Story Tuesday, June 14, 2016

[hkmaly 490]

18 hours ago, Scotty said:

I think if we were to draw parallels here, what Ellen and Archie did would basically have been what could have happened with Elliot and Sarah but Elliot was afraid of giving into lust with Sarah because of not only the possibility of getting Sarah pregnant at a young age (like what happened with his mom) but also the possibility of ruining their friendship.

You mean that Sarah could've force Elliot into sex? ... because, remember, it was SARAH who complained about still being virgin.

18 hours ago, Scotty said:

The way Ellen described it, her second life counterpart was more interested in a physical relationship, while Archie was more into mental connections and cuddling

The way Ellen described the breakup, she was more interested in a physical relationship, while Archie was only dating for the cuddling ... which doesn't add up for me. They BOTH wanted physical relationship, only Ellen wanted it closer? But if you look before the sex bit, Ellen seem to describe actually loving him.

18 hours ago, Scotty said:

It's canon that Grace can't get pregnant in her half squirrel form so it's really a matter of whether Grace wanted to or not, I think we know Tedd's answer if asked though.

She also can't get pregnant if Tedd is girl. Although I'm not sure if either of them would like to explore this option ...

18 hours ago, Scotty said:

Yeah, but her relationship with Tedd allowed her to suggest doing a search like that, she didn't try that with Justin and likely wouldn't with Rhoda and Catalina, though I'm sure she wouldn't be opposed to it if they asked her to help look.

No. It's Tedd's relationship with her (I know, small difference). She would do it to anyone, except she realizes some people would not like it which is reason to not do it: Tedd, due to his relationship with her, wouldn't object.

8 hours ago, vvaivi said:

Is the population of Greater Seyunolus (say-un-oh-lus?) great enough to provide statistically significant data on the % of asexual and polyamorous Greater Seyunolus?

Yes. But it may not be on (this) Earth.

There are strong hints that humans (and Earth animals) are not only form of life Uryuom tried to have children with.

1 hour ago, pfc said:

Pretty much everyone I'm dating, or who is dating someone I'm dating, has a long-distance relationship with someone who has their own poly community where they live. Not only am I unlikely ever to meet these people, I'm definitely never going to meet their partners!

... how big part of Earth population is within six relationships from you?

31 minutes ago, Matoyak said:

Dan mentioned on Tumblr that he was aware of an issue in today's comic related to the definition of polyamory in it, and that he'd be addressing it in the next comic. I suspect this is what he's talking about.

So THIS is why despite having the Q&A pre-scripted it's late again?

[Scotty 1,061]

31 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

You mean that Sarah could've force Elliot into sex? ... because, remember, it was SARAH who complained about still being virgin.

Possibly, but we're talking about parallel universes where a person is faced with choices and each choice is reflected in that universe so in Ellen's second life, her counterpart chose to give in to lust, when Ellen was talking to Elliot about their shared memories of Sarah, Ellen said that "we always cared more about not jeopardizing the friendship by giving into the lustful feelings of a lifelong friend".

48 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

The way Ellen described the breakup, she was more interested in a physical relationship, while Archie was only dating for the cuddling ... which doesn't add up for me. They BOTH wanted physical relationship, only Ellen wanted it closer? But if you look before the sex bit, Ellen seem to describe actually loving him.

In the second round of Ellen's second life dreams, we see her taking a strong interest in Archie, but it seem more like a one sided physical attraction, you can see Ellen's watching him from a distance so I'd say Ellen had the beginnings of a crush on Archie.

The third round of dreams, it's clear that Ellen and Archie have some degree of friendship, and Ellen's made her move and asked him out. Now we don't know exactly how Ellen went about doing that, but I'm willing to bet she tried to be sexy and Archie being not interested in that kind of relationship, turned her down. When Tedd explained how Archie might be just into cuddling, Ellen went back and likely apologized for her earlier behaviour and asked again with the promise that they didn't have to take it that far. Later on in high school, she started feeling that she wasn't satisfied with just cuddling, which eventually led her to pressuring Archie into having sex with her. Afterwards Archie felt what happened was wrong and broke up with Ellen, who then felt guilty about the whole thing and apologized, and her and Archie were able to remain friends.

