this post was submitted on 18 Oct 2023
293 points (97.1% liked)
Greentext
4028 readers
1387 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 11 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
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.
Poisoning the well implies an intent. Go reread my statement, replace "polygamy" with "polyamory" and then interface with it. Or keep showing you don't intend to have a good faith discussion because someone used a slightly incorrect word.
Again, I know there's a difference. It does not matter to the statement I made. You're relying on a silly gotcha instead of attacking the argument. And, even if I WAS poisoning the well, it doesn't somehow make you right because you saw a logical fallacy.
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.
It's no more conditioned by society than polyamory. Animals exhibit both strategies. You seem to be conflating institutions like marriage with sexual selection.