Post #1161909 · Elektrine

2026-04-13 13:21 UTC

I appreciate you reply. First of all, monogamy is based on old property laws, on normarivity, and enforced by states/religions. that alone should be a red flag (not inherently wrong though). I just think that relationships are only the matter of the people within it. Boundaries are okay, but shouldn't be used to control people. I might have a boundary against eating pork, and it would be unethical and a severe breach of trust if my partner cooked pork and served it to me without telling me that it is pork. however, I can't impose a boundary on them not eating pork. if I was severely allergic and it is a health concern, I can envision a "no pork at home" rule. but if my boundary is "You cannot have it" then that isn't a boundary, that's control. If my partner has bacon in a bruch with their friends, she isn't breaking a boundary of mine I am not involved in there. I hope that at least clarifies my view. and that is besides the baggage that monogamous relationships come with pre build expectations and are assumed to be to "correct" form by states and society. BTW, I also disagree with many issues that comes with ENM, and I personally side with relationship anarchy. which is an alternative poly philosophy. They do have some interest concepts, like the relationship smorgasbord, where partners get yo define what their relationship should be like, rather than accepting the societal standards.

Replies (3)

@bstix@feddit.dk 2026-04-14 22:04

>monogamy is based on old property laws, on normarivity, and enforced by states/religions. I'm not sure about that. If you ask anyone in a monogamous relationship, they wouldn't say that they're doing that because of the society, state or church. I think it's something much more instinctual and possibly biologically conditioned. Pheromones are a hell of a powerful chemical. If you've ever had a crush on someone, you'll definitely have experienced how it makes you focus everything on that one person, regardless of what you want or what they want or what anyone else including your religion wants.

Open ##1161916
@sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2026-04-13 13:53

And I appreciate your reply, though I do disagree. (and for what its worth, i didnt downvote you) --- I follow your food allergy metaphor, but this makes sense analogously only if you essentially do not view sex as any more sacred, or complex and meaningful, than food... you view it _**only**_ as basic human need that is not entwined with the very emotional structure of a relationship. Say that you're both ostensibly members of a religion that forbids eating pork, or you're both fairly hardcore vegans, and you in particular are also allergic to pork. If your partner goes out and eats pork, away from you, yes this is not literally directly harmful to you, but it betrays the values that you both ostensibly claim to believe in. Furthering the analogy, the partner could just say they're not a member of that religion, or they're not a vegan, or they have different interpretations of the concepts of those... and then you could say: 'well, the beliefs that I have are important to me, and I thought that you had those same beliefs, and that they were important to you to... so if you do not have those beliefs, we should probably not be a couple.' --- So, you have clarified your line of thinking, your preference or worldview or what you want to call it, but you have not explained how the preference or worldview that I explained is _unethical_. I don't inherently think that ENM or poly or relationship anarchy are inherently impossible to do ethically... I think they are difficult to do ethically, without causing a ton of drama, a lot of emotional distress and complexity.... but i do not think they are just de facto unethical in concept. I do agree with you that monogamous relationships very often are problematic in that they come with baggage by way of people having unstated assumptions of what the roles and rules are. But this can be solved with forthright communication and actually discussing with the partner what those roles and rules are or should be. That goes the same for nonmonogamous relationships, they're just inherently more complex as they involve more people. Tons of people are, imo, not emotionally mature enough, not honest enough with themselves, do not have the communication skills required to be in any kind of a serious relationship, monogamous or otherwise.

Open ##1161917
@quips@slrpnk.net 2026-04-13 13:40

Bro just loves to ragebait. You can be perfectly happy like that, doesn’t mean monogamy is unethical.

Open ##1161918