101–110 of 138 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see how I could possibly pursue a second relationship and still give my relationship with my wife the time and energy it deserves.
Well if she would have a relationship with your new partner as well, they could spend time together while you do other stuff.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's not women choosing to marry the man with the most power or wealth, it's cultural and religious forced marriage, on threat of ostracism, familial disgrace or much worse. No, I get that – my point is, there's not much difference between social pressure to marry someone wealthy because you were not raised to be a breadwinner and thus would starve if you didn't marry up, and social pressure to marry someone in hig…
>> No, I get that – my point is, there's not much difference between social pressure to marry someone wealthy because you were not raised to be a breadwinner and thus would starve if you didn't marry up, and social pressure to marry someone in high social standing because you'd be ostracized otherwise. Sorry there's a f*ck of a lot of difference between choosing a partner that's a breadwinner, and being put through a…
Is being physically coerced to marry someone worse than being economically incentivized to? Of course, I'm not arguing that. Is being formally ostracized for refusing to marry someone of high status worse than being informally ostracized for refusing to marry someone of low status? Yes, but by degrees. Yes, you can replace formal ostracism with informal ostracism by normalizing monogamy, but it's still going to happen so long as a patriarchal power imbalance remains in place.
(Doubt that informal ostracism happens? Women who choose not to marry have historically been excluded from mainstream society in western society. Hence the trope of the isolated spinster/widow, and the prevalence of prostitution as a means of earning for women who choose to stay single.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The foundation of all relationships is trust. You can't hack around dishonesty. Don't be in a relationship with someone you can't trust if your health depends on it.
But, it's not dishonest in that case. If people are free to add partners as they like - then you can not _ensure_ that one of their partners (or their partner's partners, or partner's partner's partners, you get the point) respects that. It increases the odds of getting an STD I believe. But I don't have numbers to back that up nor do I feel like looking for them now (sorry)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> No, I get that – my point is, there's not much difference between social pressure to marry someone wealthy because you were not raised to be a breadwinner and thus would starve if you didn't marry up, and social pressure to marry someone in high social standing because you'd be ostracized otherwise. Sorry there's a f*ck of a lot of difference between choosing a partner that's a breadwinner, and being put through a…
So you really believe that physical coercion to marry high-status males is caused by (i.e., is an "outcome" of) the practice of polygamy? Forced polygyny does not just happen , someone has to have the power to force it. That someone exactly he who benefits from the practice: high-status men – by definition, the patriarchy. Is being physically coerced to marry someone worse than being economically incentivized to? Of…
No, I believe that when we look at historical or contemporary examples of societies or sub-cultures in which polygamy is practised, we tend to see forced marriages. I'm not saying either is the cause of the other, but that they are associated, and I agree very much that they both take place in highly patriarchal societies.
I'm also not sure why you keep talking about status and what your issue is with people choosing monogamy. You don't have to if you don't want to, and it's no longer the case that a woman can't support herself adequately.
Just be polyamorous (see e.g. https://polyfidelity.org.au/about/polyamory/education/121-th... , http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/04/06/polyamory-is-boring/ ). If there is a need to have multiple partners instead of going the "traditional way" (one official partner + cheating or some shady don't ask don't tell arrangement) it seems much healthier to openly discuss needs and boundaries. We shouldn't just accept "system d…
Your poly community has a lot of nerds because they don't have enough leverage to ask their s.o. to stop fucking other people.
The reason it's ostensibly confusing is that the standard narrative of human sexuality—one sexual partner for life after getting married—is, forgive me, completely batshit insane. That's not to say that people haven't done it. People do, of course. And that's not to say that that's wrong or something, either. But the expectation of total 'fidelity' for life is unreasonable. For more on this subject I recommend the bo…
I think it's a waste of breath to promote or condemn one mode of relationship over another. All that matters is what you and your partner(s) agree on for the terms of your relationship.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It 'can be worse' if there is no cheating. My position to the extent that it is sexist is that it may even be worse for them on average. You just seem to be deliberately misconstruing my position because you would rather shut it down then argue the nuance and accept you don't know everything about the world. Am I sexist? By your definition probably yes. Men and women, especially when it comes to relationships are rat…
I'm not deliberately misconstruing your comment, but on re-reading I can see what you're trying to say a little better - your wording leaves something to be desired, and I still don't think it's necessary to bring gender into it at all. You seem to think that a massive betrayal of trust would be better for someone you're breaking up with, than telling them that you're leaving them for other reasons, because it gives…
Again the level of trust is going to vary between relationships, and what has happened in the relationship and the character of the individuals involved. Marriage obviously has explicit promises, but there is a general social contract.
