What does marriage mean to you? The polyamorous couple

dungfungus said :

Garfield said :

dungfungus said :

Garfield said :

dungfungus said :

I had never heard of the word “polyamorous” before.
It appears to be made up to suit the occasion and there is nothing wrong with that. Maybe “menage a trois plus one” would have suited better?

Anyhow, in the context of the traditional definition of marriage it would seem that adultery is the outcome even though the parties are “consenting adults”.

To me, a very shallow relationship.

Maybe try googling a word before calling it made up. Your description of it as a menage-a-trois plus one is also questionable as there is no indication in the article that they’re all engaging in group sex. Your characterisation of their relationship as shallow and indication that monogamy is necessary for a deep relationship is projecting your own values onto others. Their relationship appears to have lasted longer than many others and looks set to continue for some time, so I say good on them for finding something that works well for them.

I did check my 1976 La Trobe University endorsed dictionary which had a word “polyandry” which means “the practice of having more than one husband at a time” which is close to the situation described in the OP and as I lived most of my life without Google to influence my decision making I said it “appeared” the word had been made up. Note that qualification – I didn’t say it had unreservedly been made up.
The phrase “menage a trois” literally means “a family of three” and makes no mention of “group sex” and I didn’t allude to that either. You have however made assumption that group sex is part of it.

Nor have I tried to “project my own values on others” as you suggest.
By stating my opinion that the arrangement as described is “a shallow one” would be I believe consistent with 99% of couples in a monogamous relationship.

You say “good on them”. I have no problem with that.

The historical definition of menage a trois is one that is rarely used these days, and I’d suggest not the definition that occurs to the majority of people, but that’s fine. Considering that English is a living language, you may want to invest in a new dictionary if you prefer using a hard copy reference to the internet, also noting that your 1976 publication actually predates the web.

I’m not sure you’re understanding the point I was making in regards to values. Even if 99% of people did think this was a shallow relationship, the only people who can judge it’s actual depth are those that are in it. Even people who might have tried this type of relationship in the past are not competent to cast judgement on this particular relationship as they’re not participants.

Thank you for your advice but I value the “rarely used” versions of most things you don’t.

I, like my dictionary, predate the web and its offspring (Wikepedia, Urban Dictionary etc.). I have the benefit of using both during my lifetime and I think “books were better”.

However, using the definition of something as it stood in 1976 risks misunderstandings when communicating with people in the present day. I also pre date the web and prefer books to reading things online, but recognise the additional light that can be shed on a subject with the passing of time.

For example, histories written while information is still kept secret by government can tell a very different story to those told afterwards. Let’s say there was a discussion about a couple of aspects of WW2 and one person was using information available at the time and another was using information made public at a later date. The first might say that British success in the Battle of Britain was due to the RAF feeding its pilots lots of carrots to improve their eyesight and that Allied intelligence services behind German lines were miraculously good at discovering and transmitting information. The second person might say that radar and breaking the Enigma code were the actual ingredients.

Garfield said :

dungfungus said :

Garfield said :

dungfungus said :

I had never heard of the word “polyamorous” before.
It appears to be made up to suit the occasion and there is nothing wrong with that. Maybe “menage a trois plus one” would have suited better?

Anyhow, in the context of the traditional definition of marriage it would seem that adultery is the outcome even though the parties are “consenting adults”.

To me, a very shallow relationship.

Maybe try googling a word before calling it made up. Your description of it as a menage-a-trois plus one is also questionable as there is no indication in the article that they’re all engaging in group sex. Your characterisation of their relationship as shallow and indication that monogamy is necessary for a deep relationship is projecting your own values onto others. Their relationship appears to have lasted longer than many others and looks set to continue for some time, so I say good on them for finding something that works well for them.

I did check my 1976 La Trobe University endorsed dictionary which had a word “polyandry” which means “the practice of having more than one husband at a time” which is close to the situation described in the OP and as I lived most of my life without Google to influence my decision making I said it “appeared” the word had been made up. Note that qualification – I didn’t say it had unreservedly been made up.
The phrase “menage a trois” literally means “a family of three” and makes no mention of “group sex” and I didn’t allude to that either. You have however made assumption that group sex is part of it.

