Share:
The media pushes polyamory — but the public isn’t buying it
Despite numerous columns on the subject, the practice hasn't taken off
Is the number of people practising polyamory really growing? London-based millennial journalists seem to think so: I’ve seen three columns about the practice just since December. The New Statesman‘s Pravina Rudra wrote two months ago that a ‘growing’ number of her friends insist ‘monogamy isn’t natural’; earlier this month, again in the New Statesman, Lamorna Ash described how dating a couple ‘set me free’. Now the Sunday Times is on board, declaring that ‘more and more Britons are exploring relationships with multiple partners’ and promoting The Ethical Slut as ‘the ultimate guide to polyamory without heartbreak’.
But is this true? The actual number of people who practise polyamory is unknown, though the Sunday Times reports that this year’s National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles will ask respondents for the first time about open relationships. YouGov polling, meanwhile, suggests that it’s debatable (to say the least) that we’re opening up our relationships en masse. British attitudes to polyamory are fairly consistent over recent years: 80% are not up for it at all, around 10% might be ‘open’ to it and less than 1% are actually doing it. There is no sign that the number open to it, or actually doing it, has changed over recent years.
Why, then, this perception among London’s media class that this is a growing trend? Perhaps, in their social circles, it is: this is so much so for one of the above writers that she reports that her friends suggest she’s ‘close-minded and conservative’ for not being into it. It’s hardly original to note, of course, that a values gap exists between the media class and the British people more generally. A similar gap, where the EU was concerned, famously produced the ‘surprise’ Brexit vote. And while polyamory hardly has the same political weight as Brexit, it seems at least likely that attitudes to the practice are unevenly distributed, perhaps along similar lines.
And this raises a further question. Should the media class report something that seems normal or even appealing to them, but is at best niche among the wider population, as though it’s a growing trend across the board? Do journalists have a duty to reflect wider moral norms, or to shape them? Aside from Brexit, there are plenty of other similar efforts, some more absurd than others. The Economist, for example, is often remarked on for its determination to persuade us that eating insects is not disgusting, but a “crunchy solution to boosting the food supply” and something all of us would really like to try. Insects nonetheless continue not being a popular food choice.
The fact that the British public voted Leave despite the best efforts of the media class suggests that there are limits to how far popular opinion at scale can be ‘shaped’ by even the most determined media. I suspect this goes, too, for niche preoccupations such as polyamory and edible insects. But to the extent that the press does have a measure of moral influence, it’s worth asking what, if any, public good might be served by promoting any given unpopular cause.
Insect-boosters, for example, might argue that the environmental impact and manifest cruelty of intensive meat production requires us to seek alternative protein sources and therefore, normalising the consumption of insects is in the public interest. But even on this metric it’s hard to see what public good is served by promoting a form of relationship desired by a third of straight men but only 5% of women, that increases the risk of harm to dependent children by increasing exposure to a parent’s unrelated partner, and that — if it is on the rise — doesn’t even seem to be increasing the amount of sex Britons are having.
The media also has a public responsibility. However avant-garde and thrilling it may seem among a handful of childless London millennials, seeking to normalise polyamory is a dereliction of this responsibility.
As has been observed, the “Swinging Sixties” affected a few thousand people in London. The rest of us remained resolutely in the 50s until middle age came to our rescue.
Most of us are grateful to find one person to swing with us. I don’t recall people who look like those in the photo lining up to start a polycule with me.
I’ve seen one or two Tiktok videos where these exhibitionists parade themselves, and you may rest assured that they are strikingly physically unattractive.
The married philosophers Carrie Jenkins and Jonathan Ichikawa, who were partly responsible for hounding Kathleen Stock out of the profession because of her wrongthink on trans ideology, furnish a magnificent exemplification of this phenomenon.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/05/20/boring-middle-aged-professor-husband-three-lovers/
Monogamy often gets portrayed as a kind of timid rejection of polyamory. It offers something that polyamory cannot – the closest thing to unconditional love we can ever find outside of parental love. Obviously its still breakable if you don’t nurture it. But for people who long for that level of attachment and intimacy in life and how it can ground against the conditionality of superficial and transactional relationships – monogamy is really the only path. Ironically, polyamory leaves you far more alone in the world – despite having much more company.
