6 ms·

Polyamory is getting slivers of legal recognition in America

14 points by ioblomov 4y ago

ioblomov 4y ago
https://archive.ph/Ac3un https://archive.ph/Ac3un
jim-jim-jim 4y ago
> It all began with Dungeons & Dragons. Of course it did.
- raxxorraxor 4y ago
  I guess a dungeon full of sex slaves counts as polyamory too.
  - __alexs 4y ago
    Only if they consented to it and get to cuddle afterwards.
    - raxxorraxor 4y ago
      Of course. That is pretty much a requirement for traditional dungeon family values.
go13 4y ago
Degeneration of society is being accepted on the legal level.
- spoiler 4y ago
  Why does it bother you that people can live their life in a way that makes them happy and fulfills them, but it in no way infringes on how you should live your life? They'd probably be happy for you that found your one soul mate; you could be happy for them too! Edit: didn't mean to accuse you of anything, but to offer a different perspective to how the situation could be viewed I don't think this will cause a degeneration of society. If anything, the American export of "everything is us versus them" tribal mentality to politics and society is much worse. Granted, some of that always existed but I feel like it was waning until social media and exposure to American politics started reviving it. Please don't let it influence your daily life like that
- lanternfish 4y ago
  This is an ambitious take. There are so many cogent counterarguments here that it's tough to choose one, but consider this: The fundamental core of the American societal experiment was a separation from an overbearing authority in the pursuit of individual liberties. It seems clear to me that freedom to marry who you want, where you want, and how you want would be pursuant to that eidolon. Now, you don't have to agree with that core tenet, but on an empirical level _that rejection_ would be degeneration: a fall from first principals (which might not be a bad thing depending on your normative frameworks - I'm inferring that you're not a fan though).
  - martopix 4y ago
    What I find interesting is that it seems, in the US, that the same people who reject the control of the government in things like guns, taxes, state-level decisions, etc., are the same that want to impose control of the government on things like marriage, sex, etc.
    - lanternfish 4y ago
      IMO It's because - going back as far as the constitutional convention - political ideology in America has largely comprised of aesthetic movements that wear the shells of theory and policy for memetic power. I had a religious studies professor make a - reasonably evidenced - claim that the whole 'seperation of church and state' stuff during the revolution was widely understood to basically be lip service. The vast majority of Americans were under the impression that they were starting a Christian country with a Christian government. That same professor made the - less evidenced - conclusion that the implicit divide between that expectation and the legal reality has underscored a considerable portion of American political turmoil to date.
      - leeroyjenkins11 4y ago
        It makes sense since separation of church and state isn't in the constitution. The establishment clause was to avoid the establishment of a federal religion. Many states had their own state religions until the 1800s. The founders did base the idea of Natural rights based on a creator. Most were either deists or christians. It's hard to come to the idea of inalienable rights without believing in a creator.
- martopix 4y ago
  "Degeneration" is a meaningless word. There is no total order relation [1] defined on the set of societies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_order https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_order
- __alexs 4y ago
  Whatever happened to the "don't tread on me" side of the right? Can we get those guys back?
  - the_third_wave 4y ago
    You should have thought of that when you banned them all for saying that the sky is blue and water is wet. The "Don't tread on me" side of the population - I don't think "the right" is the correct term here - tends to be want left alone by overreaching governmental busybodies. They also tend to be more on the traditional side of societal norms - again not something which is limited to "the right", there are plenty of traditional left-wing thinkers who did not like the "free love" movement of the 60's and don't like it still - so are not wont to go for polyamory unless they happen to be Mormons and talk about polygyny.
    - __alexs 4y ago
      I'm not sure you answered my question but thanks for the background.
  - rini17 4y ago
    Maybe if you accept their freedom to prejudice and discriminate.
  - ss108 4y ago
    They are there, but, as posted by others here, mostly care about gun ownership and covid restrictions and their own speech, but not about people getting literally tread on by police or humane treatment of asylum seekers, etc.
akerr 4y ago
The slippery slope people were right!
shmde 4y ago
[dead]
Nursie 4y ago
> The arrangement has no legal weight as a marriage: every state bans bigamy or polygamy. And I think it's important to remember there are reasons behind this - societies where polygamy has historically been allowed have had a ton of issues with women not entering these relationships out of free choice, nor having a choice over whether other women were brought into the relationship. Polyamory is certainly a practice of consent and communication, and for those who do enter poly relationships with open eyes (and hearts I guess!), more power to you. And I'm glad some rights are being recognised. But we must still be cautious not to throw out some of the protections these old laws offer, even while trying not to stifle positive social change.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
