I’m feeling left out. I’m not even placeable on this diagram.
Oh, wait. I think I’m the plain empty unlabeled background. Yay!
Pharyngula
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
I’m feeling left out. I’m not even placeable on this diagram.
Oh, wait. I think I’m the plain empty unlabeled background. Yay!
Suggests to me that trying to create a general taxonomy of these things is a pretty pointless endeavour. I’m not sure what one is supposed to gain from identifying a point or points on this mess of overlapping shapes that might describe some of one’s behaviours. Then again, I don’t fit anywhere on the diagram either. I’m not even sure I qualify for the white area round the edge!
Also, where do you fit if you are sexually aroused by a mess of overlapping coloured shapes?
Sheesh. It’s hard enough just finding a partner.
Here’s the source:
http://tacit.livejournal.com/333842.html
In case anyone in interested in seeing it – and here’s the Quiet Riot Girl post:
https://quietgirlriot.wordpress.com/2010/10/07/wheres-monogamy/
In looking for it, I found that I am not much of a fan of QRG…
This list is a bit more straightforward.
What’s A Skoliosexual? There’s a lot more out there beyond “hetero,” “homo” and “bi.” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/skoliosexual-zucchini-and-10-other-sexual-identity-terms-you-probably-dont-know_561bf841e4b0082030a35f80
I fit into the polyfidelity spot, or more accurately, I have fitted in there.
From QRG’s post:
Um…
Updated to reference the original source.
Rey Fox @2:
I know what you mean.
I have obviously landed on the wrong planet. Excuse me.
So um … where on that chart would one place being ambidextrous?
Lovecraftsexual: in his house at R’lyeh, dead Cthulhu wet-dreaming. (This applies particularly if the shapes are non-Euclidean.)
janiceintoronto: Scotty is ready to beam you out of there. But do you think it will feel different after you come back? Are you completely sure?
(If not – if the feeling remains wherever you go – then you are like me… and both of us probably need to visit the sickbay at once.)
Also penis size is not mentioned on the chart! We need a whole new chart (quite a BIG chart, at least in… ok I’ll stop here).
I get the need to identify and organize identities, I really do, but this is the least organized organization of information I have ever seen. This is ridiculous. It is not at all helpful and it is very ugly and I am both bemused and a little appalled. :)
The comments on Veaux’s LJ are interesting, and include a fair number of people who seem more than a bit annoyed that they don’t specifically fit that particular map. Veaux also has an interesting sex map (linked in the comments on the OP.)
18. Those whose relationships from distance resemble flies
19. Those not included in this classification
….
(with apologies to Jorge Luis Borges)
In other words, welcome to the “universal set” where we straight, white, cis males hang out!
Marilove @14:
I think it’s meant to be ridiculous? “My husband the senator is not having relations with his secretary.” “No, seriously, we’re an poly/open couple. My wife just doesn’t know.” “Dragon*con! Need I say more?” “Dogging! Need I say more?” “Cuckold fetish! Need I say more?” “BDSM Play parties! Need I etc.”
Where’s “Faithful to my wife, unless I get an offer from Sean Bean”?
Any two-dimensional graphical representation is obviously inadequate. It should be multi-dimensional, with some axes being imaginary-valued (to accommodate fantasy).
I’m pretty sure I don’t want anyone who decides to make a diagram like that anywhere within 100 meter radius around me.
@Caine, #6:
I noticed that as well, and commented on QRG’s site. While it’s possible it was meant to be an ironic statement, I’m not getting that from her writing. If it’s not an ironic statement that would normally be recognized as ironic by QRG’s regular readership, it’s hella-bad-news.
@MariLove, #14…
I’m with NelC, #18: I think that the “map” is supposed to be ridiculous, created tongue firmly in cheek.
Why on Earth not?
Because that’s something I can only imagine a sociopath doing? Or maybe someone who also collects earwax. Either way.
Damn, RobGrijanis #20 ninja’d me: the diagram is a horrible mess only because it’s been forced into a two-dimensional diagram.
I tried re-drawing it in a 15-dimensional space, and suddenly it made a whole lot more sense because simple 15D hyper spheres gently overlapped in a simple manner.
I’d send a copy of the diagram, but my fax machine only does 2D. Sorry.
I left out one dimension because, ya know: what happens on the Vegas dimension stays on the Vegas dimension.
Or someone who likes playing around with definitions and ways of displaying things? Poly people tend to end up spending a lot of time explaining our relationships to people, and trying to explain how what we’re doing isn’t the same as swinging, or cheating – I could see someone deciding it’d be cool to try and map out the different groups.
In a similar way, my group has discussed trying to make a relationship map of who’s seeing who, but ultimately decided it’d be too complicated, and be out of date by the time we were done.
vytautasjanaauskas @ 25:
A sociopath. Wow, you’re rather scary when it comes to being judgmental. Anyone who was poly would be damn scared of you.
Um, as an actual poly person, I was going to make a comment about how it seems to have a bit of a negative view of BDSM and its intersection in poly and that the actual overlapping dynamic of the poly tribe I am in is more described by two points in cute little tag line, and something else entirely by its overlapping values.
But I’m admitting to being a little perplexed on the response about the graphic entirely. Is it the raw complexity of it? Cause a lot of identity can get messy as it interlays with other identity.
Cerberus @ 30:
I think some people ran smack into a core of puritanical prudery hiding in the ol’ brain pan.
Seriously? I think it’s ugly, even if it is tongue in cheek, but this is … completely unnecessary. I’m sure you do plenty of things others might not enjoy or understand as being fun.
I was a bit perplexed at the reaction to the graphic, too, but, then I realized that I am a poly forum and blog reading polyamorist and I get a lot of the inside jokes on that chart. Maybe think about what a chart of the atheist community would look like with all the inside jokes and references to libertarians, thunderf00t, and elevator gate, and the purpose of the maze of colored boxes will be clearer.
Re: the “ugliness” of the diagram: Venn diagrams with more than a 3 groups (unless there’s a lot of mutual exclusivity) tend to get ugly and/or require irregular shapes. This is just A Fact. You might as well complain that large numbers require multiple digits to write.
I’m more interested in the fact that some of the intersections which should be there, are not. For example, in this chart it is impossible for someone to be polyamorous and cheating — I suspect that would be news to lots of people in stable polyamorous relationships. And cheating never involves casual sex. And Unicorn Poly relationships never involve BDSM, nor do BDSM enthusiasts date around.
Jesus, who’s got time for all that!
The Vicar:
I suspect the thinking on cheating/casual sex is that ALL cheating is casual, but that’s wrong with a moment’s thought–sometimes a cheater will have a ‘serious’ side-relationship that implies commitment to that person. The outsider accepts the existence of the established relationship, but expects fidelity otherwise (and may even be under the belief that the established relationship itself is mostly sexless/loveless–the classic case of “staying together for the kids” or whatever).
And as any fan of daytime television knows, sometimes the cheating spouse is also cheating on their side-relationship.
So… Religious polygamy has to exist in its own field and can’t overlap with anything else ever?
@edmundog, #37:
Technically? No.
But one can hope.