Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

groovygardener42069 wrote

Autistic perspective here. Replying because you deleted that other comment, which I'm not sure if I was supposed to have taken offense to or not, honestly. Luckily I don't understand social cues so I'm going to annoy the fuck out of you either way.

This article seriously assumes a lot of shit that doesn't apply to everyone. I'm not sure I can try to explain to a neurotypical person what happens in my brain when someone I truly care about breaks my trust, but it's not pretty. Like, dissociation and depersonalization type of shit. Along with full blown paranoia fueled by the fact that I can't read anyone's social cues so I assume that everyone I meet is out to take advantage of me.

Of course, I know that neurotypicals are gonna be neurotypical, so I can't just force people to do things my way. I have to carefully select the people I let into my life on the mutual understanding that if they got my back with all the shit that comes with that, I got there's as well. So maybe my case is different in the fact at this point in my life, if someone very close to me breaks my trust or takes advantage of me, then they did so knowing full well that they took advantage of an autistic person who trusted them. I have to put more weight in my close relationships because it's a safety issue for me.

To answer your questions, in order:

Are you failing to see all the people here who point out that polyamory is a thing that exists, and that "dating around" is also a thing that exists?

I can't speak for anyone else, but my relationship with my wife isn't a contractual obligation. I feel bad for anyone who sees their relationships that way.

Maybe. I don't think pop psychology is a good baseline for gaining a legitimate understanding of most things, though.

One owes their word to the person they gave their word to, assuming that the relationship is built on equal footing.

I suppose if you're really -looking- for a reason to cheat, then unequal power dynamics within a relationship may justify "breach of contract." But I'd argue that a relationship seen as a contract is not a strong relationship at all.

Those made with whom we love, I hope. But again love isn't a contract and that's a really awful way to put it.

4

[deleted] wrote

4

groovygardener42069 wrote

Most relationships are borne out of convenience.

I'd argue what's more revolutionary is building loving, healthy, trusting relationships as a rule.

I can't speak for anyone else but if you're going to fuck around anyway, just ask for an open relationship? I'm not sure how that's hard

3

[deleted] wrote (edited )

0

groovygardener42069 wrote

This whole thought piece struck a really ugly chord in me man.

And maybe it's because I'm autistic, but I learned at some point that simply vocalizing your needs actually works if the other person is down with it. It's a hell of a lot easier than dropping hints or playing coy about it too.

I mean I haven't been single in years, but try it sometime. "I really like you and I hope the feeling is mutual. Do you want me to kiss you?" I'm married to that woman now so maybe that's not what you're looking for but it seemed to work just fine back when I was fucking around, too.

I live in a pretty regular city, and there are a handful of sex clubs one could go to to find people interested in polyamory or swinging or whatever they wanna call it. Chances are there would be more regular people than anarchists in those spaces, too. It would probably be easier for me to find someone interested in an open relationship than it would be for me to find hard dope around here. Idk though, maybe if you live in flyover country that might not be the case.

And in any case, I don't think pointing out that polyamory is hard really negates the fact that it's preferable to breach of trust. Any worthwhile relationship is hard.

1

lettuceLeafer OP wrote

Is anyone arguing that breaking someones trust doesn't hurt their feelings? Its more a question of what kind of institutional and societal structures would cause your SO to break your trust in regards to cheating. Why would someone do something that would hurt you so much? I think seriously considering these questions and finding the answer to them would make it somewhat obvious why one might be against cheating.

1

groovygardener42069 wrote (edited )

"I can do whatever I want and they'll get over it" is the logic of a sociopath, mate.

Edit: After some consideration, I've decided that "abuser" is a much more effective word here than "sociopath" in this context. I'm leaving up the original comment tho so it doesn't look like a dirty edit

3

lettuceLeafer OP wrote (edited )

honey thats just how antiauthoritarianism works. Idc about the poor cops at a riot getting beaten up. They are cops and should just get over being beaten up. Idc if it upsets presidents that people do crime; they will have to get over it. Idc if christians or conservatives don't like my nonmonogomous queer lifestyle; they will have to get over it. Idc if transphobes don't like trans people existing; they will have to get over it. Idc if it upsets capitalists when people support disabled people and workers so they are less reliant on capitalists to survive; they will have to get over it. Idc if war profiteers don't like activists doing anti war actions; they will just have to get over it. Idc if nazis don't like getting beaten up for existing; they will just have to get over it.

You won't be the first person to make the suggestion that those who desire freedom and autonomy are possibly mentally ill and u won't be the last

0

groovygardener42069 wrote (edited )

It's almost like there's levels to this shit man.

You've just described a bunch of red herrings that don't fit with the conversation. Don't establish relationships with people you claim to love and respect if you don't expect to treat them with love and respect. I never asked to be policed by a riot cop, that's a fucking absurd comparison.

And don't call me honey.

2

lettuceLeafer OP wrote

People don't fully love and respect me if they treat me like how a cop sees a criminal and try to restrict my autonomy. Thats how monogomy works.

1

[deleted] wrote (edited )

−1

groovygardener42069 wrote

I'm not about to argue the devastating effects of unchecked sociopathy in our society when the results are everywhere around us.

To be clear, my definition of a sociopath is one who actively engages in sociopathic behavior to the detriment of others. I understand that to some extent, sociopathy is necessary (for example, I wouldn't want a squeamish surgeon) and that "sociopathic tendencies" do not necessarily imply that someone will act upon them.

