Ray's Opinion On Polyamory

[Cloudhands]

I am by no means saying monogamy is wrong, I'm moreso emphasizing that polyamory isn't wrong and can be quite a therapeutic and euphoric lifestyle if done right

 

[kyle]

I think he means 'dutiful obligation' can be motivated by joy and affection, etc. and the atmosphere of relationships tend to reflect its institutions, I think is what he means by the sense of reality moving toward coherence.

He didn't really give his opinion on polyamory. He seemed to be more generalized take which he often seems to do with pointed questions of this sort. After-all, a "polyamourous" relationship need not be based on love, joy or any of that and can very well be authoritarian.

So whether or not you think that will lead to a more pleasant relationship, he seemed to say it affects things "everywhere."

 

[sladerunner69]

I think anything other than serial monogamy is degrading.

RP is saying artificial scarcity is imposed in our culture.

Polyamory implies scarcity of women, polygyny implies scarcity of men, regular marriage implies scarcity of both (the way it's done today in the sense of "settling down", in the past in rich societies marriage was something greater and not related to scarcity or property mentality).

Yes I agree, the institution of marriage is rooted in spiritual meaning, not a utilitarian one.

 

[Jib]

"Our society is committed to creating artificial scarcity to maintain authoritarian relationships everywhere, especially sexual, interpersonal, reproductive relations. The basic sense of reality tends toward coherence, so one's sense of dutiful conforming affects the sense of erotic sensuality. The organism's well being is limited by all of the anti-empathic, exploitative institutions we interact with."

The principle is what Ray is talking about, not whether polyamory or monogamy or whatever is right or wrong. There is no answer to that.

"Dutiful conforming" could as much be about polyamory as monogamy. I wouldn't worry about the specifics of which is 'right' or 'wrong.' Focus on the principle. The real question is: do you yourself believe in scarcity? And do you yourself believe in the idea of 'dutiful conforming' to anything? Asking yourself these questions will yield much more interesting results than speculating about what someone else's thoughts on a particular topic are.

 

[aguineapig]

Most of the young people I know doing polyamory are using it to get and stay constantly high on their own endogenous drugs.

I think the number who practice it more sensibly, probably meaning in older age and with more emotional intelligence is slightly more interesting, but in the young crowd it's often a way to intellectualize/put lipstick on promiscuity.

 

[Cayennepepper]

I think anything other than serial monogamy is degrading.

RP is saying artificial scarcity is imposed in our culture.

Polyamory implies scarcity of women, polygyny implies scarcity of men, regular marriage implies scarcity of both (the way it's done today in the sense of "settling down", in the past in rich societies marriage was something greater and not related to scarcity or property mentality).

I would argue that polyamory only appears in instances of great abundance.
Humans are K selective species so they generally only have a single child at a time and need a support system in order to raise that child. The only time in which it would be beneficial to have multiple mates is when there is abundant resources. In this case the additional partners could be instrumntal in caring for the children or collecting food.
Our system enforces the idea of scarcity and the ideas of monogamy because there is too much competition.
I would argue that for some cultures marriage was about scarcity. Doweries were used to ensure that a daughter was given a home with ample resources or in an attempt to create some kind of relationship. Often times the dowery was literally paying for them to take the burden of their daughter.

Why do you think only serial monogamy is ethical?

 

[managing]

I think that we are missing the core principle of what Ray stated (which was beautifully stated): "artificial scarcity".

What is scarce? Make a list of actual things and you will be wrong. Not actual things like gold but things that matter independent of symbols and meanings. Love, nourishment, happiness, labor, etc. For eons authorities have pretended that those are scarce and have convinced everybody else that they are. Why? So that they may wield them. No, not to get laid more, eat more food, or drive fancy cars (those are side effects). No, in order to . . . have authority. Gender-wise, this translates into control of women's bodies. Turn them into commodities. I have the authority to command the finest women to bear my progeny. To prohibit those who threaten my authority from reproducing. To prohibit activities that undermine my authority (like casual sex, homosexuality, etc).

