consensual polyamory vs. exploitation in world cultures

[Ispravlennaja Tsekovija]

Have you ever considered like, being helpful and considerate towards who you're talking to? Might help them get on your side.

And no, you don't need to answer that, I already know the answer.

Helpful=/=Considerate.

Helpful means having being of assistance to someone or something. Usually subdivided into AndroHelp (Helping men) and the more popular FemoHelp (Helping women).

Considerate is being polite or socially normal to people regardless of marital status or if you’re being helpful to them.

whoa nice job that was really helpful and considerate of you to explain it so well! i bet the person you're responding to will really appreciate it and find it a useful addition to the conversation!

[New haven america]

Have you ever considered like, being helpful and considerate towards who you're talking to? Might help them get on your side.

And no, you don't need to answer that, I already know the answer.

Helpful=/=Considerate.

Helpful means having being of assistance to someone or something. Usually subdivided into AndroHelp (Helping men) and the more popular FemoHelp (Helping women).

Considerate is being polite or socially normal to people regardless of marital status or if you’re being helpful to them.

No, but you got the spirit.

Now do something with it!

[Ispravlennaja Tsekovija]

Helpful=/=Considerate.

Helpful means having being of assistance to someone or something. Usually subdivided into AndroHelp (Helping men) and the more popular FemoHelp (Helping women).

Considerate is being polite or socially normal to people regardless of marital status or if you’re being helpful to them.

No, but you got the spirit.

Now do something with it!

lmao

[GuessTheAltAccount]

Sorry, not going to quote/ edit. Brain capacity low, not much time..
Mosuo is a matriarchal society where children live with their mother's family. They have walk in marriages. All men view themselves as fathers of all children in their village and will take care of all children.

I view monogamous marriage as slavery. Your body doesn't belong to yourself anymore. It is property of your spouse.

What bothers me is the double standard. Men are expected to have multiple partners, women shouldn't.
If you are the penetrating ("dominant") one, gay sex is cool. If you are the penetrated ("submissive") one, shame on you.

Just because you don't love multiple ppl romantically at the same time, doesn't mean nobody does.
Its comparable to friends with benefits. You talk about what your boundaries are, what happens if one of you falls in love and you monitor if all parties are still happy in this agreement.
While sex can be an important part of a relationship, it really isn't necessary. Asexuallity is a thing.

In open relationships, you have to agree to what is acceptable. Emotional cheating also exists. How many times a week/ month/ year are you going to meet up with others? Do you tell what you have done or just whether it was fulfilling?

In polyamory you can only have the partners that are in your "cluster". Otherwise you would have an open relationship.
Do all parties have sexual relations with all other parties? How often do you exclude a spouse, when do you visit whose parents, if there are children from previous relationships: when and how often are they coming over?
Who is responsible for what? How do you organize birthday parties?
And yes, most (serial) monogamous people have to talk about this too. But it often "grows" into woman- care for household and children, men- earn more money.

Did you get married in the 1st century or something?

You know, a lot has changed since then.

Biology doesn’t change, though. We know people have a certain admiration for the supposed charisma it took, at least for most of evolution, for a male who to get with multiple females, as evidenced by how people reacted to Casanova in olden times and how they react to Bond movies now.

[Ispravlennaja Tsekovija]

Did you get married in the 1st century or something?

You know, a lot has changed since then.

Biology doesn’t change, though. We know people have a certain admiration for the supposed charisma it took, at least for most of evolution, for a male who to get with multiple females, as evidenced by how people reacted to Casanova in olden times and how they react to Bond movies now.

our biological origins are not indicative of real morality.

[New haven america]

Did you get married in the 1st century or something?

You know, a lot has changed since then.

Biology doesn’t change, though. We know people have a certain admiration for the supposed charisma it took, at least for most of evolution, for a male who to get with multiple females, as evidenced by how people reacted to Casanova in olden times and how they react to Bond movies now.

Biology disagrees.

Did you actually think that was a good point to make? Really?

[CoraSpia]

Biology doesn’t change, though. We know people have a certain admiration for the supposed charisma it took, at least for most of evolution, for a male who to get with multiple females, as evidenced by how people reacted to Casanova in olden times and how they react to Bond movies now.

our biological origins are not indicative of real morality.

Morality is however something of a meaningless social construct. It's effectively the opinions of the culturally dominant group within society, and they are imposed (whether by force of law or negative societal consequences) on everybody else, regardless of whether other less influencial groups have a very different opinion but lack the means to enforce or realise it.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

Biology doesn’t change, though. We know people have a certain admiration for the supposed charisma it took, at least for most of evolution, for a male who to get with multiple females, as evidenced by how people reacted to Casanova in olden times and how they react to Bond movies now.

Biology disagrees.

Did you actually think that was a good point to make? Really?

My previous posts speaking of evolution should've made clear I wasn't a creationist. On the contrary, I was referring to the aspect of evolution that has plainly been hard wired into us for centuries by now, as noted in the point you have yet to refute.

People in this thread have been speaking of how polygamy would result in a few men getting with most of the women and the rest of them being bitter and resentful, and that being supposed fuel for violence. Which is strange, because when the likes of Elliot Rodger lash out over not getting girlfriends in a (supposedly) mostly-monogamous society, people have been more willing to accept in that context that the only solution is more effective law enforcement against it than they are in the polygamous context. Just as they say "you're just jealous" in response to so-called "niceguyism" even though "you're just jealous" is the same thing a Casanova-type could say of their own monogamous critics, to just as much evidence. (Ie. Zero.)

I'm not saying allotment of girlfriends is a reasonable solution or anything like that (and honestly, I wonder how many Elliot Rodger cases could've been prevented if people didn't look down on virgin males so much, though those of us with self-control know violence isn't the answer anyway), but there is just so much hypocrisy on this subject I don't even know where to start.