this post was submitted on 18 Oct 2023
187 points (97.0% liked)
Greentext
3947 readers
946 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 11 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Right. The reductive part is assuming this problem would be solved by polygamy, when realistically there's nothing at all showing that's the case, except that there's a guy who wants multiple women for different reasons. We only know that he wants that, but nothing of the motives and desires of the others, and thus it's reductive to say "polygamy fixes this".
Your change in verbiage from polyamory to polygamy demonstrates you have no interest in critical inquiry, you just want to argue.
And your complete dismissal over a simple typographic error demonstrates that you never intended to have an actual discussion. I had actually edited my post to polygamy because I had, inaccurately, recalled you using that word. At the end of the day, polyamory and polygamy, yes they're distinct. It doesn't change my statement regardless of which is used, however.