Polyamory, or The Harshness of Spawning a Substantive Meme

Daniel Cardoso, Master and PhD student in Communication Sciences

Faculty of Social and Human Sciences - New University of Lisbon

Polyamory. A noun. A word with a long story.    A meme that has been growing in 

Anglophone countries for nearly two decades, but only recently exploded in Portugal. 

Although it is quite simple to trace the Portuguese polyamorous movement in Portugal, 

trying to draw the story behind the world is much more complicated: it was born before it 

was born, it was born several times over, in several different contexts, and most times only 

as an adjective. This proves rather nicely  – a point I'll make later on  – the fundamental 

difference between adjectives and nouns, between doing and being. All in all, this text was 

almost titled “Polyamory, or How Love Lacks Originality”, but the present title has more 

word plays, so it stuck.

This text aims to do a short historiography of this word. That will lead us, incredible as it 

may seem, back to 1953 and to a series of online tools without which writing this article 

would be nearly impossible. But before we get to that, we must give a definition of 

polyamory within its current context  – as a contemporary emerging social movement. 

Haritaworn  et alia (2006: 518) define it as «the assumption that it is possible, valid and 

worthwhile to maintain intimate, sexual, and/or loving relationships with more than one 

person».

Poly-Pre-History

Daniel Cardoso, Master and PhD student in Communication Sciences

Faculty of Social and Human Sciences - New University of Lisbon

Polyamory. A noun. A word with a long story.    A meme that has been growing in 

Anglophone countries for nearly two decades, but only recently exploded in Portugal. 

Although it is quite simple to trace the Portuguese polyamorous movement in Portugal, 

trying to draw the story behind the world is much more complicated: it was born before it 

was born, it was born several times over, in several different contexts, and most times only 

as an adjective. This proves rather nicely  – a point I'll make later on  – the fundamental 

difference between adjectives and nouns, between doing and being. All in all, this text was 

almost titled “Polyamory, or How Love Lacks Originality”, but the present title has more 

word plays, so it stuck.

This text aims to do a short historiography of this word. That will lead us, incredible as it 

may seem, back to 1953 and to a series of online tools without which writing this article 

would be nearly impossible. But before we get to that, we must give a definition of 

polyamory within its current context  – as a contemporary emerging social movement. 

Haritaworn  et alia (2006: 518) define it as «the assumption that it is possible, valid and 

worthwhile to maintain intimate, sexual, and/or loving relationships with more than one 

person».

Poly-Pre-History

The main goal of this work is to confirm, compile and deepen the research done by the 

Polyamory in the News blog, whose author – Alan – has been researching the origins of the 

word 'polyamory', using the  tools any Internet user has available:  Google's. The first 

occurrences in the lexical field of polyamory are adjectives that purport a general idea of 

the  concept (which would be, nonetheless, considered inaccurate by the polyamorous 

community, most likely because it is too narrow): feeling sexual attraction or having sex 

with several people. Let us look, then, to the first occurrences within the word family of 

“polyamory”.

Up to now, the first known bibliographical registry we could find dates back to 1953. In the 

first volume of the  Illustrated History of English Literature, by Alfred Charles Ward, Henry 

VII is called a «determined polyamorist», when the author comments upon the rising of 

Protestantism in England  – something that has to do with the King's «polyamorist» 

behavior, certainly. There's an obvious negative and ironical tone here, but it shows how far 

back we can find this conjoint use of these Latin and Greek etymological roots. Nowadays, 

spelling varies between «polyamorist» and «polyamorous» (for a note on the Portuguese 

spelling, see this).

The following reference - a work of fiction (Hind's Kidnap), by Joseph McElroy, published

in 1969  - uses the word «polyamorous» and associates it to a general argument about the

notion of the «Family» institution being over. Once again, a negative association, but this 

time revealing some tension that arises from the idea that non-monogamy may question 

and endanger the traditional and normative family.

