Polyamory Won't Fix Your Problems

Hi everyone, welcome.

It is me, Chelsea Fagan, your girl,

founder and CEO of the Financial Diet once again coming at you from a

somewhat improbable background.

Uh, as someone in one of our recent workshops put it,

very cask of a montadillo coded in my account of Monte Cristo era,

just here in front of a stonewall, still in France.

Uh, still finalizing a few logistical things,

but soon coming home

and will be in my very familiar New York City apartment

when I'm recording these hot takes.

Now, um I was not planning to record a video today,

as you could probably tell by this, uh very strange background,

but I have just been seeing some stuff in the cultural discourse in Zeitgeist,

especially over the weekend,

that has led me to a place of needing to speak,

needing to relieve myself of these burdensome thoughts.

So hopefully you will join me on this little journey where I would like

to talk about uh a topic

that is sure to only create very measured,

thoughtful and good faith discourse, which is to say polyamory.

Now I want to start with a few quick sort of ground rules for

this conversation um which are

that first and foremost I will not be taking any cheap shots at polyamory

as a concept.

I am a monogous woman.

I've been with my husband for 15 years

and I personally quite enjoy monogamy

and thinks sometimes it gets somewhat of a bad rap.

Although I very much understand why it does

and we'll get to

that later on in the episode.

But I am certainly not here to say that polyamory cannot be a healthy,

rewarding, fulfilling setup for the right people.

I also want to clarify

as a ground rule

that when I'm going to be talking in this video,

I am almost exclusively talking about heterosexual or functionally heterosexual configurations.

Um, which is to say a man

and a woman in a relationship

or at the core of a relationship.

This is not to say

that both parties uh can't have some variations in their preferences,

but that the dynamic

as it functions uh practically ends up in a somewhat heteronormative context.

I want to make that clear because not only am I a hetererooman,

so that's the experience that I come from.

That is also the majority of what we cover here on TFD.

In large part because a lot of what we're going to discuss here,

which is kind of the breakdown of power dynamics, money, division of labor,

all of that, often tends to fall along gendered lines.

Um, but also because I I do think queer people are probably better equipped

to handle uh more non-standard relationship dynamics,

if only because they don't come to relationships with

as much sort of cultural baggage around those gender roles,

around those power dynamics, around division of labor, things like that.

So, I'm going to assume, give good faith here,

that non- monogamy can often functionally work better in more queer configurations.

Also, anecdotally, essentially, all of my queer friends are in some kind of non-

monogamy situation.

I would say the most common setup is

that there is a monogous couple at the core of it,

and they um have diances with other people,

if not uh full-on other relationships.

But, hi, Mona.

Suffice to say, both in theory and in practice,

I just want to give more of a benefit of the doubt toward queer

people's ability to navigate non- monogamy.

Um, but again, also I am a hetererooman

and we mostly talk about heterero relationships here on the Financial Diet

because it's most relevant to the topics

that we cover.

So, that's the lane that I am going to be staying in.

Before we get into though the topic at hand,

I want to as always give a quick shout out to our uh three

major companies that we work with,

for those who do not know,

we are an entirely woman-owned and operated company, entirely independently funded.

Uh we try to operate as ethically as possible as a business.

We have a 4-day work week.

Uh everyone engages in profit sharing.

Um I'm only the fourth highest paid person at our company

and we are very selective about the partners

that we work with.

Uh, and we favor companies that we actually use.

If you've ever been interested in getting a budgeting app,

getting a handle on your money, we highly, highly recommend Monarch.

There's also a great feature for couples, which I use with my husband.

I've been using Monarch for quite some time now before we even partnered with

them.

It's a wonderful budgeting app.

Cannot recommend it enough.

No ads.

They don't sell your data to third parties.

It's a great budgeting app.

Um, if you've been thinking about investing,

but it feels like really intimidating to you, highly recommend Betterment.

It could not make the whole process easier. um

and it takes a couple of clicks to get involved with investing in a

uh very stable and well diversified way.

Uh lastly, if you've been thinking about working with a financial adviser,

I personally have been working with one for years.

We highly recommend uh advisor.com because they are a fixed fee financial advisory,

meaning everyone pays the same regardless of how much money they have.

Um and that makes it a lot more equitable

and transparent and it also means their adviserss work for you

and not commissions.

If you've ever been curious about even what a financial adviser does,

let alone if you might be ready for one,

just use the link in our description.

