The New Yorker Discovers Polyamory

[PeterJ 960]

Earlier this week the highbrow magazine The New Yorker published "How Did Polyamory Become So Popular?" with the subhead "Once the province of utopian free-love communities, consensual non-monogamy is now the stuff of Park Slope marriages and prestige television."

 

If the fact that the writer presents polyamory and ethical non-monogamy as synonyms correctly suggests to you a lack of detailed knowledge on the subject, you would be correct. Still, I found it worth the read and recommend it to others on the board. I believe that even if you aren’t a subscriber you can get a couple of free articles.

 

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/01/01/american-poly-christopher-gleason-book-review-more-a-memoir-of-open-marriage-molly-roden-winter?utm_source=nl&utm_brand=tny&utm_mailing=TNY_Daily_123023&utm_campaign=aud-dev&utm_medium=email&utm_term=tny_daily_digest&bxid=5bea0f4a3f92a404695e127b&cndid=13110541&hasha=3347331cce0b215f4cce863e282d9b9e&hashb=88b18aaa506f34f15fdebabfef4bcc1bb24fc8b8&hashc=7388a910b6bd7b9c5706b003aa22c841db3ec005b9711f8ce4e1b70480ca4e08&esrc=VERSO_NAVIGATION

[Fundamental Law 2,903]

While The New Yorker article tends to lump (as PeterJ points out) various flavors of non-monogamy, the central thesis--namely that consensual non-monogamy has become somewhat mainstream in Park Slope (Brooklyn) marriages and prestige (recognized production companies and production) TV --is on point. 

 

The New Yorker is widely regarded as a bastion of literary reporting and of literature: the editorial process there is fierce. Authors need to be incisive and accurate, and they expect to be humbled by fact-checkers, editors, and copy-editors. 

 

Two quotes jumped out at first reading: 

 

"To some extent, art is catching up with life. Fifty-one per cent of adults younger than thirty told Pew Research, in 2023, that open marriage was “acceptable,” and twenty per cent of all Americans report experimenting with some form of non-monogamy. "  and

 

"These shows, with their well-off couples ready to experiment with open relationships as a marital pick-me-up, depict the surprising fate of a radical social proposal. Non-monogamy, once the province of utopian communities like Oneida, which maligned matrimony as just another form of private ownership, is increasingly being presented not as a threat to bourgeois marriage but, rather, as a way to save the institution and all that it affords."

 

 

[couplers 4,717]

Thanks for the post.  I used to subscribe, but the NYer is too long a read now.  Now it's the NY Times, the WaPo, and The Guardian for me.  Here's The Guardian's recent take on the lifestyle:

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2024/jan/01/it-gives-us-control-rise-in-women-exploring-sexual-fantasy-in-midlife

 

 

Edited January 2 by couplers

[couplers 4,717]

Having now read the article, it confirms my reason for dropping my subscription and brings two thoughts: 

 

This piece confirms that the lifestyle isn't devoid of permanent relationships or causes them to teeter; it solidifies them.

 

When I first started in the lifestyle with two boyfriends who were monogamous with me, I thought that it was great but couldn't last, although I tried to please them both in every way.  After David asked me to marry him and we did with bf involved more than ever, I still thought that.  Bringing in another woman and me opening to my Lesbian side seemed more chaotic.  But fun.

 

The serious turning point was when our gf Clair became inadvertently pregnant, and we were all joyous.  I quickly went off bc and making love with both men became purposeful.  Our family was cemented, everyone responsible, even bf took on all responsibilities of fatherhood though neither child is biologically his.  Subsequently adding another woman to our family wasn't a fling, it was a commitment ceremony. 

 

My personal story agrees with the article in that the lifestyle, however it is fashioned, strengthens relationships rather than undercuting them.

 

My second point is that adulterous affairs are not merely a lack of transparency, they are an admission of wrongdoing, of sin.  And that is the reason that religious traditionalists are more accepting and forgiving of adulterous affairs over the lifestyle.  The lifestyle rejects any stigma of sinfulness associated with its sexual exploits.

 

 

Edited January 3 by couplers

[couplers 4,717]

The Guardian is into it.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/jan/21/still-searching-for-the-one-when-polyamory-is-more-fun?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

[let's do it again 416]

1 hour ago, couplers said:

The Guardian is into it.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/jan/21/still-searching-for-the-one-when-polyamory-is-more-fun?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

I congratulate all the people that can pull off polyamory. I guess I run with the wrong crowd, most want a good night out and some sex and then go home. They may want you in the house, but not the same room. I see more people being alone and happy to have it that way. 

[couplers 4,717]

15 hours ago, let's do it again said:

all the people that can pull off polyamory

It seems many people, including those in this article, use the word polyamory to mean non-monogamous generally, so it's confusing.

 

Although our family is poly in that we live together in a committed household and have children together, most people don't go that route.  It's my belief that humans aren't monogamous, but usually practice something like multiple partners separately when young, then serial monogamy, then perhaps some ethical (lifestyle) or non-ethical (cheating) non-monogamy. 

 

BTW, I found the comments interesting. 

 

 

 

Edited January 22 by couplers

[PeterJ 960]

6 hours ago, couplers said:

"It seems many people, including those in this article, use the word polyamory to mean non-monogamous generally, so it's confusing."

 

Petra, agreed, most folks who don’t inhabit the overall alternative sexual not only don’t know the proper terminology, they don’t grasp the differentiations among the many varieties of non-traditional erotic and affiliative/domestic arrangements. I suspect most Americans would struggle with all the terms bundled into the acronym LGBTQ. 
 

Even on this board there are more folks than I would expect who don’t appear to grasp the difference between MFM and MMF, or between FMF and FFM. 
 

What troubles/annoys me about the periodic spates of articles in the popular press on non-traditional sexual and domestic arrangements is two-fold. First, the writers and editors don’t seem to bother being accurate. Second, they don’t seem to care; they are publishing clickbait that more titillates than informs their readerships. But I also remind myself that iterations of these sort of articles, as flawed and inadequate as they may be, probably in the fullness of time help change societal attitudes. (Most Americans are today cool with gay and Lesbian people; the majority weren’t a half century ago when I was a boy and young man.)

[let's do it again 416]

On 1/22/2024 at 5:28 AM, couplers said:

It seems many people, including those in this article, use the word polyamory to mean non-monogamous generally, so it's confusing.

 

Although our family is poly in that we live together in a committed household and have children together, most people don't go that route.  It's my belief that humans aren't monogamous, but usually practice something like multiple partners separately when young, then serial monogamy, then perhaps some ethical (lifestyle) or non-ethical (cheating) non-monogamy. 

 

BTW, I found the comments interesting. 

 

 

 

I think covid has changed dating and especially sex alot. I asked women to go to Jamaica and no one wants to go outside the USA. As far as dating and sex, I don't find people are not as social since covid. If you can get a date to go on the date you will get sex, it's just getting to the date. Like I said, I congratulate anyone that succeeds in polyamory, I am afraid people more about themselves than their partners. 

[couplers 4,717]

Today's Washington Post: 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/02/14/polyamory-trend-conversation-love/

[Fundamental Law 2,903]

1 hour ago, couplers said:

Today's Washington Post: 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/02/14/polyamory-trend-conversation-love/

Alas, paywall...