you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -18 points 2 months ago (37 children)

Monogamy hysterics strike again⚡

  • source
  • hideshow 37 child comments
  • [–] 38 points 2 months ago (13 children)

    Cheating can happen in polyamorous relationships as well.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 26 points 2 months ago (8 children)

    Making a lot of assumptions here.

    The women standing in this picture could be in a polycule situation with the dude at the table and he could be stepping out on all of them with the seated woman. It could be a group of single women playing a mean-spirited prank on their friend's lame first date. It could also be completely fake and made for attention.

    I know there are a lot of monogamous people out there who talk shit about polyamory, largely out of ignorance or envy, but there's no need to mirror that energy back at them. It won't change their minds or stop the shit talk and it just increases the level of negativity surrounding the conversation. Remember, the sweetest revenge against your haters is to live your best life.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 15 points 2 months ago* (6 children)

    That link shows a chicken with pigtails?

    Anyway... being poly isn't a bad thing. Being poly and lying to a partner that your monogamous, kinda is. If one party of a relationship changes their mind after commitments are made, the other party should be made aware before anything is acted on. If not, they are a lying piece of shit that can't be trusted. Pretending to be monogamous just to trick someone into a relationship until your bored with them, despicable.

    Edit, lost my last word on posting.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago

    How much media that is put out is just because people engage with scandalous shit? If people didn't, we might not have had to deal with reality shows or viral media apps. Of course there will be people using social media that want to be part of that. Sex and scandals sell.

    I do think it's odd that you think that me sharing my own views is patronizing you. I just gave my 2cents, from my personal experience, relating to cheating partners. Not all cheaters are poly, seen many cheaters choose a monogamous relationship later in life. They were just too cowardly to be open and honest with their partner(s) or worse (in my opinion), openly lied to a partner about their cheating. Some were poly, and it was a realization they were aiming for a relationship they didn't really want, but had been raised by a society that said they did, and had tried to believe it. Does not excuse the cheating though.

    My real only point is/was: Whatever your sexual preferences are, lying to an intimate partner about who you are intimate with is a shit move, and makes that liar shitty.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    I don't even know what you are trying to claim? You keep linking to a wiki article that just lists the status of legal polygamy in different countries and hoping people draw the same conclusions you have.

    You also keep claiming that the man being accused of cheating is sexually liberal just because he has chosen to cheat, but I think that you would have to assume that he didn't expect his partner to be A monogamist for him to be actually liberal about sex and not just an asshole.

    Countries with legal Polygamy can still utilize social shaming and the law to sexually oppress their partners. In fact some of those states have some of the most severe punishments for infidelity on the planet, and they are typically hyper patriarchal and have laws only utilized against women.

    You can't be sexually liberal while still expecting your partner to practice monogamy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] 0 points 2 months ago* (3 children)
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    Notice the sign says “I love McCheating on my wife”. Not “I love McLying to my partners.” My issue is with monogamous domineers

    I guess what I am trying to understand is what part you are being critical of? That the wife would choose to divorce their husband because of his infidelity? Or the concept of marriage being a legal concept?

    Something I hope we disavow.

    Obviously, but I fail to see why you chose to specify western/American law/culture when we see similar social/legal constructs all over the globe regardless of their attitude towards polygamy.

    But the opposite situation is what transpired here:
    monogamous domineers expected honesty in a sexually liberal society.

    What is your definition of a sexually liberal society? Regardless, the socially acceptable mores do not inherently apply to the dealings between two consenting adults who have defined the bounds of their own relationship.

    Otherwise this wouldn't be public shaming McChat event

    I don't really understand what you're implying here. Imo she felt hurt and shame about her husband breaching the terms of their relationship and felt the urge to lash out at her husband. Now I don't really condone that behavior, but I can understand why someone would feel that way if I shared the same belief system.

    “the divorce papers are finalized! 😁✌️×4 😭” “omg bae, when my cray fae in crime tells me ‘not to worry about it kitten’”

    Also didn't understand what you're going for here, but I suspect that is mainly due to me being middle-aged.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 2 points 2 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    That the relationships were as fickle as a McChat. I am unsure why you keep being confused these are USian mongamists. They expect an honest exclusive partner, and found out he was dishonest inclusive partner.

    Okay, so the overall criticism is about sexual exclusively in general, but specifically when tied to legal ramifications. I guess I can understand that, but to be honest, I don't really know if I agree that sexually inclusive relationships are any less fickle. I also don't think the fact that they are western/American really is relevant considering sexual exclusivity isn't really unique across different cultures.

    That partners are liberally free to have sex with whatever they want?

    I think the confusion I had was because in different post it wasn't exactly clear if you were assigning criticism towards both partners, a single partner, or the concept of monogamy.

    is morally irreprehensible in a liberal society.

