It should be noted that natural doesn't necessarily mean good or bad. ALSO I reject the idea of "natural" vs "unnatural". Humans are not separate from nature, everything just exists. If it exists it is natural by definition
We are hard-wired for various orientations. Life is a spectrum and no one sits somewhere perfectly. I'm polyamorous, demisexual, quoiromantic, and agender. Perfectly me, who I'm supposed to be. Hard-wired to be Elisa. As Charles Shultz said, "Be yourself. No one can tell you you're doing it wrong."
As a queer west African, polyamory was something often associated with queerness in pre-colonial African societies. Monogamy was something pushed onto us from Brits. I also find it interesting how the people deciding relationships for all of humanity are English-speaking and probably from either the UK or the US. Any society with imperialism. I am specifically aiming towards the West because I know that not all of Europe is this way from what I've researched. Especially up North. Often times, people associate polyamory with r/AmITheAsshole posts where some wacky couple opens their relationship, and it goes horribly wrong. Tale as old as time. Polyamory is just treated like kink when, in reality, it's just people loving more than one person. Polyamory is just in the same category as bisexuality, pansexuality, asexuality, and aromanticism, where people who don't have an understanding of it feel the need to decide what happens to it. People question if it's actually real or valid, or queer in comparison to vanilla homosexuality(Yeah, I said it🙃). They also try to see how it can be "of use" or try to find the point of it. Shit, go ask a baboon why it's flinging around it's own feces while you're at it, pretty sure they know what's good. I think one thing that's glossed over with polyamory is the romance aspect. I've seen this called out on TikTok a lot. I guess in the end, the same way people need to come to terms with their gender identity and sexuality, I believe people also need to not only question who they love but also whom they love. It all comes back to ones true nature. One that isn’t inflicted by others trying to impose what they think is right. To quote FD Signifier, "Would you rather build community? Or, just be correct?"
What are you talking about? African cultures were already heavily patriarchal and monogamous before the British colonization. Most African societies practiced female genital mutilation and seclusion of women during menstruation, putting these societies even on a more monogamous level than Victorian England.
I’m also neuro divergent and am in a polyamorous relationship. I don’t want to judge the hosts however I just feel like in their personal life they may also be exactly as clinical about these things in the bedroom as they are in the boardroom. It’s a breath of fresh air to come out and have a partner who can take a joke. Queer people used to be predominately daring badasses, I don’t really feel, as a queer person, that I could say the same for contemporary queers…
@@LaFrance503 we’re sharing history & science, not sure how that discussion would enable you to make any type of judgement on our personal or sex lives. Queer people throughout history and today are still radical badasses.
I'm autistic and more. Podcasts like these and just generally listening to people talk about relationships have been crucial to my learning how to navigate my relationships. I've definitely had a lot of struggles but polyamoury has given me space to explore relationships on my own terms, rather than trying to guess what society expects me to do. I'ts definitely possible to get value out of these discussions as a monogamous person too.
i dont think being traumatized and fearing abandonment is necessarily an argument for monogamy. i have bpd and other neurodivergencies, and i have been polyamorous for my entire adult life. having multiple partners makes those feelings less scary for me because i have other relationships to fall back on if one doesnt work out. imo the way we define gender and family has been heavily controlled by exploitative leaders as long as they have existed.
There's a Brazilian writer called Geni Núñes that argues that monogamy is not about number of partners/ natural attraction and more of a culture and package of beliefs. Its an interesting way to see it, I think. And a culture that, in the case of Brazil and many of its indigenous peoples, didn't really exist before colonialism. And its not like everyone was having kitchen table poly relationships before that, just that there wasn't any societal expectation of sexual/romantic exclusivity nor any sense of guilt or sin related to that. Relationships just happened in the way that made sense to those folks and their societies. And idk about you all, but I wouldn't call having my culture oppressed and erased by people that see their culture as superior "natural" hahaha. Great episode!
@@YorshZed I'm not sure if Geni has any of her research translated to English, but I'm quite confident there are other indigenous peoples that lived in similar ways all across the globe, at least based on other articles and online discussions I followed. A quick search for "non-monogamy and indigenous peoples" will surely give you plenty of info to dive deeper.
@@kaovhmf I have not found any reliable evidence of successful non-monogamy in any of the societies studied. There are simply none. Show me the evidence.
Natty or not conversations always make me grin because I rarely encounter questions over whether naturalness should even matters So what if Polyamory might be unnatural? Democracy, EDM, birth control, dildos! All objectively unnatural, yet objectively awesome. I love being poly, whether it turns out to be natty or not
Idk if im misunderstanding your comment, but ”natty or not” is a term within the body building/gym community. In that aspect, it totally matters if you’re natty or not.
So, I discovered polyamory by first searching up "What's wrong with me?" And then eventually narrowing my search down to "Why can't I love only one person?" Before that search, I was contemplating suicide. I have always felt that way, even in my childhood. This is why I strongly believe that polyamory is not a choice and it IS an identity/orientation. If I chose to be this way, then I would've never thought there was something wrong with me.
Wow I’m so sorry you felt there was something wrong with you. I think that there probably is no natural vs unnatural because we humans are part of nature and if we exist and certain desires or structures exist within us and if many of us feel this way then it probably is natural
@@QueerCollective Yeah, I think what is natural is a spectrum, like what is natural for one person isn't natural for another. It is natural for a black, autistic, gay, trans man in a wheelchair to exist, but likewise, it's also natural to NOT be autistic, black, gay, trans, or confined to a wheelchair. I think "natural" is really just "If it exists without anyone coercing it, then it's natural." So, yeah, just like you are naturally lesbian, but it's unnatural for you to be straight (unless you're bi or something, sorry for assuming), some people are naturally straight and it would feel unnatural for them to be gay/lesbian. I think the same logic applies here. I can't help that I'm polyamorous. However, a monoamorous person can't help that they are monoamorous. Both are natural in general, but not natural for each individual. It's also a wide spectrum as nonbinary, gray-romantic, multisexual, and ambiamorous people exist. When you think about it, everything is a spectrum. Race isn't just black and white. Sex isn't just male and female (intersex). Gender isn't just man and woman or boy and girl. Sexual orientations aren't just homosexual and heterosexual. Romantic orientations aren't just alloromantic and aromantic. Even the exact same disability of a diagnosed person will be different from another person diagnosed with the same condition. Even the rainbow isn't just red and blue. I truly believe some of us lean one way or another on a spectrum while others are in the middle somewhere.
this abandonment anxiety could result from the interaction between us feeling we are non-monogamous and monogamy being imposed onto us by private property based economy: it's a fear that our partner (or we ourselves) can find someone else and that it would necessitate a breakup that we may not want at all.
A possibility! It’s such an interesting perspective to think capitalism affects our relationships. It’s not something I considered before but it does start to make sense
Absolutely loved this episode of the podcast, I've been sharing it with all of my friends! I love how you guys look at both sides of the research even though you already have a preconceived idea of what you believe. I'm actively non-monogamous and its very validating to listen to this episode. You guys are awesome!
