Polyamory doesn't liberate; monogamy doesn't protect • Hacker News Board

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

#181

Post by freedomben » Fri, Dec 20, 2024, 7:16 PM UTC

This quote so resonated with me that I thought it worth a specific call out:

> I believe that it is valuable to deeply interrogate nature, not because it is intrinsically right, but because it helps us to understand what materials we are working with.

Also the author mentions Robert Sapolsky, whose work I absolutely adore. If you haven't read any of his books or watched interviews/lectures with him, definitely do so! If you want to understand human nature, he's a phenomenal resource.

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

#182

Post by ajkjk » Fri, Dec 20, 2024, 7:20 PM UTC

nradov wrote: post #160

ajkjk wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like the daily experience of relationships in 2024 America is wildly incompatible with the idea that relationships are for reproduction. Our genes may at some level be programmed to conspire to get us to reproduce, but we are (for all intents and purposes) autonomous and free to do that or not as we wish, and to have relationships for whatever reasons we want. There's a bizarre twist of logic going on when you…

You might not be as autonomous as you think. Behavior in this area is mostly driven by instinct and emotion. People just rationalize their actions later.

I'm not saying that I am or am not autonomous at a chemical level. I'm saying that the fact that someone is programmed to do something has no bearing on whether they ought to do it at a moral level. The only reason a person ought to "follow their programming" is that they want to. After all, if it really is their programming, they will follow it automatically. There is no point rationalizing: "I must be programmed this way, therefore I have to do it". No, if you were programmed to do it, you'd be doing it already.

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

#183

Post by ajkjk » Fri, Dec 20, 2024, 7:23 PM UTC

Buttons840 wrote: post #178

JohnBooty wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've kind of wondered this over the years myself. The downsides of being in a rigidly-defined monogamous relationship are all kind of obvious, I think. Most people do not experience love or attraction as zero-sum games: you can have a "crush" or whatever on Person B without diminishing your feelings for Person A. So a person in a monogamous relationship is going to miss out on some positive physical and emotional con…

If someone truly loves their partner, wouldn't they be happy that their partner is getting more of what they need? Even if that is more sex? I honestly don't know the answer to this question. I've heard the optimal form of monogamy is when both partners fully give themselves to each other, and 100% seek the happiness of their partner. I was taught this in a religion. I can't logically understand it though. I can't im…

> If someone truly loves their partner, wouldn't they be happy that their partner is getting more of what they need? Even if that is more sex?

I feel like this kind of weird idea is due to a fallacy of replacing the actual human experience of love with a sort of rationalized version that has no boundaries or preferences or anything like that. The answer is... no? yes? if you want to? You can love someone and still care about what they do or don't do, and if it's a healthy relationship they'll respect those boundaries, or compromise if necessary, and you'll be respecting theirs also. It definitely does not mean "everything is permitted", unless that's what your personal boundaries are---which means that's what a relationship is to you.

The optimal form of monogamy is whatever the two people in the relationship want it to be. Sometimes that's 100% seeking the happiness of their partner (I think that's a delusional fantasy though). Sometimes it's two people coexisting and just having each other's back. The whole point is that each person finds a relationship that gets what they need. Not what some idealized version of a person that they aspire to be would need.

And my money's on no, most people do not want a relationship where their partner has sex with whoever they want, because it is also a fallacy that sex is a physical need rather than emotional one. In fact it has a lot to do with emotions, safety, power, compassion, etc, and those are all things that are (often) tied into a relationship, especially as you get older.

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

#184

Post by ajkjk » Fri, Dec 20, 2024, 7:27 PM UTC

ajkjk wrote: post #79

JohnBooty wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They'll say "I want X", but they'll feel they have to provide a good reason for it to be taken seriously, e.g. "I want to eat dinner early tonight because it messes up my sleep when we eat late". This is really interesting. On one level this could be a really bad sign (either about the relationship, or just one person's self esteem) where a person can't just want something. They have to "justify" it. On the other han…

I wasn't super happy with that example, it's vaguely based on something that happened to me recently but I can't quite remember what happened well enough to make it sound compelling. But I do notice this phenomenon of "justifying one's preferences" in people pretty regularly. When it happens, it sounds odd... like it stands out as insecure, but they seem to not be aware it's odd at all.

I'll add:

I guess the way this usually manifests is not that a person gives reasons at all, but rather that they seem to give too many reasons. Like offhandedly saying "I feel like doing this" is normal. But going on about the reasons, making sure they're very clear and crisp and agreed upon by everybody is more like the aberrant/degraded thing I'm talking about.

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

#185

Post by ajkjk » Fri, Dec 20, 2024, 7:29 PM UTC

23B1 wrote: post #114

ajkjk wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What? Subjective claims still support an argument, just more loosely than objective ones do. Instead of saying my observations are wrong or that you disagree with them, your stance is that "opinions aren't real"? That's absurd.