But if you can think of a better way to describe people who actively disregard the health and safety of those around them, I'd like to hear it. That way I'll have a larger vocabulary with which to understand who I don't want to let into my life.

2

[deleted] wrote (edited )

1

groovygardener42069 wrote

Okay, and I've been victimized by real life humans with beating hearts who are sociopaths. As someone who is part of a group that is easily targeted for violence, particularly by those who are adept at manipulating social situations, I have no choice but to keep my guard up at all times. I'm aware of the distinction between the medical definition and the popular definition of the term, but there's also my personal definition of the term that I use to communicate to those I trust when I am concerned about my own personal safety. I don't know what to tell you in regards to that - I generally enjoy feeling safe in my own skin and I will do what it takes to ensure that happens.

A world where cheating is normalized (as opposed to a world where, say, polyamory is normalized) is a world that actively disregards my personal well-being. Why on earth would I ever want to work towards that?

2

lettuceLeafer OP wrote

Don't u think it's worth considering why u consider being unable to restrict a intimate partners autonomy in a way that makes them more vulnerable and unhappy as an attack on your well being?

Why do u promote putting a partner that u care about and want to be healthy and safe in a position where they have to make a decision between getting no romantic connection from u or remain with u while having some of their essential emotional needs unmet.

I'm not saying this is happening in your current relationship. This does happen in many relationships that u are defending tho.

1

groovygardener42069 wrote

My wife is fully comfortable being in a monogamous relationship. She may not be the best example though because she has been raped multiple times by different people and generally distrusts men.

I'm not promoting what you're implying I'm promoting. I'm promoting being up front about needs and intentions to ensure that trust isn't breached, especially when building a relationship predicated on whatever one's version of love is. I don't have the energy to be snarky right now, but this really feels like trying to have one's cake (the sexual freedom of a polyamorous relationship) and eat it too (the financial and emotional security of a monogamous relationship).

I have no qualms and project no moralism onto the concept of having multiple sexual partners. The -practice- of leading someone to believe something that is not true (one's willingness to commit to monogamy) in order to leverage sex and emotional intimacy is an ethical issue that I'm not willing to endorse. Have an orgy if you want - you can even invite me but I'll probably politely decline or just DJ the event without actively participating.

And honestly at this point I'm finding it hard to believe that multiple people, near as I can tell all of which appear to be men, are unable to see the distinction there.

1

lettuceLeafer OP wrote (edited )

my wife is fully comfortable being in a monogamous relationship

Just bc someone agrees to something that doesn't mean it's devoid of harmful societal influences.

0

[deleted] wrote (edited )

2

lettuceLeafer OP wrote

There is no getting through the density of this poster. They have to constantly bring up "I am this," or "this happened to me," but trans people are just ID pol and made up words.

Honestly I was surprised in how quickly they were able to change their position a bit. Most of the times something as dramatic as pro cheating might take months of mulling over before people are ok with it. I consider the discussion far more effective than I was expecting. Tho I am disappointed that no one really had great anti cheating arguments, but the discussion was useful to me at least. Tho the gender assumptions were def a problem.

I wouldn't focus on upvotes too much. In my experience upvotes are just a score of what the lurkers think. The lurkers on this site in general aren't too ideologically solid and are influenced far more by non important factors such as if the person saying the take is a long term user of raddle.

Also they seem far less likely to critically evaluate their positions bc they don't openly say what they are thinking. They can have the shitty argument in their head, not critically analyze the belief and just dismiss the critique of their views as out of hand. The upvotes don't really matter bc it just shows what the sheeple like dorks think is good which I find completely unvaluable.

I just focus on stuff that people say and ignore upvotes tbh. Raddle generally is pretty interesting when talking with older users as they are used and well practiced in being critical of their own opinions. With new users discussion of more edgy takes get a lot of backlash bc they are still fairly resistant to critical deconstruction of everything. Thats at least how I look at things.

But I know how u feel bc stuff like this has happened b4. I made up a neopronoun that I thought was really funny which kinda viewed gender in a really abstract way that I found intereting and some of the poor lurkers got so upset they bothered to make accounts to tell me how I'm actually a cis man (im not) and how me pushing the gender envelope and having fun with it is demeaning to queer people. which was pretty fucking funny tbh.

2

[deleted] wrote (edited )

1

lettuceLeafer OP wrote

That's what happens when u are indoctrinated with a bunch of sucky lib ideals.

2

[deleted] wrote (edited )

−1

groovygardener42069 wrote

Wow. I struck a nerve. Sorry.

I don't know what to tell you. I apologize for assuming your gender.

I don't apologize for navigating the world in a way that I see fit that allows me to minimize the harm brought upon me by others and maximizing the joy I can bring to the lives of those close to me.

I think at this point it might be better to cut our losses on this conversation. Clearly you don't place the same value on trust in intimate relationships as me. That's fine, I guess. I can't change that, nor do I have the energy left to continue arguing in circles about it.

I sincerely hope you have a great day

2

[deleted] wrote (edited )

0

groovygardener42069 wrote

Again, I don't know what to tell you. I sincerely apologize and I'm admitting that you have made me reconsider a couple of things that led me to project that onto the conversation.

And I wasn't being sarcastic in that last bit. It's okay if you value other things higher than trust in your intimate relationships.

However, I'm getting the feeling that you're just intentionally trying to trigger me at this point. Is that the case? Would you prefer if I got all mad and told you to suck on a dog turd and fuck off away from me?

1