This has been my struggle with it, too. RSD makes it much more difficult, especially if you don't know how to communicate what's going on (because a lot of us don't even know about RSD much less how to describe what it looks and feels like in relation to their own experiences and trauma.) I didn't think I could be polyamorous when my anchor partner and I first got together almost 15 years ago, but he had been up front about being polyamorous from the start, and we do have times where we're living more monogamously because with us both being AuDHD, sometimes there's not enough energy to give another partner what they'd want or need from the relationship. But open communication has helped us a lot and learning more about RSD in general and understanding what my personal triggers are and communicating them to my partner in as non combative a manner as possible has helped quite a lot just generally speaking.
New episode!! I LOVE when it's just you two. The dialogue is always so fascinating and informative. ❤Being a voyeur into your relationship is also fun. 😘
Oh no! Not Sex at Dawn! I say this as a queer person, and as someone who is opening up and dipping my toe in the non monogamy world. I believe that we are not biologically monogamous. But I tried to give Sex At Dawn a fair shake and just couldn’t do it. Too many of their references were stated as plain accepted objective fact, and when I would actually verify the references, they were from like, memoirs, or books that straight up didn’t have the thing they were referencing, etc. I found it to be a very poorly sourced book that was obviously biased. Thought provoking, sure, but I highly question its factuality and objectivity.
@@nasonguy absolutely! Like we said in the episode, that section about whether it’s natural or not was ALL THEORIES. It’s a bunch of well educated humans just saying ‘I think’ and making their best educated guess. Our goal was just to evoke thought, theories are fun to discuss.
Sex at Dawn lost me when they mentioned brazilian Carnaval and the "rite of Sacanagem" hahaha. I just wondered if they got this about Brazil so factually wrong, what other information from the book I could trust? Thankfully we have plenty of alternative resources on non-monogamy nowadays and I could remove that book from my list of recommendations.
This has been so wonderfully informative! Love how fair you two are discussing these things and laughed at the little immature bits with ya, great stuff!!
7:57 Sorry but I have to correct some thing here and it's so important. The theory of evolution is no "just a theory." The scientific use of the word theory is actually the complete opposite of the common usage (it's dumb, i know). Evolution being a theory means it is VERY well supported with facts and evidence. If it wasn't it would be a hypothesis. When you're talking about those other hypotheses that involve human dating that's a mixture of hard science and well supported evolutionary fact, as well as much more flimsy evolutionary psychology which is nowhere near as well evidenced. But the theory of evolution is hard science and not in question in modern science.
as someone with severe attachment trauma and now anxious attachment i am certain, that having a tribe, a stable, safe community that is your baseline would prevent that level of somatic and existential despair that comes up from rejection in romantic settings. cause in neoliberal late stage dystopian capitalism we live in the nuclear family idea or a queer liberal version of that, still 2 people rainsing offspring, is the last not fully destroyed community system of relating. cazse capitalism and capitalists require us to produce offspring, new workers for the machine. which is done for free, still mostly, all reproductive labour to produce soldiers, and oil plattform workers, and nurses, and everyone who keeps the system running. so putting all that pressure in the ONE Single romantic relationship is not an individual failure, if you overload it with expectations. its the only place left to project your needs and hopes for community, interpersonal relating, sex, empathy, non sexual touch, etc. not much communality is left elsewhere.
The highest level of dissatisfaction I ever had in my relationships was when I was poly. I am still recovering from the level of emotional abuse and gas lighting I experienced. Choosing non-heteronormative structures of monogamy as a gay person was the best thing since coming out.
@@michaelmclain7049there are ways to be monogamous that step away from the typical white heteronormative model laid out for us by society. i think what they are saying is that polyamory does not have to be the response to a dissatisfaction with monogamy. rather, you can make a model of monogamy that works for you. one that is not rooted in the backwards ways we often see in media/society.
I went through the same. I don't have an issue with them anymore, but I make it very clear that I'm withdrawing a percentage of my energy from that relationship if it becomes open. It doesn't make sense to me to split and "schedule" my time and energy on such an intimate level between multiple people when just being friends is more than enough for me. I have no issue living communal in terms of providing work and physical goods outside of myself, but my body will never be a sexual community resource outside of a sperm bank if absolutely nessisary. Not everyone is just owed that level of intimacy from me.
@@normandy2501wow the sentence with my body will not be a sexual community resource spoke to me so much as a CSA survivor. I have strong people pleasing tendencies & need to feel very safe to engage in sexual activities without it being traumatic so i feel like being poly works against my healing & growth aswell & i feel like thats smth that gets invalidated in a lot of poly & queer spaces.
Amazing episode, as always! ❤️ I think showing the historical evolution is a powerful tool to help to realise how the current standard is just an option and not “the option”. Thanks for the effort to beautifully summarise it all! 💖
ah yeah, not me thinking everyone just acts like relationship and marriage is good, but they actually hate it, until i was 20 and figured out im just aro and others often feel different
Dr. Wednesday Martin said that humans main advantage is our ability to adapt to various social structures. As is non-monogamy, it’s both/and not either/or.
Please stop asking "is it natural" as it only serves to promote the conservative standpoint that we should only do what they consider natural. The only relevent question on the topic of determining if people should be allowed to do this is "is it ethical?". And ofcourse for ETHICAL polyamory the answer is always yes. End of discussion. Giving bigots more room for discussion after this is doing yourself a disservice.
Capitalism reeeeeeeeally doesn’t like polyamory for a variety of reasons, especially in instances if more than two people live together. Monogamous partnership -> divorce is the ideal pipeline for extracting adults and especially adults with children for as much money as possible. Personally I’m pretty sure I lean heavily to preferring monogamous partnering (massive possession kink 🫣) but a society which is very open with polyamory and does not shun it will lead to so much less waste less people in poverty overworking etc, thus of course the powers that be will do all they can to keep shunning it (while many billionaires and the like are all for orgies, funny how that works)
We are prone to wanting connections of some form. Intimate or social or professional. My goal has never been to have “many partners”, but to be able to meet and connect with people openly. Many have views on polyamory based on fears or bad experiences. I acknowledge I have my view on being open based on bad experiences in monogamy. Regardless of structure, communication and care and self awareness at important. In the end, how you connect with people is ok, as long as those you are with are informed and involved.
As someone who has a degree in mathematics, it is scary how often people equate the concept of normal with the concept of natural. Normal per definition is just the "average" with some diviation from the perfect norm. It is a mathematical concept misunderstood by most. Natural is anything that occurs by natural causes. So if just one person prefer polygami without being subject to a non natural substance proven to cause polygami, it is by definition natural. We can not generalise human behavior from other animals by default. To sum up, natural and normal are not the same, something can be far from normal but still natural. F.eks. ASD are not considered normal brain development, because it is under 2% of people who has it, but it is a natural occurring birth condition. I can come with much more bisar fact that are natural but far from normal
This was such a well made episode! Is it possible to have the citations shared too just in case some of us would like to do some further reading? Thank you!
I must admit that poly, pan, and enm are the orientations I struggle with the most. Maybe because being a dark melanin person, people keep assuming I want to be involved. I’m very vanilla in this way though, just a straight, monogamous female.
The more I listen to people talk about relationships, the more I realize I'm WAY more ace than I thought and probably demiromantic. I can't imagine having sexual fantasies about real humans at all, whether I'm dating them or not, and I don't think I've ever been romantically interested in anybody I haven't known for like, two to four years. Side note: 'Theory', in scientific terms, is as close to fact as one can get. It is an idea that has a great deal of evidence behind it. It is the counterpart to a law - Essentially, a law is a statement, and a theory is an explanation of the mechanics behind that statement. Saying that something is 'just a theory' is, in regards to science, something to be avoided. Evolution as a whole is a theory, germs are a theory, and even gravity is a theory.
