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

221–230 of 296 posts

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

#221

Post by t-writescode »

t-writescode wrote: post #204
aipatselarom wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I want to add more. The whole “30 is gay death” expression, I bet, especially since it’s not really a thing anymore, was greatly influenced by there being very few gay people over 30. Because the rest were dead.

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

#222

Post by daymanstep »

coldtea wrote: post #144

Polyamory is a sign of comodification/casualness about relationships and sex, in an increasingly sexless and loveless period. Sexless and loveless are both well documented in research and polls. People fucking less than past decades, fewer being in relationships than than past decades, and more reporting being alone and lonely than past decades.

It is a sign of increasing inequality / hypergamy as the most desirable 1% of men have multiple partners while the rest have none.

In other words human society is reverting to the way it always has been since the dawn of the agricultural age 12,000 years ago.

There was never any reason to believe that the monogamous system of the 1950s West was a permanent stable arrangement and indeed we are seeing its death in our own lifetimes.

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

#223

Post by sss111 »

daymanstep wrote: post #222
coldtea wrote: post #144

Polyamory is a sign of comodification/casualness about relationships and sex, in an increasingly sexless and loveless period. Sexless and loveless are both well documented in research and polls. People fucking less than past decades, fewer being in relationships than than past decades, and more reporting being alone and lonely than past decades.

It is a sign of increasing inequality / hypergamy as the most desirable 1% of men have multiple partners while the rest have none. In other words human society is reverting to the way it always has been since the dawn of the agricultural age 12,000 years ago. There was never any reason to believe that the monogamous system of the 1950s West was a permanent stable arrangement and indeed we are seeing its death in our…

> monogamous system of the 1950s West

It's not exclusively a "West" thing, and it never was. Monogamy has been a stable and thriving system in many parts of the world for centuries, well before the 1950s or the Western framing of it. Societies in South Asia, East Asia, and the Middle East, for example, have long upheld monogamous traditions through cultural and religious practices, sometimes even more rigidly than the West.

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

#224

Post by mancerayder »

I'm always wary of definitions for things that require complex explanations, and are subject to debate. That doesn't mean it's invalid, but it just speaks to - and I hate to say this - a possible influence of academic studies or literature or class content.

I once asked a person who described themselves as 'ethically non-monogamous' what that meant, if it were possible to love more than one person. I was told I was presumptuous, I needed to do more reading, and she gave me multiple paragraphs that interspersed terms like 'the traditional family model' that suggested this was coming from literature.

So - unpopular opinion, and an alternative to "the world is reverting back to the original state of our ancestors with polyamory and hypergamy" -- what if a lot of these definitions are lifestyles that are catching on, due to certain personality proclivities that have always existed, and by making complex explanations we've given them acknowledgment?

In other words, niche lifestyles that have been very much studied and many academic essays written.

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

#225

Post by lazide »

butlike wrote: post #152
potato3732842 wrote: post #139

I 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.

Chemistry is monogamous. 1 electron. 1 pairing.

Oh boy, just wait until you learn about Plasma.

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

#226

Post by amanaplanacanal »

wakawaka28 wrote: post #188
amanaplanacanal wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 st…

STDs aren't a mystery, we know how to avoid them. I actually invited more strangers into my home back when I was monogamous, honestly, but I'm not sure what that has to do with polyamory. Monogamous people lose their partners all the time, have you seen the divorce rates? None of what you are suggesting matches my experience.

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

#227

Post by lazide »

t-writescode wrote: post #32
BitterCritter wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we are conflating two different things. Monogamous people and monogamous institutions. Does the author mean institutions are coercive or that couples are coercive?

Almost certainly Both! Systemic, indoctrinated and even toxic monogamy, perpetuated by people and society at large. You've got people and relationships that are so harmed by strict heteronormativity and its related monogamy that "men and women can't be friends" and "you can't say that lady's cute because that's cheating" and pornography is adultery. It's little microaggressions and requirements of conformity that sys…

It doesn’t matter what system, society will ruin anything it enforces. Everything has pros and cons.

Imagine the same system enforcing poly. You’d have mandatory partner sharing to those in power, all sorts of requirements and gate keeping for who could and could not share, or be part of various cliques, etc.

For sure, anyone pretty or desirable would be expected to be poly and like it or else, etc.

The reality is that system would fly apart even faster than monogamous systems since there is no meaningful way to ‘opt out’ and protect oneself, which is why you don’t see it in any large scale societies.

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

#229

Post by Larrikin »

sss111 wrote: post #223
daymanstep wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a sign of increasing inequality / hypergamy as the most desirable 1% of men have multiple partners while the rest have none. In other words human society is reverting to the way it always has been since the dawn of the agricultural age 12,000 years ago. There was never any reason to believe that the monogamous system of the 1950s West was a permanent stable arrangement and indeed we are seeing its death in our…

> monogamous system of the 1950s West It's not exclusively a "West" thing, and it never was. Monogamy has been a stable and thriving system in many parts of the world for centuries, well before the 1950s or the Western framing of it. Societies in South Asia, East Asia, and the Middle East, for example, have long upheld monogamous traditions through cultural and religious practices, sometimes even more rigidly than th…

They also had slavery, secret societies that hoarded scientific knowledge and attributed it to religious powers, dictators as a default, and plenty of other things people did for thousands of years. How people used to do it, especially more than 100 years ago, is of no worth to anybody living without it being constantly tested.

Newton was a genius with an amazing model, until Einstein showed he was thinking too small, and its becoming apparent that Einstein missed something at this point. Humanity advances by pushing and testing limits.

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

#230

Post by 23B1 »

ajkjk wrote: post #206
23B1 wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Because decadence and social degeneracy – especially inside tech – deserves to be mocked ruthlessly.
Post reply on HN