Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

A while back, I did a graphic of the various overlapping types of non-monogamous relationships. I've re-visited that chart, with some revisions and additions, and at zaiah's suggestion I've added some specific tags to various parts of the graph.

Click for a bigger version. A much, much bigger version.


( 35 comments — Leave a comment )
Aug. 1st, 2010 08:24 am (UTC)
This is lovely! I really like how you helped define/elaborate on a lot of the edge cases. It is so cool how ideas come to you fully formed, well-illustrated, and perfectly punctuated. ;)
Aug. 1st, 2010 08:42 am (UTC)
I love this, but I'd also love to see a couple x's in the pink and purple areas that aren't overlaps with cheating/situational/BDSM/unicorn. As someone in a number of relationships that aren't defined by any of those constraints, I find it ridiculously hard to explain to people what's going on/how we work.

Though I suppose it's also less reducible to a sound-bite. Hmm. I'll have to think on that so that I can provide actual constructive suggestions rather than random demands. ;)
Aug. 1st, 2010 10:33 am (UTC)
this explains 1. why I have a hard time explaining poly to my son 2. why Red and I have a hard time moving forward into poly in a sane way
Aug. 1st, 2010 01:47 pm (UTC)
Ahh, polyamory is easy! It's only the edge cases and boundary conditions that are hard.
(no subject) - slutbamwalla - Aug. 1st, 2010 08:27 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - tacit - Aug. 2nd, 2010 01:43 pm (UTC) - Expand
Aug. 1st, 2010 12:17 pm (UTC)
"No seriously, we're a poly/mono couple; my wife just doesn't know." ROFL ;)
Aug. 1st, 2010 12:49 pm (UTC)
hah! I love all the little side explanations, and the overlapping colors are very harmonious - important visually!
Aug. 1st, 2010 01:32 pm (UTC)
Nice graphic....but if I might be so bold, under religious/social polygamy you misspelled "prophet" as "propet"?
Aug. 1st, 2010 01:37 pm (UTC)
Good eye!
(no subject) - tedeisenstein - Aug. 1st, 2010 01:51 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - tacit - Aug. 1st, 2010 01:45 pm (UTC) - Expand
Aug. 1st, 2010 01:36 pm (UTC)
Wow. I feel like I should print this off high-quality, laminate the sheet & use it to illustrate future conversations. I have barely enough experience in graphic design & proofing to grasp how much thought & revision must've gone into this, with humor & color-coordination on top. Great job!!

P.S.--If you added a credit line or some sort of © line, I think I'd be serious about the "print it off & laminate it" idea... & it would spread easily among Internet polyfolk as well. ??
Aug. 1st, 2010 07:58 pm (UTC)
This as as much a good conversation piece as it is a useful reference for my own thinking about where I do or do not want to be, really.

The credit line is a good idea as I suspect it may spread anyway (I'm about to point a boatload of people to it).
(no subject) - zaiah - Aug. 1st, 2010 08:35 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - wanted_a_pony - Aug. 4th, 2010 05:41 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - tacit - Aug. 2nd, 2010 01:44 pm (UTC) - Expand
Aug. 1st, 2010 01:55 pm (UTC)
Cool! You rock!
Aug. 1st, 2010 03:00 pm (UTC)
The little comments make it SO much more fun -- and they really do provide capsule illustrations of some of the different subtypes.

I also wouldn't mind seeing a few non-edge-area comments ("Intimate Network"/"Triad"/"Vee"/"N/W/other open-ended shape") for "polyamorous relationships" and "open relationships," but I think they're a lot less *necessary* than the ones you picked, which can be harder to nail down without an example.

