February 10, 2024 - 8:00am
The gender question has been a cultural wedge issue for many years now, but there are signs that the media is moving onto a new topic: polyamory.
That the sordid details of Molly Roden Winter’s More: A Memoir of an Open Marriage have grabbed the attention of the Atlantic, New York Times, New Yorker and Washington Post suggests that marriage is about to be redefined again. But to appreciate that this is not fad, one has to look beyond the bedroom — or wherever More’s author was hooking up with her paramours, friends with benefits or other “ethical sluts”, as polyamorists sometimes refer to themselves.
More is the latest in a recent spate of books, TV shows and celebrities extolling the virtues of polyamory in the past few years. There is now a growing acceptance and normalisation of consensual non-monogamy, an arrangement that was, until recently, considered immoral and degenerate, and associated with kink, sex clubs and wife-swapping.
Following a game plan established by advocates of gay marriage and trans rights, polyamory is poised to be the next sexual identity to seek legal recognition. The leaders of this movement are ultimately hoping to win full social acceptance, a strategy that requires emphasising happy polyamorous families, preferably with well-adjusted children.
If this feels like déjà vu, it’s because the polyamory rights movement is consciously modelled on successful predecessors that erased wicked stereotypes with family-friendly imagery. The Polyamory Legal Advocacy Coalition points to the recent municipal recognition of polyamory as a domestic partnership in Somerville, Mass., and Cambridge, Mass., as important breakthroughs because that’s precisely how gay marriage began winning legal acceptance, which “led to massive changes in social attitudes”, before the US Supreme Court legalised same-sex unions in 2015.
The advocacy organisation is now collecting stories of discrimination against polyamorists for legislative advocacy, according to its website. The group is looking to litigate cases of housing discrimination, employment discrimination, denial of hospital visitation rights, denial of health coverage to more than one partner, and child custody challenges in courts that view poly partners as morally unfit for parenting. It doesn’t hurt the legal case that polyamory overlaps considerably with gay and queer sexuality, so that polyphobia has a disparate impact on LGBTQ people.
With legal recognition increasingly more likely, and with scholarly backing from social science journals and law journals, all that might be required to set off a national culture war would be for an enterprising Republican lawmaker to propose legislation outlawing polyamory. That’s how trans rights exploded on the national stage in 2016 when the Charlotte, North Carolina city council legalised trans access to public accommodations, and the state legislature responded with HB2, the infamous bathroom bill.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeI
m not so sure whether this is in the long run a good thing for women. Probably they will be more often in the position of the second or third wife of a male partner. Plus well have surplus males that will not have the chance to find a partner at all.Exactly as it is in Islam.
Precisely, and these societies are neither bastions of stability nor are they economically successful if you discount the finite oil wealth. It almost appears possible that certain individuals want to sabotage and destroy the Western way of life. A few years ago, I would have dismissed this as a conspiracy theory, but I find it difficult to believe that all this is inspired by stupidity and selfishness. The “debate” has become too toxic, the demands more outrageous, and there is an aura of malice, madness, and utter decadence that bears a striking resemblance to the decline and eventual fall of Rome.
And Rome was being invaded from the East too.
Moslem practice honor killing to guarantee a. family’s daughters are all virgins. If Dad don’t kill cousin with to guarantee his girls reputation
Which is why in poorer Islamic societies the men with no money had sex with other men. And lots of ‘tourists’ would/still go to evade the moral strictures at home. But don’t mention that to the mullahs of course.
Does that explain copulation with goats?
Is that a subject you spend a lot of time thinking about, gramps?
Is that a subject you spend a lot of time thinking about, boy?
Do I spend a lot of time thinking about whether Jerry spends a lot of time thinking about copulating with goats?
Weird question, Dickie!
You asked the question Poo Fash.
During my travels across the Gwent Levels I tend to ignor the goats. Sheep, mind you…….
All you need is some wellies three sizes too big, and you’re made. Tidy and sexual, look you!
They will be discarded in the gutter like Victorian maidservants got up the duff by the Master.
