So, where does this come from? I understand monogamy; polyandry; polygamy and queerness. Polyamory sounds like, what's the word? Libertine (-ness) ? Not very convincing. We used to say people were promiscuous if they were of that persuasion. Is this the new defense of that animalistic behavior? Sorry. I don't get it... I have a writers group meeting to enjoy now...
Neuman.

Hi, Laura!
I was trying to log in to comment on the upcoming anarchy show (first aired in 2015, while I was incommunicado). Could not get in, so tried this avenue instead. Hope my comment gets posted, here goes: In this late dispensation of the human epoch, it seems to me that the anarchy thing has been tried, either intentionally or unintentionally, and found wanting. I know--- this is excruciatingly old-fashioned. But let's look at my assertion, historically and logically (if such is possible in our rationalistic world). Before there was government, there was anarchy. Fast forward to the emergence of religion and there was still repression and murder, but some semblance of order and even civilization was arising from the mire of human cruelty. Argue if you will for or against religious influence, it began to exert a level (forced) of humanity, theretofore unknown. Complexity began to rear its' ugly head, and, even with the reservations of the Church, science and technology emerged and began to further improve the human condition. Now, let's say that anarchy had ruled from pre-religious and pre-scientific times until now. Where do we suppose we would be? Certainly not on the moon; and, probably not even in outer space. Maybe not even here. And that is succinctly my point. If we have no form of governance, we have little impetus towards self-restraint.

I always enjoy Ian Shoales' wrap-ups to the program. But this time, he had it right. After exploring so many complicated angles on human relationships, perhaps "bitter solitude" is in fact preferable.

Having once subscribed to the idea of soulmates, eventually settling for someone who was madly interested in me (for a moment, anyway), settling into marriage with that person only to be divorced by her four years later, followed by a rebound relationship, and a decade of solitude since — only at middle age do I now find myself coming to the conclusion that the urge toward romantic or intimate relationships in general seems to be driven by the biological imperative to reproduce. Once a person ages beyond that, at least I just wind up shaking my head, wondering what the whole thing or big deal was about in the first place — the having to possess a person, reveal ourselves to them, merge with them, always have them at home for us.

Country singer Naomi Judd once noted in a radio interview that, "Solitude is creativity's best friend." It is only in solitude that I've discovered I can write fiction, and that independently publishing it will become my next and very unexpected vocation. If I was still married, who knows what drudge job I might still be stuck in to pay the bills and satisfy the spouse. Besides, I now seem to be able to craft more satisfying relationships in fiction than I've been able to experience in the real world. The only thing missing is physical companionship or satisfaction. But as with so many other things, age is causing that to fade, too . . . and I no longer mind.

I second your remark concerning a show on solitude. It appears that few people know (or care) what that means. It also seems to me that privacy evokes little interest as an alternative to being constantly connected.

The notion of polyamory takes me back to relative childhood---I had not recently thought of or remembered the writings of Robert Rimmer: The Harrad Experiment and The Rebellion of Yale Marratt. Actually, the books belonged to my older brother and were not the sort of reading material I was suppose to have access to, at 6 and 1/2 years his junior. We humans do a lot of social experimentation, and sometimes those experiments evolve into customs, traditions and practices. There is no saying what or when we may be doing tomorrow. There is also, likewise, little that may be said about what may be scorned as depraved or praised as forward-thinking, fifty years into the near future. All one need do is look at where we were fifty years ago. It is clear: if you don't like what is happening now, just wait a bit. I won't be around. My grandchildren will. They will have the onerous task of figuring it all out. Grave new world, or the flood of inevitability?

Ray's blog is more tolerable than this show. I don't think there was a enough skepticism or balance in the presentation or argument.

Polyamory is more complex and spotted than portrayed here. We got some inkling of that in the hierarchical vs. anarchic polyamory but that was elusive. The devil is in the details and for many people (given Ray's Blog data... most people) that is a straight-up truth. Polyamory is a moral, ethical and legal wrong. Certainly not the progressive, smart and modern choice presented by Carrie.

I may have to back track that a bit on smart. There is some data to show that intellectuals are more likely to be polyamorous. Intellectuals like to out think love in lieu of hedonism and passion. It’s not a passion that can be out-thought in my experience or in the science that I read. But what do I know?... evidently little.

If the majority of polyamory occurs in the intellectual elite, and some point toward left leaning politic as well, it is equally indulged by other data that shows conservatives have more fantasy of multiple partners, not to mention more repressive over-lording subculture for right and the more base alike.

Here’s something not presented in the show or Ray’s blog: polyamory is a privileged behavior of the powerful and financial elite. That is true in history and its modern manifestation. There is no trend toward having multiple consensual partners that can’t be explained in economic excess. We are living in a time of unprecedented living standards.

Working class societies and primitive cultures in history and prehistory have strong and primal monogamous traditions and ethics. That deserves some thought. I can’t explain it exactly. In a strong polyamorous family wouldn’t that have economic benefit? Families are messy regardless perhaps and not the ends here to the polyamorous means.

The idea of consent also is missing here. Long term studies of polyamorous relations are rare because they are rare – this needs data but again I would refer to Ray’s blog. These relations are short lived and the “primary” relationships in hierarchical polyamory take a hit. List your exceptions, they come from privilege and supposed intellectual freedom I would think… I don’t know.

Finally and most importantly, I have to see data on children… and I’m not offering up my own. I saw the recent documentary Wild Wild Country on Netflix, it was disturbing to say the least in it’s unspoken threat to children at that commune. Though it wasn’t universal and perhaps not an issue (I think it was), I don’t condone role modeling polyamory to kids at all. The whole idea of polyamory is one for mature, equal and consenting adults and no others. I’m uneasy with that kind of attitude, but I feel it strongly. Children need special liberty and protection. It is complicated but also fundamental to my thought around polyamory.

Overall… not my favorite show or topic. I will read this book and post back with exacting thought if I change at all. I’m challenged to really come up with good data or ideas that could offer up any reason to be critical.

In so far as polyamory was likely to re-visit in the schema of the blog, I worked out another notion about it. Those Rimmer books, years ago. "Experimented" with the idea. I later dismissed it as human hedonism. Anyone may argue this from any stance they may choose. I call to attention the random practicality of genes. Not ours but those of other living things. While it is true that some creatures mate for life, this is not predominant. It is obvious many have life spans which limit reproductivity. Mating seasons take on orgiastic proportions while off-spring mortality challenges specie survival.

In modern human society, child-bearing is postponed, in lieu of personal development and economic stability.. Our primarily conscious co-habitants have no notion of such things. It is sometimes said that we do things because we can, not because we should. Your post on troubled history at least tacitly affirms this premise. Life extension is a fledgling avocation: pretty far from science, near as I can tell. Is it conceivable that reproduction into the geriatric years may be possible? Could (or would) we do that? Possibly. Should we? As the holographic image in I, ROBOT solemnly pronounced: that is the right question. Is polyamory necessary or desirable? Need and desire are both propositional attitudes. The assessment is yours to make...

In the midst of a grisly pandemic (which experts hope will morph into an endemic), I am anticipating the next installment on this subject. Thinking about the risks attending close contact with others, I shiver just a little at open relationships. Immunizations have no doubt saved lives---will save more, we hope. Yes, I am hopelessly traditional. But I am too old to change; too disinterested to care. So, we shall see what, if any, new epiphanies emerge in the February podcast. I must say, given the current totality of circumstances, that show interests me more than it would under less dire conditions.
My love to you, Ms. Maguire,
HGN