He has an entire post about this. I'm too lazy to look it up for you. The gist is: sure, a biased survey is imperfect. Just guessing willy nilly based on no data whatsoever is worse. So we're going to go with the biased data approach. (if you don't like it, collect some data yourself in some better way)
Yeah, that's the point. Collecting that data is a lot of work. Scott and Aella have done that work. So let's use their data. One day someone else with a lot of energy and a large audience will make a better data set, or you (or I or whoever) will do it ourselves.
In the meantime, complaining about bias in the data isn't doing anyone much good, because the biased data is the data we have, and the unbiased data is fictional.
Honestly, it's better than a lot of the other surveys--it's bigger, and doesn't have to pass through the ideological filters of academia. But your point is still valid.
Probably a way to pool resources when resources are scarce. I've seen this as an argument for increasing polyamory among young people--housing prices are up, people share, and they're young and horny and one thing leads to another.
I haven't seen this in black communities (not around enough I suppose) but have seen it in poor white communities. There seems to be some serious consent issues and a whole lot of pain and jealousy involved.
I know of a situation where a mom and her adult daughter were both living with the same guy, and he got them both pregnant at the same time. They all hated each other because of it but continued to live together (for a time, no idea how long) because of lack of options.
Fun fact, Ireland is replacing the more Catholic parts of its constitution which reference to durable relations.
From “ The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.”
The proposal is to add “ whether founded on marriage or on other durable relationships”, after family.
Hard to see how this wouldn’t legalise some forms of polyamory, maybe not in marriage but in other legal forms.
Ah, the two referendums which Leo and the rest of the [redacted] swear blind will mean more support for caregivers, honest, cross their hearts and hope to die.
I don't think it will include poly but I'm damn sure it will mean not a penny extra for the health budget on care assistants, allowances for carers, expanding places in nursing homes or Section 38/Section 39 agencies or more funding for the community and voluntary sector.
It's a way of looking progressive without committing themselves to actually *doing* anything. A bunch of D4 chattering class liberals who dearly wish they were living in London or New York and are bored and want something to occupy themselves set up as the Citizens' Assembly (mar dhea) and every so often produce claptrap like this - "oh, there's sexist language in the Constitution, let's change that!"
I think you may take it from this I'm going to be voting "Hell, no! Dev's constitution is good enough for me, you pack of Blueshirts and backstabbing Soldiers of Destiny!" on this one 😀
I think hoping that a constitutional phrase "The state recognizes X as a primary unit of society with inalienable rights" will force the funding for care assistants is a terrible way of conducting policy. If you want to fund care assistants, pass a law funding care assistants. Don't try to impose some bespoke interpretation of a vague line in the constitution.
This is part of my lemons and vinegar reaction. Like a lot of other countries, people here are looking around and going "If the economy is doing so great, how come I'm struggling to get by?" We have a housing crisis which has been going on for decades now and no sign of any changes. Despite regulations and even a body to regulate the residential tenancies sector, bad landlords are still getting away with blue murder. We've got a burgeoning crisis around refugees/migrants, where unhappily a small minority of genuine far-right/white supremacy actors are trying to get a foothold in Ireland for a long time now and are using incidents to cause trouble and stir up a public backlash - there has been a rash of arson incidents around buildings rumoured to be turned into emergency provision.
So what does our government do about all this? Well, time for a bullshit feel-good maneouvre! The gay marriage referendum went so swimmingly that they haven't stopped patting themselves on the back over it, and we got the Citizens' Assembly (and it's a good job you can't see my expression as I type those words, I make Squidward look like Pollyanna):
Meant to be a way for The Public to get a voice on topics, turned out to be the Usual Suspects of activists, well-heeled do-gooders, and government-appointed jobsworths:
"Questions considered include: abortion, fixed term parliaments, referendums, population ageing, and climate change.
...A 2019 editorial in The Irish Times said that the Citizens' Assembly's work on abortion was a "great success" that "paved the way for the resolution of [a] potentially contentious social issue" and "a vital step on the road to generating support for constitutional change".
