View Single Post
  #14  
Old 04-24-2012, 06:10 AM
kdt26417's Avatar
kdt26417 kdt26417 is offline
Official Greeter
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Yelm, Washington
Posts: 8,317
Default

Re (from lovefromgirl):
Quote:
"Since you have not defined slightly/moderately/extremely or told us anything further about these hypothetical people, I cannot draw any further conclusions."
D'oh ... I was hoping others would define those terms for me. Seriously, though, I wonder if they can be defined -- to any extent, just on their own merits.

Re (from lovefromgirl):
Quote:
"[Re: Riddle #3 ...] As most definitions are relative, the vaguest guess possible is that here is a person who can take or leave polyamory and be happy either monogamous or polyamorous."
Well, that's still something at least.

Re (from lovefromgirl):
Quote:
"[Re: Riddle #4 ...] Well, what does this person think? Forget the statistics for a minute -- what does zie consider middle-of-the-line? How would zie define any of those terms? Perhaps I am coming at this too mathematically, longing for 'let' statements and agreed-upon terminology."
Sorry, can't help with that ... If I make the person any more specific, it will take the mystery out of the riddle. The question is, *can* people be "poly-quantified" based on generalizations like "polyfidelitous?" The answer may very well be no ... and if so, then the answer to this riddle is simply, "Unknown."

Quick qualifier: I don't personally equate "more poly" with "more evolved" or "more enlightened." However, I do know that the connotation often exists.

Re (from Shadowgbq):
Quote:
"It is possible that monogamy is simply an unnatural state of mind that is conditioned into us due to conformity and religious/patriarchal tradition. I wouldn't want to examine myself to figure out if I'm mono/poly any more than I would examine myself to see if I'm opposed to slavery. I believe that any possessive relationship is arrogant, contradictory and self-defeating. It's not a matter of sexual orientation, but of ignorance versus enlightenment."
Ah, good one ... I know that many people do feel that polyamory is "merely" a natural state of mind (I suppose that's as good a way to put it as any).

As for me, I'll agree that "possessing" other people is certainly wrong, and I'll agree that many monogamists do just that. But if it's "co-possession," and both people agree to it ... I guess that's their business (even if I wouldn't advise it -- or rather, wouldn't do it myself). Then again, there may be those who simply don't happen to fall in love with anyone else during their lifetime, and don't develop any interest in doing so. If such be the case for both members of a monogamous couple, then I guess there's not a problem.

Re (from nycindie):
Quote:
"What an exercise! What is the point?"
Difficult to explain. Part of it has been from puzzling over the Lorax scale ... which I have an entry for in a glossary that I do for another site (Poly Percs). The big thing that has been troubling me is, should there be a Lorax scale? Can polyamory be quantified (especially on such a simple 2D continuum)? If so ... how? I have my own theories and guesses, but I was curious about what other people thought.

Re (from Vixtoria):
Quote:
"I get tired of people joining poly groups or lists for answers to their thesis without actually saying that is what they are working on."
Goodness, I wasn't doing that. I don't get any grades out of what people post here, I'm not even in school. Honest. No thesis here ... just a glossary. And I'm not at all sure anything from these discussions will even end up in the glossary, although I suppose something might. This is just me being curious about what other people think. I'll give my own answers to my own questions before it's all over, I promise.

Re (from nycindie):
Quote:
"I think this whole exercise is a waste of time. I don't need to identify myself on any sliding scale of anything."
Well wait a minute, doesn't that mean you also dismiss the Kinsey scale? And maybe you do, I just want to point out that it, too, is a 2D continuum. Is the Kinsey scale of any real use (to anyone)? Should it be done away with? And I ask that about the Lorax scale also.

Re (from rory):
Quote:
"Person I's preference is a polyamorous relationship, but they can adjust to monogamy if they have the motivation to. Person II is more likely to not want to have a monogamous relationship. Person III would not be satisfied or could not see themselves in a monogamous relationship.
I'll skip right to the last. I have sort of a kinsey-type scale in my head, where people roughly fall on. More polyamorous is, I'd say, a stronger preference for a polyamorous relationship setting.
I found it a fun exercise, thought experiment."
Thanks, rory.
__________________
Love means never having to say, "Put down that meat cleaver!"
Reply With Quote