View Single Post
  #19  
Old 01-29-2013, 07:26 AM
Helo's Avatar
Helo Helo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: California
Posts: 278
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThatGirlInGray View Post
And you've been disagreed with several times as well. Historically monogamy may have been about ownership, but so were many poly arrangements: a man and his harem, for example, or the practice of one man having multiple wives. Even mistresses (in Western culture, at least) were historically expected to be faithful to their patron.
Indeed I have been.

I would agree that the focus of both monogamy and polyamory have shifted towards a more love-based relationship rather than the traditional situation where there was often virtually no pretense about the property aspect of one or both of the people involved.

However, I would contend that while the focus of monogamy has shifted, its internal mechanism has not until extremely recently. There is still an implicit ownership that the partners have over each other. Poly has largely been able to make that shift from a harem-style arraignment to a more egalitarian focus both in the way it works and the way it looks.

Quote:
At it's core, monogamy is no more about control or ownership than poly. Each has its practitioners that try to control another person and each has its practitioners that realize all parties are independent entities.
I would agree that in every relationship, romantic or otherwise, certain concessions have to be made by those involved; things have to be given up or abstained from. In traditional monogamy, those things are far more numerous and serious than they are in modern polyamory.

It's less about active and forcible control over a partner as the structure of the relationships itself that serves to control. Monogamy is an easier car to drive, so to speak, in that respect.

Quote:
And this very quote is why sometimes your posts annoy me. Yes, you've said the same thing in many places, but no matter how many rebuttals are put up, you continue to present your stance as though it's incontrovertible FACT, when actually it's YOUR INTERPRETATION of the available evidence and information. (And I suspect there's info that you aren't taking into account, which is perfectly normal and to be expected as it's pretty difficult to consider EVERYTHING, but again that means your conclusions are not infallible.)
You're right, I've never sat down and given an exhaustive explanation for why I take the position that I do. Generally because I've never opened a thread dedicated to doing so, I figure if someone is curious they can ask me personally. I'm not here for converts and my views are on display in the marketplace of ideas alongside many others that a browser can choose to pick up or discard on their merits as they see fit.

If you're interested in an open discussion of it, by all means open a thread and I'll be glad to participate. I'm not 100% comfortable hijacking a discussion to showcase my wares.

I dont assume my point of view is inherently right or infallible and people have posited interesting counter-arguments but to this point in time, I feel that where I stand, given everything I know and understand, this is the best position for me to hold given what I know and value. I have no particular loyalty to the idea itself and would happily abandon it if I found something that fit better with new information or a new way to interpret information I already had. I'm not going to lie and say there's no ego involved at all, but its certainly less involved than most people think.

Quote:
YOU may see monogamy as authoritarian for yourself. That's fine. But that does not mean that monogamy IS authoritarian. At it's core, monogamy is about two people choosing to only be with each other. All the rest of the baggage (controlling, cheating, lying, jealousy) can happen in non-monogamous relationships as well (cheating, open, swinging, poly, whatever), due to human nature.
I dont disagree with the highlighted, but that's still above where I find the problem in the structure of the overall relationship.
__________________
=DISCLAIMER=
I am as direct as a T-Rex with 'roid rage and about as subtle. It isn't intended to cause upset, I just prefer to talk plain. There are plenty of other people here who do the nice, polite thing much better than I can. I'm what you'd call a "problem dinner guest."
Reply With Quote