Aella wrote about polyamory a few days ago, and packaged it as a one-stop repository to address everyone’s most common questions to her particular approach.
Great post! The logic feels similar to New Atheism, in the sense where it defines faith in God as a form of prohibition on disbelief (theism being framed as "a prohibition on unbelief"), and attempts to overturn it by way of "dissolving" that prohibition. And similarly, this is now necessarily how theism feels to believers.
I feel like your definitions would line up more closely if you closed a subject/object distinction. Aella says that polygamy is "not forbidding your partner from having extra-relationship intimacy". If you extend this by adding "... And expecting your partner to extend the same to you" then your relationship options really can change if you wake up one morning as the other orientation. I only skimmed her article, though, so I may be missing something.
Great post! The logic feels similar to New Atheism, in the sense where it defines faith in God as a form of prohibition on disbelief (theism being framed as "a prohibition on unbelief"), and attempts to overturn it by way of "dissolving" that prohibition. And similarly, this is now necessarily how theism feels to believers.
"Finally, if a guy himself actively wants to fuck/date a harem of women but wants their partner(s) to remain monogamous only to him"
Wouldn't that be polygyny? Or polyandry in the reverse case. You could also call it "having your cake and eating it too" :-)
polygyny/polyandry tend to refer to marriage arrangements, so not quite. But yes, cake is indeed delicious.
I feel like your definitions would line up more closely if you closed a subject/object distinction. Aella says that polygamy is "not forbidding your partner from having extra-relationship intimacy". If you extend this by adding "... And expecting your partner to extend the same to you" then your relationship options really can change if you wake up one morning as the other orientation. I only skimmed her article, though, so I may be missing something.
Yes, if the definition included the implied reciprocation, then my criticism of the definition would evaporate.