Nor have I tried to “project my own values on others” as you suggest.
By stating my opinion that the arrangement as described is “a shallow one” would be I believe consistent with 99% of couples in a monogamous relationship.

You say “good on them”. I have no problem with that.

The historical definition of menage a trois is one that is rarely used these days, and I’d suggest not the definition that occurs to the majority of people, but that’s fine. Considering that English is a living language, you may want to invest in a new dictionary if you prefer using a hard copy reference to the internet, also noting that your 1976 publication actually predates the web.

I’m not sure you’re understanding the point I was making in regards to values. Even if 99% of people did think this was a shallow relationship, the only people who can judge it’s actual depth are those that are in it. Even people who might have tried this type of relationship in the past are not competent to cast judgement on this particular relationship as they’re not participants.

Thank you for your advice but I value the “rarely used” versions of most things you don’t.

I, like my dictionary, predate the web and its offspring (Wikepedia, Urban Dictionary etc.). I have the benefit of using both during my lifetime and I think “books were better”.

Kim Huynh said :

dungfungus said :

Garfield said :

dungfungus said :

I had never heard of the word “polyamorous” before.
It appears to be made up to suit the occasion and there is nothing wrong with that. Maybe “menage a trois plus one” would have suited better?

Anyhow, in the context of the traditional definition of marriage it would seem that adultery is the outcome even though the parties are “consenting adults”.

To me, a very shallow relationship.

Maybe try googling a word before calling it made up. Your description of it as a menage-a-trois plus one is also questionable as there is no indication in the article that they’re all engaging in group sex. Your characterisation of their relationship as shallow and indication that monogamy is necessary for a deep relationship is projecting your own values onto others. Their relationship appears to have lasted longer than many others and looks set to continue for some time, so I say good on them for finding something that works well for them.

I did check my 1976 La Trobe University endorsed dictionary which had a word “polyandry” which means “the practice of having more than one husband at a time” which is close to the situation described in the OP and as I lived most of my life without Google to influence my decision making I said it “appeared” the word had been made up. Note that qualification – I didn’t say it had unreservedly been made up.
The phrase “menage a trois” literally means “a family of three” and makes no mention of “group sex” and I didn’t allude to that either. You have however made assumption that group sex is part of it.

Nor have I tried to “project my own values on others” as you suggest.
By stating my opinion that the arrangement as described is “a shallow one” would be I believe consistent with 99% of couples in a monogamous relationship.

You say “good on them”. I have no problem with that.

If we’re going to have a an etymological discussion, I wouldn’t mind knowing more about the origins of ‘compersion’. I had a quick look in my dictionary and on the interwebs and there’s not a great deal about it despite the fact that it seems to be an eminently sensible word that has broad application. I hope you all have a compersional weekend. K

Not unless you agree to keep the discussion cognitively and linguistically appropriate.

Kim Huynh said :

dungfungus said :

Garfield said :

dungfungus said :

I had never heard of the word “polyamorous” before.
It appears to be made up to suit the occasion and there is nothing wrong with that. Maybe “menage a trois plus one” would have suited better?

Anyhow, in the context of the traditional definition of marriage it would seem that adultery is the outcome even though the parties are “consenting adults”.

To me, a very shallow relationship.

Maybe try googling a word before calling it made up. Your description of it as a menage-a-trois plus one is also questionable as there is no indication in the article that they’re all engaging in group sex. Your characterisation of their relationship as shallow and indication that monogamy is necessary for a deep relationship is projecting your own values onto others. Their relationship appears to have lasted longer than many others and looks set to continue for some time, so I say good on them for finding something that works well for them.

