Here's what "polyamory" is not :
To continue our apparently endless cycle of "here's what parody is not", "here's what philosophy is not", "here's what BDSM is noti", "here's what entrepreneurship is not", "here's what Bitcoin is not"ii and so following (the moderately experienced Trilema reader will readily notice at this point that there's wide swaths and whole trees of alternative links for the examples chosen and a lot more examples to choose among -- but this introduction has to be shorter than very long so we'll go with this much), here's as fine a sample as can ever be had of what polyamory is not :
Realist says:
February 14, 2014 at 2:26 pm“Attractive” can have meanings other than “physical qualities prized at the present moment by the mainstream regarding sexual attraction/selection.”
Sadly, it can't. There's a number of problems with this universal cri de guerre of the low value female, and they're like this :
- For one thing, not only is "mainstream" not a defined symbol in this context, it is a symbol that can't be defined in this context. "Mainstream" applies to subculture, to the epiphenomena of pop-activity, like "what music do we all listen to in elevators", "what terrible franchise we all saw the every episode of" and "which kind of fake butter flavour do you prefer on the pochoclo while listening to said music and watching said franchised nonsense". Mainstream does not apply to fundamental items, that lie squarely outside of the reach of the limited programmable interface on the pop-lemmings. Sexuality is eminently such an example, an anthropological measure thoroughly and entirely outside of any possible discussion of "mainstream".iii
- For the other thing, attractiveness in females is physical. You may or may not like this, I don't give a shit, nor does the boner mechanism. You can rebel against the unfairness of this all you like, try and secrete bullshit alt-realities where it doesn't apply until zyprexa hits, it makes no difference. Work that ass or get off the rail.
- For the third thing, the fact that some dork with no better prospects will put up with you because you cook does not mean you're attactive. It means you're tolerable. Whether he's dweeby enough to repress his actual attraction circuitry or cowardly enough to not even look at the actually attractive women about says nothing about you, at all. It just illustrates what sort of sad, low value greasespots an unattractive woman ends up chained to.
I get it, reality bites. Tough tits, really, nobody cares what hell unattractive women have to go through. Be thankful you're not chained to the breeding pool. Yet.
I have an IQ of two standard deviations above the mean.
For one thing two sigmas is not enough to matter. It's roughly speaking the equivalent of "writing poetry about as well as any 19yo poet laureate of her local school district". Actually, that may be closer to three sigmas.
IQ is only interesting in predicting what utterly trivial problems retards will encounter, in the sense of whether they'll stab themselves in the eye or shove their arms into the hot oil. It's a purely industrial concern, and it has zero meaning above the 100 mark. Rather, if your IQ is above 100 but measurable, you're just a different kind of retard, you'll write large piles of bad prose nobody wants to read and call it "wiki"something.
I hold two Ph.D.s (Princeton and MIT),
This strictly disqualifies anyone from any possible shadow of suspicion as to being in any manner intelligent. The ESLtard PhD is her, and never anything else.
am physically robust (biathlon and crew), very attractive…
The reason it's called Tits or GTFO is because no woman that described itself as "robust" has yet been attractive nor any attractive woman described herself as "robust", in my experience.
and emotionally and financially secure. I have been diagnosed as very high functioning autistic on the basis of brain scans; I have good empathic skills, but don’t seem to need the constant reassurance others do. I’m not sure what drives me to want a relationship, other than enjoying the complexities of intimate interaction and how they evolve over time, and the physical contact is important to me. I also have learned a lot in intimate relationships, and seem to be wired for learning.
Sigh.
Do men want to pair up with me exclusively? Hell no. After the “new relationship energy” wears off in six months or a year or two, everything that comes out of my mouth threatens them, and that includes things I’ve always said (like, “did you read the latest article in Journal X? How did you feel about the methodology?” or “No, being in a sports stadium with 100,000 screaming people and seizure-inducing lights and explosions unsettles and confuses me; I’d rather not.”).
"Threatens them" is one way to put it, you fucking insufferable uppity dweeb, you!
I am a man capable of judging experimental design from a statistical soundness perspective, lost in the truly vast group of the... maybe six or so others similarily capable that are alive today, apparently ? Yet if you dare ask me how do I "feel" about "the methodology" you're getting fifty lashes, because you desperately need them. Journal X, seriously ? Get lost.
