Everyone I know that's polyamorous, including myself, is lower to middle income and the ones that have kids are fairly unanimously wanting larger family groups to raise their kids and support...
Everyone I know that's polyamorous, including myself, is lower to middle income and the ones that have kids are fairly unanimously wanting larger family groups to raise their kids and support their households. They're definitely not libertarian minded.
Those folks exist too, but it depends where on the ENM scale they fall. Some folks are more looking for the kink scene and hook-ups/play parties for sure. But the ones I know with kids who...
Those folks exist too, but it depends where on the ENM scale they fall. Some folks are more looking for the kink scene and hook-ups/play parties for sure. But the ones I know with kids who actually last past the "oh let's open up the relationship" trial period are generally wanting to actually have long term familial romantic relationships. Experience is just anecdotal of course.
It certainly doesn't require one to be wealthy and have babysitters all the time. Time is a huge limiting factor though.
I have non polyamorous friends regularly "joke" about a commune where all of our friends could live. It's a genuine desire just not practical for any of us at the moment.
I have non polyamorous friends regularly "joke" about a commune where all of our friends could live. It's a genuine desire just not practical for any of us at the moment.
Oh, dude, I totally want to live in a commune and it's not because of the sexual aspect for sure. In all honesty I think humans are supposed to live in small tight knit, multigenerational...
Oh, dude, I totally want to live in a commune and it's not because of the sexual aspect for sure. In all honesty I think humans are supposed to live in small tight knit, multigenerational communities, just that "work prospects" and starvation wages are driving us apart.
Agreed. Even as a huge introvert. And it's unrelated to my polyamory, or at most comes from the same place my polyamory does. My desire to connect with others and my different boundaries and...
Agreed. Even as a huge introvert. And it's unrelated to my polyamory, or at most comes from the same place my polyamory does. My desire to connect with others and my different boundaries and comfort level with those relationships than most monogamous folks
But yeah, sex wasn't really a reason at all. (it's also not the reason for polyamory as a general rule)
But which parts of the polycule will be left behind when their ties to their current location are stronger than their ties to the people who're willing to up stakes and go somewhere that land's...
But which parts of the polycule will be left behind when their ties to their current location are stronger than their ties to the people who're willing to up stakes and go somewhere that land's cheap enough? It's the dream, but it's hard unless everyone's on the same page. It's true in monogamous relationships, and doubly so in a polycule.
That brings me to a question: in a 2 person relationship, it can be a really tough struggle to make those kinds of life decisions - where to live, work, taking care of extended family, kids,...
That brings me to a question: in a 2 person relationship, it can be a really tough struggle to make those kinds of life decisions - where to live, work, taking care of extended family, kids, etc.... doesnt it get exponentially more complex and emotionally difficult when there are more people?
Different things get more complex at different rates. Think about the different commitments that a married couple might have to each other. Responsibility to care for one another in sickness and...
Different things get more complex at different rates. Think about the different commitments that a married couple might have to each other. Responsibility to care for one another in sickness and health. Shared finances. Shared living situation. Shared emotional support. A shared sex life. Shared time in each other's company just because. Shared child rearing. A commitment to stay for the long term and work to make that relationship persist even as they personally change. Etc, etc, etc.
Each one of those is a commitment, and some of those can have another person added to the situation more easily than others. Plenty of people can help care for someone who's ill. Having three people contribute to a shared household bank account is only marginally more complex than two. Three people in a polycule living together becomes challenging only as much as negotiation of preferred sleeping arrangements can be sticky. Emotional support can be tricky, but more people around to talk to means you're more likely to find a sympathetic ear. More people having sex gets tricky, but Google Calendar makes it easy to see when people have an opening. Shared child rearing is fundamentally so much easier when there's more adults around, assuming there's reasonable communication regarding child rearing philosophy.
A commitment to the long term is hard. The more intertwined your lives the more reasons to stay. But even if you've just seen each other once a week for a dinner date and an overnight stay, once you've done that for a decade it's hard to say that they aren't important, and hard to imagine picking up and leaving.
But practically, as long as people can talk about their needs and everyone is dedicated to those needs being met, it's not exponentially more difficult. It's just living together and sharing different chunks of your life with different people in different amounts, rather than living with one person with whom you're supposed to share everything and depend on for everything.
Very interesting perspective.... As a fiercely independent person I already struggle with the extremely few relationships I do have. It's hard to imagine dividing myself even more when there's...
Very interesting perspective....
As a fiercely independent person I already struggle with the extremely few relationships I do have. It's hard to imagine dividing myself even more when there's nearly nothing I want from anyone else to begin with. Relationships carry too many obligations, and relying on others too often create bad feelings and guilt and sense of owing something and eventually silent resentment. I know that's less healthy than a whole bunch of positive lovely enriching relationships, but I can't even envision the possibility of a whole bunch of highly positive relationships in my life: human beings come with highs and lows, which net slight positive, but the lows cost far too much for me to want to afford more.
I do see what you mean by pooling resources, so maybe for folks who can manage, that super works for them. A small cluster of super healthy relationships can overcome nearly anything life throws at them.
Yeah, this article strikes me as neither particularly grounded in the reality of non-monogamy or well reasoned politically. I'll admit I skimmed because I wasn't interested in the book review...
Yeah, this article strikes me as neither particularly grounded in the reality of non-monogamy or well reasoned politically. I'll admit I skimmed because I wasn't interested in the book review parts, so it's possible I missed something, but I don't understand the point of the criticisms. Even if those things were true, it wouldn't make ENM immoral. Does the author really think anyone is not tackling climate change because they're too busy being polyamorous?
One woman wrote a book about a bad relationship, and a lot of people have written weird, unhealthy things about non-monogamy. Those things are also extremely true about monogamy. I could make just as pointless an argument about how it's only the rich that can afford to own a home and raise children on only two incomes and that the lower classes are being financially coerced into non-monogamy.
I’ve never once met someone like you are describing, but I know dozens of people who fit the mold of the article. We must hang in very different circles.
I’ve never once met someone like you are describing, but I know dozens of people who fit the mold of the article. We must hang in very different circles.
I don't know anyone wealthy enough to fall into the author's category. I'm in a small Midwestern city and have been in similar ones my adult life. I have seen plenty of people fail at being happy...
I don't know anyone wealthy enough to fall into the author's category. I'm in a small Midwestern city and have been in similar ones my adult life. I have seen plenty of people fail at being happy and polyamorous or who are in it for the kink/play or whatever. But one of my exes is living with his polycule and their kids. Another of my exes wanted that.
