• Ookami38@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 years ago

    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.

    • morphballganon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      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.

      • Blu@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        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.

        • morphballganon@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 years ago

          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.

      • Ookami38@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 years ago

        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”.

        • morphballganon@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 years ago

          Your change in verbiage from polyamory to polygamy demonstrates you have no interest in critical inquiry, you just want to argue.

          • Ookami38@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            2 years ago

            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.

            • morphballganon@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 years ago

              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.