We now go to France, skipping a few years, straight to 1971. In the XVIIe Siècle, Joséphine 

Grieder says that “to be  polytheist […] is to be poly-amorous” (this statement is then 

quoted in  La Rochefoucauld and the Seventeenth-Century Concept of Self, by Vivien Thweatt, 

published in 1980). We're presented here with an interesting connection between paganism 

and druidic spirituality on the one hand and, on the other, the idea of being “polyamorous”, through the liaison made by the worshipping of several divinities and their deity 

aspects – a connection that still includes the hyphen, showing how difficult it is to mingle 

these etymologies.

Approaching the current notion of polyamory, there´s a book called  Marriage: For & 

Against, written in 1972 by Harold Hart, where the author says «It seems to me plain 

enough that people are very commonly polyamorous». And yet, somewhere else in the book, 

we read «It may be, as some say, that women by nature are not  poly amorous; but all such 

naturalistic reasoning is a snare and a delusion. Very few men or women are truly 

polygamous; few would be at all inclined to be involved in two or more […]» - this is where 

the allowed preview in Google Books ends, but the question itself is far from settled, and it 

is still a part of many online discussions on how contemporary polyamory should be 

understood: whether there is, or not, a biological, genotypical, natural drive that 

predisposes humans into non-monogamy. Within that rhetoric, monogamy is built as a 

social imposition which is imbued of a (hidden) rationality (such as economic, sexual or 

moral control, for example).

Then contexts begin to change: we find the following reference in the abstracts of the 7

th

annual encounter of the American Anthropology Association (edited in 1975), more 

specifically in the biography of one of the participants: Carol Motts. It alludes to the future 

of humanity, in the 23rd

century, a future dominated by the homo pacifis (Latin for, literally, 

'peaceful man'), whose characteristics are: «individualistic, freethinking, polyamorous, 

vegetarian». Two different influences of polyamory start to meet here: academia and 

Science Fiction. By-the-way, science fiction by the hands of Robert Heinlein (particularly 

for his work  Stranger in a Strange Land) is one of the main historical inspirations of the 

contemporary polyamorous movement and one of the most often quoted references to non-monogamy.

The adjective pops up again in 1977, in a book about fictional representations of the First 

World War (The First World War in Fiction,  by Holger Klein), where Italy is described as 

being «polyamorous-incestuous». 

Two years later, in 1979, we find a new and important idea: a connection between the 

adjective «polyamorous» and the LGBT community. In The Gay Report: Lesbians and Gay Men Speak Out About Sexual Experiences and Lifestyles, bisexuality is portrayed as having a narrow 

scope and the use of «poly-amorous, meaning many kinds of love relationships with many 

kinds of people» is suggested to replace it. Here is found one of the main primary tensions 

around the contemporary idea of polyamory: is it, or is it not, a sexual orientation? Howdoes polyamory relate to whatever sexual practices might (or not) be involved? (Just to 

clear things out: no, one cannot mistake polyamory as a sexual orientation identity; it is a 

relationship identity. This question popped up many of the times I was interviewed on 

these matters, that I had to stress it).

There are still two references left when it comes to this poly avant la lettre: again, a work of 

fiction, The Disinherited, by Matt Cohen, in 1986, where the author mentions a «polyamorous

perversion» and, lastly, the New Scientist number of April 22

nd

1989, where Charles Darwin's 

grand-father is mentioned, as well as one of his erotic poems, where plants are treated as 

people, carrying on with their «polyamorous ploys». From what is known so far, these are 

the sole references that pre-date the birth of «polyamory» as a noun. So this is the turning 

point, and the next paragraph will bear witness to the birth of this meme (which happened 

twice, actually).

Poly-History

We mentioned before a spiritualist reference, and that is precisely the first origin point of 

«polyamory» – straight from the Church of All Worlds (which is, actually, the name of the 

then-fictional church that the main character from  Stranger in a Strange Land creates, inbookinbook) comes the notion of polyamory, in 1990. In May 1990, Morning Glory ZellRavenheart published, in a newsletter (that later became a magazine) called  Green Egg, an 

article titled «A Bouquet of Lovers». In this article, a new (or not so much) word made its 

appearance: «poly-amorous», an adjective pertaining people who have sexual-loving 

relationships with more than one person at any given time, or want to, and that 

acknowledged others‟ right to have them too. According to Oberon Zell, and as reported 

by Allan in  Poly in the Media, a few months afterwards, in August of the same year, the 

Church of All Worlds was invited to a public event in Berkeley and organized a Glossary 

of Relationship Terminology to present – and there it was, finally, the word «polyamory». 