dhfbshfbu4u3 4y ago
I know a few poly folks. They seem happy, albeit mostly in a “this is fine” kind of way. Is that due to the stigma or actual unhappiness? Who knows. Plenty of societies in history had relationships like this. Not too keen on poly groups with kids though. That seems like a huge issue with custody. Kids have so little agency as it is.
- shmde 4y ago
  Poly relationships usually start with one of the partners gaslighting the other into opening up the relationship while the other silently agrees to it even though they don't want it. People usually do it for stability on one hand and the feeling of excitement of having a new partner in the other without having to face the repercussion because the other person "Agreed". My two best friends ( girl and guy ) were in a healthy relationship, the guy tried to open up the relationship, went completely downhill after that. I know small sample space. If you are unhappy just breakup and not increase complexity of the system. People will do anything rather than fix problems in their relationship.
  - __alexs 4y ago
    > Poly relationships usually start with one of the partners gaslighting the other Cite your sources?
    - the_third_wave 4y ago
      Probably from having seen this happen in their own circles? The "cite your sources" thing is rather tiring, it is an appeal to authority where no authority is required or even desired. There are no "experts on polyamorous relationships" who can tell people how to feel when their partners decides they need a little more excitement in their life after all, or are people now expected to follow the "experts" in their love life as well?
      - __alexs 4y ago
        The accusing people who are just getting on with their lives of manipulating their partners is also pretty tiring. There actually are people studying non-monogamous relationship models out there so yes those experts do exist if you seek them out. If your source is just "in my experience" that's fine, just make it clear that's what you are citing. Because otherwise it's just the same appeal to authority issue that you are accusing me of.
bell-cot 4y ago
Doing a quick check on "Traditional Family Values" - Wikipedia lists 6 "official" and ~50 "unofficial" mistresses for Louis XV (King of France from 1715 to 1774). It notes that the Church was not exactly thrilled with this...but it was pretty much a matter of private words & feelings. RHIP, and official public criticism, sanction, etc. never seem to have been on the table.
- davidguetta 4y ago
  If there was no "love" monogamy would just be seen as as socialism for the sexual market. If you put 100 guys and 100 girls on an island, for the first few weeks most girls fuck the same 10/20 men. Then the other revolt, either by violence, or creating a bullshit religion where god told the to marry 1 one 1 so that all men have sex. Magic ! Theres also the issue or raising children when everyone was poor... better be a team In real society most top guys (in any field) went through a phase where they had 2 to 5 concurrent gf
  - leeroyjenkins11 4y ago
    Or maybe it was an institution for women. Remember that birth control until a about 150 years ago wasn't great. So you're a woman who wants kids, wants someone strong to provide income for many of the labor based jobs. If you get pregnant you have to take care of the baby. If the top man wants 20 women, will he bother taking care of you after the baby? Will he have enough time for you? Will the wealth he amasses provide for you after he's dead? Is your kid lucky enough to be the heir to the wealth? Will you be able to compete with the other women, especially as you get older and the man keeps getting young women? There's a reason are more selective in mating and and it would be beneficial for monogamy within marriage for a woman especially. And if you really want to get tribal and old timey, wouldn't the other men just kill and take these top men's possessions on this island, and wouldn't the women need to come up with another option, if they did flock to the top 20?
    - AwaAwa 4y ago
      Lion's teaming up to take over a pride. I've seen this documentary. If this is what humanity is now chasing, I don't think its going to be good for anyone, but needs must.
nlnn 4y ago
It's always been a pet peeve of mine that legal recognition of relationships is a thing (I understand there's tradition, and that it helps with a lot of common situations especially where children, inheritance, power of attorney etc. are involved). Mostly it's that many relationships are complicated, and many relationships aren't as simple as the things the law recognises. For example, I know a couple that are non-romantic life partners (that's the best description I can think of). They've lived together for 20+ years, are both single (but not interested in dating), and sleep in separate rooms. However they look after each other all the time, have a shared bank account, holiday together, have wills leaving everything to the other, and take jobs to make sure they can always live together. From a legal point of view though, they get none of the benefits (or drawbacks) that newlyweds get, and their relationship isn't recognised for e.g. immigration purposes should that ever arise.
- theshrike79 4y ago
  It's like history books describing same-sex people as "friends" in every occasion. They were together from early adulthood to old age and lived together -> "friends" :D

