I was also frustrated with the podcast discussion. I wrote my own thing about it here https://livingwithinreason.com/p/what-is-polyamory-anyway. Basically, I think the main issue is that both parties are using self-serving definitions, and neither party acknowledges that there are types of nonmonogamy that don't qualify as "polyamory."
I think you get the best, most intuitive results when you use "polyamorous" to refer to relationships, not people. Then if a person identifies as polyamorous, it just means they prefer or intend to pursue that type of relationship. Once you make those adjustments, Aella's definition works just fine.
Good post! Not really considered this framing before. Let me know if you are OK with this existing, I've "Narrated" this post for those like me that find audio more accessible:
I agree that both Yassine and Aella definitions are incomplete. I may be missing something in offering up a definition myself since I don't think about polyamory all that much, but what about "polyamory is preferring a relationship style where you and any partners can have multiple partners to a relationship where you and your partner do not have any other romantic relationships"?
As for what works better for people, I think that it's just about differences in preferences, specifically the relative desire for more partners vs the desire to be someone's only romantic partner. I agree that more people should introspect on their preference for monogamy vs polyamory, but unlike you I suspect that after reflection a majority of people would still choose monogamy, though likely a less overwhelming majority than now.
Yeah your definition feels close to the one I try to synthesize here. I think I agree actually that most people would probably still be monogamous after due reflection, although I think that might be an artifact of how we've been socialized to value monogamy. Monogamist ideals have been so instilled in people that breaking them probably would generate too many negative emotions to be worth it, but this wouldn't necessarily be true if we had a different culture. I'm not sure.
On the topic of definitions, I don't ever claim there is objectively right or wrong definition. Words mean whatever we all agree they mean, and one of my arguments for my definition is its popularity. I would be convinced I'm wrong on this if you conducted a survey and they used Aella's definition more.
> Because she might just be monogamous *right now*, you see. And in the very act of us getting together, she would *become* polyamorous.
I don't understand how this fits under my definition. I don't divide "actively practicing" down to the very second, so if you want a modification I'm fine with just changing it to "broadly in the market".
> Yassine never gets around to explaining why the optimal tradeoff is a single partner
I never claimed there was an optimal tradeoff! I thought I made it clear early on that I have no moral objections to polyamory nor do I believe there is only one correct decision for everyone. I've now officiated two weddings for my poly friends, I'm so happy for them!
I'm pretty confused about how to distinguish "being on the market" from "not being restricted from seeing others". Like, the hypothetical woman above might not have been particularly looking for another partner, but if she becomes sufficiently interested in me, then she might want to date. That really looks to me like switching from monogamous to polyamorous under your definition. But getting her that interested in me might require some work on my part, which I would not do if I believed her to be monogamous.
I didn't mean to claim that you think monogamy is optimal for everyone. I guess I'm wondering both why you think it's the right tradeoff for yourself and why you're confused about polyamory being the right tradeoff for others. It just seemed like a big hole in the discussion. By comparison, if you only had one friend, and I said "That's weird, that would be like reading just one book or eating just one food" and you said "Yep I agree that's analogous, but there are attention tradeoffs in those areas too", and I asked "Wait but don't you read multiple books and eat multiple foods?" and you said "Yes of course", then clearly there'd be a huge missing step where you need to explain why the tradeoff is different for friends than these other things.
> I'm pretty confused about how to distinguish "being on the market" from "not being restricted from seeing others"
EDIT: I understand the miscommunication now. When I said "being on the market" I meant it in the sense that you're actively looking.
I explained this in detail in my follow-up. Put very very simply: "being on the market" is about what YOU actively want, while "not being restricted from seeing others" is what YOUR PARTNER wants. And yes, if the woman in your example gets interested in you while still maintaining her current relationship, then I'd say she went from mono to poly. I'm not sure what is unclear about that.
> I guess I'm wondering both why you think it's the right tradeoff for yourself and why you're confused about polyamory being the right tradeoff for others.
Again, I already wrote about this in my follow-up. Copy/pasting 1st paragraph of relevant passage: "The poly brigade’s retort about how everyone wants to fuck other people doesn’t fly. Granting that this desire widely exists, it does so on a spectrum of intensity. I’ve often found myself swept up by the nascent intoxication of a new situationship where the thought of pausing for a define-the-relationship talk seemed almost alien. My Tinder matches would be left fallow and rotting on the vine, because why bother? I want my partner to have the same overriding desire for me; not for them to reluctantly forgo others because of my say so. If I had to utter that kind of proclamation, it’s probably too coercive."
> "Wait but don't you read multiple books and eat multiple foods?" and you said "Yes of course", then clearly there'd be a huge missing step where you need to explain why the tradeoff is different for friends than these other things.
I'm confused at the confusion. Does it make sense that we use different "unit denominations" in different parts of life? Part of it depends on how you measure variety: for reading, would we count pages, books, or entire literary genres? I don't think anyone would find it puzzling to use only one brand of toilet paper, but plenty would find it bizarre to listen to only one song. Each area will have a different convergence in terms of optimal variety trade-off.
I was also frustrated with the podcast discussion. I wrote my own thing about it here https://livingwithinreason.com/p/what-is-polyamory-anyway. Basically, I think the main issue is that both parties are using self-serving definitions, and neither party acknowledges that there are types of nonmonogamy that don't qualify as "polyamory."
