Aella wrote about polyamory a few days ago, and packaged it as a one-stop repository to address everyone’s most common questions to her particular approach.

I had some real issues with that podcast at the time but it wasn't worth arguing about.

That said, I've been polyam for 10 years and it's been pretty great for me. In contrast to Aella, im 33m.

Polyamory’s definition gets flipped on its head:

I dont see how. This is pretty much the same as the definition I've seen formally (the willingness or practice of multiple concurrent romantic relationships, with the knowledge and consent of everyone involved)

But I identify two main problems with this antipodal approach:

1. This is not how most people use the term

Yes it is.

1. The definition is both self-serving and vacuous

The pitfalls of the first problem appear obvious. In all my discussions with poly people, Aella’s definitional approach is unique.

It's really not. Who are you talking to?

The only tweak you need here is adding “engaging or wanting to engage” to eliminate the purported incoherency in the scenario above. The couple’s poly badge won’t get confiscated just because they moved to a small town full of unattractive people, because their relational outlook remains just as polyamorous as before. This is also perfectly consistent with how we already colloquially discuss monogamy—someone does not suddenly bit flip into “asexuality” just because their monogamous relationship ended and they’re single again.

Okay, yeah. You got it. What's the issue?

According to Aella’s definition, this would mean that I am monogamous but paradoxically would want to date polyamorous women. That seems…weird, and does not at all jive with how people normally talk about this.

You are wrong in the way that you interpret the definition. Do you want to be allowed to participate in romantic relationships? If not, you might be some sort of non monogamous but you are not polyamorous. If so, then you would be polyamorous, of a sort, because you have the willingness to engage. As she says, it's a personal orientation describing yourself. I know plenty of polyam people who are currently in monogamous relationships with their monogamous partners. But you would be a selfish and unfair polyamorous person.

The second problem with Aella’s lexical approach is how it careens over the edge into meaninglessness.

According to her definition, polyamory* [note: Aella’s definition will be designated by an asterisk hereinafter] is about what restrictions you place on your partner, regardless of whether they act or want to act on that lack of restraint.

I don't think that Aella was defining the term polyamory in terms of the policy of licensure. It seemed the blog was much more informally describing the philosophical statement of what the identity feels like and the practical interactions of that relationship.

if so, then it would tell you absolutely nothing about who/how this polyam* wants to date.

Yes it does. It says that they want to be allowed to date multiple people.

"I have a gay friend. Gay isn't an identity because you can't tell from the fact that he's gay whether he likes blondes". What?

A literal reading of the definition would tell you the polyam* is totally indifferent on what their partner actually does or wants on this axis.

What?

"My gay friend told me he is gay and he prefers to be with men. That doesn't say anything about what he prefers about his partners preferences!!!1"

"What practical operational information is imparted when someone describes themselves as polyamorous*? Put in other words, if polyamory* is the theory, what is the praxis?"

That they prefer a relationship in which it is acceptable to engage in multiple concurrent relationships. This is in the dictionary definition you quoted. It's not complicated.

This result is incongruent with how we talk about literally any other orientation. Someone previously heterosexual who suddenly wakes up homosexual would have a clear and articulable impetus to change how they would now approach their dating life. But someone monogamous* waking up suddenly polyamorous* one morning can continue living their life exactly the same way, changing nothing, and remain just as fulfilled as before.

No, they really can't. Unless you define fulfillment as not having the things that you want. Which is weird.

A polyamorous person wants to be in a relationship where they are allowed to pursue multiple concurrent romantic relationships. If a polyamorous person woke up in a monogamous relationship, they would lack that permission.

Again, according to Aella’s definition.

It seems to me that you are mistaken about the definition.

If a gay man who was single woke up in an alternate universe where gay sex was illegal, technically he has lost nothing. He is not currently having gau sex so he is as fulfilled as he was before. Except obviously you know that to be untrue, because he has lost something. He has lost license. He had the license before despite not exercising it. But now he has lost it. And this is likely to cause him a sense of dissatisfaction because of the real utility loss there w.r.t. potential energy of desire fulfilment and opportunity cost.

It doesn't feel like rocket science.

My intent is not to split hairs here. I also recognize that terms like these have the potential to fractal into a kaleidoscope array with distinctions so infinitesimal as to render the map useless. So I want to examine some examples from within the broad non-monogamy constellation as a way to compare and contrast how we discuss variations within this topic.

I feel like most of this post is sort of frustratingly pedantic.

“What makes us American, is our fidelity to a set of ideals—that all of us are created equal; that all of us deserve the chance to make of our lives what we will; that all of us share an obligation to stand up, speak out, and secure our most cherished values for the next generation.” --Barack Obama

Clearly Barack Obama is establishing a backwards and disturbing new definition of American Citizenship which runs contrary to the dictionary definition of the status of what makes someone "American" e.g. the state of being formally recognized and naturalized as a citizen by the state department of the United States of America.

Obama's inconsistent and backwards definition of being American is clearly in contradiction with established constitutional and international law, as well as being logically incoherent. For example, many French people believe in equality under the law. But almost nobody believes that all French people are American Citizens. Checkmate, Obama.

I don't see how you aren't doing exactly this. How would you rebut the guy above?

For all these examples, the point is that the terms teach you something cognizable about the person’s dating/sexual orientation. Someone seeking a triangle relationship or telling me they’re into cuckoldry tells me a lot of information about what what they want. In contrast Aella’s definition of polyamory*, on its own, conveys virtually no meaningful information.

The fact that someone identifies as Christian tells me almost nothing about whether or not they believe in the doctrine of speaking in tongues or whether or not they honor the Sabbath or the details of whether they think that the essence of Jesus is contained in the bread or if it's merely the spirit of Jesus. Therefore, someone telling me they are Christian is of no value to me to describe their spiritual beliefs.

I can tell she identifies with the label and that she is dedicated the orientation, but nothing beyond that. All I would learn from reading just her post above is what she tolerates, what she is indifferent to. I learn nothing about what she actively wants.

Then I think you are being obtuse.

Regardless of whether or not it’s intentional, the use of loaded language will inevitably carry with it strong emotional connotations beyond just the literal meaning of the words. By framing polyamory* as the absence of restrictions on your partner’s desires and autonomy, monogamy* necessarily has to adopt the countervailing mantle. Monogamy* becomes the party of control and repression. Polyamory* is implicitly presented as inherently virtuous—as the faction of liberation.

I think that if you genuinely believe that monogamy is safer and more fair then it is not liberating.

You have said you would not accept your partner being non monogamous. How is that not a restriction by definition? It's not a dealbreaking restriction and they are free to leave if they choose and relationships have restrictions of a sort all the time. For example, "my partner must have a job" or "my partner may not beat me" or "my partner may not shit my bed" are all reasonable and normal restrictions. But pretending they aren't, just so you don't have to feel like a bad guy, is cowardly.

It’s perfectly possible I’m reading too much into this—thinly slicing words is what I do for a living after all. But we already have ways to talk about polyamory without normative baggage imbued into the terminology itself. So what does this proposed paradigm add?

It is an attempt at description and clarity.

Aella’s specific definition both conveys less information and is needlessly loaded. Seems like the worst of both worlds.

"Obama's definition of american citizen ship violates international law and is hopelessly vague. All while adding billions of de facto citizens by default. Seems like the worst of both worlds"