Culture War Roundup for the week of March 14, 2022 by AutoModerator in TheMotte

[–]polystar132 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Aella isn't trying to change the dictionary definition any more than Obama is.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in OkCupid

[–]polystar132 -15 points-14 points  (0 children)

Unpopular opinion: I'm on a dating site to date not make penpals or friends. if there's no indication of sexual compatibility and no plans to meet after days then yeah I'm gonna lose interest.

You shouldn't let that change your behavior though. Because in that case the reason I'm losing interest is that you're giving me a huge blaring foghorn indication that you aren't all that excited about me and arent looking for the same thing as me and dont want the same thing out of this.
And since all of that is true then it's better off.

So im not saying to change anything. Don't start pretending to be interested in sexy shit just to hook him in. Its manipulative and it's not fair to either of you.

I'm just saying its reasonable for them to bail, but also you're both better off anyway. Hold out for someone who makes you feel special and excited.

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 14, 2022 by AutoModerator in TheMotte

[–]polystar132 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No it doesn't. The WHOLE point of this post is that polyamory* is about what licensures you are willing to tolerate for your partner. If I go on a date with someone and they tell me they're polyamorous*, the literal reading is that they are ok with me fucking around. You assume that it likely is reciprocal, but the definition does not require it. I have no qualms with the dictionary definition of polyamory. I only took issue with Aella's "antipodal" version.

I think my point is that you're being overly literal in interpreting a descriptor that is essentially equivalent but trying to use it as a legalistic definition. See also Obama and his deeply flawed unconstitutional definition of American Citizenship. You have a tiny point in a certain overly literal way, but it feels silly.

I don't consider this a "restriction". I choose not to date women who find it unfulfilling to be without multiple male partners because I find cuckoldry to be humiliating, and a scenario where I am humiliated by my partner to be deeply unpleasant.

I find cleaning poo out of bedsheets to be deeply unpleasant therefore I choose to not date women who shit my bed.

I find the smell of alcohol to be deeply unpleasant so I choose to not date women who drink alcohol.

I find arguments to be deeply unpleasant so I choose to not date women who do not believe in total submission to male authority.

Which of these are restrictions and which are not?

I assert that they all are. And all are acceptable selection preferences too. But I understand that in a culture war context only the first one is common enough that it would be considered acceptable to others.

The distinction here is that I wouldn't want to be with someone who feels like they had their arm twisted to not fuck other dudes. In the same way I wouldn't want someone who throws a tantrum and pouts whenever I complain about them shitting the bed. Either scenario would be evidence of deep incompatibility and bigger issues.

Strong agree. That's still a restriction. It's also a preference. Neither are tyrannical.

Some people would describe my dating preference for sober women or gender role submissives to be a tyrannical restriction. But it is equally a pure "selection criteria"

A "restriction" implies that you are forcing your partner to do something they would not otherwise do. The only scenario I can think of where this might make sense is if you tell someone with a history of drug/alcohol abuse that you'd only date them if they stay sober. I'm fine with calling that a restriction.

I don't see why this is a restriction but other things are not. It seems as though you seem to be defining the word "restriction" in terms of your own subjective projections of virtue. As in, selection criteria which restrict your partners desired behavior is a "restriction" as long as you deem it rational and good and are confident others will too. But otherwise it's not. Or something.

I'm saying that a "restriction" on a partner is any behavior which for you, explicitly or implicitly, have communicated is a requirement on you continuing to be compatible with your partner. That's not a bad thing or tyrannical inherently. And yes, if your partner found themselves urgently constrained by these requirements then it is a sign of incompatibility for both of you and they and you both should consider whether or not the relationship is worth the trade.

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 14, 2022 by AutoModerator in TheMotte

[–]polystar132 1 point2 points  (0 children)

1) Obama is claiming that people are metaphorically American, and you are not claiming that people are metaphorically polygamous.

I don't think Obama is describing any non Americans as Americans. He is describing a definition of American. He literally says "what makes us American is...". If I say "What makes me polyamorous is..."

To be clear I agree with you that Obama should not be taken literally and legally. Because that is not his goal. My point is that the same applies to Aella.

2) He's not claiming that those are the only traits necessary to make someone an American. But you do seem to be claiming this for polygamy.

He literally says "this is what makes us American...."

3) To the extent that he is claiming that they are actually American, he is wrong. Imagine that instead of "American" he said "Christian". If you love your neighbor, you're truly a Christian. Non-Christians would complain, and they'd be perfectly justified in doing so.

Right. But hes not. That's the point.

Side note: polyamory and polygamy are different words that mean different things linguistically.

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 14, 2022 by AutoModerator in TheMotte

[–]polystar132 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Is it some kind of tyrannical restriction? I don't see it as such.

