286
question for the culture
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 13 Apr 2026
286 points (100.0% liked)
Lemmy Shitpost
39261 readers
3574 users here now
Welcome to Lemmy Shitpost. Here you can shitpost to your hearts content.
Anything and everything goes. Memes, Jokes, Vents and Banter. Though we still have to comply with lemmy.world instance rules. So behave!
Rules:
1. Be Respectful
Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.
Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.
...
2. No Illegal Content
Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.
That means:
-No promoting violence/threats against any individuals
-No CSA content or Revenge Porn
-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)
...
3. No Spam
Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.
-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.
-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.
-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers
-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.
...
4. No Porn/Explicit
Content
-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.
-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.
...
5. No Enciting Harassment,
Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts
-Do not Brigade other Communities
-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.
-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.
-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.
...
6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.
...
If you see content that is a breach of the rules, please flag and report the comment and a moderator will take action where they can.
Also check out:
Partnered Communities:
1.Memes
10.LinuxMemes (Linux themed memes)
Reach out to
All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules. Striker
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Quality shitpost reply, I think people forget what community they're in here.
sadly, not a shitpost, I see monogamy as unethical. relationships aren't sports, aren't property, you cannot "cheat" to win, it makes no sense.
lying is a problem.
if my partner came from a conference and told me she got railed by half the conference attendants I'll be glad she enjoyed herself. and if she wouldn't trust me to tell the truth it means there was no relationship to begin with as there's no trust.
no idea why most people are obsessed with controlling their partners genitals.
It's interesting you say you dont get why people are so obsessed with other people's genitals, when you seemingly care very much about the supposed unethicalness of other adults consentual sex lives. You've somehow managed to flip the very same ideological structure that has allowed poly people to be prosecuted historically, and just pointed that oppressive structure at monogamous folks instead. It's in essence the very same mechanism just with the details flipped.
I think you should reflect upon that. It's obvious from your comments that there's the same sort of mechanism at play as when traditionalists prejudice poly people. It's a failure to empathize. Some things work best for some people, and that's okay, let them live in their way, and some other things work best for some other people, and that's okay too, also let them live in their way.
me: I think slavery is bad because it unfairly controls other people
You: you are the unethical one. trying to control what other people do with lives
not a serious answer, doesn't warrant a serious response.
instead of pointing why my grievances with monogamy are wrong, (mentioned repeatedly in many of the threads that spawn here), you just made up a bs reason why any moral standards is unethical.
How is consensual monogamy unethical?
Like really, you seem to genuinely hold the opinion you do, please explain to me how two people mutually agreeing to trust, support, love and fuck just each other ... how is that unethical?
Yes, of course historically the concept is full of examples of other practices that get attached to it that are definitely harmful and bad.
Yes, there absolutely are a good deal of people who force monogamy on others as a means of control, who are hypocrites that don't even follow the same rules or standards they impose on others.
But how is it inherently unethical for a fair and mutual relationship between just two people to exist?
Some people are into open relationships, ENM, polycules, just being a single stud or unicorn, etc.
Some people, arguably most people, either strongly prefer or can only emotionally handle having a single serious romantic relationship with one other person at a time.
The entire thing about cheating in a monogamous relationship is that it is lying, it is a massive breach of trust and respect.
If everyone involved is informed and onboard with expanding the relationship, that's one thing... cheating is another.
For quite a lot of people, its not primarily that they want to posses or control their partner's genitals.
Its that they want to be able to very thoroughly trust and relate to a single other person, to be the sole person that their partner also sees that way.
For these kinds of people, if their partner asked to open up the relationship, and they weren't comfortable with it, they're totally able to just realize at that point that their partner doesn't want what they want, and just end the monogamous relationship, let their now former partner go pursue what they want.
So... how is this unethical?
I appreciate you reply.
First of all, monogamy is based on old property laws, on normarivity, and enforced by states/religions. that alone should be a red flag (not inherently wrong though).
I just think that relationships are only the matter of the people within it.
