Originally Posted by Penny
The comparison of one love to another is like apples to oranges.
That's a very good way to put it. If I eat an orange, it doesn't mean I like apples any less. And I can eat a fruit salad that has both. But fundamentally, apples and oranges both have something the other doesn't. And people are all different, but it's not really a "lack". I can love how one of my partner is tall, and I can love how another partner is short. Neither could be both at once, even though I love both things. In cases like that, it's not about one or the other not being enough, but how they both have good things about them.
Originally Posted by preciselove
I'd like to know how many "serial monogamists" there are in the poly scene compared to people like myself that are actively involved with more than one person at all times.
Well, my ideal relationship would involve several live-in partners with the possibility of other partners. Right now I only have the boyfriend I live with. I used to have two primaries, my husband and my boyfriend but one living in Canada and one living in the US meant that I pretty much didn't see both at once, except on some trips and over the Internet.
I can see how it's completely different if you never see your partners at the same time. Then your time is much more "divided" between them, as time with one of them requires time away from another. But as you pointed out, it's possible to spend quality time with several partners at once.
This being said, I would personally also want one-on-one time with each partner, as I think time spent as a group and time spent one-on-one can have different dynamics to them.
Originally Posted by preciselove
*HEAVILY OPINIONATED GENERALIZATIONS FOLLOWS*
To me at least, people that compartmentalize their relationships and are only with one love at a time aren't poly people as I define them as you're only using monogamous skills in the relationships.
I think it's about different types of poly. There is that book that explains that different kinds of poly can be as different from one another as they are from monogamy. If I recall, it spelled "polys" this way:
P: primaries that have secondary partners, similar to serial monogamy but with a steady primary partner on top
O: a group that all lived together and form a loop, could be a triad (A dates B who dates C who dates A) or something longer (...C who dates D who dates E who dates A). Could also be four people who each have two partners out of the three others, or people who are all involved with all the others, etc.
L: a vee (L and V are basically the same shape with a different angle... although I like how in V both branches are the same length)
Y: more networky configurations (for instance one person has 3 partners, making them the middle of a Y, these partners have other partners as well, etc)
S: Like an O that's not closed or crossed, so could be an N for instance.
It seems to me it's mainly the P form you think isn't really poly. I would say that to a mono person, it definitely isn't mono! But I would take it as it not being your poly. I still think it's polyamorous and I still think it requires poly skills. I think it's rare for it to be a complete double life with metamours never interacting, for instance. And compersion is definitely a poly skill.