14 points by ioblomov 4y ago

ioblomov 4y ago

https://archive.ph/Ac3un https://archive.ph/Ac3un

jim-jim-jim 4y ago

> It all began with Dungeons & Dragons. Of course it did.

raxxorraxor 4y ago
I guess a dungeon full of sex slaves counts as polyamory too.
- __alexs 4y ago
  Only if they consented to it and get to cuddle afterwards.
  - raxxorraxor 4y ago
    Of course. That is pretty much a requirement for traditional dungeon family values.

go13 4y ago

Degeneration of society is being accepted on the legal level.

spoiler 4y ago
Why does it bother you that people can live their life in a way that makes them happy and fulfills them, but it in no way infringes on how you should live your life? They'd probably be happy for you that found your one soul mate; you could be happy for them too! Edit: didn't mean to accuse you of anything, but to offer a different perspective to how the situation could be viewed I don't think this will cause a degeneration of society. If anything, the American export of "everything is us versus them" tribal mentality to politics and society is much worse. Granted, some of that always existed but I feel like it was waning until social media and exposure to American politics started reviving it. Please don't let it influence your daily life like that
lanternfish 4y ago
This is an ambitious take. There are so many cogent counterarguments here that it's tough to choose one, but consider this: The fundamental core of the American societal experiment was a separation from an overbearing authority in the pursuit of individual liberties. It seems clear to me that freedom to marry who you want, where you want, and how you want would be pursuant to that eidolon. Now, you don't have to agree with that core tenet, but on an empirical level _that rejection_ would be degeneration: a fall from first principals (which might not be a bad thing depending on your normative frameworks - I'm inferring that you're not a fan though).
- martopix 4y ago
  What I find interesting is that it seems, in the US, that the same people who reject the control of the government in things like guns, taxes, state-level decisions, etc., are the same that want to impose control of the government on things like marriage, sex, etc.
  - lanternfish 4y ago
    IMO It's because - going back as far as the constitutional convention - political ideology in America has largely comprised of aesthetic movements that wear the shells of theory and policy for memetic power. I had a religious studies professor make a - reasonably evidenced - claim that the whole 'seperation of church and state' stuff during the revolution was widely understood to basically be lip service. The vast majority of Americans were under the impression that they were starting a Christian country with a Christian government. That same professor made the - less evidenced - conclusion that the implicit divide between that expectation and the legal reality has underscored a considerable portion of American political turmoil to date.
    - leeroyjenkins11 4y ago
      It makes sense since separation of church and state isn't in the constitution. The establishment clause was to avoid the establishment of a federal religion. Many states had their own state religions until the 1800s. The founders did base the idea of Natural rights based on a creator. Most were either deists or christians. It's hard to come to the idea of inalienable rights without believing in a creator.
martopix 4y ago
"Degeneration" is a meaningless word. There is no total order relation [1] defined on the set of societies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_order https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_order
__alexs 4y ago
Whatever happened to the "don't tread on me" side of the right? Can we get those guys back?
- the_third_wave 4y ago
  You should have thought of that when you banned them all for saying that the sky is blue and water is wet. The "Don't tread on me" side of the population - I don't think "the right" is the correct term here - tends to be want left alone by overreaching governmental busybodies. They also tend to be more on the traditional side of societal norms - again not something which is limited to "the right", there are plenty of traditional left-wing thinkers who did not like the "free love" movement of the 60's and don't like it still - so are not wont to go for polyamory unless they happen to be Mormons and talk about polygyny.
  - __alexs 4y ago
    I'm not sure you answered my question but thanks for the background.
- rini17 4y ago
  Maybe if you accept their freedom to prejudice and discriminate.
- ss108 4y ago
  They are there, but, as posted by others here, mostly care about gun ownership and covid restrictions and their own speech, but not about people getting literally tread on by police or humane treatment of asylum seekers, etc.

akerr 4y ago

The slippery slope people were right!

shmde 4y ago

[dead]