It doesn't matter if someone is attractive (see Weinstein, Harvey). And none of this negates any kind of willful monogamy. But the core of this is authoritarianism. "Scarcity" invites control. Which creates authority. Which replicates itself structurally throughout the system and works its way into all of the nooks and crannies.

 

[GreekDemiGod]

Polyamory is one of the most degenerate aspects of Western culture, a sign of the downfall, cultural and moral decay. Giving women unlimited sexual freedom and promoting casual sex is one of the biggest mistakes ever

 

[S-VV]

Polyamory is one of the most degenerate aspects of Western culture, a sign of the downfall, cultural and moral decay. Giving women unlimited sexual freedom and promoting casual sex is one of the biggest mistakes ever

Hey man, I think you dropped your phone

 

[managing]

Polyamory is one of the most degenerate aspects of Western culture, a sign of the downfall, cultural and moral decay. Giving women unlimited sexual freedom and promoting casual sex is one of the biggest mistakes ever

How do you reconcile your rigid authoritarianism with Ray's anti-authoritarian views when you come here every day?

 

[LUH 3417]

Polyamory is one of the most degenerate aspects of Western culture, a sign of the downfall, cultural and moral decay. Giving women unlimited sexual freedom and promoting casual sex is one of the biggest mistakes ever

Can you even get a boner

 

[GreekDemiGod]

@managing All I know is that the whole reason these rules were created, is to keep female hypergamy in check, and create a stable society. Monogamy did that to an extent. It kept the majority of men sane and having something to strive for. Now it's all going downhill. Destruction of marriage, rise of incels. Instagram and Tinder are at the forefront of society's downfall.
Since looks is by far the biggest determinant of dating success. This is a trait that you cannot change essentially.
I do not believe Ray was redpilled on evolutionary psychology and sexual dynamics.

 

[Zigzag]

Hypergamous behaviour is totally against any idea of a stable society. Nature doesn't care about it, all it wants is that only the fittest procreate. @GreekDemiGod I feel like it might be too much for some of the users here.

 

[Inaut]

Kinda off topic here but does Ray Peat believe in a sort of Darwinian evolution model?

Disregard. I found my answer

 

[managing]

Kinda off topic here but does Ray Peat believe in a sort of Darwinian evolution model?

Disregard. I found my answer

Well, don't leave us hanging . . .

 

[BingDing]

I think that we are missing the core principle of what Ray stated (which was beautifully stated): "artificial scarcity".

What is scarce? Make a list of actual things and you will be wrong. Not actual things like gold but things that matter independent of symbols and meanings. Love, nourishment, happiness, labor, etc. For eons authorities have pretended that those are scarce and have convinced everybody else that they are. Why? So that they may wield them. No, not to get laid more, eat more food, or drive fancy cars (those are side effects). No, in order to . . . have authority. Gender-wise, this translates into control of women's bodies. Turn them into commodities. I have the authority to command the finest women to bear my progeny. To prohibit those who threaten my authority from reproducing. To prohibit activities that undermine my authority (like casual sex, homosexuality, etc).

It doesn't matter if someone is attractive (see Weinstein, Harvey). And none of this negates any kind of willful monogamy. But the core of this is authoritarianism. "Scarcity" invites control. Which creates authority. Which replicates itself structurally throughout the system and works its way into all of the nooks and crannies.

That is spot on, @managing From what I've read the earliest models of human society were the "big man" idea, where a person (man) acquired an abundance of some resource and gave it to others, creating a debt to the big man. The debt evolved into a negotiable instrument with the implication that the big man could dictate future terms, i. e. had authority over others. This evolved into civil societies, then city states, and then priests, kings, and countries. It was all about power and authority.

I understood RP's answer immediately and was encouraged by it. Like I saw a rat climbing out of the water and thought maybe I can do it, too!