I'm not pretending local polyamorous communities are full of perfectly healthy people. But they weren't full of rich people and they absolutely had plenty of people doing the kitchen table/polycule thing.
I'm poly, been practicing most of my life, and what I've noticed is that in the last decade or so, there's been a group of individuals who have started to identify as ENM. Some of these...
Exemplary
I'm poly, been practicing most of my life, and what I've noticed is that in the last decade or so, there's been a group of individuals who have started to identify as ENM. Some of these individuals are new to being poly and resemble the people who were poly before it was 'cool' and that's just the language they were first introduced to and so they use it. However, I think most people socially learn to stop identifying in this way, and instead identify as poly, if it's truly a long-term sustainable relationship style that works for them.
The other group that typically identifies as ENM or CNM appears to have emerged in roughly the last decade and often has ties to the burner community (which is mostly comprised of wealthy individuals in tech). Many of them resemble the swingers of old, primarily interested in a single pillar relationship where kink and play happens with others, often when both partners are present - unicorn hunters are a great example of this. Many of them resemble folks who fall into hippie, burner, or otherwise alternative medicine heavy communities and have their first few experiences with psychedelics, finding them world expanding experiences for which they want more, but often in a selfish manner. That is to say, the hedonistic part of these experiences speak to them, and they are often less willing to change or welcome the changes these experiences might bring to them. Many of them get pulled into the ENM or psychedelics by other folks who resemble snake-oil salesmen. These individuals are selling these frameworks as a way to expand the individual and promote growth. They speak a highly specialized language using words rarely encountered amongst folks who know nothing of the fields they speak of using words and terms like compersion, making space, hinge, limerence, metamour, NRE, and nesting partner to convey their 'expertise' but do so primarily through the framework of self-serving desires.
I cannot tell you how many friends who are new to poly relationships (or psychedelics as I happen to have a degree in neurobiology and a long history with them) that I end up having to educate because I recognize that figures in their life are these snake oil salesmen in order for them to recognize that they are being taken advantage of by people whose words are in conflict with their actions. These folks are often reasonably to quite well off, leveraging a combination of their resources and their acquired specialized language to do what the article criticizes - use ENM as a framework to escape problems, rather than facing them. I've met many gals who resemble Molly in my life, more often than not they are women who have been enticed into a journey of self-discovery through the exploration of the ENM space without adequately preparing for it given their people pleasing mentality or simply being too open to new experiences to recognize when they are being taken advantage of. They often fail to have the language to compete on even footing with these shills and find themselves outmaneuvered with lingo and fancy terminology they don't fully understand when they attempt to establish boundaries or point out inequalities in the relations they have. The Molly in the article seems to be a particularly bad case, in which this poor woman is absolutely being taken advantage of by multiple people, finding herself entwined in a number of extremely toxic relationships, so it's much easier to spot as problematic and write off these individuals as predatory (some are literally committing sexual crimes). The folks I've dealt with are often in situations nowhere near this extreme, and the ways in which they are taken advantage of is much more subtle, such as their partners imposing relationship restrictions on them such as who they can date or how those dates can be conducted whilst the other partner is much more free because when they are caught breaking these boundaries they establish to exert control over another they can deftly maneuver a conversation to redirect blame at the other partner for not trusting them or limiting their polyamory.
I don't really see a lot of people talking broadly about these shills which seem to exist in a lot of specific communities. Polyamory is one, but people into psychedelics, into alternative medicine, and into hippie or anarchist movements seem to be spaces I've seen this kind of behavior emerge. I would imagine this is a thing in nearly any space which comes with it's own lingo and can be packaged or marketed as a means to improve oneself. I think it would be an interesting archetype to study through the lens of psychology as we have terms like shill and snake oil salesman already but I've seen vanishingly little to document this kind of behavior and theorize about its roots and provide a framework within which to generally classify behavior.
What a thoughtful response, I appreciate how well you've described this. I've been going to festivals only for the last 2 years or so, but have been aware of poly/kink communities for much longer....
What a thoughtful response, I appreciate how well you've described this. I've been going to festivals only for the last 2 years or so, but have been aware of poly/kink communities for much longer. It has stood out to me that the festival crowd is coming from a place of privilege much more often. I have never met so many trust fund young adults who don't work, and are on a constant journey of "self" discovery through travel, music, ecstatic dance, psychedelics, and sexual connection. My limited experience, these people I've met, they mean well and they aren't by any means trying to harm anyone. But there is something very isolated about what they are doing. The radical self reliance people. It's like there is a built in way for them to leave at a moments notice and not be responsible for how that affects others. Whereas the poly and kink communities are a literal community. If you go so far into your "self", there come a point where your connection to others is one way. (To be clear, I have also met some amazing poly ppl at the same events, I am not intending to generalize all festival goers. Just impossible not to notice the wealthy people after you've experienced poverty).
This is eye-opening and indeed, is a whole space (as in, vast as plantery distances) I have no idea even exists. I can see myself stumbling into the snake oil salespeople den and getting into a...
This is eye-opening and indeed, is a whole space (as in, vast as plantery distances) I have no idea even exists. I can see myself stumbling into the snake oil salespeople den and getting into a lot of trouble inadvertently, maybe with even the best of intentions, to be of help to a good friend or to encourage positive relationships etc etc.
It's why I posted this for discussion here: something felt off but I have no idea if it's one of those "that's because you're a prud and are wrong" things, or because it's opinions not well researched, talking about something the writer is uninformed about. (I think the latter, having read the comments here.)
I think a lot of folks (like myself) grew up in a sort of Protestant puritan bubble (where you have to say fluff instead of 'fart', aren't allowed to play D&D etc), and then as adults we have no idea what most anything is, once "because morally it's wrong" is deemed insufficient as rational reasoning, and are basically walking around wearing a sandwich board for "sell scams to me!" Or, "take advantage of my relationship under the guise of being open".
I think there's a ton of exploitation going on (and a lot of money to be made) when folks can dismiss the feelings of uncertainty and hesitation in others by simply saying "your discomfort is because you haven't given it a fair try yet" or "the discomfort is precisely why you need to try it some more".
Bronze is more easily mistaken for gold than clay, because it's got a bit more resemblance. That folks do need to open up and leave their comfort zones and evaluate love and life and relationships outside of a "law said no" mindset is true and is beneficial, but this process also exposes a lot of not ready folks to alterior motives, and folks don't necessarily have the experiences to identify when something feels off, and don't necessarily have the language to defend why they are allowed to say no.