    This is something I still don't think I would fully agree with, but I can see your point of view. I personally think it's perfectly fine if two consenting adults want to agree to enter a monogamist relationship.

    Yet they still chose to downrank my comprehension of the mcnogamist domineers spectacularizing a relationship situation. It didn't have to be a public event at all. But they liberally choose to.

    Like I said, I personally don't think it's very tasteful, but I wouldn't read too much into it as a comment about monogamist domineering. To me I would more attribute it to people being messy bitches about their personal business.

    I can boomer-translate it for you:

    Lol, yeah...... Would not have guessed there was that much information conveyed in a couple sentences. You are really making me feel my age.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] 1 point 2 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago

    then we wouldn't have never seen this picture, at all. In a restaurant, with a branded theme. You have to admit the theatrics are unnecessary, no?

    Yeah, I already said it was trashy..... That does not affect how fickle inclusive relationships are? I think you could reasonably claim that breakups in inclusive relationships are less dramatic, but I wouldn't say they break up any less frequently.

    Then don't use law, or theatrics to reinforce this

    For one, I never argued in favor of the theatrical aspect. Secondly I don't think the law is utilized to reinforce it, at least in countries with no fault divorces.

    Yet bigamy is illegal, in all US states. Meaning that the majority do force monogamy on others against others.

    Just because you cannot legally marry more than one person at a time does not mean you cannot engage in sexual inclusivity. Nor does that mean I agree with all aspects of marriage laws in the US, or that I think bigamy should be illegal, but that isn't exactly what we've been discussing.

    Then please educate yourself some more, because I am older than you, and I can still keep up😊

    Lol, I'd hardly say that not being on snap chat qualifies as being uneducated...... Though I would be impressed if you were actually older than me, probably not a lot of people older than me on snapchat.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago

    Wtf is that sus link?

    Have you considered the third possibility that I mentioned? That it might be fake and for attention?

    the sexual liberal partner

    You're aware that polyamorous relationships require clear communication and boundaries to not become abusive, correct? Just like monogamous ones do? From your word choice when talking about a potential cheater, I'm getting the impression that you don't actually know what a healthy relationship is let alone what a healthy polyamorous relationship is.

    ...but judging by your other responses in this thread a productive conversation is not in the offing, so I'll just end my part of it here and wish you a good day.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    the problem with "cheating" is the dishonesty NOT the social unacceptability

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 7 points 2 months ago*

    I have zero issue with people expressing themselves sexually in relationships that aren't non Monogamous, but eople should be in the loop on what kind of relationship you're in with them.

    I personally wouldn't want to be in a non-monogamous relationship. Even when I was single I didn't like dating multiple girls at the same time.

    When I meet my wife I had been on a few dates with someone and had a date planned for the next day. The person I had been seeing called off our date morning of and that's when I asked my coworker who introduced us to give her my number.

    I've had FWBs but didn't date others while we were hooking up. Was down to hangout and have sex with them but not build a romantic relationship but I was still monogamous with them and all I asked is they give me the choice of they start sleeping with someone else

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 23 points 2 months ago (21 children)

    Cheating isn't about monogamy, it's about lack of respect for the other part

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 23 points 2 months ago* (13 children)

    There is nothing wrong in wanting sexual exclusivity, in the same way there is nothing wrong in wanting more than one partner.
    Seeing either as "oppression" is limited mindset.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 10 points 2 months ago (5 children)

    "I linked you a paper please agree"

    Lmao. You scream about liberation yet you're the one wanting to control other people's relationships.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    reread what, your comments about how not wanting a partner to cheat on you somehow equals sexual oppression? wouldn't policing what kind of relationships people are allowed to have (aka what you're trying to do) be closer to domineering?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] -1 points 2 months ago* (1 child)
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago

    they police that the guy is lying to his wife and having a secret relationship behind her back, and they're very right to police that. cheating on a person you supposedly love for life is vile and disgusting and the wife has every right to be upset that her husband is secretly pursuing romantic partners behind her back (and judging by the sitting woman's expression, she likely doesn't know, so he's likely hiding his marriage from her too).

    is posing with a sign in public and making a scene distasteful? yeah, might be. but it's nowhere as bad as cheating.

    that's also assuming that the situation is real, which i doubt. but it applies to all cheaters in general regardless of this specific image.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    Ayyo. Get my name outcha damn mouth.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    Law that is used to litigate the divorce industry.

    That's a broken link, but am I correct in assuming that you are claiming the high rate of divorce in the US compared to countries that practice polygamy is due to some kind of expectation of monogamy and not due to something like the legality of no fault divorce?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] -4 points 2 months ago* (4 children)
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    Is it sexual oppression if both parties consented to the relationship being predicated on monogamy?

    “McCheating on my wife,” and not “McLying to my [sexually liberated] partner.”