Boundaries are okay, but shouldn't be used to control people. I might have a boundary against eating pork, and it would be unethical and a severe breach of trust if my partner cooked pork and served it to me without telling me that it is pork. however, I can't impose a boundary on them not eating pork. if I was severely allergic and it is a health concern, I can envision a "no pork at home" rule. but if my boundary is "You cannot have it" then that isn't a boundary, that's control. If my partner has bacon in a bruch with their friends, she isn't breaking a boundary of mine I am not involved in there.
I hope that at least clarifies my view.
and that is besides the baggage that monogamous relationships come with pre build expectations and are assumed to be to "correct" form by states and society.
BTW, I also disagree with many issues that comes with ENM, and I personally side with relationship anarchy. which is an alternative poly philosophy. They do have some interest concepts, like the relationship smorgasbord, where partners get yo define what their relationship should be like, rather than accepting the societal standards.
I'm not sure about that. If you ask anyone in a monogamous relationship, they wouldn't say that they're doing that because of the society, state or church.
I think it's something much more instinctual and possibly biologically conditioned. Pheromones are a hell of a powerful chemical. If you've ever had a crush on someone, you'll definitely have experienced how it makes you focus everything on that one person, regardless of what you want or what they want or what anyone else including your religion wants.
English is in part ancient Celtic, but ask any English speaker and they'll tell you they don't speak Celtic.
therefore English doesn't have Celtic influences...
yhea, that is why cheating and breakups are so rare in monogamous relationships.
And I appreciate your reply, though I do disagree.
(and for what its worth, i didnt downvote you)
I follow your food allergy metaphor, but this makes sense analogously only if you essentially do not view sex as any more sacred, or complex and meaningful, than food... you view it only as basic human need that is not entwined with the very emotional structure of a relationship.
Say that you're both ostensibly members of a religion that forbids eating pork, or you're both fairly hardcore vegans, and you in particular are also allergic to pork.
If your partner goes out and eats pork, away from you, yes this is not literally directly harmful to you, but it betrays the values that you both ostensibly claim to believe in.
Furthering the analogy, the partner could just say they're not a member of that religion, or they're not a vegan, or they have different interpretations of the concepts of those... and then you could say:
'well, the beliefs that I have are important to me, and I thought that you had those same beliefs, and that they were important to you to... so if you do not have those beliefs, we should probably not be a couple.'
So, you have clarified your line of thinking, your preference or worldview or what you want to call it, but you have not explained how the preference or worldview that I explained is unethical.
I don't inherently think that ENM or poly or relationship anarchy are inherently impossible to do ethically... I think they are difficult to do ethically, without causing a ton of drama, a lot of emotional distress and complexity.... but i do not think they are just de facto unethical in concept.
I do agree with you that monogamous relationships very often are problematic in that they come with baggage by way of people having unstated assumptions of what the roles and rules are.
But this can be solved with forthright communication and actually discussing with the partner what those roles and rules are or should be.
That goes the same for nonmonogamous relationships, they're just inherently more complex as they involve more people.
Tons of people are, imo, not emotionally mature enough, not honest enough with themselves, do not have the communication skills required to be in any kind of a serious relationship, monogamous or otherwise.
Why on Earth would anyone who isn't indoctrinated into a religion ever think that sex is more sacred than any other form of human interaction?
'Sacred' has a more colloquial meaning, and is more broad than purely as part of a religious doctrine.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sacred
I also provided a secondary phrase after that word, with or preceding it, to specify what I meant.
So my question stands. I knew what you meant, now explain why sex is a special sphere of human activity that is materially different from any other human interaction without resorting to magical thinking.
... Wow, you're serious.
Uh, because it engenders a whole bunch of deep emotions / massive and unique neurochemical responses in people, particularly it plays a massive role in regulating oxytocin, and plays a considerable role in creating stable pair bonding between two people.
https://mindlabneuroscience.com/brain-chemicals-during-sex/
I'm genuienly baffled that you need this explained to you.
Apologies for using shorthand to refer to a whole bunch of complex neurochemistry, I'll be sure to spell out the details next time.
Lol, somebody's never had a coked out bathroom hookup and it's kinda sad.
