Polyamory’s Bourgeois War on Normality

Polyamory’s Bourgeois War on Normality. By Casey Chalk.

Consensual nonmonogamy, or “CNM,” is on the rise among the meritocratic elite. A 2016 survey of about 9,000 single American adults showed that one in five had previously been in a CNM relationship. A 2017 survey in Canada discovered similar results. The BBC in late March offered a sympathetic portrayal of CNM — such as a gay threesome with two children in San Diego — in its “work life” section. Even Amy Dickinson of “Ask Amy” fame is normalizing the idea of having more than one partner. …

“Multiple non-monogamy-geared dating apps make it easy to find others looking for multiple partner relationships or sexual experiences,” notes the BBC. On the app Feeld, for example, 60 percent of couples are looking for a third to share the love. …

Legacy media is promoting CNM by bringing in the heavy artillery: the credentialed, peer-review published expert. Amy Dickinson, for example, cites sociologist Elisabeth Sheff, who comforts older, somewhat wary liberals by telling them that acceptance “doesn’t have to be all or nothing,” and involves small steps of educating oneself about CSM (sometimes also called, a bit risibly, “ethical nonmonogamy”). In other words, tolerance, acceptance, open-mindedness, and communication are the keys to overcoming our personal concerns with polyamory and other “nonmonogamous” relationships. …

Those who feel a sense of discomfort or disapprobation towards such sexual identities and behaviors thus evince a psychological weakness — perhaps that pesky “unconscious bias” … Perhaps our reticence stems from being raised in a prejudiced, close-minded family or a bigoted, backwards community. …

More sinisterly, the “bourgeoisization” of sexual deviance is apiece with broader socio-political trends aimed at upending traditional, religiously influenced familial norms. Children don’t need a mother and a father, nor even two mothers or two fathers. Any parenting structure is acceptable, as long as there is tolerance, freedom for self-actualization, and “love.” It takes a village, as Hillary Clinton famously declared. And who are we to judge if all the members of the village are sleeping with one another? As long as it’s consensual! …

Scott Yenor in his book The Recovery of Family Life labels this phenomenon part of the “rolling revolution” that normalizes ever more extreme ideas regarding sexuality and gender. One problem with the “rolling revolution” is that it has no guardrails. Having dispensed both with traditional Christian religion and millennia-old natural law theory, we maintain no limiting principle on sexual behavior besides the amorphous standard of “consent.” The recent #MeToo movement exposed the shallowness and inadequacy of that standard.

Moreover, what is considered lawful age for consensual sex differs dramatically even within the West—France is planning to set the age of consent at 15. Yet why 15, and not 14 or 13? Indeed, many who view self-realization as the raison d’être of human existence already champion youthful experimentation with sex at puberty, or even earlier, if children express desire for it. Others might claim that our resistance to cultures that have historically allowed girls as young as 12, or even eight, to marry older men, reflects our own Western biases informed by arrogant, colonialist intolerance. …

The casualties of the sexual revolution — be they from no-fault divorce, pornography, sex trafficking, or mutilating our youth—continue to mount, while Big Tech actively works to silence dissenters like Ryan T. Anderson.

Sex is ultimately about reproduction, and whose genes are transmitted to the next generation. Families form to bring up progeny and give them care, protection, and a good start to life. These are primal drives, honed by evolution. They are our reality.

Human psychology and pair-bonding behavior reflects that reality. Those who didn’t get it didn’t have as many offspring. There is a constant winnowing of sexual revolutionaries out of the gene pool.

Polyamorous types are — to use one of the left’s favorite words — not sustainable. Just not serious. Their fantasies get trampled by reality.

hat-tip Stephen Neil