19:13 made me feel a deep sadness I have never felt before in my heart. Basically all the porn where two guys sperm are competing to impregnate a woman and the alpha wins is real. 😢
The thing about the penis shovel head thing is a similar vibe. I hate the idea of competing sexually, and in all truth a big reason is cause I know I'd always lose. I want my partner to enjoy me for me irregardless of whoever else. Honestly being non-monogomous has helped me with that. I don't worry about my partner leaving me because of anything else besides myself. If I fuck up I fuck up but they aren't gonna leave me for someone else.
@@Nagasakevideo I wouldn’t say it necessarily means societies version of the ‘alpha’ wins. It’s the person with the superior genetics and that may come down to whoever has an immune system that differs most and provides the most variation.
Anthropologist here. Polygamy is multiple marriages. Polyandry is multiple marriages with one woman and multiple men, usually brothers. Polygyny is marriage between usually one man and multiple women who may or may not be sisters. It may or may not look at autonomy, not not necessarily doesn't in all cases of polygamy. It's often monogamy-centric to believe that Polygamy in the general sense has no sense of consent. But then that's like assuming that monogamy in of itself is inherently "always good" in the marriage rather than monoamory sense. There are still, for example child marriages in the US. Does that make monogamy always good, then? It's not the system at fault, it's the society and "rules" imposed on those institutions (though I'd argue that child marriage is always wrong).
I can only speak for me personally I'm SUPER monogamous and I will say there's a big difference between me having a crush or lust toward someone versus wanting to share, commit and sacrifice for someone. I only want to do that for one person and it'd be really difficult for me to have two or more people on the same tier. Even if I was poly I would have my main person that I share house and finances and deep feelings with you know kind of like how kings have their wives and then their other wives in order from second wife to third wife the fourth wife. They usually aren't treated the same. Some poly situationships are just a married couple that are allowed to have sex outside of the marriage because they know that one partner may not be able to fulfill all their needs or be available but some people don't need to be sexually satisfied at all times I don't really care if there's some dry periods. Sex is something I want but I don't need it on a consistent basis. I just get enough pleasure out of enjoying other non-sexual things with my partner. I think for all the reasons people shared with me why they are poly they're rooted in things that I just don't need I don't feel limited by monogamy I prefer it and polyamory would be too overwhelming for me it would stress me out and I just don't feel like I could fairly divide equal attention and affection nor do I want to. If it makes me selfish and jealous then I guess I'm selfish and jealous but I only want to give the most special parts and attention to one person but I don't think Polly people are invalid and for those that can equally divide their attention and love great but there's so many different versions of what Polly can look like that as I said before it could just be a main couple who have their own boyfriends and girlfriends on the side and that's more casual or people who have a polycule and share partners It could really look like so many different things it's a case-by-case basis. And truth be told who cares what's natural or not humans do all sorts of things that are " unquote unnatural Why do we have to follow whatever nature or science says is natural Just do what you want and what makes you happy as long as you're not harming any body who cares? Is kink natural or in nature I don't think so but there are plenty of people into it and consenting to it so I say do what makes you feel good Just don't harm. I also don't find sex to be a casual act It's a very intimate and serious act for me so I couldn't just have a casual sex partner on the side. I couldn't guarantee that I wouldn't fall in love with them That's always something that's a possibility that people don't consider. Just my thoughts. And I have a question for you all What are your thoughts on polyandry. That is a lesser known and there are some countries and tribes where women have multiple husbands. Thoughts?
there is nothing wrong with the way you are and the way you are doing your life. seems you have some insight into what you need and what works for you. thats what matters in my opinion. thank you for sharing your thoughts, you have put a lot of thought into them :D heh i have not heard of polyandry. i would probably be okay with multiple husbands though if thats what it is, haha as long as i can pick well maybe not, im pretty terrible at picking. any videos you recommend?
tbf if we look at nature only, we naturally want to not be monogamous, whilst we want to make our partners being monogamous with us. picking up the man and women model, it just brings women more different children with different chances and many ressources if several men cater to her and help with the offspring, which wouldnt happen if said men also had to give stuff to other women. and for men it would make them being able to have more own children without having to raise other mens children if they have many women who only have them. xD its illogical to think, pairbonding evolved when people started to be on two legs and before that, nobody would see children as belonging to a couple. most animals try to make sure the children in the group are theirs so why wouldnt humans be similar and only having some who are permitted to mate, and also why would a group travel longer ways without being prepaired bc half of the members are toddlers.... theyd stay at a safe place.
I have wondered about Mexicas (Azteks) possibly being poly since there is evidence that points to the origin being an old pueblo tribe that one day packed up and moved south
I think it has to be sepearted between only sex without talking and having any form of emotional bond and emotional bond with maybe not even sex. I would have less issues with the first but much more with the latter. I used to be super idealistic as well where I logically would dissect monogamy and felt it was unnatural and therefore ones jelousy is a sign of insecurity and noone should have the right own someone. I chNGED MY mind once I fell in love. I had to undestand that I never truly cared for all the other partners (only on a superficial level) and I didnt know how true love feels like. Once I was in love there was no room of sharing and also not wanting to be shared. Just the idea of having sex with another man would be free of any connection and emotion. ONly maybe a sexual arrousal of being used by a group of men (something I however would never want to live through as I certainly wouldnt like it if put to action as to be if a man has sex with me I still wnt him to obey to me and to make me feel loved by only focusing on me). I realised I never had a man before who would look at me the way he does, someone who would stand with me and show me proudly around and also claim me. The idea of being claimed became kinda sexy as well. Also I realised that this is what gave me all the security and calmness I never had before, where I felt I was a warrior on my own and never could rely on someone else. If he would have sex with another women, and not procreate (I couldnt stand the idea of him having a child and sharing his money with this child and the other woman and me having to not have him around any time I want and need him but by getting limited to a priority list which for some time would be the child nr1) and he wouldnt smile with her, he wouldnt intelecctually bond with her and it was just her massaging his dig and they shake hands and thats it, I wouldnt be thrilled but that would be ok. HIm having sexual arousals because another woman is looking hot also wouldnt bother me. But if he had fun with her and if he felt that she needs to be a part of his life and he would enforce that he can spend this amount of time and money on her I would go nuts with. I dont thinkt that sexual arousal is an argument for polyamory. Under that argumentation we could also argue that pedophilia has its natural roots and is normal. What is normal is dictated by circumstances as to what is beneficial for most within society. And as pedophelia is not based upon consent and i would argue always predatory, it cant be supported. Now polyamory doesnt cause this kind of obvious distress in a child, nevertheless I would take a claer look at it once it gets out of the mostly sexual based scenary. If it is only done to have sex, with no toll on the relationship and in particular once children are there no toll on the children than alright. But the moment it interferese with that I would be very cautious. We do know that children whose parents have new partners face emotional trauma and can feel obanded. Once children are there the primary focus of a couple should be the child and life should work aorund that. Also the relationship together is the thing that children need to see and therefore parents should work on their relationship and not on sexual freedom. Sex has the cause for reproduction. Now sexualtiy is a different thing. You can have a sexual erotic thing but even that has its time and end. It is also sensual to have a baby nuggling on ones breasts and a birth can be an arroused experience to. It still is to be differentioated from sex and sexuality. overall I used to go through it as you did, using research to feel about it. But once I felt so different even by logically always telling myself that my feelings are a sign of wrong morals, at some point I had to go with my feelings as I believe humans never go ultiamtly agianst them. jelousy isnt just a sign of bad culture, its a primal sign the moment takes something from you you want it back. Humans are egoistic to the core. The idea of sharing is bs. I dont think its evident that in societies practising Polyamory people were happier and less compatative. Humans always strive to find that one thing where they stick out and get more than others from. Its a power dynamic which can be more obivous as it is in patriarchical socieiteis or more subtile. Its like violence from women. Its often not talked abobut. I experienced the worst violence from females and it was mostly subtle or reversed pssychology but also could be physical, but not obvious punches but like putting acid in my clothes or lotions so that noone could definatly say. Well what I am trying to say: i dotn thinkt the issues solve just by including more people. The more people the more complacted things get. I can say by having only 1 sibling things were complicated but the moment we would have our cousins etc with us it got unmanagable and also relationships remained more superficial as it is the long term one on one time which creates true bonds. I do have one best friend. And that is because we vibe best but also because we decided to invest most of our friendship time into us. Hence our relationship is 15 years of many hours a week. I have other people whom I like but I cant invest the same amount of time into them. At some point you have to decide with whom you gonna evolve more and who is gonna stay close but not at position number 1.