You can have a free intro phone call with the people at Adviser just

to learn a little bit more about what a financial adviser does.

But all of that is to say, um,

so I want to get into the topic of polyamory

as largely inspired by a recent spate of media coverage on the topic.

I feel like we get one of these sort of waves of polyamory conversation

at least once a year at this point,

if for no other reason than because the topic is juicy.

Uh, but I think it's fair to say

that this particular conversation has been started by uh Lindy West's new memoir around

which she has been doing a substantial media tour,

which in and of itself has been generating a lot of conversation.

And from this memoir and the press tour,

there's been essentially an entire subgenre of people talking about her,

about her polyamory setup, about her memoir,

and how it maps on to our larger cultural moment.

There was also this article in the cut this weekend uh

which I very much want to discuss in this video

because I think what this article covers

and the ideas it presents um kind of hues closer to what is my

overall issue uh with how we are framing polyamory lately in our cultural conversation

and particularly to women who date men.

Um but again polyamory kind of a perennial topic.

We're also going to talk a little bit about couples therapy. one of my

favorite shows on television.

I somewhat jokingly say

that my treatment for seasonal effective disorder is I watch couples therapy

because it makes me realize

that actually my life is okay.

And uh things may not be perfect.

The weather may suck,

but at least I am not uh voluntarily trapping myself in a terrible marriage

where my partner makes me want to die on a daily basis.

And we are obviously not meant to be together,

but uh for some reason we are essentially like bloodfasted to each other

and uh have to remain together no matter how much we make each other's

lives miserable.

I watch couples therapy essentially every fall winter

and um I'm always reminded

that my life could be worse

and at least I'm not in

that situation.

It's also very entertaining and I love Dr.

Ora.

Um, but suffice to say, polyamory and ethical non- monogamy,

ethical being in scare quotes, uh, figures heavily into that show,

and we'll talk a little bit about that as well later in the video.

But, um, suffice to say,

polyamory has been very much in our cultural conversation as of late,

and people are saying all kinds of things,

and I think that there are a lot of cheap shots being taken,

especially at Lindy West and her memoir, which we'll start off with here.

Uh but in general I think often the criticisms about polyory both conceptually

and practically fall into what I would consider to be the bad faith andor

cheapshot territory.

And I would really like to avoid that in this video.

Not only because as a monogous person I really don't want to be accused

of just sort of feeling threatened by the concept

or projecting my issues onto it.

I would like to to take it seriously.

Um but also because I want to be very clear

that I also think monogamy is in its flop era. uh here on TFD,

one only need to look at our our show, our podcast, Just Getting Good,

and you will essentially see a graveyard of failed monogamy, failed marriages to men,

uh that if anything demonstrate

that on average a woman is probably better off alone than with the wrong

person,

which unfortunately in many cases is the majority of men.

Um, so I'm certainly not here to say

that polyamory must be denigrated at uh at the expense of monogamy

or even really contrasted against it.

But I also think there are some fair criticisms be to be made,

especially in terms of how we cover it.

Now, as I mentioned,

I think that this particular round of polyamory conversation has been polyory discourse,

if you will, has been kicked off by Lindy West's uh latest memoir.

I say latest because she has done more than one.

Her 2016 memoir, Shrill, for example,

was actually adapted into a television show starring Ad Bryant.

Uh prior to that,

she was a very well-known writer at places like Jezebel.

Before that, The Stranger in Seattle.

Um, suffice to say, Lindy West has definitely been a woman about town.

As someone um, who read a lot of Jezebel during my formative young adult

years,

uh, think of her as kind of an ambassador of, um,

a certain type of early 2010s, some might now say, girl boss feminism.

A lot of Lindy's work also centered around the fact

that for her whole life she has been,

as she would put it, fat.

And that has presented a lot of issues for her,

especially as it pertains to society's view and treatment of fat people,

especially fat women.

Um, but also intersects very,

very heavily with her romantic life

or for many years lack thereof. her um sort of not just treatment

as though she were not worthy of romantic love

and and uh celebration,

but that it functionally wasn't really possible for her.

Her 2016 memoir ends with her marriage to her now husband uh named Aam

and essentially celebrates the fact

that without having to change herself,

without notably having to lose weight,

uh in fact she did photo shoots around her wedding uh celebrating the fact

that she was uh

as always a a heavy set woman in her in her wedding dress.

Um but that without having to change any of that,

she was able to uh find love and and happiness.

