lovefromgirl
New member
That's how I feel about it, anyway. We only get to choose for ourselves, and I think mono people who spend any time around polys figure that out right quick.
Philosophical Semantics, Part I
- Thread starter kdt26417
- Start date
That's how I feel about it, anyway. We only get to choose for ourselves, and I think mono people who spend any time around polys figure that out right quick.
Using "monoamorous" rather than "monogamous", I'll explain my general position here (I don't think I can respond to each question specifically).
I see polyamory as being able to fall in love again while you are already in love. Therefore, someone who is slightly polyamorous would be able to fall in love while already in love, but not very often, while someone extremely polyamorous would fall in love just as often when they're already in love with someone than when they aren't (or even more often, possibly).
Someone slightly mono would sometimes not fall in love while already in love, but that wouldn't be the rule. Someone extremely mono would just be unable to fall in love again when already in love. It would never happen.
Sadly, all these don't seem to take into account the fact that it might change during one's life, or depend on your partner(s).
I see polyamory as being able to fall in love again while you are already in love. Therefore, someone who is slightly polyamorous would be able to fall in love while already in love, but not very often, while someone extremely polyamorous would fall in love just as often when they're already in love with someone than when they aren't (or even more often, possibly).
Someone slightly mono would sometimes not fall in love while already in love, but that wouldn't be the rule. Someone extremely mono would just be unable to fall in love again when already in love. It would never happen.
Sadly, all these don't seem to take into account the fact that it might change during one's life, or depend on your partner(s).
Re (from Precious1):
Good points Precious, I believe it is a "square/rectangular" situation.
Re (from Tonberry):
That makes sense; I like your approach here.
Re (from Tonberry):
Not explicitly, but I like to think it could be implied that, for instance, "very poly" could mean "very poly at the present moment." Just my view, anyways ...
I'll try to get around to answering my own riddles in about a week. Thanks for your (past and future) input, all, it's very interesting to me.
Kevin
Good points Precious, I believe it is a "square/rectangular" situation.
Re (from Tonberry):
That makes sense; I like your approach here.
Re (from Tonberry):
Not explicitly, but I like to think it could be implied that, for instance, "very poly" could mean "very poly at the present moment." Just my view, anyways ...
I'll try to get around to answering my own riddles in about a week. Thanks for your (past and future) input, all, it's very interesting to me.
Kevin
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?
Thank you, of course for the reassurances. Likewise. I am having a blast corresponding with you and the other folks here. I figure with my ideas, I could spend two months lurking, carefully getting to know everyone & saying nary a bad word, but then I would end up offending everyone anyway when the real back-and-forth got going. So I skipped the first two months. Hopefully that doesn't make me Pol Pot. (I do smoke Pot.)
"It is bullshit," "It's bullshit to say that," & "Again that is bullshit" sound like absolute pronouncements to me, but then again I live in the country & I've developed quite a distaste for cow manure.
I have a garage understanding of philosophy, so I may indeed be using the word wrong. My understanding is that "subjectivism" means that reality is different for every individual & no objective truth exists.
Honestly, the explanation for why my group thinks monogamy is objectively a bad thing opens a much bigger can of worms than message-board chitchat. It involves challenging premises that we all take for granted. For instance, we argue that "need" shouldn't be the basis on which relationships are sought out or formed, that a relationship should be positive-goal seeking instead of negative-goal seeking.
We're also quite fond of using thought-experiments that place sex in a normative frame of reference, along with other intimate, personal expression & social interaction such as art, music, platonic friendship etc. What if "mono-friend-ist" was considered a normal, natural "orientation" for people just like mono-amory/monogamy? That once you made one good platonic friend, all other expressions of friendship with anyone were considered a betrayal, a negative, "cheating" on the original friendship? Would that "work for people" who consented to it? Would they not be restricted or possessed in any unhealthy way by their mono-friend? Try answering without appealing to convention or common practice, i.e. "People have shown they feel a need to..." or "Romantic love has always been thought of in a different way..."
