Polyamory.com Forum  

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

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 05-02-2012, 03:32 AM
kdt26417's Avatar
kdt26417 kdt26417 is offline
Official Greeter
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Yelm, Washington
Posts: 7,576
Default

No, I wouldn't intend to throw anyone out of poly, and wouldn't throw them off the Lorax scale either (unless they personally wanted no part of that scale).

Re:
Quote:
"So how does the Lorax scale work for people who are emotionally polyamorous but unwilling to fuck more than one person? Where do they fall?"
Well that sounds kind of like emotionally non-monogamous but physically (sexually) monogamous. That's half of the "totally poly criteria" (emotionally and physically non-monogamous), so that puts them about midway through the scale (Lorax 3). Note that is all highly generalized and appromixate, so depending on what I knew about the individual person, I might estimate them to be "higher" or "lower" than that on the scale.

Re:
Quote:
"What about asexuals, who can only then be rated on their romantic inclinations?"
Good question; I think I would kind of consider that a special case and let "romantic inclinations" function in place of "sexual inclinations" or "sexual practices." Thus, an asexual person could fall just about anywhere on the Lorax scale, depending on whether they were "romantically monogamous" to just one person, or had many "romantic partners." (Or perhaps more accurately, whether they were more *inclined* to be romantically monogamous or polyamorous.)

Trust me, I'm not entirely free of confusion on these matters. But those are some of my first thoughts with regard to your questions.
__________________
Love means never having to say, "Put down that meat cleaver!"
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 05-02-2012, 06:13 PM
lovefromgirl's Avatar
lovefromgirl lovefromgirl is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Great Soggy Northeast
Posts: 353
Default

I still think this is better done with two axes, because we're not dealing with one dimension anymore. (And even Kinsey was smart enough to leave the romantic/sexual divide alone.) So I'd graph it out over four quadrants, shifting the start of the scale to -3 on both, so they could cross at 0.

Taking the x-axis as size of network desired and the y-axis as level of intimacy desired, I can reasonably account for most permutations of sexuality (I say "most" because I don't presume to know about them all). Your "one partner ever" person would therefore plot (-3, 6), letting y=6=lifetime devotion, beyond death. Of course, so would a remarried widower. He still desires one partner at a time only (x=-3) and is planning a lifelong relationship with his new partner (y=6). Mine, I suppose, prefers to deal in the present, influenced by wishes for the future.

My mostly-closed FMF vee would plot somewhere around (-1, 5), because two of us would welcome the right person, but only the right person, with the intention that everyone's in it for the long haul. Nobody leaves for arbitrary reasons. Curiously, this places polyfidelity and monogamy in the same quadrant.

I'm fascinated by these intersections.
__________________
"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
  #33  
Old 05-02-2012, 06:49 PM
kdt26417's Avatar
kdt26417 kdt26417 is offline
Official Greeter
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Yelm, Washington
Posts: 7,576
Default

Well, polyfidelity certainly has something to do with monogamy, as it is a closed (and relatively conservative) relationship. It is actually hard to decide whether polyfidelity is more like monogamy or polygamy. Most people agree that polyfidelity is a kind (a subset) of polyamory.

I've come to realize that there are actually quite a few different ways one could "measure" people's poly inclinations or relationships. Your two-axes grid would certainly cover more ground than the Lorax scale, so that's a pretty good idea.

It is interesting what weird intersections come up when you start measuring (poly/relationship) things.
__________________
Love means never having to say, "Put down that meat cleaver!"
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 05-03-2012, 01:30 AM
kdt26417's Avatar
kdt26417 kdt26417 is offline
Official Greeter
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Yelm, Washington
Posts: 7,576
Default

By the way, Part II has a discussion about the relationship of the words "polyamory," "monogamy," "monoamory," "polygamy," "polyfidelity," and "swing" ... which words are the most alike, which are the most opposite ... another approach to "measuring poly." Plus polyamory (and various sorts of non-monogamy) can be laid out in a sort of Venn diagram. This is really cool; check out how Franklin Veaux did it.
__________________
Love means never having to say, "Put down that meat cleaver!"
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 05-03-2012, 04:31 AM
nycindie's Avatar
nycindie nycindie is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The Big Apple
Posts: 8,048
Default

If you do a search, you will find that Franklin Veaux's diagram has been discussed, referenced, or included in related discussions here many times.

Again, I ask why is the point of "measuring polyamory?" I can't even read those long data-filled posts of yours - they swim before my eyes.
__________________
The world opens up... when you do.

