[flagged]
[dead]
Polyamory doesn't liberate; monogamy doesn't protect
241–250 of 296 posts
Re: Polyamory doesn't liberate; monogamy doesn't protect
#242Earlier quoted context omitted.
the more I glimpse American culture, the happier I am that I was not born there. >I wasn't terribly happy with that response, and she broke up with me a week later my brother in Christ, you should've broken up with her on the spot.
> my brother in Christ, you should've broken up with her on the spot After she told me she wanted to be with me for life? I had hoped the poly issue was going to be in the past I was in my early 20s, I was in love, she was my second girlfriend, who happened to be my high school crush, "the one that got away" but I got a second shot with her and took it, I was living the dream How that relationship ended screwed me up…
> After she told me she wanted to be with me for life? I had hoped the poly issue was going to be in the past
You hopefully learned that girls lie, like to avoid conflict and keep their options open. Once you accept these 3 facts they become much easier to understand. Guys care less about point 2.
Only judge someone by their actions, not words. And your gf fucking other people is a pretty clear statement of her feelings for you and her intention for your future.
Re: Polyamory doesn't liberate; monogamy doesn't protect
#243Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's probably up to whatever the couple thinks, and has no universally correct answer It just seems absurd to suggest that a monogamous couple who has one single threesome, one time, and then never again, is now "non-monogamous" forever
It's obviously a spectrum. A related concept is if you suck dick are you gay?
Asking for a friend?
It depends if you enjoy it buddy
Re: Polyamory doesn't liberate; monogamy doesn't protect
#244Re: Polyamory doesn't liberate; monogamy doesn't protect
#245Polyamory is just a nice way to try people and cheat as you want. It's a cool way to say casual sex.
It's like using those insult word, except with a new word, and then a thing that was immoral then becomes cool.
My experience: started a poly thing, after about 3 months she closed her couple and went monogamous again.
It's like arguing "we don't need to wear clothes" except there are sociological, historical reasons that we wear clothes, it's not about being progressive or not.
Re: Polyamory doesn't liberate; monogamy doesn't protect
#246Fantastic 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]
I can't reply to the flagged comment, but I can reply to myself.
There is so much more in humanity than our ability to procreate — every living organism does that, that's not special, it doesn't make us human.
What makes us human, is our ability to create, to pour our heart and very essence into our art, the desire to reach perfection in our craft. We create knowledge, we explore the world, and are in the process of discovering its true nature. We kiss and dance and love, we give, and we share.
Having kids doesn't prevent us from enjoying all those things, but having kids is also not a prerequisite for a good and fulfilling life.
Anyone can have children, but not everyone can create good people, and personally, I love my unborn children too much to expose them to this world.
Re: Polyamory doesn't liberate; monogamy doesn't protect
#247Earlier 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…
You might want to check this out: https://psmag.com/environment/17-to-1-reproductive-success/
Re: Polyamory doesn't liberate; monogamy doesn't protect
#248Earlier 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.
>Intersectionality.
Nah, just elementary school Math.
It was around 1%, a considerable morbidity but still very far from losing "a complete generational cohort".
Re: Polyamory doesn't liberate; monogamy doesn't protect
#249Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think poly is kind of an umbrella term right now for a lot of different kinds of "multiple partners" type relationships. I am ENM (ethically non-monogamous) but if you're not familiar with the term (and most people aren't) saying poly is much easier. It is a bit like saying LGBT and including all the things that fit under the umbrella but aren't lesbian, gay, bi or trans.
It's not a very good umbrella term, the term itself implies a relationship structure where an individual is in multiple, involved intimate relationships. A couple in an open relationship where one or both partners engage in dalliances doesn't fall under that umbrella.
It's posible to draw such clear line? Surely, it's rather easy to convince oneself you have all your relationships nicely compartmentalized..till reality does otherwise.
Re: Polyamory doesn't liberate; monogamy doesn't protect
#250I 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.
> major religion has some semblance of a 1:1 rule More of a one-to-many rule. Only one side is expected to be fully monogamous. It's long been socially acceptable for men to have mistresses or even multiple separate families, so long as they had the resources to take care of them all. And the social faux pas of merely sleeping with other women is very recent.
One side would be stuck with a kid and have significant difficulty paying for/supporting themselves with the extra burden, without an attached male. The other one could give false names and/or disappear never to be seen again.
Biologically, there are differences.