-- A :)
Aug. 2nd, 2010 01:45 pm (UTC)
I've added quite a few more comments to the new version.
Aug. 1st, 2010 05:59 pm (UTC)
You make me think, you make me smile. Your insights are truly priceless.
Aug. 2nd, 2010 01:42 pm (UTC)
Why, thank you! :)
Aug. 1st, 2010 11:27 pm (UTC)
Very nice, although you could also add "As your sub, I consent to you allowing other people to Dom me..."
Aug. 2nd, 2010 01:42 pm (UTC)
Oooh, good one! It's added to the new version.
Aug. 2nd, 2010 02:16 am (UTC)
This is such a great illustration of the blurry lines between different types of open lifestyles. And it also shows just how much there isn't really a norm, when it comes down to sexuality.

Hey, by the way, my husband and I are traveling through Portland in the next few weeks. We're making various stops for things like weddings, parties, and a visit to an alpaca ranch. I'd love to meet you in person, if you'd be up for coffee or such?

Aug. 2nd, 2010 11:14 am (UTC)
Love to! Timing might be a bit tricky; I'm going to be in Reno with Shelly on Sunday and Monday, the 15th and 16th of August. She'll be here from the 12th through the 18th. Any idea when you'll be in town?
(no subject) - laughingstone - Aug. 5th, 2010 09:40 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - tacit - Aug. 8th, 2010 10:54 am (UTC) - Expand
Aug. 2nd, 2010 04:29 am (UTC)
Any thoughts to offering this in a Cafepress shop or something, where we can buy larger-than-home-printer copies that don't require you to get a minimum order first & ship them out by hand?
Aug. 2nd, 2010 11:15 am (UTC)
Not a bad idea! I could do something similar with several of the other informatics too.
(no subject) - joreth - Aug. 3rd, 2010 12:56 am (UTC) - Expand
Aug. 2nd, 2010 05:45 pm (UTC)
Is this tagged "stellar nucleosynthesis" for some reason other than that most of the atoms in the participants (and the poster, and everything else) were forged in the hearts of long-dead stars?
Aug. 2nd, 2010 11:56 pm (UTC)
There's kind of a story behind that.

A while ago, a discussion came up in my network about the technical definition of the word "orgy," which has a lot of connotations attached to it (is it an orgy if there are only three people? Is it an orgy if there are fifteen people but they only have sex with their partners and nobody else?). At last year's Dragon*Con, my sweetie joreth and her other partner and his wife and their other partners (who are probably reading this and can out themselves if they so desire) decided to have what anyone using any definition of the word, no matter how conservative, would describe as an orgy.

There were several threesomes as well. During one of those, I used a stainless steel NJoy sex toy on joreth. Stainless steel is mostly iron and nickel, both of which are formed during the process of stellar nucleosynthesis in stars (nickel is one of the end-stage products in most stars). So I was commenting about how glad I was that we are not orbiting a first-generation star, since that meant that the planet had nickel and iron in the crust, and so I was able to own such a sex toy...and, well, ever since then stellar nucleosynthesis" has been a code word for anything involving group sex in my social set.
Aug. 3rd, 2010 12:12 am (UTC)
Here's my problems with this chart
I really want to like this chart as it's an awesome idea but there are a few glaring odd omissions and (imho) mistakes. first of all "swinging" and "Polyamory" don't have any quotes at all. It sort of implies like they don't exist except in the context of other behaviors. Secondly, Play Parties are a subset of BDSM? What? Not at most play parties I've been to. Those tend to be more Poly, or Swinger or both. Maybe there will be one room with BDSM stuff but that's a subset of playparties, not the other way around!

Lastly, there is NO overlap between swingers and Poly? I think that's a total myth. There is a huge gray area where they overlap to me. Love to see you update this. It's genius!
Aug. 3rd, 2010 11:29 am (UTC)
Re: Here's my problems with this chart
There is supposed to be an overlap between Swinging and Poly; that's why the Swinging border jogs upward on the right-hand side. I've looked at the previous and later versions of the map and realized that the overlap I had intended to be there somehow isn't there (and surprisingly, only you and zaiah noticed!). That's going to be corrected in the next revision.

My background is primarily from the BDSM community, where a "play party" is specifically a BDSM event (non-BDSM events are "sex parties" or "swing parties"). Is that not the general usage?
( 35 comments — Leave a comment )