Lastly, we're very concerned with figuring out what sex & love actually are -- the actual inherent meanings of those things. Very few people have ever tried to define love or sex as an objective value, yet somehow people endlessly pontificate & debate what to do about them. There is no way to build a house without a foundation, and I don't agree with you that all foundations are the same. If confronted on one hand with a Buddhist and on the other with a Nazi, I feel strongly that the Nazi has a lot of, well, bullshit that led him to be a Nazi. The labels and paradigms we choose have something to do with who we are. They are not simply arbitrary blank slates.
I agree with much of what you say. You make me realize I've been using the word "monogamy" in a narrow definition. I don't mean people who choose to only be sexually/romantically involved with one person because that's the only person they're interested in. I'm using monogamy in the common "IF you betray our exclusivity, then we have a problem" sense where a partner is expected to NOT express their sexuality in ways w, x, y, or z to anyone except the monogamous partner, at the risk of being cast as bad/hurtful/guilty & being a "cheater." If sexual expression is inherently positive & comes from a good compassionate place, then that sort of monogamy amounts to informing one's partner that what is good about them makes them bad because it wasn't expressed to only YOU. In short, it's consensual megalomania.
Two people who only go out w/ each other because it's the only sex or romantic expression they find themselves honestly interested in -- now that's something different. A few wiseguys in my movement would say, "Yes, the vocabulary word is boring" -- but I've known people who have a hard time even getting up the gumption to be involved with one person. As my friend Aaron Howard puts it, "love and fuck are difficult." So I have sympathy toward people who are monogamists because they're only attracted to or comfortable with one person out of everyone they've met. It's not necessarily ideal, but it's what some are driven to, and I do my very best to understand & accept them.
As far as being silly or arrogant, what's more silly or arrogant than to ask your partner to consent to only express her sexuality to YOU personally, directly, in situations that you approve of because they involve you being naked & receiving pleasure? This touches on the "business deal" model of relationships that I believe is at the core of most possessive/monogamist attitudes & emotional problems. Will Murphy, a philosopher who is a friend of the movement I belong to but himself a monogamist (of the second category mentioned) claims that most people not only use each other all the time, but they wouldn't even understand what it would mean not to use each other. I understand why I'm an unpopular person saying that I agree with that, but clearly we can see something is wrong -- our divorce rate & Ashleymadison.com tells us how badly our relationship culture is failing people. I believe that searching for a better way is more humble, more rational, than patting everyone on the back & continuing off the cliff.
Last edited:
IndieSolo
Active member
Oh, nothing you can say would offend me. Feeling offended is a choice. An anonymous voice on a message board is not important enough to me to choose that. I might find your way of spouting opinions and theories annoying but, in the grand scheme of my life, what you write here doesn't matter to me. I will say, however, it would be much more interesting and compelling if you spoke for yourself rather than this group you belong to and obviously revere. >>YAWN<<
Last edited:
Re (from Shadowgbq):
Good question; I don't know. I suppose it would depend on who consented to it, why they consented to it, if it was truly mutual consent, and if they really knew what they were doing. Granted, it doesn't sound like something that would be good for the vast majority.
Thread not forgotten; I've just been having a challenging time keeping up with things,
Good question; I don't know. I suppose it would depend on who consented to it, why they consented to it, if it was truly mutual consent, and if they really knew what they were doing. Granted, it doesn't sound like something that would be good for the vast majority.
Thread not forgotten; I've just been having a challenging time keeping up with things,
Kevin's Part I Answers (Post 1 of 3)
As promised (and in case it's of interest to anyone), I am finally posting my answers to my own riddles.
First, let's look at the Kinsey scale (for comparison purposes) as it appears in Wikipedia:
Note: I am using "monogamous" and "monogamy" in a loosely-defined way. For purposes of this post, I am considering "monogamy" to be interchangeable with "monoamory." Or, if you really want to get exacting about definitions, please read each of my iterations of the word "monogamy" as if I were saying "monoamory." Monogamy is the more common word (especially among the non-poly populace), and is often used as if it were synonymous with what we think when we say "monoamory." So I am using the more common word, monogamy. (And monogamous.)