BD

 

[Cayennepepper]

That is spot on, @managing From what I've read the earliest models of human society were the "big man" idea, where a person (man) acquired an abundance of some resource and gave it to others, creating a debt to the big man. The debt evolved into a negotiable instrument with the implication that the big man could dictate future terms, i. e. had authority over others. This evolved into civil societies, then city states, and then priests, kings, and countries. It was all about power and authority.

I understood RP's answer immediately and was encouraged by it. Like I saw a rat climbing out of the water and thought maybe I can do it, too!

BD

Bro BingDing, your interpretation was exactly as mine was. Monogamy is okay as long as it isnt driven by the necessity of being monogomous. Aka if it happens organically its awesome, but if you do it out of fear of lacking resources, fear of being alone, fear pf being weak etc then it will not give the organism a creative sense of love and happiness. The idea that one kind of dating is good and another is bad is authoritative. You can be happy under any kind of relationship as long as its based on love. Im personally polyamorous and i dont have much more sex than someone who isnt, and i appreciate the variation in people im interacting with on an emotional and intimate level

 

[Jessie]

Very interesting. Personally I seek to avoid sexual confrontations. For one, I don't really have a nesting instinct. Increased exposure to sex means higher probability of finally reproducing, and reproducing means higher responsibility on my behalf. I like being solely responsible for myself, and no one else. This isn't including all the disastrous stuff like alimony and child support that many people get themselves entangled in.

But secondly, and perhaps even more importantly, romance and love are symbols of cultures that are indoctrinated usually by some sort of religious morals. In the words of the great German philosopher Max Stirner, love and romance are nothing but "spooky behavior." Typically these "emotions" are created by our own psyche to mask the fear of loneliness. All this being said, I definitely agree from a evolutionary standpoint that polyamory is encouraged o increase the chances of successfully passing on your genetics.

 

[postman]

Like most communist utopian ideals it doesn't work with a population greater than 100. Also the scarcity of resources is not artificial, it's very real. The gynocentric idea that men should just supply all the needs for all women and children (through taxes for example) without expecting anything in return is ridiculous. I also think it's a bit ridiculous to take relationship/family advice from a man who never had children and thus never had to deal with the potential fallout of irresponsible relationships. The only reason people can be promiscous to begin with is because of modern inventions like reliable anti-contraceptives. If we go back in history even just 150 years or so when these tools weren't commonly available, and resources were even more scarce, there was of course, logically, a very conservative outlook on these things. Children growing up without father is one of the best predictors of crime and misery.

well, if you are unattractive you better have a negative view on polyamory, and if you are attractive, you might benefit from a positive view on it (in todays society)

Have you seen polyamourous couples? It's usually 3 ugly soyboys and one obese woman. But what you're saying is true for promiscuity in general, not polyamory, which is being in a (semi)comitted relationship with multiple people.

 

[Sulcuscentralis]

from a biological view, men are much larger than women, and the bigger disparity between the body size of the sexes, the less monogamous.

On the other hand, women have hidden ovulation for a reason. And we have pair bonding strongly. So I think those are all biological and not simply constructs of an oppressive culture, as Dr. Peat seems to think.

Also men have large penises relative to body mass, in comparison to other animals, and small testicles. Penis size is probably there for competition purposes (Dr. Peat doesn't like competition and thinks that nature isn't competitive) with other men's sperm, but small testicles indicate the opposite.

So it is quite confusing and nobody really knows anything.

Edited to add: It is evident to me that men and women are built for sexual pleasure to be fundamental to our lives and our wellbeing. It isn't for reproduction solely, it is for our pleasure and it is one of the great wonderful things about life and I think Dr. Peat does appreciate this!

Gotta disagree with Peat on this too. Also women today are way less happy than in the past even though they are "sexually liberated". If Peat was right women who have lot's of partners would be more happy, but it's the opposite.