Polyamory.com Forum  

Go Back   Polyamory.com Forum > Polyamory > General Poly Discussions

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 04-22-2012, 12:10 PM
nycindie's Avatar
nycindie nycindie is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The Big Apple
Posts: 7,158
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadowgbq View Post
First things first, I am sorry for raising your ire. My understanding is that this is a place to exchange ideas and that nobody is going to be cursed at or called a heretic for sharing hers or his. You seem to be making a lot of absolute pronouncements while talking about how upset you are about my making absolute pronouncements.
Oh no, you misunderstand. Firstly, I'm not upset at all. Not a whit. Just sharing my opinion. Anonymous people on message boards don't raise my ire. I wasn't cursing at you, just cursing in the course of conversation. I have a potty mouth, that's just me. And I didn't call you a heretic. Name-calling is not something I'm into and I don't even know you. As for making absolute pronouncements, I don't think that's what I was doing. My point is that it is how people treat each other that matters more than anything, and that good, healthy, respectful relationships can be poly or mono or whatever else one wants to call it. Where is the absolute pronouncement I am supposedly making in that?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadowgbq View Post
I didn't say I thought polyamory was a perfect, ideal paradigm. It's not. People who self-label poly often share a lot of ideas with the people who self-label mono, such as the subjectivism you're preaching to me right now.
I am not preaching. I don't care if you agree or not, I'm not out to convince anyone of anything. I was simply stating my opinion as a response to what you posted earlier. Not preaching. And I don't even know what you mean by subjectivism - I mean, I know what the word means but don't understand why you say I was preaching it. That isn't a word I would use to talk about this topic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadowgbq View Post
I actually belong to a new school of relationship philosophy that began about 7 years ago, but that's neither here nor there. It doesn't make me superior to anyone because I didn't invent it, other people did, and I followed their example. But I'm not a 'poly' and I'm not the first person to criticize our relationship culture in general.
I don't identify as poly either. I don't care much for trying to fit myself into any labels.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadowgbq View Post
...monogamy itself, by definition, is a system of claiming most of your partner's sexuality as your sole entitlement.
Again, that is bullshit. Maybe I've just known a lot of enlightened people who have done a great deal of inner work, but I know many monogamists who have never thought of their love relationships as defined by a claim to a partner's sexuality. That may have been true in the past but it's not the case, across the board, in the 21st century. Never in my 12-year monogamous marriage did I feel I owned my husband or his dick. I have known a great many people who simply have no need for multiple lovers but who also do not see their partners, nor their partner's sexuality, as something they possess. And there are more than a few "monos" who belong to this forum. Polyamorous relationships aren't that much different than monogamous ones, in the sense that respect, caring, integrity, and honesty are crucial for them to work well and be satisfying. If there are flaws in the relationship, look at the people who aren't managing it well. It's so easy to make monogamy the scapegoat. Now I am not denying that there are ideas and stereotypes in "popular culture," about monogamous relationships, that coincide with what you're saying, but to make blanket statements about people in monogamous relationships, calling them "people-owners" and immoral, just sounds silly and arrogant. Successful, loving, perfectly joyous monogamous relationships exist and the people who are in those relationships are not villains simply because they're monogamous.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadowgbq View Post
Polyamory is also a paradigm in which people are expected to reflect certain concepts in their treatment of one another, such as compersion, hierarchy, etc...
Hierarchy is not a requisite of polyamory, nor an automatic expectation. Many people do not need a hierarchy in order to live polyamorously and therefore do not subscribe to that approach.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadowgbq View Post
It's as if you're saying, "Anarchy & Communism have no inherent meaning or value, what does have value is whether people decide to have no government or a massive one and what those systems do for them."
Oh well, theories, concepts, and beliefs are just theories, concepts, and beliefs. People will ascribe whatever meaning to them that they will, but what really means something is how people act. Not what they dream or pontificate about. No, what I am saying is more like seeing polyamory or monogamy as boats. Both are perfectly sea-worthy, but it is up to the people in the boats to steer them to paradise, and keep them from capsizing, running aground, springing leaks, etc. If the boat falls apart, it isn't the boat's fault. It's the people who didn't take care of it.
__________________
The world opens up... when you do.

Oh, oh, can't you see? Love is the drug for me. ~Bryan Ferry
"Love is that condition in which another person's happiness is essential to your own." ~Robert Heinlein

Last edited by nycindie; 04-22-2012 at 09:09 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 04-22-2012, 02:10 PM
Vixtoria's Avatar
Vixtoria Vixtoria is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 299
Default

OH look! Someone has a class in college and is looking for us to do their homework!

Sorry, that's all I thought of when I saw the post. Great that it got a discussion but 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. Or giving back to a discussion, answering their own questions and all that. Do the work if you want the answers. Or try google.
__________________
Me: Late 30s pansexual poly.
DH: My husband of 19 yrs and father of 3 teen girls.
DC: LDR of +4 year
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 04-23-2012, 04:56 PM
rory's Avatar
rory rory is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Europe
Posts: 496
Default

For the first:
Person I is slightly polyamorous.
Person II is moderately polyamorous.
Person III is extremely polyamorous.

