Polyamory General - Polyamory drama from Facebook, Reddit, and more

These people are such failures at human communication that they have to make rules to govern it.

It's honestly sad that they don't see how sad they are.
 
Checking on Facebook, the other poly group only has about a hundred fewer members. Something about the numbers being so close makes me think that there might be some delicious cross-group drama. I'm a shit researcher, but do you think that might be worth looking into, @Smutley?
 
Lol on their giant banner, they misspelled "privilege", one of the largest and presumably most important words. There's no D in it, guys.

Edit: whoops, that may be a "trigger word". Good thing I'm not in that group.
 
Smutley said:
A quick breakdown of their rules:
  • Keep posts on topic or be banned
  • Cruising for hookups will get you banned
  • Dan Savage is banned
  • Add trigger warnings when asked or be banned
  • Telling people trigger warnings are dumb will get you a ban
  • Don't tell people you're leaving or you'll be banned
  • Don't delete anything you post if someone else replied to it
  • No seriously don't try to hook up with people or bann
  • Polyamory has "no definition", defining it gets you banned
    • But "critical analysis" of our own idea of it is encouraged
  • Something about face shots only being allowed in some threads
  • Don't randomly talk to or friend other people or you will get banned
  • Don't "stalk" others or you will get banned
  • Don't take screenshots of this group because cheaters have rights
  • Any post that doesn't meet "accessibility guidelines" will be edited or removed
  • All images HAVE to have a written description
  • All videos and audio HAVE to have a transcription
  • Misgendering people results in a ban
  • Pet names, and gender-based honorifics, result in bans too
  • Never just call someone a first name. It's full name only, or threat of ban
  • Don't use "poly" or "polya" because it may offend polynesians [archive]
  • Report any post that upsets you so moderators can swiftly ban the offending person
  • You will also get banned for...
    • persistent unexamined privlege
    • exclusion of women
    • exclusion of transgenders
    • exclusion of sex workers
    • exclusion of anyone not white
    • Grammar policing [archive]
    • Ableism
    • Fun
Click to expand...
is this a thread about Kiwi Farms?
 
Hellblazer said:
I've never before seen a community with so many rules that have nothing whatsoever to do with the focus of the group. Virtually none of this has anything even tangentially to do with polyamory. It's like they just picked a word out of a hat for the title then immediately started trying to set up a tumblr utopia inside Facebook. My brain is having a hard time fathoming how they ever thought this had any chance of being anything more than a giant clusterfuck.

Then again, 18,000 members...
Click to expand...

Why don't people leave when they realize they aren't getting sex and are basically there to feed the rotten ego of a sociopathic, retarded cripple? Can people be that stupid, or is it some Stockholm syndrome shit?

DangerousGas said:
"Flounce is a gendered word"

:lol:
Click to expand...

The male form is Flouncis and the gender-neutral form is Flouncx.
 
My favorite thing was still Kylie telling straight cis men that if we want to date him we have to get over the beard and the penis.

Kylie isn't very smart.
 
Considering the byzantine rules and regulations for simply posting on their ridiculous forum, imagine the 'negotiations' one would have to enter into if they were interested in having sex with one of these sad sacks (although, I seriously doubt that they get many, if any, offers).

No wonder these losers can't get laid; they're too busy with coming up with bullshit to post in their forum and thinking of new ways to make themselves feel more oppressed in order to score more points.

Maybe if they dropped the persecution complex, took care of themselves, and actually made an effort to get out and meet people, they might have a better outlook.
 
This was depressing to read. Not in the 'oh no, that poor kitten is missing a leg' depressing but the 'I'd go to jail for steering my car into their house' depressing. I think those goes without saying but if they all stopped policing the shit of their little group they could all focus on, you know, getting actual relationships.
 
From the "Not liking trannies" post:
Sorry - Copy.jpg
Really? You think that's the only reason people refuse to have sex with you?
 
Hypothetically, once someone has joined the group, could they scrape the list of members and put it into a database? With the recent Ashley Madison leaks, there might be interest in a site that let someone find out if their presumed-monogamous partner was actually interested enough in "open relationships" to join Polyamory Pyongyang...:ween:
 
This is the apex of delusion. The idea that one person would want to have sex with them is laughably unrealistic, but multiple people?
 
Ruin said:
This is the apex of delusion. The idea that one person would want to have sex with them is laughably unrealistic, but multiple people?
Click to expand...
Yeah, I've noticed that a lot of people who claim to have non-monogamous/experimental horizons are, in reality, just accustomed to extremely dysfunctional relationships. It's an attempt to broaden their potential dating pool without lowering their impossibly high standards (spoiler: it fails in both regards).
 
ChurchOfGodBear said:
Yeah, I've noticed that a lot of people who claim to have non-monogamous/experimental horizons are, in reality, just accustomed to extremely dysfunctional relationships. It's an attempt to broaden their potential dating pool without lowering their impossibly high standards (spoiler: it fails in both regards).
Click to expand...
If you really think about it, the difference between people who are "poly" and people who aren't is not actually anything about their sexuality. Most people who date get into tough situations where they have to choose who to go steady with or can't tell which way their feelings are going. People who aren't "poly" have feelings for multiple people simultaneously, they just deal with it differently. Maybe they watch less harem anime, or they see what it does to people when they try to divide their attention between multiple partners.

If you're not currently in a poly relationship then what does it mean to claim that you're "poly"? That, if multiple people managed to tolerate you that you're the kind of person who would handle it this way? Is that a meaningful part of someone's "identity"?
 
Papaya23 said:
If you really think about it, the difference between people who are "poly" and people who aren't is not actually anything about their sexuality. Most people who date get into tough situations where they have to choose who to go steady with or can't tell which way their feelings are going. People who aren't "poly" have feelings for multiple people simultaneously, they just deal with it differently. Maybe they watch less harem anime, or they see what it does to people when they try to divide their attention between multiple partners.

If you're not currently in a poly relationship then what does it mean to claim that you're "poly"? That, if multiple people managed to tolerate you that you're the kind of person who would handle it this way? Is that a meaningful part of someone's "identity"?
Click to expand...
Optimistically, it seems to be a way of saying you prefer to think of yourself as open to other relationships, and that you wish to find someone with the same intention. This is probably for the best, as I doubt a long-term relationship between a monogamous person and a polygamous one would be sustainable. The difference between being poly and choosing to go steady, however, is intent. With the former, you're actively seeking a "unit" of people to be with. With the latter, being with multiple people is a temporary, and in some ways undesirable, situation until you commit.

However, all that is just babbling unless you've actually been IN a dedicated polygamous relationship. It requires a lot of emotional and mental strain you wouldn't normally find in a simple two-partner setup. Providing emotional, physical, and possibly financial support for numerous partners is so taxing, a lot of experts insist it just isn't possible. (of course, a lot of experts think monogamy isn't really viable in the long term, but that's a different kettle) Regardless, if you haven't actually tried to do this, I agree, you're just finding a fancy way of saying you're keeping your options open... and you sound a lot like Chris, a virgin thinking he's an expert on sex because porn.

Disclaimer: Not poly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom