This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Yeah, that's a very specific definition of "polyamory" and what makes that different from an open marriage, or from those kind of "you can have your mistresses but don't involve me, keep it discreet, and it's acknowledged I'm the wife and you are not throwing me over for some bimbo" arrangements?
I think that what is at play here, in this specific community that Aella is part of, is not sex, it's about wanting to be Nice People. I know that sounds dismissive, but let me develop it. You know all the jargon around "compersion" and how jealousy is just not even on the radar for the Bay Area Rationalist Polyamorists? Mm-hmmm. It's the EA influence at work again; being good and moral and ethical based on compassion and generosity. So "I don't tie my partners down with restrictions about what they can do" is all part of being generous and non-judgmental and not trying to control or dictate how their partner should behave or feel or think. And that's why it then does not matter if the partner never dates anyone else, because it's not so much about "yippee we can all have as much sex with as many people as we want!", it's about formalising the mutual recognition that you are both Nice People who don't put limits and bonds on the other free adult there. Affection, trust and that bloody Big Five Openness stuff is what is at the root of it.
Also the slight aura of smugness about "we're not like those normies who are so jealous and possessive because they're so unevolved, the poor dears" but uh, that's not the part that's said out loud.
I think this is 80% of the way there, but doesn't properly consider the actors involved. Which isn't that surprising, neither the newlywed OP nor a devout Catholic should be expected to understand sluts.
I agree with you that the goal of Aella et al's definition is to convince people that polyamory is "nice," but the target isn't self-deception (sluts fundamentally do not care about that, making love is self-justifying), nor is it the broader public (who will never be convinced). The target of deception is the cuckolded partner at home. They are the audience, and as long as they are persuaded, the system works. One is able to be a slut in a partner-approved way. This is why Aella's definition makes a lot more sense than @ymeshkout's: the difference between polyamory and cheating is the cuckolded partner's reaction.
For reference, here is an old SA
[Note: I'm going to engage in some unwarranted psychoanalysis of our man Scott based on his decade old work. I don't know if SA still defines himself as Asexual, or if it was a passing-phase or a temporary side effect of pharmaceuticals. I don't recall him mentioning it recently, the article is a decade old, and more recently my man got married and has been more socially conservative in general]
Now, compare SA's writing at the time, how he situates himself. At the time, at any rate, much of his schtick was nice nerdy guy who can't talk to girls. Many of his early bangers are explicitly situated around a failure to get girls. At the same time, he defined himself as asexual, as lacking libido. Let's flatten that character into a type within the poly discourse: your nerdy, nebbish, herbivore. Not particularly libidinous, not particularly attractive. He doesn't really desire multiple partners, he barely desires one partner. But, he can be convinced to allow his partner to pursue multiple partners.
Aella, taken as a type, does not require the intellectualizing exercise of creating polyamory. She can just fuck. Fucking is self-justifying: it is pleasant and therefore it is good.
The high libido, attractive partner doesn't need a justification for having multiple partners, any more than the rich capitalist needs a justification for owning multiple large houses while the poor patch up their hovels. The capitalist doesn't need capitalism, indeed he will continue to have his beautiful mansion even if he goes to church and prays "Blessed are the poor" or even if he participates in a communist government. The person who needs to be convinced is the poor. Capitalist propaganda isn't designed to get capitalists to buy things, they will do that on their own. It is designed to get the prole to feel that it is right that the capitalist has much and he has little, it is designed to keep the proletariat from taking action to equalize things. Polyamory is the natural concomitant of Capitalism: to each according to their ability. Monogamy is the natural concomitant of Socialism and Democracy: to each according to their need.
Poly propaganda isn't designed to convince hot, horny people to have more sex, they will do that on their own. It is designed to persuade nebbish, nerdy, borderline asexuals to let them do it, without doing anything about it. Hence the naturalization (Sex at Dawn, everyone wants to do it, things can be no other way we're just being honest about it), hence the moralization, hence the justification of everything. The only party that matters is the SA's of the world, the meek partners who accept; the Aellas of the world will act on their own.
While you have something there, I do think that the Bay Area set (to use that label as a signifier of things I'm vaguely gesturing at with regards to the liberalism, nerdiness, possible clusters of neurodivergence, certainly very involved in 'alternative lifestyles' but with more emphasis on the theoretical underpinnings and philosophies of same, so not yer basic hippies, high earners or in the sphere of high earners, techie, STEM-y, rationalist/rationalist adjacent) are not just the usual swingers or players with a few hot people wanting to persuade lots of lower attractiveness but available (and desperate?) partners to accommodate their cheating under the guise of "this is not cheating or being cuckolded, this is poly and being open and generous and evolved above jealousy".
