Do You Agree With At Least One Of These Points?

[fonduegirl]

[hellionthesagereborn]

Well the first one is a biological trait, their is no normalizing something that is innate.
No, I don't agree with any of these. Its quite clear that its a straw man argument created by some one who has a chip on their shoulder and hates monogamy. Monogamy doesn't make these claims at all. What it does claim is that we cannot maintain strong relationships if we are stretching ourselves thin amongst many people, this is a fact not an opinion. It doesn't say you should just be fine, it says we need to work together and we need to understand that relationships are about sacrifice, they are not about getting everything you want. You do not value that which you do not pay for, hence why relationships require sacrifice so you can value it more because your paying in to it. The reason why we have monogamy is because it creates a stable enviroment for raising children. Their is no such thing as polyamoury, you cannot function in that capacity. The idea that you can love some one so much that you will gladly risk the relationship and the stability of your familly is rather absurd.

[fonduegirl]

You do realise children aren't compulsory right?

[hellionthesagereborn]

The purpose of a life changing permanent (historically speaking) reproductive contract between a man and a woman was to create a stable enviroment for raising children. This was the purpose of marriage and is the biological goal of life. So at no point did I suggest it was "obligatory" but it is the function of life and marriage whether you like it or not.

Polyamoury doesn't exist, its either monogamy or casual relationships. He is not going to provide and protect a woman who refuses to give him exclusivity to reproduction, at least not if he has a choice. She is not going to love him when she is busy producing as many emotional connections to others as she can as sex does create emotional connections and the more she develops the weaker the original one becomes until she either decides to abandon the first relationship or abandon the new ones. Their is a reason why we have NEVER as a species had these kinds of relationships (and no, we have not. A rich king may have concubines but they where never considered equals, they where things to use and discard), why our biological builds fully reject the idea of mate sharing and/or promiscuis mating (as all sex is fundamentally) and why scientific studies show that sex is used to reestablish emotional bonds and strengthens monogamous relationships (when in a monogamous relationship). In addition traditional relationships yield the greatest possible happiness and well being of all parties involved statistically speaking.

[hellionthesagereborn]

If you wish to have casual sex go for it, but lets not pretend its something more then what it is, an attempt to indulge impulses while trying to rationalize away the consequences for doing so. Hugh Heftner died sad and alone as has every person who has gone down this route. Their is a reason for it even if you do not wish to see it. Dieting is hard. Excercising is hard, doing what is right is hard, self restraint is hard, that is why so many people don't do them, doesn't mean that these things are not necessary for a healthy and happy person, only that most people choose to do things the easy way instead of the right way.

[fonduegirl]

That's some heavy cynicism

[fonduegirl]

And religious ass shade. Thank God I missed temple visits. Now I get that here, online!

[hellionthesagereborn]

Their is nothing cynical about it, its reality. You can say that their is nothing unhealthy about indulging every single one of your desires, but it won't be true. You arguing for this is like seeing a fat person argue that eating a tub of lard with a bag of sugar is absolutely healthy, they can say it, they have the legal right to do it and I will not stop them, but at no point is what they are saying accurate to reality. Promiscuity and polyamoury (a fancy way of saying promiscuity without having to admit what it is) are just that, in direct conflict with reality. We are not built for it mentally as multiple studies show, we are not built for it biologically as multiple studies show. Their is no benefit to this and it doesn't generally work, some one is unhappy, the relationships tend to deteriorate and/or they revert to more of a friends with benefits then an actual relationship, and the people end up dying alone and miserable in most cases.

As for the religion remark, what do you mean? At no point did I bring up religion, I'm not religious so I'm not sure why you would throw that out their except as a strawman argument as a means to claim that my statements come from a religious place (they don't, I pointed out scientific studies, that is the exact opposite of religion) and therefore MUST be wrong which is not only a strawman argument but an argument from bias as well i. e. its not very rational and has no baring on the conversation. So why did you say it?

