No, but I'd argue the concept of plural commitment is.
you can find those in hunter-gatherer societies though, afaik. loosely speaking. Obviously whether they conceive of it as plural commitment in the way we do is a bit iffy, but you can find societies where the particular identity of the biological father is not particularly stressed
This is true, as I recall the small culture (in southern China? Maybe?) where monogamy isn't a thing and children have no fathers, and are instead raised by their mother and maternal uncles.
These people are well aware of the modern conventions of marriage, and think they're hilariously dumb.
Hey, as long as babies get fed and spend time with role models, hard to criticize.
I completely agree.
As I said, I've come to view monogamy and western coupling traditions with a more critical eye of late.
aren't you married?
Yeah, but that doesn't have all that much to do with the macrocultural examination of monogamy.
i guess
though carving out exceptions of principle to ones' own personal circumstances sort of smacks of cognitive dissonance
I get what you're saying, but I think what I'm trying to say here is that my greater examination and criticism of Western conventions of monogamy and coupling isn't necessarily a commentary upon my own situation, and wouldn't be if the things I'm critical of aren't applicable to my situation. Which they largely aren't, btw, I feel.
I know that probably sounds like me making a special exemption for myself, and you're free to argue that, and maybe I am, but I don't think I am.
...but fundamentally, you entered into the same historically patriarchal institution that all other married couples have...
It's historically patriarchal in general, but that has very little to do with the contours of any given marriage.
i agree exactly. i don't think it's particularly fair when modern marriage is indicted for what it was 2000 or even 200 years ago.
No, but I'd argue the concept of plural commitment is.
you can find those in hunter-gatherer societies though, afaik. loosely speaking. Obviously whether they conceive of it as plural commitment in the way we do is a bit iffy, but you can find societies where the particular identity of the biological father is not particularly stressed
This is true, as I recall the small culture (in southern China? Maybe?) where monogamy isn't a thing and children have no fathers, and are instead raised by their mother and maternal uncles.
These people are well aware of the modern conventions of marriage, and think they're hilariously dumb.
Hey, as long as babies get fed and spend time with role models, hard to criticize.
I completely agree.
As I said, I've come to view monogamy and western coupling traditions with a more critical eye of late.
aren't you married?
Yeah, but that doesn't have all that much to do with the macrocultural examination of monogamy.
i guess
though carving out exceptions of principle to ones' own personal circumstances sort of smacks of cognitive dissonance
I get what you're saying, but I think what I'm trying to say here is that my greater examination and criticism of Western conventions of monogamy and coupling isn't necessarily a commentary upon my own situation, and wouldn't be if the things I'm critical of aren't applicable to my situation. Which they largely aren't, btw, I feel.
I know that probably sounds like me making a special exemption for myself, and you're free to argue that, and maybe I am, but I don't think I am.
...but fundamentally, you entered into the same historically patriarchal institution that all other married couples have...
It's historically patriarchal in general, but that has very little to do with the contours of any given marriage.
i agree exactly. i don't think it's particularly fair when modern marriage is indicted for what it was 2000 or even 200 years ago.
Ah, I see. Yeah.
I made a game! Hotline Maui. Requires mouse and keyboard.
No, but I'd argue the concept of plural commitment is.
you can find those in hunter-gatherer societies though, afaik. loosely speaking. Obviously whether they conceive of it as plural commitment in the way we do is a bit iffy, but you can find societies where the particular identity of the biological father is not particularly stressed
This is true, as I recall the small culture (in southern China? Maybe?) where monogamy isn't a thing and children have no fathers, and are instead raised by their mother and maternal uncles.
These people are well aware of the modern conventions of marriage, and think they're hilariously dumb.
Hey, as long as babies get fed and spend time with role models, hard to criticize.
I completely agree.
As I said, I've come to view monogamy and western coupling traditions with a more critical eye of late.
aren't you married?
Yeah, but that doesn't have all that much to do with the macrocultural examination of monogamy.
i guess
though carving out exceptions of principle to ones' own personal circumstances sort of smacks of cognitive dissonance
I get what you're saying, but I think what I'm trying to say here is that my greater examination and criticism of Western conventions of monogamy and coupling isn't necessarily a commentary upon my own situation, and wouldn't be if the things I'm critical of aren't applicable to my situation. Which they largely aren't, btw, I feel.
