Unprotected Sex

I’ve long thought that the numerous articles appearing in fringe media about polyamory are part of a campaign to give legal recognition to such relationships. Now CBS, a mainstream channel, are putting out a documentary on how wonderful it is:

“One big orgy.” That’s the stereotype about the lifestyle of consensual non-monogamy — an arrangement where committed partners openly agree to have sexual relationships with other people.

But people who have practiced non-monogamy for years say it’s not all wild sex — or even all that wild. It takes a lot of work, and it carries a lot of stigma. There can be serious consequences for the family life and even careers of those involved.

The consequences for family life aren’t so serious they consider quitting the practice, though. Apparently the right to have multiple sex partners trumps all other considerations.

“Many people are trying to create families in different kinds of ways. And a lot of people see that as dangerous,” Diana Adams, a Brooklyn-based lawyer who represents polyamorous families, says in the CBSN Originals documentary, “Non-monogamy.”

Brooklyn, eh? There’s a surprise. And yes, a lot of people do have the welfare of children and wider society in mind when looking at deviant behaviour. We’d not be much of a society if we didn’t, would we?

She advises clients in non-monogamous relationships to be careful about telling their employers. She’s seen some lose their jobs over it.

“There are places where it’s not safe to tell people that you’re polyamorous, and many people are not out,” Adams said. “I think employers are aware that they don’t have to allow employees to express themselves, in terms of their relationship status. Because that isn’t a protected class.”

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is what it’s all about. Polyamorists want their sexual preferences – which are less lifestyle choices than coping mechanisms – accorded special protections from the government.

There is no legal framework for polyamorous families to share finances, custody of children or the rights and responsibilities that come with marriage.

That’s because they’re not married. Similarly, I rarely get tax relief on pension contributions I don’t make.

Likewise, there are no legal protections against people facing discrimination for being in a non-monogamous relationship.

Nor for people holding conservative views.

Mahdy, a man who lives in Brooklyn, New York, had to end his marriage to keep his relationship together. He is part of what’s called a triad or thruple — a polyamorous relationship between three people who are all actively involved with each other. But because it’s illegal to be married to more than one person, only two people in his triad can be married.

Imagine the oppression!

Mahdy, who did not want his last name to be used, met his first partner about 14 years ago and married her in 2011. One year later, the couple met another woman, and the three formed a triad. But it could have fallen apart after the second woman ran into problems with her immigration status, he says.

For her to remain in America, Mahdy and his wife divorced, and the wife married the second partner. It kept them all together — but he is still reeling from the ordeal.

This is about par for the course for Brooklyn polyamorists: mentally ill foreign woman arrives in the US, gets into polyamory, someone agrees to marry her when her visa expires to keep her in the circle. It’s hard to see how this obvious gaming of the system benefits American society.

“Dissolving the marriage … that was really, really difficult for me,” he says. “I don’t have the legal protections I had when me and my first partner were married. In fact, I don’t think I’ve had health insurance since.”

I’m of the opinion that polyamorists are generally f*ck-ups. That this chap has two “wives” and doesn’t know if he has health insurance doesn’t do much to persuade me otherwise.

For many people in non-monogamous relationships, there’s nothing strange about their arrangement. It’s just romance — plus one or two other people, or more.

There’s nothing strange about Siamese twins. It’s just a person, plus another head.

“People think that there’s this magical thing happening all the time,” says Brooke Houston of Kansas City, Kansas, who has been in a triad for more than a year.

More than a year. I guess they couldn’t find anyone who’d managed to keep it up longer than that.

“And half the time we’re just chilling. … Whoever has the energy for a big orgy 24/7, let me know. Tell me your secret,” she joked.

In 2018, Houston formed a triad with CJ and Brandi George, a couple who have been in an open marriage for four years. She has a sexual relationship with both CJ and Brandi — sometimes individually, and sometimes all together.

LOL, we don’t have orgies! Just threesomes. We’re normal.

It’s not all about sex, though. The three of them live as one unit — sharing a bed, but also sharing dinners.

It’s not all about sex: sometimes they eat food.

Brandi said that years ago, someone wrote an anonymous letter to the school district where she works as a teacher, outing her for being in an open relationship. The district called her in to discuss it. She didn’t end up losing her job — but she feared that she would.