Poly and mono relationships are different in so many ways that it's almost always more complicated than just the narratives of 'give it a chance' or 'try harder'. Generally speaking, people who...
Poly and mono relationships are different in so many ways that it's almost always more complicated than just the narratives of 'give it a chance' or 'try harder'. Generally speaking, people who are open to and try being poly are giving it a chance and trying, so these narratives aren't particularly useful. With that being said, there are issues that can easily be dismissed with the concept that someone is not used to being poly yet, that are not inherently poly. This kind of hand waving, or dismissing of concerns happens in mono relationships as well and is just a sign that one partner isn't engaging with issues because of some perception that they do not need to be engaged with.
An example that both mono and poly individuals deal with is the idea of personal space and autonomy. While this is not always true, there's often an assumption in mono relationships that a certain level of space and autonomy is erased, especially as relationships progress (in particular moving in together and starting a family) which can result in the erasure of some aspects of personal space and autonomy and in many cases there is a value judgement placed on this as well. I think most people who have been in mono relationships would agree that there's an expectation at the least that free time defaults to spending time with your partner, or at the very least that there's specific subsections of free time that do, such as spending nights together when one partner is not traveling for work, or that birthdays or other special events will either always be spent with said partner or that in the case something is planned that the partner is invited or at least consulted on this issue. This happens most strongly during the early stages of a relationship (classified as symbiosis) in which two individuals merge portions of their identity into a shared identity. While we can speak in generalizations of some items that are most commonly merged, arguments often happen over the aspects that one individual in a relationship believes are merged and the other does not. In extreme examples this can reflect co-dependence where one partner cannot function as an individual without the input of the other, but most likely it results in fighting over the idea that you should share passwords or bank accounts or access to your phone. A natural part of growing out of this step of a relationship is learning what your partner expects in terms of inclusion in your life as well as navigating the intricacies and emotions around specific aspects of life and precisely how shared they are.
While it's really easy and tempting to look at this and decide that it makes no sense for poly relationships, that would be an incorrect assumption. Yes, poly folks are coming at relationships with the explicit separation and boundaries around some of these issues. It's really easy to see how a symbiotic/shared identity on sexual/romantic partners would probably not exist for most poly folks but not only is that often incorrect (especially so with swingers and unicorn hunters), the framework of symbiosis is an important part of building a relationship as it's when you get the strongest amount of happy chemicals that help to establish an emotional bond with someone.
The problem is that navigating these boundaries and having discussions about these issues in a healthy way has to be done in such a fundamentally different way than in mono relationships, that shills have a really convenient way of shutting these conversations down. The narrative that, 'we're poly, therefore we have both consciously decided that we should be able to have sex/romance with other partners.' is a really easy narrative to use to shut down conversations about the specifics of what that arrangement might look like and what power you have in navigating these discussions. Just because you're both poly does not mean that you cannot have arrangements around how this information is shared, for example. It's completely reasonable to ask that you are informed, by your partner, when things change in their sexual/romantic life. For some individuals they may want to know when their partner goes on dates. For others they might just want to know when they have new romantic/sexual partners. Your partner may disagree, but you can ask for the ability to weigh in on important issues such as whether they can have unprotected sex. If you're not weighing in you might want to at least have a protocol, to protect your own sexual health, around when your partner notifies you or even just what they're supposed to do if they have unprotected sex with someone new.
Similarly, you can imagine conversations around what time is protected or what assumptions are to be made, going back to the example of spending specific holidays together or being invited to events - these are all valid conversations to have and are about navigating boundaries and expectations. It's easy for an individual who wants all the benefits and none of the responsibilities to hand wave it off as mono-normative thinking or simply say that not being included should be expected of being poly and that you shouldn't make assumptions. While this is not really any different than a mono partner not engaging on other issues involved with navigating shared and explicit identities, it's much easier to hide behind very broad statements like these and to feel lost when it feels imbalanced or unfair and not having the words to express it or the framework to understand where the imbalance lies.
To add to this issue, as I mentioned in the first reply, there's a whole framework of lingo and terminology that can be used to make it seem like you're an expert at navigating these issues whilst completely dismissing them. What's particularly toxic about this subset of shills is that they've managed to weave in some of the terminology I've used above and some general basic terminology that gets used by psychologists, therapists, relationship counselors, shamans, life coaches, and so on. For example one of the phrases I listed in the first reply "holding space" is a term which comes from this subset of actual professionals and it is an extremely useful tool for effective relationship communication. This framework is used imperfectly by these shills to give an experience which feels inviting to the person being taken advantage of. When someone like Molly comes to complain to their partner about an issue that they're having they are now presented with a ritual in which they are sat down and the person they are about to engage in conversation with sets the stage for active listening, directs all their attention at Molly, repeats back what Molly said and checks in that they have repeated everything correctly, states the emotional consequences of this behavior, acknowledges how Molly must be feeling, and may even take responsibility for what happened before distorting and using the same framework to talk about how it feels unfair to be poly and to have a partner trying to restrict their life. For someone who's never experienced such care and attention being given to an emotionally charged conversation it can wash the problem away as a simple disagreement or they may simply not register that the ritual was used in a farcical way to obscure that their feelings that this is unfair, while valid, are often not an appropriate response and actually just a reflection of their own insecurities or loss of control over a partner and simply do not resolve the issue at all.
To really accurately summarize everything that is going on would take thousands of more words and I'm not sure that I could truly capture all the ways in which these people are preying on individuals that are new to being poly (or new to alt medicine, new to psychedelics, new to anarchistic collectives, etc.). I hope this provides a high level framework, however, to understand in a little bit more detail how this is a rather complicated issue to delve into and resolve and how it can be broadly applied across any fields which involve self growth and discovery. I wish there were a useful guide to navigating these treacherous waters but the best I can think right now is just helping people understand that snake oil salesmen exist and if something feels off, you should trust your gut.
Oh me too! Me too! What a huge world it is out there and relationships can be so complex.....even without the presence of abusers and shills it's complicated enough..... This just goes to show how...
I wish there were a useful guide to navigating these treacherous waters
Oh me too! Me too! What a huge world it is out there and relationships can be so complex.....even without the presence of abusers and shills it's complicated enough.....
This just goes to show how important it is for someone to have at least one, strong, healthy relationship so that when something feels off they have a healthy person to talk to.
I'm having trouble getting through this if just because it feels more targeted on bashing on the wealthy than really discussing the "issue" which I have to say sure seems wrong. Humanity in...