[mlooney 3,417]

3 hours ago, Circe said:

The way my Southern relatives explain it is like this:

You - one person

Y'All - one - four people

All y'all - five or more people

 

More or less.

[Avistew 5]

On 6/14/2016 at 2:57 PM, CritterKeeper said:

Many polyamorous people see their whole family, of whatever size, as one relationship. While you can break it down into elements, such as (Alice and Bob) (Alice and Charlie) (Bob and Charlie), those are not the whole relationship, any more than hydrogen and oxygen taken separately are all there is to water.

That's news to me. Even when you' re in a triad or a quad or something, all the poly people I know consider each relationship its own thing (and sometimes extra ones for combinations of more than two people. For instance, people a triad may consider that the triad consists of four relationships: three dyads and one trio). While there are words to refer to the whole network such as, well, " network"  or "polycule", those consists of multiple relationships. Heck, several of the definitions for polyamory (including Merriam-Webster) include the words "several/more than one romantic relationships at the same time".

I'm not saying nobody ever says that it's all one big relationship (heck, I know couples who have a shared Facebook profile and never say "I" but "we" to everything, I can imagine a nonmonogamous equivalent to that), but that doesn't seem to be the standard to me.

Even if it were, the phrasing here is misleading. But at any rate I contacted Dan on twitter and he said he'd clarify in the next page and that he's aware that his definition was inaccurate.

3 hours ago, pfc said:

I have no objection to acknowledging the existence of triads... I just think it's important to clarify that "poly" is a broad term for dating multiple people (not necessarily all at once) and that specific types of relationships within that (solo poly, triad, primary, anchor, etc) are just that, subsets. It's frustrating that people assume that because you're poly, you're a. in a sister-wives scenario or b. in a triad relationship!

I agree. There is a broad range in polyamorous relationships. For instance, I have a husband, and I'm also part of a triad with a married couple. People tend to assume I'm bi, but I'm straight. My boyfriends are the ones who are bi. And even though we're all really close to one another (although my husband is straight and not romantically involved with either of my boyfriends) I can't imagine saying I'm in one relationship rather than in three.

[hkmaly 490]

2 hours ago, Scotty said:

3 hours ago, hkmaly said:

You mean that Sarah could've force Elliot into sex? ... because, remember, it was SARAH who complained about still being virgin.

Possibly, but we're talking about parallel universes where a person is faced with choices and each choice is reflected in that universe so in Ellen's second life, her counterpart chose to give in to lust, when Ellen was talking to Elliot about their shared memories of Sarah, Ellen said that "we always cared more about not jeopardizing the friendship by giving into the lustful feelings of a lifelong friend".

I meant that if Elliot would "give into the lustful feelings" Sarah wouldn't object. She was waiting for it impatiently. So they wouldn't break up due for that - although they would likely break up anyway, because it wasn't the only thing Sarah waited impatiently for Elliot to do.

2 hours ago, Scotty said:

The third round of dreams, it's clear that Ellen and Archie have some degree of friendship, and Ellen's made her move and asked him out. Now we don't know exactly how Ellen went about doing that, but I'm willing to bet she tried to be sexy and Archie being not interested in that kind of relationship, turned her down. When Tedd explained how Archie might be just into cuddling, Ellen went back and likely apologized for her earlier behaviour and asked again with the promise that they didn't have to take it that far. Later on in high school, she started feeling that she wasn't satisfied with just cuddling, which eventually led her to pressuring Archie into having sex with her. Afterwards Archie felt what happened was wrong and broke up with Ellen, who then felt guilty about the whole thing and apologized, and her and Archie were able to remain friends.

Whoa forgot about this bit. I must add it to wiki. But it actually matches what I though (maybe I did remember it subconsciously?).

I don't think she apologized and promised anything. It's not like she said she wants sex before (seriously, too young). She likely just pretended being friends is enough, despite actually wanting more - and this "more" was not sex. Not yet - in her age she wasn't likely to do anything more than hugging and cuddling. That's why I was talking about romantic feelings and her possibly being possessive.

And this "felt it was wrong" ... why? Doesn't make sense for him to feeling more "wrong" about it afterwards. It makes sense that Ellen felt it was wrong - because she was forcing him - but I think it was something different with Archie. Something that Ellen didn't mentioned and maybe even didn't noticed.