I know that probably sounds like me making a special exemption for myself, and you're free to argue that, and maybe I am, but I don't think I am.
well i mean clearly your gender situation puts a spin on things, and i certainly wouldn't claim to know anything about your marriage outside of the little you've shared. but fundamentally, you entered into the same historically patriarchal institution that all other married couples have and probably still love your wife in about the same way you did when you married. afaik you're faithful to her and her to you.
and there's nothing wrong with that, i think! the emotional bonds - the sense of reliance and trust and devotion and camaraderie and consideration are really the most valuable part to marriage, any successfully married couples will aver.
my opinion is that the kind of long-term partnership and trust implicit in a good marriage would be difficult to replicate in a poly arrangement. or alternatively maybe i just haven't been exposed to any good poly arrangements and just have a hard time imagining the same senses of devotion and trust implicit in a non-exclusive arrangement.
those feelings certainly don't require monogamous marriage, but the modern institution has been built around encouraging them.
now all this said, i don't really have any stake in what other people do with their romantic lives, and the little i know about more communal (or at least less individualistic) child-rearing arrangements sound like they could be good for people.
there are good things about monogamy, and these are presumably things you enjoy (as you remain married), and other people enjoy. i think that's worth acknowledging.
I will agree with all of this with the caveat that just because poly relationships appear to be more complicated to manage w/r/t the issues of trust and camaraderie (as you mentioned), I wouldn't necessarily say these things make those relationships inherently impossible.
Also, separate from that, some people do not prioritize those things to the same levels you might assume most people would, I imagine.
Atomika on
0
Options
ThomamelasOnly one man can kill this many Russians. Bring his guitar to me! Registered Userregular
Sales person volunteers me to configure a mesh network. So many levels of no in my response.
my opinion is that the kind of long-term partnership and trust implicit in a good marriage would be difficult to replicate in a poly arrangement. or alternatively maybe i just haven't been exposed to any good poly arrangements and just have a hard time imagining the same senses of devotion and trust implicit in a non-exclusive arrangement.
it's also hard to replicate the sort of long-term existential ennui that you get in a monotamous marriage
oh, did i typo? *giggle* silly me
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
my opinion is that the kind of long-term partnership and trust implicit in a good marriage would be difficult to replicate in a poly arrangement. or alternatively maybe i just haven't been exposed to any good poly arrangements and just have a hard time imagining the same senses of devotion and trust implicit in a non-exclusive arrangement.
it's also hard to replicate the sort of long-term existential ennui that you get in a monotamous marriage
oh, did i typo? *giggle* silly me
i didnt know that you were mormon feral
+3
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
No, but I'd argue the concept of plural commitment is.
you can find those in hunter-gatherer societies though, afaik. loosely speaking. Obviously whether they conceive of it as plural commitment in the way we do is a bit iffy, but you can find societies where the particular identity of the biological father is not particularly stressed
This is true, as I recall the small culture (in southern China? Maybe?) where monogamy isn't a thing and children have no fathers, and are instead raised by their mother and maternal uncles.
These people are well aware of the modern conventions of marriage, and think they're hilariously dumb.
Hey, as long as babies get fed and spend time with role models, hard to criticize.
I completely agree.
As I said, I've come to view monogamy and western coupling traditions with a more critical eye of late.
aren't you married?
Yeah, but that doesn't have all that much to do with the macrocultural examination of monogamy.
i guess
though carving out exceptions of principle to ones' own personal circumstances sort of smacks of cognitive dissonance
I get what you're saying, but I think what I'm trying to say here is that my greater examination and criticism of Western conventions of monogamy and coupling isn't necessarily a commentary upon my own situation, and wouldn't be if the things I'm critical of aren't applicable to my situation. Which they largely aren't, btw, I feel.
I know that probably sounds like me making a special exemption for myself, and you're free to argue that, and maybe I am, but I don't think I am.
...but fundamentally, you entered into the same historically patriarchal institution that all other married couples have...
It's historically patriarchal in general, but that has very little to do with the contours of any given marriage.
i agree exactly. i don't think it's particularly fair when modern marriage is indicted for what it was 2000 or even 200 years ago.
My marriage certainly isn't very patriarchal, if that's any consolation.
Even discounting my trans status, our gender roles are pretty blurred, and we expect very similar things from each other -- none of it due to either one of our gender assignments or identities.
