this post was submitted on 07 Aug 2025
85 points (97.8% liked)
Slop.
587 readers
328 users here now
For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: Do not post public figures, these should be posted to c/El Chisme
founded 8 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm not poly but the various poly ppl I know don't neatly conform to this stereotype at all.
The older I get the more I feel neither poly- nor monogamous folks have the "correct" idea. It's all down to the people involved and what works for them. The poly and monogamous relationships around me seem to "succeed" and "fail" at similar rates. No idea why so many feel the need to advocate for any one relationship style over another, beyond insecurity.
Because if you don't follow monogamy, how can your bloodline accumulate property? How can the rules of inheritance be clearly defines, and how can your property ownership not be rapidly diluted?
^^^ the argument engels makes about why class societies are obsessed with monogamy
Royals still had plenty of polyamory, and in come cases, even polygamy. I guarantee you that horny, or the desire for more progeny, far outweighed any concern about diluting the inheritance.
The social norm of only having one of the partnerships being recognized was what centered the question of wealth and lineage.
However royals made frequent use of concubines and prostitutes, leading to "illegitimate" children who wouldn't inherit.
Even without concubines, nobles would very often remarry when a spouse died, of natural causes or otherwise. The norm within the nobility of a man only having children with one wife is relatively recent.
Any children who wish to inherit must enter the Thunderdome
Succession wars in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...
Polyam is a bit of an umbrella term and there's many different flavors of it, so I'm not sure what you mean by polyam having or not having the "correct" idea. That's not really how relationships work anyhow.
It sounds like you'd be a fan of the idea of "relationship design" though - it's about regularly discussing the design of a relationship collaboratively rather than falling into any template of what a relationship is "supposed" to be or look like. Not just the relationship escalator template, but even ideas common in the polyam community like not adding monogamous people into a polyam network.
I'm trying to wrap my head around why anyone would add a monogamous person to a poly network. Seems they would always be causing issues, no?
The idea behind relationship design is that if they agree that it works for them, then it's valid. I know a couple people online who have discussed being on either side of such a dynamic. If the monogamous person wants to eventually marry etc. then perhaps the relationship has a planned expiration time - that's okay too. Or the polyam person could be fine being married to that person so long as they're still allowed to have their other relationships still. Point is that they get to decide for themselves what they're okay with. It could also just be that the monogamous person only wants one partner, but does not mind that partner having more than one.
Of course, I should also mention I'm using the term "relationship" but part of it being intentionally designed means it could look very different than what you're envisioning. Like the polyam person could be ace but desires multiple romantic relationships, and the monogamous person might think that's fine. Or maybe the monogamous person is really just monogamous wrt child raising, and wants only that dyad to be co-parenting, but if otherwise open to other forms of relationship. Etc.
A related idea is relationship anarchy.
I hadn't run into that term ("relationship design") before but that sounds like more or less what I have in mind. I first started thinking about it while using the apps (years ago - perhaps things have changed) and noticing how many users seemed to have in mind not only the exact type of person they were after but also the exact relationship model waiting for said person to neatly slot into. that seemed backwards to me - ideally you would meet people based on shared interests or values, chat/meet and see if there's potential, and proceed from there as it makes sense for all parties. at least in my experience this kind of progression seemed to be disincentivized in favor of the "job interview" model.
I only wanted to be poly because jealousy is annoying as hell. I don’t have the bandwidth for multiple relationships.
My partner has other partners and it works great for us. He gets to visit his girlfriend this weekend and I get to smell up the house with my totally awesome Indian takeout (spicy food give him heartburn) and play the latest Rimworld DLC.
Edit: the connection is that I can't handle multiple partners because omg scheduling is hard, but I still benefit from the polyamorous nature of the relationship.
Fortunately/unfortunately, jealousy can crop up in any form of relationship without adequate communication.
Yeh, I’ve seen poly folks having screaming matches in public over one person feeli Ng neglected compared to other partners lol. Turns out some people suck at relationships and communication, it isn’t really about the type of relationship they’re in.
I've seen plenty of monogamous relationships have screaming matches in public too 🤣. It's almost like, if you speak broadly about humans, we suck at relationships, no matter what kind it is.
Because monogamy as we have it is based on white supremacy and used to hurt people. No one is opposed to dating one person at a time. It is the cultural isomorphism and colonialism we don't like