Non-monogamy and polyamory's dark sides

Bo Winegard tweets,

Educated elites who believe that polyamory can be practiced and enjoyed by most of the population remind me of the math professor who believes differential equations are within the grasp of anyone who makes a serious attempt at learning.

There exists compelling research that normative monogamy is beneficial and leads to myriad positive social externalities.

Polyamory is fine as a niche relationship modality, practiced mostly among the extremely WEIRD [Western, educated, industrialized, rich, democratic].

(The tweet was subsequently deleted, so I took out the link to the tweet itself.)

Winegard is right, particularly regarding people who want real families (a topic we'll come back to in a moment). Despite what you've read here about the virtues of “polyamory” or “non-monogamy” for guys who want to be players, we're also not willing as a society to have an honest conversation about what's happening at or below the IQ median. The chattering classes can’t conceive of the vast majority of people who are under IQ 105. The people driving the conversation at the top really don't have any idea what's happening down there, and choose deliberately not to. They don't really understand what it's like to not have the cognitive capacity to get top-end jobs or have the conversations non-monogamous people need if their relationships are going to survive.

Nash follows up with...

"Burning Man style: POLYAMORY is more standard than monogamy. Men get the variety they want. They think sharing their women and it's a 'form of love evolution' (they are no longer jealous), but what is happening is it pretty much destroys most of those relationships."

"In 'Burning Man' it's fine to take off your clothes and dance around really sexually. If you were at your grandma's house having dinner (or around children), and you did that, would it 'open everyone's heart?' Or would it create a fiasco? It would create a fiasco."

Those are from David Deida talks. Deida's more right than wrong, right now... poly/open is a fiasco in most instances except, basically, as casual sex, which is how I do poly/open. It’s a method for retaining chicks. Some light swinging can work too, especially in very long term relationships (that get stale and need some more heat). A very small number of people can really do poly and open as described by their most ardent advocates.

Mostly, however, "poly" and "open" are about rationalizing casual sex... because it's a form of normalizing and institutionalizing casual sex for me, I don't get caught up on the terminology). In that post from two years ago, Nash said, "for me the 'poly' community is a fucking mess. I live in CA and I am surrounded by these folks… and it’s an ugly shitshow. I watch guys 'try' this all the time, and they are a fucking sad bunch, mostly." "Mostly:" he's right. The guys doing this at the higher end are also focused on one guy and two women, and they often don't highly advertise what they're doing. Most top guys don't want to advertise what they're doing. A lot of chicks also don't want to come out as sharing a guy with another chick.

Poly and open are (mostly) a disaster for people who really want families, cause kids are challenging enough w/o all that adult drama. For most people, in effect, poly is a way to f**k around, avoid commitment (avoidant attachment styles are everywhere in open relationships), and enjoy sexual novelty... things I have tended to enjoy... most guys don't want to raise another man's child (and won't) and most chicks aren't eager to raise another woman's child (but might if the guy is good enough). People in "poly" relationships who think they're going to "have a child" together usually discover that infants and toddlers are a lot of work, reduce the amount of sex had (for a couple years), and are a lot less "fun" (though often joyful...).

So... there's a strong tendency to split, to find someone new, unencumbered. Monogamy reduces this problem by the guy making sure the kid is his and the woman making sure the guy isn't out seeding other chicks. Repeat the process of meet-mate-split enough, and you get the epidemic of lonely old people we see in western societies. Even married couples tend to have problems adjusting to kids. The woman's body often goes to hell, for months if not forever... having kids is a great thing, don't get me wrong, but almost no one will do it for kids who aren't theirs. A lot of women also peak in their late 20s and men in their late 30s, so there's that mismatch, which can fuel jealousy. Some people out there appear to experience no or very little jealousy... with the Internet, they can find each other and also proselytize for open relationships, in a way that wasn't possible before the Internet. The Internet lets us learn things and share them widely and also anonymously, and we can learn things we'd never publish in a newspaper or say on TV. 

In my own case... I've liked f**king around... and as I point out in the book, "open" relationships, "poly," sex clubs... they're a way to f**k around while retaining the girl, or the primary girl, cause most girls will want to define the relationship with the guy they're f**king, relatively quickly. They'll want to "lock him down" if you prefer that terminology (I often don't, but girls use it). This is a way to keep a girl around, offer her super exciting experiences, but still have some of the prowl. For a guy who wants to be a player, this can be a powerful ideology and frame. I don't want to pretend it doesn't have huge costs, though. Many "poly" advocates are simply delusional about its costs, particularly in terms of family and children. Human societies are organized around family and kinship for good reasons, because that's where the genes, love, and mutual interest lie together. As a society, we've spent the last bunch of centuries trying to reorient around strangers and material goods... this has some good things associated with it but it has some costs, too. We've decided to elevate the individual over the family or community... which has some nice features... and some bad ones... we're almost never willing to even state directly that this has happened.

There's an argument kicking around the evolutionary biology communities, that intelligence didn't really evolve to solve problems or be objectively "right," but to form group coalitions and support a given narrative. That may be why "intelligent" people in an IQ sense may be better at self-delusion and maintaining narratives than less intelligent people. We see this especially in places like politics, where most people prefer tribe to knowledge. High-IQ poly people can convince themselves and sometimes others of their narrative, without having the desire to question their own narrative or discover what's "underneath" it. The higher their IQ, the more "reasons" and rationalizations they can come up with. And many of those reasons are real... in specific circumstances. 

Poly is probably bad for societies, because it creates male winner-take-most systems. But as people become more individualistic and ever-less connected to family and place, we're seeing the rise of alternate relationships styles, and women are ever freer to pursue their hypergamous impulses. Like old-school Roissy used to say, "enjoy the decline." Or figure out how to make it work (which is what Red Quest advocates). And there are also plenty of chicks out there who aren't participating in the modern mating game... but they're not the ones on the apps, out in bars, etc. They're probably already in a relationship and meet men through family, school, and friends. They're the girls who, if you're not serious about a relationship and family, will disappear right away. Who will stick around if you're not? That's where the game comes from.

The functional people who are quietly building and sustaining civilization are less prominent than the noisily dysfunctional people. For most people, sustaining a typical long-term one-on-one relationship is so hard as to make any larger relationship structure prohibitive. But there are a lot of possibilities out there for players who want to f**k a lot, and that’s been a key subject of Red Quest.