[sunshineglow]

Listen, if you aren't going to help your partner with their problems and insecurities, who will? And from whom you can expect that for yours, than your partner to be able to? You know what, folks, this American trashy selfishness being glorified around the world is just aiming at making the rest of the world selfish like americans are... I hope it won't succeed.
Also commitment IS damn exclusivity! Dammit these illnesses of blur minds today, with no emotional responsibility or principles or values or understanding of values are spreading worse than this pandemic...
I could comment on few others that I disagree with too, but I won't as this is just giving me a headache from dealing with stupid and shallow times and it's nasty trends.
...
If you just want to have fun around FINE, but then that slutty lifestyle simply cannot be called monogamy. Monogamy is monogamy, fullstop. Words have a meaning, you can't call it monogamy and flirt with anyone you like, go out with few people and never have empathy for your partner and his vulnerabilities. Then you are just a fun for bed and nothing more. Choose what you want to be and embrace that, don't invent some "toxicity" to it just because you're not mature enough to understand what real relationship means. (!)

[Guffrus]

Commitment is exclusively TO YOU, but you don't choose for other people, the point being made which you missed or incapable or unwilling to accept or understand is that a person can make a lifetime commitment to another person or persons in polyarmorous or open relationship between informed and consenting adults.

Frankly you just simply haven't understood anything in the OP, its not as clear as it could have been but there is a meaning there which has been completely lost on you.

[sunshineglow]

@Guffrus
If two people... Agree... to be in a relationship... Exclusive (!) relationship (which often implies asking that question), they are getting involved into a... Monogamous relationship. As Nietche said "They muddy the water to make it seem deep". Don't try to do that here. Being commited, when you are in an exclusive relationship is implied. It cannot not be implied. Here is a deal about monogamous relationship, and supposed toxicity to it. What you state would apply to supposed toxicity of polyamorous relationships. Then that statement would make sense. Sadly many western countries don't have a subject in their education that would teach them how to think or develop the thought about a problem, and this is a consequence. Even more sad is that you constantly think only you can possibly be right. Also lack of ability to think critically in addition to general inexperience in life of author of this manifesto stands behind few other bizzare statements in that "manifesto" of ah, fight, ah, against supposedly toxic whatever.

[fonduegirl]

That's not what the post is getting at, dear.

[fonduegirl]

It says if you're commited to two to three partners, you're still valid.

Plus, there's almost no guarantee even exclusivity you'll work. USA has high divorce rates cuz people, when they fall out of love, they don't waste time on obligations.

I respect that so much.

[sunshineglow]

Of course, your intention was to seek out to see what we agree on, but frankly what I don't agree on seems to win on scale of emotional weight, especially altogether, than what I agree on. Just saying.

[fonduegirl]

Exclusivity doesn't have to be equivalent to commitment. Like I said, you can be happy in a group relationship just as much as one person. But monogamous people often point it out that you'd be left out or something, in a group relationship, which isn't true for all cases.

[sunshineglow]

"USA has high divorce rates cuz people, when they fall out of love, they don't waste time on obligations."
Please explain this to me, I think I'm losing the sense of what you are getting at right here. Divorce means you're officially aren't in a marriage. Relationship between a boyfriend amd girlfriend is also a commited relationship, if you didn't know, mind the vocabularyvof psychology.

Now what do you mean by that?

[fonduegirl]

By that I meant they don't drag out meaningless relationships. They just move on with life. If it's not working out now, leave. That's what I live by too.

[fonduegirl]

Three, four, five people can also be in a relationship, loving all, giving and taking. You can't say that's not relationship. Toxic monogamy implies that any romantic sexual relationship with more than two people involved is "invalid".

[sunshineglow]

That, however, has perfectly nothing with the meaning of "commited" which just proves my point that people nowadays like to state fantastical manifestos not understanding what things are. To be commited, essentially, shall be taken as, WHILE you are in this relationship, you are commited to be a - supportive partner, protective, catering needs of emotional life of that individual, and so they do to you, you are FAITHFUL, and so they are, and you can get indulged in co-dependency, because you feel safe. If you get out by mutual agreement, from that relationship, then you got out of one commited relationship and are possibly open for another of that kind. Many authors were writing on this, breaking that misenterpretation of assigned meaning of "commitment" only to a religiously woved marriage. From Erich Fromm to contemporary Barbara deAngelis. You seem very young and naive. Maybe you essentially have some healthy ideas but use completely wrong wording and mess up entirely non-matching philosophies together, some things that simply don't match. Are you the author of this "list"?

