Talk:Polyamory

Changing the not-so-good wikilinking to something more appropriate

This phrase is problematic: with the informed consent and consensus of all partners involved.

• The first linked article is about medical consent. Informed consent starts with:
  • This article is about consent to medical or research procedures. For consent in other contexts, see Consent. For the House episode, see Informed Consent (House).
  • Its first two sentences are Informed consent is an applied ethics principle that a person must have sufficient information and understanding before making decisions about accepting risk. Pertinent information may include risks and benefits of treatments, alternative treatments, the patient's role in treatment, and their right to refuse treatment.
• The second, consensus, links to a disambiguation page.

I think that the consent article covers the meanings to which the article alludes. I am therefore boldly changing it to:

• with the consent of all involved partners.

Peaceray (talk) 03:27, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

About that pic with two man and a woman

picture with the girl hugging a man and sneakly being hand in hand with another is easily mistaken as a cheating instead of CNM. I believe it has been uploaded by a troll. Must be substituted with another which is appropriate. This one has never been a symbol of polyamory ~2026-20885-49 (talk) 10:16, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

What evidence do you have that the user is a troll? Just curious. That image was the user's only upload, and they've been on Wikimedia for years. I'm not sure which other images would be better, if the image was to be replaced. There's "Homosexual group marriage" [also uploaded in 2017] off two women and two men, images of Michael McClure and Kamala Devi (and others) here and here, three stick figures holding hands, and a bunch of protest images. I'm not sure if any of the others are better than the existing one though. Historyday01 (talk) 11:54, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Should we restructure the section that lists cities that provide protections?

I came to this article to write that Seattle is now providing protection from discrimination for polyamorous people. I found there was already a loose list of 6 other cities that had already done that. Could we maybe re-format it to take up less space and provide better information? Just checking in here because it would be a big change. Here's a relevant source for Seattle that could be included: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/sep/15/seattle-non-monogamy GlowingLava (talk) 02:03, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

You mean the "Anti-discrimination law" section, right? Maybe we can just make it into a paragraph. I came up with what that could look like below:

Over the years, cities in the United States have passed ordinances banning discrimination against polyamorous people, with these ordinances prohibiting discrimination in employment, policing, businesses, city services, civil services, housing, or other aspects of life. This began with Somerville, Massachusetts in March 2023, and followed by the Oakland City Council in April 2024, Berkeley, California in May 2024, and three jurisdictions in March 2026: Olympia, Washington, Portland, Oregon, and West Hollywood, California. In September 2026, Seattle, Washington passed a bill that extended protection to both non-monogamous people and multigenerational households.

In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 18:14, 16 September 2026 (UTC) UPDATE: Boldly added this text in today with this edit.In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 12:55, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

References

I created the History section and would like help improving it.

I'm not sure the history before 1990. GlowingLava (talk) 05:23, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

I will see what I can add looking at the books I have on hand and other sources. Thanks for creating that section. In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 12:40, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Here's some articles I found:

• The Surprising Political Evolution of American Polyamory (by Christopher M. Gleason, who wrote a book entitled American Poly: A History)
• 10 times in history when polyamory was surprisingly embraced (by Anna Pulley)
• Equality and polyamory: why early humans weren't The Flintstones in The Guardian
• New Sexual Revolution: Polyamory May Be Good for You in Scientific American
• How Polyamory Grew From the Queer Scene to Shape Berlin's Open Relationship Culture
• Monogamous Monotheism and Polyamorous Terror in Tertullian of Carthage’s On Monogamy Open Access

Plus the book Fifty Years of Polyamory in America: A Guided Tour of a Growing Movement by Glen W. Olson and Terry Lee Brussel-Rogers and "Networks of Many Loves: a History of Alternative Media in the Polyamory Movement" thesis, along with the book Polyamory, Monogamy, and American Dreams: The Stories We Tell about Poly Lives and the Cultural Production of Inequality. Apart from this entry in Encyclopedia Brittanica.

The book The Polyamorists Next Door: Inside Multiple-Partner Relationships and Families by Elisabeth Sheff and Gender, family, and sexuality: Exploring polyamorous community by Elisabeth A. Sheff, and plus this post (and its sources), along with some of the sources listed in this article. In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 00:11, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Should some sections be their own articles?

This article is long but there's a lot more to write about. Should we split off large sections such as Legal perspectives and/or Religious views on polyamory?

There have been articles merged into this one but those (Metamour, Primary and secondary, and Compersion) were jargon-y. Many articles have an "X and law" companion (Piggybacking, Circumcision, Scientology) or a "Religion and X" companion (Same sex marriage, Female genital mutilation, Euthenasia). It makes sense to me but I'm curious what y'all think. GlowingLava (talk) 09:14, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

I would say we should certainly split those off. After all, those two sections, plus the one on media representation, are two of the longest in the entire article. In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 12:40, 14 October 2026 (UTC)