How Did Polyamory Become So Popular?
newyorker.com
newyorker.com
IMO we're still at the stage where the localized waves of ENM could see a heavy backlash as a lot of the participants who are pressured into it start to reverse course and leave those relationships. I myself know one Midwest couple with an open marriage, and it's pretty clear from speaking to them that it was a one sided deal.
Note: I am not saying all ENM relationships are based on pressure, but frankly many are, and that's not sustainable.
Which from context apparently means it's secretly everywhere, and just can't be measured because outsiders aren't told.
(I usually just see that phrase in reference to in-jokes.)
It was fairly common within areas of that industry, which is ironic because it could be rather conservative generally, but there were little bubbles where it seemed the “free spirited” would gravitate toward.
As is typical of British health care we'd waited a good 45 minutes after arriving on time for our appointment (at 9 AM), and I really couldn't help wondering if the delays were down to him.
TL;DR I am often tempted to think the very vocal nature is the intention, rather than the subject they're vocal about.
But folks may not mention it to you until you’re at a certain level of friendship. I remember a couple I knew who disclosed after a few months.
I have to wonder if the recent resurgence is related to some social or economic effect driving couples to stick it out when they otherwise wouldn’t.
I’m married, I’m not looking for a poly arrangement - but I can totally understand the idea that a mono relationship just isn’t what someone wants. I think it’s possible to love more than one person, romantically, or that a successful relationship doesn’t have to mean until one person dies.
I am disappointed there were not better stats in the article. So about 50% say open marriages are acceptable, and about 20% say they've experimented with non-monogamy. But how many are actually in a poly relationship? How does that compare to the past?
They list a lot of movie references to poly relations, but what does that have to do with anything? Is it popular for people to become John Wick, Rambo, etc in real life? I think not. Perhaps they enjoy the idea of being a bad ass, vigilante, etc and watching those movies, but many people understand the downsides and that some fantasies should stay fantasies. The same thing for how many things in porn are great as a fantasy, but not things that the person wants to do in real life. There are many similarities to fantastical ideas that many have of non-monogamus relationships.
I'm guessing this probably stems both from under reporting due to societal stigmas and due to a lack of research. However, I found the following meta-analysis that appears to indicate an increase in interest over the past decade and a half.
You may be able to access these articles through you're local library for free, or if you have a subscription. I do not have a subscription at this time so I'm unable to retrieve the full details. I previously looked into this topic in 2011 when I was still a psych undergrad, there appears to be more research since then.
https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fcfp0000074
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0092623X.2016.1...
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352250X2...
A survey from YouGov in 2016 and again in 2020 appears to indicate non-monogamy is a growing preference among millennials. https://today.yougov.com/society/articles/27639-millennials-...
Theoretically, it sounds great, but in practice it seems very hard unless your bond is better than most couples’.
The couple I’m closest to does a lot of therapy style processing (weekly) which sounds like it might make the whole thing more trouble than it’s worth. But they seem happy and stable so who am I to question?
IME you’ll rarely just stumble upon someone poly. There’s usually some community involved which helps keep out bad actors and cool people safe.
Older people tend to be of the swinger variety (which technically isn’t poly iirc) and a little more hush hush.
Younger people in cities are often more open about it. And I’ve seen it more in explicitly queer-friendly spaces. If you come to a certain city in the PNW it’s everywhere.
I tried it for a few years. There’s pros and cons. It’s ultimately not for me.
This is going to be another big fight for marriage equality. New terms will be thrown around but the fight is all the same. Legalize (consensual) love.
Good luck partnering with a member of a family without getting embroiled to one degree or another with kids and the other partner though (but maybe this gets better after the kids are older than mine? Time will tell...).
Housing prices. Seriously.
Polyamory is on the rise, and divorces are at a 50-year low[0]. This isn't a coincidence.
Where a couple would have divorced in the past, it now is financially infeasible in many cases. Living with a partner you're no longer compatible sucks, but not being able to afford rent sucks worse. So couples are pulling out all the stops to be not-divorced, including looking for other partners and keeping a marriage-in-name-only.
[0] https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-us-divorce-rate-has-hit-a-50-...
