lovefromgirl
New member
I think until we know what the norms are for ethical non-monogamists, we can't really go much further with a scale of any kind. The second part of developing that table was always going to involve Kinseyesque research.
I don't see how it applies or is useful for those of us who simply see polyamory as a relationship structure and choose to incorporate it into our lives. Perhaps that is why the whole idea of this Lorax scale is flawed. Though I may have a leaning toward non-conformity or making unconventional choices, to me polyamory still is a choice. I approach it as a practice for how to create relationships I want in my life. There are numerous others here who feel the same or similar and do not ID internally as poly.
"I think until we know what the norms are for ethical non-monogamists, we can't really go much further with a scale of any kind. The second part of developing that table was always going to involve Kinseyesque research."
"Being poly is just part of who/what I am. But I certainly could choose to have a long term monogamous relationship. And, no doubt, I could be happy in such an arrangement. But it wouldn't feel entirely 'natural' for me. I'd feel a bit like a goose among swans, a fox among wolves, a deer among elk ... somewhat out of step with my nature."
"It occurs to me that a scale like this really only can apply to people who identify as poly. That is, those who feel that 'being poly' is an orientation like sex preference. Obviously placing oneself somewhere on a scale would reflect the degree to which a person feels being polyamorous is a necessary part of their internal/psychological makeup."
It's too bad there's not a quick/easy way to "quantify" one's poly-ness. It would be handy.
But why? To what end? How, exactly, would it be "handy" to quantify someone's "poly-ness?" please provide examples of the supposed usefulness of doing so.
I suppose it could be useful in establishing (relatively quickly/easily) the compatibility (or lack thereof) between two potential/dating partners. It might also be convenient in conversations about one's relationships, e.g., "I'm having a hard time because my significant other has met someone new, and I'm only a Lorax 1." Or (another fanciful example), "So how poly are you? Do you have quite a few people in your life, and what's your level of commitment/involvement with each of them?" Except in that example, I might wish I could shorten the sentence to just, "How poly are you?" and have the "numerical answer" infer the rest of the information.
People can be equally polyamorous and yet differently polyamorous. And they probably are, I'd say.
To say that a poly person who is interested in having a maximum of two simultaneous partners is somehow "less poly" than one who is interested in having 3-4 partners is not only an unfounded premise but also a fairly insensitive way to talk about someone. Am I less queer because I like both men and women? Is my attraction / love toward one sex made half because I like both? NO! And it is rude to say I'm "less gay" or "less straight" because I'm bi. See?
I'd rather live my life in the real world, connecting with my heart, mind, and gut with other people, rather than get all wrapped up in theoretical bullshit designed to exclude rather than include. Fuck that!
Well I always thought of this thread more as an experiment than a prescription, and I'm not surprised if the examples I gave were flawed or undesirable.
"Who says (for example) that the value of a healthy forest is quantifiable in either board feet or dollars?"
"To say that a poly person who is interested in having a maximum of two simultaneous partners is somehow 'less poly' than one who is interested in having 3-4 partners is not only an unfounded premise but also a fairly insensitive way to talk about someone."
"The Kinsey scale is only useful for describing those people who feel they fall on it. Any sort of poly scale, Lorax or otherwise, would similarly only be useful if someone felt it described them."
A better analogy would be, we tried to estimate the type of a forest. Is it deciduous, coniferous, or a mix of the two? The scale might look like this:
None of the above types are of any greater value than any of the other above types. Hopefully we all understand that. We are just seeking specialized information about the trees.
- Type A: 100% deciduous, 0% coniferous.
- Type B: 83% deciduous, 17% coniferous.
- Type C: 67% deciduous, 33% coniferous.
- Type D: 50% deciduous, 50% coniferous.
- Type E: 33% deciduous, 67% coniferous.
- Type F: 17% deciduous, 83% coniferous.
- Type G: 0% deciduous, 100% coniferous.