I do not mate with females; they don’t float my boat, though I tried it in my 20s and 30s. I suppose “the right women” could come along in the future, but they haven’t so far.
So although by one set of standards I am an attractive mate
Hey, by "one set of standards" even the world's ugliest small dog is "attractive", rite ?
No, "sets of standards" aren't idempotently interchangeable, "everything being ultimately just someone's opinion" and the rest of the pantsuit bullshit.
I am not the kind of mate that most/certain men are wired to want a monogamous relationship with (regardless of all the propaganda). They want to mate with, i.e., hunt, conquer, and go through the behaviors that lead to impregnating, younger, more docile, girlish women. This seems to be a fairly fixed evolutionary tendency of higher primates.
Docile is half the question. The problem of this obnoxious, aged, stupid but proud mastoton isn't that she's "not docile". It's that she's an insufferable, dimwitted, self-centered shriveled up old cunt. Docility wouldn't help anything here.
Yes, young women with potential benefit immensely from apodictic, slavish submission to great men. None of that is on the table here, and yes in a competition between dumb cunts men will prefer the one that's too young to have had time to entrench herself in unpleasantness. Duh. What would you prefer, fresh McDonalds Happy Meals or rotting McDonalds Happy Meals ? I hear they have ivy league phd's too, by now. Don't you ?
It also seems to be a fundamental element of human behavior that outliers of any sort are excluded from social arrangements. “Ugly”? It can be just as alienating to be physically “beautiful.”
This is deeply untrue. I suspect for lack of any experience with beauty (because no, pretty girls don't usually hang out with the uglies -- not because they don't want to, but because the uglies tend to develop unpleasantness at a very early age) the "alt-attractive" mastoton doesn't understand the very different issue pretty girls have, being overwhelmed with attention and driven to overperfectionism etcetera. No real reason to delve, suffice it to say there's absolutely nothing common between the sewer end of the curve and the Mt. Olympus end of the curve. None, at all, whatsoever. They're not even the same species.
However with polyamory I have found my value to be much higher, emotional-economically speaking.
Right. This is just what polyamory is not.
Polyamory is not some sort of secondary depot where the obsolete train engines can go to dream a little dream of themselves in peace, jesus fucking christ. See ? This is why the scum must be euthanized (painfully, preferably) : otherwise, they just go about trying to make "a world for themselves".
There is something about removing the pressure to be “all and everything” to another person that makes it possible for all parties in a polyamorous relationship.
Yes, it's called being a fuckbuddy / maid / whatever's the word for sex servants in your culture. It has nothing to do with polyamory whatsoever, it's just promiscuity. Nothing wrong with that, but you wouldn't call polycystic ovaries "polyplanetary", would you ?
No one person can complement all my parts, but I can have complex, rich, sustaining, creative give-and-take interactions with multiple people.
When they don't have better things to do. Again -- not what polyamory is.
The expectation is removed that in a relationship of just two, somehow their non-ideal (to each other) qualities will overlap just as their ideal ones will. (More likely their non-ideal and ideal parts will be perpendicular to each others’, and the differences will accumulate stress.)
I find that the males I engage with in polyamorous relationships tend not to be of the Selfish Gene/conquer-impregnate-and-dump pattern. They seem to be a new sort of human, more evolved, more caring about learning, growing, improving the world around them.
Aka, so fucking boring the dogs won't fuck him. And dogs will fuck anything, just watch one sometime.
They seem to be more realistic and…yes…boring.
Dang, what do I get ?
They don’t think that their choice of partner or their engendering of offspring or the size of their paycheck or penis or house or car mean anything. They may do important things in the world (one of my old partners shared many patents for vaccines).
They may not do important things in the world. Any person involved in the sort of sad bullshit this woman turned her life into is a full and complete scratch as far as the world is concerned.
And calling it "polyamory" on top of it! Just like troglodyte indigents in Bumfuck may call the better sort of whatever garbage they eat "Paris garbage", as opposed to the more common everyday garbage. Why not, right, words are "owned by everyone".
But they are…I don’t know…more loving in the larger sense of the word.
