A poly thought.

[randomness]

Your worth is not measured in the number of sweeties you're seeing.

Your worth is measured in how well you treat the sweetie(s) you're seeing.

Comments

[coraline]

amen

[drucifer25.livejournal.com]

I think that measuring a person's worth in terms of their relationships is also probably a mistake.

[whitebird.livejournal.com]

But how one treats one's loved ones is indicative, purportedly, of how one treats others in general. And that's certainly a reasonable metric of worth.

[cubes.livejournal.com]

One of the things, early on, that attracted me to my husband was visiting his office and seeing how he interacted with the people who work for him. This was reinforced by finding out more about how he deals with consultants, clients, and his ex-wife (they have a daughter together) & the (former) friend of his to whom she is now married.

[drucifer25.livejournal.com]

I suppose, although I've always maintained that how one treats individuals one hates is an equally important measure of worth.

I also have issues with any system that measures someone by the strength of their relationships with their significant others, but I am willing to admit that how one treats one's loved ones is at least a component of an individual's worth.

[oneagain.livejournal.com]

Ayup. Right there with you.

[r-ness.livejournal.com]

I would make a distinction between how one treats one's sweeties and how strong the relationship is.

I can, and like to think I have, treated those people I have been relatively casually involved with as much care and respect as I do anyone else I'm involved with. Does that mean I have had weak relationships? Sure. But I like to think I treated them as well as I was able, at the time.

How one treats people one hates is another measure of worth, but in my own life there have been fewer of those than people I've loved, so as a practical matter I think there may be difficulty in drawing useful inferences from that sample.

[choirsoftheeye.livejournal.com]

I don't know if I disagree with that first statement - but that reflects a very unchristian ideology that I live my life by, and one that stresses justice and fixing things over kindness.

[whitebird.livejournal.com]

That holds true for the monogamous as well. Well, except for the "how many" bit, of course. But. Still. :)

[r-ness.livejournal.com]

Very true, and I thought about posting the corollary:

One sweetie can be plenty to demonstrate what you're worth.

Then I thought better of starting one of those poly-mono religious arguments, because I realized some people might interpret that as a stand against poly.

[intuition-ist.livejournal.com]

hear, hear. well put.

[noire.livejournal.com]

yes

[quietann.livejournal.com]

yep. This is part of the reason I have two and no more.

[oneagain.livejournal.com]

Your worth is not measured in the number of sweeties you're seeing.

Mmm...I confess I am confused by this statement; it seems like saying "the sky is up, and the ground is down". Well, yeah. Everyone knows that...does not everyone know that? Are there folk who measure their value by how many sweeties they have?

[r-ness.livejournal.com]

Are there folk who measure their value by how many sweeties they have?

Yes, there are. In fact, my post was inspired by discussion of poly people whining that they weren't seeing enough sweeties.

(There's a quote I would add here, but I don't yet have permission.)

But yes, there are folks who measure their value by how many sweeties they have, even when (particularly when?) they're not treating the ones they have very well.

[oneagain.livejournal.com]

my post was inspired by discussion of poly people whining that they weren't seeing enough sweeties.

Well, *I* might whine that I am not seeing enough sweeties. That is *not*, however, me feeling that my worth would be higher. It is just a desire. Could this be a case of semantics, here?

[r-ness.livejournal.com]

Could this be a case of semantics, here?

Not if you're making the distinction that you make here:

That is *not*, however, me feeling that my worth would be higher.

Not all who whine are whining for the same reason. But some are likely whining for the reason I mentioned.

[r-ness.livejournal.com]

I mean, there are people who measure their self-worth by any number of wacky metrics. One popular one is how many pieces of green pieces of paper with dead presidents on them they can amass in their lifetime. (One could argue that that is the *most* popular metric in this country. It's practical to amass a chunk of money in a capitalist society, but I think useing it as a measure of self-worth is dangerously wrong-headed.) Another is how fast the car they drive can go. That one is also popular in many countries outside the U. S.