1 hour ago, Avistew said:

I know couples who have a shared Facebook profile and never say "I" but "we" to everything

... that reminds me of Borg.

1 hour ago, Avistew said:

I can't imagine saying I'm in one relationship rather than in three.

Can you imagine saying you are in two relationships? Because you sort of described it that way.

[CritterKeeper 1,102]

5 hours ago, pfc said:

Sure, some poly people view things that way, but many, many people don't. The problem here is that the comic is talking about the definition of poly, and equating it with triads.

I didn't get that it was limited to groups of three.  They even specified "three or more people all in one relationship together."

5 hours ago, pfc said:

Don't get me wrong, those relationships absolutely exist in the poly community, especially when everyone's queer. If you're dating someone, odds are good you'll be interested in the kind of people *they* are dating. I'm poly and I'm dating a partner (D) of my primary partner (B)'s partner (K), and D is interested in dating B-- and I could see myself dating K. So if that went down, we'd all be dating each other. At the same time, just because of the dynamics of our group, that would be a series of separate relationships, even though we hang out together a lot.

Some of the poly people I know would say that you are in a four-person relationship -- they don't think being intimate is a necessary part of being in a relationship.  Others would say that you aren't in a four-person relationship now, but that if you do end up "all dating each other," then you de facto would be.  (Note that I'm not saying that, only pointing out that the other perspectives exist and can be valid.)

5 hours ago, pfc said:

But also, including everyone's partners in your "family" can sometimes be downright impossible. When you're talking about a large community, it would be a logistical nightmare. Pretty much everyone I'm dating, or who is dating someone I'm dating, has a long-distance relationship with someone who has their own poly community where they live. Not only am I unlikely ever to meet these people, I'm definitely never going to meet their partners!

Joe can date both Bob and Michael without having a relationship with Bob's wife Judy or Michael's husband Charlie.  But, if Joe is a long-term committed partner to Bob, then it's pretty hard for him not to have some sort of relationship with Judy unless there's some pretty heavy deception going on somewhere.  Again, not necessarily a sexual or romantic relationship, but an emotional bond, even if it's just a shared commitment to and love of Bob, and the cooperation needed to keep Bob happy by all getting along and not tugging him in opposite directions all the time.

Gemma is in a long-term, committed relationship with Ben and Stuart, and the three of them live together.  That doesn't mean that everyone Ben dates is a part of their family.  Bringing another person into a family is a big commitment, and a decision all three would have to be a part of and agree to.  Any or all of the family can date casually without their dates being part of the family.

5 hours ago, pfc said:

So I have no objection to acknowledging the existence of triads... I just think it's important to clarify that "poly" is a broad term for dating multiple people (not necessarily all at once) and that specific types of relationships within that (solo poly, triad, primary, anchor, etc) are just that, subsets. It's frustrating that people assume that because you're poly, you're a. in a sister-wives scenario or b. in a triad relationship!

Again, I didn't see any such assumption in the comic, or in my earlier post.  The fact that we end up discussing Grace, Tedd, and Sarah means that families of three naturally come to mind, and I think the people who ship them as the OTT most often see them as all three being involved with each other.

2 hours ago, Avistew said:

That's news to me. Even when you' re in a triad or a quad or something, all the poly people I know consider each relationship its own thing (and sometimes extra ones for combinations of more than two people. For instance, people a triad may consider that the triad consists of four relationships: three dyads and one trio). While there are words to refer to the whole network such as, well, " network"  or "polycule", those consists of multiple relationships. Heck, several of the definitions for polyamory (including Merriam-Webster) include the words "several/more than one romantic relationships at the same time".

We seem to be saying the same thing in different ways.  Someone who is in a triad is in a relationship they call a triad.  I've known people who are in groups of five or six who refer to the whole group as a family, the same way a husband and wife and their kids are a family.  That doesn't mean there aren't relationships within that family, it just means that they occur within that relationship, the same way there are atoms of hydrogen and oxygen within water (or hydrogen peroxide, or a number of other compounds).

If you are dating a married man, you are dating one person, and his spouse may or may not know about it.  If you are in a triad with a married couple, it is a relationship involving all three of you.  Any one of you might also be in other relationships, and they are their own thing, however large or small they are.