Nonetheless, this was a highly-specific audience and context: mostly a group of neopagans, such as Morning Glory and Oberon themselves. The word was thus created but it 

still lacked any real circulation – or at least one that would explain its current dissemination 

at an international level. As for an anecdotal evidence, Ryam Nearing publishes in 1992 a 

book called The Polyfidelity Primer, but the word «polyamory» is conspicuously absent from 

the book, although the concept was basically the same.

Since then, a rather large slice of pagans, around Oberon and his family, have been deeply 

connected to the dissemination of alternative family models, always within the context of a

religious, pagan and spiritualist logic  – which isn‟t a small feat in itself, considering thee 

national projection of the concept within the USA. All in all, another relevant figure within 

this context is Deborah Anapol. Along with Ryam Nearing, she funded the  Loving More Magazine in 1995; in 1997 she published Polyamory: The New Love Without Limits, that remains 

to this day one of the movement‟s ex-libris when it comes to the spiritualist, tantric and 

pagan side of polyamory.

Poly-History, Part 2

The other trend of polyamory is markedly less religious or transcendental – one can even 

call it more cosmopolitan, and maybe less concerned with showing anti-capitalist ideals and 

more worried with the solution of some day-to-day problems that arise in consensual nonmonogamous relationships in Western „First World‟ countries.

Even though there are no quantitative data to definitely substantiate this matter, it seemsthat this is the model that most heavily influenced the Portuguese polyamorous community, 

or at least the one that seems the most vocal, from my direct experience.

A woman, called Jennifer Wesp, was debating «about the morality of having nonmonogamous relationships» in the alt.sex Usenet mailing list with Mikhail Zelany, when she 

got «tired of typing non-monogamy» and concluded that «it wasn‟t a good piece of rhetoric 

to use a negative, hyphenated word to make a positive point». Ergo, when writing an e-mail 

that she, herself, considered a part of the ongoing „flame war‟, Wesp decided to create a 

word that could convey a positive idea, that wasn‟t linguistically attached to a direct 

comparison with monogamy. We thus observe the same phenomena we've seen with 

Morning Glory:  creating a word that could suppress a lack felt within a certain community. 

Apparently, West felt that the word «non-monogamy» didn't convey enough ideological 

content, just as Glory had felt towards «polifidelity».

There was some element that needed reframing, and this feeling generated an eruption of 

linguistic innovation. The debate initiated by Jennifer Wesp drew some attention, as did the 

word, to the point that users decided to create a new Usenet mailing list (May 20

th

, 1992). 

The message that started the mailing list, and the subsequent discussion around it, is still 

available online.

This discussion is, in itself, revealing of much of what was mentioned before: where to 

place (within Usenet‟s hierarchy) a group about polyamory? And where does this word 

come from, since it‟s not in the dictionary? Is this about romance or sexuality? Should it 

have a hyphen or not (per example, Wesp‟s initial proposal included a hyphen which 

suddenly vanished from the conversation)? All these are questions raised by the participants 

of that online debate. At the beginning, Wesp was counting on a group of about 30 people 

that, according to what she thought, would be interested in participating in that mailing list. 

She herself admits that the word was made-up, that it wasn‟t a «real word», but that «onethat this is the model that most heavily influenced the Portuguese polyamorous community, 

or at least the one that seems the most vocal, from my direct experience.

A woman, called Jennifer Wesp, was debating «about the morality of having nonmonogamous relationships» in the alt.sex Usenet mailing list with Mikhail Zelany, when she 

got «tired of typing non-monogamy» and concluded that «it wasn‟t a good piece of rhetoric 

to use a negative, hyphenated word to make a positive point». Ergo, when writing an e-mail 

that she, herself, considered a part of the ongoing „flame war‟, Wesp decided to create a 

word that could convey a positive idea, that wasn‟t linguistically attached to a direct 

comparison with monogamy. We thus observe the same phenomena we've seen with 

Morning Glory:  creating a word that could suppress a lack felt within a certain community. 

