3 ms·
Oh, no doubt - I'm certainly not trying to defend EA's particular flavor of polyamory. But from Time's perspective, you have a term like polyamory that the gene
by btown 3y ago
Oh, no doubt - I'm certainly not trying to defend EA's particular flavor of polyamory. But from Time's perspective, you have a term like polyamory that the general public is not likely to be familiar with, and you only quote extreme and stereotyped viewpoints in defining it, without reference to any other definitions or statistics or lived poly experiences outside of EA's particular interpretations, you contribute to a culture of fear that all non-monogamous relationships are equally toxic. Perhaps horrifying was an exaggeration - but the omission in the reporting is irresponsible at best, and in the current culture, can cause real damage even to unrelated communities.
- morelisp 3y agoIDK, if I wanted to avoid a culture of fear around non-monogamous relationships I would want the toxic ones to be outed and shut down ASAP - like long before they grew into continent-spanning pseudointellectual movements handling hundreds of millions of dollars. Asking for the article to dig into "but some are healthy too" is just "not all men" writ (only mildly) larger. I also think this is really a non-issue, millennials and later mostly don't care at all and the people who don't like them aren't going to be convinced by anything ever, let alone some more carefully-crafted magazine article.