Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Polyamory doesn't liberate; monogamy doesn't protect

carsonogenic.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 296 posts

Re: Polyamory doesn't liberate; monogamy doesn't protect

#111

Post by [deleted] »

t-writescode wrote: post #32
BitterCritter wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we are conflating two different things. Monogamous people and monogamous institutions. Does the author mean institutions are coercive or that couples are coercive?

Almost certainly Both! Systemic, indoctrinated and even toxic monogamy, perpetuated by people and society at large. You've got people and relationships that are so harmed by strict heteronormativity and its related monogamy that "men and women can't be friends" and "you can't say that lady's cute because that's cheating" and pornography is adultery. It's little microaggressions and requirements of conformity that sys…

[deleted]

Re: Polyamory doesn't liberate; monogamy doesn't protect

#112

Post by theasisa »

nerdjon wrote: post #13

There is one issue that I have with this article and most discussions around polyamory. That is mixing in open relationships and poly. There is a massive difference between, you can do whatever sexually you want and dating other people. There is an emotional difference. Myself, I am in an open relationship but I know that what I consider poly is a line I do not wish to cross. I know that just it is not for me. I don'…

I think poly is kind of an umbrella term right now for a lot of different kinds of "multiple partners" type relationships. I am ENM (ethically non-monogamous) but if you're not familiar with the term (and most people aren't) saying poly is much easier. It is a bit like saying LGBT and including all the things that fit under the umbrella but aren't lesbian, gay, bi or trans.

Re: Polyamory doesn't liberate; monogamy doesn't protect

#113

Post by theasisa »

krupan wrote: post #54

It's wild that we can't differentiate lust and love, committed relationship and meaningless sex. That's the main thing I get from the confusion in the article and the confusion in the comments here about what even defines polyamory. It sounds to me like who you have sex with is the main and only thing that defines a relationship? Can people that wait to have sex until marriage ever be considered polyamorous while unm…

It can be difficult to differentiate between those, because you can have meaningless sex in a committed relationship and meaningful sex in a non-committed one. I have sex with several of my close friends because the difference between platonic love and romantic relationship is not very clear in my mind. And I've had relationships that are very close and intimate where I haven't had sex with them because while some of them have been romantic, they just haven't been physical.

Re: Polyamory doesn't liberate; monogamy doesn't protect

#114

Post by 23B1 »

ajkjk wrote: post #80
23B1 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

How could they be meaningless? They have clear meanings. Maybe you mean that you are choosing to disbelieve them? Then that's your problem. They're self-evidently true if you live in these places.

Both terms are subjective and therefore don’t support your argument.

Re: Polyamory doesn't liberate; monogamy doesn't protect

#115

Post by OfficeChad »

123yawaworht456 wrote: post #38
bluefirebrand wrote: post #18

I am someone who experienced the "longterm partner decided she wanted to be poly" heartbreak. When she told me, I asked her why she would choose to stay with me rather than just be single and date as many men as she wanted. She told me something along the lines of "I love you, I want to spend the rest of my life with you, but I don't feel like one person is enough for all the love I have". I wasn't terribly happy wit…

the more I glimpse American culture, the happier I am that I was not born there. >I wasn't terribly happy with that response, and she broke up with me a week later my brother in Christ, you should've broken up with her on the spot.

[dead]

Re: Polyamory doesn't liberate; monogamy doesn't protect

#116

Post by shadowerm »

__turbobrew__ wrote: post #90
big-green-man wrote: post #72

I think people who like ideas like polyamory have misconstrued notions about what monogamy is, which is a general cultural problem in western societies these days. I don't own my partner and she doesn't own me. I give myself freely to her and she does the same. It's not about expectation, but commitment. I promise her she's the only one for me, despite my very human desires, and she promises me the same thing. This i…

Well said, monogamy is a structure for producing a stable child rearing environment — and by relation a stable society. It is entirely consensual where arranged marriages no longer take place. I have no issues how people screw each other but monogamy has a purpose, and if your purpose is to raise a stable family your odds are best if you pursue monogamy.

You are taking effective birth control completely for granted.

It wasn't that long ago that monogamy was the default because no one wants to have a baby from a night of netflix and chill.

IMO you have the direction of causation backwards. Monogamy is not some child rearing optimization strategy. It was a social construct that evolved because causual sex at one point was incredibly expensive and now it is not because of birth control.

Re: Polyamory doesn't liberate; monogamy doesn't protect

#118

Post by p0w3n3d »

shadowerm wrote: post #116
__turbobrew__ wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well said, monogamy is a structure for producing a stable child rearing environment — and by relation a stable society. It is entirely consensual where arranged marriages no longer take place. I have no issues how people screw each other but monogamy has a purpose, and if your purpose is to raise a stable family your odds are best if you pursue monogamy.

You are taking effective birth control completely for granted. It wasn't that long ago that monogamy was the default because no one wants to have a baby from a night of netflix and chill. IMO you have the direction of causation backwards. Monogamy is not some child rearing optimization strategy. It was a social construct that evolved because causual sex at one point was incredibly expensive and now it is not because…

I can't imagine going to my theorerical wife-in-open-monogamy-relationship and tell her that the girl I had sex with at work's Christmas party gave me std because, despite she had her pills, but the rubber fell. It's just not mixing up in my head.

Also, if I give myself to my wife as a whole (i.e. I take care of her, the home and the children) I do not have time really to have another affairs. The rest of the time I'm left with I either sacrifice to be with her or have my own time like play games or compose music. There are lots of things to be done really, and I couldn't imagine sacrificing my family and duties to pursue sexual satisfaction with other people outside of my family.

Re: Polyamory doesn't liberate; monogamy doesn't protect

#119

Post by subjectsigma »

krupan wrote: post #54

It's wild that we can't differentiate lust and love, committed relationship and meaningless sex. That's the main thing I get from the confusion in the article and the confusion in the comments here about what even defines polyamory. It sounds to me like who you have sex with is the main and only thing that defines a relationship? Can people that wait to have sex until marriage ever be considered polyamorous while unm…

For our ancestors, not being choosy about sex had very serious consequences. (It still might.) It’s “wild” to you that 3 million years of evolution is working as intended?

Re: Polyamory doesn't liberate; monogamy doesn't protect

#120

Post by [deleted] »

p0w3n3d wrote: post #118
shadowerm wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are taking effective birth control completely for granted. It wasn't that long ago that monogamy was the default because no one wants to have a baby from a night of netflix and chill. IMO you have the direction of causation backwards. Monogamy is not some child rearing optimization strategy. It was a social construct that evolved because causual sex at one point was incredibly expensive and now it is not because…

I can't imagine going to my theorerical wife-in-open-monogamy-relationship and tell her that the girl I had sex with at work's Christmas party gave me std because, despite she had her pills, but the rubber fell. It's just not mixing up in my head. Also, if I give myself to my wife as a whole (i.e. I take care of her, the home and the children) I do not have time really to have another affairs. The rest of the time I'…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN