Hey Chris! We met at a panel in NYC a number of years ago and I thought your conversation was very engaging and I agree with all you have written here except #4. Im not saying it is a path to enlightenment but I will say that it can be. What I learned about myself through a non-monogamous relationship with a woman who was on the panel with you, was far beyond anything I could have learned about myself without the sharp knife into my soul that non-monogamy provided. I even recently wrote a book about it titled 'Seek the Risk: One mans journey into non-monogamy' . I guess I wouldn't say I'm enlightened now but I will say my quality of life is far better than it was before the relationship, even though I decided that non-monogamous style of relationship wasn't for me. Anyway, just wanted to say hi, get a shamelss book plug in, and add a perspective to the conversation. I do hope our paths cross again in the future.
Hi Adam. Yes, it CAN be, but isn't necessarily. As with psychedelics these days, I see and hear a lot of people marketing some exercise, substance, or life choice as a "magic pill" that will solve all their problems and instill in them some kind of instant wisdom or optimal health. I hate that shit. As with psychedelics, travel, exercise, nutrition and all the rest of it, from my perspective, HOW you do things is much more important than what you do.
Thank you for this! I loved, loved your book and told everyone about it, and I 100% agree with what you said there. I also didn't take it to mean everyone should suddenly go out and be non-monogamous. For me, that arrangement would work better in a culture that was set up quite differently from ours. As it is, I can barely handle one person, and at the age of 62 I'm not really up for seeking out anything else (though I had varied experiences when I was younger, so that helps). At the same time, if others want to, great! As long as everyone is honest and consenting. I just think non-monogamy would, in general, work better if we lived in some of the cultures you described that are better set up for it. Honestly, so much about the way we live is unnatural, and being monogamous is just part of that. For one thing, we're meant to have much more community than most of us have in modern American culture.
"No relationship configuration is inherently better than any other"
What about from the perspective of the child? Is it better to have one man who believes he's your dad, or six men who think they might be? Is paternal certainty harmful for kids? Does monogamy make paternal certainty more likely? Surely yes.
I don't think so. It's like asking if jazz is superior to rock. Depends on how good the players are, what they're playing, who the audience is, etc. In the foraging context, paternity certainty may have been a disadvantage, whereas in the middle ages, the lack of paternity certainty could have been a death sentence for child and mother. Context is everything.
Sure, but again, context. A woman who has a kid where two or more men could be the father COULD be in a better position if all those men are cool with the situation and agree to share in fathering responsibilities and feel a sense of loving cooperation. Or, she could be in a worse position if those men are resentful of her and each other. Good jazz, bad jazz.
Did the combined families/finances thing for a year. The remarks about needed communications increases are spot on, as are the rest. The other guy went crazy due to mom issues. The five of us split for Buffalo. Community is difficult.
I agree with Chris' point that non-monogamy shouldn't be preached in an unsolicited way and shouldn't be used as an excuse for unethical and de-humanizing behaviors but I think he goes too far in implying that monogamy is just as valid as polygamy.
First of all, whatever unethical stances and problems happen in the poly community pale in comparison to the abuse and toxicity typical of monogamous relationships. We shouldn't be forgetting that femicides almost always occur in the context of monogamous relationships and monogamous values. Is this undeniable connection an accident? Hardly.
Monogamy as it really exists (not in its idealized unicorn version that people like marriage coaches and the Gottmans are trying to sell) is seriously harmful and degrading for all sexes on many levels and we should stop mincing words when it comes to defending polyamory.
No, monogamy is by no means just as valid as non-monogamy. Polyamory is inherently superior to monogamy because it's what natural selection designed our psychology and physiology for. Hence, it is hands-down the mating pattern most conducive to individual human happiness and flourishing. The reason most people prefer monogamy is because they've been socialized to prefer it by our culture. Most of our preferences have cultural origins and our mating patterns are no exception.
Likewise, living in a society that's more egalitarian is inherently superior to living in a society that's less egalitarian because humans tend to flourish better in a social environment that prioritizes their care and support. The reason most people still reject egalitarian values is because they have been socialized to think and behave in ways that reinforce the existing power and property relations.
Thanks for your input, Peter. From my perspective, you make the mistake of generalizing in ways that undermine your argument. For example, you use phrases like "toxicity typical of monogamous relationships," and "monogamy as it really exists." I don't think it's possible to talk about "monogamy as it really exists" any more than one could talk about "polyamory as it really exists," because every relationship is specific and non-generalizable. You may be familiar with examples of dysfunctional, exploitative relationships of one type or another, but to then expand from those specifics to make sweeping statements about that type of relationship seems disrespectful to me. It's like saying Italian food is inferior to Thai food because you've had some overcooked pasta.
There's great and bad Thai food and there's great and bad Italian food. It makes no sense to claim one is "better" than the other. Who's doing the cooking? What ingredients are they using? Do our guests like spicy food? What am I in the mood to eat?
Similarly, to talk about the "validity" of different relationship styles or "inherent superiority" strikes me as engaging in precisely the judgmental energy we should try to move away from in these matters. People have needs and preferences in intimacy that outsiders cannot possibly understand, and from my perspective, we should approach the choices people make in their intimate lives with humility and respect.
I've seen loving, kind, beautiful monogamous relationships and shitty monogamous relationships. Same with non-monogamous relationships. Thai or Italian. Doesn't matter. What matters is whether the ingredients are good and the food is cooked with love.
Your analogy is not impressive at all. Thai and Italian culinary traditions are equally valid because both provide the human body the nutrition it needs. Veganism is not valid because humans evolved to be omnivores with a digestive tract adapted to eating meat. Regardless of how satisfied vegans are with their choice, serious health problems can and do creep up with this kind of silly diet. Monogamy is to sexual relationships what veganism is to food. It doesn't provide the human soul the nutrition it needs to thrive. So polyamory is to relationships what a natural omnivorous diet is to food. This is the correct analogy.
Chris, everyday around the world women get killed from their partner or ex-partner. It's clear what led to that: the social acceptance of the degrading monogamous idea that one's bodily and mental energies 'belong' to someone. Attempts to fix the problems of monogamy by pontificating about 'boundaries' and 'communication' are as anemic and feckless as trying to fix social inequality by advocating for more 'fairness'.
If those women could come back they wouldn't preach more acceptance and love because soft-headedness and meekness never change things for the better. Conflict and fighting changes them. These women would urge us to abolish a relationship model that's based on the exploitation of women by men which is what monogamy is at its core.
People like Louise Perry are vigorously defending monogamy as the most natural and best possible mating system and even call the sexual revolution a bad thing. Meanwhile, the 'sex at dawn guy' instead of rising up to the challenge of our rivals is calling for love and acceptance and mushroom highs. It's disappointing to see my people lacking so much in fighting spirit and even getting scared at the very mention of the word 'superior'. The poly community needs fighters. It could afford to spare some sensitive leftist souls.
And all of you people who are saying that we should first clearly advertise our poly identity to prospective partners before getting into bed with them should get real. If we did that we would get laid less and seriously diminish the richness of our love life. The only right advice for a polyamorist is to make love and give love to whatever consenting adult you choose. If those consenting adults don't have the maturity to accept the fact that you cannot give all your energy to them, then they should evolve to be a better version of themselves. And if they get hurt they should grow to be a stronger version of themselves. We must stop emphasizing vulnerability all the time and start emphasizing resilience and strength.
From a women’s perspective, in general polyamorous relationships seem to me to be far more exploitive of women than monogamous relationships. You are a great example of this with your statements above about deceiving women to “get laid” more, and then blaming the woman if she has a problem with it.
Your association of abuse with monogomy also seems specious too me. What evidence do you have that abusive men are suddenly cured of their abusiveness if they are in non-monogamous relationships?
If you want to use women for sex, at least have the personal integrity to not try to justify it intellectually with some bs philosophy.
The main axis of abuse in monogamous relationships is the spirit of possessiveness. The idea that a person's body should belong to us is foundational to traditional monogamy and it's the root of all evil. Read the book 'in control' by Jane Smith if you need convincing.
The domestic abuse and femicides that occur daily around the world don't occur in the context of polyamorous relationships. They almost always occur in traditional monogamous relationships. It would actually be difficult to abuse a partner in a polyamorous arrangement because you could ask the other partners for help. Abusers prefer trad relationships because they facilitate the isolation of their victims and because they tend to identify with the values of monogamy which emphasize domination by men and subservience for women.
Polyamory is the notion that we should build relationships and families in which nobody is allowed to lay exclusive claims on someone's body and soul. Never. Not even as a joke. If that's a BS philosophy to you, fine. Go find happiness under the heel of prince charming and good luck to you.
Chris and liberal lefties like him call prostitution 'sex work'. He seems to think that hiring your orifices is just a job like frying potatoes at McDonald's or clearing a lawn. Why don't you go and ask him what makes him think that prostitution aka 'using women for sex in exchange for money which mostly goes to pimps' is ok?
Do that and then you can come lecture me about why my prudent choice not to go out wearing a shirt that reads: 'I'm a polyamorous, radical feminist and anarchist' is so unethical and wrong.
You sound like a cross between Hugh Hefner and Ayn Rand. From my perspective, your judgmental sense of the superiority of your choices is the mirror image of someone like Louise Perry. Your contention that people shouldn't bother being honest about their identity with prospective partners because "we would get laid less and seriously diminish the richness of our love life" is alarming, and strikes me as borderline abusive. Giving potential partners the opportunity to decide if they want to have sex with you would diminish the richness of your life? Sorry, but I think it's you who needs to "get real." Do you also choose not to divulge your STD status, because that could also diminish the richness of your life? What else do you decide perspective partners don't need to know, because they might choose not to get involved with you if they did? Do you not understand that the term, "consenting adult," includes the presumption that they have the information necessary to consent? Sorry, man, but you sound toxic to me -- precisely the kind of attitude that gives ENM a bad name and leaves many people retreating into conventional relationships just to avoid the kind of rampaging selfishness you're expressing here.
Your comparing me to Hugh Hefner cracked me up. Didn't you notice anything remotely feminist in my comments? I am, sadly, one of the few cis-heterosexual males on the planet who proudly identify as feminists and if I only stretch my arm to the right I can reach for books by Julie Bindel and Emily Nagoski sitting on my nightstand. Ayn Rand is also way off the mark. I am actually an anarchist and some of my favorite works were penned by the likes of James C. Scott and Peter Gelderloos.
First of all, I want to make clear that while I am a passionate, militant and unapologetic polyamorist I have nothing against long-term relationships as such. Long-term relationships can truly be great and I would heartily encourage anyone to build one or more such relationships in their lives.
Sure, not divulging your STD status is unequivocally unethical. But is it unethical to hide the fact that you are not monogamously inclined when you get the feeling that someone you are dating probably is? In the first instance, withholding information puts someone's health at risk, in the second instance, you are only putting a fragile monogamous ego at risk.
I would agree that doing something like promising to marry someone when you have no intention to do that is unethical but saying that you are a polyamorous anarchist during a first date is not something I consider an ethical imperative. It would actually be stupid to do that given the stigma surrounding those beliefs.
My dates sometimes express political and religious ideas that frankly repulse me. Am I ethically required to terminate all contact because of that? The point of mating from my perspective is sharing love and warmth. It's not about sharing ideological outlooks. One of my dates was a devout catholic, emotionally immature and extremely jealous. Who cares? She was fabulously hot.
Eventually I make clear to my monogamously inclined partners what Zachary Zane says in the video below from 11:00 to 11:30. As he says, not everbody can handle that well and sometimes bad feelings ensue. But who cares? That's life, we cannot always please everbody.
My favorite Delphic Maxim is: 'please everyone, not just yourself'. I really try my best to live by this motto but try as I might, I still often fail. Should I self-flagellate? Of course not. Mature people understand that moral perfection is impossible. Still, just like Zachary Zane I do what I can to be as ethical as possible towards everyone I meet and I won't let anyone tell me otherwise.
If someone is inclined to call a person 'toxic' because they don't want to message you every day and they don't want to treat you as if you are the center of the universe, that person should just grow the hell up. Empathy is great but it has limits. Virtue is more important than empathy.
Polyamory is a non-conformist lifestyle choice. Non-conformism truly requires guts and virtue. Soft people like your typical lefties who instinctively feel repulsed by such words as 'guts' and 'virtue' shouldn't be polyamorous. In fact, the less of them in the poly community, the stronger we will get.
In other words: you are an inveterate liar because you are a coward who doesn't want to face the consequences (getting less laid when telling the truth) while trying to hide your cowardliness behind pompous talk about how other people should have the guts to deal with our deception.
You wouldn't be able to tell if someone has guts, be it a leftie or not, by a 1000 miles. You would be even less capable of recognizing a virtuous person because from all possible sets of virtues you're obviously just picking those who have bruiser-ish ring to them, which leaves you with almost zero virtues left.
Don't bother to reply. After saying something like this to liars, I never again engage with them since their words by definition cannot be trusted. That's life, I cannot always please everybody.
It isn’t a “dysfunction”. This is obviously directed to the crowd who is not ENM, but I think an important note. There is not something wrong with me, my non-monogamy isn’t a response to my childhood, etc. - it is a very conscious decision requiring me to be conscientious about my partners, and while I do know many ENM people that have struggled with relationships, it is the same way monogamous people struggle: our own internal bullshit butting up against other people’s internal bullshit. There is no dysfunction associated with non-monogamy as a chosen relationship style, in itself.
It is also not a panacea to other things that we need to work personally on regarding relationships and mental health at large. As Chris mentioned, it does not “fix” anything about a relationship that is struggling for any number of reasons. It also is not the key/answer if you are struggling to find a relationship as an individual, and seeking the key to success. It’s an option. And it’s an opportunity to discover things about yourself, but not THE answer to other things in life. You are not more evolved if you are in the ENM lifestyle, as Chris said, and it will not in itself cause you to be more enlightened any more than a week at a monastery. It’s just one more option, one more experience, one more way of being.
Also, it’s something to be clear about from the get, with any potential romantic partner, even if you yourself are not sure about where you stand with it. Especially if you aren’t sure, actually. The reason for this is because clarity and honesty is the only frame that we should operate from, both from a conscientious perspective to others, as well as for our own good. If you think you might be into non-monogamy, be up front with your potential long-term love interests. Even if they decline to continue, it’s the right thing in the long run, for both of you.
I’d also like to note that I see/hear the comments from those that have had very poor experiences with ENM, have lost friends, don’t feel safe, etc.
I empathize with you and hope that you find happiness, whatever that looks like to you. We all deserve to be happy.
It is unfortunate that the world is full of people who take advantage of others vulnerability in relationship dynamics, disrespect others boundaries, or who only pursue non-monogamy as a means to an end. It’s ugly, and it certainly does not represent the very good people I know and that I associate myself with in this lifestyle.