I'm having trouble getting through this if just because it feels more targeted on bashing on the wealthy than really discussing the "issue" which I have to say sure seems wrong.
Humanity in general has been having problems with monogamy throughout history. We are a species that both derives great pleasure from physical and emotional attachments and great hurt from not being the physical and emotional attachment for someone we're romantically close to.
In my experience people fall in different places on this sliding scale, are often very hypocritical (I should be able to do this but you can't), and tend to also lie to themselves about how well they can handle it.
Saying it's a new trend for the rich though feels...odd. It certainly seems more popular in many circles across income brackets, and I'd say has been more common in the less affluent leftist progressive circles I've known (and I don't think those labels are perfect). More importantly though, it's been a thing throughout history? Marriages of convenience are nothing new and certainly still happen, and even serious marriages/relationships have had major infidelity incidents. ESPECIALLY among the wealthy.
While life long marriage is certainly on the downtrend with much more divorce, I suspect that's just because the legality and the stigma of ending a marriage is no longer such an issue, and just better reflects how many people handle relationships, which is poor. I think this comes down more to a general trend towards easier rewards for selfishness/less consequences, but that's getting far away from the topic.
Overall i'm not even sure what the reviewer's point is. It seems one part teardown of the book in which they accuse the author of lying to themselves (which maybe they are, I can't easily judge from just the reviewers excerpts, fucked up as they are), and then a larger philosophical accusation against narcissism which strikes me mostly as missing that this isn't anything new.
It's possible that the author surmised that framing this book review as clickbait for (1) class divide and (2) poly vs mono, would get more discussion than just a book review alone.
It's possible that the author surmised that framing this book review as clickbait for (1) class divide and (2) poly vs mono, would get more discussion than just a book review alone.
Yeah I will say that the reviewer's portrayal of the author is not one of someone happily non-monogamous and frankly isn't in ethically polyamorous relationships as they're described. But I...
Yeah I will say that the reviewer's portrayal of the author is not one of someone happily non-monogamous and frankly isn't in ethically polyamorous relationships as they're described.
But I appreciate the reminder that that's coming through someone else's POV
Apologies for a blase take, but I'm trying to piece apart rhetoric more often after seeing @Thomas-C's link (original source) about how to "win" an argument (circa 1800) without engaging in a...
Apologies for a blase take, but I'm trying to piece apart rhetoric more often after seeing @Thomas-C's link (original source) about how to "win" an argument (circa 1800) without engaging in a factual debate.
I think the crux of the author's arguments is this:
Self-improvement taken to the extreme is "therapeutic libertarianism" [1],
Polyamoury is therpeutic libertarianism [2],
Polyamoury worked for one person that had an op-ed [5],
But -- without taking a moral stance -- "many redditors" [6] don't feel great after trying polyamoury. Implication: polyamoury is bad (i.e. doesn't work out well) for most people (the author makes no specific claim, but simply cites a casual scan through Reddit).
That was all a complete tangent and the author wasn't actually taking a moral stance on polyamoury [3] for the last 2600 words critiquing the experiences of a person who tried out polyamoury,
What is actually bad is that rich people did it, and we're all following them blindly [4].
If that's accurate, I think the author's trying to take a stance against polyamoury, without saying it explicitly, by extrapolating out from some complaining redditors and one person's biography? Otherwise, the article could've been shortened down to the point about trend following.
(I admittedly skimmed the 3400 word article and used some AI tools to help piece it apart without getting too emotional)
[1]
[...] the belief that self-improvement is the ultimate goal of life, and that no formal or informal constraints—whether imposed by states, faith systems, or other people—should impede each of us from achieving personal growth.
[2]
Polyamory, as More demonstrates, entangles many of these tendencies at once.
[3]
It doesn’t strike me as a matter of right or wrong at all.
[4]
[...] but at anyone eager to valorize the latest lifestyle fad that is little more than yet another way for the ruling class to have their cake and eat it too.
[5]
In 2022 the writer and disability-rights activist Jillian Weise wrote a thoughtful essay, also for New York magazine, exploring the freedom polyamory provides to her as a disabled person.
[6]
But a quick tour through the voluminous polyamory Reddit forums [...] reveals the downsides of [polyamoury]: Beautiful souls seeking absolute freedom may find only abjection.
I read the whole thing and your outline here is pretty accurate. For an article titled "the ruling class's latest fad" I think this is an ineffective piece. Like your outline has pointed out, it...
I read the whole thing and your outline here is pretty accurate.
For an article titled "the ruling class's latest fad" I think this is an ineffective piece. Like your outline has pointed out, it failed to explicate any details of ruling class being in on it: folks who can afford day care have an easier time, but what about folks without kids or middle income or even high income folks who found easy child care? Disposable income doesn't make one ruling class. The other thing the author completely failed at is to demonstrate this is a new dad.
Even in our little space here I've been intrigued to hear from so many people who have lived the experience the author spent so little time researching, and as others have pointed out poly goes back to ancient days. In fact, the author failed to point out entirely how novel and provincial monogamy is: only one of the three Abrahamic religions had leaders that weren't polygamists, and within all of them followers have always been very highly imperfectly at that.
Polyamory should not be confused with polygamy of course: in a patriarchy only one person among many are living with that freedom.
So the polyamory format, at worst, is polygamy for both with an out clause (divorce), and at best, it's a honest look at human desires and admitting that restrictions won't work or aren't desirable for oneself.
I know it comes a bit later in time, but I did check this out and I think I'd agree with how you're looking at it. I read the article - it's not really a subject I care to engage with much, but I...
I know it comes a bit later in time, but I did check this out and I think I'd agree with how you're looking at it. I read the article - it's not really a subject I care to engage with much, but I was left with a desire to just ask the author to plainly state what their problem is. He's got a bone to pick but lacks the courage to properly pick it, I think is what I came away with. Or it's an attempt at making "I'm not the target audience" into something halfway interesting to read (I lean toward this interpretation, if I'm honest). Either way, I didn't come away with what I'd call a coherent perspective from the author, nor anything distinct to say about polyamory save perhaps "this seems bad". If that's what the article boils down to, my simple response is "Ok, so what?". I did only read it the one time and don't really care to try again, so it's possible I missed something important, but I think that's part of what it is to judge the work - this wasn't written well enough or coherently enough for me to care to investigate further. If the article writer cared for feedback, that would be mine.