Now, cut to about four years ago

when she did this interview on uh the Style Like You channel with her

husband and their uh Aam

and Lindsay's girlfriend uh a woman named Roya.

This was essentially their coming out not just as polyamorous, but as a triad,

as a throppple.

Now, I am not going to dedicate too much time of this video to

breaking down all of the details of Lindy West's particular polyamorous situation,

both because I think it's really long and the lore is deep.

And honestly, if you want to learn about this,

I recommend watching that Style Like You interview.

I recommend listening to her interview on the Modern Love podcast

that she did recently to promote her new book,

Adult Braces, which is heavily centered around her journey to polyamory.

Um, so there's just functionally not enough time to get into all the details.

Um, but also because I think this hyperfocus

that a lot of people have been putting on Lindy

and her story.

And again, as we can see,

there is just an enormous amount of conversation on the topic sort of misses

the point in my opinion

and makes this more a localized issue than it really is. to give you

a very topline summary

if you're not familiar.

The basic criticism that a lot of people have with Lindy's journey to polyamory

is that it is,

let's say, compromised at best, quote, polyamory under duress, uh, at worst.

And I'm not here to pin all of the failures of choice feminism

or quote unquote empowerment feminism on this one memoir,

this one relationship, etc.

But it is important to take a step back

and acknowledge that the forces social

and otherwise that are bearing down on let's say a traditional religious polygamous setup

where there is a man

and multiple women um are not totally different from the social forces

that bear down on a polyamorous relationship of the same configuration.

They both in this case exist in the same country.

Um are consuming often a lot of the same media are receiving the same

narratives about women and men's respective roles

and power and values.

And yet I think the received wisdom would be

that a woman who finds herself uh married to a man who has multiple

women um and who has imposed this on the relationship

if they came from let's say rural Utah. we would have one very specific

vision of who that woman is

and how she reached

that choice.

And yet a woman living in Seattle who may be in a very functionally

similar setup but has perhaps reached it through different means

or lives in a different cultural context.

I think we are we would tend to ascribe completely different um intentions

or uh agency on

that person.

I think what is simply naive is to assume

that we are not all sort of cooking in the same soup.

There there are definitely variations

but I don't think you can remove something from the larger cultural context

and at the end of the day we all still grew up in America

in her own telling of it both back

then and now.

Essentially her now husband um who she refers to using heim pronouns

although uh according to her he now identifies

as non-binary.

Um but either way,

he approached her um shortly before they ended up getting married after uh an

a breakup and essentially told her,

"I am not meant to be monogous.

If you want to be with me, it must come under these conditions."

Now, I would argue

that uh introducing that well into a relationship

or when there's already been a sunk cost.

And to be clear,

plenty of people bring that sort of roadblock up even after marriage,

even after having children, which I think is deeply deeply ethically compromised.

But suffice to say, once a person is already in love with you,

although it may not technically be an ultimatum,

it may not be presented as an ultimatum.

I think in many ways it functions as an ultimatum,

which is not how certainly all people get into polyamory.

But I do think there are more open relationships of various kinds than we

would like to admit

that have started that way,

right?

One partner who wants

that sort of setup

and the other one who is essentially uh bound to do it

because otherwise they know

that they lose the relationship. uh by Lindy's own telling at this time she

was extremely depressed codependent um

and her entire self-worth

and self-image were based on him

and how he felt about her.

So, she accepts.

They enter into a kind of don't ask don't tell type of non- monogamy.

And then a mutual friend essentially alerts her

that her husband was making out with another woman at a bar in Seattle

where they live.

And cut to him essentially admitting this is my girlfriend.

I'm in love with her.

And over the course of the next year and a half, uh,

introducing her full-time into their marriage.

They now live together, the three of them, in uh,

the home that Lindy inherited from her family.

And she even writes about the fact

that most nights they sleep together in the primary bedroom

and she sleeps uh in the guest room.

Now there are many layers to this, right?

The girlfriend that was brought into their relationship uh is a very slim petite

woman.

Lindy even writes about the fact

that when she found out

that the man that uh her

or that the woman rather

that her husband was bringing home uh was

so slim that she set up a consultation for beriatric surgery uh

which she ended up not going to

because it fell during COVID.

Um but there are I mean that's just one anecdote among many many many

that give the impression

that this particular iteration of polyamory was probably not a super healthy one.

What I find much more interesting about her storytelling around this, the media tour,

the the book itself.

