[flagged]
What the inc-hell?
[flagged]
Polyamory doesn't liberate; monogamy doesn't protect
201–210 of 296 posts
Re: Polyamory doesn't liberate; monogamy doesn't protect
#202Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, they didn't. At least look at the data before making such a bigoted statement.
Yes, we did lose a generational cohort. There is a reason that the quilt is so large[1]. [1] https://www.npr.org/2012/06/27/155868611/pieces-of-aids-quil...
100k out of 200 million (US)? Out of 5 billion (worldwide)?
The flu makes us lose five "generational cohorts" every year, then.
Re: Polyamory doesn't liberate; monogamy doesn't protect
#203Earlier 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.
> young LGBTQ+ people are against learning from their elders No, there's a missing generation. As (previously) one of those, my generation is now the "elders", and we had to learn in a strange, weirdly sheltered way. Our elders were dead or hiding. The topics were taboo, the representation garbage, and the content online? Often blocked in the place we had internet access. I do a lot of teaching to my younger queer fr…
Sorry, yes, I wasn't intending to give the impression that I was ignoring the many, many that died in the 80s during the AIDS epidemic. I was intending to refer to Millenials as the elders and Gen Alpha as the "young LGBTQ+".
At least what I see on TikTok has reflected a lot of the elder (Millenial) LGBTQ+ people becoming periodically frustrated with the younglings for not listening to them as they talk about exactly the frustrations / issues the new ones are going through or aren't having to go through.
Weirdly, swingers *were* talked about in my family when I was young.
Re: Polyamory doesn't liberate; monogamy doesn't protect
#204Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, we did lose a generational cohort. There is a reason that the quilt is so large[1]. [1] https://www.npr.org/2012/06/27/155868611/pieces-of-aids-quil...
100k out of 200 million (US)? Out of 5 billion (worldwide)? The flu makes us lose five "generational cohorts" every year, then.
Intersectionality.
100k out of *how many out homosexual individuals during that era in the area being studied*?
And it's not just raw numbers, either. It's how many lives / families were impacted in this unique way.
To add, it's also 100k that were almost entirely in a single demographic that was explicitly and implicitly being harmed by those in power during that era.
Re: Polyamory doesn't liberate; monogamy doesn't protect
#205Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Sounds like you haven't heard of UHauling. It's a trope that many lesbians are highly relationship oriented and things get serious really quickly.
I didn’t, and didn’t even know those behaviors. Discovered two staple of LGBT humour that are great, hope it doesn’t sound rambling for those who know it:
Question: What does a lesbian bring on a second date? Answer: A U-Haul.
——
Question: What does a gay man bring on a second date? Answer: What second date
Re: Polyamory doesn't liberate; monogamy doesn't protect
#206Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
No, my position is that your opinion(s) are so disconnected to reality that, much like the article, can be safely ignored as bullshyt.
I mean, fine, believe whatever you want, but if you don't about engaging with what anyone else says why bother posting?
Re: Polyamory doesn't liberate; monogamy doesn't protect
#207Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 t…
"Compersion" is usually more than just "it makes me happy to see my partner happy", but "it makes me happy to see my partner happy, even when that would (at least traditionally) inspire some bad feeling in me."
Compersion isn't the feeling you get when you give your partner flowers and they smile, it's the feeling you get when your partner tells you a story about how nice their date with someone else was. It's a very particular flavor of joy-for-partner, that for some people doesn't exist at all because it is clouded by jealousy or fear or other feelings.
> poly people had to make a word because its not seen as the default in that community.
Feeling joy at your partner going on a date with someone else is not seen as the default in any community except the poly community.
Re: Polyamory doesn't liberate; monogamy doesn't protect
#208I've observed a number of poly relationships from the outside, as a friend of one or more of the participants. I've also been in a monogamous relationship for >20yr and I've lived on both coasts of the US in that time. Generalizing wildly, "going poly" seems to be driven by one partner's selfishness and the other partner's desire to please. It has resulted in breakup of the original dyad in 100% of cases.
Probably a function of the particlar psychographic you hang out with.
Meanwhile one observes the denial of any potential to even discuss ENM (along with straight-up cheating) contributing to an immeasurable portion of dyad breakups.
Or people staying in the dyad, but with tremendous unacknowledged suffering.
Re: Polyamory doesn't liberate; monogamy doesn't protect
#209Earlier quoted context omitted.
What does “door ajar” mean? I have seen several references to it but no definition.
The door is not wide open to potential partners, but it’s also not closed —> door ajar.
Thanks for the explanation, it helped, but I still have no clue where does the "ajar" thing come from, letter for letter.
Re: Polyamory doesn't liberate; monogamy doesn't protect
#210I really hate "traditional values" on account of their peddlers and the history books full of horrors they have enabled but when literally every successful society and major religion has some semblance of a 1:1 rule even if the exceptions and edge case handling are different you kinda gotta take notice.
There's a tragedy of the commons when it comes to the question of "what do all of the single people do?" Each relationship beyond monogamy can be thought of as "taking away" an opportunity from the partner you would have paired with had you been monogamous. ie a relationship opportunity cost.
Typically, societies with imbalanced relationship ratios, an in particular single males, tend to be more unstable. Should poly folks design their life around the consequences of disaffected young males? No, of course not. Nor should we artificially privilege monogamy to ensure social stability for obvious reasons of individualality and moral policing. We should study the phenomenon and remedy the male psyche to ensure social stability and discover, scientifically, the threshold at which we can expect it to be a problem.