The madness never seems to go away, it grows another head & a slew of rights claims.
We are now ruled by a minority animus.
Well it would help yo pay the extortionate rents/mortgages young people face these days..perhaps the days of the teo income family will be viewed nostolgically in the future
I do not believe that polyamory will be the next big thing. There have been people living unconventional lives, quietly, for years – and they have been content to live under the RADAR. Only an activist searching for a new scam for a career would make a ‘big thing’ out of polyamory pro or con. And ‘activists’ (like ‘experts’) are earning themselves a poor reputation.
In any event informal polyamory has been working for years. Either as a spouse and lover combination or as serial monogamy.
Perhaps the next big thing will be a crusade against people wearing socks and sandals? It makes as much sense.
Sshhh, we’re playing Slippery Slope Strawman, don’t spoil the fun for the UnHinged.
I thought the modern term was ‘threeples’
It is a scam and,gay,transvestite,transgender having had their moment,it’s a new THING to pretend to care about and any claim for recognition is about trying to scam money out of the benefits system. The trouble is once the “normies” reluctantly accept that this or that group should be treated with compassion and “accepted” yes,of course you want a cosy,neat,bourgeois monogamous relationship in a suburban house with Sunday outings to the garden.centre,it becomes boring and the need is to move on to the next appalling thing and have a laugh.at watching the normies struggle to accept it,thats so erotically exciting it’s more effective than Viagra.
Well I look forward to the washing powder adverts with one lady having a coffee and two guys of different colour happily getting on with the laundry.
Or should that be..
‘getting off with the laundry’
Or
‘getting off on the laundry’
Or
‘making videos of items of polyamorous used laundry to sell on the dark Web ‘ ?
… or selling their used trainers to eachother by mistake on the Dark Web.
It will be a rich old man selling luxury items for a harem of young girls that he cam afford.
The Mormons will be happy.
We could have a British version of Big Love set in Slough or East Kilbride.
“Come friendly bombs and fall on Slough!
It isn’t fit for humans now,
There isn’t grass to graze a cow.
Swarm over, Death!”*
.(* Sir John Betjeman : 1906- 1984.)
Betjeman always was a snob.
Everyone is in their own way.
It isn’t home for White folk now.
I can’t keep one missus happy, let alone 3 or 4. The thought of multiple mother in laws is enough to put me off anyway
There’s an old joke. What is the penalty of bigamy? Answer: 2 wives.
The old ones are the best!
That’s what I have to tell the missus anyway, seeing as we’re no longer spring chickens
So bigamy will no longer be a crime?
The notion of polyamory as a ‘sexual identity’ is surely misconceived. It is a lifestyle or practice, not an identity. However, the next push, perhaps in parallel with polyamory, will be the sexualisation of children. The notion of ‘LGBT children’ has already taken root, with its implicit premise that small children have a formed sexual identity, which must by definition involve sexual attraction and sexual feelings. Once you accept this in principle, it’s a very short step to claim that it’s cruel to suppress these feelings. For the avoidance of doubt I utterly reject this logic, and the assault on societal norms, but the direction of travel seems clear.
In Canada a politician recently said parents do not have rights. They believe the government is the best steward of our children. So evil.
That belief was law in the old Soviet Union.
I always admire the commitment to utter stupidity that you people have.
I always admire the commitment to utter stupidity that you have, ‘Poo Fash.
The very same people who say this also claim Canada committed genocide by having an Indigenous residential school system. That system imposed the government of the days moral world view on Indigenous children – over in many cases the objection of the parents. Progressives commit every sin they claim to oppose.
This happened in the Netherlands with the Children’s Rights Party back in the 1990s. It didn’t last very long.
We’re living in much more “interesting times” than the 1990s.
Seems clear if you’re completely insane, but sure, why not take your own fanciful projection as fact. You’re on UnHinged, no better place to do it. And while we’re playing the “Slippery Slope” game, let’s really double down and forecast the normalisation of bestiality in parallel with the sexualisation of children, which will really just be a precursor to the gender morphing of animals and eventual sexualisation of LGBT puppy dogs and kittens.
