I once heard the phrase “sex nerds” used to describe polyamorous people. It feels like they’re taking the worst parts of stupid email jobs (Over-scheduling and constant optimization) and applying it to their sex lives. Sounds incredibly not fun!
I've talked to some poly people and all their rules just seemed like public announcements of common-sense things we do when we're dating multiple people in the early stages of dating. It seemed like that type of falsely benevolent honesty, where it's more about alleviating the guilt of the truth-sayer than anything else.
1. A popular strain of feminist mythology aside, the principal beneficiaries of The Sexual Revolution have not been women but certain alpha males. Less the pinnacle alphas (who have always emulated feral tomcats) but the levels below that, who no longer have to even go through the motions of bourgeois propriety and can now get straight to the rutting-in-heat-in-public part.
2. Is it not written of old that, for humans at least, love is what happens after the sex has gotten boring? From what I understand, the South Asian mentality is that romantic love is more the hormones talking and that real love grows over time, a matter of shared values, shared goals and shared struggles.
From the perspective of this mindset, western obsession with romantic love is a sign of humans who refuse to grow up.
A lot of Western romantic love isn't even all that romantic. When I watched Indian Matchmaking, I didn't see a ton of difference between the stats-based obsession of the Indian parents and the stats-based obsession of "enlightened" Western people.
My take on IM is that it showed a very limited and not at all representative slice of South Asia. Sort of like why I don't go to the "society wedding" pages of the NYT if I want a sense of the average frustrated Americans' average frustrated wedding.
The South Asian mother and father have (or at least had) a lot more power, though. Youth is the most privileged position by a long shot in Western society, so in addition to everyone on earth's natural fear of age and loss of potency and beauty, there's the misery of knowing that your grown up roles are pretty worthless societally.
I understand that BPO has caused something of a revolution in South Asia, because, thanks to call centers and the like, anyone who could speak relatively decent English could get a job that pays enough that they no longer have to live at home.
While point 2 may be ostensibly true, the distinction between romantic and companionship love is just that, a distinction. Personally, I wouldn’t so much say that the pursuance of romantic love is the sign of a person who refuses to grow up, but that it may also be the sign of someone who refuses to become complacent. Romance must be engaged to be kept alive (and I do mean within the bounds of monogamy as much as anything else), and the pursuance of romance with one whom you are also in companionship love with is not mutually incompatible.
How do most people find themselves in companionship love to begin with? I would rather romance my companion than let that kind of love fade. While such attention may be sought elsewhere if one so desires, to me the true mark of conviction comes from the parter that can communicate and adapt their romance with their companion over time.
This was very interesting, esp the persistent contradiction that you can be both morally superior and transgressive / 'cool'. I'm wondering what you'd think of the Anne Serre story The Wishing Table, which I should warn you now is extremely disturbing but thought-provoking in terms of a sexual taboo becoming normal / acceptable (in the minds of these characters).
I think part of why journalists are obsessed with polyamory is that the motives for becoming polyamorous are similar to the motives for becoming a journalist - it's a structure with low barriers of entry (for people in a certain social milieu, anyway) that allows you to observe love/life in all its forms, but with sufficient remove that you don't need to make any strong commitments. The life of the gadfly is fun! Until it isn't.
(Weirdly, my understanding is that this is also why so many brilliant and ambitious elite college grads, who could get any job they want, end up working at McKinsey - because they think it'll "keep their options open")
Intellectually stimulating stuff. A massive difference I noticed between the swinger era and now is the sex nerdery. I even wonder if this nerdery in general is what is making the liberals so loathsome, especially PMCs.
I would even say it (d)evolved, this aesthetic of academic sounding nerdspeak (as opposed to gamer chanspeak). It started with ethnic idpol, moved to lgbt pronouns and, in a DEFINITE rhyme effect with the 70s swingers, is now shaking up marriage, neatly encapsulating the decline of the whole project.
Full disclosure: I have been in swingy situations, but none of them had jargon or rulebooks.
Thanks, Mo! My guess is that the nerdery is in response to moralize the whole thing, thus the thick rulebook. My impression of the swinger era of the past is that it was more about pleasure than morality.
I'm always so happy to see your posts!! I thought the fixation on polyamory had to do with people who discovered a new topic that doesnt require real knowledge, just opinions, but can be engaged personally so now there's all this interest. I also think other people's sex lives fascinate other people and polyamory is niche enough to make most people clutch their pearls or be disgusted.
