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

121–130 of 296 posts

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

#121

Post by amanaplanacanal »

subjectsigma wrote: post #119
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?

I assume you are talking about our Hunter-gatherer ancestors based on the timeframe, but I'm not sure what you mean by serious consequences. Could you expand on that a bit?

I suspect monogamy as we know it is a response to the invention of agriculture, and we have closer relatives (the bonobos) who have sex much more freely than some of our other closer relatives.

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

#122

Post by amanaplanacanal »

__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.

Monogamy is one such structure. It seems very tied to the modern idea of the "nuclear family." There are others. Having an extended family all living together is another. Tribes where children are raised communally is another.

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

#123

Post by robertlagrant »

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…

> Monogamy is not some child rearing optimization strategy.

Can you go into this a little more? Is there evidence (either way) that stable 2-parent households are or aren't better for kids, or that an alternative is better?

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

#124

Post by robertlagrant »

valval wrote: post #103
switch007 wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

How did you get this from GP’s comment? They’re saying the exact opposite in plain as day terms.

From this, I imagine:

> I don't own my partner and she doesn't own me.

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

#125

Post by em-bee »

krupan wrote: post #41
silexia wrote: post #30

Fantastic article, but as a monogamous married father of 4, I think the author misses the fundamental point of all relationships... And the point of life itself: Reproduction. The primary drive of every living creature from whales to amoeba is to procreate. Having children is WHY we have a sex drive and an urge to have relationships in the first place. Tons of studies show children require stability in the relationsh…

I generally agree with what you are saying, but you need to add "and not fighting" to "long term committed parents who are always there." Not fighting is so important that sometimes the parents need to split up so they can stop fighting. They can still be committed parents who are always there for the kids while no longer in a relationship with each other and the kids will do well. I really really wish someone had to…

when my parents separated (and then divorced) and we moved, i thought it was the best thing that we moved so far away that they just could not meet and thus could not fight anymore. that was my feeling as a 12 year old. forget shared responsibility and kids alternating between both parents. in our case that would have been a disaster and the opposite of a stable living situation for us children.

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

#126

Post by amanaplanacanal »

wakawaka28 wrote: post #89
scott_w wrote: post #15

I don’t think the author is saying this is their opinion but this sentence stood out to me: Monogamy is coercive. For a lifestyle that tries to sound “open,” this is an incredibly judgemental view to take on the many people who don’t live your lifestyle. Some of this attitude reminds me of hearing “nobody cares if you’re not tattooed” in my tooth, from tattooed people. Right before insisting I should get a tattoo to…

>To be clear, I don’t care what 2, 3 or 30 consenting adults do in their personal lives. I wonder if the negative view of monogamy is just the immaturity of youth and those people have since grown out of that position? The negative view of monogamy that these people convey is an attempt to justify their lifestyle to people who don't like it, or to recruit more people to their lifestyle. One could argue that both mono…

The disadvantages of polyamory are not obvious to me, as a 67 year who has been married twice and swore it off after the last one ended.

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

#127

Post by amanaplanacanal »

silexia wrote: post #30

Fantastic article, but as a monogamous married father of 4, I think the author misses the fundamental point of all relationships... And the point of life itself: Reproduction. The primary drive of every living creature from whales to amoeba is to procreate. Having children is WHY we have a sex drive and an urge to have relationships in the first place. Tons of studies show children require stability in the relationsh…

From an evolutionary point of view the point of life may be reproduction, but from a personal point of view it most certainly is not. Plenty of people have no interest in having kids, and what about people who are sterile? Should they just give up on life?

Some people prefer to live alone, but everybody has relationships of some sort, children or no.

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

#128

Post by innerHTML »

valval wrote: post #104
znpy wrote: post #97

I have a strong feeling that like many new things, poliamory is currently mostly/only getting get “positive marketing” narrative. Basically: what’s being advertised is mostly the “happy path”. Everything goes well until it doesn’t, what then? Relationships are hard. There are a number of ways things get messy (and/or toxic) with two individuals, somehow things should improve with more than two persons ?

I think it’s just the latest fad neurodivergent people push on each other.

this, tbh. to a large degree.

anecdotally, all those I know who practice poly, and name it as such, also say they have asperger's.

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

#129

Post by e40 »

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'…

What does “door ajar” mean? I have seen several references to it but no definition.

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

#130

Post by e40 »

t-writescode wrote: post #61
nkingsy wrote: post #40

The word swinger wasn't mentioned once. Probably because the swingers are just quietly enjoying their lives under the radar.

I think it might also be because "Swinging" is a word from a previous era and some/many of the young LGBTQ+ people are against learning from their elders. Swinging is a very clear example of ENM.

ENM?
Post reply on HN