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

271–280 of 296 posts

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

#271

Post by spott »

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'…

That is kinda cutting the line a little fine I think.

How does one move from a monogamous relationship to a poly relationship except through an open relationship?

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

#272

Post by 01HNNWZ0MV43FF »

_yb2s wrote: post #214

I had an ex that "forced" me to become poly to stay together, which in hindsight was really just abuse and cheating rather than polyamory, although I didn't realize it at the time. So I'll admit I'm a bit jaded, and that colors my opinions of it. However, I dove into it, read a lot of books, and decided to give it a try and was dating 3 women at once, while trying to also meet a huge number of other major life respon…

> For example, the book "The Ethical Slut" the author literally describes raping people

Wow, I don't remember that. I'll have to re-read it.

> I also feel it inevitably hurts people when you are more excited about a new partner than them

It certainly happens.

Sometimes I think I'm doomed to be unhappy because I just want too much out of life. I can't imagine settling down, but I don't want flings or hookups without emotion, I want to feel a lot of emotion with people freely.

The first possibility is that, as the Internet keeps saying, I'm a shit person and I'm not ready to date. Most people seem to start dating around half my age so even if this is true, I just reject it. The second is that I just haven't met the person who is such a perfect match that I would sacrifice a lifetime of possibility to stay with them forever. I don't imagine that partner exists. Given that I'm going to crush on people who aren't my partner(s), I'd rather be upfront about it.

The third possibility is that I really am a sociopath and I just want the wrong things. I ask people and they say I'm not a narcissistic or a sociopath. I feel empathy, I don't try to control people.

Shrug?

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

#273

Post by 01HNNWZ0MV43FF »

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.

Is it possible that instinct and emotion drive some people to scale mountains, write software, start businesses, create great works of art, instead of having children?

The explore-exploit tradeoff is well known. Maybe my DNA isn't written to be happy with putting down roots and having kids?

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

#274

Post by 01HNNWZ0MV43FF »

imetatroll wrote: post #110
silexia wrote: post #30

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 relationsh…

Lots of people are going to push back against your statement - I personally agree with you. This is all about continuing our species and everyone else trying to weave some different tale is simply living in la-la land.

If continuing the species was really a matter of desperation, governments would pay citizens to do it. I don't inseminate people for free

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

#276

Post by moralestapia »

giraffe_lady wrote: post #254
moralestapia wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Intersectionality. Nah, just elementary school Math. It was around 1%, a considerable morbidity but still very far from losing "a complete generational cohort".

Hey btw I absolutely did mean "a generational cohort of lgbtq people" not the broader total population. Which would make no sense, so I assumed no one would interpret my meaning that way. Thanks for calling me a bigot and then starting a fight with these other people about it though.

A multiplication and a division is starting a fight nowadays?

>a generational cohort of lgbtq people

That's where the 1% figure comes from. If you look at the whole population it is more like 0.0001%.

Sorry if Math hurt your feelings.

Btw, bigot means a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief or an opinion, which seems relevant.

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

#277

Post by xcrunner529 »

nerdjon wrote: post #156
e40 wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does “door ajar” mean? I have seen several references to it but no definition.

The way that my friends have described it. Neither of them are actively looking, going to events, on apps, etc. But if an opportunity presents itself with a friend or whatever they have already established that it’s fine. It’s still open, but it seems the difference is seeking it out vs it just happening.

Guarantee you one of them is actually always looking.

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

#278

Post by Spivak »

archagon wrote: post #63
t-writescode wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but being real sex is the thing that most often differentiates romantic partnerships from other close relationships I don't actually agree. I think "willingness and continued intention to follow this person and live with them ever still, including the sacrifices that come along with it" tends to be something that connects more with relationships traditionally seen as romantic. It's something that would separate a v…

People devote themselves to their non-romantic loved ones, including parents and siblings.

Sure but the thing that matters is when you make a bond with someone who isn't a member of your family.

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

#279

Post by Spivak »

bhouston wrote: post #237

Do polyamorous people have more or less children compared to non-polyamorous people? This is a way to judge the viability of this way of life long term rather than just as a fad. For it to be sustainable it needs to be both more than the groups around it and above replacement. If it is neither it is a fad.

If that's your definition of success then don't look at the fertility rates of countries around the world. You would be forced to conclude that everyone should be made materially worse off.

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

#280

Post by Spivak »

mensetmanusman wrote: post #81

“ The major monogamy delusion is obvious. It is simple: the idea that you possess your partner” /facepalm

Why do you say this? This has only become untrue in recent history. For most of history the man effectively possesses the woman. We have feminism to thank for sexual equality and it's still today controversial and not universal. You're standing in the eye of the storm saying of course the winds are calm.
Post reply on HN