Skip Navigation
Asklemmy @lemmy.ml Klicky @lemmy.world

Do you think monogamy will always be the main "form" of earth or do we just break someday this code and just "do whatever we want"

Will this one-by-one system forever be our main thing or do you think we will break monogamy and maybe "team up" as groups or something?

And yeah polygamy is a thing but do you think it will catch on to "the upper class"?

105

You're viewing a single thread.

105 comments

  • as long as religion exists polygamy will never be mainstream

    • Why do you feel this way? The examples of polygamy that I can think of were popularized through religion not in spite of it.

      Examples: Islam, Mormonism,

      early Judaism and to some degree Christianity permitted it as well.

    • I mean, mormons are a thing (in the US at least idk how far they've spread) and polygamy isn't that uncommon in patriarchal religions. Polyamory on the other hand tends to be more about personal freedoms and flies in the face of a lot of hierarchies.

    • Polygamy Polygyny, in particular, is a largely religious institution. In no small part that’s due to the fact that polygamy polygyny is inherently patriarchal, and nearly all modern religions are too, so it makes sense that it would be found predominantly in religious communities and histories.

      Polyamory, however, is neither patriarchal or matriarchal. It is freedom for everyone involved to have relationships in any capacity they want, including women and other non-male gendered people to be with whoever they want. Patriarchal societies will never accept something that gives women that type of freedom and power over their own lives.

      Edit: I got some terminology wrong and thought polygamy was one man multiple women, but the term just refers to having multiple spouses. Polygyny is one man multiple women. Which def means I took the conversation down a weird hole.

      • other non-male gendered people to be with whoever they want

        right, thanks for enlightening me where your opinion comes from. Not that the constant mention of patriarchy in places it has no relevance wasn't already a red flag.

        I'd still like to highlight the inherent sexism in excluding a single group, in this case males, from your supposed Polyamorous Utopia. If it really was independent of the "patriarchy" or a "matriarchy" there would be no need to single out any gender or sexual orientation no? To me it seems like you are simply trying to invert a perceived victim status instead of abolishing victims entirely. Inverting your ideals from time to time helps illustrate inherent flaws or discrimination, helped me get out of the feminism-hate section of the internet, might help you get out of the all-men-are-evil section.

        • @neshura @June good job inventing a perceived victim status as if your target wasn't directly responding to a comment about polygamy

          are you gonna apologise for your baseless attack, or just let it lie on the record without addressing any of the issues raised?

          • comment about polygamy

            so how exactly does that correlate to excluding men from the equation? That was my point. The discussion was about polygamy and they A) brought up the patriarchy pretty much unprompted (I don't see how Polygamy is inherently patriarchal, most patriarchal societies are strictly monogamous and while more lenient on a man in case of an infraction of the monogamous relationship Society still punish them. I see that more as a result of the elevated standing of a man in a patriarchal society than from the alleged inherent polygamy) and then B) proceeded to be just as sexist as the alleged Patriarchy by excluding men from polyamory/suggesting men can already be with however many partners of whatever gender and sexual orientation they want (ask any gay guy: really not the case, having multiple relationships with people is in most countries considered adultery/cheating, so also a no on the "however many")

            target baseless attack

            if what I wrote comes off as an attack focused on a "target" I truly feel sorry for you, must be hard living in a world where everyone is out to get you. If you can't accept people challenging your beliefs without immediately being angered that is cause for serious concern, I've been there I'd know. Just on the opposite of the spectrum where you apparently are right now. Doesn't make the fanaticism any more healthy. If in your life so far everyone truly has been out to get you, you have my condolences and hope that the situation improves for you, in that case I'd suggest getting off the internet or liberally employing blocking instead of entering discussions.

            issues raised

            What issues raised? The only "issue" I see raised is the allegation that

            1: somehow polygamy is based only in religion because it is patriarchal. I'm not well read on the religion part but polygamy being a patriarchal construct just isn't the case given historic precedent. More likely it's an elitist construct given how it is (when appearing) mostly prevalent in the higher ranks of society and not among the common folk and how among the elite women having affairs was also a thing, that was a lot rarer but still happened.

            2: Somehow a patriarchal society will not allow polyamory. Technically part of a patriarchal society but more a byproduct of biology than a construct designed by men to oppress women. Polyamory not being prevalent is down to the same reason why in the past men accused their partner of cheating when the son of the blue eyed man had no blue eyes: There is an inherent biological drive to leave offspring. We might lose that drive some day but for now we're stuck with it. Since men don't have an easy identifier to make sure the kid is theirs (women physically push the child out of their body, pretty strong indicator for who the mother is) they resort to whatever option they have available. That also includes generally, as in not all men do this, (sub-)consciously preferring monogamous relationships over polyamorous ones. Now you could swap out a patriarchy for a matriarchy or any other societal blueprint and it would not change much in that preference. Upbringing can help mold that preference a bit but overall it's still there. So I can't see how blaming the patriarchy helps here, monogamy and patriarchy are correlated, not causally linked. One does not cause the other but where one appears, the other also happens to appear (at the very least in one direction: in patriarchal societies monogamy appears).

            At this point I'd highlight something that might help understand why Polygamy isn't inherently linked with the Patriarchy: There is a rough 50/50 split between males and females in the human population (yes I'm ignoring homosexuals and non-binary here, won't matter for the point I'm making, it'd simply change the numbers to 47/47 or whatever the percentages are). Most men have a biological drive to leave offspring (ignoring external factors making them decide against it such as poverty or bad environment) which works out to roughly one possible woman per man to be in a relationship (assuming all men actually manage to get into a relationship by behaving accordingly). If we introduce Polygamy suddenly there is a "lack" of women a man can try to get into a relationship with for sub-average men. Naturally those men will be dissatisfied that one man is "hogging" multiple women for himself, therefore uniting them in the common goal of getting rid of polygamy so they can have a change.

        • Not that the constant mention of patriarchy in places it has no relevance wasn't already a red flag.

          ... you dont think polygamy is patriarchal?? or "the heavenly father"???

          I think the word just triggers you. you know men can participate in polyamory too right?

          • I think by now you read my other comment (the comment chain with June) so it should be cleared up why I didn't associate polygamy with patriarchy.

            As for me being triggered by the world patriarchy: you are absolutely correct. It's a habit I've built on less discussion friendly sites that I need to get rid of. Unfortunately for now my immediate assumption upon reading that word (unless in an academic context) is that whoever uttered it has a pretty hardcore disgust of men. Fortunately I have not seen these takes around here much if at all hence my need to lose that habit. It's definitely not healthy and, as seen in this trainwreck of a rant, definitely doesn't contribute to a healthy discussion.

You've viewed 105 comments.