Archive First half, book review and opinion Second half, commentary on the classist nature of polyamory bonus WaPo book review by Kimberly Harrington and archive
We might call this turbocharged version of authenticity culture “therapeutic libertarianism”: the belief that self-improvement is the ultimate goal of life, and that no formal or informal constraints—whether imposed by states, faith systems, or other people—should impede each of us from achieving personal growth. This attitude is therapeutic because it is invariably couched in self-help babble. And it is libertarian not only because it makes a cult out of personal freedom, but because it applies market logic to human beings. We are all our own start-ups. We must all adopt a pro-growth mindset for our personhood and deregulate our desires. We must all assess and reassess our own “fulfillment,” a kind of psychological Gross Domestic Product, on a near-constant basis. And like the GDP, our fulfillment must always increase.
...
In his 1978 best seller, The Culture of Narcissism, Christopher Lasch argued that American narcissism should not be understood as simple self-obsession. Narcissism is a survival strategy: If we are fixated on finding fulfillment and endless self-reinvention, it is because our own inner lives feel like the only thing most of us have control over. The therapeutic cult of personal growth is a response to external problems that feel insoluble, a future that feels shorn of causes for hope.
Second half, commentary on the classist nature of polyamory
There is something obtuse about the recent polyamory coverage, disproportionately focused as it is on trendsetters: The very class of Americans who most reap the benefits of marriage are the same class who get to declare monogamy passé and boring. The rich—who marry within their social class to combine their wealth, exacerbating inequality—enjoy the advantages of the double-income, two-parent household and then grow tired of these very luxuries. From their gilded pedestals, they declare polyamory superior to monogamy. Media reports rarely note these tensions, or explain that this brand of “free love” requires the disposable income and time—to pay babysitters and pencil in their panoply of paramours—that are foreclosed to the laboring masses.
Just go to archive.is and copy the article link into the red box then hit 'save'. If an archive already exists it will redirect you to it, but if it doesn't exist yet it will create one for you....
Just go to archive.is and copy the article link into the red box then hit 'save'. If an archive already exists it will redirect you to it, but if it doesn't exist yet it will create one for you. It usually only takes a minute or two to create the archive, but sometimes if the site is really busy you'll get put in a queue and it could take a bit longer.
I'm also super glad they're looking for sex and love from other adults instead of producing children to save a failing marriage. Or....sadly, in the case of the book author, in addition to.....
I'm also super glad they're looking for sex and love from other adults instead of producing children to save a failing marriage. Or....sadly, in the case of the book author, in addition to.....
I've identified as polyamorous for pretty much as long as I've done any introspection about relationships and sexuality, since before I reached puberty, since before I knew there was even such a...
I've identified as polyamorous for pretty much as long as I've done any introspection about relationships and sexuality, since before I reached puberty, since before I knew there was even such a term.
I usually have one sexual partner at a time, but I reject ownership of my body, affection, or sexuality by anyone, and I leave my heart open to everyone I've previously opened it to, allowing whatever we've built and grown to continue existing, with a few exceptions for safety or mental health reasons.
Using a metaphor, falling in love with someone is like giving them the key to my heart, but I don't change the lock.
Polyamory is as much of a fad as being gay is a fad.
(I didn't read the article, the title was enough.)
Everyone I know that's polyamorous, including myself, is lower to middle income and the ones that have kids are fairly unanimously wanting larger family groups to raise their kids and support their households. They're definitely not libertarian minded.
Everyone I know into polyamory is low to middle income, but they're doing it for kink and sexual freedom, nothing to do with their kids.
Those folks exist too, but it depends where on the ENM scale they fall. Some folks are more looking for the kink scene and hook-ups/play parties for sure. But the ones I know with kids who actually last past the "oh let's open up the relationship" trial period are generally wanting to actually have long term familial romantic relationships. Experience is just anecdotal of course.
It certainly doesn't require one to be wealthy and have babysitters all the time. Time is a huge limiting factor though.
Hey when the village is gone one makes their own village I suppose. Some villages are more intimate than others.
I have non polyamorous friends regularly "joke" about a commune where all of our friends could live. It's a genuine desire just not practical for any of us at the moment.
Oh, dude, I totally want to live in a commune and it's not because of the sexual aspect for sure. In all honesty I think humans are supposed to live in small tight knit, multigenerational communities, just that "work prospects" and starvation wages are driving us apart.
Agreed. Even as a huge introvert. And it's unrelated to my polyamory, or at most comes from the same place my polyamory does. My desire to connect with others and my different boundaries and comfort level with those relationships than most monogamous folks
But yeah, sex wasn't really a reason at all. (it's also not the reason for polyamory as a general rule)
I have poly and non-poly friends who all regularly talk about buying a plot of land together and building homes for each of us together.
The dream, really
Land is cheap up here in Nova Scotia, I just don't know how to build stuff. Like, super super super cheap.
I'll bring chickens
But which parts of the polycule will be left behind when their ties to their current location are stronger than their ties to the people who're willing to up stakes and go somewhere that land's cheap enough? It's the dream, but it's hard unless everyone's on the same page. It's true in monogamous relationships, and doubly so in a polycule.
That brings me to a question: in a 2 person relationship, it can be a really tough struggle to make those kinds of life decisions - where to live, work, taking care of extended family, kids, etc.... doesnt it get exponentially more complex and emotionally difficult when there are more people?
Different things get more complex at different rates. Think about the different commitments that a married couple might have to each other. Responsibility to care for one another in sickness and health. Shared finances. Shared living situation. Shared emotional support. A shared sex life. Shared time in each other's company just because. Shared child rearing. A commitment to stay for the long term and work to make that relationship persist even as they personally change. Etc, etc, etc.
Each one of those is a commitment, and some of those can have another person added to the situation more easily than others. Plenty of people can help care for someone who's ill. Having three people contribute to a shared household bank account is only marginally more complex than two. Three people in a polycule living together becomes challenging only as much as negotiation of preferred sleeping arrangements can be sticky. Emotional support can be tricky, but more people around to talk to means you're more likely to find a sympathetic ear. More people having sex gets tricky, but Google Calendar makes it easy to see when people have an opening. Shared child rearing is fundamentally so much easier when there's more adults around, assuming there's reasonable communication regarding child rearing philosophy.
A commitment to the long term is hard. The more intertwined your lives the more reasons to stay. But even if you've just seen each other once a week for a dinner date and an overnight stay, once you've done that for a decade it's hard to say that they aren't important, and hard to imagine picking up and leaving.