"Oh, oh, can't you see? Love is the drug for me." ~Bryan Ferry
"Love and the self are one . . ." ~Leo Buscaglia "

An excellent blog post on hierarchy in polyamory:
solopoly.net/2014/10/31/why-im-not-a-secondary-partner-the-short-version/
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 05-03-2012, 06:24 AM
kdt26417's Avatar
kdt26417 kdt26417 is offline
Official Greeter
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Yelm, Washington
Posts: 7,576
Default

No point, really ... I guess it's just my way of being interested in where words come from, how people interpret them, and how they relate to each other.
__________________
Love means never having to say, "Put down that meat cleaver!"
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 05-03-2012, 06:25 PM
lovefromgirl's Avatar
lovefromgirl lovefromgirl is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Great Soggy Northeast
Posts: 353
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kdt26417 View Post
No point, really ... I guess it's just my way of being interested in where words come from, how people interpret them, and how they relate to each other.
That. It's kind of fun for me being able to geek out about this stuff without having to direct the people around me to Poly 101.
__________________
"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
  #38  
Old 05-04-2012, 12:13 AM
kdt26417's Avatar
kdt26417 kdt26417 is offline
Official Greeter
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Yelm, Washington
Posts: 7,576
Default

Exactly. Technically it's a "just-fer-fun" thread.

On the other hand, fun and learning do sometimes go together. I feel I've learned some good things in this thread -- quite a few good things. Knowing how other people interpret a word (such as "polyamory") gives me a better understanding of how to interpret it -- and it prompts me to ask myself some heavy questions about how I think it should be interpreted and why. If I can understand a word better, then I can communicate better. And polyamory is an important word to understand -- as well as being one of the most difficult words to understand. One thinks it's simple when one first hears the word. Poly-amory. Many-love. Simple, right? but it's not so simple at all. Witness how much people struggle to come to any agreement about how the word should be interpreted. Communication benefits from at least understanding how the person being addressed may interpret the word. It's one way I can become a "better listener."

I don't (and didn't) mean to waste the forum's time by starting this thread. I honestly felt that multiple people (including myself) could benefit from "kicking these ideas to and fro." I feel that multiple people (including myself) have benefitted from it. We've exchanged ideas. We've exchanged opinions. We've learned to understand each other a little better. That spells success in my mind. I don't mean to suggest that the entire forum has benefitted. But if even just a few people benefitted, then I believe it's a good thing. I don't (and didn't) mean to prove anything, or make any point; I just wanted to discuss/exchange ideas.

I have a particular/personal interest in discussing/exchanging ideas about words. Words are a big deal to me. They're the building blocks of verbal communication. Verbal communication is a huge part of communication as a whole -- especially on the internet, where facial expressions and body language are a lot harder to convey. We rely on words to contact and interact with each other across far distances.

As a new member, I have to expect to be ignorant about "what has gone before." But I don't mind taking a chance of sharing something if it seems particularly interesting to me. Who knows; whatever I share may be/seem fresh (and interesting) to some of the other forum members, even if it's not fresh to all (especially among the more-experienced membership).

As for the length of my "answers to the riddles" posts, I apologize if it bored, offended, or wasted anyone's time. I didn't intend for those posts to come across as "required reading." Heck, I think I wrote them more for my own benefit than for anyone else's. I learned a lot while writing those posts. It forced me to think. It was hard to answer those riddles, even though I was the one who composed them. They were a lot easier to ask than to answer. I found out there were no answers. No easy answers, anyway. Certainly no quick answers. I had to explain everything in detail because the answers were so "messy." I couldn't think of any neat/clean way to present them. But I still feel like I understand things better now, at least in my own mind.

I do appreciate all who have participated in this thread (and in the Part II thread). You have all helped me understand your world just a little bit better (and you've even helped me understand my world a bit better). I hope we'll be able to have more discussions like this in the future. It gives me cause to suppose we can help each other become better talkers, writers, listeners, and thinkers.

And the best thing is, the words will always be there, waiting for us to unravel, always not-quite-possible to untie. The mystery of words and their meanings remains. It will probably always keep me up at night ... pondering.

With respects, regards, and wishes for many such ponderings,
Kevin T.
__________________
Love means never having to say, "Put down that meat cleaver!"
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 05-05-2012, 04:07 PM
kdt26417's Avatar
kdt26417 kdt26417 is offline
Official Greeter
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Yelm, Washington
Posts: 7,576
Default

So, lovefromgirl, given your Post #32 description, I am tentatively proposing the following table. Please copy/change/paste as you see fit, I am just trying to see if I understand you correctly.