(No joke, I am *snarling* here reading that, but that's a whole other rant about the Irish Times, the Horse Protestants, Castle Catholics, Shoneens, provincialism dressed up as cosmopolitanism, etc.)
Three guesses how the Citizens' Assembly recommended we go on abortion, and "let's not" is never one of them. They're also considering "death with dignity" (this is the new term for euthanasia) at the moment, but that's still too hot of a potato so, until the temperature on that one cools down, let's address the most pressing problem affecting the nation, the crisis that has the plain people of the republic gathering in the streets to discuss it in hushed tones, the predicament that keeps strong men awake in their beds at night and has the wretched women of Ireland weeping as they toil, barefoot and pregnant and chained to the kitchen sink:
Sexist Language in the 1937 Constitution!
Well, "gender equality", but that's what it comes down to. See, it is so terribly, terribly awful that women working in the home is assumed to contribute to the stability of society. Women should be out there working in factories and offices and growing the economy, instead of taking care of their families, the aged, and the young!
"In 2019, the Irish government announced two further Citizens' Assemblies including gender equality.
This assembly was tasked with exploring and, within 6 months, making recommendations on; barriers that facilitate gender discrimination towards girls and boys, women and men; removing gender related economic inequalities, reassess the economic value placed traditional 'women's work'; women's full participation in workplace and political; considering the gender imbalance in care; and gender imbalance in low pay sectors".
This campaign is using all the Greatest Hits Tactics from the gay marriage success, which in turn were re-purposed for the abortion referendum: we're modern now! equality! these legal restrictions harm and repress people! and of course, the good old scare tactics about the influence of the Catholic Church (even though, right now, the state of the Church in Ireland is such that in my own diocese, the bishop is looking for suggestions about lack of clergy to service all the churches so - close down parishes? the liturgy of the Eucharist once a month? what?)
Let's get some facts in here, instead of my ranting. What are the two referenda, what is the language that is so offensive/harmful, what is the proposed amendment?
This is going to be a long one, so I'm splitting this into three. Wall o' text is not easy reading.
"The 39th Amendment to the Constitution ...deals with Article 41.1.1°and Article 41.3.1° of the Constitution, both of which relate to the Family.
In Article 41.1.1° “The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.”
In Article 41.3.1° “The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack.”
In this amendment there is one vote for two proposed changes. The Proposal involves the insertion of additional text to Article 41.1.1° and the deletion of text in Article 41.3.1°. These proposed changes are shown below:
Proposed to change Article 41.1.1° text in bold:
Article 41.1.1° “The State recognises the Family, *whether founded on marriage or on other durable relationships*, as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.”
Proposed to change Article 41.3.1° by deleting text shown with line through it:
“The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, *on which the Family is founded*, and to protect it against attack.”
...The constitutional protection of the Family would be given to both the Family based on marriage and the Family founded on “other durable relationships”.
The Family founded on marriage means the unit based on a marriage between two people without distinction as to their sex.
The Family founded on other durable relationships means a Family based on different types of committed and continuing relationships other than marriage.
So, different types of family units would have the same constitutional rights and protections.
The institution of Marriage will continue to be recognised as an institution that the State must guard with special care and protect against attack."
Here is where I get very heavy-handed with the sarcasm, so you may want to skip this. Oh, so marriage is not the foundation of the family? 'Other durable relationships' are just as good? Funny, I thought the gay marriage campaign was all about how marriage was so very, very necessary and no, civil partnerships would not do and no, without the right to marry, same-sex couples were doomed to loveless, lonely lives? They just needed to wait a few years and then it would all be the same whether you're married or not, shacking up or an open relationship or three baby mamas on the go is just as good as Mr and Mrs Smith!