To some degree, I will try to reconcile the above model of the Lorax scale with the "original version:"
So, there are two components "separating" polyamory from monogamy: the sexual component, and the emotional component. If someone is non-monogamous in both areas, then they're polyamorous. If they're monogamous in both areas, then they're "monogamous overall." If, on the other hand, they're monogamous in the emotional area, but non-monogamous in the sexual area, then they're (generally speaking) in line with swinging. That sort of says to me that swinging meets "half" of the criteria for polyamory. It meets the sexual half, but emotionally it remains monogamous. Thus, I somewhat tend to define "classic swinging" as Lorax 3: right in the middle (between 0 and 6).
Now, polyfidelity isn't so "easy" to place on the scale. It seems like a very "conservative" version of polyamory (hence the word "monogamy" with all its connoted traditions pops into mind). But polyfidelity is also very different from swinging, and it is "both emotionally and sexually non-monogamous." This idea puts it much "higher" on the scale. Lorax 6, if "all the lovers (i.e. partners) are equally important."
A judgment call: I'm going to kind of reserve Lorax 0 and Lorax 6 for special cases where the person "(seldom or) never changes:" that is, they're "always monogamous" (throughout their life), or "always polyamorous" (in the case of Lorax 6).
I say this because Lorax 0 and 1 tend to be differentiated by whether it's "serial monogamy" or "true monogamy." If it's Lorax 0, then there's never a second partner (not even after death or divorce). By contrast, I would think that Lorax 6 suggests there's *always* a multiple-partner model for the person, throughout their life. If they switch from monogamy to polyamory (as an example), then it shows that they "have a little monogamy in them." Thus, I would have to say, Lorax 5. They couldn't be Lorax 6 unless they had *always* gravitated toward the multiple-partner model.
What I'm saying is, some polyfidelitists might be Lorax 6, but more polyfidelitists (and more polyamorists in general) will tend to be a Lorax 5 (or lower). If Lorax 0 = "lifetime monogamy," then Lorax 6 = "lifetime polyamory."
Now, the "polycule" to which I belong is polyfidelitous -- we are an MFM poly-fi emotional triad or V -- but we have each previously been monogamous. That makes us perhaps a Lorax 5. However, all three of us are "primaries" within our relationship, so how does that track with the "strict primary/secondary structures" under Lorax 5?
Well, I think it still tracks if one of us was to get into a dating situation with a new (fourth) person. Until that new person was fully integrated (with a lifetime commitment) into our V/triad (making it an N/quad), they would be like a "secondary." No sex would be allowed with that person, and there would be a certain amount of veto power in play with the "three-person in-group." Not that an actual veto would likely happen, but the needs of the "in-group" would tend to trump the new relationship if any conflicts arose. Hence, the word "secondary" could and would apply.
Now don't be offended; I'm not trying to describe "the right way of doing things," or "how polyfidelity is (or ought to be) done." I'm merely using myself (and my situation) as an example of how "strict primary/secondary structures" can exist in (or around) a poly unit with an "all-primary" internal structure.
So, that's a lot of preliminary talk coming from me, but in doing all that talking, I've laid out the groundwork to answer most of my riddles (with many inferred explanations). I feel confident enough to go ahead and start "answering the riddles."
Fair warning: I am fixing to use some gender-neutral pronouns, so try to be patient when I use "xe" for he/she, and "hir" for him, her, etc.
[continued below]
As promised (and in case it's of interest to anyone), I am finally posting my answers to my own riddles.
First, let's look at the Kinsey scale (for comparison purposes) as it appears in Wikipedia:
- Kinsey 0 = exclusively heterosexual.
- Kinsey 1 = predominantly heterosexual, only incidentally homosexual.
- Kinsey 2 = predominantly heterosexual, but more than incidentally homosexual.
- Kinsey 3 = equally heterosexual and homosexual.
- Kinsey 4 = predominantly homosexual, but more than incidentally heterosexual.
- Kinsey 5 = predominantly homosexual, only incidentally heterosexual.
- Kinsey 6 = exclusively homosexual.
- Kinsey X = non-sexual.
- Lorax 0 = exclusively monogamous.
- Lorax 1 = predominantly monogamous, only incidentally polyamorous.
- Lorax 2 = predominantly monogamous, but more than incidentally polyamorous.
- Lorax 3 = equally monogamous and polyamorous.
- Lorax 4 = predominantly polyamorous, but more than incidentally monogamous.