Also, I'm going to be I'm going to tread very very lightly in even

describing too much of their relationship dynamic uh

because as we found out in this article

and podcast uh the other day uh the husband has now taken to individually

emailing women who are writing about this story

or reviewing the book

and uh essentially cursing them out

and calling them like mean

or whatever.

So, I'm not trying to get I don't want to get emailed out of

all of this.

So, I'm going to tread lightly there.

What I find more compelling than this particular iteration of non- monogamy, which yeah,

seems unhealthy, seems bad, but I don't know these people,

is the framing in which it's being presented.

I listened to the Modern Love podcast

when it came out a few weeks ago,

and what was really striking,

it was not so much her telling of the story, which I think, listen,

I think we all on some level create narratives for ourselves

that make things easier.

Um, and this may be one of those cases.

What was more striking to me honestly was the host slashinterviewer of the Modern

Love podcast who was very clear in her framing of the interview um of

this polyamorous setup as being an empowered choice for Lindy being a happy ending

for her even though in the book for example it's mentioned

that uh later on into the three of them existing

as a thel the husband cheated again with a separate woman.

So even just on on pure functional terms of what are the agreements we've

set up and what are the participants actually doing in practice,

I don't know that it can necessarily be construed as a happy ending.

Um but I also think again most people are going to enter into something

like a memoir with their own framing

as we recently discussed here on the channel with the uh memoir Strangers.

I think that that woman Burton who wrote

that book mostly thought of it

as being a book about being cheated on

and abandoned by her husband.

I actually thought it was more of a a book about extreme financial negligence

and how women can start with everything

and end up completely at the mercy of a man financially.

Um, so I I don't necessarily fault Lindy for having her own way of

framing things,

but the interviewer, I found it very striking,

was repeatedly sort of orienting the conversation toward a very uh clear narrative of

uh her being much more empowered

and embodied in in this throppple.

At one point in the interview, uh, which we've linked below,

Lindy is talking about how, um, emotionally devastating the, uh,

initial interactions were on a sexual level with, uh, her husband and his girlfriend,

their initial video calls, and how it really, uh,

was was brutal for her for her self-esteem,

seeing the physical differences between herself and the girlfriend, having to accept uh,

this woman uh, when what she initially wanted and aspired to was was monogamy,

all of that, and was getting quite emotional

and the interviewer in the interview says to her,

but it was also sexy, right?

Um, which she then acquieses, yes, it was sexy, too.

It was it was hot.

It was titillating, what have you.

And I found that to be a very interesting moment,

but one that I think is very indicative of how we frame not just

a lot of women's choices,

uh, but a lot of all of our choices under this particular moment,

this intersection that we have of sort of gender understanding/feminism

and just the current reality of our social

and economic uh,

context, which is that all things are essentially good

if we feel empowered by them

or if we feel

that we have chosen them.

I think the reason

so many people have latched on to Lindy West's memoir

and why it's become sort of its own zeitgeist is

because as I mentioned Lindy West was in many ways the ambassador of

that early 2010s brand of feminism

that was very centered on personal empowerment.

I think a lot of people think of it now

as sort of girl boss slash liberalism slash very liberal in the in the

classic sense of the word feminism in part

because it's very very individualist.

It very much reframes a lot of our choices

as being morally neutral

or even neutral in terms of external factors,

coercion, uh societal expectations,

etc. and very centered on the validity of individual choice and preference.

Anyone I think who comes to Lindy's story,

even in her own words as she tells it,

would say that at at at minimum these were a lot of choices

that were made both under a lot of personal coercion,

but also under a lot of societal coercion.

She says constantly how much less attractive she feels than her husband

and how unrealistic she finds it

that someone of his stature uh would ever love her again

if this were not to work out.

So in addition to the social pressures

that are just sort of put on women uh

as a baseline to please their husbands

and to acquies to them,

in addition to the pressures

that are put on uh heavier women to sort of be grateful for what

they can get,

there's also the individual pressure of loving a person

and not wanting to lose them,

especially if you don't feel

that there's anything better

or more meaningful for you out there.

So I think when people see this memoir

and they see the way what is very obviously a a not ideal situation

is being reframed and reclaimed

as a personal victory

or at minimum a kind of happy ending um reaching some sort of peace

with polyamory.

What I think people are very much latching on to is the failure of

this brand of feminism,

this choice feminism to sufficiently address

and account for the context in

which we as women

and people in general are making these decisions.

I think also quite a lot about the recent conversation around very thin celebrities,

for example.