People being 🍑🕳️ to their partner "opening the relationship" probably shapes perception alot. Just saw an example talked about on phillions channel. She's an OF model. So far so matter of taste. I think I could live with that, some can't as long as it's her. Then the topic of working with others came up... Cut to a while later. It happened. Her husband is obviously dying on the inside. She blabbers some nonsense about that being very different more like acting. Lil later yeah sure she'd like to try an open relationship... So that thing about it being different was a f..... Lie. He's just sitting there being publicly humiliated. Changing the conditions of a relationship later can be highly unfair, abusive or perhaps just a d...move. Someone's in love gets taken for a ride rather than let go. The worst version of let's stay friends.
Have you heard of monoamory, ambiamory, fluidamory, nonamory, biamory, and homoamory? Polyamory is just an orientation. So, some people are hard-wired for monogamy and others are hard-wired for non-monogamy.
You completely lost me at "it's just a theory." If you aren't scientifically literate enough to know what that word means, it's irresponsible to be commenting on it like you know what you're talking about.
A lot of science is theory. Considered correct until disproven. Evolution is technically a theory. There is lots of evidence but it is a theory. Same with everything we shared in this episode. All sourced from well qualified academics who well articulate their theories with evidence and explanations. Theories are fun to discuss and listen to as they prompt interesting and thought provoking discussions.
@@QueerCollective From the wikipedia page for "Scientific Theory": A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that can be (or a fortiori, that has been) repeatedly tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment.[1][2] In circumstances not amenable to experimental testing, theories are evaluated through principles of abductive reasoning. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge. Just stop. You're using "theory" in the colloquial definition. If you are incapable of understanding this then stop talking about science.
@@QueerCollective that costs money. but something that avoids implying a specific population might be unnatural. Not everyone is going to click on the video, and that implication isn't helping the community.
We’re not implying that it’s unnatural and we ourselves are part of the community so it’s really just a question to get curious. Regardless, we’re constantly changing our titles so it may or may not change later
Only one sticking point: the use of “theory” in two different contexts. Please don’t say things like “evolution is just a theory”. That’s literally what Tucker Carlson said on Joe Rogan’s show. If it’s “just a theory” then so is gravity, germ disease, plate tectonics, and the periodic table of elements.
Google it they are theories. It's called evolutionary theory. Widely accepted as fact because there is sooo much evidence but that's kinda how most scientific fields work love, ESPECIALLY anthropology which is what we're talking about here. It's all theories based mostly on archeological artifacts.
@@QueerCollective the reason they use the word theory, as opposed to fact or law, is that science doesn’t put an absolute on anything. There is always a chance (however unlikely) that new information and discoveries will change the understanding of a prevailing theory. The process of new discoveries and evidence is asking if they support the theory or falsify the theory. Thats all. The theory of evolution is constantly being supported and is the basis of all of biology and is critical to modern medicine as well as so many other fields.
@@QueerCollectiveSorry but I can't believe you're trying to correct people about the scientific use of the word theory. No one said evolution isn't a theory, they told you that your understanding and implied meaning of the word theory is incorrect in this context. Google it yourself. Evolution is not "just a theory" in the way you're using it. In real science a theory is a well supported complex phenomenon. If it was "just a theory" in the way you're using the term it would be called a hypothesis. Please do better research and don't double down on something you're not educated on.
@@beatduckActually the reason it's not a law is that it's not a fixed and simple phenomenon like gravitation or Newtonian physics. You can't have a law of evolution because it's too complex and cannot be broken down to simple mechanics in the way you can with gravity. But it is the equivalent of a law in terms of how well it's supported these days.
@@kenofken9458 its called being exclusive, a normal healthy relationship with boundaries based on trust. something you have clearly never heard about you sex pest.
It should be noted that natural doesn't necessarily mean good or bad. ALSO I reject the idea of "natural" vs "unnatural". Humans are not separate from nature, everything just exists. If it exists it is natural by definition
That’s a good point!
We are hard-wired for various orientations. Life is a spectrum and no one sits somewhere perfectly. I'm polyamorous, demisexual, quoiromantic, and agender. Perfectly me, who I'm supposed to be. Hard-wired to be Elisa. As Charles Shultz said, "Be yourself. No one can tell you you're doing it wrong."
Love this view
You sound confused.
As a queer west African, polyamory was something often associated with queerness in pre-colonial African societies. Monogamy was something pushed onto us from Brits. I also find it interesting how the people deciding relationships for all of humanity are English-speaking and probably from either the UK or the US. Any society with imperialism. I am specifically aiming towards the West because I know that not all of Europe is this way from what I've researched. Especially up North. Often times, people associate polyamory with r/AmITheAsshole posts where some wacky couple opens their relationship, and it goes horribly wrong. Tale as old as time. Polyamory is just treated like kink when, in reality, it's just people loving more than one person. Polyamory is just in the same category as bisexuality, pansexuality, asexuality, and aromanticism, where people who don't have an understanding of it feel the need to decide what happens to it. People question if it's actually real or valid, or queer in comparison to vanilla homosexuality(Yeah, I said it🙃). They also try to see how it can be "of use" or try to find the point of it. Shit, go ask a baboon why it's flinging around it's own feces while you're at it, pretty sure they know what's good. I think one thing that's glossed over with polyamory is the romance aspect. I've seen this called out on TikTok a lot. I guess in the end, the same way people need to come to terms with their gender identity and sexuality, I believe people also need to not only question who they love but also whom they love. It all comes back to ones true nature. One that isn’t inflicted by others trying to impose what they think is right. To quote FD Signifier, "Would you rather build community? Or, just be correct?"
What are you talking about? African cultures were already heavily patriarchal and monogamous before the British colonization. Most African societies practiced female genital mutilation and seclusion of women during menstruation, putting these societies even on a more monogamous level than Victorian England.
@@YorshZed You have to understand "queer" people dont live in reality.