Sex can involve that kind of intimacy. So can a really deep conversation while cuddling. Sex doesn't have to involve that kind of intimacy, and would be far less likely to as a whole if idiots would stop teaching children it's a special and magical thing that should be sacrosanct if not being used for "creating a stable pair bond".
This kind of thinking is one half a step removed from "sex is so special and magical that people who have it in a different way than me are perverts and should be imprisoned or executed", or the flip side of that same impulse: "sex is so special and magical that the women I want to have sex with should be held in a gilded prison guarded by eunuchs to ensure only I ever fuck them".
open and honest communication is key in every relationship, from just friends and aquintances to romantic/sexual partners. Why do you think its hard to make those relationships ethical? you say it isn't impossible but still consier them inherently difficult to do so ethically?
I think that its more difficult for a stable, persistent, nonmonogamous, romantic/sexual situation to persist mainly because there are more people involved.
Everything that would be a one to one discussion, is now A to B and A to C and B to C, and potentially A to BC and AB to C and AC to B... this gets more complex, geometrically, with more members.
With more people and no mandatory/imposed hierarchy, It complexifies, with more chances for miscommunication, with all the intensity of emotions that comes along with a serious relationship... which can often lead to drama.
I don't think that this is conceptually difficult to do ethically, if everyone involved communicates very well.
But that almost never occurs in practice, in mono or nonmono setups.
I think it is difficult to do ethically in practice, moreso when there are more members, because people have emotions that cause them to do irrational things, they have limited amounts of time and energy, imperfect information, because people can change their minds about things, because sometimes people don't really know why they do some things.
The more people you have in a persistent arrangement like this, the more complex and thus unstable the entire situation is.
Granted, that reasoning only applies to certain kinds of non monogamy, others are or can be less complex...
But basically my whole thrust here is that more people = more complicated = more chances for drama / intentionallly or unintentionally hurting other people.
There are just more potentially shifting sets of boundaries and rules, that may or may not apply equally to all others in the group, and those boundaries themselves may or may not be problems for other members of the group.
Okay, this is just a rhetoric critique:
You gotta stop using the word ethically here. Whether something works out or not isn't an ethics problem, and so is of course the very first thing IAmNorReal latches onto.
Just to be clear, I do agree with you. More people does get more complicated.
Uh, no, I don't.
The entire origination of my critique was against the claim that monogamy is unethical.
Thats... what started the entire thing.
That part was fine, that's not what I'm talking about; you're just rejecting the other person's claims.
It's this part: "Polyamory can be difficult to do", sure, but "polyamory is difficult to do ethically" is much harder to defend because it puts you in an anti-polyamory position. Now you're talking about whether it's morally justifiable instead of, simply, the reasons why it's so uncommon.
If you look at IAmNorReal's next reply, it reads as if they're defending polyamory generally, and that's because they are. There's no reason to talk about how friendships can be complicated too unless they're trying to defend the concept of polyamory in its entirety. In other words, the two of you end up walking away from the initial conversation and into an entirely different one.
Anyway, I'm sorry for interjecting. I promise I'm not trying to bully you or lecture. I gotta go make dinner.
counter argument.
you already have multiple relationships. besides your romantic/sexual partner. you likely have many friendships relationships, many familial relationships, professional relationships... you are the one who defines which ones are more important and which ones you treasure. your desicion you make with one friend likely has no consequence on other relationships. All that complicated logic should in theory apply to all those relationships as well, but it does not.
if you live with 2 partners and need to sell the house, then that conversation would involve A, B and C, but if it's about driving B to the airport, C doesn't really need to be involved. same way if you order a pizza with your coworkers you don't need to consult your brother, as it doesn't involve them.
Instinctually you already do that.
Also, personally, I think hierarchical poly is a bit iffy. every relationship has its worth in itself and no one is above anyone else.
It does though.
Your friends could say they don't like your partner.
Your partner could say they don't like your friends.
Your partner could love or hate the idea of you fucking one of your friends, etc.
When you involve sex and/or deep commitment as a partner, like, a life partner... emotions and condiserations get more complex and of greater magnitude.
So... the more people you are partnered with, the more people there are with strong and complex emotional considerations going all ways.
But anyway, none of this addresses my original critique:
You have not demonstrated that broadly, monogamous relationships are unethical, de facto, 100% of the time.
