this post was submitted on 07 Aug 2025
85 points (97.8% liked)

Slop.

592 readers
545 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 9 months ago
MODERATORS
 

Post link

The provided image is fairly bad, but there is another part of this thread where some guy is unironically trying to science and logic other people about how "unhealthy" polyamory is, and how it is a "choice" and therefore should be discouraged.

Plus the hundreds of upvotes on deleted comments that were likely ... not so good. Though I have no idea how to view deleted comments.

And yes, feel proud of me. I blocked r/neoliberal. A small step towards better mental health.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Belly_Beanis@hexbear.net 34 points 6 days ago

This isn't even true from a stereotypical point of view. The most common type of "polygamous relationship" are men with multiple wives. It's even legal in some countries. But in those places, women aren't allowed to have multiple husbands.

Like the Mormon church isn't exactly famous for having women with multiple husbands lmao

[–] Infamousblt@hexbear.net 34 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (3 children)

As a poly person people should shut the fuck up about shit they know nothing about. I know many many healthy polyamorous relationships that take as many forms as you could think of. Leave us the fuck alone and let us have the communities we want to have.

Anyway ama about healthy polyamory if you want I guess

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] heatenconsumerist@hexbear.net 26 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Just block R/www.reddit.com and you'll be good to go permanently.

Seriously, these are (and have been for quite some time) just bots talking with each other.

[–] ShimmeringKoi@hexbear.net 8 points 6 days ago

If not literally then sociologically

[–] CptKrkIsClmbngThMntn@hexbear.net 25 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (2 children)

Goddamn, even here you make a post like this and multiple people come out of the woodwork to tell us unprompted that they've never seen it work, find it exhausting, could never do it themselves, strongly dislike it, etc.

It's important to understand that polyamory is not the same as traditional queerness, but it's a pretty good quick heuristic to make the swap in your head and ask yourself if what you're saying doesn't sound a bit bigoted. No one would comment on a post like this one and say, "Personally I could never imagine being gay. Not going to police anyone on it but I can't really see it working out."

It's a strong reminder to me that many people never learned the principles behind queer theory; they just adopted the specific social manners around what you can and can't say or think about queer people.

[–] LaughingLion@hexbear.net 8 points 6 days ago (1 children)

"Personally I could never imagine being gay. Not going to police anyone on it but I can't really see it working out."

It's the second sentence that makes this bad and bigoted. Most straight people can't imagine being gay. Nor would most gay people imagine themselves being straight. There's nothing bigoted about that. It's just a matter-of-fact statement about one's attraction.

I couldn't see myself in a poly relationship or a gay relationship but I also can totally see them working out for people who are different from me.

[–] CptKrkIsClmbngThMntn@hexbear.net 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Absolutely agree, but what makes something like the first sentence strange is this: why is it worth saying at all? Why would a straight person need to chime in with that particular qualifier?

[–] LaughingLion@hexbear.net 4 points 5 days ago

Anytime you talk about food or love/relationships people will come out of the woodwork to give opinions. These are the two most foundational aspects of the human experience.

I do find it interesting that there are people out there right now who are anti poly, but if you knew about their relationships you'd find that there were times that they were in casual relationships or FWBs situationships where they absolutely knew the other party was not exclusive to them just as they weren't. What I would say is, isn't this a kind of poly relationship? Didn't it work just fine for what it was at the time? Why couldn't you see that progressing in it's free and open structure?

For me I've never been in such a relationship or sought one out. Hell, I only ever had a single one-night-stand and it was awful. Just wasn't for me at all. I wouldn't say that I can't imagine people enjoying casual sex with a stranger. All I can say is I know it's not for me.

[–] corvidenjoyer@hexbear.net 4 points 6 days ago (1 children)

(You linked a post, not a thread.) bleh

Whoops, fixed. Thanks.

[–] kristina@hexbear.net 24 points 6 days ago

A straight poly woman has multiple male partners? Wow shocking 😲

[–] Damarcusart@hexbear.net 28 points 6 days ago (2 children)

I mean, there might be some dude who isn't really polyamorous but is so desperate for a relationship that he goes out with a polyamorous woman who already has multiple partners, but if he can't handle that, that's his problem, he should probably examine himself and his own issues, not blame polyamory for it.

I personally don't "get" polyamory and it isn't for me, but it costs me nothing to just not give a shit about other people's preferred lifestyle. It doesn't work for me, but it does work for other people, so that's fine.