[Guffrus]

@sunshineglow

Quote : If two people agree..

Yes fine, but that isn't what is being said to you.

As i have already tried to explain to you, you have not understood the OP, at all.

I dont know where you get off telling me that I am the one here who thinks that only i can be right or that I can't think critically when you are the one who doesn't understand, you are the ignorant person here.

The fact of the matter is that I do in fact have sufficient life experience, it what allows me to grasp concepts which are out of your reach.

[fonduegirl]

By no means, I'm implying that non-Monogamous relationships are for everyone. But society pressing down some individuals down in the name of monogamy? that's toxic, yk.

[sunshineglow]

Okay. This is what I understood at first. Toxic monogamy implies certain ideas on monogamy are toxic FOR the people who already are in those monogamus relationships. Now I see you mean it is being implied that it is toxic for whole society as well, which I also don't agree with.
I did of course realise what you meant by poliamorous relationships once you pointed it out. But I focused on that thing you stated about divorces and that is completely other issue. You haven't yet quite answered that very well. You think I don't get what do you mean, but in reality you are still misinterpreting me as well. My longer reply was mostly about divorce, but yiu replied too fast with two replies and they didn't both load so I missed on some things you said, so some my statements seem off the line, whole in fact thes are intended to time before your newer comments have been loaded for me.

[sunshineglow]

As for the poliamorous relationships being considered "invalid" by monogamous people, that is nkt something I do, or want to judge, but the fact is such relationship are less healthy and less ethical if only emotional. If involving actual sexual life, they are simply perversions. Now is a perversion invalid? Well, it is "valid" for those who get indulged in it, but it doesn't mean we have to normalise it. I would rather state this statement of accusing monogamy as a norm to be a toxicity, is toxicity itself. Norm is a norm. You can live peacefully out of norm and be accepted by the society with all your differences, but please don't attack the norm for that it even exists. It's out of your power what is most common behaviour on this world. And if majority says something like "poliamorous people aren't really in commited relationships", that shall not be interpreted as toxicity but as a lack of understanding of possibilities of nature of such relationship. So I do get your point now and recognise they can be commited but... Still, don't agree with the point as the point on that list, for it misinterprets the reaction of the monogamous people. I will repeat, poliamorous people have no right to call out monogamous people on not accepting them as "normal relationships" though. Therefore ANYTHING that works for monogamy cannot be criticed as "toxic" by non monogamous people, it's simply a standard for monogamy. But I'm getting off topic here.

I'd still like to know whose this list is?

[Guffrus]

@sunshineglow You are a very confused person.

You say that you aren't judging or saying that polyarmory is invalid and in the next breath you are saying its perverted.

You don't even have a grasp of what you are saying yourself, nevermind what others are saying.

I think the truth of the matter is that you are in fact an ignorant bigot who thinks that you get to choose for other people but you know that isn't acceptable so you are trying to be something like politically correct but you can't do it properly because its not representative of your real thoughts and feelings.

[fonduegirl]

One of my Tumblr followers.

[fonduegirl]

I dont think the speaker was clear enough but I'll say that on their behalf : molding someone into fit your societal standards is toxic.

If someone forced you into a polyamorous relationship, that'd be toxic too.

As me in a monogamous relationship.

But sometimes you gotta try, gotta take risks. That's all I'm saying. Priorities and boundaries... Very important.

[sunshineglow]

@Guffrus I'm not confused at all. I say I don't judge them for it because they are not commiting a crime. Will they down the lane most probably easier get hurt, - probably, but it was their choice to which they consciously have agreed on. I cannot judge them for their life choices. Especially as a believer. We all make mistakes or have one or another weird behaviour or sins. However, that sexual poligamy is perversion, - it is a perversion. I don't need to judge it. Same as I don't judge person obsessed with them being hurt or tortured in the intercourse. It is a pure perversion. But their private matters are not what I want to know or judge over. You sound very American, brainwashed indeed. Keep in mind I am from Europe where indeed many are very chill and tolerant to things "existing"... But am also from southern Europe where we are hell not tolerant to simultaneously taking those things that are simply to be acknowledged as "existing", down onto our lifestyles and getting *popularised* as a part of sensitivisation about issues of those groups / issues. Sensitivisation will here not get such propaganda, just empathy and intellectual recognition LIKE IT DESERVES but not fake aligning with it, if you clearly aren't part of it. Also when you say politically correct, you clearly state that for the US. You have no idea what is considered politically correct in different countries. World is bigger than your little bubble. How you used the word "bigot" and the fact you even used it, tells me all on this American brainwashed battle between made up "sides".