It drew some backlash from the few happy polyamorous couples who were interviewed and didn't fit that reality: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/how-representation-worksor-do...
I believe stigma is a function of societal views and norms. In America anything besides the nuclear family with a married male and female parent is still stigmatized. I believe we can largely thank religious influence for that. Stigma is a reality, and the stigma I was referring to was that anything besides that male<->female relationship is often deemed incompatible with "moral" living.
Shouldn’t “one or more” be “more than one”? Or else there’s a whole lot more polyamorous folks out there…
And that's before we to whether most people are temperamentally suited to the emotions of "sharing" something this intimate, or the child-raising angle. Just because it can work for some doesn't mean it'll work en masse for most people.
https://philosophynews.com/what-can-be-learned-from-bertrand...
A society of emasculated males will tolerate the situation. It’s possible we’re watching patriarchy molt into matriarchy or some bonobo monkey thing. TBD, but as for OP, my perception is that the media conglomerates are leading indicators and not trailing indicators. They introduce these subjects to normalize them.
> but upon Dora becoming pregnant with another man’s child, the marriage seemed to fall prey to its own progressiveness.[10] The weir of liberal thinking gave way to intense jealousy and bitter resentment, resulting in Russell’s writing of boastful letters describing his youthful conquests across the Atlantic, and his eventual leaving of Dora for their children’s governess, Patricia.[11] He abandoned the campaigns he and Dora had together founded (including their beloved boarding school) and threw himself into the next chapter of his life with bags haphazardly packed.
The article on Russell is actually quite relevant to the overall discussion on polyamory & unfaithfulness. The final quote by Russell on his realization of what eluded him in his life, nails it.
Through the long years
I sought peace
I found ecstasy, I found anguish,
I found madness,
I found loneliness,
I found the solitary pain
that gnaws the heart,
But peace I did not find.
Now, old & near my end,
I have known you,
And, knowing you,
I have found both ecstasy & peace
I know rest
After so many lonely years.
I know what life & love may be.
Now, if I sleep
I shall sleep fulfilled.That theory of yours has legs, imo. (see below ;)
> Through the long years
Russell is borrowing heavily from king Solomon here .. /g
That said: It's important to know your status, even if you're monogamous.
People in poly relationships tend to know their status better than monogamous cohorts. Thus, even if one partner has an incurable STI, they're usually aware that they have it, and keep their viral load undetectable (which prevents transmission), so the factors round the risk down to the same very low range, despite more people involved.
Anecdotally every poly person I know is (relatively speaking) quite diligent about STDs, getting tested way more than most, informing partners etc etc. Sometimes it seems to me like poly is actually a spreadsheet fetish with relationships on the side.
I think polyamory is more threatening to "traditional" values due to emotional risk / complexity and impact on family structure, parenting etc. One of the gnarlier problems is wealth transmission.
In many countries you are de facto with someone after just 2 or 3 years, this is already crazy, you get in a relationship with someone and a few years later you owe them half your house. Bring poly into the mix and if you a) have assets and b) cohabit then things can get messy real fast.
Very basic stuff like welfare and taxes haven't really caught up with this either yet, practical things like what do you put in the "partner's income" box on many government forms. The bureaucracy is really not set up for this.
You can have a poly relationship without ever having more than two people in the same bedroom at the same time. And of course you can have a threesome without being in a polyamorous relationship.
Mixing the two concepts does not help clarity at all.
I guess it's a little price to pay for a stable marriage?
For us at least, it's completely normal to be madly in love with two people at the same time. Maybe even more to be honest, but we're happy with what we have and don't want to rock the boat further. We're still #1 for each other both emotionally and legally, and always thought we'd only ever be that connected to one another. But when it became obvious for both of us that we had "caught feelings" to use the phrasing the kids use, well, we were still madly in love with each other and had less than no desire to split up and all the emotional and financial hell involved with that, so, we have each other, we each have a side piece, and occasionally we even double-date too.
Idk, it's fun. I have two women in my life that bring me joy and my wife has another man that does the same. I'm sure it's not for everyone but I will admit that I find myself wondering how many marriages that end in infidelity could've been saved if the people in them just accepted that it was pretty understandable to not remain completely 100% committed to one person for the rest of your natural life.
I’m sure it’s fun, my feeling is that these situations are often fun for some of the participants but aren’t fun or become quite hellish for others. Obviously I’ve no statistics but it seems to end badly more often than not. As do most relationships, admittedly.
I mean they're "second best" with regard to the law, which is unfortunate but there really isn't any legal mechanisms where we live for multi-partnering, so it's just kind of the reality we've had to accept. But outside of that, we do our best to keep ourselves equal to our extraneous partners. It may seem strange but this is really the best. Sometimes that means plans with my wife can't happen because she already has some, and sometimes it means stuff my wife can't go to, my girlfriend does instead. It usually breaks down to whoever is available first, and we keep the lines of communication open and do our level best to head off any sense of resentment that crops up.
As with most things, communication resolves a lot. It also doesn't hurt that my wife's second man really doesn't have much romantic interest at all outside of her, so he doesn't have someone else to juggle, and mine happens to be married to my best friend, which certainly complicated that relationship for awhile there but we've had it more or less down to a routine for a good while now.
> I’m sure it’s fun, my feeling is that these situations are often fun for some of the participants but aren’t fun or become quite hellish for others. Obviously I’ve no statistics but it seems to end badly more often than not. As do most relationships, admittedly.
There are unique challenges. Since one party is always a limitation on the other, there is sort of a baseline sense of rejection and de-prioritization one has to contend with. It just is what it is, so much of our culture and conditioning is built around this idea of you find ONE person and that one person is just, your entire world, forever and now you're sharing them. However, again the flip side to that is, you have another person too. So it sort of replaces the monogamous sole-relationship with... almost a sense of community belonging that is profound. It's not without it's costs to get it sorted, but IMO it's the best thing I've ever done in my life for my mental health. Not putting all your eggs in one basket has advantages, you know?
There isn’t the same initial “rush” or “excitement” of getting to know a new partner, but she jokes how I still make (impressed/obama meme) faces when she’s scantily clad, and she still seems to appreciate when I’m working out etc.
We prioritize dating and physicality, just like we prioritize other parts of our life we find important.
Don’t underestimate how long government databases can linger. Not so long ago I worked with data from a school system than was running on RDB - an old VAX based database from the 80’s. They kept it going on a virtualised OpenVMS system rather than rewrite it. This system was so old that they were using it when I was in school myself.
http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2009/04/have-you-ever-legali...
(Depending on the purpose for which the data is being used, it may even be directional — e.g. for STD tracking, it does actually matter if someone has a cuckoldry kink).
If the latter, every personal ID has to switch from a single database entry to a git (or other vcs) repo, where relationships may or may not survive the branch.
Probably there are other reasons too.
A polyamorous marriage on the other hand would be more similar to the board of a corporation since it theoretically could be immortal through consistently replacing partners.
I remember reading a SF story that had that sort of arrangement, but I can’t remember the name.
A lot of Heinlein's stuff had polyamory at least in the background, it not front and center.
More recently, The Expanse dealt with it.
Though, honestly, the other spouses all just felt like 2D cutouts of characters, existing solely to show the "open mindedness" of the main character.
I don't think I've ever seen a story that really dealt with polyamory with all the characters having agency. Though, granted, haven't gone out of my way to look for it.
https://news.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/313112/under...
https://sexualalpha.com/polyamory-statistics/
What data or info do you have to believe things haven't changed? Other than your own anecdotal interpretation of vibes?
I realize that some of this could be changing labels for the same behavior, but nonetheless I don't think the author is incorrect at all for observing it is more popular.
That may not account for the slope post-2011, but it's a significant enough difference that it's important to call it out. A lot of people who were opposed to polygamy when it was framed as patriarchal switched their opinion when it was made gender-neutral.
From 2012 to the most recent poll it went from 11% to 20%. I realize "moral acceptance" is not the same as "widely popular" but still think it directionally shows a meaningful change, even if its a change from "very rare" to "uncommon".
All the data from Gallup shows is that people are increasingly open to alternative marriage arrangements, but it doesn't indicate anything about how many people are interested in those arrangements.
[0] https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2022/06/28/america...
I would expect that the numbers wouldn't move much if you could do a poll on polyamory as distinct from polygamy. The distinction is so far removed from most people's experience that it's not likely to change their sentiment.
edit: I'm surprised this is an unpopular opinion, curious what I said that people don't like.
I oppose the "become" part because no, it wasn't HBO that changed this needle, it's religion.
It's perfectly acceptable for someone to write an article on trends in America or New York (it is still called The New Yorker after all) even if something similar existed once and waned in popularity before modern times.
Imagine if someone saw that homeschooling rates were up in the US over ten years. Would you not want people to write on that - because 5,000 years ago technically everyone was taught by family members?
The desire for novelty comes from bored or unfulfilled from your current relationship, which would contest the "security" of the relationship if it is impossible to live without it.
That I am clearly fulfilled with my existing diet doesn't stop me from trying new things on the menu, nor new restaurants with entirely new menus.
And the desire to try new things doesn't imply that the absence of them is "impossible to live without" — even back out of metaphor land and back to human sexuality, lot of gay people used to live straight lives.
Which is my point: the relationship isn't "secure" if you're to find out that you're actually gay.
Are you unfamiliar with the concept of a metaphor? I did explicitly note that food was a metaphor. After all, your original comment said:
> if it is impossible to live without it.
Which is a much higher standard than you're now using, one where food is a useful metaphor as one does actually need it to live, albeit as a category and not any specific food — I like capsaicin, alliums, and fresh coriander, and yet I can live without them (e.g. if I had a partner who was allergic).
And are you unaware of the history (and indeed current diversity) of rules about sexuality, including the cases where couples aren't/weren't allowed to separate and gay relationships are/were forbidden? You can know full well what you like, and still be bound unfulfilled but alive. Thus, that question of fulfilment is still present when your relationship is not merely "secure", but the security is enforced by law.
What does "secure in their relationship" mean to you?
Prisoners are secure. They are also, to use the word you used earlier, bored.
Don't mistake "secure" for "fun". It is an independent axis of consideration.
Lots of people value security over fun, including when it comes to sexuality.
Not everyone, but lots of people.
And going further up this thread back to what Quinzel wrote:
> If I felt secure in a relationship, having a partner that wants to experiment with others/date others wouldn’t really bother me.
Alice can feel secure about Bob always being there for Alice when Alice needs it, while also being comfortable with the idea that Bob sometimes boinks Chris, and this can be either true or false, this is independent of if Alice wants to boink Dee.
There's stuff my wife just doesn't like to do! Like... hiking. Yes, hiking is what I look for in other partners.
Telling somebody you don't know in a situation that you aren't familiar with that they aren't secure in their relationship comes off as ignorant at best.
Especially since OP describes something on the more casual side of the ENM spectrum as opposed to full fledged polyamory.
Of course, some people don’t seem to mind this much. Or maybe this fancy new Bay Area “polyamory” memeplex works really well. I find it hard to imagine any amount of coping strategies could dull the pain for me.
We might have different ideas of security. If you don't value monogamy anyway, maybe your security isn't threatened much by your partner deciding you aren't good enough for it.
I wrote a comment 3 times trying to steel man this but it still reads like horribly bitter snark rather than an earnest pov.
People who enter poly relationships are not doing so because they value their partners less.
In a relationship between more than two people their communication skills must be on point and they have to sincerely take one another's needs into account or the whole thing crumbles, it's all the effort of monogamy and then some. If your partner isn't "good enough" for monogamy then they definitely won't manage polyamory.
Talking about people who mutually decide to engage in polyamory is off-topic for this particular thread. Quinzel’s scenario is someone in a monogamous relationship deciding to seek out new partners.
These may be your sincere feelings, I've also absolutely got the right to feel insulted by the way you've chosen to express them. It's mean spirited to vent in such a way that you catch other people in the crossfire when you're airing your personal dislikes.
Saying that people with polyamoristic proclivities seek out other people because their partner "isn't good enough for monogamy" is an offensive mischaracterizastion of the kind of relationship I've been in for half a decade.
https://aella.substack.com/p/polyamory-vs-monogamy-how-relat...
The first has nothing to do with you personally past your opinion of how you would relate to someone else.