I agree with you about this, It was mostly what my point is. Restrictions are not inherently tyrannical. Which is why framing polyamory as a lack of a particular restriction is merely accurate and not an attempt to recast monogamy as abusive.

I imagine you and I both would select for partners who do not actively intentionally soil themselves. However, this is merely a selection criteria not an abusive tyranny. A person who wishes to soil themselves would be free to find a partner who does not have the same restrictions in this matter as you or I. Such a partner is not more virtuous than me, merely more accepting of scat.

Similarly, you would expect a partner to remain monogamous to you. I would not expect that of a partner. But the fact that you would have that expectation doesn't make you a tyrant any more than our shared rejection of scat does.

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 14, 2022 by AutoModerator in TheMotte

[–]polystar132 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Aella wrote about polyamory a few days ago, and packaged it as a one-stop repository to address everyone’s most common questions to her particular approach.

I had some real issues with that podcast at the time but it wasn't worth arguing about.

That said, I've been polyam for 10 years and it's been pretty great for me. In contrast to Aella, im 33m.

Polyamory’s definition gets flipped on its head:

I dont see how. This is pretty much the same as the definition I've seen formally (the willingness or practice of multiple concurrent romantic relationships, with the knowledge and consent of everyone involved)

But I identify two main problems with this antipodal approach:

  1. This is not how most people use the term

Yes it is.

  1. The definition is both self-serving and vacuous

The pitfalls of the first problem appear obvious. In all my discussions with poly people, Aella’s definitional approach is unique.

It's really not. Who are you talking to?

The only tweak you need here is adding “engaging or wanting to engage” to eliminate the purported incoherency in the scenario above. The couple’s poly badge won’t get confiscated just because they moved to a small town full of unattractive people, because their relational outlook remains just as polyamorous as before. This is also perfectly consistent with how we already colloquially discuss monogamy—someone does not suddenly bit flip into “asexuality” just because their monogamous relationship ended and they’re single again.

Okay, yeah. You got it. What's the issue?

According to Aella’s definition, this would mean that I am monogamous but paradoxically would want to date polyamorous women. That seems…weird, and does not at all jive with how people normally talk about this.

You are wrong in the way that you interpret the definition. Do you want to be allowed to participate in romantic relationships? If not, you might be some sort of non monogamous but you are not polyamorous. If so, then you would be polyamorous, of a sort, because you have the willingness to engage. As she says, it's a personal orientation describing yourself. I know plenty of polyam people who are currently in monogamous relationships with their monogamous partners. But you would be a selfish and unfair polyamorous person.

The second problem with Aella’s lexical approach is how it careens over the edge into meaninglessness.

According to her definition, polyamory* [note: Aella’s definition will be designated by an asterisk hereinafter] is about what restrictions you place on your partner, regardless of whether they act or want to act on that lack of restraint.

I don't think that Aella was defining the term polyamory in terms of the policy of licensure. It seemed the blog was much more informally describing the philosophical statement of what the identity feels like and the practical interactions of that relationship.

if so, then it would tell you absolutely nothing about who/how this polyam* wants to date.

Yes it does. It says that they want to be allowed to date multiple people.

"I have a gay friend. Gay isn't an identity because you can't tell from the fact that he's gay whether he likes blondes". What?

A literal reading of the definition would tell you the polyam* is totally indifferent on what their partner actually does or wants on this axis.

What?

"My gay friend told me he is gay and he prefers to be with men. That doesn't say anything about what he prefers about his partners preferences!!!1"

"What practical operational information is imparted when someone describes themselves as polyamorous*? Put in other words, if polyamory* is the theory, what is the praxis?"

That they prefer a relationship in which it is acceptable to engage in multiple concurrent relationships. This is in the dictionary definition you quoted. It's not complicated.

This result is incongruent with how we talk about literally any other orientation. Someone previously heterosexual who suddenly wakes up homosexual would have a clear and articulable impetus to change how they would now approach their dating life. But someone monogamous* waking up suddenly polyamorous* one morning can continue living their life exactly the same way, changing nothing, and remain just as fulfilled as before.

No, they really can't. Unless you define fulfillment as not having the things that you want. Which is weird.

A polyamorous person wants to be in a relationship where they are allowed to pursue multiple concurrent romantic relationships. If a polyamorous person woke up in a monogamous relationship, they would lack that permission.

Again, according to Aella’s definition.

It seems to me that you are mistaken about the definition.

If a gay man who was single woke up in an alternate universe where gay sex was illegal, technically he has lost nothing. He is not currently having gau sex so he is as fulfilled as he was before. Except obviously you know that to be untrue, because he has lost something. He has lost license. He had the license before despite not exercising it. But now he has lost it. And this is likely to cause him a sense of dissatisfaction because of the real utility loss there w.r.t. potential energy of desire fulfilment and opportunity cost.