This whole don't mention gender thing is very tedious and borderline thought police. It is simply not that offensive what I am writing. If it doesn't apply to you and yours then good for you. In any case it was grounding it in personal experience.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you really believe that physical coercion to marry high-status males is caused by (i.e., is an "outcome" of) the practice of polygamy? Forced polygyny does not just happen , someone has to have the power to force it. That someone exactly he who benefits from the practice: high-status men – by definition, the patriarchy. Is being physically coerced to marry someone worse than being economically incentivized to? Of…
>> So you really believe that physical coercion to marry high-status males is caused by (i.e., is an "outcome" of) the practice of polygamy? No, I believe that when we look at historical or contemporary examples of societies or sub-cultures in which polygamy is practised, we tend to see forced marriages. I'm not saying either is the cause of the other, but that they are associated, and I agree very much that they bot…
Then why are we arguing?
> what your issue is with people choosing monogamy
I have no such issue? You are putting words in my mouth. Perhaps this is why we are arguing.
All I take issue with is the GP's assertion that polygamy is the cause of the "lost boys" problem. I claim it's not, patriarchy promulgated by high-status males is. Remove polygamy and all you've done is democratize power among males, without addressing the problem of patriarchy. Remove patriarchy and polygamy is no longer problematic.
> it's no longer the case that a woman can't support herself adequately.
Western society has made strides in that direction, yes. And beside the decrease in social ostracism of single females, it is argued that the rise of feminism has driven the rise in consensual polyamory [1], supporting my above point.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyamory#Philosophical_aspect...
I wish social experimentation and progress happened at even 5% of the speed of technological progress.. why don't we just get rid of the idea that you 'own' your partner's body? It seems arcane and based in insecurity. If you can't handle even the slightest of erotic competition, how solid can the basis of your relationship be? (Sorry for the overly controvesial wording if my post, I realize that filing more open rel…
>> why don't we just get rid of the idea that you 'own' your partner's body? I don't own my partner's body, however I expect emotional exclusivity, and that's also what I want to give. Sex, closeness, trust and emotional bonds are all tied up together. It's not "erotic competition" and to me the use of that phrase just belies a lack of maturity - it's never "just sex" for me, and I wouldn't want to be with someone fo…
I'm not sure whether this is correct in English (not my first language) but 'erotic' was meant to include not just sex but other forms of closeness as well. What I don't understand is why the bond of trust, emotional closeness, and so forth necessarily needs to have exclusivity built-in, so to speak.
It's also not like other (non-sexual) forms of closeness are considered cheating. If I am in a monogamous relationship and develop a non-sexual, strong emotional bond with someone else I've only made a new friend, not cheated. However if I have 'just' sex (with little emotional involvement) it is considered cheating.
Now if it were commonly accepted that it is only 'cheating' if you have some strong emotional bond in addition to sexual relations, it would make more sense.
Even then, however, it seems unclear why the fact thaat you also have a strong bond with somebody else somehow invalidates the bond you have with your partner.
Obviously, for 'practical' reasons the number of deep relationships one can have is limited. But 1 seems like an artificially low limit.
In regards to what we could consider progress: I completely agree with what you wrote. However, what is considered a 'normal' relationship, what is ezpected if no further discussion or arrangements are made, what most everyone defaults to, is a partly social norm with important consequences, and one which should be subject to criticism and optimization.
It seems unlikely to me that nearly everyone prefers exclusive monogamy vs a more relaxed relationship model. It seems more likely that the dominance of that particular arrangement is due to societal pressure. Of course maybe it seems that way because I am somehow emotionally immature. Unfortunately, it seems difficult to design rigorous studies to research this question.
Yeah, it might be able self discovery, but it might be about enacting a narcissistic fantasy. The author is right, you reconstruct yourself in the other's gaze, you slake your thirst with the other's mouth. But what kind of self are you constructing here? And what power will your own fantasies have over the person with whom you conduct the affair?
Yeah, I don't think the normalization of this obviously selfish and destructive behavior is a positive thing at all.
By that argument we shouldn't try to understand why anyone does anything we deem negative, and I would hope we can all agree that's incredibly silly.
Understanding "why" helps us understand how to prevent it from happening to people.
This article, in particular, is a great piece for people in healthy relationships to read, because it teaches an important lesson: you are not immune.