I am autistic and polyamory always felt so terrible, but I'm glad to hear different people's examples that contrast against patriarchal norms.
I’m also neuro divergent and am in a polyamorous relationship. I don’t want to judge the hosts however I just feel like in their personal life they may also be exactly as clinical about these things in the bedroom as they are in the boardroom. It’s a breath of fresh air to come out and have a partner who can take a joke. Queer people used to be predominately daring badasses, I don’t really feel, as a queer person, that I could say the same for contemporary queers…
@@LaFrance503 we’re sharing history & science, not sure how that discussion would enable you to make any type of judgement on our personal or sex lives. Queer people throughout history and today are still radical badasses.
I'm autistic and more. Podcasts like these and just generally listening to people talk about relationships have been crucial to my learning how to navigate my relationships. I've definitely had a lot of struggles but polyamoury has given me space to explore relationships on my own terms, rather than trying to guess what society expects me to do. I'ts definitely possible to get value out of these discussions as a monogamous person too.
@@LaFrance503Totally agree w you
i dont think being traumatized and fearing abandonment is necessarily an argument for monogamy. i have bpd and other neurodivergencies, and i have been polyamorous for my entire adult life. having multiple partners makes those feelings less scary for me because i have other relationships to fall back on if one doesnt work out.
imo the way we define gender and family has been heavily controlled by exploitative leaders as long as they have existed.
There's a Brazilian writer called Geni Núñes that argues that monogamy is not about number of partners/ natural attraction and more of a culture and package of beliefs. Its an interesting way to see it, I think. And a culture that, in the case of Brazil and many of its indigenous peoples, didn't really exist before colonialism. And its not like everyone was having kitchen table poly relationships before that, just that there wasn't any societal expectation of sexual/romantic exclusivity nor any sense of guilt or sin related to that. Relationships just happened in the way that made sense to those folks and their societies. And idk about you all, but I wouldn't call having my culture oppressed and erased by people that see their culture as superior "natural" hahaha. Great episode!
Such a great take and thank you for sharing a piece of history 💕
Can you prove your statements about absent of sexual expectations of sexual and romantic exclusivity? You are talking about fabulous things.
@@YorshZed I'm not sure if Geni has any of her research translated to English, but I'm quite confident there are other indigenous peoples that lived in similar ways all across the globe, at least based on other articles and online discussions I followed. A quick search for "non-monogamy and indigenous peoples" will surely give you plenty of info to dive deeper.
@@kaovhmf I have not found any reliable evidence of successful non-monogamy in any of the societies studied. There are simply none. Show me the evidence.
@@YorshZed not a researcher on this, sorry! Good luck on your search, tho! :)
Natty or not conversations always make me grin because I rarely encounter questions over whether naturalness should even matters
So what if Polyamory might be unnatural? Democracy, EDM, birth control, dildos! All objectively unnatural, yet objectively awesome.
I love being poly, whether it turns out to be natty or not
Hahaha I love this take!
@@QueerCollective thank you! I love your show; it makes me feel seen uwu
Idk if im misunderstanding your comment, but ”natty or not” is a term within the body building/gym community. In that aspect, it totally matters if you’re natty or not.
So, I discovered polyamory by first searching up "What's wrong with me?" And then eventually narrowing my search down to "Why can't I love only one person?" Before that search, I was contemplating suicide. I have always felt that way, even in my childhood. This is why I strongly believe that polyamory is not a choice and it IS an identity/orientation. If I chose to be this way, then I would've never thought there was something wrong with me.
Wow I’m so sorry you felt there was something wrong with you. I think that there probably is no natural vs unnatural because we humans are part of nature and if we exist and certain desires or structures exist within us and if many of us feel this way then it probably is natural
@@QueerCollective Yeah, I think what is natural is a spectrum, like what is natural for one person isn't natural for another. It is natural for a black, autistic, gay, trans man in a wheelchair to exist, but likewise, it's also natural to NOT be autistic, black, gay, trans, or confined to a wheelchair. I think "natural" is really just "If it exists without anyone coercing it, then it's natural." So, yeah, just like you are naturally lesbian, but it's unnatural for you to be straight (unless you're bi or something, sorry for assuming), some people are naturally straight and it would feel unnatural for them to be gay/lesbian. I think the same logic applies here. I can't help that I'm polyamorous. However, a monoamorous person can't help that they are monoamorous. Both are natural in general, but not natural for each individual. It's also a wide spectrum as nonbinary, gray-romantic, multisexual, and ambiamorous people exist.
When you think about it, everything is a spectrum. Race isn't just black and white. Sex isn't just male and female (intersex). Gender isn't just man and woman or boy and girl. Sexual orientations aren't just homosexual and heterosexual. Romantic orientations aren't just alloromantic and aromantic. Even the exact same disability of a diagnosed person will be different from another person diagnosed with the same condition. Even the rainbow isn't just red and blue. I truly believe some of us lean one way or another on a spectrum while others are in the middle somewhere.
So well said thank you! 👏🏼
this abandonment anxiety could result from the interaction between us feeling we are non-monogamous and monogamy being imposed onto us by private property based economy: it's a fear that our partner (or we ourselves) can find someone else and that it would necessitate a breakup that we may not want at all.
A possibility! It’s such an interesting perspective to think capitalism affects our relationships. It’s not something I considered before but it does start to make sense
Listening to this while working!!!
I've always loved the idea of my partner practicing polyamory. I'd feel comfortable about that ^^
@@MaxedCracked that’s awesome! Hope you dip your toe in, it’s an exciting world
Absolutely loved this episode of the podcast, I've been sharing it with all of my friends! I love how you guys look at both sides of the research even though you already have a preconceived idea of what you believe. I'm actively non-monogamous and its very validating to listen to this episode. You guys are awesome!
Thank you so much for sharing 💕
Thank you so much for sharing 💕
Honestly being poly and having ADHD is hard bc of the added rejection sensitivity dysphoria
A very interesting perspective thank you for sharing. Emily also has ADHD and it’s not something we’ve talked about too much in the podcast
This has been my struggle with it, too. RSD makes it much more difficult, especially if you don't know how to communicate what's going on (because a lot of us don't even know about RSD much less how to describe what it looks and feels like in relation to their own experiences and trauma.) I didn't think I could be polyamorous when my anchor partner and I first got together almost 15 years ago, but he had been up front about being polyamorous from the start, and we do have times where we're living more monogamously because with us both being AuDHD, sometimes there's not enough energy to give another partner what they'd want or need from the relationship. But open communication has helped us a lot and learning more about RSD in general and understanding what my personal triggers are and communicating them to my partner in as non combative a manner as possible has helped quite a lot just generally speaking.
New episode!! I LOVE when it's just you two. The dialogue is always so fascinating and informative. ❤Being a voyeur into your relationship is also fun. 😘
@@tracyhill6166 aw we love that 💗 so glad you enjoyed
Oh no! Not Sex at Dawn!
I say this as a queer person, and as someone who is opening up and dipping my toe in the non monogamy world. I believe that we are not biologically monogamous.
But I tried to give Sex At Dawn a fair shake and just couldn’t do it. Too many of their references were stated as plain accepted objective fact, and when I would actually verify the references, they were from like, memoirs, or books that straight up didn’t have the thing they were referencing, etc.
I found it to be a very poorly sourced book that was obviously biased.