That points to something important; love is, in fact, boring. War is exciting, including sexual war. Love just goes along quietly. I am not theist or religious at all, but I think the very first Christians (who were Jewish heretics) were really onto something when they perceived the superiority of love over empire.
Everything is deeply boring once one catches on to the pantsuit pretense. Drop the pantsuit, discover how nothing's boring anymore.
But in any case : don't hang out with losers. You don't want to end up eating "Paris garbage", do you ? Always go for the genuine article ; and accept no substitutes.
———- For the sake of precision : BDSM isn't this group activity whereby a bunch of people get together to play-act at BDSM. That's fakerism. BDSM is this group activity whereby a bunch of people actually are changed, subjectively and objectively, and permanently, in ways they did not specifically ask for or consent to. [↩]
- Don't you find it amusing how the empire of idiots works to reduce the subjective (to them) value of my superiority ? Let's look at it :
- At time t0, which happens to be somewhere around 2011-2012, a large amount of nameless idiots wrote lengthy "opinion pieces" which no doubt formed a "consensus" about how Bitcoin will forward their idiocy agenda. Because Bitcoin is new, and the idiocies they favour have some sort of monopoly on all new things (the "vorwarts" ideology, whereby the future has more support for socialism, legions and legions of support just waiting right over the horizon). Laugh, but this is the whole of the "reasoning" of these "rational" and "scientific" dummies.
- At time t1, say right about now, these "have disappeared". Not for any reason or in any sort of way related to anything whatsoever, just "have disappeared" and don't look at it any further!
- At a time t2 in a year or two, a horde just as large as seen in the first point (for the reason of it being made up of the exact same, unchanged imbeciles) will go about yelling about how Bitcoin is "reactionary" and "against the poor" and "progress" and whatnot, but all-importantly (for their broken mental process) eliding the rationally mandatory prefix, "as MP correctly said back when we were all idiots a few years ago, [...]".
What do they get out of this complicated, transparent, and ultimately ineffectual game of moving hats about, pretending like the previous crop never existed, pretending that what I told them to believe they believe "of their own accord" through "reason" and "never even heard of me" and so following ? Wouldn't it be way the fuck cheaper to just kneel and worship the dirt I walk on ?
Of course it'd be cheaper, but they're not after cheap. They're after finding ways to share the WoWoW, means and methods to "convincingly" (to themselves) pretend that they're not mere agents but the stars of this their own movie. What they get is the exact same thing some dumb cunt doing "BDSM" with a balding, fat loser gets : not having to look at self in mirror. Not having to,
And yet, in a shocking example of that deeply female idiocy, she didn't run off. I would have. Right then, right there, I'd have run out after us, naked, begging. "Please, take me away from here."
I would have -- because you're supposed to drop a losing hand when you figure out it can't win, not when you figure out you can afford to cut loose your "investments" in it.
And no, I wouldn't have taken her in even had she done that. Too old, too short, too waistless and besides -- what the fuck was she doing in that hole in the first place ? Teenyboppers may be picked up from raw sewage, washed off and then used as new ; but forty year old women may not. They're supposed to know better than to fall into the latrine in the first place.
Yet even so, even as she would have doubtless chased after a disinterested, departing car, barefoot and naked, begging ; even as she would have collapsed in a hysterical, writhing pile crying in the road and even as she'd have had to drag her sorry carcass back to the chicken coop and confront the dork, and her imaginary "betrayal" of his inexistent presence -- imaginary not because we're doing a counterfactual, but because the "angriff Steiners befehl" was imaginary through and through in the first place and therefore nothing there to betray in any case -- even so she'd have been better off. She would have been. Yes.
According to them, missing out is a great boon. According to them, just as long as they didn't have to admit they're extras (and not even particularly valuable extras) in a film written by someone else, they've "won". In saner terms we could simply say idiocy is very amply its own punishment. [↩]
- Yes, yes, I'm aware that "women during Rubens" bla bla yakkity yak. Here's the thing : neither are you Rubens, nor is it Rubens that made it be that way then. Fundamental other considerations such as the prevalence of infant mortality, the common experience of famine, and the poor quality of HVAC systems at the time made it that way. [↩]