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
+8
Options
ThomamelasOnly one man can kill this many Russians. Bring his guitar to me! Registered Userregular
No, but I'd argue the concept of plural commitment is.
you can find those in hunter-gatherer societies though, afaik. loosely speaking. Obviously whether they conceive of it as plural commitment in the way we do is a bit iffy, but you can find societies where the particular identity of the biological father is not particularly stressed
This is true, as I recall the small culture (in southern China? Maybe?) where monogamy isn't a thing and children have no fathers, and are instead raised by their mother and maternal uncles.
These people are well aware of the modern conventions of marriage, and think they're hilariously dumb.
Hey, as long as babies get fed and spend time with role models, hard to criticize.
I completely agree.
As I said, I've come to view monogamy and western coupling traditions with a more critical eye of late.
aren't you married?
Yeah, but that doesn't have all that much to do with the macrocultural examination of monogamy.
i guess
though carving out exceptions of principle to ones' own personal circumstances sort of smacks of cognitive dissonance
I get what you're saying, but I think what I'm trying to say here is that my greater examination and criticism of Western conventions of monogamy and coupling isn't necessarily a commentary upon my own situation, and wouldn't be if the things I'm critical of aren't applicable to my situation. Which they largely aren't, btw, I feel.
I know that probably sounds like me making a special exemption for myself, and you're free to argue that, and maybe I am, but I don't think I am.
...but fundamentally, you entered into the same historically patriarchal institution that all other married couples have...
It's historically patriarchal in general, but that has very little to do with the contours of any given marriage.
i agree exactly. i don't think it's particularly fair when modern marriage is indicted for what it was 2000 or even 200 years ago.
My marriage certainly isn't very patriarchal, if that's any consolation.
Even discounting my trans status, our gender roles are pretty blurred, and we expect very similar things from each other -- none of it due to either one of our gender assignments or identities.
right. yeah. i mean i think that is fine. my arrangement with frankie has been maybe more traditionally-gender-roled than some people's but in general we have settled into roles that aligned with our abilities and characters and preferences. she likes to drive and i like to cook. she tends to be negative and i tend to be positive. otoh she is a lot more emotional and i am more responsible, which is i guess more traditional maybe?
i guess i mean to say that pretty much everyone seems to find their own balance.
i have talked a little to some mormons, who really try to fit their marriages into traditional structures. it was kind of interesting because they acknowledge that it doesn't necessarily fit all that well, but that it's their conscious responsibility to try to fit the roles. the husbands need to learn to be responsible and decisive, even though it might not come naturally. the wives need to strive to be sensitive and supporting, though it might cut across their impulses.
which, you know, maybe traditional gender roles are sneered at by the broad left, but the general sense that we have a responsibility to our loved ones and our society to be better than our natures and impulses is i think a noble and lovely sentiment.
+1
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
my opinion is that the kind of long-term partnership and trust implicit in a good marriage would be difficult to replicate in a poly arrangement. or alternatively maybe i just haven't been exposed to any good poly arrangements and just have a hard time imagining the same senses of devotion and trust implicit in a non-exclusive arrangement.
it's also hard to replicate the sort of long-term existential ennui that you get in a monotamous marriage
oh, did i typo? *giggle* silly me
Serious response: i'm kind of going through a Thing(tm) right now so it's hard for me to say "I have an excellent long-term partnership!" But the things that are introducing stress in my life are the sorts of things that introduce stress into a lot of thirtysomethings' relationships - jobs, rent, ticking biological clocks. And I don't think that things would be significantly better if we were monogamous - just the flavor of suckage would be a little different.
It's not really an issue of trust, though. I mean, when you get to know somebody, and you get to know how they operate, that includes how they operate in other relationships, and from that familiarity and from shared experiences and mutual love and respect you (ideally) glean trust.
Meanwhile, part of the appeal of being nonmonogamous is that not every relationship has to be forever. Sometimes you want to have a relationship with somebody that only lasts a few months, and there's no pressure to progress on this timetable from dating to cohabitation to marriage to kids to retirement. That doesn't mean that those relationships weren't meaningful; it just means that you accept that they were finite. Just because a relationship doesn't have a long term doesn't make it a failure.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Or any basketball game between Team USA against a fivesome from one of the lesser nations.
Apparently there was some (alleged) biased refereeing. So the players on one team got pissed off and decided to protest by spending the match getting own goals, scoring for the other team.
