Comments by "Muizz" (@muizzy) on "Jubilee" channel.

  1. What she means is that we grow up with a very clear path for monogamy. This path is usually followed (kinda the default) in that you go on a few dates, have sex, define the relationship, move in together, get married and have kids. Dare I say every polyamorous person has gone through some form of struggle with this default; some have gone through it because no such thing exists (nor could ever exist) for polyamorous relationships, and others because they just feel uncomfortable at this idea. An example of the latter: Say I am monogamous and never want to live together with my partner (even if the relationship lasts 20+ years), what then? These abnormalities are often highlighted in polyamorous relationships, thus making them seem bigger than they are for most poly people. Conversely, because most monogamous people have never had to ask these questions, these "pre-defined terms" seem smaller than they are for most mono people.
    59
  2. I echo a lot of what you feel here, but I have to say that for me polyamory is not just about trying to have more partners but having the agency to do so. That said, I wholly believe you can be in one relationship and polyamorous, without having the desire to look for more.
    34
  3. But you should bend and change your standards to become happier yourself. The way she talks screams out to me that she's trying to find prince charming on a white horse and is romantically immature.
    29
  4.  @sevvens777  Funny is highly subjective. The comment makes total sense in her world, where she communicates in an autistic way, so people who make jokes in that same language are inherently more funny.
    20
  5. You can't, and that's not what's being done here. They're merely using it to point out that love is not exclusive. Or how it's more often used: Just because you want another kid (partner) does not mean you're missing something in the one you have.
    17
  6. "If you truly love someone, you wouldn't feel the need to go out and be with someone else" I don't want to delve too deeply in to your comment (should really go to bed..) but I did feel the need to point out how this sentence imposes your ideals on to someone else. In specific, you're telling someone else how their brains should work saying something along the same lines as "if your favourite colour is red, you wouldn't want any other colours in your closet"
    11
  7. Actually, according to the definition, monogamy is being with one person forever and never another. Culturally this has changed to the original definition of serial-monogamy which is being with one person at a time, and the serial-monogamy term changed to the same except in rapid succession. I'm aware of the definitions of the words, but I'm not quite sure how they are relevant here?
    9
  8. So sad to hear this Gabi... If you think some form of polyamory might be for you, you'll probably really enjoy reading the book "more than two" which delves in to polyamory. It is okay to be (very) controlling, you're already miles ahead because you know this about yourself! The most important thing is to open dialogue and keep talking. If you do that, even very controlling people can have very happy and fruitful open relationships. PS: Be aware that it is not your job to protect others from hurt. If you treat people with dignity, respect and honesty you're doing all you need to. Anything else will often only prolong the pain.
    2
  9. UnaisiFromFiji I totally feel like you're paraphrasing westworld here :P But I will gladly argue against this point. When I was a child, I wanted to live in a house made out of candy, but now, I'd rather not. Bending your standards and changing your wishes does not mean not staying true to yourself (I still LOVE candy!) it just means you're able to change perspective. In fact, I don't know about you, but when I think back to my personality 2 years back, I hardly recognise myself. I change all the time, and my values change with me. I don't think there's something wrong, or indeed untrue to myself about that. Of course it's a free world, and everyone has the right to want whatever they desire. But what people want isn't always what makes them happy or what they need. Of course that doesn't mean they don't have the right to want it; but it does mean that peoples wants should be open to thoughtful critique (otherwise known as well-meaning advice).
    2
  10. MANI PINK monogamy is not having the option to do so if you so desire.
    2
  11. I think you're on very slippery ice when you have any sentence of the form "X is just Y"; it is bound to oversimplify the relation you're trying to establish. For example, I have been committed to the same partner for 6 years and haven't had any secondary relationships, yet strongly identify as poly. Why? Because I value my agency to the point where I feel uncomfortable in any setting where my actions are (implicitly) restricted. You do note a few statements in this discussion that I would like to also touch on: "sex should just be a perk in a relationship": I'm not fully sure how to interpret this, but what jumps out about this comment to me is the phrasing "should just be"; why should is be that way? Is there any physical reason for this, or is it something mental? If it is something mental, why would it be universal? This phrasing often (though not always) indicates that the exclaimer hasn't spent their time thinking about the implications and hence assumes the status quo. "And if it’s loving multiple people, then yes, being polyamorous is not wanting to commit.": I have to assume you mean romantic love here, because I find it hard to grasp that this includes the love one feels for friends. This sentence points to a very narrow definition of commit though, so I want to highlight this. If you mean commit as "committing to exactly one person", then you are right (though it would be rather crudely phrased). However, the way most people read the word commit is as "committing to a relationship", in which case there are a plethora of cases where people commit long term in poly relationships, marrying is not out of the ordinary, nor is having kids. If neither of those are clear commitments to a relationship, then nothing could be.
    2
  12. Thanks for your insightful commentary, I gained a lot of new insight from this...
    1
  13. This is like saying that reading isn't important because there are illiterate people. You are forgetting 2 things here: 1) These are the opinions of individuals concerning their own lives and experiences; 2) Asexuality is an edge case, not the norm. (When you say "everyone can read" you don't aim at babies, you don't aim at wolfchildren or illiterates, you're saying that when you meet someone on the street, you can make a safe bet that they're able to read.)
    1
  14. You have more control over your feelings than you might think. Just like one can choose to be confident, naive or caring, one can also choose not to live in fear. That is to say, to step above the fear whenever it arises, and that leads to less fear overal.
    1
  15. @Kynslie This is true, but there are plenty of relationships broken up because one wants 3 kids and the other wants 1.
    1
  16. Please elaborate on how you get to this conclusion.
    1
  17. Marriage only exists in modern society as well, not in prior civilisations. That said, for most of the past 2000 years, having multiple marriages was accepted and respected. Then again, there is a debate to be had on how much we can draw from historic events seeing as spousal rape was legal in the US up until 30 years ago.
    1
  18. If this logic were to hold, it would hold for every animal, but only a few animals (a vast minority) actually are monogamous.
    1
  19. I could've watched this for hours..
    1