A few words of explanation:

The word "partner" in the "# partners" column is intended to cover both lifetime companions and one-night stands. It is intended to be a very generalized use of the word "partner." As for the "#" in that column, it is intended to be approximate number, especially for x=+3, where the # could be 7 or more partners. For x=-3, the # could be one or zero partners.

The "longevity" words in the "# longevity" column represent both the approximate type of time scale the relationship (or playing) will last, and a kind of indicator of the approximate level of intimacy. A lifetime commitment to a partner would usually result in a very intimate relationship, whereas a 1-encounter "relationship" would amount to just sex (or a superficial date). The "#" in that column is an approximate number also; in all cases (except perhaps "1 lifetime"), the "1" could be interpreted as "one or more" (or even, "a bit less than one").

All of these are intended to be very vague and approximate estimates, that loosely correspond to the size of network desired, and the level of intimacy desired. I'm really just thinking out loud here, trying to take a stab at what I figured you had in mind, so please, I invite you to make corrections to my ideas here as listed.

Here, then, is the preliminary, first-draft table I propose:

X, Y = # partners, # longevity

+3, +3 = 7 partners, 1 lifetime
+3, +2 = 7 partners, 1 decade
+3, +1 = 7 partners, 1 year
+3, 0 = 7 partners, 1 month
+3, -1 = 7 partners, 1 week
+3, -2 = 7 partners, 1 night
+3, -3 = 7 partners, 1 encounter

+2, +3 = 6 partners, 1 lifetime
+2, +2 = 6 partners, 1 decade
+2, +1 = 6 partners, 1 year
+2, 0 = 6 partners, 1 month
+2, -1 = 6 partners, 1 week
+2, -2 = 6 partners, 1 night
+2, -3 = 6 partners, 1 encounter

+1, +3 = 5 partners, 1 lifetime
+1, +2 = 5 partners, 1 decade
+1, +1 = 5 partners, 1 year
+1, 0 = 5 partners, 1 month
+1, -1 = 5 partners, 1 week
+1, -2 = 5 partners, 1 night
+1, -3 = 5 partners, 1 encounter

0, +3 = 4 partners, 1 lifetime
0, +2 = 4 partners, 1 decade
0, +1 = 4 partners, 1 year
0, 0 = 4 partners, 1 month
0, -1 = 4 partners, 1 week
0, -2 = 4 partners, 1 night
0, -3 = 4 partners, 1 encounter

-1, +3 = 3 partners, 1 lifetime
-1, +2 = 3 partners, 1 decade
-1, +1 = 3 partners, 1 year
-1, 0 = 3 partners, 1 month
-1, -1 = 3 partners, 1 week
-1, -2 = 3 partners, 1 night
-1, -3 = 3 partners, 1 encounter

-2, +3 = 2 partners, 1 lifetime
-2, +2 = 2 partners, 1 decade
-2, +1 = 2 partners, 1 year
-2, 0 = 2 partners, 1 month
-2, -1 = 2 partners, 1 week
-2, -2 = 2 partners, 1 night
-2, -3 = 2 partners, 1 encounter

-3, +3 = 1 partner, 1 lifetime
-3, +2 = 1 partner, 1 decade
-3, +1 = 1 partner, 1 year
-3, 0 = 1 partner, 1 month
-3, -1 = 1 partner, 1 week
-3, -2 = 1 partner, 1 night
-3, -3 = 1 partner, 1 encounter

So for example, when x=0 and y=0, the person generally goes through about four short-term partners in one or more months. This notion, by the way, doesn't necessarily account for a long-term core relationship that the person may have. Instead, you could think of it as a broad average of all of the person's partners, put together.

I'm not sure that any of this matches what you had in mind, but I thought I'd take a stab at it. Let me know how you might do it differently.

Regards,
Kevin T.
__________________
Love means never having to say, "Put down that meat cleaver!"
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 05-05-2012, 04:21 PM
kdt26417's Avatar
kdt26417 kdt26417 is offline
Official Greeter
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Yelm, Washington
Posts: 7,576
Default

By the way, in case anyone would be interested, there are more perspectives on this same topic, posted on Polyamorous Percolations:

Philosophical Semantics on Ppercs, Part I
Philosophical Semantics on Ppercs, Part II

There's not a lot of new material there, but there's some.

I invite you (if you're interested) to check out those threads, and return here to post any thoughts/comments that come to you as a result of that further reading.

Just a thought, for more extra credit if you're interested.
__________________
Love means never having to say, "Put down that meat cleaver!"
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 03:24 PM.