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

#186

Post by indrora » Fri, Dec 20, 2024, 7:34 PM UTC

paulryanrogers wrote: post #149

portaouflop wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where I am from marriage is forever and there is no way to dissolve it without burning in eternal fire - it’s very much about ownership. Kudos on you to having a modern marriage but marriage in the past (and also now) also is about ownership. It’s a literal contract between two people and you are legally obligated to take care of the other person.

Ownership implies control without the consent of whomever is being controlled. Where you are from sounds horrific. Hopefully it changes for the better soon.

This was... the US, Britain, etc for many years and much of the middle east and parts of them and Asia today.

Women just aren't in control of their lives and personhood in so many ways under even modern marriage law. I believe it's still problematic in some US states and I know it's problematic in many places that we might even consider "civilized" where a woman cannot bring her husband for divorce, the husband must bring his wife for divorce. There are still places in the "civilized" world where it is considered legal for a man to force himself upon his wife against her will or enact violence upon her if she does not submit.

Beyond that, there is an assumption in some layers of society that women will marry and have no autonomy over their lives.

A good friend of mine in the early 90s faced extreme issue closing the joint account between her and her (recently deceased) husband. She was told that she needed her husband's "written and notarized approval" to take any action against the account, even though she was listed as the primary contact on the account because the system enforced that only male account holders were allowed to make changes. In fact, this system didn't allow a single woman to open a bank account until 1992!

Another friend of mine has been attempting to get a hysterectomy voluntarily (every woman on her mother's side has developed cervical cancer in the last 4 generations), has no interest in ever having a child or getting married to a man for that matter, and has faced numerous doctors who will not even hear her out because "what if her future husband wants kids" just absolutely stalls the conversation. She has recently gotten further by having a local wiccan coven write some bullshit on paper that it's her "religious duty to nature" to have this happen, which has at least gotten a few doctors to read and go "I'll have to check in on this."

Just this year, American women in the south were reminded that their vote is just as secret as their husband's. This spurred a wave of men who began calling for the stripping of the rights of women because they might vote differently than their husbands.

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

#187

Post by llamaimperative » Fri, Dec 20, 2024, 7:34 PM UTC

paulryanrogers wrote: post #149

portaouflop wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where I am from marriage is forever and there is no way to dissolve it without burning in eternal fire - it’s very much about ownership. Kudos on you to having a modern marriage but marriage in the past (and also now) also is about ownership. It’s a literal contract between two people and you are legally obligated to take care of the other person.

Ownership implies control without the consent of whomever is being controlled. Where you are from sounds horrific. Hopefully it changes for the better soon.

Yeah, it’s actually your perspective that’s the recent innovation.

Most of history is closer to what GP described.

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

#188

Post by wakawaka28 » Fri, Dec 20, 2024, 7:36 PM UTC

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.

Some obvious risks are: higher chances of STDs, higher chances of strangers causing trouble for you in your home, more difficulties having kids (from paternity issues to differences in values like poly people don't often want kids), and a higher risk of losing your partner. You would probably be better off paying for a prostitute than trying to make polyamory work with all its inherent drama and complications. You still have to worry about STDs but at least you can walk away from any and all other trouble.

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

#189

Post by wakawaka28 » Fri, Dec 20, 2024, 7:37 PM UTC

inglor_cz wrote: post #100

wakawaka28 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think most people are having sex with multiple people or even doing this parallel dating business. Parallel dating is less common than serial dating, and parallel dating with sex is even less common than parallel dating. It sure isn't looking like 20% of people to me. I avoid people like that too so maybe there is some selection bias.

A single threesome is enough to put all its participants into those 20 per cent, and according to studies, 10 per cent of women and 18 per cent of men had a threesome. There is a majority of the cohort already, and if your friends perceive you as judgmental, they won't likely tell you that they have had one.

There's no way 18% of straight men had a threesome. That sounds like the kind of thing people would lie about. In any case, a single threesome is not "polyamory" and certainly not closely related to "parallel dating."

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

#190

Post by legostormtroopr » Fri, Dec 20, 2024, 7:38 PM UTC

ted_bunny wrote: post #76

JohnBooty wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've kind of wondered this over the years myself. The downsides of being in a rigidly-defined monogamous relationship are all kind of obvious, I think. Most people do not experience love or attraction as zero-sum games: you can have a "crush" or whatever on Person B without diminishing your feelings for Person A. So a person in a monogamous relationship is going to miss out on some positive physical and emotional con…

People focus so much on getting equal sex. If that bothers you you'te totally missing the point. Poly people invented the word compersion to amend a blind spot in our language, and thereby do the same in our emotional vocabulary. At least from their point of view. Maybe it's not a part of our vocabulary because it's contrary to our biology.

"It makes me happy to see my partner happy" is Relationships 101. Just because people gave it a word, doesn't mean it didn't exist - and I'd claim the opposite, poly people had to make a word because its not seen as the default in that community.

This is like saying, I invented the word "hiverchill" which means "that feeling of cold when it snows". You can't say this was a blind spot in our language. We didn't need this word, because of course you are cold when it snows.