[Guffrus]

@sunshineglow

Uh huh, religious zealot, now we are starting to get to the problem here.

I am not an American.

[fonduegirl]

Honey, you can't call something wrong just because you aren't doing it. And yes, calling it a "mistake" and "perversion" is as good as saying "folks! Poly is wrong''.

[fonduegirl]

A person who isn't judging won't focus on cons list, js

[sunshineglow]

For example you are even either strong left wing or strongly right wing and support their WHOLE programms, without excluding only those attitudes that you agree on and rejecting the ones you don't. Such people who strongly side to only one wing /party in vast majority of Europe are considered extremists. Just stating general differences in perception. I think more complex minded and more educated people aren't accepting any suggested set of values just because they are popularised even if they are popularised here, but first observe and critically think of everything that is offered and then develop their conclusions on them. Most of educated people here do exactly that. No forced "political correctness" even in things that are HERE presented as desirable. We have too complicated political history for such things to be even possible. Fyi in short.
It's just repeatedly you who looks very undereducated to me so I appropriately repeat, it seems there is a lot of misunderstanding in this thread. At least I'm not going to be calling you a "confused person" and a bigot, that seems as an insult on level of ego, very low, I wasn't going there, but I'm unaffected really. You are just impolite due to lack of understanding and the brainwash. I will not judge that either. Mine is to have empathy towards people. And mine is also to protect deep and real values, ethics and truth, therefore my first comment.

[fonduegirl]

Don't drag politics into this!

[fonduegirl]

You sound like one of those fake non judgmental people, God

[sunshineglow]

And. Every single other point on that list is apllied exclusively to inside of a monogamous relationship. How could I possibly know they meant that one point relevant to whole outside world of potentialities. Very weird how you guffrus got so angered on it. I think it's your attitude that's very toxic and closed actually. Once I realised what she meant, I stated my opinion on that from this perspective she suggested, what is the problem? I adamantly will protect the actual, living norm from being relativised, though.

[Guffrus]

@sunshineglow If you had any interest in the truth at all you wouldn't be religious because there is no evidence to support the claim.

Your views are based on religious dogma.

[fonduegirl]

You can just clarify that monogamy isn't toxic, but you also added polymory is.

[sunshineglow]

Guffrus, I'm not a zealot, I'm a humanist, and very much fond of search for those actions that provide HARMONY within and outside of a person.

Anon1903, from that perspective, and you must understand that, I cannot support something that clearly will sooner or later produce emotional issues n the people and mess in their outside lives. That kinds of stances don't come at all and are not linked to my say, faith or spiritual beliefs ~mind both of you.

Answers again came in between my sending one longer reply in few separate posts (there's a limit on length).

[fonduegirl]

All right.

[fonduegirl]

A polyamorous relationship can certainly be more challenging, yes, but it doesn't make it wrong

You do you

[sunshineglow]

Anon1903, I do judge perversion for being bad for people, but I do not hold authority on judging THE INDIVIDUALS for getting involved into the perversions. Considering polyamory something outside of norm and protecting the norm from getting relativised into implying the perversions in it, is also not toxic, especially as usually people have bo problems recognising these kinds of relations exist, and LET THEM BE without personal attacking those individuals. Even if you want from religious point of view, even Bible says "hate the sin but love the sinners". We have our sins too, they are different but are still sins. If you want even strictly religious perspective, mind you. But I go further than that in my opinions.

[fonduegirl]

Point taken.