I don't think nonmonogamy nor monogamy are inherently, de facto, all the time unethical.
I just think that nonmonogamy is more difficult to do ethically.
You said monogamy is unethical.
Do you still hold this view?
If so, why, for what reasons?
Yes, I still believe that monogamy is inherently unethical, as it involves one partner having the power to concent for their partner. Also it is the norm and state/religious enforced. Some norms are important, but they should at least be questioned rather than accepted uncritically.
You are free to disagree, but I am happy if at least you honestly questioned it. If you do so and still disagree, then that's fine.
no norm should be accepted uncritically.
You are confusing a subtype of monogamy with all possible variants of monogamy.
You're describing patriarchichal, state/religiously sanctioned and ordained marriage.
I'm describing two people who are just having a relationship with each other, who discuss and agree to how that relationship works.
Doesn't have to involve religion or even the state.
Just a commitment between two people, none over the other, both as close to equal as possible.
I've gone to significant lengths to explain how yes, monogamy is often formalized in a fucked up way... but it doesn't have to be.
hey, if you seen in other threads in this conversations, my main goal is for people to question normative monogamy. even if I still disagree with monogamy, and you still agree with it, I'm just glad you didn't absorb that concept uncritically.
one of my issues is that it is the norm, therefore the default, and socially considered the expectation, and even the only proper way.
nothing normative should be inetenalise uncritically. even if you agree with it after thinking about it.
Bro just loves to ragebait. You can be perfectly happy like that, doesn’t mean monogamy is unethical.
the unethical bit is that is it the social expectation and default, pushed by states and religions. so much so that the alternative has to include "ethical" in the name. why? why is polygamy considered inherently unethical? because the state and churches push monogamy as the acceptable form of relationships.
Also, I get how going against the mainstream might be indistinguishable from rage baiting. however, that is not my intention. I am open about my views, and if anyone engages I'll reply as honestly as I can. and for the most part, I assume whoever I'm talking to has good will.
I know this topic is something most people have never considered, or at least took a serious critical take on it. And I get is unpopular. Especially the "relationship anarchy" view on cheating.
Then say that. Say that the societal expectations around monogamy are unethical (which really isn’t that crazy of a take). Don’t say “monogamy is unethical” carte blanche because thats not really what you mean. Thats where it feels like ragebait, and is a classic formula they use.
it's called a conversation, I just said it. I said it's unethical, I'm asked to elaborate, I elaborate.
it isn't my substack where I write an essay and that's it.
I do consider it unethical. but thanks to a conversation, we can clarify each other.
sorry if it sounded rage baity.
also. this is a conversation, not a debate. my goal is that if you walk away, you can at least understand where I come from. I have no intention that anyone reading this will seek a divorce and join a polycule. although I do think realizing that relationships can be whatever people want them to be is something everyone should be aware of.
I know vibe doesn't transfer though text. but I hope this conversation is more like having a chat with someone at a cafe. rather than online vitriol.
Societal expectations don't make anything inherently ethical/unethical. It's a societal expectation that we don't go around murdering people. Is not murdering unethical?
People can have their relationships however they want to. Monogomy or polyamory or whatever. What makes it ethical is not hurting or coercing those involved.
there are some coerciveness in the fact that monogamy is the expected relationship, enforced by religions, families, and states.
and as a normarive thing, it should at least bw questioned, even if you agree with it.
like murder is bad, that is a normarive statement enforced by religions and states. but questining it, I have to agree, murder IS bad. and guess what. if you disagree with me, (this is a conversation not a debate but indulge me the following statement) I'll call it a win if you just question it, even if you don't change your mind.
But if two people agree they want to be monogamous with each other because that is what they want, nothing to do with society, then it's not unethical.
I don't 100% agree, but as long as it is questioned rather than passively adopted as normarive standards then that's good.
For what it's worth, I enjoyed reading your takes. I'm probably not 100% where you are, but I think I'm pretty close, even if I don't necessarily want to admit it.
It's important to question every rule and norm we inherited in our society, even if you end up agreeing with them, it's still paramount to question them.