It's ironic because it's sort of the flip side of a lot of Lindy's

writing,

but as I mentioned in our video recently about this sort of skinny epidemic

is a lot of the conversation around uh female celebrities who are suddenly appearing

um in what are very visibly extremely unhealthy underweight bodies.

A lot of the conversation is shut down with some version of these are

their bodies.

Maybe they're healthy and we don't know it's their choice.

They're allowed to be in the body they feel good in etc. um

which essentially treats them not only

as if we can't use common sense to see

that they're not healthy,

but also imagines that they are a making these choices in a vacuum um

and not coming to them under serious duress

and coercion,

but also that their choices have no impact on other people.

That they are not teaching the young women who follow them,

who aspire to be like them,

what a woman's body is supposed to look like.

My theory is not

that all polyamory represents a bastardization of choice feminism

that reframes a lot of these sort of inherently unhealthy dynamics

as as being totally healthier

or morally neutral.

I think it can sometimes be

that way especially when they fall along extremely gendered lines

and imply other power dynamics.

But I don't think that's always the case.

What I am saying

though is that no relationship exists in a vacuum

and we have to take everything every decision

that we come to um

and how we perceive it within the context of both

that relationship itself and the larger society in

which it exists.

Which brings me to this the light has changed.

I apologize. this New York Mag article

that uh I don't know

if it was written before

or after the Lindy West uh memoir stuff,

but it certainly came out

as this conversation was already cresting with Lindy's memoir

and press tour that essentially frames polyamory

as a way for women in heterero marriages,

particularly new mothers, to sort of reclaim themselves

and even reestablish a balance in the home with relationships

that may be uh imbalanced

or um sexually unfulfilling

or essentially just not firing on all cylinders

that that non- monogamy opens a kind of escape hatch for these women to

find themselves.

There are several quotes from this article that really stuck out to me.

Here's one of them.

Um, where it essentially points out

that in a lot of these cases where these women are going out

and sleeping with other men in order to sort of establish more uh time

and space for themselves

as individuals,

as women, they are still functionally being burdened by what was already a very

domestically imbalanced relationship and in some cases even more

so now because they're having to do things like manage the dating calendar of

their husbands.

So, I will give this New York Mag uh article credit in the sense

that it is speaking more to the woman's point of view

and talking about her dating,

finding other men, etc.,

which is already a cut above from a lot of what we see

when we're typically seeing uh polyamorous setups represented in media.

And I will give it that credit.

However, I do think

that the framing of this of other sexual relationships

as being a kind of escape hatch for the woman who is feeling taken

advantage of or not um desired

or not equally shared with in terms of labor in the home

or just generally not fulfilled in her marriage.

Viewing that as a kind of marriage escape hatch,

I think is an extremely naive understanding of what the problems in most hetereroarriages

were to begin with.

and what the solutions to

that might be.

And again, even in the article itself,

there are multiple quotes

that show that often women are going to end up in the exact same

dynamics except with,

in this case, multiple men.

As the sort of somewhat famous wisdom goes,

there are so few men capable of even being uh a healthy, fulfilling,

equal partner to one woman,

let alone how many are there who are capable of doing it to with

with multiple women.

So, I again I will give credit where due to the to the Cut

article,

but I think the Cut article is starting to get to what I personally

find a lot more uh insidious about our modern cultural narratives around non- monogamy

as kind of an antidote

or an alternative to monogamy

and how we frame those two respective choices

and and the roles

that they play in people's lives.

As I mentioned also, and this is perhaps where the narrative gets most literal,

is on couples therapy.

Now, I've seen not every episode of coup's therapy,

but I've seen most of the couples.

And one common theme that you will see over and over and over again,

which is also reflected in that cut article,

is essentially a couple that is for whatever reason not doing well.

This can range from a very specific localized issue like the stress of becoming

new parents or disagreements about where they're going to live

or the kind of life

that they're going to have all the way up to they are just fundamentally

incompatible and can't stand each other.

What I find personally very fascinating about

so many of these couples is how frequently the solution the proposed solution from

one or both parties will be some form of non- monogamy some form of

opening up the relationship.

Now I personally again am not saying

that this cannot be uh

that this cannot work

that there cannot be iterations of open marriages

that are helpful and beneficial

and fulfilling.

What I am saying

though is that I'm extremely doubtful

that in most cases opening up a marriage presents a solution to anything in

my view.

If anything it should be additive to what is already a healthy very functioning

relationship if that's a decision you mutually want to make.

