[-] June@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

Hey, just wanted to follow up that you had the definition of polygamy right and I had it wrong. I got polygamy and polygyny melded together in my head, but polygamy is the blanket term for having multiple spouses and polygyny is one man multiple wives. I kinda set us up for this misunderstanding and wanted to own that and make sure you knew.

[-] June@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

Got it, yea. The definition here def matters for the conversation.

I agree that if you’re ok with polygamy, you should be ok with the other types of non-monogamy. But, with polygamy in particular being practiced predominantly by religious folks (namely Mormons and Muslims) the philosophy is centered around the man being in charge. Women are not allowed to have multiple partners, even among the wives. The husband is the only partner they’re allowed to have. Hence the commentary on patriarchy and me taking the time to specify that women and non-male gendered folks have a different experience with polyamory.

As a polyamorous person myself, I personally don’t find polygamy or polygyny to be ethical in practice because they both restrict what all but one can do with their bodies.

And to be clear, I don’t think matriarchy is any better than patriarchy. Both result in the oppression of one group of people for the benefit of the other. It just so happens that western society is built on predominantly patriarchal principles, so it gets brought up a lot more.

Apologies for interpreting your reply as offense too. I know where you’re coming from and have a few topics that I feel similarly on. I’ll admit that I do get in on the ‘all men suck’ train when the context and company are on the same page as me but that honestly has more to do with my own gender journey than it has to do with actual men (and the people I’m with in those times understand that). I know a lot of good men, I just don’t want to be lumped in with them anymore.

[-] June@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I brought up patriarchy because ~~polygamy~~ polygyny (one man, multiple wives) is inherently patriarchal. Same as ~~polygyny~~ polyandry (one woman many husbands) being matriarchal. While polyamory is genderless and everyone is free to pursue their own relationships.

This isn’t a controversial take. I never excluded men from the equation, I simply pointed out that polyamory is different from ~~polygamy~~ in that women can have more than one partner as well, something that polygamy doesn’t allow.

The rest of your comment here is word salad and idk what you’re getting at. But the basis of your offense is rooted in ~~a~~ my own misunderstanding of the ~~conversation and~~ terms being referred to.

Edit: I got some terminology wrong and thought polygamy was one man multiple women, but the term just refers to having multiple spouses. Polygyny is one man multiple women. Which def means I took the conversation down a weird hole.

[-] June@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

Never said it wasn’t a real thing. Said most people who say they’re ‘addicted’ aren’t.

[-] June@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

Yep. It’s not easy and a lot of people think it’s some amazing relationship goal and when they get there they realize it’s not for them and people get hurt. It’s relationships on hard mode.

[-] June@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

Never said porn addiction isn’t real. I’m saying it’s less common than people think and that most people who say they’re addicted to porn aren’t.

[-] June@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

I know it’s Linus, but this is the video I first learned about piezoelectric blowers: https://youtu.be/vdD0yMS40a0?si=MrmBK_b6SbtYG5iF

It’s pretty rad. And already exists.

[-] June@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

Copied from my other reply because I’m curious what you might think too:

Yea I didn’t convey myself well.

Our ability to observe the effect, at this point in time, results in us disturbing the thing.

Like with Schödinger’s cat, in order to observe the outcome we have to open the box which may result in the poison being released and killing the cat. So if we open the box and the cat is dead, it may be due to our interference rather than the gas being released by the radioactive decay. In order to know the position of the cat, we’d have to be able to see through the box in a way that doesn’t impact the outcome of the experiment. Yet, the cat is either dead or alive, it’s just unknowable to us due to our inability to observe the cat without disturbing the scenario. Only the cat really knows if it’s alive.

Similarly, we largely don’t have great ways to observe quantum happenings because our technology to measure the outcomes disturbs whatever we’re observing. Yet, the thing a we’re looking at either are or are not happening the way we posit, our ability to know doesn’t change that.

[-] June@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

That’s rad!

The club I help run is a Tamiya sponsored club and we host the PNW regionals every year. My first car that I raced was a TT02, and everything I race these days is tamiya because the other ROAR clubs are a bit more intense than I want to participate in.

My latest build was the new BBX which I won at regionals this year 3 weeks before it released. It’s a rad little buggy!

[-] June@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago
[-] June@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

It’s a demonstration of The Grapefruit.

[-] June@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

So yea.

view more: ‹ prev next ›

June

joined 1 year ago