This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I think I understand where Aella's definition (A-poly) comes from and why it's more useful than yours (Y-poly). Who can join an existing polycule? A Y-poly person can't unless they are also A-poly. An A-poly person can.
A Y-poly person that isn't also A-poly can't form a complex polycule, they will create a trivial harem of pure A-polies. If there are no A-poly people, their harem will have to be non-consensual.
So pure Y's don't contribute anything to polyamory, A+Y's form the backbone of successful polycules and pure A's both keep the size of polycules manageable and form the bulk of their ranks. If in a polycule all members except one (or more likely all of them) are fine with their partner(s) being in multiple relationships, then it makes sense to call this its defining characteristic, even though you need at least one member (or a few) with an interest in multiple partners to serve as a nucleation point for the polycule.
Consider the answers to your questions rephrased: Who wants to join an existing polycule? Y-poly does, but A-poly doesn't care except through their partner. Ditto for who wants to form a complex polycule.
I'm ok with the definition that heralds both axes in tandem, and I'm fine with the argument that the A-poly dimension is vital to ensure that a polycule ecosystem can function without devolving into harem fiefdoms. Ultimately what I care about is whether the word accurately communicates the idea to the listener.
Y-poly doesn't, because joining means your partner(s) will have more partners than just you. They have to be an A-poly to integrate into a polycule.
Yes, they have to be a Y-poly, but they won't form anything complex if they aren't an A-poly as well.
The poly community is overwhelmingly A-polies, some pure A, some Y+A, but being a pure Y must be frustrating.
The second big reason why this kind of definition is important is drawing the line between polyamory and other forms of polygamy, like having a mistress (deception), having multiple wives as a cult leader (grooming), fundie Muslim (economic coercion) or just having a literal Genghis Khan's harem of concubines (physical coercion).
When you point at the polycule and say everyone involved wants to be in there, unlike the things you think about when you say "multiple partners", and your opponent says not all traditional polygamic marriages are like that, they know a nice Muslim throuple where both wives are good friends and happy to share Ahmed between them, then you can say, "look, you've said it yourself, happy to share their partner, this is what makes it work, if only Ahmed was willing to share, too, then this nascent polycule could grow further".
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link