Eric Gill.
Adult attracted minors is the faux medical scientific sounding term I’ve read.
MAPs = Minor Attracted People
Yes. It’s science so it must be ok.
I can’t see a reason to legislate against polyamory, as long as its consensual. It might lead to exploitation, particularly of women, and unhappy, unequal relationships, but so does monogamy.
Let people live their lives. The judge was right – opposing consensual polyamory and evicting tenants who practice it is bigotry. As long as the rent is paid and no children or animals are hurt, it’s nobody’s business what goes on in a private home.
If only it stayed behind closed doors! ‘Member when cross dressing was a kink that happened behind closed doors?
It would legitimize polyamorous relationships as a family unit, which probably isn’t in the best interests of children
Absolutely. Whet do I care what living arrangement my neighbour has. And I do think this stuff is a fad. Wonder what the Mormons have to say about this?
That’s simply because you, like most liberals, cannot think beyond the end of your nose. By allowing rich men to have multiple wives, there will be, inevitably, men without wives.
Polyamory works both ways – women can choose to have multiple sexual partners too. Anyway, like “most liberals”, I can’t see the need to police consensual sex. I know there are many groups, like Muslims, fundamentalist Christians and ultra-Orthodox Jews, who disagree with me, but such is life.
Surf City, here we come.
The slippery slope in action
Today’s slippery slope is tomorrow’s sloppy seconds.
Ha!
That gave me a laugh on the train back from the football
Is there anywhere to sit on the football special, or do you have to “take the knee”?
…Now now Steven.
Appalling fellow. Have an upvote.
F*** these people. Seriously we need less mindless kindness and more intolerance
Give it a try, tough guy. See how that works out for you…
Oh I think we will soon enough. It doesn’t require me to be ‘tough’ little guy. I just have to vote for the kind of politicians and policies that will effect that kind of change. No gulag for you. Just no state sponsored stipends to indoctrinate my kids – and national service.
We need a bit of Nazi Nietschze. He’s very good on the pernicious evil of kindness and how human compassion can be weaponised to bring down and destroy the capable and strong. It’s being done to us now. At least the waves of resentment and rejection are forcing them back a few steps and they are finding it harder to speak their false spiel even as they know many have seen through it.
He was also very honest about what happens when you kill God and reject natural law
Polyamory isn’t really an identity thing but I’m sure our identity crazed generation won’t let that stop them. But before people panic we should remember that most monogamous relationships are actually not monogamous.. people cheat – it’s very common. Lovers are already a norm in some countries. There is nothing inherently unethical in it as far as I can see. In a way it is far more honest. And if most marriages were as communicative as poly relationships are by necessity then the world would certainly be a happier place. Polyamory means ‘many loves’ .. our society certainly could do with more love right now.
I can see no coherent reason why anyone would downvote that. Perhaps someone would care to say why they’ve done so? Everything you’ve stated is undeniable, so it must be some kind of “moral panic”.
You say that Mr. Frater’s comments are “undeniable”, but allow me to deny them.
“Most” monogamous r’ships are not characterized by cheating, tho a fair number are, and society already defines those as unethical. Very often, an activity can be common, and yet known to be wrong, even if accepted with a shrug.
Well, thanks for your response, which at least you’ve had the courtesy to make.
How do we know whether “most” or “a fair number” of relationships involve cheating at some stage or not? Might i suggest that many (but not all, obviously) of those that continue without actual cheating do so for the want of opportunity. Plus, please define “cheating”. It surely doesn’t just include a physical relationship with someone other than the partner.
Society does NOT define engaging in a relationship outside one’s main one as unethical – that’s entirely your description. It may still be “frowned upon” by some, for various reasons, but you’re conflating the two.
Cheating, defined as having a physical relationship outside the confines of marriage is difficult to quantify since it’s usually very secret. It’s secret because it hurts relationships. How many cheat? Who can tell? Who can trust a survey? Unethical? There is one way it’s unethical. When a person makes a vow, he should keep it. How good is the promise of fidelity? How good is one’s word?
