[LMB] Monogamy, actuality

Joel Polowin jpolowin at hotmail.com
Sat Jun 30 05:24:52 BST 2018


pouncer at aol.com wrote:

> It is probably not useful to gripe about the cost of gasoline and tires and
> air-bag recalls for my current car as I contemplate the beauties of a 
> GPS-enabled, AI-driven, lithium-battery, two-passenger scaled-up "drone".
> 
> There are actual cars on the market, and there is a range of features and
> drawbacks within the market.  Good cars and bad cars and lemons you 
> might have to pay to be rid of. Picking out a good car -- suitable to one's
> own needs and temperament and budget -- is a challenge.  And it's an on
> going series of smaller challenges to keep the car going.   In general, having a 
> car tends to be a benefit to the owner-operator.  
> 
> I suspect long-surviving institutions like monogamy are similar to long
> used contraptions like the automobile.

I am having trouble parsing this message as anything but an assertion
that poly is to monogamy as a lightflyer is to a current automobile.
And I really don't think that's the case.  A lightflyer is so much
better than a current automobile that if they were equally available,
I can't imagine that anyone would use an automobile except historical
recreationists (e.g. the Society for Creatively Anachronistic
Automotives).  Whereas I think that a moderate fraction of people
would prefer monogamy even if there was no social stigma attached to
any form of (consensual) preference along any of the axes of sexual
orientation.  Some people just don't feel a significant attraction
to more than one partner.  Some feel an attraction, but wouldn't be
comfortable with their partners having other partners, so live within
the constraints of fairness.  (I have occasionally encountered the
assertion that poly means no jealousy, and I have to wonder what species
they're referring to.  One of these people, an old old acquaintance,
has certainly caused more than her share of second-hand relationship
damage.)  Some feel an attraction, but find that *one* relationship
is complicated enough to do well, and don't want to mess it up.

Joel


More information about the Lois-Bujold mailing list