But it's Christmas, and there is gin, so I hope I have your forgiveness.
“Become so popular” is about a relative change in popularity, not about absolute numbers.
Almost everyone eats breakfast, yet nobody would say it “become so popular”.
On the other hand if a very obscure thing becomes a bit less obscure that can be aptly described as becoming popular.
> It's just not as much of a taboo as it used to be.
Yes, that is what the article says too.
Eating breakfast is popular.
Polyamory is not only unpopular, but even if it doubled in popularity every year for the next 5 years, it'd still be vastly unpopular.
Evidently.
“how did X become so popular” does not mean that X is popular. “X is popular” is a statement about the absolute popularity of X. “How did X become so popular” is a question about the change of popularity of X. It might or might not imply that X is popular in absolute terms.
Let’s take the relatively niche sport of running-facefirst-into-a-rock. Last year there was only one athlete practicing it, this year there are 200. It is still a rounding error in popularity, yet you can ask “how did it become so popular?” When you ask that you don’t make a statement about the absolute popularity, but the change of it.
Pardon me, but what isn’t? Are you saying it is not popular?
> I don't know of a single couple in my personal life or extended group of friends that went poly and remained a couple past 5 years.
This sentence makes it sound like you know multiple people who went poly. Which is exactly what “become so popular” mean. Then it sounds like you argue that it doesn’t make sense and the affected mariages didn’t last. Which is fine I guess, but that is a different question from if it is popular or not.
> Why get married if you're going to be polyamorous.
I don’t understand this question either. Many people are polyamorous without getting married. Perfectly valid choice.
Then some people are first married, they live in a monogamous marriage and then they realise that the lifestyle is not working out for them. The choice for these people is not between monogamous marriage and polyamory but between divorce and polyamory.
The question you are asking presuposes that people are aware that they want a polyamorous relationship at the time when they get married.
Then of course there can be people who want a marriage for some legal or social protection. Let those things be preceived or real. If we believe that two adults can promise each other to stick together and help each other in good and bad, sickness and health, why couldn’t the same thing work just because they also have other people in their lives?
And at least in the case of the poly couples I mentioned, there are no poly couples anymore. Not only did all of them break up, but they all decided that it was incongruent to maintaining a lasting and trusting relationship for the long term.
Another difficult aspect is that apart of your "main" partner, your "secondary" ones either need to accept that you already have a partner, hence also be open to polyamory, or you have to lie to them, which is definitely not a game for everybody. Overall, seeing all this, I wouldn't recommend it unless you have your emotions like jealousy well under control.
There’s a vast chasm between male and female experience that will never be bridged. If you’re with an even remotely attractive woman and you’re not top 1% yourself, you will feel like a cuckold in comparison when opening up a relationship to polyamory. (Assuming she has significant interest in exploring)
Most men are quite clueless - especially if they’ve been off the dating market since their early 20’s and haven’t been observing closely how dating has changed in the last couple decades.
As far as the concept itself goes, I don't think it's possible to divorce possessiveness from sex. I'm suspicious of people who claim to have conquered jealously.
And then there's children. It's hard for me to see how polyamory won't be a disaster for children. I hope polyarmory is a fad and I suspect it is, just like "free love" in the 60s.
I don't get jealous: and I've definitely been in situations which I would judge that many men would get jealous. Maybe I'm on the spectrum or something.
As a second example, I presume the majority of Johns that pay for sex don't get jealous about the sex worker having multiple partners.
> It's hard for me to see how polyamory won't be a disaster for children
I reckon the western nuclear family (mum, dad and kids) is unhealthy. I believe kids do better if they have more than two adults in their lives. Certainly added difficulties: but extended families have been managing similar issues for centuries.
It depends on what you mean by "jealousy", because that term wraps a bunch of disparate ideas, especially given the modern use encompasses envy too. Possessiveness and jealousy are not the same, and jealousy and envy are not the same either.
Here's a few different scenarios:
1. My partner sleeps with someone else and this upsets me because I want to sleep with my partner
2. My partner sleeps with someone else and this upsets me because I'm afraid this other person will take my partner
3. My partner sleeps with someone else and this upsets me because I want to sleep with other people
4. My partner sleeps with someone else and this upsets me because I wish I was like the other person
All of these scenarios are labelled jealousy, but they're for the most part built from feelings with different motivations.