I did check my 1976 La Trobe University endorsed dictionary which had a word “polyandry” which means “the practice of having more than one husband at a time” which is close to the situation described in the OP and as I lived most of my life without Google to influence my decision making I said it “appeared” the word had been made up. Note that qualification – I didn’t say it had unreservedly been made up.
The phrase “menage a trois” literally means “a family of three” and makes no mention of “group sex” and I didn’t allude to that either. You have however made assumption that group sex is part of it.

Nor have I tried to “project my own values on others” as you suggest.
By stating my opinion that the arrangement as described is “a shallow one” would be I believe consistent with 99% of couples in a monogamous relationship.

You say “good on them”. I have no problem with that.

If we’re going to have a an etymological discussion, I wouldn’t mind knowing more about the origins of ‘compersion’. I had a quick look in my dictionary and on the interwebs and there’s not a great deal about it despite the fact that it seems to be an eminently sensible word that has broad application. I hope you all have a compersional weekend. K

I’d never heard of the word prior to reading your article. I just found a blog that said there was no word in the English language that meant the opposite of jealousy, so the polyamorous community created it.

dungfungus said :

Garfield said :

dungfungus said :

I had never heard of the word “polyamorous” before.
It appears to be made up to suit the occasion and there is nothing wrong with that. Maybe “menage a trois plus one” would have suited better?

Anyhow, in the context of the traditional definition of marriage it would seem that adultery is the outcome even though the parties are “consenting adults”.

To me, a very shallow relationship.

Maybe try googling a word before calling it made up. Your description of it as a menage-a-trois plus one is also questionable as there is no indication in the article that they’re all engaging in group sex. Your characterisation of their relationship as shallow and indication that monogamy is necessary for a deep relationship is projecting your own values onto others. Their relationship appears to have lasted longer than many others and looks set to continue for some time, so I say good on them for finding something that works well for them.

I did check my 1976 La Trobe University endorsed dictionary which had a word “polyandry” which means “the practice of having more than one husband at a time” which is close to the situation described in the OP and as I lived most of my life without Google to influence my decision making I said it “appeared” the word had been made up. Note that qualification – I didn’t say it had unreservedly been made up.
The phrase “menage a trois” literally means “a family of three” and makes no mention of “group sex” and I didn’t allude to that either. You have however made assumption that group sex is part of it.

Nor have I tried to “project my own values on others” as you suggest.
By stating my opinion that the arrangement as described is “a shallow one” would be I believe consistent with 99% of couples in a monogamous relationship.

You say “good on them”. I have no problem with that.

The historical definition of menage a trois is one that is rarely used these days, and I’d suggest not the definition that occurs to the majority of people, but that’s fine. Considering that English is a living language, you may want to invest in a new dictionary if you prefer using a hard copy reference to the internet, also noting that your 1976 publication actually predates the web.

I’m not sure you’re understanding the point I was making in regards to values. Even if 99% of people did think this was a shallow relationship, the only people who can judge it’s actual depth are those that are in it. Even people who might have tried this type of relationship in the past are not competent to cast judgement on this particular relationship as they’re not participants.

dungfungus said :

Garfield said :

dungfungus said :

I had never heard of the word “polyamorous” before.
It appears to be made up to suit the occasion and there is nothing wrong with that. Maybe “menage a trois plus one” would have suited better?

Anyhow, in the context of the traditional definition of marriage it would seem that adultery is the outcome even though the parties are “consenting adults”.

To me, a very shallow relationship.

Maybe try googling a word before calling it made up. Your description of it as a menage-a-trois plus one is also questionable as there is no indication in the article that they’re all engaging in group sex. Your characterisation of their relationship as shallow and indication that monogamy is necessary for a deep relationship is projecting your own values onto others. Their relationship appears to have lasted longer than many others and looks set to continue for some time, so I say good on them for finding something that works well for them.

I did check my 1976 La Trobe University endorsed dictionary which had a word “polyandry” which means “the practice of having more than one husband at a time” which is close to the situation described in the OP and as I lived most of my life without Google to influence my decision making I said it “appeared” the word had been made up. Note that qualification – I didn’t say it had unreservedly been made up.
The phrase “menage a trois” literally means “a family of three” and makes no mention of “group sex” and I didn’t allude to that either. You have however made assumption that group sex is part of it.

