More AoOO Thoughts: This Time, With Polyamory

[alixtii]

So, some other concerns raised about the AoOO's tagging system concerns the genre system. Namely, the two following interrelated concerns have been raised:

1. The distinction between "Multi" and "Other" is unclear and/or ambiguous.
2. There's not a sufficient distinction between, on the one hand, a story with multiple pairings and one with an instance of polyamory, and on the other, a story with an instance of polyamory and a one with pairings between non-traditionally gendered individuals.

The most popular temporary solution put forth is to further refine one's classification of the story with freeform tags. However, as I've set about to do so, I've realized I don't really have a sufficient working understanding of polyamory to do so. Largely this is a result of a monogamocentric (I'm assuming that's what the word would be, and Google attests hits) worldview, in which any relationship can be reduced to a set of pairings. (This, undoubtedly, is the source of the "Multi" tag.) Even a threesome can be reduced in this way: A/B/C becomes A/B, B/C, A/C--but admittedly, this reduction is a distortion, because the threesome is a fundamentally different thing than just the sum of its parts. That's the main complaint as I understand it: the "Multi" tag simply doesn't capture that extra richness.

So take a fic like What the Caged Bird Feels, which has two pairings: Dawn/Ethan and Dawn/Giles. Is this an example of polyamory, multiple pairings, or both? (In that story, Dawn is married to Giles. Does it make a difference that's she had sex with Ethan before, and may see it as likely that she'll do it again, or would the dynamic be the same if the relationship with Ethan was a one-time thing. Does Giles' perspective on the whole thing matter?)

Or how about Substitution Rule, which manages to be A/B, B/C, and A/C without being A/B/C (and to make it more complicated, C thinks A and B are the same person)?

Restricting a poly tag to just threesomes or moresomes doesn't seem to be in accordance with the way real polyamorous people on my flist use the term.

But I'm afraid that identifying all (or even most?) cases of a single character being involved in more than one pairing would be too broad a use, which could end up being appropriative.

So I'm throwing this out to those on my flist who know more about these issues than I do, in hope we can work out (and/or you can help me work out) a helpful, accurate, and non-appropriating tagging practice for me to utilize, because I've come to realize that my thoughts are much less clear and much more monogamocentric than I had previously realized. (ObDisclaimer: No one is required to help me do this.)

Comments

[melusina]

My opinion, not representative of any larger community:

I wouldn't use poly for serial monogamy in a story (it starts out Buffy/Angel and then becomes Buffy/Faith) or cheating (Buffy/Angel, Buffy/Faith, but Angel is not aware that Buffy and Faith are together.

I would use poly for a situation where everyone was aware of one another, whether or not everyone is in a relationship with everyone else (so either Buffy/Angel/Faith or Buffy/Angel and Buffy/Faith, where Angel and Faith are aware of and accepting of what's going on). Does that make sense?

In my experience, most poly people I know in RL are in multiple relationships rather than everyone-in-bed-together (A/B, A/C, B/D, rather than A/B/C), while most fanfic seems to be about everyone-in-bed-together. . .

[alixtii]

I would use poly for a situation where everyone was aware of one another, whether or not everyone is in a relationship with everyone else (so either Buffy/Angel/Faith or Buffy/Angel and Buffy/Faith, where Angel and Faith are aware of and accepting of what's going on). Does that make sense?

Yeah. I share your intuition that cheating and serial monogamy are outside the bounds of polyamory. There still seems to be a grey area between those types of situations and ones where not everyone is fully knowledgeable of and okay with what is going on--for example with "Substitution Rule," where one character doesn't know Annie and Hallie are sleeping together, because he thinks they're the same person. These situations wouldn't be ethical polyamory, but . . . I don't know where that sentence is going.

Or even a situation where a character in a long-term relationship with X goes out and has a one-night stand with Y. Y doesn't seem to need to know about X's existence, as long as X is okay with Y's, but at least previously I would have seen that as instance of polyamory.

In my experience, most poly people I know in RL are in multiple relationships rather than everyone-in-bed-together (A/B, A/C, B/D, rather than A/B/C), while most fanfic seems to be about everyone-in-bed-together. . .

My fictional polyamorous characters (well, Dawn, mostly) do a little bit of both!

You have have been very helpful in getting a sense of the lay of the logical space, so thank you. Even if I can commit to excluding serial monogamy and outright cheating from polyamory, that cuts down the number of problematic cases. . . .

[torachan]

Or even a situation where a character in a long-term relationship with X goes out and has a one-night stand with Y. Y doesn't seem to need to know about X's existence, as long as X is okay with Y's, but at least previously I would have seen that as instance of polyamory.

Er...that is failing to take into account X's relationship with hir partner. If X has a one-night stand and is not in an open relationship, then that's cheating.

[alixtii]

That's why I specified "as long as X is okay with Y's [existence]." (It's X's partner, not X hirself, who is having the one-night stand.)

[torachan]

Oh, sorry, I misread it as "a person in a relationship, X".

[alixtii]

No problem!