Hacker News Reader

Comment by krupan | Hacker News Reader

It's wild that we can't differentiate lust and love, committed relationship and meaningless sex. That's the main thing I get from the confusion in the article and the confusion in the comments here about what even defines polyamory. It sounds to me like who you have sex with is the main and only thing that defines a relationship? Can people that wait to have sex until marriage ever be considered polyamorous while unmarried? If a married person gets close to a second person but doesn't do anything sexual with them are they still being monogamous?

View on HN

Polyamory may literally just mean "Many loves" but I think we can all agree that we are not in a polyamorous relationship with our parents or close friends

The level of partnership doesn't have to be sex, but being real sex is the thing that most often differentiates romantic partnerships from other close relationships

> but being real sex is the thing that most often differentiates romantic partnerships from other close relationships

I don't actually agree. I think "willingness and continued intention to follow this person and live with them ever still, including the sacrifices that come along with it" tends to be something that connects more with relationships traditionally seen as romantic.

It's something that would separate a very close friendship from, for example, a "Queer Platonic Relationship", which could very arguably be romantic.

People devote themselves to their non-romantic loved ones, including parents and siblings.

Sure but the thing that matters is when you make a bond with someone who isn't a member of your family.

It can be difficult to differentiate between those, because you can have meaningless sex in a committed relationship and meaningful sex in a non-committed one. I have sex with several of my close friends because the difference between platonic love and romantic relationship is not very clear in my mind. And I've had relationships that are very close and intimate where I haven't had sex with them because while some of them have been romantic, they just haven't been physical.

> you can have meaningless sex in a committed relationship and meaningful sex in a non-committed one

no, I don't think this is true. The older I get the more I think there's real wisdom in being very careful about who you have sex with.

It will have meaning, whether you want it to or not, and it will be negative meaning like regret if you are not very careful.

Sex is extremely dangerous and it is only safe to engage in it with someone you know well and trust, and trust isn't to be given lightly. You will be at your most vulnerable with your partner, both during the act and potentially afterwards due to the hormonal effects and emotional effects as well as the potential physical consequences. "Safe sex" is a lie.

I don't think in the age of birth control that everyone needs to wait until marriage but we have gone very far in the other direction and I really wish someone had told me when I was younger that I would remember all of my partners in vivid detail, especially the ones I wish I could forget.

No, there is really no such thing as meaningless sex.

You could make the argument that there is no real meaningless sex, because oxytocin is released when having sex and oxytocin causes binding.

Then you have to define what is meaning because it’s not just hormones

For our ancestors, not being choosy about sex had very serious consequences. (It still might.) It’s “wild” to you that 3 million years of evolution is working as intended?

I assume you are talking about our Hunter-gatherer ancestors based on the timeframe, but I'm not sure what you mean by serious consequences. Could you expand on that a bit?

I suspect monogamy as we know it is a response to the invention of agriculture, and we have closer relatives (the bonobos) who have sex much more freely than some of our other closer relatives.

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms11219

EDIT: Whoops I misread the abstract of the article, that doesn’t really give evidence towards my claim. However STDs did exist and I’m assuming people knew about them. Pregnancy itself would be a deterrent

For our female ancestors, yes. For our male ancestors, less so.

3 million? You may have missed some classes in school

Believe it or not evolution did not start with Homo Sapiens!

>lust and love, committed relationship and meaningless sex

Just to complicate, some more types of love to add into the mix: limerence and agape.

Many would argue that there is no such thing as meaningless sex.

I’m of the opinion that arguing for the existence of such thing is naive and idiotic.

It depends how you define meaningful and meaningless which is highly subjective - so it’s neither naive nor idiotic to be able to have meaningless sex - maybe it’s just not something you feel

There are powers at play in this world that don't care about one's feelings.

If it's all meaningful, then it has no meaning.

Meaning comes from distinction, the opposite of undifferentiated sex.

Meaning, particularly in this context, can also come from consequences

I think it depends on what we consider "meaningless".

Is it "meaningless" that I hang out with friends on a Friday night? We didn't really accomplish anything except for possibly growing our relationships.

I think when myself and many people say we have "meaningless" sex it just means that beyond that particular moment, it doesn't have any other purpose. (beyond maybe its with a friend and it does the same as going out for drinks and just grows a relationship).

It was fun in the moment, but thats it. It is the same as going out for drinks, playing a game, or any other activity that I engage with friends with. Of course it's not truly "meaningless" or we wouldn't be doing it since we wouldn't be enjoying it. But it doesn't have to go deeper than that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com