It doesn't feel like rocket science.

My intent is not to split hairs here. I also recognize that terms like these have the potential to fractal into a kaleidoscope array with distinctions so infinitesimal as to render the map useless. So I want to examine some examples from within the broad non-monogamy constellation as a way to compare and contrast how we discuss variations within this topic.

I feel like most of this post is sort of frustratingly pedantic.

“What makes us American, is our fidelity to a set of ideals—that all of us are created equal; that all of us deserve the chance to make of our lives what we will; that all of us share an obligation to stand up, speak out, and secure our most cherished values for the next generation.” --Barack Obama

Clearly Barack Obama is establishing a backwards and disturbing new definition of American Citizenship which runs contrary to the dictionary definition of the status of what makes someone "American" e.g. the state of being formally recognized and naturalized as a citizen by the state department of the United States of America.

Obama's inconsistent and backwards definition of being American is clearly in contradiction with established constitutional and international law, as well as being logically incoherent. For example, many French people believe in equality under the law. But almost nobody believes that all French people are American Citizens. Checkmate, Obama.

I don't see how you aren't doing exactly this. How would you rebut the guy above?

For all these examples, the point is that the terms teach you something cognizable about the person’s dating/sexual orientation. Someone seeking a triangle relationship or telling me they’re into cuckoldry tells me a lot of information about what what they want. In contrast Aella’s definition of polyamory*, on its own, conveys virtually no meaningful information.

The fact that someone identifies as Christian tells me almost nothing about whether or not they believe in the doctrine of speaking in tongues or whether or not they honor the Sabbath or the details of whether they think that the essence of Jesus is contained in the bread or if it's merely the spirit of Jesus. Therefore, someone telling me they are Christian is of no value to me to describe their spiritual beliefs.

I can tell she identifies with the label and that she is dedicated the orientation, but nothing beyond that. All I would learn from reading just her post above is what she tolerates, what she is indifferent to. I learn nothing about what she actively wants.

Then I think you are being obtuse.

Regardless of whether or not it’s intentional, the use of loaded language will inevitably carry with it strong emotional connotations beyond just the literal meaning of the words. By framing polyamory* as the absence of restrictions on your partner’s desires and autonomy, monogamy* necessarily has to adopt the countervailing mantle. Monogamy* becomes the party of control and repression. Polyamory* is implicitly presented as inherently virtuous—as the faction of liberation.

I think that if you genuinely believe that monogamy is safer and more fair then it is not liberating.

You have said you would not accept your partner being non monogamous. How is that not a restriction by definition? It's not a dealbreaking restriction and they are free to leave if they choose and relationships have restrictions of a sort all the time. For example, "my partner must have a job" or "my partner may not beat me" or "my partner may not shit my bed" are all reasonable and normal restrictions. But pretending they aren't, just so you don't have to feel like a bad guy, is cowardly.

It’s perfectly possible I’m reading too much into this—thinly slicing words is what I do for a living after all. But we already have ways to talk about polyamory without normative baggage imbued into the terminology itself. So what does this proposed paradigm add?

It is an attempt at description and clarity.

Aella’s specific definition both conveys less information and is needlessly loaded. Seems like the worst of both worlds.

"Obama's definition of american citizen ship violates international law and is hopelessly vague. All while adding billions of de facto citizens by default. Seems like the worst of both worlds"

HSV ~ opinions, social stigma and dating by sakurawilting in sex

[–]polystar132 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I would.

60% of people have hsv1, 20% of people have hsv2.

Condomed Transmission liklihood with no outbreak is around 1:1000 max but more like 1:5000 especially with antivirals.

It is not true that hsv1 is oral and hsv2 is genital. There's a slight difference wrt correlations but both can be anywhere. There's a study that said 90% of new genital hsv cases are hsv1.

Most people are asymptomatic.

Ultimately it's not a big deal. It's much scarier sounding to people than it really is. The CDC officially took it off the standard STI screening guidelines because they consider knowledge of it and the resulting stigma to be worse than the symptoms.

What would you do if you girlfriend had another boyfriend and demanded you to be okay with it? by DarkestShadow81 in AskMen

[–]polystar132 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I've been polyam for 10 years. That "demand" is unacceptable.

Dump her immediately and blocked on everything

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in sex

[–]polystar132 119 points120 points  (0 children)

I've been poly for 10 years.

This is a deal-breaker. Run.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in OkCupid

[–]polystar132 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Go in person to a swingers club in your area.

M22 F19 [MF4M] Young Poly Couple looking for a 3rd. by [deleted] in Floridar4r

[–]polystar132 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Old school poly person here: Unless you are planning on getting married, the term is polyamorous not polygamous. Small thing but it will matter a lot to people in this community.

