I think that its more difficult for a stable, persistent, nonmonogamous, romantic/sexual situation to persist mainly because there are more people involved.
Everything that would be a one to one discussion, is now A to B and A to C and B to C, and potentially A to BC and AB to C and AC to B… this gets more complex, geometrically, with more members.
With more people and no mandatory/imposed hierarchy, It complexifies, with more chances for miscommunication, with all the intensity of emotions that comes along with a serious relationship… which can often lead to drama.
I don’t think that this is conceptually difficult to do ethically, if everyone involved communicates very well.
But that almost never occurs in practice, in mono or nonmono setups.
I think it is difficult to do ethically in practice, moreso when there are more members, because people have emotions that cause them to do irrational things, they have limited amounts of time and energy, imperfect information, because people can change their minds about things, because sometimes people don’t really know why they do some things.
The more people you have in a persistent arrangement like this, the more complex and thus unstable the entire situation is.
Granted, that reasoning only applies to certain kinds of non monogamy, others are or can be less complex…
But basically my whole thrust here is that more people = more complicated = more chances for drama / intentionallly or unintentionally hurting other people.
There are just more potentially shifting sets of boundaries and rules, that may or may not apply equally to all others in the group, and those boundaries themselves may or may not be problems for other members of the group.
You gotta stop using the word ethically here. Whether something works out or not isn’t an ethics problem, and so is of course the very first thing IAmNorReal latches onto.
Just to be clear, I do agree with you. More people does get more complicated.
That part was fine, that’s not what I’m talking about; you’re just rejecting the other person’s claims.
It’s this part: “Polyamory can be difficult to do”, sure, but “polyamory is difficult to do ethically” is much harder to defend because it puts you in an anti-polyamory position. Now you’re talking about whether it’s morally justifiable instead of, simply, the reasons why it’s so uncommon.
If you look at IAmNorReal’s next reply, it reads as if they’re defending polyamory generally, and that’s because they are. There’s no reason to talk about how friendships can be complicated too unless they’re trying to defend the concept of polyamory in its entirety. In other words, the two of you end up walking away from the initial conversation and into an entirely different one.
Anyway, I’m sorry for interjecting. I promise I’m not trying to bully you or lecture. I gotta go make dinner.
you already have multiple relationships. besides your romantic/sexual partner. you likely have many friendships relationships, many familial relationships, professional relationships… you are the one who defines which ones are more important and which ones you treasure. your desicion you make with one friend likely has no consequence on other relationships. All that complicated logic should in theory apply to all those relationships as well, but it does not.
if you live with 2 partners and need to sell the house, then that conversation would involve A, B and C, but if it’s about driving B to the airport, C doesn’t really need to be involved. same way if you order a pizza with your coworkers you don’t need to consult your brother, as it doesn’t involve them.
Instinctually you already do that.
Also, personally, I think hierarchical poly is a bit iffy. every relationship has its worth in itself and no one is above anyone else.
Yes, I still believe that monogamy is inherently unethical, as it involves one partner having the power to concent for their partner. Also it is the norm and state/religious enforced. Some norms are important, but they should at least be questioned rather than accepted uncritically.
You are free to disagree, but I am happy if at least you honestly questioned it. If you do so and still disagree, then that’s fine.
hey, if you seen in other threads in this conversations, my main goal is for people to question normative monogamy. even if I still disagree with monogamy, and you still agree with it, I’m just glad you didn’t absorb that concept uncritically.
one of my issues is that it is the norm, therefore the default, and socially considered the expectation, and even the only proper way.
nothing normative should be inetenalise uncritically. even if you agree with it after thinking about it.
I think that its more difficult for a stable, persistent, nonmonogamous, romantic/sexual situation to persist mainly because there are more people involved.
Everything that would be a one to one discussion, is now A to B and A to C and B to C, and potentially A to BC and AB to C and AC to B… this gets more complex, geometrically, with more members.
With more people and no mandatory/imposed hierarchy, It complexifies, with more chances for miscommunication, with all the intensity of emotions that comes along with a serious relationship… which can often lead to drama.
I don’t think that this is conceptually difficult to do ethically, if everyone involved communicates very well.
But that almost never occurs in practice, in mono or nonmono setups.