Note that a relationship does not equate to having sex.  A triad might involve one woman and two men, all three of them straight. If the two men don't have a relationship at all, then it's just one woman dating two different guys.  If all three of them live together, go on dates together, raise children together, plan who marries who legally and who goes on whose health insurance and such, discuss who gets to sleep with who when, then they are in a relationship together.

2 hours ago, Avistew said:

I know couples who have a shared Facebook profile and never say "I" but "we" to everything, I can imagine a nonmonogamous equivalent to that), but that doesn't seem to be the standard to me.

That seems like a pretty unusual outlier, and a bit of a straw man.  People in a relationship are still individual people.

2 hours ago, Avistew said:

I agree. There is a broad range in polyamorous relationships. For instance, I have a husband, and I'm also part of a triad with a married couple. People tend to assume I'm bi, but I'm straight. My boyfriends are the ones who are bi. And even though we're all really close to one another (although my husband is straight and not romantically involved with either of my boyfriends) I can't imagine saying I'm in one relationship rather than in three.

So you are part of one relationship you call a marriage, and another relationship that you call a triad.  To me, that means you have some sort of relationship with the whole triad, not just your boyfriend within it, otherwise it wouldn't be a triad, only you having a relationship with him and he having a relationship with both you and someone else.

Perhaps there's some regional difference in the use of the word triad; maybe you have a different word for what I'm talking about. Like soda vs pop vs coke vs cola.  These days, online communities can be just as different as geographic regions, and develop different lingos.

[Avistew 5]

3 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Can you imagine saying you are in two relationships? Because you sort of described it that way.

That sounds like a weird way for me to say it. I'm part of a triad, but that triad is made of three relationships, two of which include me. I'm also married, which is another relationship. So, three relationships for me, out of a network that includes 4 different relationships at the moment.

Saying the triad is a single relationship because it has its own name sounds to me a bit like saying a class is a single relationship or something. You can have a word that describes a group of people without meaning it's all one relationship. Anyway. I understand the idea that some people will consider that if a bunch of people are all in a relationship with everyone else, then it's one big relationship. Let's say that's true (although I think some people would phrase it that way and some would not).

But the most common configurations in polyamory are Vs and Ns and the like. So it's exactly "one person having two separate partners" in a lot of cases.

Dan probably thought that only a subcategory of polyamory was called polyamory, which happens. Triads are represented extremely often in the media despite being comparatively rarer as a configuration (again, one big reason is that if there are more than two people involved, the maximum number of straight people when everyone is involved with everyone is 1. But heterosexuality is the more common orientation.)

2 hours ago, CritterKeeper said:

That seems like a pretty unusual outlier, and a bit of a straw man. People in a relationship are still individual people.

What I meant was that I couldn't say with certainty it never happens, because I've seen weirder. Not that the two things are exactly the same.

2 hours ago, CritterKeeper said:

So you are part of one relationship you call a marriage, and another relationship that you call a triad. To me, that means you have some sort of relationship with the whole triad, not just your boyfriend within it, otherwise it wouldn't be a triad, only you having a relationship with him and he having a relationship with both you and someone else.

Perhaps there's some regional difference in the use of the word triad; maybe you have a different word for what I'm talking about. Like soda vs pop vs coke vs cola. These days, online communities can be just as different as geographic regions, and develop different lingos.

.

No, I'm part of three relationships. My network, taken in its entirety, is what I call a P. You have to imagine the loop of the P is actually a triangle, though, rather than a half circle. It's kind of traditional to use letters but there wasn't one perfectly suited to this dynamic, so I improvised.

I have three male partners. I'm married to one of them and the other two are married to each other. My husband currently has no other partners, but he used to have a girlfriend. My boyfriends have two partners each (me and each other) and nobody else. So it's a relatively small network.

Anyway, as I was saying above, it's not that I have a problem with people saying a triad is a single relationship, it's that it's pretty common for people not to all date one another. The reason people use the word "polycule" is because usually, the network takes weird shapes with branches everywhere, like a family tree of sorts, with people who don't all know each other (because you're not going to spend that much time with the partner of a partner of a partner of a partner) and so it's unlikely that they would consider themselves to be in a relationship with each other.

