Re: [UUPoly-L] I like Laura's idea

["Laura Stewart" <lonelocust@gmail.com>]

Well, while you could add BDSM (and any number of other things), I
don't know that it's really related.  If we're talking about a
monogamy/non-monogamy scale, I don't think it's that relevant.  If you
disagree, I'd love to hear the reasoning.  Also, the triangular chart
model doesn't really work anymore if you make it into other polygons.

I would see a triangle with complete monogamy on one tip, polyfidelity
on one tip, and strich strangers-only swinging on one tip.  (This
would leave out cheating and dishonest relationships in general.)  One
side would essentially measure the relationship's openness to
additional love, and one side the relationship's openness to aditional
sex.

Do people know what I'm talking about with the triangular chart?  I
think they're neat.  And I have a thing for charts.  They're fun.

-Laura

On 12/1/06, Doug Walters <dougwalt1@comcast.net> wrote:
> Thanks Laura for knocking my head enough to get me out of a linear line of
> thinking.  A triangle?  Well what about a square and then we can add BDSM.
> And then what I really like is a 3 or 4 sided pyrimid with relationship
> commitment being the vertical scale.  But then what would be at the tip?
> Everything but nothing.  Less is more?  Would that be the enlighted cylibit
> existence where physical form is no long a necessity?
>
> I can see I will have fun playing with the possibilities.  Thanks Laura.
>
> Doug in Portland, OR
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> The UUPoly-L mailing list has public archives.
> Please keep that in mind when deciding how much to reveal about yourself.
> UUPoly-L mailing list
> UUPoly-L@uupa.org
> http://www.uupa.org/mailman/listinfo/uupoly-l