Now that I think about it, this guy is probably basing his entire "polyamory bad" opinion on one of the Futurama movies, the second one? Third one maybe? Fry dates a polyamorous girl who doesn't reveal that she's poly until after he's moved in with her. Come to think of it, it has a lot of overlap with transphobic "jokes" from around the same time the movie came out. I can't really think of any other media where polyamory fearmongering was a thing.

[–] sodium_nitride@hexbear.net 20 points 6 days ago

Polyamory fearmongering is very prevalent. It comes from the fearmongering about some powerful men having multiple wives in feudal societies (a genuine problem) + the western man's obsession with cuck porn + class societies obsessing over inheritance.

[–] ufcwthrowaway@hexbear.net 3 points 6 days ago

I've known dudes who get into poly relationships out of a fear (legitimate or not) that they couldn't find a partner if people had other options.

They seem happy ish after a while, idk, I dont really have a point. I guess getting dick and pussy from multiple people outweighs your insecurities in the end? Human culture is hugely malleable and people adapt to a wide range of circumstances?

[–] glimmer_twin@hexbear.net 22 points 6 days ago (2 children)

Personally I’m not poly but I’ve hung around with poly people and it just seems exhausting lol. And it always seemed like at least someone involved was not happy with the situation.

Each to their own of course but relationships are hard enough, I don’t need more variables 😅

[–] CrawlMarks@hexbear.net 14 points 6 days ago

I think like 1/3 of the people I know are in marriages that count as not happy with the situation. Overall I think I see a higher success rate for poly relationships than normative ones

[–] DoomBloomDialectic@hexbear.net 14 points 6 days ago (2 children)

i'm the same way, but i think/imagine to most poly people, they'd feel trapped/suffocated by monogamy to the same degree you or I would feel exhausted by polyamory. and then ofc, there's a whole range of people who aren't strictly one or the other and are open to a variety of relationship styles/structures.

[–] Rose_Thorne@lemmy.zip 11 points 6 days ago

Obviously, I cannot and do not speak for the whole of the Poly population.

As someone who is poly and spent a decade in a practically monogamous relationship(It's a lot to explain, but boils down to I didn't feel like I actually could have another partner with the one I was with actually being happy), yeah. It was absolutely exhausting on both the mental and emotional level, and I didn't even realize how much it was hurting until I was free of that situation.

But you're very right! Not every situation works for everybody. We all need to recognize our own needs, especially in emotional relationships, and work to best meet them as we can.

[–] glimmer_twin@hexbear.net 10 points 6 days ago

Ya for sure. The closest I’ve personally gotten is a sorta open thing for six months, but I genuinely didn’t even have time to date a second person. I think my partner at the time went on like two dates the whole time. Between work and activism and life in general I’d rather dedicate my limited dating time to one person, at least for quite a while in the beginning. But to thine own heart be true.

[–] LaughingLion@hexbear.net 15 points 6 days ago

This isn't a statement about poly dynamics. This is a statement about gender dynamics in dating. It is just simply easier for women to find people to date than men. Women, regardless of their relationship structure, have no problem with quantity. They have a problem finding quality.

[–] Le_Wokisme@hexbear.net 13 points 6 days ago

doubt "most"

but when it does happen it's probably something to do with patriarchal violence and cishet women not feeling safe to approach men, while a woman making herself available probably has a lot of opportunity to passively screen the deluge of shit for someone acceptable.

[–] CrawlMarks@hexbear.net 12 points 6 days ago (1 children)

The issue is that to be poly you have to be "weird". To be weird you are predisposed to negative outcomes. So pretty much every rich person is non-monogamous. They aren't "poly"

Poly is for queer ex theater kids. Us basically. By virtue of our distance to whiteness we are gonna have a bad time. Same as most AES nations are disadvantaged from their distance to whiteness. In both cases the theory is objectively superior

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] egg1918@hexbear.net 10 points 6 days ago
[–] Collatz_problem@hexbear.net 6 points 6 days ago (2 children)

The only polycule I know that didn't disintegrate in a year due to some petty bullshit was a couple of (bi?) women, inviting their male friend to join them. Seems to me that to make polycules work you need just the same personality traits and emotional labour as with mono relationships, except proportionally more of them.

[–] kristina@hexbear.net 11 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

I feel like queer ones are fairly stable, and ones that have pairings within a larger poly group are very successful. Sort of like swinging but looser.

load more comments
view more: next ›