[The Old Hack 2,448]

Avistew! I didn't notice you were back! <3

[Avistew 5]

Hello there, Old Hack  I've just barely come back. I've been wanting to and then polyamory got mentioned in the comic and I figured I just had to  It's nice seeing you again <3

[CritterKeeper 1,102]

You seem to have both a broader and a narrower definition than I do.  Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding, but it seems like you are only counting people as having some sort of "relationship" if they are having sex, or at least dating with the ultimate goal of having sex.  As I said above, I see there as being a difference between dating two other people as individuals, and having a committed relationship with two other people who are also in a committed relationship with each other.  The dynamic is such that the other two people can't help but have a different sort of relationship between them than if you weren't all three committed to each other, even if they aren't at all interested in having sex with each other.

Then you seem to make a jump from one-on-one straight to including everyone who is sleeping with anyone who is sleeping with anyone who is sleeping with the pair in question.  In my experience, a web that broad isn't very stable, rather there are some families that are stable, committed families, but beyond that who's sleeping with who changes around.  Within those stable, committed families, of whatever size, everyone involved has a very different relationship, whether they are sleeping with each other or not.

Again, it might just be a difference in terminology between social circles.  Mine makes a distinction between swinging, ie having casual sex with no real commitment, and establishing a longer-term, more meaningful poly relationship.  They see their families as inherently different from, most commonly, a married couple who decide to have a bunch of casual sex that goes no further while remaining committed to each other, and from there I think the distinction spread out to include larger committed poly families who may also happen to have casual sex with people outside the poly family.

It just seems weird to me that you seem to be saying that the middle type of relationship is invalid and you can *only* consider the individual pairings and the big wide web as a whole, while ignoring the (often overlapping) small family units within that web.  It's like saying that a living mammal is made up of cells, but that those cells don't form organs within the body, that they can only be considered at the level of individual cells or as a whole critter but nothing in between.

[pfc 1]

 I didn't get that it was limited to groups of three.  They even specified "three or more people all in one relationship together."

First off, Dan has addressed this in the most recent comic, so that's awesome and makes most of my comments moot... but I still want to address this.

My objection was never to the number-- I used the term "triad" because it means, for example, Grace is dating Tedd, Tedd is dating Sarah, and Grace is dating Sarah: everyone is dating. This is as opposed to a non-triad poly relationship, where Grace might be dating Tedd and Tedd might be dating Sarah, but Sarah and Grace are not dating. I suppose I could have put "triad, etc."

It seems fairly clear that Dan was talking about capital-r romantic Relationships. Everyone on this earth, poly or otherwise, has a relationship with everyone else... that's not what the comic was talking about. It was offering a definition of polyamory:

"Polyamory is basically being in, or wanting, an intimate relationship involving more than two people. And no, I don't mean one person having two separate partners. I mean three or more people all in one relationship together."

Quote

Some of the poly people I know would say that you are in a four-person relationship -- they don't think being intimate is a necessary part of being in a relationship.  Others would say that you aren't in a four-person relationship now, but that if you do end up "all dating each other," then you de facto would be.  (Note that I'm not saying that, only pointing out that the other perspectives exist and can be valid.)

Well, they'd be wrong and should let other people define their relationships as they want. And it doesn't change the fact that the definition of poly has nothing to do with people being friends with each other's partners (which, again, isn't even what Dan was saying). B has had partners I've never met. Sometimes it was the long distance thing, sometimes it was just that they wanted a (capital r) Relationship independent of our friend circle. And that's fine, and doesn't make our relationship somehow less poly because we aren't all hanging out in the living room together playing Cards Against Humanity.

Quote

Joe can date both Bob and Michael without having a relationship with Bob's wife Judy or Michael's husband Charlie.  But, if Joe is a long-term committed partner to Bob, then it's pretty hard for him not to have some sort of relationship with Judy unless there's some pretty heavy deception going on somewhere.  Again, not necessarily a sexual or romantic relationship, but an emotional bond, even if it's just a shared commitment to and love of Bob, and the cooperation needed to keep Bob happy by all getting along and not tugging him in opposite directions all the time.