The latter point is precisely why marriage no longer has a stranglehold on relationships, since many people are now honest enough with themselves to recognise the unlikelihood of sustaining it “till death us do part”, however well meaning at the outset.
We live longer, and people change. Pretending otherwise is itself unethical since it places an obligation upon human beings which we’re not designed for; the subconscious aim is always to maximise our impact on the gene pool. Indeed, the conflict between our true nature and the one which society tries to impose on us is precisely where polyamory comes in, as perhaps a more satisfactory method of establishing committed relationships.
I’ve replied to this, but it’s not yet appeared. Maybe it will later.
Polyamory has nothing to do with love. It’s all libido and lust. I’m ok with that, but we need to recognize it for what it is. At least with cheating there is a twisted honesty about it in that those who engage in it know they are doing something wrong and try to cover it up. Polyamory is completely dishonest in that it’s intellectualized lust pretending to be ethical and loving. Cheaters may be liars, but polyamorists are complete bullshitters. They just need to come out and say they want to f**k as many people as possible.
Well that is a view and fair enough. Perhaps that’s your experience I don’t know but it’s not my experience. It sounds like the kind of thing people say looking in from the outside though. It’s the kind of thing I might have conjectured at one point. But then a closer encounter with people who actually live it gives a totally different understanding of what it is all about. I don’t think people can be persuaded in this by arguments and reasoning – but perhaps people can at least have an open mind. Especially if people haven’t tried it. That would be reasonable I think.
Although I’m not in a relationship I’d say that I’d be inclined to give swinging a go – I disagree with you that there wouldn’t be anyone who could have multiple relationships with larger emotional intimacy and would genuinely fit a reasonable definition of the polyamorous label, however the profile you described of wanting to just have sex with multiple people would apply to a lot of people who might suggest otherwise – I know that it applies to me and I would rather just say I’m for monogamy with friends with benefits rather than polyamory.
Agreed. Completely.
People have a right to make their own choices, live their own lives. And I’ve noticed that after a few years of marriage the relationship tends to be valued for reasons that might not have anything to do with romantic love. Many husbands and wives are willing to turn a blind eye in order to preserve the home and family that they have. Some might even see it as a good alternative.
But most importantly, it’s none of my business! And I’d like to keep it that way.
I agree wholeheartedly with you. Just hope it doesn’t go the way of LGBQT activism.
It’s inherently unethical because children are the ones who often suffer from unstable homes.
Given that you can’t have poly marriages at the moment and there is no shortage of broken and unstable marriages, by your own logic monogamous relationships are unethical.
Broken marriages aren’t monogamy, neither is serial monogamy. Healthy monogamous marriages are demonstrated to be better for children. Perhaps we need to help foster a culture of healthy marriages.
There’s a reason that many societies don’t encourage polygamy or variations thereof. In fact we’re already seeing the effects of it, with the rise of the “incel” movement, but for different reasons.
Fundamentally, if polygamy is encouraged then there won’t be enough women to go around, which will lead to strife in society, with a lot of bitter, angry men, watching on, as their more “successful” or “desirable” peers take on the responsibility for a a whole stable of females. It will not end well, which is why it’s generally not been allowed.
We are already seeing its minor effects, with the rise of female educational and economic success. They naturally gravitate towards even more successful males, leaving a dearth of suitable male partners, the aforementioned “incels”. All polyamory will do is pour petrol on the flames.
Or just bring forward the development of Tesla’s sentient electric powered sex robots by a few decades.
What if polyamory leads to polyandry instead of polygamy though? Would that make it a good thing for society?
Either way, it will just cause jealousy and damaged children.
Very few cultures practice it. Many have polygamy
Hmm. I don’t think so. I imagine the innate nature of males, fuelled by testosterone, would preclude a “stable” of males for one lady. Our hapless overachieving female would return from work one day to a bloodbath, methinks.