Nursie 4y ago

> The arrangement has no legal weight as a marriage: every state bans bigamy or polygamy. And I think it's important to remember there are reasons behind this - societies where polygamy has historically been allowed have had a ton of issues with women not entering these relationships out of free choice, nor having a choice over whether other women were brought into the relationship. Polyamory is certainly a practice of consent and communication, and for those who do enter poly relationships with open eyes (and hearts I guess!), more power to you. And I'm glad some rights are being recognised. But we must still be cautious not to throw out some of the protections these old laws offer, even while trying not to stifle positive social change.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

dhfbshfbu4u3 4y ago

I know a few poly folks. They seem happy, albeit mostly in a “this is fine” kind of way. Is that due to the stigma or actual unhappiness? Who knows. Plenty of societies in history had relationships like this. Not too keen on poly groups with kids though. That seems like a huge issue with custody. Kids have so little agency as it is.

shmde 4y ago
Poly relationships usually start with one of the partners gaslighting the other into opening up the relationship while the other silently agrees to it even though they don't want it. People usually do it for stability on one hand and the feeling of excitement of having a new partner in the other without having to face the repercussion because the other person "Agreed". My two best friends ( girl and guy ) were in a healthy relationship, the guy tried to open up the relationship, went completely downhill after that. I know small sample space. If you are unhappy just breakup and not increase complexity of the system. People will do anything rather than fix problems in their relationship.
- __alexs 4y ago
  > Poly relationships usually start with one of the partners gaslighting the other Cite your sources?
  - the_third_wave 4y ago
    Probably from having seen this happen in their own circles? The "cite your sources" thing is rather tiring, it is an appeal to authority where no authority is required or even desired. There are no "experts on polyamorous relationships" who can tell people how to feel when their partners decides they need a little more excitement in their life after all, or are people now expected to follow the "experts" in their love life as well?
    - __alexs 4y ago
      The accusing people who are just getting on with their lives of manipulating their partners is also pretty tiring. There actually are people studying non-monogamous relationship models out there so yes those experts do exist if you seek them out. If your source is just "in my experience" that's fine, just make it clear that's what you are citing. Because otherwise it's just the same appeal to authority issue that you are accusing me of.

bell-cot 4y ago

Doing a quick check on "Traditional Family Values" - Wikipedia lists 6 "official" and ~50 "unofficial" mistresses for Louis XV (King of France from 1715 to 1774). It notes that the Church was not exactly thrilled with this...but it was pretty much a matter of private words & feelings. RHIP, and official public criticism, sanction, etc. never seem to have been on the table.

davidguetta 4y ago
If there was no "love" monogamy would just be seen as as socialism for the sexual market. If you put 100 guys and 100 girls on an island, for the first few weeks most girls fuck the same 10/20 men. Then the other revolt, either by violence, or creating a bullshit religion where god told the to marry 1 one 1 so that all men have sex. Magic ! Theres also the issue or raising children when everyone was poor... better be a team In real society most top guys (in any field) went through a phase where they had 2 to 5 concurrent gf
- leeroyjenkins11 4y ago
  Or maybe it was an institution for women. Remember that birth control until a about 150 years ago wasn't great. So you're a woman who wants kids, wants someone strong to provide income for many of the labor based jobs. If you get pregnant you have to take care of the baby. If the top man wants 20 women, will he bother taking care of you after the baby? Will he have enough time for you? Will the wealth he amasses provide for you after he's dead? Is your kid lucky enough to be the heir to the wealth? Will you be able to compete with the other women, especially as you get older and the man keeps getting young women? There's a reason are more selective in mating and and it would be beneficial for monogamy within marriage for a woman especially. And if you really want to get tribal and old timey, wouldn't the other men just kill and take these top men's possessions on this island, and wouldn't the women need to come up with another option, if they did flock to the top 20?
  - AwaAwa 4y ago
    Lion's teaming up to take over a pride. I've seen this documentary. If this is what humanity is now chasing, I don't think its going to be good for anyone, but needs must.

nlnn 4y ago

It's always been a pet peeve of mine that legal recognition of relationships is a thing (I understand there's tradition, and that it helps with a lot of common situations especially where children, inheritance, power of attorney etc. are involved). Mostly it's that many relationships are complicated, and many relationships aren't as simple as the things the law recognises. For example, I know a couple that are non-romantic life partners (that's the best description I can think of). They've lived together for 20+ years, are both single (but not interested in dating), and sleep in separate rooms. However they look after each other all the time, have a shared bank account, holiday together, have wills leaving everything to the other, and take jobs to make sure they can always live together. From a legal point of view though, they get none of the benefits (or drawbacks) that newlyweds get, and their relationship isn't recognised for e.g. immigration purposes should that ever arise.

theshrike79 4y ago
It's like history books describing same-sex people as "friends" in every occasion. They were together from early adulthood to old age and lived together -> "friends" :D