[sunshineglow]

@Guffrus , guffrus, such an inexperienced statement again. How about being a bit more open minded yourself, or you are "confused" then yourself? My faith is exactly based on my spiritual experiences. Who is open to God, God can come into his life. You are not, so don't expect that. Leave other people alone. My opinions are almost never based on dogma, as I was raised in a very sad atheist way. Nowadays I can reply to your statement, "who is in search of truth, seeks first truths of spiritual kind" so again your attempted insult has failed epically on me.

[fonduegirl]

It's great you're spiritual. It truly is. No sarcasm here.

But calling yourself humanist is one thing and being tightly wound on norms is another.

Sometimes humans breaks laws. And it isn't exactly a "mistake", mind you.

[fonduegirl]

And when you automatically assume polyamorous relationships are perverted without never being a part, it just shows YOU'RE THE ONE that's brainwashed by media, porn and such to be less discreet.

[sunshineglow]

Yes correct, there are certain behaviours that are not a norm which do not cause chaos or problems, and they are not to be considered perversions or mistakes. Perversions in my opinion are usually involving something within sexual behaviours.
No anon1903, I think you and I don't have a problem, you seem as able to be reasonable, simply we don't agree on every shade of things but we also misunderstand each other often. But I think we eventually do come to point of wider understanding of each other. Guffrus seem to have had some problem here with me though... Funny...

[fonduegirl]

If it's of consolation, I don't believe you're confused. judgmental, could be but I can't mislabel you.

There are many things I do agree with. And once again, not calling anyone toxic because of their life choices.

Polyamorous relationships are hard on themselves. So yes we do get triggered when people try to invalidate them. They aren't impossible, just harder to maintain.

[sunshineglow]

I cannot be brainwashed by the media or porn when I didn't see such things in the media and have never watched a porn. I imagined arabic poligamous marriages, and the christian sects where polygamous marriage is a must that their sect teaches as a "way to get closer to God" - not less a deviant behaviour. All these or people agreed on that kinds of relationships, not a single is ever happy or fullfilled.

I DON'T WANT TO GET INDULGED INTO IT EVER. IT INDEED IS A SICK BEHAVIOR. I have witnessed it with my own eyes. My ex's father was in polyamory and his son was getting ever more ethically unconscious behaving on behalf of his father's ROLEMODEL. In that time we were very young and his father had great influence on him and all other children in those weird relations, half brothers, half sisters. By the end, the ex developed such a strong narcissism that he started to abuse me emotionally, and then even in other ways. No matter how much reason, patience, forgiveness and talk I put into this trying to resolve the issue, it didn't help, it just got worse, he started ENJOYING hurting me, just like his father was enjoying making those women feel bad all the time, while cynically narcissistically laughing behind their backs how easy it is to make them in pain of jelousy! Dear, that's not only gaslighting and abuse they didn't signed up to. Polyamory is a clear perversion which is very danger for mental health of everyone in it AND surrounding it. Most usually, even in Arabic polygamy, at least one wife will decide to abandon that constant drama and disrespect. Please, now you also judge in advance. Know what you refer to. I was second hand affected through just a son of person involved in it. It messed more than one child up. (legally grown up) you still think such things are joke and oh whatever why not, it doesn't hurt?

[sunshineglow]

Why to get involved in very damaging unwise behaviours anyway? Same like protecting "right of people to abuse cocain every day for years, because they enjoy". Stupid. In long term they just do the damage themselves. Maybe it's a good person who just lost a compass, but still we can't call it a good thing for him. Bad thing is a bad thing.

[fonduegirl]

Polygamy is sexist. Period.

[fonduegirl]

Polyamory is a little bit different.

[fonduegirl]

And if you have experience with it, then that's understandable.

[sunshineglow]

Well yeah, but most of people in polygamy have willingfully agreed on it, so it's just legalised (taken to marriage, civil or religious) poliamory.

[sunshineglow]

I mean, it could have started free style (in my exes example, it wasn't from religious beliefs), but eventually it just turns into polygamy (one enjoying many) + legalised, so you have hard time leaving and easy time getting vulnerable.

[fonduegirl]

I won't marry or have kids. My only priority is me. So you needn't be worried... Of me, if you were. Only I'd be responsible of what I'm doing rn.

[sunshineglow]

One's influence reaches further than one's home. But I've stated everything I had, and so have you. We can peacefully part now ~ I think.