Nor have I tried to “project my own values on others” as you suggest.
By stating my opinion that the arrangement as described is “a shallow one” would be I believe consistent with 99% of couples in a monogamous relationship.

You say “good on them”. I have no problem with that.

If we’re going to have a an etymological discussion, I wouldn’t mind knowing more about the origins of ‘compersion’. I had a quick look in my dictionary and on the interwebs and there’s not a great deal about it despite the fact that it seems to be an eminently sensible word that has broad application. I hope you all have a compersional weekend. K

Garfield said :

dungfungus said :

I had never heard of the word “polyamorous” before.
It appears to be made up to suit the occasion and there is nothing wrong with that. Maybe “menage a trois plus one” would have suited better?

Anyhow, in the context of the traditional definition of marriage it would seem that adultery is the outcome even though the parties are “consenting adults”.

To me, a very shallow relationship.

Maybe try googling a word before calling it made up. Your description of it as a menage-a-trois plus one is also questionable as there is no indication in the article that they’re all engaging in group sex. Your characterisation of their relationship as shallow and indication that monogamy is necessary for a deep relationship is projecting your own values onto others. Their relationship appears to have lasted longer than many others and looks set to continue for some time, so I say good on them for finding something that works well for them.

I did check my 1976 La Trobe University endorsed dictionary which had a word “polyandry” which means “the practice of having more than one husband at a time” which is close to the situation described in the OP and as I lived most of my life without Google to influence my decision making I said it “appeared” the word had been made up. Note that qualification – I didn’t say it had unreservedly been made up.
The phrase “menage a trois” literally means “a family of three” and makes no mention of “group sex” and I didn’t allude to that either. You have however made assumption that group sex is part of it.

Nor have I tried to “project my own values on others” as you suggest.
By stating my opinion that the arrangement as described is “a shallow one” would be I believe consistent with 99% of couples in a monogamous relationship.

You say “good on them”. I have no problem with that.

dungfungus said :

I had never heard of the word “polyamorous” before.
It appears to be made up to suit the occasion and there is nothing wrong with that. Maybe “menage a trois plus one” would have suited better?

Anyhow, in the context of the traditional definition of marriage it would seem that adultery is the outcome even though the parties are “consenting adults”.

To me, a very shallow relationship.

Maybe try googling a word before calling it made up. Your description of it as a menage-a-trois plus one is also questionable as there is no indication in the article that they’re all engaging in group sex. Your characterisation of their relationship as shallow and indication that monogamy is necessary for a deep relationship is projecting your own values onto others. Their relationship appears to have lasted longer than many others and looks set to continue for some time, so I say good on them for finding something that works well for them.

No_Nose said :

They sound like a lovely couple who are living their lives the way they want (as consenting adults should be able to).

I was particularly impressed with the way they choose to interpret the monitum and relate that back to their circumstances.

Looking forward to seeing some more in this series.

Thanks very much No Nose. For what it’s worth, I thought Angel and Michael were immensely impressive, intelligent and fun. And I’ve found it enriching to think and talk about what makes for a loving relationship. I’m looking forward to doing a couple more interviews before the survey results are out. Next week it’s with Lady Lynne Cosgrove (who’s married to Sir Peter Cosgrove).

No_Nose said :

They sound like a lovely couple who are living their lives the way they want (as consenting adults should be able to).

I was particularly impressed with the way they choose to interpret the monitum and relate that back to their circumstances.

Looking forward to seeing some more in this series.

I think it just perfectly outlines the stupidity of the current SSM debate and the claims that a Yes vote will end up with marriage “equality” of any sort.

As you say this couple has conveniently interpreted the monitum to suit their circumstances instead of actually considering how silly the restrictions are and wondering what marriage is actually for and wondering why the government is so heavily involved in regulating people’s personal relationships.

It seems that being recognised as next of kin seems to be the most important thing?