On Tue, 5 Dec 2006, John Ullman wrote:
> I'd like to propose a different way to contrast multiple partner > relationships.
I have little need for drawing such contrasts. In my world, the division between consensual (honest) and nonconsensual (whether by dishonesty or otherwise) relationships is enough, for a first approximation.
If I need finer distinctions, I think the most important one is whether I am personally involved in a relationship, and the second most important one would be who exactly it's with.
Because for all that we can say we're looking for X or Y or Z type activities, I think that what we wind up actually doing depends more on who we are and who we're with than on any expectations we bring to it.
Bear
I would like to remind everyone that the origin of the discussion of charts was with someone's seeking of a purely descriptive continuum of multipartner relationships, akin to Kinsey's continuum of sexual orientation. It has not been the overall suggestion that these descriptors be used as criteria or as labels with uses beyond description.
I just point this out because many people seem to be saying essentially "Why must we label and say who is and is not poly!" and other similar things, seemingly in response to the discussion of continua and charts of said continua.
In the same way that there's no real need to draw a disntiction between heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual, pansexual, anthrosexual, etc., there's no real need to draw a distinction between different relationship types unless one is involved in them. The drawing of said distinctions can be useful for being descriptive and clear. Description and clarity are very important to many people's intellectual curiosity and desire for academic understanding of human relations.
-Laura