Hacker News Reader

Comment by SCAQTony | Hacker News Reader

I thought this issue was settled in the late sixties and seventies. As "hot" as threesomes sound, the result of polyamorous consequences was once considered settled when the early '80s struck. i.e., Drug-resistant STDs and the emergence of HIV. Monogamy can turn into a boring gated garden whereas a threesome is a potential vector threat if not an emotional threat as well.

View on HN

Arguably hook ups / one night stands drive STDs more and always have.

Anecdotally every poly person I know is (relatively speaking) quite diligent about STDs, getting tested way more than most, informing partners etc etc. Sometimes it seems to me like poly is actually a spreadsheet fetish with relationships on the side.

I think polyamory is more threatening to "traditional" values due to emotional risk / complexity and impact on family structure, parenting etc. One of the gnarlier problems is wealth transmission.

In many countries you are de facto with someone after just 2 or 3 years, this is already crazy, you get in a relationship with someone and a few years later you owe them half your house. Bring poly into the mix and if you a) have assets and b) cohabit then things can get messy real fast.

Very basic stuff like welfare and taxes haven't really caught up with this either yet, practical things like what do you put in the "partner's income" box on many government forms. The bureaucracy is really not set up for this.

Complexity and risk are the real things to watch out for. If everyone involved isn't emotionally stable, it can be a nightmare for other partners and children.

Any data on the ONS? It seems swingers are higher risk than the general population. Although it doesn't compare the risk of ONS to them.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27902890/

I'm not aware of any studies I find very cite-able or credible, sorry.

The risk of STDs in a closed poly relationship isn't any different than a closed monogamous relationship.

That's just false. More people equals more risk. It's evident if you imagine a 100 person polycule.

The key word of my statement is "closed". If none of your partners have an STI, and none of you are promiscuous, your risk is low.

That said: It's important to know your status, even if you're monogamous.

Polyamory requires communication and consent, a healthy polycule is no different than a healthy monogamous relationship when it comes to the expectation that your partner(s) will care for their sexual health and make decisions with you in mind. In one way you are correct, more people involved means an increased possibility that someone will be dishonest or take risks that will expose you. However, in the same way that bringing an STD into a monogamous relationship has consequences so would bringing an STD into a polyamorous relationship. You risk damaging your standing in the relationship.

Each person carries some chance of carrying an STI. Some people aren't aware of their status or may deliberately hide it. For those two probabilistic variables alone, while the absolute risk may be small, it's still at least double that of 2-people relationships. If someone is more likely to enter a 3-person relationship after leaving another 3-person relationship, you have added network effects increasing the risk. How could it be true that the risk isn't different? What have I missed?

You're assuming ceteris paribus, but that isn't a given.

People in poly relationships tend to know their status better than monogamous cohorts. Thus, even if one partner has an incurable STI, they're usually aware that they have it, and keep their viral load undetectable (which prevents transmission), so the factors round the risk down to the same very low range, despite more people involved.

Maybe on a per member basis, or theoretically. The risk in a monogamous relationship is if a member acts outside the relationship. The more people you add to a relationship, the more that risk increases.

Prep + condoms eliminates this risk.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com