I think you get the best, most intuitive results when you use "polyamorous" to refer to relationships, not people. Then if a person identifies as polyamorous, it just means they prefer or intend to pursue that type of relationship. Once you make those adjustments, Aella's definition works just fine.
Good post! Not really considered this framing before. Let me know if you are OK with this existing, I've "Narrated" this post for those like me that find audio more accessible:
https://askwhocastsai.substack.com/p/polyamory-as-simplified-amory-by?sd=pf
Fine by me!
I agree that both Yassine and Aella definitions are incomplete. I may be missing something in offering up a definition myself since I don't think about polyamory all that much, but what about "polyamory is preferring a relationship style where you and any partners can have multiple partners to a relationship where you and your partner do not have any other romantic relationships"?
As for what works better for people, I think that it's just about differences in preferences, specifically the relative desire for more partners vs the desire to be someone's only romantic partner. I agree that more people should introspect on their preference for monogamy vs polyamory, but unlike you I suspect that after reflection a majority of people would still choose monogamy, though likely a less overwhelming majority than now.
Yeah your definition feels close to the one I try to synthesize here. I think I agree actually that most people would probably still be monogamous after due reflection, although I think that might be an artifact of how we've been socialized to value monogamy. Monogamist ideals have been so instilled in people that breaking them probably would generate too many negative emotions to be worth it, but this wouldn't necessarily be true if we had a different culture. I'm not sure.
I think that's a much better definition, and I endorsed it in my written followup: https://www.ymeskhout.com/p/monopoly-restricted-trust
On the topic of definitions, I don't ever claim there is objectively right or wrong definition. Words mean whatever we all agree they mean, and one of my arguments for my definition is its popularity. I would be convinced I'm wrong on this if you conducted a survey and they used Aella's definition more.
> Because she might just be monogamous *right now*, you see. And in the very act of us getting together, she would *become* polyamorous.
I don't understand how this fits under my definition. I don't divide "actively practicing" down to the very second, so if you want a modification I'm fine with just changing it to "broadly in the market".
> Yassine never gets around to explaining why the optimal tradeoff is a single partner
I never claimed there was an optimal tradeoff! I thought I made it clear early on that I have no moral objections to polyamory nor do I believe there is only one correct decision for everyone. I've now officiated two weddings for my poly friends, I'm so happy for them!
I admit I did not explain "signaling" properly and by using confusing vocabulary. I address that in my post follow-up: https://www.ymeskhout.com/p/monopoly-restricted-trust
I'm pretty confused about how to distinguish "being on the market" from "not being restricted from seeing others". Like, the hypothetical woman above might not have been particularly looking for another partner, but if she becomes sufficiently interested in me, then she might want to date. That really looks to me like switching from monogamous to polyamorous under your definition. But getting her that interested in me might require some work on my part, which I would not do if I believed her to be monogamous.
I didn't mean to claim that you think monogamy is optimal for everyone. I guess I'm wondering both why you think it's the right tradeoff for yourself and why you're confused about polyamory being the right tradeoff for others. It just seemed like a big hole in the discussion. By comparison, if you only had one friend, and I said "That's weird, that would be like reading just one book or eating just one food" and you said "Yep I agree that's analogous, but there are attention tradeoffs in those areas too", and I asked "Wait but don't you read multiple books and eat multiple foods?" and you said "Yes of course", then clearly there'd be a huge missing step where you need to explain why the tradeoff is different for friends than these other things.
> I'm pretty confused about how to distinguish "being on the market" from "not being restricted from seeing others"
EDIT: I understand the miscommunication now. When I said "being on the market" I meant it in the sense that you're actively looking.
I explained this in detail in my follow-up. Put very very simply: "being on the market" is about what YOU actively want, while "not being restricted from seeing others" is what YOUR PARTNER wants. And yes, if the woman in your example gets interested in you while still maintaining her current relationship, then I'd say she went from mono to poly. I'm not sure what is unclear about that.
> I guess I'm wondering both why you think it's the right tradeoff for yourself and why you're confused about polyamory being the right tradeoff for others.
Again, I already wrote about this in my follow-up. Copy/pasting 1st paragraph of relevant passage: "The poly brigade’s retort about how everyone wants to fuck other people doesn’t fly. Granting that this desire widely exists, it does so on a spectrum of intensity. I’ve often found myself swept up by the nascent intoxication of a new situationship where the thought of pausing for a define-the-relationship talk seemed almost alien. My Tinder matches would be left fallow and rotting on the vine, because why bother? I want my partner to have the same overriding desire for me; not for them to reluctantly forgo others because of my say so. If I had to utter that kind of proclamation, it’s probably too coercive."
> "Wait but don't you read multiple books and eat multiple foods?" and you said "Yes of course", then clearly there'd be a huge missing step where you need to explain why the tradeoff is different for friends than these other things.
I'm confused at the confusion. Does it make sense that we use different "unit denominations" in different parts of life? Part of it depends on how you measure variety: for reading, would we count pages, books, or entire literary genres? I don't think anyone would find it puzzling to use only one brand of toilet paper, but plenty would find it bizarre to listen to only one song. Each area will have a different convergence in terms of optimal variety trade-off.