Fun Poly Research Test

J

jayblue122

Member
I liked that this was more inclusive, such as in areas of gender, and sexual and romantic orientations.

However, a change I would suggest would be for the question

"How would you describe your polyamourus relationship?
>Heigherarchical
>Non-Heierarchical"

In one relationship I would consider it hierarchical, but I'm not in a hierarchical relationship with another partner. So maybe adding an option for both?
 
@Maygen

Will do!
 
you forgot the 35-44 age group so I can't take your survey.
 
Last edited:
I checked 45-54... I'm 44 and a half, so I rounded up. lol. But yeah, having the 35-44 age category on there is kind of important...
 
I am 40 so neither rounding down or up works for me... Lol
 
My bad, Fixed it!
 
This survey is pretty inclusive. The only question I had trouble answering is relationship configuration, because neither "triad" nor "primary/secondary" is accurate enough for me (I'd be okay with "primary/non-primary", because unlike "secondary", "non-primary" doesn't imply hierarchy. At least that's how I see it).

Also, I was happy to see 1/4 of the responses were from asexuals.
 
Last edited:
@Cookie, I think some people just chose not to answer, thats why there is less responses.
 
Cookie said:
I couldn't see the numbers of people who had answered each of the number questions, like 'How many current partners'. Is anyone else having that problem?
Click to expand...
Same here, I guess that's how fill-in-the-blank questions work in Google Forms.
 
I think fill in the blank shows each answer that was typed in and ignores duplicates. As a result we get to know everything that was an answer, but not how many people chose it as an answer as it will only appear once regardless.
 
nycindie said:
I don't know what "romantic orientation" is supposed to mean!
Click to expand...
It means what gender(s) you're romantically attracted to. It's different from sexual orientation because one's sexual and romantic orientations don't always match.
 
Hmm.

Well, I can't really relate to that question. To me, romance is smoke and mirrors, a fantasy, infatuation, bullshit... but love is real and essential. I love well and deeply, but I don't get into romance, so I couldn't even understand what the hell that question would mean. I've avoided using the word romance for attraction or love relationships for some time now, because love and romance are two very different things.

Oh well, I skipped that one.
 
nycindie said:
Hmm.

Well, I can't really relate to that question. To me, romance is smoke and mirrors, a fantasy, infatuation, bullshit... but love is real and essential. I love well and deeply, but I don't get into romance, so I couldn't even understand what the hell that question would mean. I've avoided using the word romance for attraction or love relationships for some time now, because love and romance are two very different things.

Oh well, I skipped that one.
Click to expand...

Differentiating types of attraction can seem a bit odd, but for us that fall into the asexual spectrum for our sexual orientation, it's totally normal. Romantic attraction is simply who you fall in love with. For a lot of people, sexual and romantic orientations are the same. For others they don't always match. Ex/ Some people can be bisexual (has sexual attraction to both genders) and enjoy sexual relationships with both genders, but is only hetero romantic (loves only the opposite gender to themselves).

http://www.asexuality.org/wiki/index.php?title=Romantic_orientation

So for you, love and romance are two separate entities. For others they are one in the same, or so closely entwined that they are not separate things.

So maybe be careful about using such dismissice language, such as calling it "bullshit"? Just because we use different words doesn't mean that we don't feel the same love :)
 
nycindie, maybe it would help you to think of "romantic orientation" as "love orientation", then, since that's what it means. Who do you fall in love with? It can be different from sexual orientation, the most obvious example being asexual people who often are not aromantic (although obvious people can be both. They wouldn't be polyamorous though, since they wouldn't be amorous at all).

I'm sorry that the word means something different to you but in this case "romantic" is used to mean "love-related", not anything to do with the list of codes of how to act chivalrously or something.
 
I agree with nycindie that romance and love are different. Romantic attraction doesn't always involve love, and love doesn't require romance. However, for many people an intimate relationship starts from romantic attraction, which eventually evolves into deep love, so romantic orientation is relevant to their relationships. For some people, though, an intimate relationship doesn't have to be romantic, or they even prefer it to be non-romantic, so they may see their romantic orientation as irrelevant or unimportant. Personally, I'm heteroromantic, but I'm capable of having emotionally intimate relationships with people of the same sex, which are as significant as my romantic relationships. So while I don't mind identifying as heteroromantic, I don't see it as very important to my relationships.

On a related note, I think aromantic people can be polyamorous, because I use the "multiple loving/intimate relationships" definition of poly and loving/intimate isn't necessarily romantic. This is probably not a popular view in the poly community though.
 
I had a lot of fun doing this test/survey!

Thanks for that :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top