- Lorax 5 = predominantly polyamorous, only incidentally monogamous.
- Lorax 6 = exclusively polyamorous.
- Lorax X = preferring to be un-partnered (bachelor or bachelorette).
Note: I am using "monogamous" and "monogamy" in a loosely-defined way. For purposes of this post, I am considering "monogamy" to be interchangeable with "monoamory." Or, if you really want to get exacting about definitions, please read each of my iterations of the word "monogamy" as if I were saying "monoamory." Monogamy is the more common word (especially among the non-poly populace), and is often used as if it were synonymous with what we think when we say "monoamory." So I am using the more common word, monogamy. (And monogamous.)
To some degree, I will try to reconcile the above model of the Lorax scale with the "original version:"
- Lorax 0 = monogamous: only one partner, ever.
- Lorax 1 = serial monogamous.
- Lorax 2 = occasional threesomes.
- Lorax 3 = frequent threesomes.
- Lorax 4 = one lover more important than rest.
- Lorax 5 = multiple lovers.
- Lorax 6 = polyamorous: all lovers equally important.
- Lorax 0 = lifetime monogamy.
- Lorax 1 = serial monogamy.
- Lorax 2 = infrequent non-monogamous sexual contact.
- Lorax 3 = limited non-monogamy (e.g., multiple FWBs).
- Lorax 4 = frequent non-monogamy with some romantic elements (e.g., swinging with a regular group).
- Lorax 5 = limited polyamory (e.g., strict primary/secondary structures).
- Lorax 6 = free-form polyamory.
So, there are two components "separating" polyamory from monogamy: the sexual component, and the emotional component. If someone is non-monogamous in both areas, then they're polyamorous. If they're monogamous in both areas, then they're "monogamous overall." If, on the other hand, they're monogamous in the emotional area, but non-monogamous in the sexual area, then they're (generally speaking) in line with swinging. That sort of says to me that swinging meets "half" of the criteria for polyamory. It meets the sexual half, but emotionally it remains monogamous. Thus, I somewhat tend to define "classic swinging" as Lorax 3: right in the middle (between 0 and 6).
Now, polyfidelity isn't so "easy" to place on the scale. It seems like a very "conservative" version of polyamory (hence the word "monogamy" with all its connoted traditions pops into mind). But polyfidelity is also very different from swinging, and it is "both emotionally and sexually non-monogamous." This idea puts it much "higher" on the scale. Lorax 6, if "all the lovers (i.e. partners) are equally important."
A judgment call: I'm going to kind of reserve Lorax 0 and Lorax 6 for special cases where the person "(seldom or) never changes:" that is, they're "always monogamous" (throughout their life), or "always polyamorous" (in the case of Lorax 6).
I say this because Lorax 0 and 1 tend to be differentiated by whether it's "serial monogamy" or "true monogamy." If it's Lorax 0, then there's never a second partner (not even after death or divorce). By contrast, I would think that Lorax 6 suggests there's *always* a multiple-partner model for the person, throughout their life. If they switch from monogamy to polyamory (as an example), then it shows that they "have a little monogamy in them." Thus, I would have to say, Lorax 5. They couldn't be Lorax 6 unless they had *always* gravitated toward the multiple-partner model.
What I'm saying is, some polyfidelitists might be Lorax 6, but more polyfidelitists (and more polyamorists in general) will tend to be a Lorax 5 (or lower). If Lorax 0 = "lifetime monogamy," then Lorax 6 = "lifetime polyamory."
Now, the "polycule" to which I belong is polyfidelitous -- we are an MFM poly-fi emotional triad or V -- but we have each previously been monogamous. That makes us perhaps a Lorax 5. However, all three of us are "primaries" within our relationship, so how does that track with the "strict primary/secondary structures" under Lorax 5?
Well, I think it still tracks if one of us was to get into a dating situation with a new (fourth) person. Until that new person was fully integrated (with a lifetime commitment) into our V/triad (making it an N/quad), they would be like a "secondary." No sex would be allowed with that person, and there would be a certain amount of veto power in play with the "three-person in-group." Not that an actual veto would likely happen, but the needs of the "in-group" would tend to trump the new relationship if any conflicts arose. Hence, the word "secondary" could and would apply.
