• Atlas_@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    2 years ago

    Yes, but also some of polyamory is that not every relationship has to be “we cohabit and have kids and can deal with every single little quietly annoying thing the other does”. Some relationships are focused on sex. Some are focused on breaking into aquariums together. Some are with people across the country and even though you are close it doesn’t make sense to get together more than once a year. Although polyamorous relationships can look like monogamy*2, part of the point is that more focused, smaller relationships can also be romantic.

      • novibe@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 years ago

        Just a small correction: most people look at relationships in terms of some very rigid ideals that were set a couple centuries ago at most.

          • novibe@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            2 years ago

            That does make intuitive sense, but archeology shows otherwise. There was a much bigger diversity of gender roles and relationship structures/child rearing systems, including in agricultural societies.

            The modern almost universal ideal of romantic monogamous nuclear relationships was born from romantic (as in the movement) puritan petit bourgeois ideals in the 19th century.

            Working class women during the medieval age for example, worked and lived outside the home, had affairs etc. This changed around the 18th century with the hegemony of the bourgeoisie and working class mirroring of their ideals.

            Basically while it’s true that patriarchal strictly dichotomous societies existed for as long as we can tell, And that they have prevailed and “won out”. But doesn’t mean they are the norm for humanity. Their universality is extremely recent.