Apparently, West felt that the word «non-monogamy» didn't convey enough ideological 

content, just as Glory had felt towards «polifidelity».

There was some element that needed reframing, and this feeling generated an eruption of 

linguistic innovation. The debate initiated by Jennifer Wesp drew some attention, as did the 

word, to the point that users decided to create a new Usenet mailing list (May 20

th

, 1992). 

The message that started the mailing list, and the subsequent discussion around it, is still 

available online.

This discussion is, in itself, revealing of much of what was mentioned before: where to 

place (within Usenet‟s hierarchy) a group about polyamory? And where does this word 

come from, since it‟s not in the dictionary? Is this about romance or sexuality? Should it 

have a hyphen or not (per example, Wesp‟s initial proposal included a hyphen which 

suddenly vanished from the conversation)? All these are questions raised by the participants 

of that online debate. At the beginning, Wesp was counting on a group of about 30 people 

that, according to what she thought, would be interested in participating in that mailing list. 

She herself admits that the word was made-up, that it wasn‟t a «real word», but that «one 

can always hope».

Little did she know…

The Strength of a Meme

Considering that we‟re talking about a word that was made up time and time again, in theConsidering that we‟re talking about a word that was made up time and time again, in the middle of these rather obscure situations, and that popped up, for example, in a 30-people 

mailing list, in a time when Internet was an even scarcer resource than it is today (and kind 

of didn't exist as we know it now-a-days), «polyamory» is a rather successful meme. And, 

according to Google N-Gram Viewer, the number of references has been growing quite a 

lot; when this growth is compared to the word «polygamy», for example, it‟s noticeable that 

this last one has been plateauing, and even losing some relevance, even though despite still 

being much more common than «polyamory».

One final consideration: it‟s in these moments that one can understand the fundamental 

difference between an adjective and a noun. Polyamory, as a memetic identity, only came 

about when a full-fledged noun was invented. It is by gaining a name that polyamory allows 

its subjects to acquire an identity, to acquire polyamory as an identity and from then on to 

engage in identity politics, and present a façade, a morality, to establish a pattern or a set of 

patterns. That opens up the possibility of engaging in a series of normative questionings aswell as the possibility  of creating a new normative experience around an overly-stable 

notion of what «polyamory» is. Alternative as it may be, it would be nonetheless normative. 

This is the meme‟s power, and also its threat. The memetic force that feeds the propagation 

of an idea is the same force that makes it turn into a set-in-stone idea of immutable 

permanence.

Maybe in twenty years‟ time (and with more automatic tools to allow the collection and 

compilation of data) it will be possible to do a more complete history of this word and its 

correlates. For now, a glossary of relationship terms of neo-pagan inspiration and a mailing 

list with about 30 participants gave place to 394 thousand results in a Google search for 

«polyamory», 261 thousand for «polaymorous» and 18,900 results for «poliamor» (the 

Portuguese and Spanish spelling)…

Bibliography

Alan. (2007). «Polyamory in the News: “Polyamory” enters the Oxford English 

Dictionary».  Polyamory in the News!. Accessed on January 26

th

, 2009, from

http://polyinthemedia.blogspot.com/2007/01/polyamory-enters-oxford-english.html

Cardoso, D. (2010).  Loving many  - Individualization, networks, ethics and polyamory. Masters‟ 

Thesis in  Communication Sciences. Faculty of Social and Human Sciences  - New 

University of Lisbon, Lisbon. 

Haritaworn, Jin; Lin, Chin-Ju & Klesse, Christian. (2006). «Poly/logue: A Critical 

Introduction to Polyamory». Sexualities, 9(5), 515-529.

Reference

Cardoso, D. (2011). Polyamory, or The Harshness of Spawning a Substantive Meme. Interact, (17). Obtained 

from http://interact.com.pt/17/poliamor/

                                                           

i Translated and adapted by Daniel Cardoso. Some differences from the original are to be expected due to the 

adaptation to an Anglophone audience and context.