Let’s talk a little about “Polyamory” and also other things of false human evolution, which instead, to me, seem like steps towards relegation, involution.

I happened to have this video on instagram, with a person talking about the concept of polyamory, and the advantages of him.

Then “polyamory”, a new term to define polygamy?

By saying that as we love children (if there are more than one), in the “same way”, friends too, we can do the same thing with other types of relationships as well.

Secondly, he says that monogamy would be unnatural, as the animals mate with several females / males.

This reasoning has several inaccuracies, and blatant ignorance.

Pompous terms for (in her opinion) being right and impressing people, but …

We start from different concepts: first of all it is true that we love friends and family in the same way (actually different, by force of circumstances), but it is clear that even by pure instinct, we love more than one person in our life.

Certainly, if this is influenced by our culture rather than nature, it is MUCH MORE complex than saying that we are like animals, that it is “unnatural”.

It is well taken explained: men have a culture, a past, a way of thinking that is different from a wild animal, therefore, the way of developing thought is also different, so you absolutely cannot compare man to the being of the forest. / forest / jungle.

Another inaccuracy: even if SOME species of animals / insects do mate with multiple creatures, there are also moments of jealousy and monogamy IN NATURE.

Even animals are jealous of their mates: not some accept GOOD GRADE that someone mates with her.

Among other things, very negative things also happen among animals of this kind, such as sexual violence: so following the reasoning of this person, would it also be “natural” if one forcibly mates? Huh?

This is the strongest evidence that those who say certain things are not well informed, talking about important topics in a GRAVELY superficial and not very cultured way.

By approaching a topic in a falsely open minded way you have exposed some very serious shortcomings.

As if that weren’t enough, you want to impose your point of view on others, believing yours is the fairest.

I ask you a question: what if someone thinks otherwise? And if someone would be against this “Polyamory”, what would you do?

You preach freedom but you are the first to deny it, because in your opinion we would be more “free”, instead it is the opposite: from one prison you pass to another, imposing other ways of thinking, it is always the same thing: you are not free, you have created other chains.

Among other things, if you are in “polyamory”, you have, in fact, more than one by binding yourself not so much sentimentally to more people, but yourself, effectively losing identity and freedom, denying the main thing that allows us to have the freedom to thought and individual: that is, if you tie yourself to more people you also tie yourself to their times, ways of doing things and “whims”.

So precisely, more chains.

As the book I am reading says: “the courage to be free”, freedom requires solitude and commitment. And as he adds: instead of making an effort to be free, many people are waiting for someone to “cry” to, then someone to decide for them, and it seems to me that this is exactly what you do.

As I said: another prison.

Lack of responsibility towards others and oneself, this is the truth and it is the biggest lie of this new stuff that you “young people of today” have invented, and you don’t even realize it.

But the fault is not yours, but the society that is slowly transforming you in a way that is unable to make you take sides, in a constant uncertainty of the future, in which you are preferring to find loopholes, rather than face problems.

I’m sorry.

But well, try to learn better and … grow up a little.