In other words they couldn’t find anyone who’d actually lost their job for being polyamorous. This hardly sounds like an oppressed group desperate for special protections.

“I was terrified that I would be let go from my job or that I would have people that wouldn’t accept me,” she said. “My students, like, they give me oxygen, they give me life. And so to have that taken from me would have just like devastated me. So I was just very aware that that could happen and that I would have nothing. And how could I provide for my kids if I don’t have a job?”

None of which actually happened.

CBSN Originals spoke with two women in Durham, North Carolina, who have been in what they call a polyfidelitous closed quad for more than seven years. That means the two married couples are romantically involved with each other — each woman has sex with the other’s husband — but outside of that the couples don’t see anyone else. The women asked to remain anonymous to protect their families, and for fear of consequences in their jobs.

Which is pretty much where Trump supporters stand in many professions.

“It’s not just about sleeping with each other’s husbands. Our lives are meshed together,” one of the women said. “Mondays, Thursdays, Saturdays are the nights we spend with our extramarital partners. And Sundays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Fridays we spend with our marital partners.”

I don’t want to ask how often they change the bedsheets. My guess is the sheets wait for a window of opportunity before walking themselves to the washing machine.

One of the hardest parts of the arrangement is the children. One couple does not have kids; the other does. The couples care for and parent them together, though there is no question about who their biological parents are. And those children had to have all of this explained to them.

Because God forbid the parents and their sex partners adjust their lives so children don’t have to get their heads around the intricacies of sexual degeneracy.

“It involves a lot of trust,” the woman with children said. “I, as a mother, have to think, ‘Do I trust these people?’ This could really, really impact my children’s life for the worse.”

But I’ll take the risk anyway because, frankly, it’s all about me.

“What we were hoping for was that giving the children more adults in their lives that love them would counterbalance giving them a strange life, and would outweigh it,” her partner added.

And thus began a whole new parenting philosophy which went some way to explain the rash of suicides and instances of clinical depression 15 years later.

Last year, the American Psychological Association created a task force on consensual non-monogamy to promote awareness and understanding of non-traditional relationship structures.

“Finding love and/or sexual intimacy is a central part of most people’s life experience,” the APA website says. “However, the ability to engage in desired intimacy without social and medical stigmatization is not a liberty for all.”

I suppose the APA is wholly uninterested in 1) the effect on any children caught up in this and 2) the psychological state of polyamorists to begin with.

People who engage in or support non-monogamous relationships argue that it’s simply an option that should be available for those who choose — just as monogamy should be an option. And for now, they’re just asking for acceptance.

For now. Then as soon as you’ve got that, compulsory celebration and outlawing criticism will follow.

“It’s never gonna be equal for us,” Mahdy said. “I only ask that people don’t interfere with what we have.”

Erm, they’re not. But you want the law changed so you can marry some disturbed foreigner without having to divorce your current wife, all so she can be permitted to live in the USA.

This whole campaign is just the latest battle in the war on traditional marriage which, once won, will usher in a Utopian society in which anyone can sleep with everyone willy-nilly, and the children all take part and are happy. What could go wrong?

Liked it? Take a second to support Tim Newman on Patreon!
Share

27 thoughts on “Unprotected Sex

  1. Simple solution. Permit bigamy, just like the vibrants.
    After that, allow marriage to your emotional support pet. It would save on health insurance.

  2. And yes, a lot of people do have the welfare of children and wider society in mind when looking at deviant behaviour.

    Huh, it’s almost as if the societies that do so are more likely to be copied by children raised therein, whereas societies that don’t are more likely to result in children who escape to other societies, create “new” rules that make the experimental society more like old societies, or simply don’t bother procreating.

  3. “allow marriage to your emotional support pet.”

    Ha! There is a lot of truth in that…

  4. A “polyfidelitous closed quad”, eh?

    Sounds like part of an Oxbridge college reserved for adventurous senior dons.

  5. It’s time to reclaim the language from the freaks.

    “Amorous” means inclined to love or being fond of the opposite sex. It’s doubtful whether love is the driving force behind these relationships and while there are only two sexes (for now) fondness for the opposite sex doesn’t work when the group is greater than two.

    “Syndyasmian” is far more appropriate than “polyamorous” though I doubt it will catch on.

  6. “Amorous” means inclined to love or being fond of the opposite sex.