Thought provoking, sure, but I highly question its factuality and objectivity.
@@nasonguy absolutely! Like we said in the episode, that section about whether it’s natural or not was ALL THEORIES. It’s a bunch of well educated humans just saying ‘I think’ and making their best educated guess. Our goal was just to evoke thought, theories are fun to discuss.
Sex at Dawn lost me when they mentioned brazilian Carnaval and the "rite of Sacanagem" hahaha. I just wondered if they got this about Brazil so factually wrong, what other information from the book I could trust? Thankfully we have plenty of alternative resources on non-monogamy nowadays and I could remove that book from my list of recommendations.
@@kaovhmf Yeah. Kinda seems like they made a lot of stuff up to suit their narrative. Not good science.
@@QueerCollective Those people weren't evolutionary biologists. These are psychologists or people without special education.
This has been so wonderfully informative! Love how fair you two are discussing these things and laughed at the little immature bits with ya, great stuff!!
Ah thank you so much! 💕
7:57 Sorry but I have to correct some thing here and it's so important. The theory of evolution is no "just a theory." The scientific use of the word theory is actually the complete opposite of the common usage (it's dumb, i know). Evolution being a theory means it is VERY well supported with facts and evidence. If it wasn't it would be a hypothesis.
When you're talking about those other hypotheses that involve human dating that's a mixture of hard science and well supported evolutionary fact, as well as much more flimsy evolutionary psychology which is nowhere near as well evidenced. But the theory of evolution is hard science and not in question in modern science.
as someone with severe attachment trauma and now anxious attachment i am certain, that having a tribe, a stable, safe community that is your baseline would prevent that level of somatic and existential despair that comes up from rejection in romantic settings. cause in neoliberal late stage dystopian capitalism we live in the nuclear family idea or a queer liberal version of that, still 2 people rainsing offspring, is the last not fully destroyed community system of relating. cazse capitalism and capitalists require us to produce offspring, new workers for the machine. which is done for free, still mostly, all reproductive labour to produce soldiers, and oil plattform workers, and nurses, and everyone who keeps the system running.
so putting all that pressure in the ONE Single romantic relationship is not an individual failure, if you overload it with expectations. its the only place left to project your needs and hopes for community, interpersonal relating, sex, empathy, non sexual touch, etc.
not much communality is left elsewhere.
The highest level of dissatisfaction I ever had in my relationships was when I was poly. I am still recovering from the level of emotional abuse and gas lighting I experienced. Choosing non-heteronormative structures of monogamy as a gay person was the best thing since coming out.
@@michaelmclain7049there are ways to be monogamous that step away from the typical white heteronormative model laid out for us by society. i think what they are saying is that polyamory does not have to be the response to a dissatisfaction with monogamy. rather, you can make a model of monogamy that works for you. one that is not rooted in the backwards ways we often see in media/society.
I went through the same. I don't have an issue with them anymore, but I make it very clear that I'm withdrawing a percentage of my energy from that relationship if it becomes open. It doesn't make sense to me to split and "schedule" my time and energy on such an intimate level between multiple people when just being friends is more than enough for me. I have no issue living communal in terms of providing work and physical goods outside of myself, but my body will never be a sexual community resource outside of a sperm bank if absolutely nessisary. Not everyone is just owed that level of intimacy from me.
@@normandy2501wow the sentence with my body will not be a sexual community resource spoke to me so much as a CSA survivor. I have strong people pleasing tendencies & need to feel very safe to engage in sexual activities without it being traumatic so i feel like being poly works against my healing & growth aswell & i feel like thats smth that gets invalidated in a lot of poly & queer spaces.
Amazing episode, as always! ❤️
I think showing the historical evolution is a powerful tool to help to realise how the current standard is just an option and not “the option”.
Thanks for the effort to beautifully summarise it all! 💖
Thank you so much! Glad you enjoyed ☺️
Except for... the video did not demonstrate the actual historical evolution, but instead demonstrated no knowledge of any kind of evolutionary theory.
ah yeah, not me thinking everyone just acts like relationship and marriage is good, but they actually hate it, until i was 20 and figured out im just aro and others often feel different
Maybe not generalizing would be a good thing
Dr. Wednesday Martin said that humans main advantage is our ability to adapt to various social structures. As is non-monogamy, it’s both/and not either/or.
So true
No empirical evidence for that though...
This is an excellent episode and I am adding it to my syllabus for intro to lgbt couples and families NOW! Thanks yall
Thank you so much!
Please stop asking "is it natural" as it only serves to promote the conservative standpoint that we should only do what they consider natural.
The only relevent question on the topic of determining if people should be allowed to do this is "is it ethical?".
And ofcourse for ETHICAL polyamory the answer is always yes. End of discussion.
Giving bigots more room for discussion after this is doing yourself a disservice.
Capitalism reeeeeeeeally doesn’t like polyamory for a variety of reasons, especially in instances if more than two people live together. Monogamous partnership -> divorce is the ideal pipeline for extracting adults and especially adults with children for as much money as possible. Personally I’m pretty sure I lean heavily to preferring monogamous partnering (massive possession kink 🫣) but a society which is very open with polyamory and does not shun it will lead to so much less waste less people in poverty overworking etc, thus of course the powers that be will do all they can to keep shunning it (while many billionaires and the like are all for orgies, funny how that works)
Thank you for your perspective! Love that we can have our preferences and still be allies for experiences outside of our own 💕
We are prone to wanting connections of some form. Intimate or social or professional. My goal has never been to have “many partners”, but to be able to meet and connect with people openly. Many have views on polyamory based on fears or bad experiences. I acknowledge I have my view on being open based on bad experiences in monogamy. Regardless of structure, communication and care and self awareness at important.
In the end, how you connect with people is ok, as long as those you are with are informed and involved.
Good take 👏🏼
You guys should have the author of Sex at Dawn on the podcast.
Now that would be SICK. Good idea
@@QueerCollective I'm pretty sure he would do it. Have you read his other book, Civilized to Death?
Haven’t read that one yet but will give it a shot
@@QueerCollective I highly recommend it.
As someone who has a degree in mathematics, it is scary how often people equate the concept of normal with the concept of natural.
Normal per definition is just the "average" with some diviation from the perfect norm. It is a mathematical concept misunderstood by most.
Natural is anything that occurs by natural causes. So if just one person prefer polygami without being subject to a non natural substance proven to cause polygami, it is by definition natural. We can not generalise human behavior from other animals by default.
To sum up, natural and normal are not the same, something can be far from normal but still natural. F.eks. ASD are not considered normal brain development, because it is under 2% of people who has it, but it is a natural occurring birth condition. I can come with much more bisar fact that are natural but far from normal
super interesting episode, very impressed by all of the research that was put into it
Thank you 😊 glad you enjoyed
I'm quite quiet about me being poly due to the stigma of it, but if I'm getting to know someone I'll obviously tell the person
Being poly does carry a lot of stigma however we do see it slowly becoming more and more normalized. We hope for that to continue
So many cultures carried their infants on their bodies. Wild that she assumed that hands would just be unavailable
This was such a well made episode!
Is it possible to have the citations shared too just in case some of us would like to do some further reading? Thank you!
I must admit that poly, pan, and enm are the orientations I struggle with the most. Maybe because being a dark melanin person, people keep assuming I want to be involved. I’m very vanilla in this way though, just a straight, monogamous female.