For Men: You not only need to respect women fully in ENM, you need to love them. Love their hearts, bodies, minds and souls. If you have an issue with women, at all, because of some perceived offense that the female population has been associated with or some scheme you have been “red-pilled” into thinking you have been the victim of: IE: feminism, mistrust from a previous relationship, etc., then kindly do not attempt. Go to therapy, find out why you are angry, resolve it, and come back. If you don’t, you will almost certainly will be a major contributing cause to many of the poor experiences that women have, because your intent will not be true.
To all: You WILL bring all of your bullshit (baggage) to a relationship, ENM or not. So if you bring it to ENM, dealing with that bullshit will be multiplied by the factor of however many partners you are with. I cannot stress strongly enough that if you have emotional baggage from previous relationships that has not been worked through, or that you are at least conscious of enough to articulate and be aware of when going into ENM, it has the very real potential of further damage to your emotional well being, and your partner.
Hi Chris, can you speak on how people in open relationships can deepen intimacy between themselves and their partners? I’m in a long term relationship and recently started seeing someone else. I want to continue getting closer to my long term partner. We agree to tell each other the truth as far as we can see it and don’t have a don’t-ask-don’t-tell policy.
I need to print out this list, roll it up, and whack alot of people over the head with it!
I've literally chosen monogamy due to issues within the seattle "poly" scene....it's so frustratingly unhealthy & I just couldn't anymore. Unfortunately, this choice stifles my own needs and monogamous guys usually have very little understanding (despite any efforts) of what it truly means to be poly, so I keep it to myself & my little poly heart just cries on the inside. -sigh-
THANK YOU for this. I have been that very unicorn caught in the middle deceitful couples. I have witnessed many dysfunctional relationships implode upon themselves, when they tried to save it with swinging. I have also been subject (notice how I did not use the word 'victim') to a great deal of sexual harassment in the world of non-monogamy. Many people who enter the "Lifestyle", as it's often called, turn out to either sexual predators, or just selfish people (mostly men) who want to have their cake and eat it too, along with everyone elses', without permission or consequence.
Despite all this, I do not frown on non-monogamy. When there is honesty, respect, and mutual consent, it's wonderful. My initial experiences were beyond liberating. However, when I began to experience more uncomfortable encounters, harassment, aggression, and outright sexual assault (from both men AND women) I had to get away. I was traumatized by it. And my leaving that world cost me virtually every friendship that I had cultivated within it. When I stopped attending swinger parties and events, people stopped calling. Some friends.
But, as an old Joan Jett song goes, "You don't lose when you lose fake friends"
Props to those who can live in healthy non monogamy.
Really sorry to hear this. Somehow, it's even worse when people behave badly in a space that's supposed to be all about safety and respect. It's a conundrum. Unfortunately, "freedom" seems to attract a lot of low-frequency people who take advantage of the general sense of trust.
Thanks, Chris. "low-frequency people" that is the perfect description. Watching someone fail to read hint after hint..after hint after hint...and they still don't get the message. Deep cluelessness, it's staggering lol.
Loved to see “orgiastic hedonism” as a possible way to arrange relationships promote growth, respect and dignity for everyone involved (albeit not superior to any). Jokes apart.. I hope it wasn’t a hyperbole! Is it possible to be a good person, have a fulfilling interpersonal life and cultivate “orgiastic hedonism”? I just started enjoying it some months ago and I have never been happier in my life… do you have any caveat? Have you seen people live this way to a healthy and peaceful old age?
I have seen it (close up!). I think eros is the energy of life, so the more we can keep this energy flowing, the healthier we'll be. Of course, this isn't a new idea. The Taoists were writing about this thousands of years ago. The caveat would be to be careful not to mistake orgiastic hedonism for carelessness with your body and spirit. Because we live in a world of such restriction, it's easy to confuse freedom from those restrictions with freedom from necessary responsibility for the well-being of ourselves and others.
Surely “an” energy of life, not “the” energy of life? For example, I sing in a chorus, and the energy that is generated in singing with others, when you really lock in and resonate with one another, is amazing. That could be said for many other activities.
Also, many people don’t have sex at all (or very minimally) and it doesn’t mean their life is an less attuned and vital.
Well said all-around- I'm afraid these are reminders that will need to be repeated for some time to come. All five of these could be seductive pitfalls, for different reasons.
#1 is the dumbest, but probably also the most common to pull as a weak justification. Or maybe not- but we all love an excuse that explains away our bad behavior.
Hey Chris! We met at a panel in NYC a number of years ago and I thought your conversation was very engaging and I agree with all you have written here except #4. Im not saying it is a path to enlightenment but I will say that it can be. What I learned about myself through a non-monogamous relationship with a woman who was on the panel with you, was far beyond anything I could have learned about myself without the sharp knife into my soul that non-monogamy provided. I even recently wrote a book about it titled 'Seek the Risk: One mans journey into non-monogamy' . I guess I wouldn't say I'm enlightened now but I will say my quality of life is far better than it was before the relationship, even though I decided that non-monogamous style of relationship wasn't for me. Anyway, just wanted to say hi, get a shamelss book plug in, and add a perspective to the conversation. I do hope our paths cross again in the future.
Hi Adam. Yes, it CAN be, but isn't necessarily. As with psychedelics these days, I see and hear a lot of people marketing some exercise, substance, or life choice as a "magic pill" that will solve all their problems and instill in them some kind of instant wisdom or optimal health. I hate that shit. As with psychedelics, travel, exercise, nutrition and all the rest of it, from my perspective, HOW you do things is much more important than what you do.
Glad to hear you're doing well. Til next time.
Aloha Chris & the Tangentials,
When we all gonna meet in Kona ?
Room for 30+ on the boat...
Thx for putting Sex at Dawn on Kindle Unlimited.
Interview Huberman. You could help him come to terms with his need for non-mongamy.
Still waiting on another Cacilda iinterview
Loved the Mercenary in India story. Write a screenplay this Winter.
Liked the interview on Sex Nerd.
Please ask Rogan how one may listen to the Dan Savage episode ( 512 ) One of many Spotify has removed.
Big thx for all your work.
1 pod episode a week is great. 2 is better.
Thank you for this! I loved, loved your book and told everyone about it, and I 100% agree with what you said there. I also didn't take it to mean everyone should suddenly go out and be non-monogamous. For me, that arrangement would work better in a culture that was set up quite differently from ours. As it is, I can barely handle one person, and at the age of 62 I'm not really up for seeking out anything else (though I had varied experiences when I was younger, so that helps). At the same time, if others want to, great! As long as everyone is honest and consenting. I just think non-monogamy would, in general, work better if we lived in some of the cultures you described that are better set up for it. Honestly, so much about the way we live is unnatural, and being monogamous is just part of that. For one thing, we're meant to have much more community than most of us have in modern American culture.
"No relationship configuration is inherently better than any other"
What about from the perspective of the child? Is it better to have one man who believes he's your dad, or six men who think they might be? Is paternal certainty harmful for kids? Does monogamy make paternal certainty more likely? Surely yes.
See SaD chapter six "Who's Your Daddies" lol
I don't think so. It's like asking if jazz is superior to rock. Depends on how good the players are, what they're playing, who the audience is, etc. In the foraging context, paternity certainty may have been a disadvantage, whereas in the middle ages, the lack of paternity certainty could have been a death sentence for child and mother. Context is everything.
What about now, in 2024, living in a WEIRD society?
Both organic and man-made critical systems tend to select redundancy where possible, e.g. two lungs, two kidneys; multiple servers and routers etc.
Systems with single points of failure are generally fragile.
Sure, but again, context. A woman who has a kid where two or more men could be the father COULD be in a better position if all those men are cool with the situation and agree to share in fathering responsibilities and feel a sense of loving cooperation. Or, she could be in a worse position if those men are resentful of her and each other. Good jazz, bad jazz.
Did the combined families/finances thing for a year. The remarks about needed communications increases are spot on, as are the rest. The other guy went crazy due to mom issues. The five of us split for Buffalo. Community is difficult.
I agree with Chris' point that non-monogamy shouldn't be preached in an unsolicited way and shouldn't be used as an excuse for unethical and de-humanizing behaviors but I think he goes too far in implying that monogamy is just as valid as polygamy.
First of all, whatever unethical stances and problems happen in the poly community pale in comparison to the abuse and toxicity typical of monogamous relationships. We shouldn't be forgetting that femicides almost always occur in the context of monogamous relationships and monogamous values. Is this undeniable connection an accident? Hardly.
Monogamy as it really exists (not in its idealized unicorn version that people like marriage coaches and the Gottmans are trying to sell) is seriously harmful and degrading for all sexes on many levels and we should stop mincing words when it comes to defending polyamory.
No, monogamy is by no means just as valid as non-monogamy. Polyamory is inherently superior to monogamy because it's what natural selection designed our psychology and physiology for. Hence, it is hands-down the mating pattern most conducive to individual human happiness and flourishing. The reason most people prefer monogamy is because they've been socialized to prefer it by our culture. Most of our preferences have cultural origins and our mating patterns are no exception.
Likewise, living in a society that's more egalitarian is inherently superior to living in a society that's less egalitarian because humans tend to flourish better in a social environment that prioritizes their care and support. The reason most people still reject egalitarian values is because they have been socialized to think and behave in ways that reinforce the existing power and property relations.
Thanks for your input, Peter. From my perspective, you make the mistake of generalizing in ways that undermine your argument. For example, you use phrases like "toxicity typical of monogamous relationships," and "monogamy as it really exists." I don't think it's possible to talk about "monogamy as it really exists" any more than one could talk about "polyamory as it really exists," because every relationship is specific and non-generalizable. You may be familiar with examples of dysfunctional, exploitative relationships of one type or another, but to then expand from those specifics to make sweeping statements about that type of relationship seems disrespectful to me. It's like saying Italian food is inferior to Thai food because you've had some overcooked pasta.
There's great and bad Thai food and there's great and bad Italian food. It makes no sense to claim one is "better" than the other. Who's doing the cooking? What ingredients are they using? Do our guests like spicy food? What am I in the mood to eat?