I've been in a long-ish poly relationship since 2015 and since then I've discovered I don't experience jealousy or possessiveness in the classical expression, I'm actually pretty excited when my partners sleep together. Scenario 1 and 2 haven't ever happened for me, I'm either very secure in my feelings around my relationship or that emotional response isn't in my nature.
I do experience 3 and 4 but I'd definitely call that a split on envy/FOMO rather than jealousy.
At the beginning (+/- 15y ago) it was hard on the husband, the alternative basically was to divorce. But he loves her and stayed. She also loves him very much, but she missed something more spiritual in their relation. She now is mainly with her husband, only not on Fridays (although all very flexible). The couple has no children themselves but the other partner has three. The husband and the other partner know each other and occasionally meet on Birthdays and such. We also meet up with her and the other partner.
As a side note, the wife is writing a book on her own life. My own wife did some proof reading and she says it is beautifully written (my wife reads many, many books). Hopefully she can get it published.
Most of them are because the girl has berated and worn down their partner and really only stays there for the meal ticket.
I know precisely 2 couples where it works in a functional and mature manner. I would honestly not recommend it for anyone
No, really. UX rule: Facility drives frequency.
The main barrier to normative polyamory, it turns out, was the sheer logistical challenge of maintaining elaborate, reliable structures of commitments.
Google Calendar, and tech in general, have made it easier for people to scale in precisely the same way databases and ERP allowed corporations to achieve Amazon-scale.
This tech-dependence is also the reason that poly is de-rigeur in tech culture, where in some circles (esp. queer-flavoured varietals) it can be surprising to meet someone who is mono.
A good app to build would be a SaaS platform like Tailscale for maintaining polycule/solo-poly relationships and resources; incidentally, Tailscale is already used for this in nerd 'cules. But I'm thinking some sort of Bring Your Own Storage
People have been screwing around on their partners throughout history. Some cultures turn a blind eye so long as proper discretion is exercised. In others, polygamous marriages are explicitly sanctioned - usually to the detriment of women. The US tends to be a bit puritanical when it comes to sex.
Basically it allows you to believe you can have your cake and eat it too. The mindset of "I deserve intimacy/sexual fulfillment whenever I want it, and if you love me you'll accommodate that." That's not love, that's selfishness.
I can speak from personal experience that most that try it fail, largely because they have other relationship problems, the kind that keep them from doing the work to actually grow and nurture a deep relationship with another human being. It's a lot easier to f*ck the pain away.
Sure there are exceptions to the rule. You will always be able to find people that make it work for them. But it will never work for the masses.
Myself, I eventually realized the root cause of my dissatisfaction was inside me. As I worked on myself, I found my desire for poly/open relationships went away. It's way too much work to truly "love" that many people. Commitment is hard work. It takes, well, commitment.
Trends like this are just a sign of the times. People are becoming more disposable to each other, and we want to normalize social structures that embrace this idea. We'll pat ourselves on the back as we do this, telling ourselves it's so cosmopolitan.
Ultimately most of these people aren't capable of maintaining a real long term relationship, just a relationship of convenience. When things get hard, the relationship is jettisoned.
Things can increase in popularity without your bubble noticing
Things can also exist in your bubble without you noticing
But to contribute my own (equally meaningless) support to the validity of the question: I definitively know a lot of people who are poly now who were not 20 years ago, and excluding them - I also know a lot more poly people than I did 20 years ago (no idea if they were poly back then). And for bonus points, I also know a lot of people who have experimented with poly life in the last 10-15 years who hadn't previously.
Clearly some kind of shift or at least blip in culture
That some of the really old male-centric cultures are coming out more visible with polygamy, along with some of the "free love" movement and their crossover with the libertarians with (eg) Heinlein's "Stranger in a Strange Land" ideas, well that's likely happening too.
I think a lot of reasons people explore this. Likely multiple often. All of the sustained groups I've encountered though have been mixed, distributed and really supportive of both each other, and others. A joy to be around.
Granted I know why for myself, but it seems to go strongly against biology