I think, as metrics go, that counting the number of people who are willing to be emotionally intimate with you is arguably better as a measure of what kind of person you are than either of the other examples I just gave. It still isn't particularly good as a measure.

[oneagain.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I can see that.

I have a number of folk with whom I am emotionally intimate, though sex does not enter into it (no pun intended:). I know that having these folks in my life makes me feel more loved and cared for, and if I thought about it, that probably does make me feel more self-worth. Whether the folks I am connected with are "sweeties" does not enter into it so much, but I guess I could see how it might for others.

[woodwardiocom.livejournal.com]

-Tangentially, I point out that the U.S. puts Alexander Hamilton on the $10 bill, Benjamin Franklin on the $100 bill, and (historically) Salmon Chase on the $10,000 bill, none of whom were president.

(Corollary: I'm a geek.)

[r-ness.livejournal.com]

True enough. In fact, currency portraits weren't standardized by era until the 20th century. Before that, different portraits were often found on notes with the same denomination.

These four $5 notes:

• a treasury coin note of 1891 (http://www.frbsf.org/currency/metal/treasury/642.html) depicting Gen. Thomas,
• a silver certificate of 1899 (http://www.frbsf.org/currency/metal/silvercerts/1107.html) depicting an unnamed Native American,
• 
  a legal tender note of 1907 (http://www.frbsf.org/currency/industrial/legal/523.html) with Andrew Jackson
  
• and the famous Educational Series silver certificate of 1896 (http://www.frbsf.org/currency/metal/silvercerts/591.html) showing an allegorical figure of Electricity

should serve to illustrate this.

All of these notes could be found in general circulation exactly a century ago. It was important to pay attention. :)

My favorite story about portraits on banknotes, however, is from the Civil War era:

[A]n unpopular figure named Spencer M. Clark was appointed as superintendent of the National Currency Bureau. Clark, a government bureaucrat with an unremarkable record, managed to get his own portrait on a five-cent piece of fractional currency that was issued from 1863 to 1867. Congress became so infuriated with this act of arrogance that it established a ban, which is still in effect today, on portraits of living persons on all bank notes.

Source: http://www.frbsf.org/currency/civilwar/history/text2.html

Photo at http://www.beeslife.com/currency/fractional/3rd_issue_05_cents_1.jpg

[r-ness.livejournal.com]

(Oops. Got the formatting a bit off, even the second time. My bad.)

(I'm a currency geek, too. But I won't be so much of a geek that I spam your inbox again. :) )

[redbird]

Lots. The most common case of this is the distinction between zero and one sweetie, but there are certainly notch-on-the-bedpost types out there. (There are also people who are genuinely happier with a specific number of partners higher than one, for whatever reasons--a friend who refers to herself as "bi-something-or-other-al" comes to mind--but don't measure their self-worth by whether they have that number of partners.)

[oneagain.livejournal.com]

The most common case of this is the distinction between zero and one sweetie

That I can understand a bit better. Loneliness is no good for anyone. More, I was referring to folk who have people in their lives and think less of themselves for not having more...

There are also people who are genuinely happier with a specific number of partners higher than one, for whatever reasons--a friend who refers to herself as "bi-something-or-other-al" comes to mind--but don't measure their self-worth by whether they have that number of partners.

This, I understand, as it describes me as well. The bedpost notchers...well...I guess folk can use sex/sweeties as a way to feel good about themselves, and feel badly about themselves if they are running dry...though I am thinking the real problem lies somewhere else. But then, I am probably not aware of all of *my* delusions, so why should other people be aware of their own?

[quezz.livejournal.com]

I'd be happy with one. I don't think I have time for much more...and I'm debating if I have time for that. :)

[marmota.livejournal.com]

Definitely, and I'd also add it's in how well they treat you back.

[choirsoftheeye.livejournal.com]

I agree with this SO much.

[madbodger.livejournal.com]

Too true. And I must admit, I love seeing your sweetie!