Alt Text
Show parent replies
wow nice you figured out that authenticity is stupid, and that patriarchal husbands are pieces of shit. slow clap for the genius please. no differentiation of different styles of poly, and not even significant analysis of who the “elite” is supposed to comprise
even if polyamory was just a way for the ruling class to “have their cake and eat it too”, why is this bad? and it’s hilarious how we get a token disabled poly throwaway hero as an example at the end too - a better subtitle for this article would have been “poor good rich bad”
i’m all here for political critiques of polyamory, one of my fav articles is “Polyamory is Gay Marriage for Straight People”. but that’s because they’re not morons and actually engage in the subject matter with differentiation, specificity, and proper categorial analysis
i dont wholeheartedly endorse the article ofc, but its infinitely more generative than this drivel
oh i should also be clear that it seems like Molly’s relationships both in and out of her marriage were unfulfilling, but again this doesn’t speak much to anything and can be entirely explained through bog standard feminist analysis. “therapeutic libertarianism” is not an enlightening concept
also worth reminding ourselves that there are other ways to be critical of the ideals espoused by vulgar polyamory: Freedom as absence of constraints is perhaps a reasonable aspiration for slaves, but not for others.
Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, § 260.
obviously this is not to say that constraints are good categorically, or an endorsement of monog-patriarchal relationship norms by any means. what it does mean is that too fanatical a focus on freedom indicates a rather naive and immature stage of poly. better conditions give rise to higher ideals.