But just like I think it is extraordinarily naive

if not destructive to think

that we can fix a a troubled marriage by bringing a kid into the

mix,

also extremely common.

Um I similarly think fixing an alien marriage by opening it up to sleeping

with more people seems to be gravely missing the point.

It's also worth noting that on couples therapy,

many many of the couples who have tried to patch over issues by opening

up the marriage are also queer couples.

As I mentioned, I am almost exclusively here focusing on heterodnamics,

but I do want to acknowledge

that even in a lot of these queer couples you see on the show,

if the dynamic of one party really wants this,

the other really doesn't is at play

or it's being introduced under duress

or under false premises

or to solve a problem,

most of the same issues will come to pass,

which is that there is a fundamental misalignment on how you feel about the

decision to open a marriage,

how you actually live in it in practice,

and what it actually does to the core relationship in question.

Some people are out here living their best lives, sleeping with other people,

and then their partners are sitting on Orna's couch like wanting to die essentially.

They're like their heart is being broken a million times every day.

It genuinely is is tough to watch at times.

But all of that is to say,

I what I see in the framing kind of across the board here of

all the things we've talked about about Lindy West memoir in the press tour,

uh, about, you know, this cut article about these couples on couples therapy,

there is a repeated narrative

that is really twofold

that I find to be quite insidious.

One is that non- monogamy, polyamory,

or in any way uh huwing away from a sort of standard issue version

of monogamy is the more progressive option.

That can sometimes be very literal, politically more progressive,

and that actually is a topic that's covered quite a bit in Lindy West's

memoir um about how the the desire to be monogous

or polyamorous is really framed along political terms.

But I think it's also implied often implied that it's more open-minded,

that it is more um sort of humane

or ethical or in tune with the human condition.

So that's one of the narratives.

The other is that it it increasingly presents a solution to what is undeniably

a very very difficult social,

political, economic context to be monogamous, right?

It is very expensive to do things like raise a family.

We are increasingly very geographically isolated from each other.

We more rarely live intergenerationally.

We drive more.

We have fewer third spaces.

We have fewer friends.

Like in America, we live in an increasingly isolated way.

And that presents enormous

and in many ways new

and unique problems for monogous couples

and by extension the nuclear family.

And what I feel about this specifically with the latter half on the first

half,

do I think that non- monogamy is inherently more progressive than monogamy uh

or more open-minded or more any of those things?

Absolutely not.

I think like everything else, it's completely case by case.

I think there are probably extremely progressive and uh feminist and equitable monogous setups.

I personally believe that I'm in one.

Um, but I think there are also probably really really conservative ones

and vice versa on on the polyamorous front.

I think it just entirely depends on the context

which again as I mentioned earlier

if we want to take it back to the Lindy West conversation

and this sort of impetus to frame everything

as a choice of

as as sort of individually empowering.

I think what becomes even more difficult in the case of non- monogamy

or especially polyamory where there are multiple real deal relationships happening is you you

are essentially now demanding a level of empathy,

functionality, communication and fairness between an exponentially larger number of configurations of people

which I think becomes harder

and harder to maintain.

You know, one in the polycule and the whole thing is off.

So again, it's not to say

that one is inherently more progressive than the other.

It's just entirely dependent on the relationship itself.

And I don't think

and will never think

that one person can sort of individually empower themselves into it being an inherently

empowering thing.

Just because you chose something doesn't mean

that it is good

or healthy in practice

or even that you chose it uh in a way

that is really expressive of your desires

and needs.

We are famously compromising constantly.

Not settling down with just one person does not mean you're not compromising.

In fact, it could mean

that you're compromising way more with a larger number of people

and not getting your needs met on many,

many different axes.

But I'm more interested given

that this is a financial channel at the end of the day.

I am more interested in the second part of the conversation

which is this framing of polyamory

or non- monogamy as an antidote to our atomized very expensive very isolated uh

current sort of social dynamic.

I want to acknowledge

that here on TFD we have spoken at length adnauseium about how hard it

is to just be a person in America

but especially to be a family,

especially to be a couple. how often how often we are presented with really

impossible choices,

how much work is now falling to women

because there is so little help um with day-to-day domestic

and family labor and we essentially always now need two incomes in order to

just get by.

So I in no way want to dismiss the sort of core problem

which is that we are lonier um

and we have less

and less support um

and things are more expensive

and harder.

What I really push back on is the idea

that romantic or sexual relationships being added to the mix is guaranteed

or even one of the more likely ways to assuage

that problem.