In that case I rescind my vote. Also 🖕
Damn, I'm willing to talk, been honest in all the threads that this conversation has spawned.
I get that it is an unpopular opinion, but still. not like I insulted you.
I even made sure to clarify that it wasn't a troll opinion, because I value honesty.
You have not been honest. In your reply you openly admit to only wanting people to actually think twice about monogamy and don't truly wish to discuss with others why you think ALL monogamy relationships are unethical. You just make yourself look like a jackass.
oh no, the horrors, I changed my perspective and goals though a conversation with multiple people!
I guess I better get banned.
It doesn’t, but everybody is free to decide whether, how and when they wanna have sex with a person again. For example not having (unprotected penetrative) sex for one to four months could be a response to a partner having (unprotected penetrative) sex with somebody they didn’t know. That’s already a more open minded approach.
You cheat if you have an agreement and you break it. That’s pretty much it. That can also happen with poly.
You can have agreements to make it easier/safer to have unprotected or messy sex.
The main reasons are probably offsprings and STIs. One is how invested a person will or has to be if a pregnancy was to happen. The other is about condoms, prevention, testing and so forth. It’s also easier to judge if you only have to consider one or a low amount of people. (Not that I’ve ever had sex.)
If you have a relationship with someone who doesn't care about STDs or pregnancy scares, then that's on you, don't have irresponsible partners. yhea, what they did is stupid and dangerous, but it only affects you if you concent to be with them. if they lie about it, that's another problem, and I would consider it as them raping you as you did not have informed concent.
We use protection with strangers and test every 3 months.
byw, I talk about poly, but I personally only have bandwidth for one person, she has her dates, and I'm happy for her. and I have my heart open form other people if they appear magically in my house but I'm not actively looking for more partners. When she took a break from dating I jokes that were acidentally monogamous.
(for the record: I didn’t downvote you)
Lying and betrayal are the core issues of cheating. Although what counts as cheating varies, since it is based on implicit and explicit agreements.
Cheating can also happen by accident if implicit agreements are used, but different ones by both parties. One party would still feel betrayed even if it wasn’t intentional.
That’s probably why you get downvoted that much. If your partner doesn’t behave how you expect them to and breaks your agreements, that’s not on you. If they also lie, even less.
What would you do if your partner cheated on you? Decided to go for a creampie once, but doesn’t tell you because they know that overstepped your boundaries and that knowledge would hurt you?
Or slightly different scenario: Decided to go for a creampie once, but tells you that the condom broke.
Historically it's because of heirloom. Therefore it's often more accepted if men cheat, because you always knew who is the mom, but not who is the dad. That somehow carried on with peoples insecurities. On the other hand I can imagine that in some places the woman are happy if the guy would take care at least about one kid.
I'm also happy with my wife doing whatever, as long as she is doing it responsibly. And I know that she is.
Yhea, kind of bullshit society still bases relationships on medieval property right.
A lot of "common agreements" are based on medical understanding... "If you don't grow your own potatoes you have to die"
?
I exist mostly without relationships. I can barely fathom living with one romantic person. If that person then was able to execute sexual acts with others on a regular basis with relative ease I dont think we'd be compatible because our lives would be too different, experiences too different.
I can imagine, however, a different scenario wherein both of us pay for professional, independent sex workers occasionally-primarily themselves that are also adept in therapeutic massage. Maybe. But still it does seem like an odd zeitgeist for romantic relationships right now.
All relationships are unique, and there are no (there are, but there shouldn't be) guidelines on what makes a relationship real or not.
I have bad cPTSD from a previous DV relationship and I get nightmarish flashback episodes when I get in romantic relationships, so me and my partners agreed that I'm not able to have romantic relationships. so our relationship is defined by what we agreed on (look into "relationship smorgasbord"), we have intimacy, because human to human touch and affection is something I need regularly and she does too. and I encourage her to find the romantic affection with other partners. overall it's a healthy relationship based on trust communication and care.
the notion of only one acceptable form of relationship is so primitive, based on medieval property rights and religion. build you own relationships however you want/need/able.
ps: this school of thought isnt Ethical non-monogamy, but "relationship anarchy".