    Well, yes. I think I’ve said before what they describe is more polyfuckery than polyamory.

  7. After the mainlining (worship?) of homosexuality and then transgenderism, I was expecting that the next stage in “Defining Deviancy Down” was going to be bestiality. Looks like those poor old goats and sheep will have to wait a while longer until it is their turn to be celebrated.

    Darwin is a hard master, though. In the long run, a society which does not properly attend to the rearing of the next generation will vanish from the Earth. Historians have estimated that in Roman times a woman had to have about 10 children to ensure that at least 2 of them would survive and reproduce. Throw in miscarriages and it implies that most women spent most of their adult lives pregnant and looking after young children.

    As recently as the 1960s, in what is now the incredibly wealthy United Arab Emirates, about one third of babies died very early — and the percentage of women who died in childbirth was not far behind. Today, the death of a baby is a tragedy and the death of a woman in childbirth is almost unheard of.

    Most Western societies are now failing to reproduce themselves — and the inadequate number of children reared are too often damaged goods by the time they reach what passes for adulthood. Maybe we should look at the current sexual insanity and the neglect of the interests of the children as Mother Nature’s slow way of eliminating a failing society?

  8. Gavin Longmuir,

    The true challenge the human race will face is how to deal with a declining population globally. It’s going to be far more difficult than climate change or overpopulation.

  9. @ Sam Vara:

    A “polyfidelitous closed quad”, eh?
    Sounds like part of an Oxbridge college reserved for adventurous senior dons.

    Just an Oxford college, actually; quads in Cambridge are called “courts”.

    [/pedantry]

  10. less lifestyle choices than coping mechanisms

    This. Anyone who’s worked with traumatized people knows that they will aggressively defend their coping mechanisms as normal, and that it’s also a bad idea to simply yank them away, as the coping mechanisms developed to prevent worse self-harm.

    Because God forbid the parents and their sex partners adjust their lives so children don’t have to get their heads around the intricacies of sexual degeneracy.

    There’s more to it than just this. One thing I observed among polyamorous groups with children is that it’s not, as the media articles would have you believe, Ozzie and Harriet (and Ward and June) raising the kids in happy 50’s-esque suburbia. People who are fucked up enough to chuck basic marital fidelity out the window are also likely to have extremely unusual ideas about child-raising.

    I’m seeing this now with a college friend who is in a long-term triad and has two 7-year old twins via egg donation. They are essentially treating the children as small adults rather than children. Given that he’s also so emotionally fragile that having a shouty argument with one of his 7 year old daughters will send him into weepy depression for much of a day, I expect puberty to be a catastrophe that the family won’t recover from. Especially since Mom will be in her 60’s by that point.

  11. David Moore: “The true challenge the human race will face is how to deal with a declining population globally.”

    Agreed, it is going to be a challenge. However, Europe survived and prospered after the great population decline of the Black Death — which suggests that the challenge could in principle be met and overcome. The underlying question is whether our societies will have the cohesion and wisdom to handle the decline painlessly.

  12. In terms of western society, at least, swinging relationships/polyamorism have been around since at least the ’60s, and have never really caught on in the same way as gay/bi relationships. So if the polyamorous community really think they’ll get legal protection this time, it does seem rather like wishful thinking.

  13. numerous articles appearing in fringe media about polyamory are part of a campaign to give legal recognition to such relationships

    Yup, and once established there, it hits the mainstream, see also: no-fault divorce, abortion on demand, veganism, the tranny madness…

  14. a college friend who is in a long-term triad and has two 7-year old twins via egg donation. They are essentially treating the children as small adults rather than children. Given that he’s also so emotionally fragile that having a shouty argument with one of his 7 year old daughters will send him into weepy depression for much of a day, I expect puberty to be a catastrophe that the family won’t recover from. Especially since Mom will be in her 60’s by that point

    Maybe that Caliphate won’t be so bad after all…

  15. There’s no reason to suppose the global population is going to decline, just the paler bits.

  16. “The three of them live as one unit — sharing a bed”

    That would be difficult when the middle one needs to get up in the night for a pee

  17. “The true challenge the human race will face is how to deal with a declining population globally. It’s going to be far more difficult than climate change or overpopulation.”

