Great post. A lot of dating and relationship writing is overconfident bullshit so kudos to your epistemological humility.
I was reminded of this excellent point from August Lamm:
"But in the ensuing exchange, it became clear to me that he was one of those modern lovers who, in performing sexual freedom and insisting upon the same in others, ends up more sexually constrained and convoluted than any of us normies, who can simply act upon our desires without first codifying and notarizing them in acronym-studded manifestos."
As an open-minded but generally monogamously-inclined dude, I’ve been thinking about this issue a lot the past few months, and I think you hit the nail on the head. I’ve reached some of the same conclusions, and it’s very reassuring hearing them articulated by somebody with personal experience in the subject.
Fascinating and especially robust analysis. As far as I can tell, most of the articles and studies relating to polyamory tend to focus on young people, generally without children. Who has children and what parenting looks like in polyamorous relationships seems very complicated. Who has parental rights and responsibilities? What happens when new partners come and go? Whose grandparents are involved? Likewise, polyamory among older people is almost never mentioned. A growing proportion of divorces today are among older (50+) couple, usually initiated by women. Is polyamory increasing as well? What does polyamory look like when members get ill, can no longer engage in certain forms of sex or simply lose interest? As unpartnered group living increases, would that give rise to more expanded forms of polyamory? By 70, the proportion of women to men begins to change rapidly. What if any impact does that have?
Many older couples today, usually involving divorced or widowed individuals, prefer the living alone together form of relationship if finances allow. I could see that as potentially increasing the potential for polyamory although it also may ease the stress of monogamy.
Fantastic post! Even poly me learned several things, which makes sense as I've only been in the scene for half as long as you. Thanks for teaching us young'uns :)
Thank you! I get the sense that you're deeper in the Bay poly culture than I ever was X'D.
I think there's a lot of types of nonmonogamy though. Some people consider having exes who are important friends to be nonmonogamy, and like...that's table stakes for me. \o/
Feel free to shoot me opinions/insights for a follow up! (which I will definitely do based on the amount of feedback I'm getting from this)
I’ve never heard of a ‘polycule’ actually trying to do anything socially or emotionally interesting, much less successfully. Lord help anyone trying to raise a household through that shit.
Really they all don’t sound like ‘love’ at all: but rather the earliest dating phase endlessly leapfrogging from one person to the next.
Good esssay. You covered (almost) all the bases. You missed the part about *why* monogamy is a patriarchially socially enforced phenomena. The truth is that polygynous societies are inherently less stable. While it may have worked when we were hunter-gatherers, once we coalesced into large societies, polygyny tends to result in an accumulation of frustrated and unpaired young men at the margins. Eventually enough of them pick up weapons and exert their will by force. This is why Muslim societies are still so inherently unstable, and it is partially why Western Christian countries largely took over the globe. Ensuring sexual access to the largest numbers of your males increases productivity and obedience to authority. It's evolution on a societal (vs individual) scale.
What this means is that if our society embraces polyamory/polygyny, we run the risk of an inherent weakness and instability that could eventually result in collapse and takeover by another power that still values patriarchal views on sexual access. Do you value Western-style peace, freedom and order? Do you not want your sister and daughter gang-raped by roving bands of third-world savages? Then it probably behooves you to have ay least *some* focus on shaping sexual and parental relationships in the interest of your own civilization vs your own in-the-moment pleasures. What makes you feel good in the moment is all well and good until it is extrapolates out on all of civilization. The Romans enjoyed a big boost in polyamory towards the end, too. It was all fun and games until the music stopped and the savages busted through the gates.
I forgot to add that "Patriarchy" is a mechanism to control *male* sexuality, not female. Controlling female sexual behavior is incidental to controlling male sexual behavior. It's all about controlling men and it always has been, for very good reasons.
Great post. A lot of dating and relationship writing is overconfident bullshit so kudos to your epistemological humility.
I was reminded of this excellent point from August Lamm:
"But in the ensuing exchange, it became clear to me that he was one of those modern lovers who, in performing sexual freedom and insisting upon the same in others, ends up more sexually constrained and convoluted than any of us normies, who can simply act upon our desires without first codifying and notarizing them in acronym-studded manifestos."
(source: https://augustlamm.substack.com/p/casual-dating)
As an open-minded but generally monogamously-inclined dude, I’ve been thinking about this issue a lot the past few months, and I think you hit the nail on the head. I’ve reached some of the same conclusions, and it’s very reassuring hearing them articulated by somebody with personal experience in the subject.
Fascinating and especially robust analysis. As far as I can tell, most of the articles and studies relating to polyamory tend to focus on young people, generally without children. Who has children and what parenting looks like in polyamorous relationships seems very complicated. Who has parental rights and responsibilities? What happens when new partners come and go? Whose grandparents are involved? Likewise, polyamory among older people is almost never mentioned. A growing proportion of divorces today are among older (50+) couple, usually initiated by women. Is polyamory increasing as well? What does polyamory look like when members get ill, can no longer engage in certain forms of sex or simply lose interest? As unpartnered group living increases, would that give rise to more expanded forms of polyamory? By 70, the proportion of women to men begins to change rapidly. What if any impact does that have?
Many older couples today, usually involving divorced or widowed individuals, prefer the living alone together form of relationship if finances allow. I could see that as potentially increasing the potential for polyamory although it also may ease the stress of monogamy.
Thanks again for this thought-provoking piece.
Fantastic post! Even poly me learned several things, which makes sense as I've only been in the scene for half as long as you. Thanks for teaching us young'uns :)
Thank you! I get the sense that you're deeper in the Bay poly culture than I ever was X'D.
I think there's a lot of types of nonmonogamy though. Some people consider having exes who are important friends to be nonmonogamy, and like...that's table stakes for me. \o/
Feel free to shoot me opinions/insights for a follow up! (which I will definitely do based on the amount of feedback I'm getting from this)
I’ve never heard of a ‘polycule’ actually trying to do anything socially or emotionally interesting, much less successfully. Lord help anyone trying to raise a household through that shit.
Really they all don’t sound like ‘love’ at all: but rather the earliest dating phase endlessly leapfrogging from one person to the next.
‘Love’ might not be finite but attention and lifestyles are
Good esssay. You covered (almost) all the bases. You missed the part about *why* monogamy is a patriarchially socially enforced phenomena. The truth is that polygynous societies are inherently less stable. While it may have worked when we were hunter-gatherers, once we coalesced into large societies, polygyny tends to result in an accumulation of frustrated and unpaired young men at the margins. Eventually enough of them pick up weapons and exert their will by force. This is why Muslim societies are still so inherently unstable, and it is partially why Western Christian countries largely took over the globe. Ensuring sexual access to the largest numbers of your males increases productivity and obedience to authority. It's evolution on a societal (vs individual) scale.
What this means is that if our society embraces polyamory/polygyny, we run the risk of an inherent weakness and instability that could eventually result in collapse and takeover by another power that still values patriarchal views on sexual access. Do you value Western-style peace, freedom and order? Do you not want your sister and daughter gang-raped by roving bands of third-world savages? Then it probably behooves you to have ay least *some* focus on shaping sexual and parental relationships in the interest of your own civilization vs your own in-the-moment pleasures. What makes you feel good in the moment is all well and good until it is extrapolates out on all of civilization. The Romans enjoyed a big boost in polyamory towards the end, too. It was all fun and games until the music stopped and the savages busted through the gates.
I forgot to add that "Patriarchy" is a mechanism to control *male* sexuality, not female. Controlling female sexual behavior is incidental to controlling male sexual behavior. It's all about controlling men and it always has been, for very good reasons.