It does seem to me to be more the "nebbish, nerdy, borderline asexuals" who are persuading each other about this, and it does seem to be more about the vaunted New Relationship Energy (that is, an unceasing - so long as you can find new partners - source of the fizzy, exciting, pink fluffy clouds early stage of infatuation and romantic attraction that dissipates once the novelty wears off). It's not simply sex, it's this romantic attachment they're looking for, and the rest of it is the subsequent rationalisation by theory about how this is totally not old-fashioned cheating or affairs or sleeping around or polygamy/harems and so forth, it's a totally new way of evolved, respectful, open-minded and open-hearted relationships to do away with jealousy and drama and boredom etc.
Sex-positivity is aligned with that, but a separate thing on its own. For the mainstream, as you say, the hot and horny will have no trouble finding people to fuck, and no qualms around fucking, and it will probably go the way of "persuading my partner to give me permission to cheat" rather than the elaborate rituals and hierarchies of the poly as currently practiced bubble. But the current polyamorists are the theoreticians (ethical slut etc.) and very high-minded about it. Compersion, doncha know! Limerance! More jargon! (But ordinary people going poly seems to open the door for all kinds of extra drama, e.g. the trope of the guy who thinks he'll be drowning in pussy if he can just talk his reluctant girlfriend into opening up their relationship, then he finds out she's getting dates every night and he can't score with anyone; people who do 'go poly' and then one of the couple dumps the other because they've found a new love instead, and so on).
As it goes mainstream, well, this song fits 😁
Oh I think Poly has already burst containment and is a common memeplex from the Bay Area to Portland Maine.
My contention is that it has almost no impact on the actual rates of extramarital sex. What it has impacts on is the attitude of the cuckolded partner.
Which is why Aella's definition works: it focuses on the cuckolded partner rather than the cheating partner. In the same way that Financial Capitalism is, in a sense, not about the existence of rich bankers, rich bankers exist under any system, it is about the broad mainstream view of society being that the bankers deserve to be rich. Rich bankers existed under feudalism, but they were despised, subject to sudden expropriation if a king had a mind for it. Cheaters exist whether you have the poly framework or not, at best their justification is a backwards rationalization of what they were doing. The difference with Poly is the view of cuckolded partner on the situation.
Call me Pangloss, but I don't really think all this matters much, things will be as they have always been, some marriages will break up or descend into misery. Since time immemorial it has always been thus and thus shall it always be. Doctors run away with Nurses, Lawyers run away with Paralegals, Bankers run away with Secretaries, Farm Wives run away with Traveling Salesmen while Rich Wives run away with Tennis Instructors, Fathers run off with Babysitters, and Bartenders run off with...well just about everyone what the fuck were you thinking marrying a barkeep to start with? Infidelity is as old as marriage, or maybe even older.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This is an amazing post.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Don't forget the bay area virtue of believing in complex things to signal your ability to understand complex things. The more elaborate the definition of ones relationship style, gender identity, or flavour of leftism, the more intelligent one must be.
More options
Context Copy link
I generally understand open marriages to allow sex but not love and dating. A single partner plus guest stars, not a primary and a secondary partner, or several coequal metamores.
I've seen the refinement of solo polyamory and my kneejerk reaction there is "how is this different from cheating/affairs" (if you have a partner) or just "being single and sexually active" (if you don't) but I suppose I'm just too stupid and lacking in Big Five factors to get why this is a different thing altogether 😁
Isn't "metamour" your paramour's partner? As in Alice is dating Bob, who is dating/married to/partnered with Carol. So Alice and Carol aren't involved, but since they're both involved with Bob, this makes them metamours. I really am not cut out for this high falutin' relationship style since I'm too confused about all the jargon!
Same! I regularly had "solo poly" women come up on Tinder and I had no idea how to parse it. It does indeed seem indistinguishable from "just casually fucking for now, not looking for anything serious" and the link you had doesn't offer any insights except that people have an attachment to the "poly" label. It also follows the typical template of doing everything possible to avoid gatekeeping ("just because you're solo poly doesn't mean you can't get married!")
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link