The takedown of “polyamory” and lessons for seduction artists

A hater on the rich & successful

Is |polyamory the “ruling class’s” latest fad|? One dude, Tyler Austen Harper, on the atlantic magazine thinks so... he says, “Americans who most reap the benefits of marriage are the same class who get to declare monogamy passé and boring.” Maybe, sort of, but like a lot of the haters he misses something important, namely, that people have different underlying big 5 personality traits, temperaments, etc. Some people are wired for a lot of novelty generally, including sexual novelty, and for them regular monogamy doesn’t work so hot. The dude writing says “the present interest in polyamory more broadly is the result of a long-gestating obsession with authenticity and individual self-fulfillment.” Is it? What’s his evidence for that...? I don’t see it, and he says “That obsession is evident today in Instagram affirmations,” but are instagram affirmations great evidence?

He is reading a book by a polyamorist who sounds more like a nonmonogamist (more on polyamory versus nonmonogamy later), “Indeed, the desire to discover her true self is Molly’s stated reason for engaging in “ethical non-monogamy.”” He doesn’t seem to realize that why people say they do something and why they truly do things are often... different. She was probably horny and looking for some strange. Simple as. Excitement is fun and long term relationships (LTRs) have good parts but they tend to dull excitement, especially sexual excitement, for most people. There is a book by a woman, Wednesday Martin, titled “Untrue” that I have analysed, which might be a little more... honest... about things, 

>Martin says "Women lust and women cheat. And it sets us aflame." Most women don't exactly want guys to know this, so it's interesting to see a female writer foreground it. For a guy, it's useful to figure out what makes women lust after him, cheat with him instead of on him. She may say "no" to you, but she is very likely not saying "no" to everyone. It took me a very long time to realize that pretty much every hot chick is having sex with somebody. So I might as well give it a shot and see if I can make him, me.

>>But when woman after woman in a committed relationship tells you she is unusual, sexually speaking—because she wants more sex than she’s supposed to, because she feels compelled or tempted to stray—you can’t shake the feeling that in matters of female desire, sexuality, and monogamy in particular, “unusual” is normal, and “normal” desperately needs to be redefined.

Check it out for the counterpoint to Tyler Austin Harper’s point of view, by a woman who is more of a man than this “man” (there are no men outside of science departments in contemporary colleges… it’s sad, but I say what I see). Harper says, 

“What the author is trying to find in her open relationship is not sex, but self-understanding—what it means, how we get it, whether sex can provide it. And although the answers Molly arrives at are not cheaply won, they are cheap all the same.” 

Maybe… that’s what she says... not what she does. 

I don’t know the individuals involved or what they are like, and I hope they have lived positive lives that have contributed to society as a whole, facilitating win-and-help-win situations. I don’t know the author in the atlantic article, but look at the bio of the author and you’ll understand better… “Tyler Austin Harper is an assistant professor of environmental studies at Bates College.” I don’t 100% know what “environmental studies” is, but I think it means “people who can’t make a real difference by engineering, so they sit around and whine about the environment instead.” The Chads are out there scaling solar and battery production, working on geothermal, working on small modular nuclear reactors, all the things we need to make real progress on the environment... while the virgins are tapping out screeds as part of their laptop jobs, being part of the lowest part of the professional-managerial class (PMC). What we see here from the author is envy. Other men are in the arena, doing things, and he’s making $70,000 per annum sitting on his duff in maine. I’d be a hater too. In the olde days a man could enjoy the fruits of his pointless humanities academic job by enjoying some undergrad quiff, but now he can’t even do that or the sour-faced schoolmarms in administration will metaphorically cut his dick off. They’d do it literally if they could, and if they were not so squeamish. He is surrounded by peers who are sour-faced schoolmarms and eunuchs and every day he sees hot young college girls who he can’t touch. Ouch. If I were him, I’d be a jealous hater too. 

This guy’s peers who went into tech, engineering, finance, etc., are probably making real money and so they have real freedom. There is a certain bitterness in many of the people who don’t take the smart path towards . Struggling to pay the bills while living in an out-of-the-way place, once you realize that “doing good” in the form of teaching isn’t rewarded in status or in any other way, is a hard pill. You’d be resentful of the people who do something important with their lives too. 

Having done a lot of non-monogamy, I don’t think and haven’t observed the rich are especially involved compared to middle or upper class people, apart from the way the truly poor often don’t have time or energy to pursue e.g. sex clubs and parties as hobbies. There is also no acknowledgment of the boredom common in long term relationships. It is fair to say, “Endure / ignore the boredom for the sake of the kids and focus on your kids.” 100% legit. We do have a society that’s reluctant to tell people to sacrifice for the good of others. He’s correct on that. There are no solutions, only trade offs… and, often, narcissism. 

I’m not sure the rich, at least men, have ever been super monogamous. Rich guys tend to buy sex, whether explicitly or by creating situations where it benefits beautiful young women to sleep with them. Maybe polyamory is about the growing wealth and sexual demands of smart women. Maybe Harper feels emasculated because a lot of women now make a lot more than him. The truly rich can divorce and continue their lifestyles, which he can’t. He makes a lot less than 25-year-old electricians or Wal-Mart Assistant Managers. He’s likely got some exposure to real money, but he doesn’t have any. He doesn’t even aspire to get rich. He’s stagnant and complacent. Other guys are getting laid more, too.

I have been treating polyamory and non-monogamy as kinda similar, when they are technically different. Polyamory is having multiple supposedly similarly deep, meaningful relationships… I don’t think it works really for most people… non-monogamy is a pretty wide spectrum of activities that involve f**king other people. The non-monogamy thing works much more for the sake of novelty, fun, excitement, etc., and most people doing some form of non-monogamy are a part of a binary relationship with one another. Much of what passes for “polyamory” is just people who can’t make commitments, who want to f**k around but don’t want to admit it, etc. 

For a guy pitching non-monogamy to a reluctant chick, part of the pitch can be: freedom, exploration, ecstasy, love, connection. Never-mind that some of those things are contradictory, chicks won’t notice. They don’t notice the contradictions on Instagram affirmations, they don’t notice the contradictions in advertising. It’s possible to have all of the pleasure and then some, with little of the commitment, thanks to feminism. Thank you, feminism. The world is better for guys with true game than ever. The question is, what remains at the end? 

The best way for a beautiful woman to express approval of Red Quest is by spreading legs, but, for everyone else, there is becoming a paid subscriber. That’s how you most authentically signal that you’d like more Red Quest. Second to that, like or comment.

The kind of woman eunuchs at colleges don’t get any more