Now don't be offended; I'm not trying to describe "the right way of doing things," or "how polyfidelity is (or ought to be) done." I'm merely using myself (and my situation) as an example of how "strict primary/secondary structures" can exist in (or around) a poly unit with an "all-primary" internal structure.
So, that's a lot of preliminary talk coming from me, but in doing all that talking, I've laid out the groundwork to answer most of my riddles (with many inferred explanations). I feel confident enough to go ahead and start "answering the riddles."
Fair warning: I am fixing to use some gender-neutral pronouns, so try to be patient when I use "xe" for he/she, and "hir" for him, her, etc.
[continued below]
Last edited:
Kevin's Part I Answers (Post 2 of 3)
[continued from above]
Riddle #1, answered: I'll estimate that
Yes, it's true that animals like the Lorax scale can't "explain everything" ... (far from it).
Riddle #3, answered: Yes, I believe some people (like Person VII) can be "half-mono/half-poly." My thinking is similar to that of the Kinsey scale; there's a kind of spectrum here and most people probably don't "live in the extremes." One could theorize that everyone has a little bisexual (or potential pansexual) in them; likewise, most people have some capacity to be monogamous, and some capacity to be polyamorous. Heck, maybe the majority (consciously or subconsciously) gravitates toward "Lorax 3;" I couldn't say.
As per my earlier explanation, a swinger could be considered one kind of "half-and-half" person. Another possibility would be the "flip side of swing:" a person who has a lot of emotional/romantic (but not physical) relationships (emotional non-monogamy), but only one sexual partner (sexual monogamy). And then I suppose there's another spectrum between those two "flip sides;" people with varying degrees of sexual/emotional monogamy/non-monogamy, that "add up to half-and-half." Which is a good example of how the Lorax scale is too 2-dimensional (actually too 1-dimensional) to describe all situations ... but oh well, for purposes of this riddle, I'm content.
Riddle #4, answered: Person VIII (the polyfidelitist) is, statistically speaking, most likely to fit Lorax 5. An exception would be a person who was inescapably poly all their life despite all the usual monogamous conditioning -- but since we're talking probabilities here, I'm assuming that Person VIII is less the exception and more the rule. So, Person VIII, like Person IV, could probably be considered "slightly monogamous" (and "quite a bit polyamorous"). Whew, I think I got that all straight ...
Riddle #5, answered: Person IX (the swinger) is, statistically speaking, most likely to fit Lorax 3. (Again, we are assuming "the rule" here, not the exception.) As per my earlier explanation of "classic swinging," this is "one way" of being half-monogamous, half-polyamorous. Or, like (a cross between) Person II and Person V, "moderately monogamous" and "moderately polyamorous" would both be adequate labels. (Again, whew ...)
Riddle #6, answered: Let's see if I can somehow list this ...
None of this is to say that a "less polyamorous" person can't adapt to a poly setting (as human beings tend to be amazingly creative and adaptive creatures), or at the very least, that a "less polyamorous" (or even "completely monogamous") person couldn't tolerate life with a poly partner (that is, a partner who has other partners/outside relationships). Mono/poly couplings are probably sometimes more challenging than mono/mono or poly/poly (or poly/poly/poly, etc.) groupings, but I know it can be done. (I've been acquainted with couples who have done it.)
And, "more polyamorous" people can learn to live a monogamous life (except perhaps in the extremest of cases, where the person is totally poly an not very adaptive in the monogamous realm). In many/most cases, they can even live happily that way. But polyamory can sometimes be a doorway to even more fulfillment/happiness for the "more polyamorous" person.
Let me not ramble on any further ... This concludes my answers to "the riddles."
[continued below]
[continued from above]
Riddle #1, answered: I'll estimate that
- Person I (slightly polyamorous) is a Lorax 1 (about). He/she/xe is likely (though not guaranteed) to be a serial monogamist. Xe may slip up once or twice in his/her/hir life and have an affair. But xe will probably always return to whoever hir monogamous partner is at the time. Either that, or the (very infrequent) affair will lead to a break-up, and a subsequent change of monogamous partners. (Hence, part of the serial monogamy pattern.) Or, xe may have heard of polyamory and may be tolerant of the idea, but isn't very interested in doing it hirself (and may have a hard time tolerating it in a partner, but that's not for sure).