But practically, as long as people can talk about their needs and everyone is dedicated to those needs being met, it's not exponentially more difficult. It's just living together and sharing different chunks of your life with different people in different amounts, rather than living with one person with whom you're supposed to share everything and depend on for everything.
Very interesting perspective....
As a fiercely independent person I already struggle with the extremely few relationships I do have. It's hard to imagine dividing myself even more when there's nearly nothing I want from anyone else to begin with. Relationships carry too many obligations, and relying on others too often create bad feelings and guilt and sense of owing something and eventually silent resentment. I know that's less healthy than a whole bunch of positive lovely enriching relationships, but I can't even envision the possibility of a whole bunch of highly positive relationships in my life: human beings come with highs and lows, which net slight positive, but the lows cost far too much for me to want to afford more.
I do see what you mean by pooling resources, so maybe for folks who can manage, that super works for them. A small cluster of super healthy relationships can overcome nearly anything life throws at them.
Yep! It does. But it's generally worth it for the folks who prefer that lifestyle/vibe with it/orient that way.
Yeah, this article strikes me as neither particularly grounded in the reality of non-monogamy or well reasoned politically. I'll admit I skimmed because I wasn't interested in the book review parts, so it's possible I missed something, but I don't understand the point of the criticisms. Even if those things were true, it wouldn't make ENM immoral. Does the author really think anyone is not tackling climate change because they're too busy being polyamorous?
One woman wrote a book about a bad relationship, and a lot of people have written weird, unhealthy things about non-monogamy. Those things are also extremely true about monogamy. I could make just as pointless an argument about how it's only the rich that can afford to own a home and raise children on only two incomes and that the lower classes are being financially coerced into non-monogamy.
I’ve never once met someone like you are describing, but I know dozens of people who fit the mold of the article. We must hang in very different circles.
I don't know anyone wealthy enough to fall into the author's category. I'm in a small Midwestern city and have been in similar ones my adult life. I have seen plenty of people fail at being happy and polyamorous or who are in it for the kink/play or whatever. But one of my exes is living with his polycule and their kids. Another of my exes wanted that.
I'm not pretending local polyamorous communities are full of perfectly healthy people. But they weren't full of rich people and they absolutely had plenty of people doing the kitchen table/polycule thing.
Are you rich? Haha, usually rich people don't hang out with poor people unless they grew up together.
I'm poly, been practicing most of my life, and what I've noticed is that in the last decade or so, there's been a group of individuals who have started to identify as ENM. Some of these individuals are new to being poly and resemble the people who were poly before it was 'cool' and that's just the language they were first introduced to and so they use it. However, I think most people socially learn to stop identifying in this way, and instead identify as poly, if it's truly a long-term sustainable relationship style that works for them.
The other group that typically identifies as ENM or CNM appears to have emerged in roughly the last decade and often has ties to the burner community (which is mostly comprised of wealthy individuals in tech). Many of them resemble the swingers of old, primarily interested in a single pillar relationship where kink and play happens with others, often when both partners are present - unicorn hunters are a great example of this. Many of them resemble folks who fall into hippie, burner, or otherwise alternative medicine heavy communities and have their first few experiences with psychedelics, finding them world expanding experiences for which they want more, but often in a selfish manner. That is to say, the hedonistic part of these experiences speak to them, and they are often less willing to change or welcome the changes these experiences might bring to them. Many of them get pulled into the ENM or psychedelics by other folks who resemble snake-oil salesmen. These individuals are selling these frameworks as a way to expand the individual and promote growth. They speak a highly specialized language using words rarely encountered amongst folks who know nothing of the fields they speak of using words and terms like compersion, making space, hinge, limerence, metamour, NRE, and nesting partner to convey their 'expertise' but do so primarily through the framework of self-serving desires.
I cannot tell you how many friends who are new to poly relationships (or psychedelics as I happen to have a degree in neurobiology and a long history with them) that I end up having to educate because I recognize that figures in their life are these snake oil salesmen in order for them to recognize that they are being taken advantage of by people whose words are in conflict with their actions. These folks are often reasonably to quite well off, leveraging a combination of their resources and their acquired specialized language to do what the article criticizes - use ENM as a framework to escape problems, rather than facing them. I've met many gals who resemble Molly in my life, more often than not they are women who have been enticed into a journey of self-discovery through the exploration of the ENM space without adequately preparing for it given their people pleasing mentality or simply being too open to new experiences to recognize when they are being taken advantage of. They often fail to have the language to compete on even footing with these shills and find themselves outmaneuvered with lingo and fancy terminology they don't fully understand when they attempt to establish boundaries or point out inequalities in the relations they have. The Molly in the article seems to be a particularly bad case, in which this poor woman is absolutely being taken advantage of by multiple people, finding herself entwined in a number of extremely toxic relationships, so it's much easier to spot as problematic and write off these individuals as predatory (some are literally committing sexual crimes). The folks I've dealt with are often in situations nowhere near this extreme, and the ways in which they are taken advantage of is much more subtle, such as their partners imposing relationship restrictions on them such as who they can date or how those dates can be conducted whilst the other partner is much more free because when they are caught breaking these boundaries they establish to exert control over another they can deftly maneuver a conversation to redirect blame at the other partner for not trusting them or limiting their polyamory.
I don't really see a lot of people talking broadly about these shills which seem to exist in a lot of specific communities. Polyamory is one, but people into psychedelics, into alternative medicine, and into hippie or anarchist movements seem to be spaces I've seen this kind of behavior emerge. I would imagine this is a thing in nearly any space which comes with it's own lingo and can be packaged or marketed as a means to improve oneself. I think it would be an interesting archetype to study through the lens of psychology as we have terms like shill and snake oil salesman already but I've seen vanishingly little to document this kind of behavior and theorize about its roots and provide a framework within which to generally classify behavior.
What a thoughtful response, I appreciate how well you've described this. I've been going to festivals only for the last 2 years or so, but have been aware of poly/kink communities for much longer. It has stood out to me that the festival crowd is coming from a place of privilege much more often. I have never met so many trust fund young adults who don't work, and are on a constant journey of "self" discovery through travel, music, ecstatic dance, psychedelics, and sexual connection. My limited experience, these people I've met, they mean well and they aren't by any means trying to harm anyone. But there is something very isolated about what they are doing. The radical self reliance people. It's like there is a built in way for them to leave at a moments notice and not be responsible for how that affects others. Whereas the poly and kink communities are a literal community. If you go so far into your "self", there come a point where your connection to others is one way. (To be clear, I have also met some amazing poly ppl at the same events, I am not intending to generalize all festival goers. Just impossible not to notice the wealthy people after you've experienced poverty).