Similarly, to talk about the "validity" of different relationship styles or "inherent superiority" strikes me as engaging in precisely the judgmental energy we should try to move away from in these matters. People have needs and preferences in intimacy that outsiders cannot possibly understand, and from my perspective, we should approach the choices people make in their intimate lives with humility and respect.
I've seen loving, kind, beautiful monogamous relationships and shitty monogamous relationships. Same with non-monogamous relationships. Thai or Italian. Doesn't matter. What matters is whether the ingredients are good and the food is cooked with love.
"People have needs and preferences in intimacy that outsiders cannot possibly understand..."
Where did tha come from?
Your analogy is not impressive at all. Thai and Italian culinary traditions are equally valid because both provide the human body the nutrition it needs. Veganism is not valid because humans evolved to be omnivores with a digestive tract adapted to eating meat. Regardless of how satisfied vegans are with their choice, serious health problems can and do creep up with this kind of silly diet. Monogamy is to sexual relationships what veganism is to food. It doesn't provide the human soul the nutrition it needs to thrive. So polyamory is to relationships what a natural omnivorous diet is to food. This is the correct analogy.
Chris, everyday around the world women get killed from their partner or ex-partner. It's clear what led to that: the social acceptance of the degrading monogamous idea that one's bodily and mental energies 'belong' to someone. Attempts to fix the problems of monogamy by pontificating about 'boundaries' and 'communication' are as anemic and feckless as trying to fix social inequality by advocating for more 'fairness'.
If those women could come back they wouldn't preach more acceptance and love because soft-headedness and meekness never change things for the better. Conflict and fighting changes them. These women would urge us to abolish a relationship model that's based on the exploitation of women by men which is what monogamy is at its core.
People like Louise Perry are vigorously defending monogamy as the most natural and best possible mating system and even call the sexual revolution a bad thing. Meanwhile, the 'sex at dawn guy' instead of rising up to the challenge of our rivals is calling for love and acceptance and mushroom highs. It's disappointing to see my people lacking so much in fighting spirit and even getting scared at the very mention of the word 'superior'. The poly community needs fighters. It could afford to spare some sensitive leftist souls.
And all of you people who are saying that we should first clearly advertise our poly identity to prospective partners before getting into bed with them should get real. If we did that we would get laid less and seriously diminish the richness of our love life. The only right advice for a polyamorist is to make love and give love to whatever consenting adult you choose. If those consenting adults don't have the maturity to accept the fact that you cannot give all your energy to them, then they should evolve to be a better version of themselves. And if they get hurt they should grow to be a stronger version of themselves. We must stop emphasizing vulnerability all the time and start emphasizing resilience and strength.
From a women’s perspective, in general polyamorous relationships seem to me to be far more exploitive of women than monogamous relationships. You are a great example of this with your statements above about deceiving women to “get laid” more, and then blaming the woman if she has a problem with it.
Your association of abuse with monogomy also seems specious too me. What evidence do you have that abusive men are suddenly cured of their abusiveness if they are in non-monogamous relationships?
If you want to use women for sex, at least have the personal integrity to not try to justify it intellectually with some bs philosophy.
The main axis of abuse in monogamous relationships is the spirit of possessiveness. The idea that a person's body should belong to us is foundational to traditional monogamy and it's the root of all evil. Read the book 'in control' by Jane Smith if you need convincing.
The domestic abuse and femicides that occur daily around the world don't occur in the context of polyamorous relationships. They almost always occur in traditional monogamous relationships. It would actually be difficult to abuse a partner in a polyamorous arrangement because you could ask the other partners for help. Abusers prefer trad relationships because they facilitate the isolation of their victims and because they tend to identify with the values of monogamy which emphasize domination by men and subservience for women.
Polyamory is the notion that we should build relationships and families in which nobody is allowed to lay exclusive claims on someone's body and soul. Never. Not even as a joke. If that's a BS philosophy to you, fine. Go find happiness under the heel of prince charming and good luck to you.
Chris and liberal lefties like him call prostitution 'sex work'. He seems to think that hiring your orifices is just a job like frying potatoes at McDonald's or clearing a lawn. Why don't you go and ask him what makes him think that prostitution aka 'using women for sex in exchange for money which mostly goes to pimps' is ok?
Do that and then you can come lecture me about why my prudent choice not to go out wearing a shirt that reads: 'I'm a polyamorous, radical feminist and anarchist' is so unethical and wrong.
Ideological argument. A bit cultish, innit?
You sound like a cross between Hugh Hefner and Ayn Rand. From my perspective, your judgmental sense of the superiority of your choices is the mirror image of someone like Louise Perry. Your contention that people shouldn't bother being honest about their identity with prospective partners because "we would get laid less and seriously diminish the richness of our love life" is alarming, and strikes me as borderline abusive. Giving potential partners the opportunity to decide if they want to have sex with you would diminish the richness of your life? Sorry, but I think it's you who needs to "get real." Do you also choose not to divulge your STD status, because that could also diminish the richness of your life? What else do you decide perspective partners don't need to know, because they might choose not to get involved with you if they did? Do you not understand that the term, "consenting adult," includes the presumption that they have the information necessary to consent? Sorry, man, but you sound toxic to me -- precisely the kind of attitude that gives ENM a bad name and leaves many people retreating into conventional relationships just to avoid the kind of rampaging selfishness you're expressing here.
