Interesting. Because usually people cite Stranger in a Strange Land as introducing them to poly. I haven’t read any Heinlein, though, so I didn’t know he also has something like this in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.

Also a good point.

As we well know, if you really care about poor women, help them not get pregnant in the first place.

Facts. The bane of the traditionalist.

To be fair, I was charitably assuming Green was only concerned with women who got that way, not writing about the separate issue of helping them not get that way, although it is true that would require her admitting it’s really all about the children. And from Marcotte’s comment upthread, it looks like she really has the agenda of pushing traditional marriage, and doesn’t really want you to notice that child-care is actually the only real problem she is describing.

Unless you have evidence that matches the published scientific evidence and widespread national, organizational, and personal experience I link to, which spans decades and countless activists, members, interview subjects, authors, books, and research papers, you have no basis for insisting there is evidence to the contrary of any of my conclusions.

You are thus the one acting like a Christian apologist.

You presented no evidence. I cited tons. That tells us all we need to know about which of us is playing at religion.

As for the conceptual question, consent requires uncoerced assent. Forcing someone to do what they don’t consent to through threats of social or romantic punishment is a violation of autonomy and the basic morality of consent (unless you need to protect someone from harm…so, who?). And you can’t have freedom without autonomy and consent. Thus, take away the coercion, and let people do what they actually consent to, and you will see the decline of monogamy. It’s not what a huge number of people want. And I have seen, read, and seen documented countless examples: as people become aware that there are options, and are allowed to explore them, they increasingly abandon it. Since most people are not aware of the options or not allowed to opt out of monogamy, we know there is a vast number of people who are not free.

1+1=2.

Otherwise, “Diversity of what?” Relationship models, ways of living, ways of loving; no one else’s cultural or religious narrative being forced on anyone. “Equality of what?” In sexuality and love, men and women being allowed the same freedoms. And “How autonomous is autonomy in these set-ups?”, when ethically pursued, far more autonomous than in monogamy.

There simply is no rational argument for trying to force people to be monogamous with social and cultural scripts of denigration and punishment and prejudice. Take away the force. Let people negotiate the relationships they want. Give everyone equal support in any honest, respectful, and compassionate relationship they choose. Not just the relationships “you” want them to have. Protect people from harm. But where there is no real harm occurring, get out of the way; stop being a tool of oppression.

I concur. Elyse has written a lot of great stuff on many topics.

No less so than monogamy.

Even if we grant whatever you mean by “ugly.”

I suspect what you think is “ugly,” gets way more play than you imagine.

@WilliamSHart: Well, I’m not poly, and I don’t have any sort of counselling hat. But I’ll give it a shot. Happy for anyone who knows more about poly stuff than me to point out any egregious erros I make.

Problems that strike me in this hypothetical relationship:

1. It started slap bang on the heels of a previous breakup. Can you say rebound, anyone?

2. The X-ray technician seems to have a bizarre lack of agency in any of this. One of the members of the original triad breaks up with the other; but we’re told nothing about what happened with the X-ray technician’s relationship with the wife following the wife’s breakup with the husband. That just seems to evaporate without further comment. Nor do we hear anything about what the X-ray technician would like her relationship with the [ex]husband to be now that the original triad has broken up. Does she still want to be in a relationship with him at all? What does she want that to look like? Is that compatible with what the husband wants? Likewise, there’s no indication that she has any sort of attraction, love, or indeed any feelings whatsoever towards the husband’s new partner, and yet, bam, the three of them are straight into a cohabiting triad (not even a V).

3. There’s no indication that this newly-cohabiting triad have had any sort of pre-cohabitation discussion about finances, or household chores, or how they see the new relationship as working (closed or open? If open, under what circumstances?) or any of the other things that need to be discussed when moving in together.

4. ….following on from which, the man starts taking financial advantage of the X-ray technician without caring much about how she feels. It sounds rather as though the waitress may be doing the same thing, if she’s a part-time waitress with frequent periods of unemployment.

5. She’s also suffering from work stress and exhaustion. Passion killers in any relationship.

6. There’s an implication that the X-ray technician is feeling unloved and unappreciated by the man. As for her relationship with the waitress… well, again, there’s still no indication that there actually is one, despite this being supposedly a triad rather than a V. I know I don’t know much about poly, but this isn’t sounding anything like an actual poly relationship to me.

7. I have no idea how deception comes into any of this, since that at least seems to be one dysfunctional behaviour that isn’t illustrated in this scenario. Did you leave a bit out? If there is deception involved anywhere, then that’s yet another thing going wrong in this utter clusterfuck (pun not intended) of a relationship.

8. Still… on the plus side, the man does at least provide a very handy cue line when she wants to break up with him. Cue lines that good happen rarely, and make up for quite a lot when they do.

Now, granted, some of those issues would not show up in quite the same form in a monogamous relationship. But I’m not really seeing how this particular scenario is significantly different from, say, a supposedly monogamous relationship between two people in which one seems to be giving a suspicious amount of attention to a friend, and I’m certainly not seeing how rebound relationships, financial exploitation, and lack of consideration of your partner’s feelings are somehow supposed to be a problem only for poly relationships. I think you’ll find those things are relationship-killers whatever gamousity you are.

HTH, HAND.

Having children without a support structure in place (whether that’s a spouse, spouses plural, extended family, friends, some form of formal or informal communal arrangment, whatever) is extremely tough whatever your income (although poverty obviously adds significantly to the problems). But how many of these situations could be prevented by encouraging much wider uptake of contraception (especially long-acting reversible forms of contraception), encouraging people to postpone childbearing for long enough to achieve reasonable options for supporting themselves, and working actively against the idea that childbearing ought to be automatically sought by every woman?

Freedom from what? Consent to what? Diversity of what? Equality of what? Opportunity? Outcome? And how autonomous is autonomy in these set-ups? How would you even know beyond self-serving personal anecdotes?

How many is many? When, where, in what culture, relative to what population? Are you distinguishing between passing fads and abiding truths?

There are so many problems in your text it could be taken as an effective argument against polyamory. It’s like reading religious apologetics: you see so many problems you know the road is crooked and you wouldn’t want to go down it.