Re: [UUPoly-L] Thank you Desmond Ravenstone
On Dec 4, 2006, at 3:15 PM, Laura Stewart wrote:
I would see the midpoint of the monogamy to polyfidelity side being
relationships that allow only one primary but allows secondaries, but
allows no casual sex, as the relationship is not fully open to other
love on the same level as the primary relationship.
I've been fascinated by thinking over this triangle map concept, and
particularly the naming of the third corner. On one hand, there's
your suggestion, putting polyfidelity at the extreme, with
hierarchical poly as a mid-point between that and monogamy; and then
there's someone else's suggestion that fully open polyamory is the
extreme, with polyfi as a mid-point between polyamory and monogamy.
As I see it, if you're looking to separate "openness to more love"
from "openness to more sex," then neither of the above is quite the
extreme you're after. Simply using polyamory, without specifying a
form of polyamory, implies openness to both both sexual and loving
relationships. And for that matter, many poly people practice
hierarchical poly, and as you say above, there is a boundary inherent
in that model that keeps it from being the absolute extreme of the
type. But in a similar way, polyfidelity is not fully open to more
love either -- there may be multiple equal loving relationships
within the group, but there's also a restriction on adding new partners.
Upon reflection, I think that the extreme of "openness to love" would
be one particular form of polyamory, different from polyfi: A
committed group which was not open to casual sex, but which was open
to additional partners joining the group, with no hierarchical
distinctions are made between these various partners. I'm not
personally familiar with anyone living this way, but I'm sure there
are some out there. Unfortunately, I also don't know a name for it.
It's all a lot of fun to think about, though!
Zanne
This archive was generated by a fusion of
Pipermail (Mailman edition) and
MHonArc.