:54, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, I was just tossing out examples. The problem with placing it on Monogamy is that it seems to take mostly an anthropological stance rather than a philosophical one, which makes it kind of hard to segue into the opposing aspects of the philosophies, which are already hinted at here. In any case, I appreciate you looking into is to add to the article, as I feel that the quite common concept among the community that "polyamory > monogamy" should be discussed. (The whole 'loving more' thing isn't nitpicking, tho, but it doesn't directly relate to editing this article, so I won't discuss it with you here. If you'd like to talk more about it, I use this alias as an email address at Gmail, so you can feel free to drop me a line. ) --Myrkabah 02:33, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant that I was nitpicking, not that you were :-) I've taken a stab at it - how does it look to you? --Calair 01:06, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That actually looks fantastic - well done! Thanks! --Myrkabah13:42, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Polyamorous criticisms of monogamy

message: Upon seeing the picture here, my first impulse was to remove it. Then I realized it was generally Not Nice to remove parts of an article based on my sense of aesthetics. However, I'm not sure that having a picture adds anything to the article. Do we need an example of what polyamorous people look like? To me it's more distracting than anything, makes the article look a bit like a propaganda page, and I can't see it increasing anyone's understanding of polyamory. (My second impulse was to replace it with a better picture, but I can't think of one that would actually be enlightening. Any suggestions are welcome.) --Ian Maxwell 17:12, 2005 Feb 4 (UTC)
I'm not sure it adds much, its people with a banner.  But given its an encyclopedia, and a picture is often of value just fopr breaking up the text, Id say keep it. It adds something, and it harms none. My $0.02. FT2 23:30, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
I personally like the picture and I think it is relevant, but that's probably just
because I was one of the people in the picture.  One of my girlfriends, who is
in the middle in the picture, sewed the banner.  But ego reasons aside, this 
particular picture illustrates the often political attitude that poly people 
take about their lifestyle choices, as well as the strong connection that
polyamory has to the queer community.  Neither of these points is mentioned
in the article.  When I get around to doing that picture of 100 naked people
out on a beach spelling out "POLYAMORY", we can add that too.  On a bit more
of a serious note, getting some "poly family" pictures up (with three or more
people hugging or whatnot) would definitely add some value.  inki 01:57, March 8, 2005 (UTC)
: The connection to the queer community probably is worth a mention (by somebody who knows it better than I do); I've reorganised to create a 'related groups and concepts' section, and some discussion of poly-queer links & maybe poly politics generally could go there alongside the BDSM bit. --Calair 03:12, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A nit-pic