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

161–170 of 296 posts

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

#161

Post by nerdjon »

valval wrote: post #102
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…

Many would argue that there is no such thing as meaningless sex. I’m of the opinion that arguing for the existence of such thing is naive and idiotic.

I think it depends on what we consider "meaningless".

Is it "meaningless" that I hang out with friends on a Friday night? We didn't really accomplish anything except for possibly growing our relationships.

I think when myself and many people say we have "meaningless" sex it just means that beyond that particular moment, it doesn't have any other purpose. (beyond maybe its with a friend and it does the same as going out for drinks and just grows a relationship).

It was fun in the moment, but thats it. It is the same as going out for drinks, playing a game, or any other activity that I engage with friends with. Of course it's not truly "meaningless" or we wouldn't be doing it since we wouldn't be enjoying it. But it doesn't have to go deeper than that.

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

#162

Post by dmm »

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #122
__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.

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.

> Having an extended family all living together is another.

Collectivism has clear benefits but comes at a steep price: the need to establish and enforce group norms. The nuclear family seems like a compromise in this space, a revealed preference.

I mean, I would probably be happy living like an Orca in a matrilineal family group but, then again, I've always gotten along with my Mom. What about the people who haven't? Or who only started to once they moved out? Those people would be faced with living in a disharmonious environment or leaving to a world hostile to individuals.

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

#163

Post by nradov »

PartiallyTyped wrote: post #131
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…

[flagged]

None of those tribes have ever managed to accomplish much. I doubt that's a coincidence.

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

#164

Post by PartiallyTyped »

nradov wrote: post #163
PartiallyTyped wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

None of those tribes have ever managed to accomplish much. I doubt that's a coincidence.

I think we are dealing with survivorship bias more so than anything else. We can look back and speculate about society, how it functioned and all that, but every time we do we are limited in knowledge and by our own biases.

I chose to reply as I did because of the whole “I doubt it’s a coincidence”.

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

#165

Post by moralestapia »

giraffe_lady wrote: post #146
t-writescode wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> some/many of the young LGBTQ+ people are against learning from their elders. Well almost a complete generational cohort of their elders is simply missing. They died of aids in the 80s and 90s.

No, they didn't. At least look at the data before making such a bigoted statement.

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

#166

Post by moralestapia »

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #126
wakawaka28 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

Could you elaborate more on this? In a non-esoteric way.

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

#167

Post by moralestapia »

beachtaxidriver wrote: post #159
VeejayRampay wrote: post #98

I wish someone would find a way to shield us from those topics on Hacker News, the one place that we can go without being flooded with those mundane societal issues and focus on actual technology and science

You can downvote it. Many hackernews readers have pretty diverse interests though, and want to hear about both tech and general social issues.

>You can downvote it.

Nope, you can't.

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

#168

Post by tastesPrpl »

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'…

[dead]

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

#170

Post by emptiestplace »

snapcaster wrote: post #151
VeejayRampay wrote: post #98

I wish someone would find a way to shield us from those topics on Hacker News, the one place that we can go without being flooded with those mundane societal issues and focus on actual technology and science

I agree, and the hackernews demographic are the last group i want to hear from on things like this

Despite the technical focus, HN is one of the most diverse and thoughtful communities I've ever had the privilege to be a part of - and I've been doing this since 300 baud. There isn't really anything I wouldn't want to see discussed here. If you find you absolutely cannot disregard things you aren't interested in, you might want to try Youtube comments, or maybe a technical community on Facebook.
Post reply on HN