Imagine having to work in paid employment,keep house,cook,and provide sex for four or more lazy bastards instead of just one.
Depends if you think STDs are a good thing.
Is polyamory and polygamy the same thing though. Would devout Muslims regard their multiple wives in the same light as a bohemian artistic set might see their casual sex. (In theory). (Casual sex for randy young men is heartbreak and a destroyed life for young women I thought we’d learnt all that by the 1970s).
”the slippery slope fallacy”
Which coincidentally never turns out to be a fallacy.
Except for all of the times it does
This would only become a culture war issue in countries that offer financial and other benefits to married couples. If marriage were only a private commitment conferring no special status or benefits, then there would be nothing for the polyamorous to agitate for.
Zoophilia, incest, paedophila … what next after polyamory? 21st Century Brave New World!
Jesus is coming soon
What is the data on the long-term success of these relationships? How do children in these families feel about them as adults? Evidence-led policy is necessary here, as ever
Simple, plain morality as understood for millennia will serve. “Evidence-led policy” sounds like something an “expert” would say.
We can wring our hands at the fall of The West but I’d like to know how we wrestle control of our civilization back from the descent into madness.
Perhaps by looking outside the prism of Western Civ James?
The current Yin ascendency is enabled by tech, an implicit conclusion I’ve taken from Mary’s H’s recent book. I doubt there’s much going back from that, so the choices are in the paths ahead, which tech may also lay out.
However the ascent from the chaos of conflict irresolution under feminarchy, (e.g. compassion ahead of justice in everything) must inevitably engage means to establish an amended realm of order, in which the Yang has its proper influence.
The narrative in the West at the moment is that China under Xi Jinping is reverting to Communist central control. That’s because socialism is an ideology in the Western Civ political paradigm, which, short sightedly, is the default lens we use for the whole of humanity and all of history.
A deeper perspective, is that China is responding to the local effects there of the global crisis in the Yin Yang equilibrium, much as it has done for millennia. (See N.S. Lyon’s article about Wang Huning at palladium@substack.)
But Eastern means are not likely to be very appealing to to those of a classical liberal or conservative mindset in the West. And of course Progressives would just yell “Adolf H and the Nasties” so in the West it will probably take a genuine catastrophe, (war is the usual one) for a consensus new order to emerge.
You do realise that China is collapsing demographically and now economically?
Indeed I do Richard. Watching developments very closely.
Polygamous marriage certainly has more historical cultural support than gay marriage so in that sense Chief Justice Robert’s is quite right. We often hear of young women marrying rich elderly men for the potential benefits once they die. In future women might be able to achieve the same end by simultaneously marrying lots of relatively poor elderly men for their widows pensions etc. that cumulatively might achieve a similar result.
Polygamy is a terrible thing. As we have found out in the area of Utah, allowing polygamy to exist means that young men cannot find partners. They get dumped on the side of the road – literally.
Any legalization of polygamy would be a terrible problem.
If this trend continues, why should not legal protections be extended to bestiality on the assumption it is no better or worse than other lifestyle choices. It is easy to picture the silly Archbishop of Canterbury and the easygoing Pope saying, “Who am I to judge”?
Soon theyll run out of people on people options then…..
…then everything’s going to the dogs.
I think the main obstacle would be a) in terms of general public attitudes, animals would be seen as having at all the equivalent capacity to consent to sexual acts with a species more advanced than them, like a human and b) it’s viscerally probably going to just be “yuck” to more than enough people – it was easier to overcome the “yuck” some people feel towards gay people as people would generally know other gay people and so they got the impression that they were generally just normal dudes – how many people know a friendly neightbourhood zoophile?
It shouldn’t be illegal I suppose, but the government and legal system should have no bearing on any of this. Imbecilic.
I don’t agree with the article’s revision of history regarding “trans” becoming a national issue. Once same-sex marriage was legalized by the Supreme Court, “trans” was the next thing on the agenda. It was kicked off in national media by Time sticking Laverne Cox on the cover as America’s “Trans Tipping Point” with the rest of the media running suitably aligned and sympathetic stories in that mysteriously coordinated way they do. The idea that it was some Republican state legislators who lit the blue touch paper is a nonsense.