I'd say all persons I to III can love multiple persons at the same time. 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. I'll read what others have answered, now.
__________________
Living with my partner Mya and metamour Hank. Seeing Lily.

Last edited by rory; 04-23-2012 at 04:59 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 04-24-2012, 06:10 AM
kdt26417's Avatar
kdt26417 kdt26417 is offline
Official Greeter
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Olympia, Washington
Posts: 4,700
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
  #15  
Old 04-24-2012, 07:08 AM
nycindie's Avatar
nycindie nycindie is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The Big Apple
Posts: 7,158
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kdt26417 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by nycindie View Post
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?
Hmm, in a way. I don't completely dismiss it. I acknowledge that it is how Kinsey quantified the findings in his research, but I don't really pay much attention to it. I really don't see how the Kinsey scale is relevant to me or why it should mean anything in my life. Sure, I know about Kinsey, saw the biopic, but I actually never even heard of the Kinsey scale until I started looking into polyamory and visiting various poly forums in late 2010. So that means I lived 50 years without knowing or caring what the Kinsey scale is. It was never even discussed in a health class I took in college (or it was and I never remembered it), so I don't know why some poly people seem preoccupied with it, nor why anyone would start off an introduction with where they are on the scale. The existence of it never impacted me at all. If it is something that is useful to the LGBT folks, that I wouldn't know about.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kdt26417 View Post
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.
Well, no one can really do away with the Kinsey scale, since it is something that was published long ago and exists as a kind of conclusion in Kinsey's research. However, does a researcher's placement of certain predilections on some imaginary scale really have anything to do with how people live their lives? Sure, I suppose it can be a useful tool for people who need to figure out a way to express their sexuality, but -- do we go around asking ourselves if we are living up to where we should be on that scale before we interact with the people in our lives? No, I don't really think the Kinsey scale matters all that much in the grand scheme of things.

Who dreamed up the goofily-named Lorax scale? Never heard of it until this thread. Since there are myriad ways to live polyamorously, how in the hell can some 2-dimensional sliding scale even attempt to describe a person's experience or approach... what is this silly scale meant to do, anyway? Not very useful except for having pseudo-intellectual arguments. Yeah, on second thought... I do think the Lorax scale can be done away with.
__________________
The world opens up... when you do.

Oh, oh, can't you see? Love is the drug for me. ~Bryan Ferry
"Love is that condition in which another person's happiness is essential to your own." ~Robert Heinlein

Last edited by nycindie; 04-24-2012 at 09:06 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 04-24-2012, 11:23 AM
lovefromgirl's Avatar
lovefromgirl lovefromgirl is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Great Soggy Northeast
Posts: 353
Default

The Lorax seems to prioritise love commitments over sexual commitments, except where monogamy is concerned. I was going to come at it from number of partners on one axis and commitment to partners on another, I think, where 0=I'm happy on my own, thanks and 6=Give me a great big network to draw on! + 0=Commitment? Moi? and 6=I consider myself irrevocably married to all of them. 'Til death, baby!

I'm about a (2, 4.5) there.

Kinsey's not that common a figure outside of human sexuality studies. He got a little more limelight in the film (the story of how he constructed said scale) but yeah, you'd have to be looking for him or LGBTQ. His continuum runs from completely straight to completely gay (0-6), with the implication that many of us are some kind of bisexual and--this was mindblowing to most--that sexuality could be fluid over a lifetime. When it comes to polyamory, apparently there are now two of us in the world who are interested in trying to adapt his work to suit us! But it wasn't a concept I'd seen applied to poly by other people until, well, now.
__________________
"I swear, if we live through this somebody's going to find their automatic shower preferences reprogrammed for ice water."

Refuge in Audacity { home of the post-raph stunner }
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 04-24-2012, 05:48 PM
kdt26417's Avatar
kdt26417 kdt26417 is offline
Official Greeter
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Olympia, Washington
Posts: 4,700
Default

Re (from nycindie):
Quote:
"Who dreamed up the goofily-named Lorax scale?"
Ah, for that you'd have to go to "greatsexgames dot com." I don't dare make a link out of that as I'm thinking the site does sell something (games), though it also has its own forum of sorts. But that's either the original source for the Lorax scale, or the closest I can find to an original source. To get to it, you have to click on the "Register" link (top of page, left hand side), check the "agree to forum rules" box (on the next page), click on the "Register" button, and then finally (on the next page after that) you can scroll down a bit and see their version of the Lorax scale.

To make that a little more convenient, I'll copy/paste what they have right here:
  • Lorax scale: Pick the option that you believe you are, but don't necessarily practice.
    • 0 (monogamous): only one partner ever.
    • 1: serial monogamous.
    • 2: occasional threesome.
    • 3: frequent threesomes.
    • 4: one lover more important than rest.
    • 5: multiple lovers.
    • 6 (polyamorous): all lovers equally important.
Personally I'd prefer something more like this (but that's me):
  • Lorax scale: Pick the option that you believe you are, but don't necessarily practice.
    • 0: completely monogamous.
    • 1: mostly monogamous.
    • 2: largely monogamous.
    • 3: half-monogamous, half-polyamorous.
    • 4: largely polyamorous.
    • 5: mostly polyamorous.
    • 6: completely polyamorous.
... leaving the numbers more open to interpretation (especially since I'm not altogether down with the Sex Games site's interpretation).