This is eye-opening and indeed, is a whole space (as in, vast as plantery distances) I have no idea even exists. I can see myself stumbling into the snake oil salespeople den and getting into a lot of trouble inadvertently, maybe with even the best of intentions, to be of help to a good friend or to encourage positive relationships etc etc.
It's why I posted this for discussion here: something felt off but I have no idea if it's one of those "that's because you're a prud and are wrong" things, or because it's opinions not well researched, talking about something the writer is uninformed about. (I think the latter, having read the comments here.)
I think a lot of folks (like myself) grew up in a sort of Protestant puritan bubble (where you have to say fluff instead of 'fart', aren't allowed to play D&D etc), and then as adults we have no idea what most anything is, once "because morally it's wrong" is deemed insufficient as rational reasoning, and are basically walking around wearing a sandwich board for "sell scams to me!" Or, "take advantage of my relationship under the guise of being open".
I think there's a ton of exploitation going on (and a lot of money to be made) when folks can dismiss the feelings of uncertainty and hesitation in others by simply saying "your discomfort is because you haven't given it a fair try yet" or "the discomfort is precisely why you need to try it some more".
Bronze is more easily mistaken for gold than clay, because it's got a bit more resemblance. That folks do need to open up and leave their comfort zones and evaluate love and life and relationships outside of a "law said no" mindset is true and is beneficial, but this process also exposes a lot of not ready folks to alterior motives, and folks don't necessarily have the experiences to identify when something feels off, and don't necessarily have the language to defend why they are allowed to say no.
Poly and mono relationships are different in so many ways that it's almost always more complicated than just the narratives of 'give it a chance' or 'try harder'. Generally speaking, people who are open to and try being poly are giving it a chance and trying, so these narratives aren't particularly useful. With that being said, there are issues that can easily be dismissed with the concept that someone is not used to being poly yet, that are not inherently poly. This kind of hand waving, or dismissing of concerns happens in mono relationships as well and is just a sign that one partner isn't engaging with issues because of some perception that they do not need to be engaged with.
An example that both mono and poly individuals deal with is the idea of personal space and autonomy. While this is not always true, there's often an assumption in mono relationships that a certain level of space and autonomy is erased, especially as relationships progress (in particular moving in together and starting a family) which can result in the erasure of some aspects of personal space and autonomy and in many cases there is a value judgement placed on this as well. I think most people who have been in mono relationships would agree that there's an expectation at the least that free time defaults to spending time with your partner, or at the very least that there's specific subsections of free time that do, such as spending nights together when one partner is not traveling for work, or that birthdays or other special events will either always be spent with said partner or that in the case something is planned that the partner is invited or at least consulted on this issue. This happens most strongly during the early stages of a relationship (classified as symbiosis) in which two individuals merge portions of their identity into a shared identity. While we can speak in generalizations of some items that are most commonly merged, arguments often happen over the aspects that one individual in a relationship believes are merged and the other does not. In extreme examples this can reflect co-dependence where one partner cannot function as an individual without the input of the other, but most likely it results in fighting over the idea that you should share passwords or bank accounts or access to your phone. A natural part of growing out of this step of a relationship is learning what your partner expects in terms of inclusion in your life as well as navigating the intricacies and emotions around specific aspects of life and precisely how shared they are.
While it's really easy and tempting to look at this and decide that it makes no sense for poly relationships, that would be an incorrect assumption. Yes, poly folks are coming at relationships with the explicit separation and boundaries around some of these issues. It's really easy to see how a symbiotic/shared identity on sexual/romantic partners would probably not exist for most poly folks but not only is that often incorrect (especially so with swingers and unicorn hunters), the framework of symbiosis is an important part of building a relationship as it's when you get the strongest amount of happy chemicals that help to establish an emotional bond with someone.
The problem is that navigating these boundaries and having discussions about these issues in a healthy way has to be done in such a fundamentally different way than in mono relationships, that shills have a really convenient way of shutting these conversations down. The narrative that, 'we're poly, therefore we have both consciously decided that we should be able to have sex/romance with other partners.' is a really easy narrative to use to shut down conversations about the specifics of what that arrangement might look like and what power you have in navigating these discussions. Just because you're both poly does not mean that you cannot have arrangements around how this information is shared, for example. It's completely reasonable to ask that you are informed, by your partner, when things change in their sexual/romantic life. For some individuals they may want to know when their partner goes on dates. For others they might just want to know when they have new romantic/sexual partners. Your partner may disagree, but you can ask for the ability to weigh in on important issues such as whether they can have unprotected sex. If you're not weighing in you might want to at least have a protocol, to protect your own sexual health, around when your partner notifies you or even just what they're supposed to do if they have unprotected sex with someone new.
Similarly, you can imagine conversations around what time is protected or what assumptions are to be made, going back to the example of spending specific holidays together or being invited to events - these are all valid conversations to have and are about navigating boundaries and expectations. It's easy for an individual who wants all the benefits and none of the responsibilities to hand wave it off as mono-normative thinking or simply say that not being included should be expected of being poly and that you shouldn't make assumptions. While this is not really any different than a mono partner not engaging on other issues involved with navigating shared and explicit identities, it's much easier to hide behind very broad statements like these and to feel lost when it feels imbalanced or unfair and not having the words to express it or the framework to understand where the imbalance lies.
To add to this issue, as I mentioned in the first reply, there's a whole framework of lingo and terminology that can be used to make it seem like you're an expert at navigating these issues whilst completely dismissing them. What's particularly toxic about this subset of shills is that they've managed to weave in some of the terminology I've used above and some general basic terminology that gets used by psychologists, therapists, relationship counselors, shamans, life coaches, and so on. For example one of the phrases I listed in the first reply "holding space" is a term which comes from this subset of actual professionals and it is an extremely useful tool for effective relationship communication. This framework is used imperfectly by these shills to give an experience which feels inviting to the person being taken advantage of. When someone like Molly comes to complain to their partner about an issue that they're having they are now presented with a ritual in which they are sat down and the person they are about to engage in conversation with sets the stage for active listening, directs all their attention at Molly, repeats back what Molly said and checks in that they have repeated everything correctly, states the emotional consequences of this behavior, acknowledges how Molly must be feeling, and may even take responsibility for what happened before distorting and using the same framework to talk about how it feels unfair to be poly and to have a partner trying to restrict their life. For someone who's never experienced such care and attention being given to an emotionally charged conversation it can wash the problem away as a simple disagreement or they may simply not register that the ritual was used in a farcical way to obscure that their feelings that this is unfair, while valid, are often not an appropriate response and actually just a reflection of their own insecurities or loss of control over a partner and simply do not resolve the issue at all.