    Again, I'm a bit confused on what your definition of sexually liberated really means.

    Let's not deny there are profit incentives in these relationships

    I don't think many relationships are started with profit incentive on their mind. Plus, no one in the US can force you to agree to a monogamist marriage if you didn't first agree to it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    It is sexual oppression to demand others exclusive sexual rights to a parner, and use law and state force to dominate it.

    Imo oppression implies a lack of consent. I don't see oppression happening when two people consent to enter a legal agreement based on mutual monogamy. I would feel less okay if you were not allowed to break that contract at any point, or if the penalties for breaking the contract were unknown or unusually extreme. Or even if there were no ways to legally modify the contract to include consentual exceptions before entering the agreement.

    How are you confused about consentual liberated sexual societies? My definition is quite anarchist.

    In your last comment it seemed to imply that we were already in a liberated sexual society, which seemed to be untrue by your terms.

    Then “gold digger” would not be a term, esp. in family & divorce litigation. Please update your thoughts on current year matrimony incentives.

    I don't think there are a significant amount of gold diggers out there. That seems to be more of a concept that is amplified by the patriarchal aspects of social hierarchy. Plus there are prenuptial agreements that both parties could consent to if they were really that worried. I think a more legitimate concern when it comes to marriage finances is how a lot of labour that women conduct in the relationship isn't financially recognized.

    parents still sell children to marriage against their consent. So I urge you to remove this “thought” from your mind.

    I have been predicating all of my arguments based on consenting adults, and children cannot consent. I think we can all agree no one was arguing in favor of child marriage, and you just inserted a fairly large strawman argument.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    If you agree children cannot consent to matrimony, then you have to agree “many relationships are started with profit incentive on their mind.

    I think that is a false dichotomy. You can believe child marriage should not exist while also believing that gold digging is not a significant issue.

    Otherwise the state wouldn't even consider marriage as component of their litigation, whatsoever.

    How would the state open litigation if you did not agree to get married?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago

    Not when your laws dictate otherwise.🙃
    Otherwise these laws wouldn't not exist.

    Not my laws? Nor have I defended all aspects of marriage law in general?

    By suing you. Do you believe the state itself cannot sue, and is an inactive participant in domineering these laws?

    For one, any examples of the state suing a person for not getting married because they did not want to enter a monogamist relationship? Secondly, even if there were examples...... I am not defending the actions of the state.

    Just because I've claimed that I do not have a problem with two consenting adults agreeing to a monogamist marriage, does not mean I agree with all aspects of marriage law, or that I agree with all actions committed by the state.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    As a polyero, would you start a relationship with someone that wants a monogamous relationship?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] -4 points 2 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 7 points 2 months ago

    Yeah but it's too much redpilled jargon to be understood by a simple mortal like me. So I'll leave you to it since it's starting to sound a lot like "anyone that doesn't have my specific and niche point of view is an enemy and must be educated" and I don't feel like being educated by someone that uses this amount of emoticons

    👌 1
  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago (6 children)

    Are you claiming that in countries that have legal polygamy there is no sexual oppression?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] -4 points 2 months ago (6 children)
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    I don't think anyone was trying to claim shaming culture wasn't still around. I'm not sure what all entails to your use of the term monogamous domineers.

    Is the wife domineering over the husband by divorcing him? Wouldn't that just allow him to be sexually liberated to sleep with whom he wants?

    What is the alternative in this scenario? For the man to continue being sexually liberal and force his wife to either adopt his views or be in a relationship structure she does not consent too?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -2 points 2 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    wives, 3+, are using this spectacle to shame the dishonest man. How do you not see shaming culture is dominating both, the relationship, the public, and the legal system?

    Again, I never made the argument that shame culture wasn't widely prevalent, influential, or good.

    I gave 4 examples already, on how to liberally praxis liberal sexual autonomy, and still deal with a dishonest individual. I am not sure how I can make it more boomer literate for you. May I also suggest you research modern day sexual liberation research on your own?

    This comment was made before you specified your criticism was about the concept and not aimed solely a particular individual in this example.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago

    keep on educating yourself on dominant state monogamist enforcement oppressions

    Again..... When have I defended the action of the state?

    leave my sexually liberated polycule alone.

    I haven't even been critical of your sexual inclusivity, nor would I want to do anything to your relationships? I don't even think the state should really be involved in how we organize our relationships. Short of that happening, I think the state should expand legal benefits/protections to anyone who wants them.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    Also, I'm not the one down voting your responses. I'm not trying to be overly critical, I think you have a unique perspective and I'm just trying to comprehend fully what you are trying to say.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -3 points 2 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 8 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    I think that's a bit patronizing, total sexual inclusivity is not a very large focus of anarchist literature as a whole.

    In fact, Murray Bookchin is one of my favorite political writers.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)