Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

CaptainACAB wrote

I'm against breaches in trust between people out of sheer necessity.

Being ace, I don't care one way or the other when it comes to the validity of monogamy; being an egoist, I find that monogamy being the norm is overly restrictive. And many conventions surrounding that mode of relation are haunted.

Still, sneaking around sounds mentally exhausting and unnecessary to me, just go for an open relationship or something if you aren't interested in commitment.

17

celebratedrecluse wrote

I'm against breaches in trust between people out of sheer necessity.

Do you want to elaborate on sheer necessity?

3

CaptainACAB wrote

No, but I'll do it anyway since you asked.

In a context stripped of all moral judgements, trust is still an important element to human relationships; especially one that involves sexual contact, though that doesn't apply to me for reasons previously stated.

Anyway, since I'm averse to using notions of right or wrong when it comes discussing hot takes from anarchists, especially since doing it here and now would involve me defending the sanctity of monogamy, I have to use a more universal standard of stating my point: that of necessity.

Since I have the misfortune of being unable to truly discern the motives of other people, my default assumption is to assume the best but not dismiss the worst; this manifests in a shaky trust when I meet people that'll only get stronger or weaker as I get to know them. I don't want to be seen as unreliable or untrustworthy, so I try to earn good faith by not violating any trust put onto me with the expectation that others do the same. Losing faith in people is a regular occurrence for me, but losing faith in specific individuals isn't and it hurts to even think about. Since I don't often "let people in", it would sting more if my trust was squandered. This is my only way of dealing with relationships. So, yeah, breaches in trust aren't my thing.

5

metocin wrote

Breaking someone's trust is a shitty thing to do. If you want to sleep with more than one person, just don't engage in a monogamous relationship. Simple as that.

There is a lot of anarchists who despise monogamy and I get it, but for now it works alright for this anarchist.

15

dsfsf4ewtb wrote (edited )

if you want to be polyamorous, why not date someone who wants the same thing. Lying to someone who assumes the relationship is monogamous, just because you want them to maintain feelings for you, is pretty exploitative. This article is from 20 years ago, and was clearly written by a man.

13

lettuceLeafer OP wrote

tbh, for most people the polyamourous dating pool is nonexistant or incredibly small so just saying do polyamoury isn't a real solution for a large amount of people.

4

Ashy wrote

if you cheat with someone you're not poly, you're single xp

6

lettuceLeafer OP wrote

I agree that people who cheat almost always aren't poly

3

Ashy wrote

it was a joke x3

if you cheat on someone, they're likely to dump you, and thus, you're not poly, but single x3

3

lettuceLeafer OP wrote

Oh yeah, I got that. Tho I wasn't quite sure if u where trying to critique something I said in a joke. I understand now.

3

Stigmata wrote

I can appreciate that argument. I don't think that adultery is justified because of that though. Like dsfsf4ewtb said, the act of adultery involves exploitative behavior. I would argue adultery is abuse.

4

lettuceLeafer OP wrote

I would be very cautious about having such a bold take. For instance in the mid / later 90s gay men cheating on their wives was quite prevalent. With the criminalization of homosexuality gay people where kinda forced to be in same gender relationships for long term romantic attraction. Many of them ended up having children with their partners. I mention gay men bc at that time it was rather common for men to not get custody of children in cases of divorce. So there where lots of people faced with the choice between cheating, loosing all contact with children or supressing all their gay desire entirely.

Also arranged marriages are still a thing. So cheating is the only way for them to attain romantic relationships with someone of their own choosing.

So I would be very cautious with such a take as I'd say there is an argument to be made that it is very misogynistic and homophobic.

−1

bloodrose wrote

at that time it was rather common for men to not get custody of children in cases of divorce

So, not arguing any of your other points, I'd just like to nit-pick this one line becuase I know something about this. Unfortunately, I don't have a saved link for it but my recollection is that the reason the custody for women has been so high is mostly from non-court agreements. Ie, men not seeking custody and settling their custody out of court. When it does go to court, it's about 50/50. I'm only being pedantic about the reasons behind statistics, not arguing your point. Because in your example, I'm sure gay men would not have wound up the winners in those cases at the time...but I just wanted to let you know.

6

lettuceLeafer OP wrote

Is that currently applicable or in the past? I know it's far more or all most all ways 50 50 in the current state but I remember hearing it being uneven in the past. I guess I never check but the reason for it makes sense. It used to be a big meninist talking point. Which was weird bc women getting full custody all the time would have been bc of mysogyny.

The belief that it's not really means job to take care of kids. Its the man's job to fund the woman to take care of children. In cases of a separation the woman takes care of the kids while the father funds her.

I did try looking it up but it's kinda hard to find info about how laws where enforced in the past. Currently it is very 50 50. Though it does seem that in the past in the US there was at least dome significant benefitially treatment given to women in cases of child custody from legislation like the tender years doctrine.

But I could very well be wrong and I'm not too attached to this opinion as it's not quite as informed on it as a should or nearly as confident in the point as I initially thought.

2

bloodrose wrote

It used to be a big meninist talking point

Which is why I remember the counter to it. I probably found it on We Hunted the Mammoth or some such. It's been years so yeah, trends could be changing.

6

bloodrose wrote

My brother had an affair. In order to have this affair, he made his wife do a disproportionate amount of emotional labor around his children and household. He lied and said he was working late and so she wound up with no help with two children (one a baby and one a toddler).

And I guess that's what it boils down to for me: are you making someone do labor (emotional or physical) so you can be in a relationship with a seperate person? That is using your partner in a pretty gross way.

Now, I don't personally believe I "own" my husband or his affections. If he found someone he loved more and was happier with, I'd want him to be with that person. I just uhhh don't want to do the emotional labor for it. He'd have to go have that relationship on his own without my help.

8

lettuceLeafer OP wrote

My brother had an affair. In order to have this affair, he made his wife do a disproportionate amount of emotional labor around his children and household. He lied and said he was working late and so she wound up with no help with two children (one a baby and one a toddler).

And I guess that's what it boils down to for me: are you making someone do labor (emotional or physical) so you can be in a relationship with a seperate person? That is using your partner in a pretty gross way

Yeah I agree that was see a violation and an example of him taking advantage of his spouse.

Now, I don't personally believe I "own" my husband or his affections. If he found someone he loved more and was happier with, I'd want him to be with that person. I just uhhh don't want to do the emotional labor for it. He'd have to go have that relationship on his own without my help

Mood except for the having a husband part.

5

celebratedrecluse wrote

Who, if they could feel what you’re feeling right now, could possibly demand you resist?

The person you made a specific commitment to, who did not consent to potentially get STDs or emotionally hurt by a serious breach of trust.

A particularly noxious early crimethinc essay

7

lettuceLeafer OP wrote

The person you made a specific commitment to, who did not consent to potentially get STDs

I'm still thinking about this bc this is the strongest argument against cheating. Tho I do have this voice in the back of my head wondering if such logic enables abuse.

If partners have a right to control their SOs social relationship if it reduces their chance of contracting a disease doesn't that apply to many things other than sex?

"I will significantly reduce my wife's contact to friends, family, co workers and just general contact to the outside world bc that will significantly reduce the likelihood of giving me potentially deadly diseases such as the flu. "

Not quite the same but if it's okay to limit partners social relationships to reduce disease transmission in the regards to sex this opens the door to preventing people from seeing family and friends irl to prevent the flu being spread to their romantic partner.

Not saying this counters your point. It is something going thru my mind that I'm thinking thru atm.

4

lettuceLeafer OP wrote

I don't think cheating is praxis or anything but I have no problem with on having relations with people in monogomous relationships. In fact I'd prob be happy if I home wreck a monogomous cishet marriage.

I am very against people who seek to control their actions and who their partner meets even if they agree to it mutually. They are just being a cop enforcing rules on another to reduce their autonomy and gain power over another. Even though these cops are on an individual level its still cool to resist their authority and sneak past them so people can live out their own desires.

4

groovygardener42069 wrote (edited )

I'm sorry but this is the dumbest fucking shit I've read all day and I go on Reddit sometimes

Just editing to add: intentionally breaking the trust of people you care for is shitty as hell. There's nothing revolutionary about that, it's just being an asshole.

I've cheated with people, and I didn't feel bad about it because I wasn't breaking anyone's trust.

But I get sad when I accidentally elbow my wife in the shower or step on the heel of her shoe when I'm walking behind her. I love her. My dog would sense that something is wrong between us and he would be sad. It would fucking suck.

I'm not here to moralize or nothing. It's just that I would truly rather not be around people who fetishize breaking the trust of those they love.

4

aaaaargZombies wrote

To cut to the heart of the matter: is it ever really wrong simply to desire not to be emotionally dead?

I like this line.

I guess this is a sort of means and ends question isn't it. Should we try to build the relationships we want to live or try and steal moments of life while excepting shit relationships forever.

he [sic] violates the decrees of authoritarian convention and law, but in such a way that they remain in place

4

Stigmata wrote (edited )

An interesting think piece for sure, but it is also really abhorrent in my opinion. I am in a long term relationship and my partner is one of the few things that I feel I can rely on in life. If I found out one day they had cheated on me I don't think I would ever recover, and I think most people feel that way.

The article keeps talking about a relationship as work, and this is true, a relationship takes a ton of effort, but some work is worth doing. If the relationship work feels soul crushing like a 9-to-5 job, then end the relationship and find one that you want to work for.

For some reason the writer also seems to think that there is only 2 options, monogamy or adultery, but polyamory an option too.

The only time I can see adultery being acceptable is in a relationship somebody is forced into, and the partner either is doing the forcing or knows the individual was forced into the relationship. Other than that it is a horrible thing to do. I am all for being counter-status-quo for the sake of being counter-status-quo, but not with this.

3

lettuceLeafer OP wrote (edited )

I think the fault in your analysis is not empathizing with why someone would be in a monogamous relationship when they desire to be with multiple people. If it where just so easy to just do polyamory why wouldn't the adulterer just do that? There are many benefits to being able to be open with your partner and doing polyamory that make it far more desirable than just cheating. So I think any analysis that doesn't question and take into account why someone would be an adulterer and what pressured them into being an adulterer rather than be non monogamous will be a pitiful analysis.

0

aaaaargZombies wrote

my partner is one of the few things that I feel I can rely on in life. If I found out one day they had cheated on me I don't think I would ever recover,

what pressured them into being an adulterer rather than be non monogamous will be a pitiful analysis.

I don't feel like you've listened to u/Stigmata

It's clear that they would be deeply upset to find out that someone has presented themselves as one thing when they desired another. That this would feel like a manipulation or coersion.

I don't think anyone is saying it's easier to just be in an open relationship, the cybernetic structure of our society nudges and guides us through the channels of least resistance. But as u/Stigmata says;

this is true, a relationship takes a ton of effort, but some work is worth doing.

Navigating the needs and boundaries of all parties in a relationship is the care work that makes them possible and meaningful. This is just as true for open relationships as monogamous. When someone knowingly acts in a way that will harm someone they claim to care for this is the opposite.

3

lettuceLeafer OP wrote

It's clear that they would be deeply upset to find out that someone has presented themselves as one thing when they desired another. That this would feel like a manipulation or coersion.

I agree I just think it doesn't invalidate people trying to skirt restrictions on their autonomy and desires. Lets take the most extreme example hate crimes against women. It is far too common for women who cheat on their partner will get slaughtered. Now the man who killed his wife was for sure hurt by their partners adultery but I won't feel sorry for them. I feel sorry for the poor woman they hate crimed. This logic of mine just follows for many other cases of cheating.

I feel sorry for the people who are put in a position where they feel the need to violate their partners trust due to being oppressed by societal structures. I don't feel that bad for the partner who is upset that they where unable to control their partners social relationships and restrict their autonomy as effectively as they would like.

2

inthedustofthisplanet wrote (edited )

I agree with you. A big part that is missing from much of this conversation is how people change from day to day and moment to moment and it seems to me that monogamy necessitates a static character. You choose to be with someone for who they are at the time but that can change in an instant. You even see this in popular media where one side of a relationships cries about how "your not the same person," and you know what? That's a good thing.

The real secret sauce is pure and unashamed honesty at all times.

2

lettuceLeafer OP wrote

this is an interesting take. I'm def going to mull it over for a bit.

2

aaaaargZombies wrote

I agree I just think it doesn't invalidate people trying to skirt restrictions on their autonomy and desires. Lets take the most extreme example hate crimes against women.

I genuinely thought you were going to launch into some rape apologia.

0

groovygardener42069 wrote (edited )

I would also like to point out that this article was very obviously written by a cishet man probably back in the 90s. There's nothing revolutionary about cishet men cheating on their partners. That has been part and parcel of patriarchy for millennia.

I've thought about this a little bit today, and I will concede that women cheating on male partners can absolutely be revolutionary under certain circumstances. I'd be more willing to engage with a text that attempts to tackle the topic from that perspective.

However this still reads to me like some dickhead who spread VD at the punk house trying to wax philosophical about why everyone else is just trying to trap him in the gilded cage of loving monogamous relationships.

Once again, if you don't want monogamy, say so on the first date. I've read feminist theory that argues that lying as a way to leverage sex when the person otherwise wouldn't be willing to consent (ie, claiming to want monogamy when you absolutely plan to cheat on your partner) is a form of coercive rape. You may think that's dramatic phrasing, but to dismiss the notion on the grounds of "buh buh muh dopamine and nerve endings" seems misguided at best.

3

lettuceLeafer OP wrote

Just commenting in case ubsaw my response that I delted. I thought about it a little bit and I made some claims that I think make sense but I'm not quite confident in navigating the negative dynamics if them to argue it publicly yet.

So thanks for your response I did seriously consider it though I disagree. Its been quite helpful in catalyzing me critiquing my opinion and making it better. So thanks for that even tho I don't like the take.

I think I'll pass on responding to your comment at least for now bc I want to give myself some time to kill stuff over and critique myself before I advocate for some of the positions I initially wrote about.

1

groovygardener42069 wrote

I didn't see your response

I think it's possible that you and I have a different vantage point for our emotional history and the relationships we've had and that's where this comes from, to an extent.

In an abstract sense, a relationship requires emotional labor from both sides in order to properly function. Many romantic relationships are absolutely unbalanced in that sense, and I could see why someone who feels that their emotional labor isn't being respected or reciprocated might look elsewhere.

That's not an indictment of monogamy in and of itself, that's an indictment of our hegemonic socialization around relationship-building, of which monogamy is only a small part.

In the 21 years since this article was published, there are more tools than ever for finding and building healthy, loving, polyamorous relationships. If you told someone up front that you wanted that and they tried to trap you into monogamy, -that still doesn't give you the right to sleep with them under the pretense that you will remain monogamous-. Do the courageous thing and cut off the relationship so you can find what you're actually looking for, without having to lie to get it.

Or at the very least, if you plan to be a cheater, you have to understand that a lot of people that you love and respect will probably lose their respect for you. That's not unfair, that's people trying to protect themselves from what they see as abusive behavior.

1

Nuktuk wrote

Why is the burden on the non-monogamist? Is monogamy implied from the start in new (sexual/romantic) relationships?

3

lettuceLeafer OP wrote (edited )

I think most our disagreements come down to being anti or pro monogomy. I have almost nothing but negative opinions on Monogomy. I view it as incredibly toxic and mildly dangerous.

Monogomy inconvenient for me but for others it can be far more problematic. Considering how basically every cis monogamous man I've met irl like Monogomy for mildly toxicity masculine and misogynistic reason I seriously worry about more vulnerable women in my life who end up getting a mknogomous Relationship.

I'm not saying Monogomy is abusive or anything just that I see it as a risk especially for women or other people vulnerable to negative relationship dynamics.

I think u have no idea how hard it is to find polyamorous people u would want to date. I'm in a situation where it is about as easy as it can possibly be to do nonmonogomy. And it's like the challenges of dating X 5. If it's absolutely exhausting and saddening to me than it's prob almost impossible if not unfathomably difficult for people who already have massive struggles in dating due to marginalized status.

Trans non passing, disabled, not conventially attractive, old, obese, not near a city ect. So I just view saying just do nonmonogonly as out of touch at best and a method of hand waving marginalized people's struggles as non-existent at worst.

Honestly cheating isn't an issue too important to. I don't struggle that much with missing out on feelings of sexual or romantic desire. Nor do I have interest in cheating if I would end up compromising and having to do Monogomy. Its far too much effort for me.

2

d4rk wrote

Ah yes, the "sex as liberation" debate. We were supposed to leave you dead with Emma Goldman and now you have proponents like Wolfi and CrimethInc. Just why and when did we deviate from that orthodoxy again?

Thanks to that argument we had been associated with "logical rapists" and pedophiles

Nothing wrong with sex positivity and polyamory, but the primary rationale of "sex as liberation" is something countered by all sides of society not just because it eliminates the sacredness of sex but also opens the floodgates to justify abuse.

It's like that common dark joke of

what stops rape everytime?

consent.

2

bloodrose wrote

Finally reading this piece and this struck a chord with me:

The adulterer becomes a virtuoso of petty theft, stealing the moments of his life one by one from their “rightful owners”: his spouse, his employer, family and social obligations.

I have not had time for some personal health matters beause of what time is "mine" vs other peoples'. I get 1 hour a night (max) and that happens at an hour that would not be good for going to the gym or being outdoors. I recently told my husband that I had been fighting in my head who I would "steal" time from - work or the family. I told him I had decided that all of them were stealing my time now and that if I chose to go to a gym or for a walk during time they were stealing, I was only reclaiming ownership of what was mine all along. He looked at me like I was a selfish jerk. I think I may have hit upon how adulterers think but justified it with "health" reasons.

2

lettuceLeafer OP wrote

Thats an interesting way to view it. Cheating doesn't sound very interesting to me at all so I never quite got it either. I starting putting myself in the shoes of people who are structurally repressed in ways that make it way harder to date and I was able to start being more sympathetic. For instance if I was an older heavier woman it would be way harder for me to just find anyone interested in me neverless a nonmonogomous partner. I imagine. I someone who is far more lucky in terms of dating struggle to find nonmonogomous partners and sometimes consider doing monogomy despite not wanting to just for the ability to be with someone I end up liking a significan't amount. If I have those questions in my head I would imagine it would be far stronger in someone who wants to do nonmonogomy but struggles to find someone interested in them due to societal mistreatment (fatphobia, old men not wanting to date someone their age, ect). So I could easily see a scenario where somone is desperate enough for getting their romantic needs filled that they settle with someone who leaves a lot of their needs unfilled and is unwilling to do nonmonogomy. So I can kinda empathize with the cheater on some level in this regard. Tho I'm far more interested in disscussing cheating philisophically than on an individual level.

I would say there are lots of people who could be in this situation such as disabled people, people reliant on a partner for financial support, controlling family who pressures them into monogomy ect.

1