this post was submitted on 06 Jun 2025
426 points (96.7% liked)

Funny: Home of the Haha

7253 readers
161 users here now

Welcome to /c/funny, a place for all your humorous and amusing content.

Looking for mods! Send an application to Stamets!

Our Rules:

  1. Keep it civil. We're all people here. Be respectful to one another.

  2. No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia or any other flavor of bigotry. I should not need to explain this one.

  3. Try not to repost anything posted within the past month. Beyond that, go for it. Not everyone is on every site all the time.


Other Communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 25 points 2 days ago (2 children)

But you guys will put out after Church, right?

[–] Remember_the_tooth@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

They did don some crazy underwear in anticipation of the event. Also, polyamory is definitely on the table if they're true to their founder's beliefs and actions.

[–] RedAggroBest@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Don't sully polyamory with the misogyny that is polygamy. They want multiple wives to have multiple women to control

[–] Remember_the_tooth@lemmy.world 1 points 22 hours ago

I don't think polygamy has to be misogynistic, although I agree that's the way its been overwhelmingly applied throughout recorded history. It could hypothetically be misandrist if power dynamics had the opposite gender polarity. I think the core issue is the power imbalance being expressed in the construction of a harem. Anyway, I think of polyamory as the broad term and polygamy as an unfortunate subset of it, designed to legally and unilaterally enforce an inequitable and exploitive type of polyamorous relationship by members of one gender against the members of another. That's a pretty broad generalization of gender, sex, and orientation dynamics, but I'm not an expert in the field. I assume there's still some kind of conventional, ontological hierarchy with corresponding terminology. I think that's what I was reaching for.