Re (from nycindie):
Quote:
"Since there are myriad ways to live polyamorously, how in the hell can some 2-dimensional sliding scale even attempt to describe a person's experience or approach ..."
Indeed. That is the question.

Re (from nycindie):
Quote:
"What is this silly scale meant to do, anyway?"
I can only guess, but the originating site in question seems to want to use it (along with the Kinsey scale) to create a "quick reference" on people's forum profiles in the interest of "getting to know each other." (That's just my guess.)

Other than that, there seems to be a (probably small) group of people who see the Lorax scale as being useful for something comparable to what the Kinsey scale is useful for -- for those who find the Kinsey scale to be useful. As a sort of "reference number" estimating how "poly or mono" one is (where the Kinsey scale gives a reference number estimating how "gay or straight" one is).

Sorry I can't do better than that; it's just my guess/perception of how other people use/have used the scale. My personal interest in it is glossary-related. I just use it to educate people about a scale that some people use. Myself I remain mostly neutral on whether or not I find it useful beyond glossary purposes. Perhaps it even depends on what mood I'm in, I don't know.

Re (from nycindie):
Quote:
"I do think the Lorax scale can be done away with."
If it's okay with you, I will share your thoughts/viewpoints with the Poly Percs membership. Perhaps it will influence them to vote to take the Lorax scale out of the glossary. If such be the way it pans out, I'll have no complaints. I'm not that deeply invested in it.

Re (from lovefromgirl):
Quote:
"I was going to come at it from number of partners on one axis and commitment to partners on another ..."
Interesting approach; I like that.
__________________
Love means never having to say, "Put down that meat cleaver!"
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 04-24-2012, 07:15 PM
nycindie's Avatar
nycindie nycindie is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The Big Apple
Posts: 7,158
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kdt26417 View Post
Ah, for that you'd have to go to "greatsexgames dot com." I don't dare make a link out of that as I'm thinking the site does sell something (games), though it also has its own forum of sorts...
Well, geez, why should anyone concern themselves with some imaginary scale made up by a bunch of people on a silly little site where they sell games? (nope, not going to check it out)

Quote:
Originally Posted by kdt26417 View Post
If it's okay with you, I will share your thoughts/viewpoints with the Poly Percs membership. Perhaps it will influence them to vote to take the Lorax scale out of the glossary. If such be the way it pans out, I'll have no complaints. I'm not that deeply invested in it.
Sure, go ahead. I belong to Poly Percolations, too, with a diff username, though I only lurk and have never posted there.

I really don't see the relevance of the Lorax scale or anything from a "sex games" site to living polyamorously. There are so many sites on the internet, with specific audiences, and any of them could come up with some gobbledegook about poly - are you going to consider anything anyone makes up as glossary-worthy?
__________________
The world opens up... when you do.

Oh, oh, can't you see? Love is the drug for me. ~Bryan Ferry
"Love is that condition in which another person's happiness is essential to your own." ~Robert Heinlein
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 04-24-2012, 08:01 PM
kdt26417's Avatar
kdt26417 kdt26417 is offline
Official Greeter
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Olympia, Washington
Posts: 4,700
Default

Well to be honest, this is the first time I've heard anyone object to it being in the (or in any) glossary. I originally put it there because one of the other Ppercs users had requested it (in the glossary discussions/submissions thread). At the time, it didn't occur to me that it'd be a problem, so I added it in. It's a big glossary, with more than a few "weird" entries. There were no objections at the time, and there's been no objections since then (until now), so it just never occurred to me to take it out. I did get one comment that another member got a chuckle out of it, and that he wouldn't use it himself ("too 2D," he actually said that), but he didn't actually object to its inclusion.

NY, since you do have a membership on Ppercs, I will assume (and post on that forum) that one vote is already in to strike the Lorax scale from the glossary. I will then see if any contrasting votes are placed (I'll probably give it about a month, because participation on Ppercs is reeeally slow right now). If no other votes are placed, then the Lorax scale will go bye bye.
__________________
Love means never having to say, "Put down that meat cleaver!"
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 04-25-2012, 03:30 AM
Precious1 Precious1 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 34
Default Definition of Monogamy?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadowgbq View Post
This ignores that monogamy itself, by definition, is a system of claiming most of your partner's sexuality as your sole entitlement.
I dunno. To me monogamy is defined as offering my sexuality exclusively to my sole partner, it may or may not include the reciprocation of the being the sole beneficiary of the partner's sexuality.

Right now I practice monogamy. My partner practices polyamory.
Is this a case of "A square is a rectangle but a rectangle is not necessarily a square" ?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
definitions, descriptions, measurement, terminology

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:10 PM.