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

21–30 of 296 posts

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

#21

Post by bluefirebrand »

tremon wrote: post #14
jimbob45 wrote: post #3

21% of Americans have experimented with consensual non-monogamy at some point in their lives, far more than two decades ago Not only do I not believe that statistic, but the footnote citation seems to be broken. I've never seen a poly relationship make it past 10 years and I've never seen a poly relationship without significant issues that you wouldn't see in a monogamous relationship. Furthermore, there simply isn't…

I think you're making the claim much bigger than it is. The narrow interpretation of "consensual non-monogamy" does not imply a relationship. Having a threesome with your partner and your best friend already qualifies. Making out with a non-partner while your partner watches might already qualify, depending on how the question is understood.

> Having a threesome with your partner and your best friend already qualifies

I don't think it does qualify any more than having a one night stand between two single people implies that they are dating

This seems to be ignore that Poly implies a relationship, not just sex

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

#22

Post by phoe-krk »

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…

> I wonder if the negative view of monogamy is just the immaturity of youth and those people have since grown out of that position?

There are powerful entities, including religions and country laws, that either make life easier for people pratcicing the monogamous relationship style or just outright force that style on masses of people. This force spawns resistance, and the negative view you mention is an expression of this resistance.

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

#23

Post by t-writescode »

phoe-krk wrote: post #22
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…

> I wonder if the negative view of monogamy is just the immaturity of youth and those people have since grown out of that position? There are powerful entities, including religions and country laws, that either make life easier for people pratcicing the monogamous relationship style or just outright force that style on masses of people. This force spawns resistance, and the negative view you mention is an expression…

And it's worth adding that the comment "Monogamy is coercive." is a reflection of this part:

> There are powerful entities, including religions and country laws, that [...] just outright force that style on masses of people.

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

#24

Post by quux »

jimbob45 wrote: post #3

21% of Americans have experimented with consensual non-monogamy at some point in their lives, far more than two decades ago Not only do I not believe that statistic, but the footnote citation seems to be broken. I've never seen a poly relationship make it past 10 years and I've never seen a poly relationship without significant issues that you wouldn't see in a monogamous relationship. Furthermore, there simply isn't…

Time spent with different partners doesn't necessarily have to be equal. For instance a "comet partner" who you only spend a couple of days with every few months is one type of common poly relationship

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

#25

Post by ajkjk »

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…

The author of the post was quoting a book as saying that, and criticizing the book at the same time, so it sounds like you're more or less agreeing with them.

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

#26

Post by renewiltord »

thatfrenchguy wrote: post #16
renewiltord wrote: post #10

Pretty good article. I think everyone could do with a little less pathologization of a lot of human behaviour. My wife has suggested in the past that we have another wife so that we can have more children[0]. I'm amenable to the idea but the logistics of this seem hard to me: our finances are fused, our desires are mostly unified, and it took me many years to find someone with whom this was easy to do. A two-party ma…

> 0: It's not that we're old but that we will be old by the time we're done. Raising children when you're old is so much harder, and you'll be mega-old when they're 20. I really don't see the point?

The point is to avoid that precise problem by parallelizing the child-having. My wife can only have one child at a time and medically recommended spacing is 18 months. The objective is to have our children as young as we can given our current ages.

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

#27

Post by spondylosaurus »

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'…

The poly vs open distinction is interesting because (anecdotally) I see some variation there between gay and lesbian relationships—it seems like gay dudes are more likely to be in a door-ajar couple, whereas the throuples I know are usually groups of lesbians!

Conversely, I don't see many poly gay dudes or door-ajar lesbian couples, and lesbians might be more monogamous on average.

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

#29

Post by Teever »

bluefirebrand wrote: post #21
tremon wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're making the claim much bigger than it is. The narrow interpretation of "consensual non-monogamy" does not imply a relationship. Having a threesome with your partner and your best friend already qualifies. Making out with a non-partner while your partner watches might already qualify, depending on how the question is understood.

> Having a threesome with your partner and your best friend already qualifies I don't think it does qualify any more than having a one night stand between two single people implies that they are dating This seems to be ignore that Poly implies a relationship, not just sex

How many threesomes with their partner and their best friend would someone have to have before they're polyamorous?

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

#30

Post by silexia »

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 relationships in their lives. Poly may work great for people without children, but children need the stability of long term committed parents who are always there and this is best provided by monogamy.

Post reply on HN