- Person II (moderately polyamorous) is a Lorax 3 or 4. Possibly a swinger, possibly a person with FWBs, or a swinger kind of transitioning into polyamory. Xe may have a slight preference for polyamory, but can probably live monogamously and be reasonably comfortable with it. Or possibly, xe has conflicting feelings about monogamy and polyamory, and isn't quite sure what xe wants (but leans a bit in the poly direction). Another possibility is someone who has many emotional involvements, but not many (or only one) sexual involvement/s.
- Person III (extremely polyamorous) is a Lorax 6. Xe has always had poly tendancies, and if xe ever tried to be monogamous, it made hir really unhappy. Number of partners is unknown, but is possibly a small/moderate number since each relationship has a lot of emotional involvement/commitment.
- Person IV (slightly monogamous) is a Lorax 5 (about). He/she/xe may have been contentedly monogamous for quite awhile (given that monogamy is the usual social expectation), but at some point, xe found himself/herself/hirself in love with two people, not wanting to break up with either. Xe may have discovered the word "polyamory" while searching for a solution to that dilemma, or perhaps discovers it later (after already having lived poly for quite awhile without knowing there's a word for it). Alternatively, xe may conform to the model of monogamy throughout life, but not very neatly and/or not very happily. Perhaps xe has wistful moments about "what might be in a different world."
- Person V (moderately monogamous) is a Lorax 2 or 3. Has probably done some "experimenting outside the marriage," or just has a FWB or two. Could be a (bad/worst-case scenario) really chronic cheater, with a string of failed "monogamous" relationships and a tendency to get caught (it's just a matter of time). On the other hand, could be "successfully" monogamous/monofidelitous, but not with much happiness. On the other hand, could be someone that's pretty flexible about mono-or-poly living (but might lean towards monogamy).
- Person VI (extremely monogamous) is a Lorax 0. A model monogamist (darn them, makes it so much harder to explain/defend polyamory). Never cheated, never got struck with wanderlust, probably never even looked at another soul (besides hir highschool/eternal sweetheart). Doesn't mean xe can't be accepting of polyamorists; just means xe'd never do it hirself.
Yes, it's true that animals like the Lorax scale can't "explain everything" ... (far from it).Riddle #3, answered: Yes, I believe some people (like Person VII) can be "half-mono/half-poly." My thinking is similar to that of the Kinsey scale; there's a kind of spectrum here and most people probably don't "live in the extremes." One could theorize that everyone has a little bisexual (or potential pansexual) in them; likewise, most people have some capacity to be monogamous, and some capacity to be polyamorous. Heck, maybe the majority (consciously or subconsciously) gravitates toward "Lorax 3;" I couldn't say.
As per my earlier explanation, a swinger could be considered one kind of "half-and-half" person. Another possibility would be the "flip side of swing:" a person who has a lot of emotional/romantic (but not physical) relationships (emotional non-monogamy), but only one sexual partner (sexual monogamy). And then I suppose there's another spectrum between those two "flip sides;" people with varying degrees of sexual/emotional monogamy/non-monogamy, that "add up to half-and-half." Which is a good example of how the Lorax scale is too 2-dimensional (actually too 1-dimensional) to describe all situations ... but oh well, for purposes of this riddle, I'm content.
Riddle #4, answered: Person VIII (the polyfidelitist) is, statistically speaking, most likely to fit Lorax 5. An exception would be a person who was inescapably poly all their life despite all the usual monogamous conditioning -- but since we're talking probabilities here, I'm assuming that Person VIII is less the exception and more the rule. So, Person VIII, like Person IV, could probably be considered "slightly monogamous" (and "quite a bit polyamorous"). Whew, I think I got that all straight ...
Riddle #5, answered: Person IX (the swinger) is, statistically speaking, most likely to fit Lorax 3. (Again, we are assuming "the rule" here, not the exception.) As per my earlier explanation of "classic swinging," this is "one way" of being half-monogamous, half-polyamorous. Or, like (a cross between) Person II and Person V, "moderately monogamous" and "moderately polyamorous" would both be adequate labels. (Again, whew ...)