Your comparing me to Hugh Hefner cracked me up. Didn't you notice anything remotely feminist in my comments? I am, sadly, one of the few cis-heterosexual males on the planet who proudly identify as feminists and if I only stretch my arm to the right I can reach for books by Julie Bindel and Emily Nagoski sitting on my nightstand. Ayn Rand is also way off the mark. I am actually an anarchist and some of my favorite works were penned by the likes of James C. Scott and Peter Gelderloos.
First of all, I want to make clear that while I am a passionate, militant and unapologetic polyamorist I have nothing against long-term relationships as such. Long-term relationships can truly be great and I would heartily encourage anyone to build one or more such relationships in their lives.
Sure, not divulging your STD status is unequivocally unethical. But is it unethical to hide the fact that you are not monogamously inclined when you get the feeling that someone you are dating probably is? In the first instance, withholding information puts someone's health at risk, in the second instance, you are only putting a fragile monogamous ego at risk.
I would agree that doing something like promising to marry someone when you have no intention to do that is unethical but saying that you are a polyamorous anarchist during a first date is not something I consider an ethical imperative. It would actually be stupid to do that given the stigma surrounding those beliefs.
My dates sometimes express political and religious ideas that frankly repulse me. Am I ethically required to terminate all contact because of that? The point of mating from my perspective is sharing love and warmth. It's not about sharing ideological outlooks. One of my dates was a devout catholic, emotionally immature and extremely jealous. Who cares? She was fabulously hot.
Eventually I make clear to my monogamously inclined partners what Zachary Zane says in the video below from 11:00 to 11:30. As he says, not everbody can handle that well and sometimes bad feelings ensue. But who cares? That's life, we cannot always please everbody.
My favorite Delphic Maxim is: 'please everyone, not just yourself'. I really try my best to live by this motto but try as I might, I still often fail. Should I self-flagellate? Of course not. Mature people understand that moral perfection is impossible. Still, just like Zachary Zane I do what I can to be as ethical as possible towards everyone I meet and I won't let anyone tell me otherwise.
If someone is inclined to call a person 'toxic' because they don't want to message you every day and they don't want to treat you as if you are the center of the universe, that person should just grow the hell up. Empathy is great but it has limits. Virtue is more important than empathy.
Polyamory is a non-conformist lifestyle choice. Non-conformism truly requires guts and virtue. Soft people like your typical lefties who instinctively feel repulsed by such words as 'guts' and 'virtue' shouldn't be polyamorous. In fact, the less of them in the poly community, the stronger we will get.
https://youtu.be/9_DsT2pHOvc?si=hXSWQTKiPxLlEC33
Supercilious? Check.
Egoist? Check.
Self-centered? Check.
Unconvincing theories? Check.
In other words: you are an inveterate liar because you are a coward who doesn't want to face the consequences (getting less laid when telling the truth) while trying to hide your cowardliness behind pompous talk about how other people should have the guts to deal with our deception.
You wouldn't be able to tell if someone has guts, be it a leftie or not, by a 1000 miles. You would be even less capable of recognizing a virtuous person because from all possible sets of virtues you're obviously just picking those who have bruiser-ish ring to them, which leaves you with almost zero virtues left.
Don't bother to reply. After saying something like this to liars, I never again engage with them since their words by definition cannot be trusted. That's life, I cannot always please everybody.
Another couple of things it isn’t:
It isn’t a “dysfunction”. This is obviously directed to the crowd who is not ENM, but I think an important note. There is not something wrong with me, my non-monogamy isn’t a response to my childhood, etc. - it is a very conscious decision requiring me to be conscientious about my partners, and while I do know many ENM people that have struggled with relationships, it is the same way monogamous people struggle: our own internal bullshit butting up against other people’s internal bullshit. There is no dysfunction associated with non-monogamy as a chosen relationship style, in itself.
It is also not a panacea to other things that we need to work personally on regarding relationships and mental health at large. As Chris mentioned, it does not “fix” anything about a relationship that is struggling for any number of reasons. It also is not the key/answer if you are struggling to find a relationship as an individual, and seeking the key to success. It’s an option. And it’s an opportunity to discover things about yourself, but not THE answer to other things in life. You are not more evolved if you are in the ENM lifestyle, as Chris said, and it will not in itself cause you to be more enlightened any more than a week at a monastery. It’s just one more option, one more experience, one more way of being.
Also, it’s something to be clear about from the get, with any potential romantic partner, even if you yourself are not sure about where you stand with it. Especially if you aren’t sure, actually. The reason for this is because clarity and honesty is the only frame that we should operate from, both from a conscientious perspective to others, as well as for our own good. If you think you might be into non-monogamy, be up front with your potential long-term love interests. Even if they decline to continue, it’s the right thing in the long run, for both of you.
Very well said.
I’d also like to note that I see/hear the comments from those that have had very poor experiences with ENM, have lost friends, don’t feel safe, etc.