    I’ve been thinking about this for a while (from a purely UK perspective) and I’m concluding that the only people who have to worry about this will be the retirees. A heavy elder population with fewer youngsters can get by, but it will be sh*t for those elders without their own wealth (to pay for their retirement) or family network.

    The young have been burdened by the older generation with unfunded pension liabilities, national debt, sky high house prices, and university debt (not the fault of the olds, but makes paying for the other stuff that much harder). In short they are totally stiffed. Once they realise that the world is not going to end in 12 years and start to realise that the older generation has royally stiffed them, I can’t see them wanting to pay for the OAPs. Someone will fill that gap politically and campaign on giving the ‘olds’ as little as possible. If that happens, then a declining population – from the perspective of the young – is no longer an economic issue as they will refuse to pay for them. We’ll see what the future holds. Euthanasia? Reminds me of that quote from ‘No Country for Old Men’:

    “Here a year or two back me and Loretta went to a conference…I got set next to this woman…she kept talkin about the right wing this and the right wing that. I aint even sure what she meant by it…She kept on, kept on. Finally told me, said: I dont like the way this country is headed. I want my granddaughter to be able to have an abortion. And I said well mam I dont think you got any worries about the way the country is headed. The way I see it goin I dont have much doubt but what she’ll be able to have an abortion. I’m goin to say that not only will she be able to have an abortion, she’ll be able to have you put to sleep. Which pretty much ended the conversation.”

  18. Damian: “… I’m concluding that the only people who have to worry about this [population decline] will be the retirees.”

    Maybe. Think about what has happened to heavily unionized industries which the UK used to have — steel-making, ship-building, automobile manufacture, coal mining. The unions (with a lot of help from incompetent management) strangled those industries in the process of looking after existing workers and retirees. The interests of young people in saving the industries so they could have future jobs was given no weight at all in Union decisions.

    Prime rule of politics — “Old farts vote!”. Best guess is that politicians will pander to the growing pensioner vote until they have taxed, borrowed, and printed every Pound they can. Then the problem will sort itself out — painfully.

    There is some counter-evidence — such as UK Gov stiffing working women by raising the retirement age. But that is just the normal operation of the Patriarchy. 🙂

  19. “Prime rule of politics — “Old farts vote!”

    And their voice is the only one that we should listen to in recognition of their traditional values and out of respect for our elders.

    Plus the ones that really count are wealthy, wise and invest, so its best for all of us if we respect their viewpoint and buy into this foundation of economic progress.

    Rule Britannia!

    Coming shortly.

  20. “There’s nothing strange about Siamese twins. It’s just a person, plus another head.”

    Perfect, Tim, perfect.

  21. I couldn’t cope with reading the full Quillette article (I never can) but Kapeth in the comments makes this essential point:

    Monogamous marriages exist not so much for the couple but their offspring.

    Marriage exists because human children take time and effort to raise. Without it the survival of the species is compromised. It can be hard to untangle cause and effect, but polyamory, tranny madness etc mainly exist in sections of society which have largely given up breeding.

  22. …in sections of society which have largely given up breeding.

    Evolution in action?

  23. TimT “if the polyamorous community really think they’ll get legal protection this time, it does seem rather like wishful thinking.”
    I dunno, it seems to me this ‘reform’ might play into the hands of our beardy friends, even if that’s not the intention of the swingers.

    David Moore “The true challenge the human race will face is how to deal with a declining population globally.”
    That may be true, long run (although I note the size & date at which the global population is supposed to hit peak, according to UN projections, seems to shift into the future every 10 years).
    Before that happens, if Britain has started to resemble Lagos, it’s no consolation if the global pop. finally stabilizes.

  24. Damian:
    “The young have been burdened by the older generation with unfunded pension liabilities, national debt, sky high house prices, and university debt (not the fault of the olds, but makes paying for the other stuff that much harder). In short they are totally stiffed. Once they realise that the world is not going to end in 12 years and start to realise that the older generation has royally stiffed them, I can’t see them wanting to pay for the OAPs”
    ====================
    Exactly. I’ve often wondered why there hasn’t been an Aspie/FAS 16 year old scolding the solons at the UN over unsustainable national debts. After all, those debts constitute just as much a threat to future generations as does [insert currently fashionable climate term].

    Never mind, I know why there hasn’t been such a scold.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *