Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

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.

10

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.

3

[deleted] wrote

5

lettuceLeafer OP wrote

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

3

[deleted] wrote

2

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