Women – because they are the choosers with limited reproduction capability – are hypergamic: they tend to choose mates at or above themselves in their social hierarchies. Combined with monogamy this tends to result in highest ranking females getting highest ranking males and on down the line. Polygamy results in different inequities, so to speak. There are two losers under polygamy: lowest ranking males never get mates at all. But highest ranking females also lose because they end up sharing the attention and resources of the highest ranking males who are generally the only ones with more than one mate. Lowest ranking females get better quality males, even if they are sharing them – meaning they get better resources, their children have a higher survival and prosper rate. It’s all very curious. The recent genetic literature evolving since the sequencing of the human genome has determined that over the long run we have all had twice as many ancestral mothers as fathers. This is corroborative evidence of the above: implying a historical rate of polygamy where half of men never reproduce, and the other half reproduce with an average of two women. Genetically, serial monogamy where men abandon older wives to marry younger ones and start another family has the same effect. Call it serial polygamy.
I’m now with my third and final wife. I have had a full, eventful, and exciting life. I wouldn’t have missed a single day of it.
But the idea of being with all three of them together simply boggles the mind, I have to say.
Thank you for making me spew my tea!
Indeed lol – individually, all my exes were wonderful – all of them at the same time – well, first, I’d be exhausted, and second, it’d have made the Yalta conference look like a Sunday school outing.
Levity aside, how on earth is this supposed to work? Don’t these people have jobs to do? And what about kids? How often do we read about abuse perpetrated by non-adoptive / non-biological adults in a family setting? Trendy nonsense
These people probably don’t have children. More likely, they are “dog parents.” (Or “cat parents.”)
I’m wondering whether to share your comment with the woman I call the current Mrs U.
They would compare notes in front of you, and then you would be in trouble
…so that’ll be Albireo Agudos then?
“And this raises a further question. Should the media class…”
be publicly flogged on a weekly basis
A. Yes
B. Yes
or
C. Yes
All of the above.
Run your poll.
The media will report it saying that there was less than a majority voting on option A.Yes . therefore the ballot should be dropped.
It’s just the latest incarnation of what was known in the 60s as ‘Free Love’. It’s really promiscuity rationalised. Fun for a while maybe but no foundation for life, love or happiness, and totally useless for child-rearing. Unlike the 60s though, the Archbishop of Canterbury will have a special blessing service for it soon enough…
Just the usual Leftist “Eat Bugs, Meatless Meat, and Live Where and How We Tell” you nonsense.
Aldous Huxley wrote a whole book about this back 1931.
Orgy-porgy, Ford and fun!
The media should both reflect the interests of the people it serves and lead them. It used to be that news outlets adopted right wing or left wing ideals, reflecting the will of its consumer base, but also promoting ideas that would benefit them, and hopefully convince others to do the same. That model has been broken for a long time now. It no longer speaks truth to power, but is just another institutional tool used by the political class, who basically all share the same beliefs, regardless of the party they represent.
There will always be cheaters and those who can never get their fill in life. That said, polyamory, polygamy and polyandry are not conducive to the well being of society as a whole. Imbalance in the numbers of each sex, and polygamy can create strife. The study of ancient DNA shows what can happen when civilisation collapses and the “winner” takes all.
Years ago, I had an interesting conversation with a Muslim in West Africa. Islam allows him to have four wives. Did he want that, I asked him. His reply was emphatic and negative. He went on to say that, in the Muslim world, having multiple wives is how a rich man flaunts his wealth.
So there you have it: multiple partners is the Muslim equivalent of owning a Lamborghini!
Or a Ferrari – constantly requiring maintenance and expensive repairs! Reminds me of a popular bumper sticker I saw in the Caribbean: “Mo Money, Mo Problems!”
Mary might not like this but I think it’s a kind of bizarro-world feminism; almost all of the writers pushing this line are young women. The situation is the same in the NY Times and has been for a few years now. (Imagine!! The Gray Lady!!?)
In this brand of feminism the obligations and disappointments of life as a social animal are all blamed on men and the imaginary “feudal power” they hold. Polyamory is appealing as a neat way to side-step that power. The other side of the coin – how difficult these obligations and disappointments are for the men – never figures in the the philosophy. In fact, the assumption is that most men, faithless playboys at heart, would be happier that way, too.
Both sides want to blame their partner, partly because they’re the nearest, most convenient target. But, with few exceptions, only feminists are getting published these days. Most men are just trying to keep their heads down. We’ve learned to mind what we say.
But, don’t get me wrong. I agree with Mary’s premise. Polyamory would make the vast majority of us, men and women, extremely unhappy.
Yes to all of the above.
I think many men would like a harem –
but very few would want two wives or girlfriends. Maintaining just one relationship is hard work.
Harem Scarem?