Fair enough! You gotta do what works for you and be happy.
You guys are awesome 😊
The more I listen to people talk about relationships, the more I realize I'm WAY more ace than I thought and probably demiromantic. I can't imagine having sexual fantasies about real humans at all, whether I'm dating them or not, and I don't think I've ever been romantically interested in anybody I haven't known for like, two to four years.
Side note: 'Theory', in scientific terms, is as close to fact as one can get. It is an idea that has a great deal of evidence behind it. It is the counterpart to a law - Essentially, a law is a statement, and a theory is an explanation of the mechanics behind that statement. Saying that something is 'just a theory' is, in regards to science, something to be avoided. Evolution as a whole is a theory, germs are a theory, and even gravity is a theory.
19:13 made me feel a deep sadness I have never felt before in my heart. Basically all the porn where two guys sperm are competing to impregnate a woman and the alpha wins is real. 😢
The thing about the penis shovel head thing is a similar vibe. I hate the idea of competing sexually, and in all truth a big reason is cause I know I'd always lose. I want my partner to enjoy me for me irregardless of whoever else. Honestly being non-monogomous has helped me with that. I don't worry about my partner leaving me because of anything else besides myself. If I fuck up I fuck up but they aren't gonna leave me for someone else.
@@Nagasakevideo I wouldn’t say it necessarily means societies version of the ‘alpha’ wins. It’s the person with the superior genetics and that may come down to whoever has an immune system that differs most and provides the most variation.
Anthropologist here. Polygamy is multiple marriages. Polyandry is multiple marriages with one woman and multiple men, usually brothers. Polygyny is marriage between usually one man and multiple women who may or may not be sisters. It may or may not look at autonomy, not not necessarily doesn't in all cases of polygamy.
It's often monogamy-centric to believe that Polygamy in the general sense has no sense of consent. But then that's like assuming that monogamy in of itself is inherently "always good" in the marriage rather than monoamory sense. There are still, for example child marriages in the US. Does that make monogamy always good, then?
It's not the system at fault, it's the society and "rules" imposed on those institutions (though I'd argue that child marriage is always wrong).
I can only speak for me personally
I'm SUPER monogamous and I will say there's a big difference between me having a crush or lust toward someone versus wanting to share, commit and sacrifice for someone. I only want to do that for one person and it'd be really difficult for me to have two or more people on the same tier. Even if I was poly I would have my main person that I share house and finances and deep feelings with you know kind of like how kings have their wives and then their other wives in order from second wife to third wife the fourth wife. They usually aren't treated the same. Some poly situationships are just a married couple that are allowed to have sex outside of the marriage because they know that one partner may not be able to fulfill all their needs or be available but some people don't need to be sexually satisfied at all times I don't really care if there's some dry periods. Sex is something I want but I don't need it on a consistent basis. I just get enough pleasure out of enjoying other non-sexual things with my partner. I think for all the reasons people shared with me why they are poly they're rooted in things that I just don't need I don't feel limited by monogamy I prefer it and polyamory would be too overwhelming for me it would stress me out and I just don't feel like I could fairly divide equal attention and affection nor do I want to. If it makes me selfish and jealous then I guess I'm selfish and jealous but I only want to give the most special parts and attention to one person but I don't think Polly people are invalid and for those that can equally divide their attention and love great but there's so many different versions of what Polly can look like that as I said before it could just be a main couple who have their own boyfriends and girlfriends on the side and that's more casual or people who have a polycule and share partners It could really look like so many different things it's a case-by-case basis. And truth be told who cares what's natural or not humans do all sorts of things that are " unquote unnatural Why do we have to follow whatever nature or science says is natural Just do what you want and what makes you happy as long as you're not harming any body who cares? Is kink natural or in nature I don't think so but there are plenty of people into it and consenting to it so I say do what makes you feel good Just don't harm. I also don't find sex to be a casual act It's a very intimate and serious act for me so I couldn't just have a casual sex partner on the side. I couldn't guarantee that I wouldn't fall in love with them That's always something that's a possibility that people don't consider.
Just my thoughts.
And I have a question for you all What are your thoughts on polyandry. That is a lesser known and there are some countries and tribes where women have multiple husbands. Thoughts?
there is nothing wrong with the way you are and the way you are doing your life. seems you have some insight into what you need and what works for you. thats what matters in my opinion. thank you for sharing your thoughts, you have put a lot of thought into them :D heh i have not heard of polyandry. i would probably be okay with multiple husbands though if thats what it is, haha as long as i can pick well maybe not, im pretty terrible at picking. any videos you recommend?
@@Krista-388ua-cam.com/video/d4yjrDSvze0/v-deo.htmlsi=PkejdnOlRogZ8Aiq
@@Krista-388ua-cam.com/video/X78eYRCQ_Ek/v-deo.htmlsi=HqbdSyJTeUgxHyBg
Omg, the theory of evolution is not 'just a theory'. It's a meticulously tested scientific framework of analysis. Not a hypothesis.
I forgot to mention, I loved the video, just wanted to add insight.
Thank you!
tbf if we look at nature only, we naturally want to not be monogamous, whilst we want to make our partners being monogamous with us.
picking up the man and women model, it just brings women more different children with different chances and many ressources if several men cater to her and help with the offspring, which wouldnt happen if said men also had to give stuff to other women. and for men it would make them being able to have more own children without having to raise other mens children if they have many women who only have them. xD
its illogical to think, pairbonding evolved when people started to be on two legs and before that, nobody would see children as belonging to a couple. most animals try to make sure the children in the group are theirs so why wouldnt humans be similar and only having some who are permitted to mate, and also why would a group travel longer ways without being prepaired bc half of the members are toddlers.... theyd stay at a safe place.
I have wondered about Mexicas (Azteks) possibly being poly since there is evidence that points to the origin being an old pueblo tribe that one day packed up and moved south
I think it has to be sepearted between only sex without talking and having any form of emotional bond and emotional bond with maybe not even sex. I would have less issues with the first but much more with the latter. I used to be super idealistic as well where I logically would dissect monogamy and felt it was unnatural and therefore ones jelousy is a sign of insecurity and noone should have the right own someone. I chNGED MY mind once I fell in love. I had to undestand that I never truly cared for all the other partners (only on a superficial level) and I didnt know how true love feels like. Once I was in love there was no room of sharing and also not wanting to be shared. Just the idea of having sex with another man would be free of any connection and emotion. ONly maybe a sexual arrousal of being used by a group of men (something I however would never want to live through as I certainly wouldnt like it if put to action as to be if a man has sex with me I still wnt him to obey to me and to make me feel loved by only focusing on me). I realised I never had a man before who would look at me the way he does, someone who would stand with me and show me proudly around and also claim me. The idea of being claimed became kinda sexy as well. Also I realised that this is what gave me all the security and calmness I never had before, where I felt I was a warrior on my own and never could rely on someone else.
