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

281–290 of 296 posts

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

#281

Post by [deleted] »

moralestapia wrote: post #276
giraffe_lady wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

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

#282

Post by t-writescode »

ajkjk wrote: post #262
23B1 wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because decadence and social degeneracy – especially inside tech – deserves to be mocked ruthlessly.

I imagine that the comment thread you've generated here is a net negative for the popularity of your worldview.

The kind of worldview being promoted here tends to have people that prefer to enforce their worldview by the sword rather than in the chamber of ideals and free thought.

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

#283

Post by ksaj »

A lot of people don't seem to realize polyamory versus open relationship. Polyamory is about holding multiple relationships. Open relationship is more about the physical act, without additional relationships.

Multiple loves, versus getting it on with others once in a while, but not forming lasting relationships with them.

My partner and I have open relationship. We don't "date" other people, and actively avoid the baggage that comes with people who try to turn it into that. But a sexcapade or romp is fair.. we might be sexy, but not the only sexy people on the planet.

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

#284

Post by 23B1 »

ajkjk wrote: post #262
23B1 wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because decadence and social degeneracy – especially inside tech – deserves to be mocked ruthlessly.

I imagine that the comment thread you've generated here is a net negative for the popularity of your worldview.

Yes, and "active therapeutic/somatic/mystical work on your attachment wounds" is doing wonders for polyamory lmao

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

#286

Post by valval »

portaouflop wrote: post #137
valval wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many would argue that there is no such thing as meaningless sex. I’m of the opinion that arguing for the existence of such thing is naive and idiotic.

It depends how you define meaningful and meaningless which is highly subjective - so it’s neither naive nor idiotic to be able to have meaningless sex - maybe it’s just not something you feel

There are powers at play in this world that don't care about one's feelings.

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

#288

Post by bhouston »

Spivak wrote: post #279
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.

We probably need a solution to that. Below replacement fertility rates are not desirable.

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

#289

Post by silexia »

ajkjk wrote: post #182
nradov wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm not saying that I am or am not autonomous at a chemical level. I'm saying that the fact that someone is programmed to do something has no bearing on whether they ought to do it at a moral level. The only reason a person ought to "follow their programming" is that they want to. After all, if it really is their programming, they will follow it automatically. There is no point rationalizing: "I must be programmed th…

Are you wiser than billions of years of evolution?

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

#290

Post by silexia »

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #127
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…

From an evolutionary point of view the point of life may be reproduction, but from a personal point of view it most certainly is not. Plenty of people have no interest in having kids, and what about people who are sterile? Should they just give up on life? Some people prefer to live alone, but everybody has relationships of some sort, children or no.

People have been fooled into thinking their hobbies should override billions of years of evolution... if you behave as your body is hard wired to behave, you will be happier.
Post reply on HN