It has also been obvious to anyone who is paying attention that happy stories about “poly” people have dripped into media coverage. So, it was always going to be the next things after “trans.” What is interesting is that “trans” is still very much contested, if anything I suspect the debate has not gone the way various activists/journalists thought it would. So, if they start trying to make “poly” rights a thing now, does that signal a retreat from trying to sell people on males who have a special magical inner girl feeling?
At least with poly people they are on stronger ground of not demanding anybody check their understanding of fundamental human biology. So, that’s a plus.
Poly is a mostly private choice that does not involve genital mutilation of adults or children. I doubt that poly is a *good* choice for most people, but I’m inclined to tolerate it. Only if it’s practiced at massive scale do we get a “Mormon problem.”
It’s about the erotic excitement of transgression. That TRANS word again. They can’t get it up unless it’s wicked and dangerous.
Around the time same-sex marriages were still debated (Californians may remember the “[prop] 8 is H8” campaign), I had an argument with my then late-teen daughter who, of course, was for it. I said if marriage is no longer what it has been for centuries, then there is no stopping on the slippery slope, i.e. if marriage is no longer a government sanctioned union between 2 unmarried, unrelated and differently-sexed humans, then there is no reason in restricting the change to taking away the “differently-sexed” condition only, we have to take away all conditions. So we should allow siblings, or parent-child dyads, or 2 already married people, or N number of people marry if they “love each other”. I always felt that “love” was neither necessary nor sufficient for marriage as it is defined as a civil contract, but if that is what we put into the center (as in “why can’t men who love each other get married like a man and a woman who love each other”) then there should be no discrimination. I was OK, still am, with removing the different-sex condition but only if all other conditions are also removed. I argued the slippery slope and asked her if she were OK with a daughter marrying her father, or let’s say four people marrying each other. Oh no, she would not want that, and of course there is no slippery slope. Well, here I am typing away with the fruitless wisdom of old age.
This is neurotic, post modernist doctrine beginning to eat itself.
It’s hard at times to believe the 70’s were 50 years ago. That’s the last time ‘open marriage’ tried to become accepted and legitimised. It wasn’t and it didn’t. It went the way of the other fads of the day, long hair and wide ties, and it passed.
Now, thanks to the LGBT etc. movement it may make a bigger splash. That’s because unlike before, not only is the average God fearing Westerner encouraged to accept these type of ‘alternative’ life styles, we’re inundated with threats of punishment if we don’t share the pride or otherwise protest against them.
Is human nature constant? It has not been uncommon that men could have many wives but it has been uncommon that women have had many husbands at the same time. It was all about the pill. Birth control allowed sleeping around more so than abortion. It ushered in ‘free love’ but that was a fad. At least women were more discrete than men.
As long as most people approve of monogamy this won’t fly. But these days in too many ways up is down and right is wrong so who would be surprised?
And Germaine Greer was a vociferous advocate,she was certainly always vociferous,Mouth Almighty indeed,she was totally in favour of removing the age of consent so that children could explore their sexuality without incurring stigma or shame. Just reminding everybody.
The thread clearly is more critical of polyamory than favourable. To be expected. The very idea can strike fear into the happily and unhappily married alike. But it needn’t. It’s not for everyone and that’s ok. Some people prefer it. That’s also got to be ok. Consenting adults ought to be able to decide what kind of relationship they have, within ethical bounds of course. So the ethics of it is key. Nothing said above is convincing me that polyamory is unethical. And the article, deliberately or not, makes the less than subtle conflation of poly with trans. There will be nothing equivalent to the gender wars over polyamory. We can relax. There is no equivalence. Indeed articles like this one could be accused of trying to create the very thing it purports to be worried about.
The ethical considerations shouldn’t just be about consenting adults, because the children are non consenting and bear the consequences.
Thank you for reminding me why I stopped being a libertarian.
