Bro just loves to ragebait. You can be perfectly happy like that, doesn’t mean monogamy is unethical.
Comment on question for the culture
IAmNorRealTakeYourMeds@lemmy.world 4 hours agoI appreciate you reply.
First of all, monogamy is based on old property laws, on normarivity, and enforced by states/religions. that alone should be a red flag (not inherently wrong though).
I just think that relationships are only the matter of the people within it.
Boundaries are okay, but shouldn’t be used to control people. I might have a boundary against eating pork, and it would be unethical and a severe breach of trust if my partner cooked pork and served it to me without telling me that it is pork. however, I can’t impose a boundary on them not eating pork. if I was severely allergic and it is a health concern, I can envision a “no pork at home” rule. but if my boundary is “You cannot have it” then that isn’t a boundary, that’s control. If my partner has bacon in a bruch with their friends, she isn’t breaking a boundary of mine I am not involved in there.
I hope that at least clarifies my view.
and that is besides the baggage that monogamous relationships come with pre build expectations and are assumed to be to “correct” form by states and society.
BTW, I also disagree with many issues that comes with ENM, and I personally side with relationship anarchy. which is an alternative poly philosophy. They do have some interest concepts, like the relationship smorgasbord, where partners get yo define what their relationship should be like, rather than accepting the societal standards.
quips@slrpnk.net 4 hours ago
IAmNorRealTakeYourMeds@lemmy.world 4 hours ago
the unethical bit is that is it the social expectation and default, pushed by states and religions. so much so that the alternative has to include “ethical” in the name. why? why is polygamy considered inherently unethical? because the state and churches push monogamy as the acceptable form of relationships.
Also, I get how going against the mainstream might be indistinguishable from rage baiting. however, that is not my intention. I am open about my views, and if anyone engages I’ll reply as honestly as I can. and for the most part, I assume whoever I’m talking to has good will.
I know this topic is something most people have never considered, or at least took a serious critical take on it. And I get is unpopular. Especially the “relationship anarchy” view on cheating.
lightnsfw@reddthat.com 2 hours ago
Societal expectations don’t make anything inherently ethical/unethical. It’s a societal expectation that we don’t go around murdering people. Is not murdering unethical?
People can have their relationships however they want to. Monogomy or polyamory or whatever. What makes it ethical is not hurting or coercing those involved.
IAmNorRealTakeYourMeds@lemmy.world 2 hours ago
there are some coerciveness in the fact that monogamy is the expected relationship, enforced by religions, families, and states.
and as a normarive thing, it should at least bw questioned, even if you agree with it.
like murder is bad, that is a normarive statement enforced by religions and states. but questining it, I have to agree, murder IS bad. and guess what. if you disagree with me, (this is a conversation not a debate but indulge me the following statement) I’ll call it a win if you just question it, even if you don’t change your mind.
ivanafterall@lemmy.world 3 hours ago
For what it’s worth, I enjoyed reading your takes. I’m probably not 100% where you are, but I think I’m pretty close, even if I don’t necessarily want to admit it.
IAmNorRealTakeYourMeds@lemmy.world 3 hours ago
It’s important to question every rule and norm we inherited in our society, even if you end up agreeing with them, it’s still paramount to question them.
quips@slrpnk.net 4 hours ago
Then say that. Say that the societal expectations around monogamy are unethical. Don’t say “monogamy is unethical” carte blanche because thats not really what you mean. Thats where it feels like ragebait
IAmNorRealTakeYourMeds@lemmy.world 3 hours ago
it’s called a conversation, I just said it. I said it’s unethical, I’m asked to elaborate, I elaborate.
it isn’t my substack where I write an essay and that’s it.
I do consider it unethical. but thanks to a conversation, we can clarify each other.
sorry if it sounded rage baity.
also. this is a conversation, not a debate. my goal is that if you walk away, you can at least understand where I come from. I have no intention that anyone reading this will seek a divorce and join a polycule. although I do think realizing that relationships can be whatever people want them to be is something everyone should be aware of.
I know vibe doesn’t transfer though text. but I hope this conversation is more like having a chat with someone at a cafe. rather than online vitriol.
sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 hours ago
And I appreciate your reply, though I do disagree.
(and for what its worth, i didnt downvote you)
I follow your food allergy metaphor, but this makes sense analogously only if you essentially do not view sex as any more sacred, or complex and meaningful, than food… you view it only as basic human need that is not entwined with the very emotional structure of a relationship.
Say that you’re both ostensibly members of a religion that forbids eating pork, or you’re both fairly hardcore vegans, and you in particular are also allergic to pork.
If your partner goes out and eats pork, away from you, yes this is not literally directly harmful to you, but it betrays the values that you both ostensibly claim to believe in.
Furthering the analogy, the partner could just say they’re not a member of that religion, or they’re not a vegan, or they have different interpretations of the concepts of those… and then you could say:
‘well, the beliefs that I have are important to me, and I thought that you had those same beliefs, and that they were important to you to… so if you do not have those beliefs, we should probably not be a couple.’
So, you have clarified your line of thinking, your preference or worldview or what you want to call it, but you have not explained how the preference or worldview that I explained is unethical.
I don’t inherently think that ENM or poly or relationship anarchy are inherently impossible to do ethically… I think they are difficult to do ethically, without causing a ton of drama, a lot of emotional distress and complexity… but i do not think they are just de facto unethical in concept.
I do agree with you that monogamous relationships very often are problematic in that they come with baggage by way of people having unstated assumptions of what the roles and rules are.
But this can be solved with forthright communication and actually discussing with the partner what those roles and rules are or should be.
That goes the same for nonmonogamous relationships, they’re just inherently more complex as they involve more people.
Tons of people are, imo, not emotionally mature enough, not honest enough with themselves, do not have the communication skills required to be in any kind of a serious relationship, monogamous or otherwise.
IAmNorRealTakeYourMeds@lemmy.world 3 hours ago
open and honest communication is key in every relationship, from just friends and aquintances to romantic/sexual partners. Why do you think its hard to make those relationships ethical? you say it isn’t impossible but still consier them inherently difficult to do so ethically?
sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 hours ago
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.
IAmNorRealTakeYourMeds@lemmy.world 2 hours ago
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.