Joe can absolutely be Bob's partner without Bob and Judy having a relationship. People do poly in all sorts of ways (which is kind of my point). Someone who's solo poly, for example, doesn't have a primary partner. Since they aren't usually living with a partner, there's no reason their partners would ever have to meet. Sure, it might happen, but it doesn't have to as some sort of intrinsic part of polyamory. And it would be kind of messed up for my partner to demand that I have a relationship with all their other partners, just like it would be messed up of me to do the same. For me, being poly is all about not controlling my partners' interactions with other people. That means not only allowing them to date whoever they want to date, but also not forcing them to be BFF with the people I'm dating. Those are conversations you can have, but it's not an imperative. Some poly people don't want anything to do with their partners' partners. Some people do. It depends on the relationship. The most important thing about polyamory is that everyone knows what's going on. That doesn't mean they have to have any kind of relationship with anyone else.

Once again, triads, etc exist. But the definition of poly is not "being in, or wanting, an intimate relationship involving more than two people. And no, I don't mean one person having two separate partners. I mean three or more people all in one relationship together." Not everyone who's poly has a "family," and people do poly in all sorts of very different ways. All I wanted was a definition that was inclusive of all types of poly relationships, which Dan has very kindly provided in the most recent comic

Sorry to go on a rant, it's just that people get really confused about polyamory and I think it's important to clarify it.

[Don Edwards 548]

Seems to me there's some confusion here between "poly" as applied to individuals, and "poly" as applied to relationships.

I would use different definitions (basically, it's a much simpler definition for individuals), and maintain a distinction between "poly" and "open" relationships.

If A and F do not have a strong emotional commitment to each other, I wouldn't say they are part of one poly relationship no matter what other relationships might connect them.

Now it may happen that multiple relationships overlap - A B C D are one family while C D E F are another and E J K are a third - but that doesn't mean A, F, and J have any relationship at all.

[CritterKeeper 1,102]

Right, and non-poly people can stay single all their lives and never get into a marriage/SO/that's-my-partner relationship.  That doesn't mean such relationships don't exist, as something *different* from just dating each other.  You keep insisting that every relatinship is one-on-one, and I'm saying that there *are* one-on-one relationships, of all sorts, but there are *also* relationships which are a distinct from one-to-one.  If you've never met B's partners, then no, you don't have a relationship with them, but if you, B, K, and D have not only met each other, not only spend time together, but work together to make sure that all of your schedules coordinate, all of your needs are being met as much as possible, all of you try to get along for the sake of each other -- if you care about their happiness, even if it's because you know your partner won't be happy unless they are, and you want your partner to be happy -- then you have a relationship that is more than just "that person is dating my partner but I have nothing to do with them."

Plural marriages use the term "sister-wives" -- they're not romantically interested in each other, but they have a close relationship nonetheless, and they recognize that fact.  They are all a part of whole in a way that they wouldn't be if their spouse was married to one and having an affair with another.

I've acknowledged that a whole string of one-to-one relationships can exist.  Can you acknowledge that a group can feel that they are more than that, even the ones that aren't romantically involved with each other?  That's all I'm trying to get across here, and you seem to keep shoving that whole idea aside.

[Avistew 5]

11 hours ago, CritterKeeper said:

You seem to have both a broader and a narrower definition than I do. Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding, but it seems like you are only counting people as having some sort of "relationship" if they are having sex, or at least dating with the ultimate goal of having sex. As I said above, I see there as being a difference between dating two other people as individuals, and having a committed relationship with two other people who are also in a committed relationship with each other. The dynamic is such that the other two people can't help but have a different sort of relationship between them than if you weren't all three committed to each other, even if they aren't at all interested in having sex with each other.

I was using the word "relationship" for "romantic relationship". There doesn't need to be sex at all (many poly people are asexual, and some of those don't have sex). But I was indeed not including other forms of inter connectivity such as close friendships for that purpose, because I was still responding to the initial definition by Dan. Obviously, Grace, Tedd and Sarah are close regardless of who is "in a relationship" with whom. But only Grace and Tedd are "in a relationship" per that definition. Dan is saying he won't answer about the possibility of Grace, Tedd and Sarah being in a relationship, and if he included things like close friendship that would be a moot point because they would already be in a relationship from that definition (as well as the rest of the main characters, as they're all close friends).

That does not mean that people cannot be extremely close to their metamours. I agree that it can be an amazing kind of relationship (this time using the word without the "romantic" aspect) to be close friends with someone and both be in a relationship with the same person (or people).