Riddle #6, answered: Let's see if I can somehow list this ...
- Extremely monogamous = Lorax 0.0 ... exclusively lifetime monogamous: only one partner, ever. Although I suppose it's possible for someone to start out life at this extreme and then later moderate (possibly even finding a second romantic partner). Might be really unlikely, though.
- Slightly polyamorous = approx. Lorax 1.0 ... in general, this is where serial monogamy falls. Could also apply to the "occasional cheater," or to someone who occasionally "experiments outside the marriage." As with Lorax 0, a person might transition to some other Lorax number over time (perhaps significantly more likely).
- Moderately monogamous = approx. Lorax 2.5 ... almost "half-and-half" but a little more on the "mono side." Could be someone (monogamously married) with a FWB, or an occasional swinger. A really "bad case of serial monogamy" (e.g. ten divorces and counting) might go here, or "frequent cheating" if the person doesn't have their act together. A married person with several outside romantic relationships (that are never acted on in any physical way) might fall under this category. Transitioning to another Lorax number from here might be even more likely (than from Lorax 1).
- Moderately polyamorous = approx. Lorax 3.5 ... almost "half-and-half" but a little more on the "poly side." Could be someone who frequently engages in extramarital sex, maybe even with some "emotional entanglements" with a few people. Or, quite a bit of extramarital "romance" but only a little extramarital sexual contact. This person would also of course be fully connected (emotionally and sexually) with their main/primary/marital/monoarmorous partner. Again, the person could easily transition to a different Lorax number over time (not to mention move around in the more 3-dimensional space that the Lorax scale doesn't describe).
- Slightly monogamous = approx. Lorax 5.0 ... probably the vast majority of polyamorists fall into this category -- both "open" and "closed" (such as polyfidelitous) relationships. So many of us lived as monogamists for a long time, and weren't terribly unhappy in doing so. Still, "discovering polyamory" in our lives has been an enriching experience. As for the primary/secondary dynamic, it often exists in some way, shape, or form, even if it feels uncomfortable to talk about it.
- Extremely polyamorous = Lorax 6.0 ... someone who has been polyamorous all of their life, to the point that if they ever tried to be monogamous, they were miserable in so doing. Perhaps some people at this extreme are open to more "kinds" of polyamory. They might even be "relationship anarchists."
None of this is to say that a "less polyamorous" person can't adapt to a poly setting (as human beings tend to be amazingly creative and adaptive creatures), or at the very least, that a "less polyamorous" (or even "completely monogamous") person couldn't tolerate life with a poly partner (that is, a partner who has other partners/outside relationships). Mono/poly couplings are probably sometimes more challenging than mono/mono or poly/poly (or poly/poly/poly, etc.) groupings, but I know it can be done. (I've been acquainted with couples who have done it.)
And, "more polyamorous" people can learn to live a monogamous life (except perhaps in the extremest of cases, where the person is totally poly an not very adaptive in the monogamous realm). In many/most cases, they can even live happily that way. But polyamory can sometimes be a doorway to even more fulfillment/happiness for the "more polyamorous" person.
Let me not ramble on any further ... This concludes my answers to "the riddles."
[continued below]
Kevin's Part I Answers (Post 3 of 3)
[continued from above]
Closing disclaimers: All these answers I've given are true and sincere reflections of how I currently perceive things ... but I don't consider any of them to be "definitive," "perfect," or "universal" answers. They're all inevitably flawed. And my perceptions (and thus my answers to the riddles) could easily change (or expand). Indeed, the whole scope of this discussion tends to fall outside the bounds of any glossary, as it's all so subjective and prone to stereotyping. Ultimately, the riddles remain riddles.
Still, the ideas of "more poly" and "less poly" (or "more mono") do seem to have some meaning to the intuition. Some people seem to be "better adapted to poly" or "more suited to monoamory." I know of at least one couple that tends to self-identify as poly, yet has trouble practicing polyamory and seems to have less drama when they stick to monoamory (or are in a relatively monogamous state of affairs). Also, for me, this stuff all adds up to an interesting/useful thought exercise, especially when pondering the big question: "What does 'more polyamorous' mean?"
