u/Secure_Feature2253

For the most part, cis women are the ones who carry babies and provide the majority of childcare for infants. Breastfeeding and the actual act of conception and carrying a baby who is bonding with you for at least half of that time is what mostly decides that. Babies come out recognising the (smell and voice of the) person who carried them.

Women are also oppressed in society. The patriarchy blah blah, wage gaps, all that stuff. They lose money by having babies. They lose (at least some of their) independent financial security by having babies. They are quite reliant on others to help them sustain that security while they focus on baby rearing and recovering from childbirth.

Kids cost a lot of money and time and energy. I come from a culture where we raise our kids in extended families, but you know, they're still your kids and it's mostly on you. As it should be. That is why a solid relationship with someone who is as invested as you is the main part of your team. Others help, yes, and they love, but if their path happens to lead them miles from you, then they go and love from afar.

There's a definite opposition in some forms of ENM about "hierarchy", and someone setting up themselves to privilege or prioritise one relationship over others. Yet women might need that security in order to feel like having a child is safe. .

Maybe the more we encourage people not to have this reliance on a solid network of people with shared priorities, the lower the birth rate will become in the West. Women won't feel safe or supported enough to risk their security and put a baby in an insecure situation.

The way some people speak about RA overall, it simply could not be compatible with co-parents. Even non-romantic co-parents. Why? Because as much as you say that it's the kid coming first, in healthy co-parenting relationships, you are also having to step up for them on occasion. Often, at times. You help them be the best parent they can be in various ways. If we are going to call that kind of thing a hierarchy, then co-parenting creates a hierarchy. The people I see most commonly skip out on that part of co-parenting are often known as Deadbeat Dads. Because it's usually men and a woman is making up for his lack of commitment.

So is it that? Parents can't be RA? Good parents can't?

So I got into a conversation on my last thread and it gives an example of the kind of "theory" that is discussed on here and then takes on a whole new life of it's own as the menbership absorb it as fact. In this case, the topic was Don't Ask, Don't Tell relationships.

This started when someone claimed that such a relationship style can never be ethical. Why? I'll give you some snippets of their reasoning:

1. "To someone who says "sure why not if my partner and I agree?" I would say...

"The arrogance is almost impressive. You think that as long as two people in a room nod their heads the rest of the world just stops existing? It is a nice little bubble you have built but bubbles have a habit of bursting.

"Let us look at the best case for this silence. You call it privacy. You call it keeping things clean. It is the coward way out. You are trying to have the thrill of something new without the spine to handle the fallout."

2. "You are confusing compliance with ethics. Just because everyone involved agrees to stay in the dark does not mean the system is ethical; it just means everyone has agreed to the same structural flaw. You are arguing for a "right to be lied to," but you cannot build a foundation on a void."

3. "Your response doesn't make this policy ethical because it still relies on a lie. You can call it a limitation or say you are being upfront, but the second you treat a human being like a secret you've walked away from ethics. You are just looking for people with low standards so your home life stays undisturbed."

4. "By choosing DADT, you aren't respecting a partner's wishes; you are exploiting their fear of the truth. You are building a relationship where the "peace" only exists because you have successfully suppressed the data. If the foundation of your connection is the absence of reality, you aren't in a partnership. You are in a controlled environment."

These are great examples of someone who believes that everyone who is polyamorous (and maybe even ENM) has the same needs from their prospective partners, and therefore denying someone something they see as a core need of every poly/ENM person would be inherently unethical. This is the kind of "group think" that fora can encourage and results in the membership forgetting that their "community" understanding of these concepts is not factual, or universal.

When you then have moderators who enforce these beliefs by shutting down any debate about their accuracy, you get an echo chamber. In a community where the "leaders" did not want an echo chamber, speaking with this type of assurance of your correctness would be discouraged.

Remember guys, not all ENM is polyamory, and polyamory only means "multiple intimate relationships that everyone involved is aware of", anyway. It doesn't say they must know a certain amount, or names, or know exactly when you are with another partner or how much a partner has to know about other relationships for it to still count as "poly".

There are obviously lots of poly people in this group. But it is an ENM group. On nearly every post, you get poly people inserting their rules and regulations from r/polyamory and talking as if these are the pillars of all ENM.

Many of us have open relationships where ongoing romantic commitment, partner type labels and shared futures just aren't on the cards. That is very different to seeking partners where you make it clear that long term romantic commitment and/or escalation is a possibility or even intention. ​

The other thing is that people started out wanting something more "open", but maybe mistakenly used the term "poly" when it is clear that isn't what they wanted at all because they clearly want restrictions which would inhibit a romantic connection. That doesn't mean they are poly, it means someone needs to tell them to use a different term to aid communication. It doesnt mean you start telling them they have to abide by the Poly Bible written by moderators of a online forum.

One thing you have to realise about relationship forums is that their norms are formed by the membership. A lot of poly forums are highly populated by women seeking long term connections with partnered men. Therefore, a lot of what is deemed ethical in those spaces is biased towards a woman who wants to be an equal partner to someone (usually a man) who already has an established relationship and commitments around that.

The membership of these groups have changed the definition of polyamory to exclude some forms of it that they do not agree with. All polyamory has ever meant is that a person has multiple partners and everyone knows about each other or the existence of other partners. It has never meant "but it cant be couples dating someone" or "but each relationship must be equal".

Honestly, if you aren't up for multiple relationships with full romantic commitment over the long term and probably escalation as well, then don't use "poly" to describe your relationship type. It's much easier to have an "open" relationship with fuzzy boundaries then a "poly" relationship where you don't follow every single rule that places like r/polyamory insist on for you to be ethical.