To really accurately summarize everything that is going on would take thousands of more words and I'm not sure that I could truly capture all the ways in which these people are preying on individuals that are new to being poly (or new to alt medicine, new to psychedelics, new to anarchistic collectives, etc.). I hope this provides a high level framework, however, to understand in a little bit more detail how this is a rather complicated issue to delve into and resolve and how it can be broadly applied across any fields which involve self growth and discovery. I wish there were a useful guide to navigating these treacherous waters but the best I can think right now is just helping people understand that snake oil salesmen exist and if something feels off, you should trust your gut.
Oh me too! Me too! What a huge world it is out there and relationships can be so complex.....even without the presence of abusers and shills it's complicated enough.....
This just goes to show how important it is for someone to have at least one, strong, healthy relationship so that when something feels off they have a healthy person to talk to.
I'm glad you're sharing this
I'm having trouble getting through this if just because it feels more targeted on bashing on the wealthy than really discussing the "issue" which I have to say sure seems wrong.
Humanity in general has been having problems with monogamy throughout history. We are a species that both derives great pleasure from physical and emotional attachments and great hurt from not being the physical and emotional attachment for someone we're romantically close to.
In my experience people fall in different places on this sliding scale, are often very hypocritical (I should be able to do this but you can't), and tend to also lie to themselves about how well they can handle it.
Saying it's a new trend for the rich though feels...odd. It certainly seems more popular in many circles across income brackets, and I'd say has been more common in the less affluent leftist progressive circles I've known (and I don't think those labels are perfect). More importantly though, it's been a thing throughout history? Marriages of convenience are nothing new and certainly still happen, and even serious marriages/relationships have had major infidelity incidents. ESPECIALLY among the wealthy.
While life long marriage is certainly on the downtrend with much more divorce, I suspect that's just because the legality and the stigma of ending a marriage is no longer such an issue, and just better reflects how many people handle relationships, which is poor. I think this comes down more to a general trend towards easier rewards for selfishness/less consequences, but that's getting far away from the topic.
Overall i'm not even sure what the reviewer's point is. It seems one part teardown of the book in which they accuse the author of lying to themselves (which maybe they are, I can't easily judge from just the reviewers excerpts, fucked up as they are), and then a larger philosophical accusation against narcissism which strikes me mostly as missing that this isn't anything new.
It's possible that the author surmised that framing this book review as clickbait for (1) class divide and (2) poly vs mono, would get more discussion than just a book review alone.
Yeah I will say that the reviewer's portrayal of the author is not one of someone happily non-monogamous and frankly isn't in ethically polyamorous relationships as they're described.
But I appreciate the reminder that that's coming through someone else's POV
Apologies for a blase take, but I'm trying to piece apart rhetoric more often after seeing @Thomas-C's link (original source) about how to "win" an argument (circa 1800) without engaging in a factual debate.
I think the crux of the author's arguments is this:
If that's accurate, I think the author's trying to take a stance against polyamoury, without saying it explicitly, by extrapolating out from some complaining redditors and one person's biography? Otherwise, the article could've been shortened down to the point about trend following.
(I admittedly skimmed the 3400 word article and used some AI tools to help piece it apart without getting too emotional)
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
I read the whole thing and your outline here is pretty accurate.
For an article titled "the ruling class's latest fad" I think this is an ineffective piece. Like your outline has pointed out, it failed to explicate any details of ruling class being in on it: folks who can afford day care have an easier time, but what about folks without kids or middle income or even high income folks who found easy child care? Disposable income doesn't make one ruling class. The other thing the author completely failed at is to demonstrate this is a new dad.
Even in our little space here I've been intrigued to hear from so many people who have lived the experience the author spent so little time researching, and as others have pointed out poly goes back to ancient days. In fact, the author failed to point out entirely how novel and provincial monogamy is: only one of the three Abrahamic religions had leaders that weren't polygamists, and within all of them followers have always been very highly imperfectly at that.
Polyamory should not be confused with polygamy of course: in a patriarchy only one person among many are living with that freedom.
So the polyamory format, at worst, is polygamy for both with an out clause (divorce), and at best, it's a honest look at human desires and admitting that restrictions won't work or aren't desirable for oneself.
I know it comes a bit later in time, but I did check this out and I think I'd agree with how you're looking at it. I read the article - it's not really a subject I care to engage with much, but I was left with a desire to just ask the author to plainly state what their problem is. He's got a bone to pick but lacks the courage to properly pick it, I think is what I came away with. Or it's an attempt at making "I'm not the target audience" into something halfway interesting to read (I lean toward this interpretation, if I'm honest). Either way, I didn't come away with what I'd call a coherent perspective from the author, nor anything distinct to say about polyamory save perhaps "this seems bad". If that's what the article boils down to, my simple response is "Ok, so what?". I did only read it the one time and don't really care to try again, so it's possible I missed something important, but I think that's part of what it is to judge the work - this wasn't written well enough or coherently enough for me to care to investigate further. If the article writer cared for feedback, that would be mine.
Archive
First half, book review and opinion
Second half, commentary on the classist nature of polyamory
bonus WaPo book review by Kimberly Harrington and archive
As an aside to anything else. How do folks on here acquire archive links to articles that are otherwise paywalled?
Just go to archive.is and copy the article link into the red box then hit 'save'. If an archive already exists it will redirect you to it, but if it doesn't exist yet it will create one for you. It usually only takes a minute or two to create the archive, but sometimes if the site is really busy you'll get put in a queue and it could take a bit longer.
Aahh thank you very much! :)
I'm also super glad they're looking for sex and love from other adults instead of producing children to save a failing marriage. Or....sadly, in the case of the book author, in addition to.....
I've identified as polyamorous for pretty much as long as I've done any introspection about relationships and sexuality, since before I reached puberty, since before I knew there was even such a term.
I usually have one sexual partner at a time, but I reject ownership of my body, affection, or sexuality by anyone, and I leave my heart open to everyone I've previously opened it to, allowing whatever we've built and grown to continue existing, with a few exceptions for safety or mental health reasons.
Using a metaphor, falling in love with someone is like giving them the key to my heart, but I don't change the lock.
Polyamory is as much of a fad as being gay is a fad.
(I didn't read the article, the title was enough.)