THE GLOWING REPORTS ABOUT POLYAMORY

Co-Founder and former President of Open Love NY, Leon Feingold believes that monogamy is just a social construct. What then should take its place? Attachment to multiple people at the same time! Why not spread our love around and get our needs me? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtdsZ8B7JQY&feature=youtu.be

Passion is king, but how does he justify it? According to Feingold, it works. To defend his case, he polyamory is based upon compassion and truth. “Everyone wins!” But how? If everyone is on the same page by honestly communicating their wants and needs, all the participants can become friends and have their needs met. To justify his case, Feingold points to the high divorce rates among monogamous unions.

But do our wants and needs coincide so smoothly? According to Feingold, they can. However, history presents a very different verdict. Israeli pioneers coming from Europe and saturated with the idealism of their day – radical socialism (Marxism) – regarded marriage as an illegitimate form of ownership, along with the “possession” of children and clothing. They formed numerous communities (kibbutzim) based upon these principles. Although a small number have retained their communal raising of children, none have been able to retain open, marriage-less sexual relationships. Contrary to Feingold, they failed to prove their viability over the long run.

Although polyamory is attractive, it has never been sustained in any culture. I think that this says something about its workability. However, our affluent Western youth have seen so much technological change, they are inclined to believe that change is possible in all areas of life, even those that are closely associated with our human nature, and history counts for nothing.

In contrast, the traditional monogamous union has a lot to say in favor of itself according to the voice of history. In "Sex and Culture" (1934) the anthropologist J.D. Unwin found a universal correlation between monogamy and a civilization's "expansive energy." He wrote:

·       "These [sexually progressive] societies lived in different geographical environments; they belonged to different racial stocks; but the history of their marriage customs is the same. In the beginning each society had the same ideas in regard to sexual regulations. Then the same struggles took place; the same sentiments were expressed; the same changes were made; the same results ensued. Each society reduced its sexual opportunity to a minimum [monogamy] and displaying great social energy, flourished greatly. Then it extended its sexual opportunity; its energy decreased, and faded away. The one outstanding feature of the whole story is its unrelieved monotony."

The late author, Aldous Huxley, summarized Unwin's extensive research:

·       "Unwin's conclusions, which are based upon an enormous wealth of carefully sifted evidence, may be summed up as follows…[Sexual permissive societies] displays the least amount of mental and social energy, the productive the most. Investigation shows that the societies exhibiting the least amount of energy are those where pre-nuptial continence is not imposed and where the opportunities for sexual indulgence after marriage are greatest. The cultural condition of a society rises in exact proportion as it imposes pre-nuptial and post-nuptial restraints upon sexual opportunity."

·       "In human records there is no instance of a society retaining its energy after a complete new generation has inherited a tradition which does not insist on pre-nuptial and post-nuptial continence." For Roman, Greek, Sumerian, Moorish, Babylonian, and Anglo-Saxon civilizations, Unwin had several hundred years of history to draw on. He found with no exceptions that these societies flourished during eras that valued sexual fidelity. Inevitably, sexual mores would loosen and the societies would subsequently decline, only to rise again when they returned to more rigid sexual standards." https://www.tremr.com/Duck-Rabbit/sexually-permissive-societies-always-fall-anthropologist-says#.WoCempog4vY.facebook

Consequently, we should be suspicious of the glowing reports coming out of the polyam community. Jase Lindgren has written

·       It isn't easy or fun to talk about abuse. Abusive relationships come in many different iterations, and non-monogamous relationships are not exempt from these kinds of unhealthy dynamics. It's difficult for poly folk to speak publicly about abuse, as social stigma discourages many people from sharing any negative or darker aspects of poly relationships. https://www.multiamory.com/podcast/76-emotional-abuse

Blogger Alan M. recorded parts of prominent poly activist and author Franklin Veaux’s keynote speech At a Poly Living convention in 2015:

·       “There was a time, long ago,” Franklin said […], “when I had this naive idea that polyamorous relationships were less likely to be abusive than monogamous relationships. Isolating a person is one of the hallmarks of abuse. So if you’ve got more people in the relationship, it’s harder to isolate someone, right? You have more eyes on a potential problem, right?”

·       However, said Franklin, he came to realize that because abusers are often influential and charismatic—and because groupthink is such a known bug in human nature—an abuser can sway an entire group against a person he or she is mistreating, belittling, controlling, or gaslighting. (Gaslighting: undermining a person’s confidence in their own perceptions and memories.) https://drfeminist.com/2016/08/29/dan-savage-is-wrong-exposing-abuse-polyamorous-relationships/

Based upon numerous online accounts, it seems that polyam serves as a breeding ground for abuse, and this is not even to consider child abuse and their inclusion within the polyamorous embrace.

Many studies have demonstrated that the safest place for children is in a monogamous relationship between both biological parents. This is also the wisdom of the Bible:

·       …the LORD was witness between you and the wife of your youth, to whom you have been faithless, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant. Did he not make them one, with a portion of the Spirit in their union? And what was the one God seeking? Godly offspring. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and let none of you be faithless to the wife of your youth. For the man who does not love his wife but divorces her, says the LORD, the God of Israel, covers his garment with violence, says the LORD of hosts. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and do not be faithless. (Malachi 2:14-16 ESV)