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
my opinion is that the kind of long-term partnership and trust implicit in a good marriage would be difficult to replicate in a poly arrangement. or alternatively maybe i just haven't been exposed to any good poly arrangements and just have a hard time imagining the same senses of devotion and trust implicit in a non-exclusive arrangement.
it's also hard to replicate the sort of long-term existential ennui that you get in a monotamous marriage
oh, did i typo? *giggle* silly me
i guess that is where the infidelity and betrayal come in.
i mean since it's inevitable anyways we might as well institutionalize it amirite?
Posts
it breathes thru those things that are like flowers from its butt
gj team skippy
an XXL shirt strangled my father
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
i agree exactly. i don't think it's particularly fair when modern marriage is indicted for what it was 2000 or even 200 years ago.
that derpy slug too kawaii
had to bump beyonce and the water furry surfboardt guy out
well, then that's something we have in common
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Ah, I see. Yeah.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I will agree with all of this with the caveat that just because poly relationships appear to be more complicated to manage w/r/t the issues of trust and camaraderie (as you mentioned), I wouldn't necessarily say these things make those relationships inherently impossible.
Also, separate from that, some people do not prioritize those things to the same levels you might assume most people would, I imagine.
So I was just reading about those 50,000 volt stun belts some US courts use...
it's also hard to replicate the sort of long-term existential ennui that you get in a monotamous marriage
oh, did i typo? *giggle* silly me
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
You should have gone all the way to Charlton Heston at the end of the planet of the apes level.
i didnt know that you were mormon feral
My marriage certainly isn't very patriarchal, if that's any consolation.
Even discounting my trans status, our gender roles are pretty blurred, and we expect very similar things from each other -- none of it due to either one of our gender assignments or identities.
That no had a degree of acceptance to it. It was the last rejection before his mind reached acceptance. There was no trace of acceptance in my no.
Well, I do wear magical undies.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
maybe i'm streaming terrible dj right now if i am its here
yussss
twitch.tv/tehsloth
That dont make no sense
I get it.
Is this code for self harm?
right. yeah. i mean i think that is fine. my arrangement with frankie has been maybe more traditionally-gender-roled than some people's but in general we have settled into roles that aligned with our abilities and characters and preferences. she likes to drive and i like to cook. she tends to be negative and i tend to be positive. otoh she is a lot more emotional and i am more responsible, which is i guess more traditional maybe?
i guess i mean to say that pretty much everyone seems to find their own balance.
i have talked a little to some mormons, who really try to fit their marriages into traditional structures. it was kind of interesting because they acknowledge that it doesn't necessarily fit all that well, but that it's their conscious responsibility to try to fit the roles. the husbands need to learn to be responsible and decisive, even though it might not come naturally. the wives need to strive to be sensitive and supporting, though it might cut across their impulses.
which, you know, maybe traditional gender roles are sneered at by the broad left, but the general sense that we have a responsibility to our loved ones and our society to be better than our natures and impulses is i think a noble and lovely sentiment.
no
but interestingly enough i found him while doing a gis for "fat pikachu"
which is one of my hobbies
Serious response: i'm kind of going through a Thing(tm) right now so it's hard for me to say "I have an excellent long-term partnership!" But the things that are introducing stress in my life are the sorts of things that introduce stress into a lot of thirtysomethings' relationships - jobs, rent, ticking biological clocks. And I don't think that things would be significantly better if we were monogamous - just the flavor of suckage would be a little different.
It's not really an issue of trust, though. I mean, when you get to know somebody, and you get to know how they operate, that includes how they operate in other relationships, and from that familiarity and from shared experiences and mutual love and respect you (ideally) glean trust.
Meanwhile, part of the appeal of being nonmonogamous is that not every relationship has to be forever. Sometimes you want to have a relationship with somebody that only lasts a few months, and there's no pressure to progress on this timetable from dating to cohabitation to marriage to kids to retirement. That doesn't mean that those relationships weren't meaningful; it just means that you accept that they were finite. Just because a relationship doesn't have a long term doesn't make it a failure.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Kind of reminds me of this
Or any basketball game between Team USA against a fivesome from one of the lesser nations.
i guess that is where the infidelity and betrayal come in.
i mean since it's inevitable anyways we might as well institutionalize it amirite?
will true story i was gising fat pikachu also and i saw that
is this where we sing "endless love"