Finally, I'll reiterate that I mean/intend no harm/bias/offense against those who are monogamous (or "more monogamous"). I don't subscribe to the idea that "monogamy is inherently evil." Yes, it would be strange for someone to limit their platonic friends to just one person, but the "sucky" reality is, that romantic love is different from platonic/familial love. The different kinds of love can be compared, sure, and I believe polyamory can be a healthy way of living (if done sensitively and sensibly). But, for example, we might say it's okay for an adult to have a platonic friendship with a child (or for a parent to share familial love with their child), but we certainly wouldn't say that by analogy, it would be okay for an adult to have a romantic relationship with a child. So romantic love does sometimes have different "rules" than platonic love. That's why I think "monogamy is (or can sometimes be) okay." It's not right for everyone, but some people can have monogamous romantic feelings. It happens.
Sometimes monogamy happens because of overwhelming social conditioning, and it's never good when monogamy is a "state of co-ownership." People are not (or shouldn't be) property. But some couples really are naturally monogamous, and willingly commit to be exclusive to each other without demanding (even implicitly) that commitment from each other. That's my belief. It's part of my belief system.
Now, is it more common to be naturally/internally polyamorous? Quite possibly. But with society skewed by all the extra monogamous conditioning, it's hard (for me, anyway) to tell. I admit I know of a lot of crappy/dysfunctional monogamous relationships. But I also know of some good/wholesome monogamous relationships. And all relationships can (hopefully do) improve over time.
[continued from above]
Closing disclaimers: All these answers I've given are true and sincere reflections of how I currently perceive things ... but I don't consider any of them to be "definitive," "perfect," or "universal" answers. They're all inevitably flawed. And my perceptions (and thus my answers to the riddles) could easily change (or expand). Indeed, the whole scope of this discussion tends to fall outside the bounds of any glossary, as it's all so subjective and prone to stereotyping. Ultimately, the riddles remain riddles.
Still, the ideas of "more poly" and "less poly" (or "more mono") do seem to have some meaning to the intuition. Some people seem to be "better adapted to poly" or "more suited to monoamory." I know of at least one couple that tends to self-identify as poly, yet has trouble practicing polyamory and seems to have less drama when they stick to monoamory (or are in a relatively monogamous state of affairs). Also, for me, this stuff all adds up to an interesting/useful thought exercise, especially when pondering the big question: "What does 'more polyamorous' mean?"
Finally, I'll reiterate that I mean/intend no harm/bias/offense against those who are monogamous (or "more monogamous"). I don't subscribe to the idea that "monogamy is inherently evil." Yes, it would be strange for someone to limit their platonic friends to just one person, but the "sucky" reality is, that romantic love is different from platonic/familial love. The different kinds of love can be compared, sure, and I believe polyamory can be a healthy way of living (if done sensitively and sensibly). But, for example, we might say it's okay for an adult to have a platonic friendship with a child (or for a parent to share familial love with their child), but we certainly wouldn't say that by analogy, it would be okay for an adult to have a romantic relationship with a child. So romantic love does sometimes have different "rules" than platonic love. That's why I think "monogamy is (or can sometimes be) okay." It's not right for everyone, but some people can have monogamous romantic feelings. It happens.
Sometimes monogamy happens because of overwhelming social conditioning, and it's never good when monogamy is a "state of co-ownership." People are not (or shouldn't be) property. But some couples really are naturally monogamous, and willingly commit to be exclusive to each other without demanding (even implicitly) that commitment from each other. That's my belief. It's part of my belief system.
Now, is it more common to be naturally/internally polyamorous? Quite possibly. But with society skewed by all the extra monogamous conditioning, it's hard (for me, anyway) to tell. I admit I know of a lot of crappy/dysfunctional monogamous relationships. But I also know of some good/wholesome monogamous relationships. And all relationships can (hopefully do) improve over time.
lovefromgirl
New member
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? What about asexuals, who can only then be rated on their romantic inclinations? Are you throwing them off the Lorax/out of poly as you see it?
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:
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:
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.
Re:
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:
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.
lovefromgirl
New member
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
IndieSolo
Active member
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.
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.
lovefromgirl
New member
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.