I think though, that I disagree that romance is the last frontier for excitement. To me, that's God. Religion or spiritual practice. So many people simply never experience romantic or sexual relationships, and when/if they do, it won't be very many, that I couldn't accept that that is the only source of excitement left. But lots of people aren't financially stable liberals living in large cities with other people who think like them.
Also, the point about Steph Curry is interesting. He's literally a famous person! Why would she expect to receive the same level attention? To say nothing of how most celebs dont tend to marry people who are as attractive as them, and people are drawn to status.
Insightful piece! As someone in a non-monogamous relationship, I agree that a craving for adventure is a powerful motivating factor, but I think a basic search for human connection is part of it as well – even in the Mad Men era and before, mistresses offered more than just sex. Those hoping that polyamory will turn their lives into an endless series of honeymoons are of course setting themselves up for bitter disappointment. But I don’t think this is sufficient reason to dismiss all forms of non-monogamy out of hand.
Enjoyed the read! Yeah, polyamory is what you'd expect to follow after preaching that monogamy places too many burdens and expectations on a single person. But then maybe some would say sex should still be reserved for one person, but then that starts sounding too unfashionably conservative, so there has to be a progressive spin on it and everybody gets more confused.
I considered polyamory twice twenty years ago, but I prefer being mind-fucked. I want gatherings of conversations as foreplay, a reciprocal stimulation. I supply the perfect bed; an atmosphere of tulip blooms, and beauty only nature can paint. A table of wine and savory meats served as delectable toys. My body untouched, I desire aesthetics and free-flowing thoughts.I want to make love to beautiful moments, caress my senses until they intertwine and dance.An intellectual orgy where we are free to be our obscure selves; the most artistic and raw parts. A cerebral feast.
~OR~
If my guests would be inclined, throw a party reminiscent of our youth, celebrating our adulthood independence. Care-free shenanigans full of laughter and maybe even skinny dipping and water balloon fights. A momentary escape from the confines of a serious world, providing an environment that makes one feel so comfortable they come alive. Submitting to our vulnerable selves and letting go of all thought, a reprieve.
I can go both ways. A woman with a desire for her heart to stay forever young. I straddle the world, searching for intellectual joyrides; some for stimulation, and others, just because.
The "value proposition" of polyamory is that it supposedly lets you ESCAPE all the "downsides" of monogamy: tedium, constraint, boredom, stifling obligation... But every remotely honest testimony of polyamory reveals that it simply MULTIPLIES all those "downsides" -- the more partners you have, the more needy, demanding, stifling, constraining, difficult, tedious human beings end up having claims upon you, and constraining the supposedly absolute autonomy that was supposedly part of the appeal of """""sexual liberation""""" (i.e. sexual enslavement)
Polyamory could be a return to larger family units, which has the benefit of a larger support network unavaliable to the modern nuclear family. Instead it is a hobby for some "sexually liberated" people. Unsurprising that polyamory that developes from liberalism with its atomizing preference will fail to develope into something that can rebond society.
Richard Sennett had a LOT to say about what I think are the underpinnings of the psychology that drives not just 70s swinging and more modern polyamory, but much more I’m sure your readers could attach these observations (including relatively asexual idpol type stuff):
"Anxiety about what one feels might also be seen as the spread, and the vulgarization, of the Romantic “quest for personality.” Such a quest has not been conducted in a social vacuum; it is the conditions of ordinary life which have propelled people into this Romantic search for self-realization. Further, it has been beyond the scope of literary studies of this quest to weigh up the costs to society which result, and these costs are great." (Richard Sennett, The Fall of Public Man)
"Why should efforts at sexual freedom, so well meant in spirit, end as insoluble, magical puzzles of self? In a society where intimate feeling is an all-purpose standard of reality, experience is organized in two forms which lead to this unintended destructiveness. In such a society, the basic human energies of narcissism are so mobilized that they enter systematically and perversely into human relationships. In such a society, the test of whether people are being authentic and “straight” with each other is a peculiar standard of market exchange in intimate relations." (Richard Sennett, The Fall of Public Man)
I once heard the phrase “sex nerds” used to describe polyamorous people. It feels like they’re taking the worst parts of stupid email jobs (Over-scheduling and constant optimization) and applying it to their sex lives. Sounds incredibly not fun!
I've talked to some poly people and all their rules just seemed like public announcements of common-sense things we do when we're dating multiple people in the early stages of dating. It seemed like that type of falsely benevolent honesty, where it's more about alleviating the guilt of the truth-sayer than anything else.
Yes! I might just be a huge square, but “ethical non-monogamy” sounds like both an oxymoron and a pat on your own back.
The only real kink poly people have is scheduling lol
1. A popular strain of feminist mythology aside, the principal beneficiaries of The Sexual Revolution have not been women but certain alpha males. Less the pinnacle alphas (who have always emulated feral tomcats) but the levels below that, who no longer have to even go through the motions of bourgeois propriety and can now get straight to the rutting-in-heat-in-public part.
2. Is it not written of old that, for humans at least, love is what happens after the sex has gotten boring? From what I understand, the South Asian mentality is that romantic love is more the hormones talking and that real love grows over time, a matter of shared values, shared goals and shared struggles.
From the perspective of this mindset, western obsession with romantic love is a sign of humans who refuse to grow up.
A lot of Western romantic love isn't even all that romantic. When I watched Indian Matchmaking, I didn't see a ton of difference between the stats-based obsession of the Indian parents and the stats-based obsession of "enlightened" Western people.
You may find this to be most instructive:
https://indi.ca/why-indian-matchmaking-didnt-work/
My take on IM is that it showed a very limited and not at all representative slice of South Asia. Sort of like why I don't go to the "society wedding" pages of the NYT if I want a sense of the average frustrated Americans' average frustrated wedding.
The South Asian mother and father have (or at least had) a lot more power, though. Youth is the most privileged position by a long shot in Western society, so in addition to everyone on earth's natural fear of age and loss of potency and beauty, there's the misery of knowing that your grown up roles are pretty worthless societally.
Not arguing any of that.
I understand that BPO has caused something of a revolution in South Asia, because, thanks to call centers and the like, anyone who could speak relatively decent English could get a job that pays enough that they no longer have to live at home.
While point 2 may be ostensibly true, the distinction between romantic and companionship love is just that, a distinction. Personally, I wouldn’t so much say that the pursuance of romantic love is the sign of a person who refuses to grow up, but that it may also be the sign of someone who refuses to become complacent. Romance must be engaged to be kept alive (and I do mean within the bounds of monogamy as much as anything else), and the pursuance of romance with one whom you are also in companionship love with is not mutually incompatible.
How do most people find themselves in companionship love to begin with? I would rather romance my companion than let that kind of love fade. While such attention may be sought elsewhere if one so desires, to me the true mark of conviction comes from the parter that can communicate and adapt their romance with their companion over time.
This was very interesting, esp the persistent contradiction that you can be both morally superior and transgressive / 'cool'. I'm wondering what you'd think of the Anne Serre story The Wishing Table, which I should warn you now is extremely disturbing but thought-provoking in terms of a sexual taboo becoming normal / acceptable (in the minds of these characters).
Thanks, Nikkitha! I will check out that story and get back to you!
I think part of why journalists are obsessed with polyamory is that the motives for becoming polyamorous are similar to the motives for becoming a journalist - it's a structure with low barriers of entry (for people in a certain social milieu, anyway) that allows you to observe love/life in all its forms, but with sufficient remove that you don't need to make any strong commitments. The life of the gadfly is fun! Until it isn't.
(Weirdly, my understanding is that this is also why so many brilliant and ambitious elite college grads, who could get any job they want, end up working at McKinsey - because they think it'll "keep their options open")
Yeah, the amorphousness of consulting was incredibly alluring for a while, when banking was down but tech hadn't quite risen yet.
Intellectually stimulating stuff. A massive difference I noticed between the swinger era and now is the sex nerdery. I even wonder if this nerdery in general is what is making the liberals so loathsome, especially PMCs.
I would even say it (d)evolved, this aesthetic of academic sounding nerdspeak (as opposed to gamer chanspeak). It started with ethnic idpol, moved to lgbt pronouns and, in a DEFINITE rhyme effect with the 70s swingers, is now shaking up marriage, neatly encapsulating the decline of the whole project.
Full disclosure: I have been in swingy situations, but none of them had jargon or rulebooks.
Thanks, Mo! My guess is that the nerdery is in response to moralize the whole thing, thus the thick rulebook. My impression of the swinger era of the past is that it was more about pleasure than morality.
What is "PMC"? I've seen it in several Substacks now, but when I do a Google search, none of the results seem right.
Professional Managerial Class
I'm always so happy to see your posts!! I thought the fixation on polyamory had to do with people who discovered a new topic that doesnt require real knowledge, just opinions, but can be engaged personally so now there's all this interest. I also think other people's sex lives fascinate other people and polyamory is niche enough to make most people clutch their pearls or be disgusted.