I think it is difficult to do ethically in practice, moreso when there are more members, because people have emotions that cause them to do irrational things, they have limited amounts of time and energy, imperfect information, because people can change their minds about things, because sometimes people don’t really know why they do some things.
The more people you have in a persistent arrangement like this, the more complex and thus unstable the entire situation is.
Granted, that reasoning only applies to certain kinds of non monogamy, others are or can be less complex…
But basically my whole thrust here is that more people = more complicated = more chances for drama / intentionallly or unintentionally hurting other people.
There are just more potentially shifting sets of boundaries and rules, that may or may not apply equally to all others in the group, and those boundaries themselves may or may not be problems for other members of the group.
Okay, this is just a rhetoric critique:
You gotta stop using the word ethically here. Whether something works out or not isn’t an ethics problem, and so is of course the very first thing IAmNorReal latches onto.
Just to be clear, I do agree with you. More people does get more complicated.
Uh, no, I don’t.
The entire origination of my critique was against the claim that monogamy is unethical.
Thats… what started the entire thing.
That part was fine, that’s not what I’m talking about; you’re just rejecting the other person’s claims.
It’s this part: “Polyamory can be difficult to do”, sure, but “polyamory is difficult to do ethically” is much harder to defend because it puts you in an anti-polyamory position. Now you’re talking about whether it’s morally justifiable instead of, simply, the reasons why it’s so uncommon.
If you look at IAmNorReal’s next reply, it reads as if they’re defending polyamory generally, and that’s because they are. There’s no reason to talk about how friendships can be complicated too unless they’re trying to defend the concept of polyamory in its entirety. In other words, the two of you end up walking away from the initial conversation and into an entirely different one.
Anyway, I’m sorry for interjecting. I promise I’m not trying to bully you or lecture. I gotta go make dinner.
counter argument.
you already have multiple relationships. besides your romantic/sexual partner. you likely have many friendships relationships, many familial relationships, professional relationships… you are the one who defines which ones are more important and which ones you treasure. your desicion you make with one friend likely has no consequence on other relationships. All that complicated logic should in theory apply to all those relationships as well, but it does not.
if you live with 2 partners and need to sell the house, then that conversation would involve A, B and C, but if it’s about driving B to the airport, C doesn’t really need to be involved. same way if you order a pizza with your coworkers you don’t need to consult your brother, as it doesn’t involve them.
Instinctually you already do that.
Also, personally, I think hierarchical poly is a bit iffy. every relationship has its worth in itself and no one is above anyone else.
It does though.
Your friends could say they don’t like your partner.
Your partner could say they don’t like your friends.
Your partner could love or hate the idea of you fucking one of your friends, etc.
When you involve sex and/or deep commitment as a partner, like, a life partner… emotions and condiserations get more complex and of greater magnitude.
So… the more people you are partnered with, the more people there are with strong and complex emotional considerations going all ways.
But anyway, none of this addresses my original critique:
You have not demonstrated that broadly, monogamous relationships are unethical, de facto, 100% of the time.
I don’t think nonmonogamy nor monogamy are inherently, de facto, all the time unethical.
I just think that nonmonogamy is more difficult to do ethically.
You said monogamy is unethical.
Do you still hold this view?
If so, why, for what reasons?
Yes, I still believe that monogamy is inherently unethical, as it involves one partner having the power to concent for their partner. Also it is the norm and state/religious enforced. Some norms are important, but they should at least be questioned rather than accepted uncritically.
You are free to disagree, but I am happy if at least you honestly questioned it. If you do so and still disagree, then that’s fine.
no norm should be accepted uncritically.
You are confusing a subtype of monogamy with all possible variants of monogamy.
You’re describing patriarchichal, state/religiously sanctioned and ordained marriage.
I’m describing two people who are just having a relationship with each other, who discuss and agree to how that relationship works.
Doesn’t have to involve religion or even the state.
Just a commitment between two people, none over the other, both as close to equal as possible.
I’ve gone to significant lengths to explain how yes, monogamy is often formalized in a fucked up way… but it doesn’t have to be.
hey, if you seen in other threads in this conversations, my main goal is for people to question normative monogamy. even if I still disagree with monogamy, and you still agree with it, I’m just glad you didn’t absorb that concept uncritically.
one of my issues is that it is the norm, therefore the default, and socially considered the expectation, and even the only proper way.
nothing normative should be inetenalise uncritically. even if you agree with it after thinking about it.