My point was never meant to be "What Dan is talking about doesn't describe any polyamorous relationship, ever" but "What Dan is talking about only describe some poly relationships, and not a huge subset of them".

11 hours ago, CritterKeeper said:

Then you seem to make a jump from one-on-one straight to including everyone who is sleeping with anyone who is sleeping with anyone who is sleeping with the pair in question. In my experience, a web that broad isn't very stable, rather there are some families that are stable, committed families, but beyond that who's sleeping with who changes around. Within those stable, committed families, of whatever size, everyone involved has a very different relationship, whether they are sleeping with each other or not.

I was merely trying to express how absurd it would be to say that in every polyamorous network, everyone can consider themselves to be in the same relationship. Many networks are complicated and involve people who, while aware of one another's existence, aren't close or may never have met. I don't think those networks are inherently less stable, by the way. I think the more relationships are involved, the higher the chance that one will end, but I don't think those relationships being spread out rather than condensed make it inherently unstable.

Not everyone follows the relationship escalator or see living together, having a marriage-like ceremony, raising children, sharing finances, etc as things to aspire for. Being solopoly does not mean your relationships are come and go, there are solopoly people who have been in the same few relationships for decades, they just don't have a need to live together, among other things. And I think living together is one of those things that you're thinking about when you're thinking people who are in a committed relationship with the same person who have to know each other well. That's certainly true if they're living together.

 

Anyway, it seems like you were not arguing that this kind of network doesn't exist, but that not all networks are like this. That's certainly true. There is a huge variety. I myself am part of a closer network, and that's my preferred dynamic. But I also know it's not the "one true way" or something.

As for poly vs open, I think those are two different axes. A poly relationship can be open or closed (a closed poly relationship would be polyfidelity, where nobody is "allowed" to seek new partners) and an open relationship can be poly or not (it's poly if romantic relationships are involved, it's not if only sexual relationships are allowed). But there is an overlap between the two, although I agree that generally speaking, the connotations of "open" are more casual due to how the word is perceived by the general population (as in, people generally have in mind the non-poly version, were only sex is acceptable).

Of course, someone can be poly (have several romantic partners) and also have casual sex partners with no romance involved. They're not suddenly less poly if they have casual sex. You can be interested in one, the other, or both. (Or neither, of course).

[Don Edwards 548]

Ah, CK, that was my first post in the thread, so I didn't "keep insisting" anything. You're mixing me up with someone else. And I certainly don't agree that every relationship is one-on-one, or that only romantic relationships count for polyamory.

 

Note: Avistew posted his reply while I was figuring out just how I wanted to word this.

[CritterKeeper 1,102]

23 minutes ago, Don Edwards said:

Ah, CK, that was my first post in the thread, so I didn't "keep insisting" anything. You're mixing me up with someone else. And I certainly don't agree that every relationship is one-on-one, or that only romantic relationships count for polyamory.

I wasn't mixing anything up, but apparently you posted while I was composing it, so what I thought was directly following Avistew wound up with your post in between.  If I'd realized, I'd have started the post with "Avistew," to make it clear who I was addressing.  Sorry!

[Avistew 5]

45 minutes ago, CritterKeeper said:

I wasn't mixing anything up, but apparently you posted while I was composing it, so what I thought was directly following Avistew wound up with your post in between. If I'd realized, I'd have started the post with "Avistew," to make it clear who I was addressing. Sorry!

Actually, I hadn't posted since your previous post. Do you maybe mean pfc?

[hkmaly 490]

16 hours ago, Avistew said:

20 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Can you imagine saying you are in two relationships? Because you sort of described it that way.

That sounds like a weird way for me to say it. I'm part of a triad, but that triad is made of three relationships, two of which include me. I'm also married, which is another relationship. So, three relationships for me, out of a network that includes 4 different relationships at the moment.

Hence "sort of". It's not only that it has name, it's also that you didn't said anything which would differentiate those two relationships which are part of triad.

 

[Avistew 5]

1 minute ago, hkmaly said:

Hence "sort of". It's not only that it has name, it's also that you didn't said anything which would differentiate those two relationships which are part of triad.

