Will this one-by-one system forever be our main thing or do you think we will break monogamy and maybe “team up” as groups or something?

And yeah polygamy is a thing but do you think it will catch on to “the upper class”?

  • Ms. ArmoredThirteen
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    59
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    8 months ago

    Know the difference between polygamy and polyamory. Polygamy isn’t that uncommon but is often used to serve patriarchal hierarchies. Polyamory is much closer to “do whatever” (though that’s not strictly true).

    I’m trans and let me tell you so many of us are polyamorous. In my personal experience it has to do with spending so much time fighting against society to claim our identity that we end up questioning a lot of social norms. I think that more people than we realize could live very happily being poly, and if we had better poly representation more people would know how to approach it in a healthy way. But it doesn’t serve the hierarchies we live under to let people love freely in that way, so it gets othered in media and by governments.

    Also the “groups” you’re talking about teaming up in are typically called polycules. There are a lot of forms they can take it is an umbrella term.

    I think that as people are made more aware of the harm caused by some aspects of society we’ll be better at questioning things like monogamy as a whole. It isn’t an overnight thing. Also, often even in the poly community it is considered an unstable way to raise children (I don’t agree with this but it is a common enough sentiment). I don’t think polyamory will overtake monogamy certainly not any time in my life but I hope it becomes more common.

    • taladar@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      I think monogamous people could all do with a dose of the lessons and the vocabulary the polyamory community has developed over the years. Even if they never have more than one partner it helps to have the words to talk about things and the awareness of when you might be treating your partner unfairly out of emotional reflexes.

    • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Cultural polyandry is also worth mentioning for completeness, but it’s less common and almost always involves two brothers.

    • Devi@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      Polygamy just means that you marry more than one person. It’s not related to patriarchy and there are many polygamous people around the world who are not patriarchal at all.

      Polyamory means loving more than one person and can take many of the same forms as polygamy does, including patriarchal structures.

      • Ms. ArmoredThirteen
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        8 months ago

        I chose my words intentionally for the context of the post. I said ‘often’ not ‘universally’. The post is asking about social acceptance and I was pointing out that polygamy already is socially acceptable in some cultures and where that’s true it is often in the form of patriarchal hierarchy.

        Also polygamy by definition is a hierarchy because there is one primary partner with many partners/spouses, but those partners don’t have the same freedom to take on other partners. If they did, then that is called polyamory. Polyamory may or may not have hierarchy depending on the structure, polygamy has to have hierarchy.

        • Devi@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          Also polygamy by definition is a hierarchy because there is one primary partner with many partners/spouses, but those partners don’t have the same freedom to take on other partners. If they did, then that is called polyamory.

          That’s untrue. Polygamy just adds marriage to the equation, there’s no ‘extra rules’ there.