For example, when we look at the stats around friendship

as we age and particularly with men

and friendship,

um what is undeniable is

that men are in a crisis of friends

and increasingly when men marry women,

their wives become often their only friend, but in most cases,

their portal to all of their other friends,

sort of the keeper of the social life.

It's why I always personally cringe

when I see a man refer to his wife

as his best friend

because I know that how

because I know how often in practice what

that really translates to is she is my only real friend.

She is the only person with whom I share deep intimacy platonic or otherwise.

And in fact in many cases the concept of platonic intimacy is just lost

entirely.

Similarly, we're in crises of in many cases not even really functionally having neighbors

when we live far away from each other.

But even when we do have them, of literally not knowing our neighbors,

not being in contact with the people that we live around,

not sharing in day-to-day costs

and responsibilities and pulled child care

and all of those other things

that make living in the quote unquote village uh part of what makes life

so much easier on a day-to-day basis

and how humans have always historically lived. uh we also see the great decline

in things like union participation

and becoming more and more alienated from our co-workers

and the people with whom we share this enormous part of our lives

and also our economic viability.

So I think what I'm what I mean to say here is

that we are increasingly becoming very estranged

and isolated.

We are also becoming further and further away from our own families.

Again, it is much rarer to live intergenerationally

which is a huge part of the issue.

It's not to say that everyone should live intergenerationally,

but it does mean that at various times in life,

such as when a person is aging or a new child is born,

the pressures and responsibilities of caring for those people become more complicated

and in many cases more expensive

because this has to be outsourced.

I also think simultaneously

that a lot of monogamy is very very bad in America especially again there

is an enormous pressure for your spouse to be

as I said your best friend to be the person

that you essentially do every activity with the person with whom the person in

whom you confide about absolutely everything with whom you share essentially all hobbies

and interests that you sleep with every single night

which is also a relatively new thing in human history for people who could

afford two beds like that's not usual.

Like we have just put a level of pressure on what monogamy is supposed

to represent for people

that is completely unsustainable.

And again, in large part,

I think is driven by the fact

that we increasingly don't have other relationships to rely on.

We don't have other profound platonic connections.

We're not connected to our neighbors.

We're not connected to our families, etc.

So, the spouse has to become everything.

And again, I completely understand why that is not pleasant or appealing to people.

It's not pleasant or appealing to me.

I am in a monogous relationship for 15 years.

I look around at a lot of monogamy and I'm like,

I would suffocate in this relationship.

Like, this is so stressful.

You guys have completely subsumed each other's identities.

You rely on each other for absolutely everything.

There is no release valve.

All of that I completely agree with and understand.

What I contest though is that for most people in most functional ways,

what would actually probably provide a lot more relief on

so many of those fronts are not going to be found in primarily sexual

or romantic relationships.

Yes, of course, there are iterations of polyamory where we're like all watching each

other's kids and living on a compound

and like cooking for each other

and sharing responsibilities.

Of course, there are.

There can be good and bad versions of that as well.

I am not saying

that all non- monogamy comes in the form of having a core relationship where

you are then also sleeping sometimes with other people.

I'm just saying that is now a common form of it.

It is also a form

that is often imposed by one partner on another partner

because one partner finds

that much more appealing

and the other one is low-key devastated by it

but doesn't want to lose their spouse.

Um, and that configuration to me,

the configuration of I have my marriage and I sometimes sleep with other people,

I don't personally believe in 90% of cases addresses any of the very real

problems uh that have been rightfully identified with the modern version of the nuclear

family and of long-term monogamy.

In fact, in some ways, like in that New York Magazine article,

you see how having this quote unquote release valve of sleeping with another person

can allow the core relationship to not meaningfully address,

let alone resolve many of the fundamental problems

that they were experiencing in the first place

because you are now getting some of your needs met elsewhere.

You don't need them to be met in your main relationship.

What is striking to me about even the very concept of quote unquote polyamory

is how often,

not always, but how often the amorous in polyamorous uh is understood to mean

romantic and sexual.

When I would argue that we are in dire dire need culturally of polyamory,

but the kind of amorousness that we're in need of is platonic love,

is familial love, is love with neighbors,

love with communities. to take it all the way back to the Lindy West

memoir.

Um, I think what in some ways bothers me the most about the conversation

around it is how again I feel

that we are really missing the forest for the trees

when we talk about these individual instances of not great polyamory.