I think though, that I disagree that romance is the last frontier for excitement. To me, that's God. Religion or spiritual practice. So many people simply never experience romantic or sexual relationships, and when/if they do, it won't be very many, that I couldn't accept that that is the only source of excitement left. But lots of people aren't financially stable liberals living in large cities with other people who think like them.
Also, the point about Steph Curry is interesting. He's literally a famous person! Why would she expect to receive the same level attention? To say nothing of how most celebs dont tend to marry people who are as attractive as them, and people are drawn to status.
Thanks, Kitty! Maybe one day, I too will find god, haha.
Insightful piece! As someone in a non-monogamous relationship, I agree that a craving for adventure is a powerful motivating factor, but I think a basic search for human connection is part of it as well – even in the Mad Men era and before, mistresses offered more than just sex. Those hoping that polyamory will turn their lives into an endless series of honeymoons are of course setting themselves up for bitter disappointment. But I don’t think this is sufficient reason to dismiss all forms of non-monogamy out of hand.
I recently wrote about my own ambivalence about the topic: https://maryjaneeyre.substack.com/p/the-divided-slut
Enjoyed the read! Yeah, polyamory is what you'd expect to follow after preaching that monogamy places too many burdens and expectations on a single person. But then maybe some would say sex should still be reserved for one person, but then that starts sounding too unfashionably conservative, so there has to be a progressive spin on it and everybody gets more confused.
I was also lucky to see The Ice Storm a bit too young and feel it was one of the more important movies I’ve seen. Great post!
Thanks, Mills!
Sharp.
Thanks.
This was a terrific piece. Thanks.
I’ve been meaning to read The Ice Storm since I saw the movie. Thanks for reminding me.
Thanks, Lasagna! Curious what you'll think of the novel compared to the movie.
I considered polyamory twice twenty years ago, but I prefer being mind-fucked. I want gatherings of conversations as foreplay, a reciprocal stimulation. I supply the perfect bed; an atmosphere of tulip blooms, and beauty only nature can paint. A table of wine and savory meats served as delectable toys. My body untouched, I desire aesthetics and free-flowing thoughts.I want to make love to beautiful moments, caress my senses until they intertwine and dance.An intellectual orgy where we are free to be our obscure selves; the most artistic and raw parts. A cerebral feast.
~OR~
If my guests would be inclined, throw a party reminiscent of our youth, celebrating our adulthood independence. Care-free shenanigans full of laughter and maybe even skinny dipping and water balloon fights. A momentary escape from the confines of a serious world, providing an environment that makes one feel so comfortable they come alive. Submitting to our vulnerable selves and letting go of all thought, a reprieve.
I can go both ways. A woman with a desire for her heart to stay forever young. I straddle the world, searching for intellectual joyrides; some for stimulation, and others, just because.
The "value proposition" of polyamory is that it supposedly lets you ESCAPE all the "downsides" of monogamy: tedium, constraint, boredom, stifling obligation... But every remotely honest testimony of polyamory reveals that it simply MULTIPLIES all those "downsides" -- the more partners you have, the more needy, demanding, stifling, constraining, difficult, tedious human beings end up having claims upon you, and constraining the supposedly absolute autonomy that was supposedly part of the appeal of """""sexual liberation""""" (i.e. sexual enslavement)
Polyamory could be a return to larger family units, which has the benefit of a larger support network unavaliable to the modern nuclear family. Instead it is a hobby for some "sexually liberated" people. Unsurprising that polyamory that developes from liberalism with its atomizing preference will fail to develope into something that can rebond society.
Richard Sennett had a LOT to say about what I think are the underpinnings of the psychology that drives not just 70s swinging and more modern polyamory, but much more I’m sure your readers could attach these observations (including relatively asexual idpol type stuff):
"Anxiety about what one feels might also be seen as the spread, and the vulgarization, of the Romantic “quest for personality.” Such a quest has not been conducted in a social vacuum; it is the conditions of ordinary life which have propelled people into this Romantic search for self-realization. Further, it has been beyond the scope of literary studies of this quest to weigh up the costs to society which result, and these costs are great." (Richard Sennett, The Fall of Public Man)
"Why should efforts at sexual freedom, so well meant in spirit, end as insoluble, magical puzzles of self? In a society where intimate feeling is an all-purpose standard of reality, experience is organized in two forms which lead to this unintended destructiveness. In such a society, the basic human energies of narcissism are so mobilized that they enter systematically and perversely into human relationships. In such a society, the test of whether people are being authentic and “straight” with each other is a peculiar standard of market exchange in intimate relations." (Richard Sennett, The Fall of Public Man)