If he would have sex with another women, and not procreate (I couldnt stand the idea of him having a child and sharing his money with this child and the other woman and me having to not have him around any time I want and need him but by getting limited to a priority list which for some time would be the child nr1) and he wouldnt smile with her, he wouldnt intelecctually bond with her and it was just her massaging his dig and they shake hands and thats it, I wouldnt be thrilled but that would be ok. HIm having sexual arousals because another woman is looking hot also wouldnt bother me. But if he had fun with her and if he felt that she needs to be a part of his life and he would enforce that he can spend this amount of time and money on her I would go nuts with. I dont thinkt that sexual arousal is an argument for polyamory. Under that argumentation we could also argue that pedophilia has its natural roots and is normal. What is normal is dictated by circumstances as to what is beneficial for most within society. And as pedophelia is not based upon consent and i would argue always predatory, it cant be supported. Now polyamory doesnt cause this kind of obvious distress in a child, nevertheless I would take a claer look at it once it gets out of the mostly sexual based scenary. If it is only done to have sex, with no toll on the relationship and in particular once children are there no toll on the children than alright. But the moment it interferese with that I would be very cautious. We do know that children whose parents have new partners face emotional trauma and can feel obanded. Once children are there the primary focus of a couple should be the child and life should work aorund that. Also the relationship together is the thing that children need to see and therefore parents should work on their relationship and not on sexual freedom. Sex has the cause for reproduction. Now sexualtiy is a different thing. You can have a sexual erotic thing but even that has its time and end. It is also sensual to have a baby nuggling on ones breasts and a birth can be an arroused experience to. It still is to be differentioated from sex and sexuality.
overall I used to go through it as you did, using research to feel about it. But once I felt so different even by logically always telling myself that my feelings are a sign of wrong morals, at some point I had to go with my feelings as I believe humans never go ultiamtly agianst them. jelousy isnt just a sign of bad culture, its a primal sign the moment takes something from you you want it back. Humans are egoistic to the core. The idea of sharing is bs. I dont think its evident that in societies practising Polyamory people were happier and less compatative. Humans always strive to find that one thing where they stick out and get more than others from. Its a power dynamic which can be more obivous as it is in patriarchical socieiteis or more subtile. Its like violence from women. Its often not talked abobut. I experienced the worst violence from females and it was mostly subtle or reversed pssychology but also could be physical, but not obvious punches but like putting acid in my clothes or lotions so that noone could definatly say.
Well what I am trying to say: i dotn thinkt the issues solve just by including more people. The more people the more complacted things get. I can say by having only 1 sibling things were complicated but the moment we would have our cousins etc with us it got unmanagable and also relationships remained more superficial as it is the long term one on one time which creates true bonds. I do have one best friend. And that is because we vibe best but also because we decided to invest most of our friendship time into us. Hence our relationship is 15 years of many hours a week. I have other people whom I like but I cant invest the same amount of time into them. At some point you have to decide with whom you gonna evolve more and who is gonna stay close but not at position number 1.
People being 🍑🕳️ to their partner "opening the relationship" probably shapes perception alot. Just saw an example talked about on phillions channel. She's an OF model. So far so matter of taste. I think I could live with that, some can't as long as it's her. Then the topic of working with others came up... Cut to a while later. It happened. Her husband is obviously dying on the inside. She blabbers some nonsense about that being very different more like acting. Lil later yeah sure she'd like to try an open relationship... So that thing about it being different was a f..... Lie. He's just sitting there being publicly humiliated. Changing the conditions of a relationship later can be highly unfair, abusive or perhaps just a d...move. Someone's in love gets taken for a ride rather than let go. The worst version of let's stay friends.
Have you heard of monoamory, ambiamory, fluidamory, nonamory, biamory, and homoamory?
Polyamory is just an orientation. So, some people are hard-wired for monogamy and others are hard-wired for non-monogamy.
No we haven’t we will look into it. Thanks for sharing
@Krista-388
ua-cam.com/video/7hWxILy0YPU/v-deo.htmlsi=6AQTst5CXZ-UL7Gt
Links to PolyANDRY
You completely lost me at "it's just a theory." If you aren't scientifically literate enough to know what that word means, it's irresponsible to be commenting on it like you know what you're talking about.
A lot of science is theory. Considered correct until disproven. Evolution is technically a theory. There is lots of evidence but it is a theory. Same with everything we shared in this episode. All sourced from well qualified academics who well articulate their theories with evidence and explanations. Theories are fun to discuss and listen to as they prompt interesting and thought provoking discussions.
@@QueerCollective From the wikipedia page for "Scientific Theory": A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that can be (or a fortiori, that has been) repeatedly tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment.[1][2] In circumstances not amenable to experimental testing, theories are evaluated through principles of abductive reasoning. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.
Just stop. You're using "theory" in the colloquial definition. If you are incapable of understanding this then stop talking about science.
@@DingoTheDemonuff. Gatekeeping much
Okay that cultural music shift was unnecessary
But we live for drama
This sounds like a lot of eugenics/scientific eugenics fam.
@@humanwithaplaylist which part?
It isn't. You need to educate yourself on the difference between evolutionary biology and eugenics. They're actually very different. Do more reading.
Hi, I get you're trying to create a captivating title for this video. But couldn't you think of anything else?
What’s your suggestion?
@@QueerCollective that costs money. but something that avoids implying a specific population might be unnatural. Not everyone is going to click on the video, and that implication isn't helping the community.
We’re not implying that it’s unnatural and we ourselves are part of the community so it’s really just a question to get curious. Regardless, we’re constantly changing our titles so it may or may not change later
Only one sticking point: the use of “theory” in two different contexts.
Please don’t say things like “evolution is just a theory”. That’s literally what Tucker Carlson said on Joe Rogan’s show.
If it’s “just a theory” then so is gravity, germ disease, plate tectonics, and the periodic table of elements.
Google it they are theories. It's called evolutionary theory. Widely accepted as fact because there is sooo much evidence but that's kinda how most scientific fields work love, ESPECIALLY anthropology which is what we're talking about here. It's all theories based mostly on archeological artifacts.
@@QueerCollective the reason they use the word theory, as opposed to fact or law, is that science doesn’t put an absolute on anything. There is always a chance (however unlikely) that new information and discoveries will change the understanding of a prevailing theory. The process of new discoveries and evidence is asking if they support the theory or falsify the theory.
Thats all.
The theory of evolution is constantly being supported and is the basis of all of biology and is critical to modern medicine as well as so many other fields.
@@QueerCollective a “Scientific theory” does not mean the same as “a hunch”.
Scientific Theory is the highest level of confidence in an idea.
@@QueerCollectiveSorry but I can't believe you're trying to correct people about the scientific use of the word theory. No one said evolution isn't a theory, they told you that your understanding and implied meaning of the word theory is incorrect in this context. Google it yourself. Evolution is not "just a theory" in the way you're using it. In real science a theory is a well supported complex phenomenon. If it was "just a theory" in the way you're using the term it would be called a hypothesis. Please do better research and don't double down on something you're not educated on.
@@beatduckActually the reason it's not a law is that it's not a fixed and simple phenomenon like gravitation or Newtonian physics. You can't have a law of evolution because it's too complex and cannot be broken down to simple mechanics in the way you can with gravity. But it is the equivalent of a law in terms of how well it's supported these days.
its pretty easy for me.
if they want to open relationship they are gonna be single, and if they cheat they are dead, and not figuratively.
What do you mean dead? Confused. Do you mean just with you?
So you are a controlling psychopath, is what you're trying to say?
That sounds like some damn toxic possession dynamics.
@@kenofken9458 its called being exclusive, a normal healthy relationship with boundaries based on trust.
something you have clearly never heard about you sex pest.