Maybe, the promoting of polyamory is because they’ve starting to get bored with trans. I’ve always thought that once they’ve done trying to shove everybody into saying that “transwomen are women” then poly-marriage would be the next “civil rights issue of our time.”
It’s another phoney fait-accompli bandwagon.
“Everybody’s doing it! We’re on the right side of history! You can’t beat us so you must join us!”
Er, no thanks.
‘Why, then, this perception among London’s media class that this is a growing trend’
Again, wtf are they doing in London.
‘Should the media class report something that seems normal or even appealing to them, but is at best niche among the wider population, as though it’s a growing trend across the board?’
The media could start with just reporting the straight up facts, in manner of actual worldly importance.
‘ The Economist, for example, is often remarked on for its determination to persuade us that eating insects is not disgusting’
If we carry on with the war and the sanctions we will have no choice but bugs.
You assume that it will be us eating bugs, instead of the other way around.
The bugs will eat us?? SHIT.
I’m afraid doing that will only make us more attractive to them.
I did have a laugh at that. Brilliant Mr Murray.
Thankfully I had swallowed my tea before reading this one. What an absolute corker! Thanks for that.
“The media could start with just reporting the straight up facts, in manner of actual worldly importance.” Precisely. It should not “lead” the people. That should be left to parents and churches. I would also say schools, but they have pretty much gone down the black hole.
Monogamy was invented a long time ago for a good reason – to provide a stable environment for childbearing and childrearing.
If you can find a better environment to accomplish that, then let’s hear it. Nobody has done so thus far despite several millennia to think about it.
Polyamory is a lifestyle choice that prioritises the needs of the self over other. It can only ever lead to at best an inferior childrearing environment, or at worst, absolutely nowhere.
And why the bother? Surely the author believes that the reading public is discerning enough to know what is and isn’t in their best interest. Talking about poliamory won’t deviate the good souls from their paths if that’s not what they want. Articles about niche interests will serve niche groups and everyone else can get on with their lives. The alternative is that we don’t want people being exposed to such niche behaviours because we don’t want them to get “ideas” that do not match our perceptions of propriety, so better tell the media to shut up about it.
“But to the extent that the press does have a measure of moral influence, it’s worth asking what, if any, public good might be served by promoting any given unpopular cause.”
This question is particularly salient in regard to the metropolitan media’s embedding of institutional anti-white racism and trans-ideology-inspired misogyny and sadistic paedophilia.
In the last 3-4 years Reason Magazine published an article by a lawyer who stated she was writing polyamory contracts in New York. That is when I became aware of this phenomenon. Prior to that it was limited to Mormons and tales from the Arabian Nights. I have not noticed any such arrangements in my Brooklyn neighborhood.
Ms. Harrington- It’s just that for most people it’s probably not a good a idea and less than ideal in the long run… The fact that wide spread adoption of this life style is not good for children or society is a secondary issue all together.
To each their own but for most people it’s just a bad idea because monogamy is simply a better goal intrinsically…
Reminds me of that Peep Show episode where Jeremy has a threesome. Interestingly, even as clearly it’s not what Guardian or New Statesman writers have in mind, Islamic culture probably has the longest successful tradition of what may be called polyamory.
anyone who has ever encountered the ever increasing plethora of beautifully preserved, gym bunny 45+ divorcees in recent years might disagree…
Could you handle more than one of those at a time though?
“The fact that the British public voted Leave despite the best efforts of the media class suggests that there are limits to how far popular opinion at scale can be ‘shaped’ by even the most determined media.”
Bit of an over-statement – in Britain, 3 newspapers took a Remain line – the Mirror, the Guardian and the FT. The latter 2 papers of course are pretty niche.
Every other paper took a strong Leave line – so the idea that the public voted against a prevailing media narrative is incorrect:
https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2016-05-23-uk-newspapers-positions-brexit
You live in a fantasy world. Almost the entire political and media “elite” relentlessly promoted Project Fear. Unlike you, I am old enough to have been around at the time.
He also forgot to mention the BBC
The British media is far more healthier and balanced than any other Anglo country.
A low-fat chip on each shoulder?
They have increasingly become Americanised. For some reason all the rich clever people in London Oxford and Cambridge just love the woke progressive shit at the moment.
They love it because it’s a wedge issue and “makes the right wingers angry lol” That’s all they care about.
Indeed. Thus that drut John Holland.
Maybe so, but can we not set the bar a little higher?
Today on UnHerd:
Join the discussion
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.
Subscribe