That’s a bit reductive isn’t it? I’m all for consensual and open polyamory, but what problem, exactly, is solved in this by polyamory? If either party wants monogamy, which is a fairly safe assumption in the world today, then the polyamory just becomes lying, and that doesn’t help anyone.
If you assume lying is involved, then that’s not polyamory, it’s cheating.
The important thing to understand here is that monogamy is a human construct, encouraged by people with self-serving agendas. It had to be learned. It can be unlearned.
Monogamy is a pair bonding strategy as old as humans. It developed at roughly the same time as polyamorous strategies. There’s a strong body of evidence that it became a very prominent strategy around 10-20k years ago, especially in areas with resource strains.
If you want to have multiple partners, by all means, do so, but don’t pretend it’s some construct. It’s a sexual selection strategy hardwired into many different species, including humans.
It just happens to coexist with polyamorous strategies in our species.
Right. The reductive part is assuming this problem would be solved by polygamy, when realistically there’s nothing at all showing that’s the case, except that there’s a guy who wants multiple women for different reasons. We only know that he wants that, but nothing of the motives and desires of the others, and thus it’s reductive to say “polygamy fixes this”.
And your complete dismissal over a simple typographic error demonstrates that you never intended to have an actual discussion. I had actually edited my post to polygamy because I had, inaccurately, recalled you using that word. At the end of the day, polyamory and polygamy, yes they’re distinct. It doesn’t change my statement regardless of which is used, however.
A typographical error would be like saying rihgt instead of right. Polyamory and polygamy are completely different words. You were poisoning the well. Go argue with teenagers who don’t know what a fallacy is.
Sure it solves the problem of having to choose between 2 options while introduces an endless stream of discussions of solving issues that come up. If you’re bored and want to constantly discuss about the meta of your life, of your priorities and of your boundaries is indeed perfect
Yeah I never said I’m a monogamist but truth is, these issues are multiplied when more people are involved. Even how you decide to split your time is prone to multiple issues. Claiming poly is easier and automatically solves problems is naive.
Yet another “problem” polyamory solves
snaps fingers
Just like that
That’s a bit reductive isn’t it? I’m all for consensual and open polyamory, but what problem, exactly, is solved in this by polyamory? If either party wants monogamy, which is a fairly safe assumption in the world today, then the polyamory just becomes lying, and that doesn’t help anyone.
If you assume lying is involved, then that’s not polyamory, it’s cheating.
The important thing to understand here is that monogamy is a human construct, encouraged by people with self-serving agendas. It had to be learned. It can be unlearned.
Monogamy is a pair bonding strategy as old as humans. It developed at roughly the same time as polyamorous strategies. There’s a strong body of evidence that it became a very prominent strategy around 10-20k years ago, especially in areas with resource strains.
If you want to have multiple partners, by all means, do so, but don’t pretend it’s some construct. It’s a sexual selection strategy hardwired into many different species, including humans.
It just happens to coexist with polyamorous strategies in our species.
If it was hard-wired, it would be impossible to unlearn. It is possible to unlearn. This is proof it’s not hard-wired, it’s conditioned by society.
Right. The reductive part is assuming this problem would be solved by polygamy, when realistically there’s nothing at all showing that’s the case, except that there’s a guy who wants multiple women for different reasons. We only know that he wants that, but nothing of the motives and desires of the others, and thus it’s reductive to say “polygamy fixes this”.
Your change in verbiage from polyamory to polygamy demonstrates you have no interest in critical inquiry, you just want to argue.
And your complete dismissal over a simple typographic error demonstrates that you never intended to have an actual discussion. I had actually edited my post to polygamy because I had, inaccurately, recalled you using that word. At the end of the day, polyamory and polygamy, yes they’re distinct. It doesn’t change my statement regardless of which is used, however.
A typographical error would be like saying rihgt instead of right. Polyamory and polygamy are completely different words. You were poisoning the well. Go argue with teenagers who don’t know what a fallacy is.
Sure it solves the problem of having to choose between 2 options while introduces an endless stream of discussions of solving issues that come up. If you’re bored and want to constantly discuss about the meta of your life, of your priorities and of your boundaries is indeed perfect
Those “issues” come up in any relationship. The difference is monogamists have built-in entitlement.
Yeah I never said I’m a monogamist but truth is, these issues are multiplied when more people are involved. Even how you decide to split your time is prone to multiple issues. Claiming poly is easier and automatically solves problems is naive.
Assuming the problems are multiplied is naive. What is actually multiplied is solutions. If you tried it, you might know this.