What a journo-led beat up.
The consensually non-monogamous are mostly swingers who are mostly right-wingers and ex-military. And they’re not coming for anything. Stop clutching at your pearls.
You’re wrong about that. Many of the non-monogamous are left-leaning liberals in a younger generation that ‘back in the day’ would’ve been classified as hippies.
Aaarrrggghhh, they have changed the whole look. I wonder why. It will take while to get used to it.
Comment section unchanged.
What on earth has UnHerd done to the UI?? The comments section especially is totally messed up. Are UnHerd using TCS or somesuch, you know, one of the big Indian services providers for their IT perchance? This fiasco of a migration has that flavour.
The comment section looks unchanged on my phone.
As long as it doesn’t involve children it doesn’t really matter. Serial monogamy is pretty much the default in relationships for lots of good reasons – I can’t really see this taking off in any meaningful way. A bit like the huge spike in people who claim they are bisexual but date exclusively heterosexual – you will have people claim to be poly who actually aren’t.
As it was in the days of Noah so it will be when Christ returns.
It favors Mormon and moslem polygamy families. For others venereal disease spread. Multiple wives is patriarchal ideal. You don’t divorce first wife at 50 years old, just add a 20 year old model, a rich man’s dream avoiding divorce settlement. Cost.
I can’t imagine how painful it would be to have accept your younger replacement into your family and see your husband give her his affection. I imagine it would be more rife with tension and painful than a divorce.
In Moslem polygamy female genital mutation prevent audultry where enuch guards are too expensive and women must work outside harem. RICH Moslem man have sex many wives who just lies there with no pleasure
As it was in the days of Noah so it will be in the time of Chist return. Another sign of the end of the world. Repent and leave in the Rapture of the church.
I haven’t read this yet. I will later. But isn’t this being a (male or female) w***e,the village bike,a scrubber,a slag,at least a Courtesan if you’ve got a bit of class. Since putting it about a bit has always been a human behaviour what’s the money angle on this. I know I should read the article to find out. If they want “recognition” that always means some sort of legal status which also always means a hook to money,benefits,legal rights. Actually I’ve always wondered if,I’d love someone to push the boundaries and try it,can you be in a civil partnership with someone same sex as you,and a conventional marriage with someone the other sex and then be entitled to both their pension rights if they predecease you and all the other legal financial stuff. Actually that’s got to be what a legal or recognised status for polyamory must be about. It’s got to be about MONEY. Ultimately everything is.
I’ve read that the word counters say even Jesus said the word Money a lot more times than he said the word LOVE. GOD loves poor people that’s why he made so many of them. Jesus loves poor people so I dont have to.
I’ll go out on a limb here and suppose none of these polyamorous throuples will be having children, will they? They’ll be demanding “rights” to live their selfish, antisocial lifestyles of a society they have no intention of doing anything to benefit. We don’t need to waste time making laws giving status or benefits to the polyamorous, we need to focus on making laws that confer status and benefits on heterosexual married couples who have three or more children. Anything else is polishing the brass on the Titanic.
Haven’t we’ve wasted enough time on utter horseshit like this? We’re in the middle of a demographic crisis we seem not to be taking seriously. The primary thing we need to do is to make laws to incentivize heterosexual married couples to have three or more children. Anything else is polishing the brass on the Titanic.
I am a profound sexist. I believe that the reason we have a thing called “marriage” is to protect women, and I believe that women need protection. I think that feminism, gay marriage, trans rights, and now polyamory are all cultural movements that remove the protections that women used to enjoy.
Your mileage may vary.
You’re right, of course. The reason we have this intense cultural pressure to portray women as bad-asses able to beat the living shit out of large, muscular men is, I think, exactly because we know deep down that the unscrupulous utopian “liberation” program we’ve unwisely allowed to unfold has left women completely exposed to cruel, predatory forces and we’re desperately trying to pretend it’s not true.
I’m with you.
I can’t wait to see how this gets presented in the US DEI training sessions at companies and universities.