 

I see. Well, I'll be happy to give more details about any of my relationships if you're interested  My boyfriends are definitely pretty different from one another. I also used to date only one of them, then grew close to the other, so the relationships are of different lengths as well. All three guys have things in common two, though, for instance they're all nerds and they're all programmers.

[hkmaly 490]

5 minutes ago, Avistew said:

8 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

Hence "sort of". It's not only that it has name, it's also that you didn't said anything which would differentiate those two relationships which are part of triad.

I see. Well, I'll be happy to give more details about any of my relationships if you're interested  My boyfriends are definitely pretty different from one another. I also used to date only one of them, then grew close to the other,

That would be enough

I didn't wanted to pry. This detail is hardly saying anything more, yet it shows how those are separate relationships quite nicely.

10 hours ago, Pharaoh RutinTutin said:

How one person within those connections describes the relationship may be different from how someone else within those connections describes the relationship.  And those titles need not resemble how someone outside the connections may describe the relationship.

It might be interesting - to YOU, not to me - how those two view their relationship with you.

[pfc 1]

4 hours ago, CritterKeeper said:

Right, and non-poly people can stay single all their lives and never get into a marriage/SO/that's-my-partner relationship.  That doesn't mean such relationships don't exist, as something *different* from just dating each other.  You keep insisting that every relatinship is one-on-one, and I'm saying that there *are* one-on-one relationships, of all sorts, but there are *also* relationships which are a distinct from one-to-one.  If you've never met B's partners, then no, you don't have a relationship with them, but if you, B, K, and D have not only met each other, not only spend time together, but work together to make sure that all of your schedules coordinate, all of your needs are being met as much as possible, all of you try to get along for the sake of each other -- if you care about their happiness, even if it's because you know your partner won't be happy unless they are, and you want your partner to be happy -- then you have a relationship that is more than just "that person is dating my partner but I have nothing to do with them."

Plural marriages use the term "sister-wives" -- they're not romantically interested in each other, but they have a close relationship nonetheless, and they recognize that fact.  They are all a part of whole in a way that they wouldn't be if their spouse was married to one and having an affair with another.

I've acknowledged that a whole string of one-to-one relationships can exist.  Can you acknowledge that a group can feel that they are more than that, even the ones that aren't romantically involved with each other?  That's all I'm trying to get across here, and you seem to keep shoving that whole idea aside.

I've made it clear in both my posts that my concern is with poly being defined by "three or more people all in one relationship together" and have acknowledged throughout this thread that many kinds of poly relationships exist. At no point have I insisted that every relationship is one-on-one-- only that I am not in a relationship with K, and many poly people are not in relationships with their metamours. I am frustrated by continued representations of polyamorous relationships as "everyone is dating each other," which is the most common representation of poly relationships in media. You're making a lot of those same assumptions in your post as you describe what you think poly relationships where people know each other look like.

You'll notice I used the term "sister wives" in my first post as an example of something that people assume poly is. Poly is a very broad category of relationships. It cannot be defined by one of its subcategories.

[CritterKeeper 1,102]

12 hours ago, pfc said:

I've made it clear in both my posts that my concern is with poly being defined by "three or more people all in one relationship together" and have acknowledged throughout this thread that many kinds of poly relationships exist. At no point have I insisted that every relationship is one-on-one-- only that I am not in a relationship with K, and many poly people are not in relationships with their metamours. I am frustrated by continued representations of polyamorous relationships as "everyone is dating each other," which is the most common representation of poly relationships in media. You're making a lot of those same assumptions in your post as you describe what you think poly relationships where people know each other look like.

You'll notice I used the term "sister wives" in my first post as an example of something that people assume poly is. Poly is a very broad category of relationships. It cannot be defined by one of its subcategories.

Sorry, but my impression has been that you were promoting the "separate relationships" perspective at the expense of the "we're a family as a whole" perspective.  Everyone dating each other is *not* the same thing as being a family together -- everyone dating each other is still seeing them as a bunch of individual relationships!  A family is something more, and you seem to be so busy insisting on the existence of the groups you see as neglected that you yourself are diminishing the very existence of a whole-is-greater-than-its-parts (or even -different-from-its-parts) type of poly relationship.  The families I know and love are just as tired of being erased from existence as your individual relationships are.