[fonduegirl]

Of course. Good debate, sunshine.

x

[TheorionMage]

In the early 1900's there was a radical Christian zealot culture in New England who believed that by eschewing the fundamental necessity of reproduction and espousing reproductive celibacy (not necessarily eschewing sex itself. Read between THOSE lines!) ... that by their proselytizing these beliefs, by their 'sacrifice' disobeying the Old Testament divine mandate of Genesis... they could expedite the "end times" and call forth "the return of Christ and the Final Judgement".

There were separate gendered dormitories. Members addressed one another as 'Brother' & 'Sister' as some of the Protestant denominations still do, seeking to procedurally project the 'sinfulness' of a kind of religiously-based philosophical 'incest'.

As their ranks thinned by mortality they'd replace membership via running orphanage homes and promulgating their beliefs upon those they cared for... grooming them for eventual 'baptism'. "PEE-raise Chee-zus!"

[Aethereal]

I agree with about 50% of these points and strongly disagree with the rest. Some points need expanding on though. For example; does the first point deal with the idea that it is toxic to get jealous, or does it deal with the idea that it is toxic to use jealousy (how often or little a partner gets jealous) as an indicator? I disagree with the former view and agree with the latter (in relation to toxic monogamy culture). The second point is also vague because what qualifies as a "practical incompatibility" may vary between people.

In any case, my opinion is based on how I chose to interpret the meaning of each point. It might change if they were expanded upon.

[DaveToo]

Jealousy is an indicator of the need to possess.
No intelligent response.
If your partner isn't being met by you, they need another partner.
Commitment IS synonymous with exclusivity. That's why you commit.
Look at my previous.
Your partner should help you through those insecurities. You also should help them.
If you love your partner, and they do you, then the time and energy you spend on each other are directly equal to said love.
It is impossible to value your partner if you don't value yourself first.

[BCA6010]

I agree with a few of them to a limited extent, but the statement "commitment is synonymous with exclusivity" is somehow toxic is blatantly wrong; they do mean one and the same thing in the context of marriage.

[J2ohhhhh]

Agree on the second one. The test is just lack of emotional complexity and only be able to love in a childish possessive way.

[StunningANDbrave]

I'm sure whoever wrote that dumbass list is a whore or degenerate trying to cope with their decisions. Freedom of choice doesn't = freedom of consequences, calling it toxic when you do dumb shit and get called dumb is gaslighting.

[vald9inches]

Wow somebody is really triggered by this lol

[StunningANDbrave]

@vald9inches I'll bet.

[Jamie05rhs]

Yes. I agree that commitment is synonymous with exclusivity.

[Still-alive]

well this is definitely the first time i ever heard of "toxic monogamy"

[fonduegirl]

Haha

[snackthatsmilesback]

No yeah that most seems toxic and I definitely know some people who fit it.

[crmoore]

I mean, I don't believe most, or all, of them are the case. But if they were, then I'd agree with most of them.

[Archerer]

Yeah I agree with all of them

[fonduegirl]

You're my new bff

[Archerer]

🤗 yay

[fonduegirl]

🌺🌹

[Tommyy12]

The list goes on the extreme ends which most people don't face in reality.

[OddBeMe]

What you’re calling “intense love” just sounds like infatuation.

[joeldalton]

No. There's nothing toxic about 'monogamy'.

[snackthatsmilesback]

Yeah there's nothing toxic about monogamy in itself or in practice. I think that's why they clarified they were talking about certain ideas of monogany being taken out of their intended place to extremes and pushed on others by a culture as being toxic. Not monogamy itself.

[joeldalton]

@snackthatsmilesback This whole bullshit about "toxic" this or that is only a round-about way to destroy that thing in society.

[snackthatsmilesback]

Or it's trying to prune the unnecessary and harmful growths/knock-offs on that thing to get back to the basics of what that thing is actually supposed to be in society.

[Sketti2021]

Can't read that teeensyyyyyness

[ThatNoUVAtYourEyes]

Yeah, I'd go for you and your girlfriend any day

[Agape93]

Yeap

[vald9inches]

All of them honestly

[Tstrbrainer]

Yup, some points