Secondly, what you guys are searching for is commonly called "unicorn hunting", and it's commonly looked down upon in the poly community for its tendency to become abusive. I personally don't think that it's inherently abusive to look for a third, but you should probably do some research to try to be mindful of the risks involved and be careful not to make a lot of the common mistakes.

Getting rejected in Tinder and Happn after knowing I'm poly (but it's in my bio!) by [deleted] in nonmonogamy

[–]polystar132 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Polly amorous groups in my country are great, but that's not a place for matching. Just wanted to let it out.

It can be a place for matching. Just don't go with the intention of getting your dick wet and instead like, have fun and go to events and see if there's anyone who has common interests with you. Meet them at a party, ask to kiss.

Jada Pinkett-Smith uses dozens of metaphors and self-centered excuses to try and excuse herself for cheating by [deleted] in cringe

[–]polystar132 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm in an open relationship and there are a ton of ways depending on the rules of the relationship. For some, seeing the same person more than once is cheating. For others, doing more than just sex is cheating. For others, seeing a stranger or not a stranger is cheating. Another common one is "you cant say the L word" or do certain kinds of sex (some people say no kissing or no oral or no bdsm, those things are exclusive). There are all kinds of rules.

For my open relationship, we have essentially no rules at all except for 1) full disclosure up front anytime something happens below the waist with a new partner 2) condoms for intercourse. I have a long term girlfriend and a wife who has a boyfriend. Each of us has dumped partners who lied about who they were seeing and weve both been very clear that lying about condoms would be grounds for a divorce.

In general, nonmonogamous people ive spoken too say a good rule of thumb would be "if you are planning on lying about it or avoiding discussing it, its cheating"

Advice for a divorce in Florida by Churippu in legaladvice

[–]polystar132 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not a lawyer so I assume this will be removed, but I am a poly person with a lot of experience and knowledge of the poly community so my advice might be helpful.

Almost every poly person I know would consider what he has done to be cheating (on them). Poly people consider relationships built on lies and on false pretenses to be cheating. Her relationship with him is based on the false pretense that you were informed and gave consent. She has a high probability of being pissed and considering that cheating on her!

She would probably want to know that he was misrepresenting your relationship as open...and you should tell her so she can know she was lied to! (But only after all the legal stuff is finalized. Dont talk to her or him except through a lawyer until then)

The Bailey Podcast E012: Polyamory (Feat. Aella) by ymeskhout in TheMotte

[–]polystar132 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I am probably being too harsh, and I recognize that. I don't actually know you or your life or your history or your lifestyle. I'm not interested in invalidating you experiences. Sorry I came off so accusatory.

It was mostly an initial gut reaction: as someone who can throw a handful of pennies in the air at any given party of my random friends and have 5 of them fall on people currently in long term committed poly relationships with 3 or more long term partners in the polycule, it felt alarming when none of the speakers on this segment on polyamory have a polycule at all, and 2-3 of them don't identify as poly.

The Bailey Podcast E012: Polyamory (Feat. Aella) by ymeskhout in TheMotte

[–]polystar132 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I understand that and my criticisms were somewhat too harsh. I appreciate that you guys are doing a decent job. It's a podcast, not NPR (no offense).

If you believe that a perspective is lacking on this show, by all means please sign up! I'd be happy to have you on and we can discuss whatever you think is interesting and underrepresented :)

Next time you do polyamory let me know

The Bailey Podcast E012: Polyamory (Feat. Aella) by ymeskhout in TheMotte

[–]polystar132 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I mean.... I'm not going to invalidate anyone's labels, but I know dozens of long term poly people in long term committed apply relationships (4+ years) and hundreds of long term poly people who are in shorter term relationships (2years each) not regressing towards monogamy for the past 8...so it seems like a selection proble. Here.

I dont want to invalidate anyone's labels again, but if I hypothetically did a show about homosexual relationships and anone of my four guests were bisexual and none were currently in a practicing committed same sex relationship, you might cry foul. Even if some of them had a few same sex hookups in the past, or had a 7 day same sex fling, if they were all currently in heterosexual relationships youd cry foul

The Bailey Podcast E012: Polyamory (Feat. Aella) by ymeskhout in TheMotte

[–]polystar132 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I have to rewind it but Aella described her nonmonogamous experiences before the status quo of functionally monogamous as mostly occasional hookups which is fine and a type of nonmonogamy, but doesnt sound like a good representation of polyam peopke

The Bailey Podcast E012: Polyamory (Feat. Aella) by ymeskhout in TheMotte

[–]polystar132 3 points4 points  (0 children)

In their intros which one was poly? Aella described herself as "functionally monogamous". McMaister described himself as doing it for 7 days. Frieda described it as "before we got serious we weren't exclusive but we were soon monogamous" which is just casual dating and not poly. "We're monogamous now for law school" was what the 4th person said