And by taking these cheap shots,

like if you go on like the Daily Wire right now,

it's all just like a bunch of unflattering photos of Lindy with like some

caption about how like this is the fate of all liberal white women

or whatever. like nonsense.

And it's not surprising, right?

Like those kinds of those outlets have been taking

that kind of cheap shot against people like Lindy essentially since both have existed.

Um, but even people who ostensibly share a lot of Lindy's progressive political values

have been really focusing on just this one iteration of what polyamory looks like

and how obviously not a healthy setup it is for for at least for

her.

And again, I think that really really misses the point.

I think the conversation around having to reframe all decisions

as being empowering uh

or being feminist and sort of imagining

that we can will a situation into being feminist

if we I guess think it hard enough

or say it hard enough.

I think that's closer to the point, right?

because it's telling us

that we can sort of gaslight ourselves into sitting with what are fundamentally misaligned

situations and that in fact by not doing

that that we are somehow not being

as politically progressive or

as open-minded as we think we are

when I would argue

that it's perhaps the opposite

and that few things

as a woman are more progressive than saying no to some

that doesn't suit you

and standing firm in

that.

But that's a complete side note.

But I think ultimately the the real argument here

and what comes across

so much to me in a lot of this press tour

and a lot of the media around this memoir in particular um is

that often adding more people romantically to a setup does not treat what is

at the core of a lot of these wounds

which is a kind of loneliness,

a kind of fear, a kind of anxiety.

And in Lindy's telling of her own story,

she does seem to typify

and really have a

and and have a fairly extreme example of a lot of those feelings of

of scarcity,

of codependency, um of feeling like your entire world boils down to your spouse.

I think she's a very perhaps unflattering example of it, again,

even in her own telling.

But what she's describing of your whole world being your spouse,

I would argue that for a lot of American monogamy, that is the norm,

not the exception.

That couples represent way too much for each other.

And it's unsustainable even in the best of circumstances.

It's unsustainable because one person can't be your whole village.

One person can't be all of the love that you need in your life,

if only because you need different types of love.

I think that when we want to make such an extreme example out of

this,

it misses the point that a lot of us are suffering in similar ways.

And as I mentioned here on TFD,

you don't have to look very far to see a lot of situations of

women not being served by monogamy,

not being served by this model of marriage.

I completely agree that a lot of monogamy needs to be rethought.

I completely agree that the nuclear model of the family has failed.

I agree with all of those things.

I remain unconvinced, skeptical,

and unconvinced that the answer for most people will lie in more romantic partnerships,

in more romantic or sexual entanglements.

Can it?

For some, sure.

Can that be a bonus?

Yes.

But I don't think it answers a lot of our problems.

And I think in some ways it presents very compelling

and important questions about our current iteration of monogamy

and directs us toward a lot of the wrong answers.

At the end of the day,

I don't even think it's all

that relevant to even compare monogamy

or non- monogamy as two alternative versions of how to love

and be loved because in both cases,

I think they represent a very narrow window of what love is.

Love to me is so much more than just romantic or sexual love.

And the more we hyperfocus on that version of it,

I think the more we tend to miss what is

so essential for the human spirit out there.

Um, so all of

that is to say I am always locked in for a polyamory conversation

because I do think it's Listen,

if nothing else, it's juicy as hell.

Some of these people are crazy on couples therapy especially.

I'm like sitting there watching.

I'm like, "What is wrong with you guys?

Divorce each other.

Kill each other.

Like do something."

But like obviously staying together just sleeping with other people is not a sustainable

solution to your problem of fundamentally hating each other.

But I don't think pointing

and laughing at individual polyamorous setups

or or non- monogous setups is the answer.

I don't think we exist in a vacuum.

I don't think all choices can be empowering if we say that they're empowering.

Um and I don't think

that non- monogamy is any kind of meaningful solution to our current crisis of

isolation uh and economic pressure.

That's just one woman's take.

I personally love monogamy.

What can I tell you?

I'm just I enjoy it.

I don't think it's boring at all.

I think it's great,

but I think a lot of

that is because I just don't put

that much pressure on my marriage

as compared to other uh monogous setups in in America.

I think I I try really hard,

my husband and I both go really far out of our way to have

extremely robust and meaningful lives outside of each other.

And that makes the relationship, the core marriage feel like a lot,

but not everything.

And that I think is the most important thing.

Um, but that's again just one woman's take.

I hope you enjoyed the rant.

I'll see you around the channel.