I empathize with you and hope that you find happiness, whatever that looks like to you. We all deserve to be happy.
It is unfortunate that the world is full of people who take advantage of others vulnerability in relationship dynamics, disrespect others boundaries, or who only pursue non-monogamy as a means to an end. It’s ugly, and it certainly does not represent the very good people I know and that I associate myself with in this lifestyle.
For Men: You not only need to respect women fully in ENM, you need to love them. Love their hearts, bodies, minds and souls. If you have an issue with women, at all, because of some perceived offense that the female population has been associated with or some scheme you have been “red-pilled” into thinking you have been the victim of: IE: feminism, mistrust from a previous relationship, etc., then kindly do not attempt. Go to therapy, find out why you are angry, resolve it, and come back. If you don’t, you will almost certainly will be a major contributing cause to many of the poor experiences that women have, because your intent will not be true.
To all: You WILL bring all of your bullshit (baggage) to a relationship, ENM or not. So if you bring it to ENM, dealing with that bullshit will be multiplied by the factor of however many partners you are with. I cannot stress strongly enough that if you have emotional baggage from previous relationships that has not been worked through, or that you are at least conscious of enough to articulate and be aware of when going into ENM, it has the very real potential of further damage to your emotional well being, and your partner.
Hi Chris, can you speak on how people in open relationships can deepen intimacy between themselves and their partners? I’m in a long term relationship and recently started seeing someone else. I want to continue getting closer to my long term partner. We agree to tell each other the truth as far as we can see it and don’t have a don’t-ask-don’t-tell policy.
Hey Jack. Yes, I'm working on a post about some things ENM CAN be. This is one of them.
I need to print out this list, roll it up, and whack alot of people over the head with it!
I've literally chosen monogamy due to issues within the seattle "poly" scene....it's so frustratingly unhealthy & I just couldn't anymore. Unfortunately, this choice stifles my own needs and monogamous guys usually have very little understanding (despite any efforts) of what it truly means to be poly, so I keep it to myself & my little poly heart just cries on the inside. -sigh-
Seattle..sounds like you and I may know some of the same people- Portland here.
So sorry to hear that, Kim. I hope your little poly heart finds its way back out sometime.
THANK YOU for this. I have been that very unicorn caught in the middle deceitful couples. I have witnessed many dysfunctional relationships implode upon themselves, when they tried to save it with swinging. I have also been subject (notice how I did not use the word 'victim') to a great deal of sexual harassment in the world of non-monogamy. Many people who enter the "Lifestyle", as it's often called, turn out to either sexual predators, or just selfish people (mostly men) who want to have their cake and eat it too, along with everyone elses', without permission or consequence.
Despite all this, I do not frown on non-monogamy. When there is honesty, respect, and mutual consent, it's wonderful. My initial experiences were beyond liberating. However, when I began to experience more uncomfortable encounters, harassment, aggression, and outright sexual assault (from both men AND women) I had to get away. I was traumatized by it. And my leaving that world cost me virtually every friendship that I had cultivated within it. When I stopped attending swinger parties and events, people stopped calling. Some friends.
But, as an old Joan Jett song goes, "You don't lose when you lose fake friends"
Props to those who can live in healthy non monogamy.
Really sorry to hear this. Somehow, it's even worse when people behave badly in a space that's supposed to be all about safety and respect. It's a conundrum. Unfortunately, "freedom" seems to attract a lot of low-frequency people who take advantage of the general sense of trust.
Thanks, Chris. "low-frequency people" that is the perfect description. Watching someone fail to read hint after hint..after hint after hint...and they still don't get the message. Deep cluelessness, it's staggering lol.
Tragicomical how this book can be misread.
Loved to see “orgiastic hedonism” as a possible way to arrange relationships promote growth, respect and dignity for everyone involved (albeit not superior to any). Jokes apart.. I hope it wasn’t a hyperbole! Is it possible to be a good person, have a fulfilling interpersonal life and cultivate “orgiastic hedonism”? I just started enjoying it some months ago and I have never been happier in my life… do you have any caveat? Have you seen people live this way to a healthy and peaceful old age?
I have seen it (close up!). I think eros is the energy of life, so the more we can keep this energy flowing, the healthier we'll be. Of course, this isn't a new idea. The Taoists were writing about this thousands of years ago. The caveat would be to be careful not to mistake orgiastic hedonism for carelessness with your body and spirit. Because we live in a world of such restriction, it's easy to confuse freedom from those restrictions with freedom from necessary responsibility for the well-being of ourselves and others.
Surely “an” energy of life, not “the” energy of life? For example, I sing in a chorus, and the energy that is generated in singing with others, when you really lock in and resonate with one another, is amazing. That could be said for many other activities.
Also, many people don’t have sex at all (or very minimally) and it doesn’t mean their life is an less attuned and vital.
Well said all-around- I'm afraid these are reminders that will need to be repeated for some time to come. All five of these could be seductive pitfalls, for different reasons.
#1 is the dumbest, but probably also the most common to pull as a weak justification. Or maybe not- but we all love an excuse that explains away our bad behavior.