View Single Post
  #10  
Old 04-22-2012, 10:39 AM
Shadowgbq Shadowgbq is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 18
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nycindie View Post
Shadowgbq, monogamy does not equate with ownership and just because someone is monogamous does not mean they automatically think they own their partner. And polyamory is not more enlightened. It is bullshit to say it is. It is bullshit to make pronouncements about monogamy and polyamory being one thing or another, because it is the people involved in relationships that make them what they are.
First things first, I am sorry for raising your ire. My understanding is that this is a place to exchange ideas and that nobody is going to be cursed at or called a heretic for sharing hers or his. You seem to be making a lot of absolute pronouncements while talking about how upset you are about my making absolute pronouncements.

I didn't say I thought polyamory was a perfect, ideal paradigm. It's not. People who self-label poly often share a lot of ideas with the people who self-label mono, such as the subjectivism you're preaching to me right now. I actually belong to a new school of relationship philosophy that began about 7 years ago, but that's neither here nor there. It doesn't make me superior to anyone because I didn't invent it, other people did, and I followed their example. But I'm not a 'poly' and I'm not the first person to criticize our relationship culture in general.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nycindie View Post
There are plenty of possessive and dictatorial idiots running around saying they're poly, fucking anything that moves, and treating their partners like property.
Possession is possession, posing is posing. My argument is that these things are bad no matter how people manifest them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nycindie View Post
And there are plenty of open-minded enlightened people practicing monogamy and doing so with loving kindness, supporting their partner to be the best they can be, and embracing their autonomy.
Conditionally, except & until.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nycindie View Post
These are simply two types of structures for relationships. Neither has any inherent meaning or value. What does have meaning and value are the ways in which people treat each other and approach their relationships. Waving some poly flag doesn't automatically make people more adept at love.
This ignores that monogamy itself, by definition, is a system of claiming most of your partner's sexuality as your sole entitlement. Polyamory is also a paradigm in which people are expected to reflect certain concepts in their treatment of one another, such as compersion, hierarchy, etc. It's as if you're saying, "Anarchy & Communism have no inherent meaning or value, what does have value is whether people decide to have no government or a massive one and what those systems do for them."

At this point you may say that it indeed wouldn't matter, only the individuals in each society and how cool they are. I submit that a society's choice of authoritarian/anti-authoritarian system would illustrate a lot about what they value. Cause and effect.

Since I don't subscribe wholly to either monogamy or polyamory as a basis for social interaction, I'm not waving a flag for either one. But it's curious to think that neither paradigm has anything to do with the morals, values, or personalities of the people shaping or taking part in them. I'm down with your individualism but mindful that people's choices reflect who they are.
Reply With Quote