[poisonborz]

Tangentially related, but look up relationship anarchy. If we'd demolish outdated "standard" labels of our relationships, and normalize to making connections between any 2+ persons without them needing to feel shame or the pressure of internal/external expectations, we'd be a happier society.

[dbspin]

This is a recipe for perhaps the most unhappy society imaginable. Without such outmoded ideas as 'commitment', and 'through thick and thin' relationships become subject to the immediate barometer of personal happiness. In practice this is anything but equitable, freeing and fulfilling. It results in people with perceived high 'value' flitting from relationship to relationship, often several at once. Invariably leaving relationships and abandoning partners when the ordinary vicissitudes of life arise - job loss, ill health, aging, deaths of parents etc.

Real intimacy requires investment. Relationship anarchy, any time I've seen it attested or practiced, faciliates the opposite. It's a fetishisation of alienation. What you're describing as 'pressure of expectations' can be understood very differently, as the expectation of reciprocity. In other words, being able to rely on people - whether as friends or lovers, when things get difficult. Without that, all we have is limerence and capriciousness.

I say all this as someone who's been in non-monogamous relationships of various kinds - from weeks to years. Without the possibility of commitment and the acknowledgement that all relationships are inherently hierarchical, we atomise individual needs and make real enduring connection and community impossible.

[poisonborz]

What you say is true in general but why would it all be true for a nonstandard relationship? Why would you be less committed to multiple persons (or why would you not have 1 committed out of all). If anything, a single household of multiple stable personalities creates more involving and colorful context, more possibility of hierarchy, and more reasons to not abandon it (as a bigger community relies on you).

I had much less direct and indirect experience, but I know what you talk about. Even more, it is also my experience that these constellations are unstable. But I see this as them existing in a sea of monogamist society, surrounded by prejudice and contempt. Try to introduce this to friends and family. It's similar of how gay relationships are much more often open, due to (guess:) societal context like a patriarchal society.

Historically disconnected societies were used to be more creative. I hope they would also be in the future.

[dbspin]

In practice people are never equally committed to multiple partners, if nothing else the longevity of a relationship changes feelings. As it should! It normal and healthy that feelings and commitments deepen over time. There's an idea prevalent in polyamory right now that relationships should be 'non hierarchical'. I believe it's both unrealistic and I unhealthy. Openness does not equate to equivalence. Being happy for your partners additional sexual experiences or even relationships is not the same as those relationships sitting on an equal footing with your own.

To your second point - sure polyamorous relationships are countercultural, and this inevitably puts more pressure on them from family etc. However they're also innately more complex, and require far more processing than conventional relationships. They'll always be a minority for this reason alone. And that's totally fine. Your relationship style is no less valid for being less popular. This need to proslethise to others is itself unhealthy. Tolerance is important, uniformity is not.

[tifik]

How do you address jealousy? Im very much on board with the idea in general, and have given it quite a bit of thought, but I’ve never been fully sold on the idea that jealousy is fully based on social constructs

[swagasaurus-rex]

I find it funny that poly relationships will insist on talking about feelings but get very uncomfortable at any sign of jealousy or attachment.

[prerok]

In a poly I would guess people need to feel attached to a group not a single individual, in a sense loving all people in the group almost equally. Mostly, we are not raised that way and culturally it would be unconventional, to say the least.

[swagasaurus-rex]

Loving people equally is impossible. Even poly people have a 'primary' introducing hierarchy and preference.

A group of people sleeping together is not a stable community. It's filled with people who are trying to sleep with other people inside and outside of the group who are vocal about being able to spend time, money, and effort on others for sex. There's nothing binding a group like this together besides sex.

Even normal community activities like volunteering or sports clubs have drama and people who end up hating each other. Add sex in the mix and you've created an explosive dynamic.

[prerok]

I tend to agree. I was describing how I think it could work and how I suppose it worked before. Nowadays, when contact with many people outside of the group is ubiquitous, I think it's next to impossible, but maybe there's people out there that make it work. Good for them, if they found a way.

[swagasaurus-rex]

Family is the original community

[designium]

It helps to deconstruct what jealousy is. Is it the fear of losing someone to others? Or is it possessiveness? He or she are mine like property? Or we are simply conditioned to react like that given certain situations that triggers jealousy? I found it’s easier to deal with jealousy once I understood the source of it and treat jealousy like a symptom not the cause.

[tifik]

These are good insights, but I meant how do you adress it within the concept of a non monogamous society.

[trumpdong]

First you'd have to know what it is that you want to address, right?

[swagasaurus-rex]

How do you address the feeling that the non-committed person you're sleeping with

1) Does not prioritize you

2) Finds somebody they like more than you

3) Not actually happy with you but still uses you

4) Is going to get STDs from other people

5) Will have less and less time for you because of others

6) Believes children can be raised "by a village" instead of their own hard work

7) Wants to involve other people in your life

8) Births a child with somebody else (maybe?) as the parent

9) The mere thought of them with another person grosses you out

[poisonborz]

I tend to believe self-assured people do not become jealous as they don't terminally depend on a relationship. This of course depends on age, how social someone is or the population size in the area. This is a general human problem, the traditional answer of "ownership" has problems of its own.

[tifik]

All good points, but this doesnt really answer my question. If we imagine this hypothetical non-monogamous society, with no social constructs incentivizing monogamy, jealousy being in human nature would remain a driver towards monogamy. I imagine historically this is how most religions arrived at propagating monogamy. In christianity and judaism for both genders, or in islam for female monogamy, as jealousy was such a common driver of conflict that may even escalate into wars. Enforcing monogamy as the moral choice has some merit, if it avoids bloodshed, though obviously ideally people capable of being in non-monogamous relationships shouldnt be punished for being in one.

[poisonborz]

"Historically" is a narrow term, we don't know much of our 50k years of history, or what we know of, societies handled this very creatively. Like how sleeping with outsiders was not a taboo due to needing new genetic material, or that childrens would be raised communally as parents might often die or not present to do other tasks. I don't see this inevitability of monogamy - my kitchen table theory is that the current state of >mostly monogamism< was driven by a globalising world (even 1-2k years ago) that favored imperialism, standardization, expansion, relied on the heavy physical labour while being very resource constrained. Religions placating chivalry and honor were a supporting policing tool.

All of the "classical sins" could be described as are human nature regardless of relationship type. Note that as an alternative I don't just think of flat hierarchy polyamory here, any non-heteronormative relationship or constellations that revolve around a "main relationship".

In a world of industry standards, automatization, light and flexible work hours, easy communication and high mobility I think we need to be creative again. Especially how this above evolution seems to reach its limits, and "scale to the moon" does not seem to work (dead internet) and we're in dire need of small, informal communities again. I see much more openness to this from the younger western generation.

[tifik]

Replying to myself in case my point isnt clear - Im postulating that monogamy being some sort of “default” is inevitable, given enough time to evolve, regardless of how you setup the starting parameters.

[swagasaurus-rex]

People who do not depend on relationships simply don't enter into relationships.

For everybody else, there is the normal and perfectly human feelings of jealousy, attachment, fear or loss, and feeling associated with self-confidence.

[AndrewKemendo]

That’s just anarchism

https://davidgraeber.org/articles/are-you-an-anarchist-the-a...

[BoingBoomTschak]

"Duuude free love lmao"; no need to put psychobabble words on it, you know.