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

51–60 of 296 posts

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

#51

Post by ajkjk »

hakunin wrote: post #48
ajkjk wrote: post #43

I liked this, but I feel like it glosses over a significant dynamic that discolors both sides of the mono/poly split, which is "people not living the life they want". Not that it's literally "coercive" -- they're not being forced to be in that relationship in any real sense. But the dynamic I often observe (well, infer from observations) is that a person would really like to monogamous or polyamorous (or a different…

Only issue is that when you get what you want, you might be convincing your partner(s) to settle for something they want less. Perhaps the mindset of "best I can get" and finding an acceptable compromise is the way to go.

I truly believe that it is possible to be in a relationship where both people's "best I can get" is "me and my partner are both getting what we want", like you can love someone in a way in which your own preferences recalibrate to be compatible with theirs.

Not sure if this is a state everyone can reach, or would want to, but I'm quite sure it's attainable for lots of people.

(Aside, I have some friends who are bad at asserting themselves in the ways I was talking about, but about, like, everything. They'll say "I want X", but they'll feel they have to provide a good reason for it to be taken seriously, e.g. "I want to eat dinner early tonight because it messes up my sleep when we eat late".

(You can imagine the kind of relationships (family or friends or romantic) they might have had in their lives which trained them to act this way...)

So they act like they have to give a sufficiently good reason for their preferences to be taken seriously.... which is, IMO, the degraded state I'm talking about.

In a respectful relationship, the fact that you want something IS a reason to do it; you don't have to provide a logically adequate reason to get what you want as well. And if two people's desires are incompatible, both will happily compromise to find a way to make them compatible again.)

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

#52

Post by NoMoreNicksLeft »

KittenInABox wrote: post #12
jimbob45 wrote: post #3

21% of Americans have experimented with consensual non-monogamy at some point in their lives, far more than two decades ago Not only do I not believe that statistic, but the footnote citation seems to be broken. I've never seen a poly relationship make it past 10 years and I've never seen a poly relationship without significant issues that you wouldn't see in a monogamous relationship. Furthermore, there simply isn't…

I believe 21% of americans have at least tried to hook in a third for a threesome fling successfully or nonsuccessfully

Half of them informed their spouses about it beforehand. One-eighth of them did so after the fact.

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

#53

Post by bluefirebrand »

123yawaworht456 wrote: post #38
bluefirebrand wrote: post #18

I am someone who experienced the "longterm partner decided she wanted to be poly" heartbreak. When she told me, I asked her why she would choose to stay with me rather than just be single and date as many men as she wanted. She told me something along the lines of "I love you, I want to spend the rest of my life with you, but I don't feel like one person is enough for all the love I have". I wasn't terribly happy wit…

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 for a long time. I'm better now, and I have a very loving stable partner

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

#54

Post by krupan »

It's wild that we can't differentiate lust and love, committed relationship and meaningless sex. That's the main thing I get from the confusion in the article and the confusion in the comments here about what even defines polyamory. It sounds to me like who you have sex with is the main and only thing that defines a relationship? Can people that wait to have sex until marriage ever be considered polyamorous while unmarried? If a married person gets close to a second person but doesn't do anything sexual with them are they still being monogamous?

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

#55

Post by bluefirebrand »

nsluss wrote: post #36
bluefirebrand wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Having a threesome with your partner and your best friend already qualifies I don't think it does qualify any more than having a one night stand between two single people implies that they are dating This seems to be ignore that Poly implies a relationship, not just sex

The quote isn't about "Poly" it's about non-monogamy. Having a one night stand with a stranger while simultaneously having a partner is not monogamy.

See, you can say that but if it's treated as a one time thing and actually stays a one time thing, then probably the two people in the couple aren't going to go around calling their relationship "non-monogamous"

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

#56

Post by ajkjk »

23B1 wrote: post #33
ajkjk wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's talking about a different place and culture than you're in and you're calling it out of touch because it's not familiar to you? Isn't that the point?

[flagged]

You ... might be the out-of-touch one here. This culture is pretty common all over the country these days (although definitely most prevalent in the big metro areas).

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

#57

Post by ajkjk »

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…

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 replace "the drive of creatures is (empirically) to reproduce" with "therefore we ought to reproduce". The two are not equivalent; you do not have to do what you are "told".

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

#58

Post by bluefirebrand »

krupan wrote: post #54

It's wild that we can't differentiate lust and love, committed relationship and meaningless sex. That's the main thing I get from the confusion in the article and the confusion in the comments here about what even defines polyamory. It sounds to me like who you have sex with is the main and only thing that defines a relationship? Can people that wait to have sex until marriage ever be considered polyamorous while unm…

Polyamory may literally just mean "Many loves" but I think we can all agree that we are not in a polyamorous relationship with our parents or close friends

The level of partnership doesn't have to be sex, but being real sex is the thing that most often differentiates romantic partnerships from other close relationships

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

#59

Post by hakunin »

ajkjk wrote: post #51
hakunin wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only issue is that when you get what you want, you might be convincing your partner(s) to settle for something they want less. Perhaps the mindset of "best I can get" and finding an acceptable compromise is the way to go.

I truly believe that it is possible to be in a relationship where both people's "best I can get" is "me and my partner are both getting what we want", like you can love someone in a way in which your own preferences recalibrate to be compatible with theirs. Not sure if this is a state everyone can reach, or would want to, but I'm quite sure it's attainable for lots of people. (Aside, I have some friends who are bad a…

I think you don't really know what you want if you don't know why you want it. Learning to understand oneself is a huge part of one's personal growth. When you don't know the "why", it's easy to be mistaken about what you actually want, and push for a superficial projection of it, not the real underlying thing. (And therefore lose out on relationships you didn't know you'd be happy with.) But we speak in generalities of course.

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

#60

Post by t-writescode »

bluefirebrand wrote: post #58
krupan wrote: post #54

It's wild that we can't differentiate lust and love, committed relationship and meaningless sex. That's the main thing I get from the confusion in the article and the confusion in the comments here about what even defines polyamory. It sounds to me like who you have sex with is the main and only thing that defines a relationship? Can people that wait to have sex until marriage ever be considered polyamorous while unm…

Polyamory may literally just mean "Many loves" but I think we can all agree that we are not in a polyamorous relationship with our parents or close friends The level of partnership doesn't have to be sex, but being real sex is the thing that most often differentiates romantic partnerships from other close relationships

> 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 very close friendship from, for example, a "Queer Platonic Relationship", which could very arguably be romantic.

Post reply on HN