And what exactly *is* an "other durable relationship", anyway? You have to be living together for five years? Does it include that ten minutes you spent shifting that fella in the gay club while your partner (not spouse, and what is going on there?) was at home, Leo? Yeah, cheap shot*, but if you're going to be out there in your good suit yammering about "other durable relationships", you need to define them. As I said, I've worked in social housing, I've seen "other relationships" and they're none too durable, Leo dear. "Yes, we were family yesterday, but I'm dumping you today so get out of my council house" happens a *lot*. At least a marriage certificate, even if it's "only a piece of paper" gives you rights, and I'm awaiting the first court case, should this amendment go through, over "I met this girl, I moved in with her, three weeks later she kicked me out, I'm claiming my family rights under the clause of other durable relationships".
The next amendment will be to take out that phrase about "moral institution" because it's so religious and judgmental and icky, now isn't it? Keep your morals off my private life!
I'm also laughing about that bit about the State protecting marriage because look at the bit about marriage as "between two people without distinction as to their sex"; you've already sold the pass there with same-sex marriage, why should I believe you'll make any efforts to resist the Zeitgeist on further tweaks and 'improvements'? We've been discussing polyamory on here, why should I believe that there won't be a push for "okay, we've decided that between three to five people can be in a legal relationship analogous to marriage - sorry, that's not good enough, what about equality? okay - in a marriage. But not ten, that would be silly".
*Interesting question, though. Leo has been out as gay for a while, he's been our First Gay Taoiseach, the other guy is his long-term boyfriend (they were even hosted by Mike Pence and Pence's sister in a photo-op at the Naval Observatory), their parents are not objecting or unsupportive, and re: The Nightclub Kiss, that got defended as "everyone in the Dublin gay community knows Leo is in an open relationship" and indeed it was more an amusing tidbit than a public scandal, and he's leader of the party that introduced legal same-sex marriage, so why no marriage? Could it possibly be that - gasp! - the whole "the gays will die, just die, if you don't make same-sex marriage legal" was just a... tactic????
Referendum Two, and the one which really gets my goat.
"The Care Amendment
The 40th Amendment to the Constitution will be on a green coloured ballot paper. It proposes deleting the current Articles 41.2.1° and 41.2.2° and inserting a new Article 42B.
Article 41.2.1° “In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.”
Article 41.2.2° “The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.”
The Constitution currently, by Article 41.2, refers to the importance to the common good of the life of women within the home and that the State should endeavour to ensure that mothers should not have to go out to work to the neglect of their “duties in the home”.
In this amendment there is one vote for two proposed changes. The proposal involves deleting Article 41.2.1° and Article 41.2.2° and inserting a new Article 42B, as shown below:
“The State recognises that the provision of care, by members of a family to one another by reason of the bonds that exist among them, gives to Society a support without which the common good cannot be achieved, and shall strive to support such provision.”
It is proposed to delete the entirety of current Article 41.2 and insert a new Article 42B.
The new 42B would, firstly, recognise the importance to the common good of the care provided by family members to each other.
Secondly, it would provide that the State would “strive to support” the provision of such care within families."
Okay, let's be upfront - the State has never been able to make sure women don't *have* to work outside the home, and the whole assumption of caregiving/emotional labour (a terrible phrase but it does for once fit here) by women as wives, mothers, daughters as 'free labour' that relieves the responsibility of the State to provide social supports to the needy members of society isn't edifying.
But this crappy amendment is not going to change all that. In the same week, I've read an online newspaper article about a mother complaining about the *long* waiting list for her child to get necessary assessment to access support services, and an opinion piece by some hopeful that by the magic of the changed language, the State will finally start providing all the needed support.
Dream on, second person. I'm working for a Section 39 agency, my boss got me to write a begging proposal for extra funding, but everybody knows the Health Service has no spare capacity, is burning through funding and still needs more, and is understaffed and overstretched. Magic feel-good bullshit Constitutional change is not going to affect that, it's more likely the State will now say, in response to appeals about being a wife and mother who is a caregiver, that "but now you are not the sole person charged with this! anyone can be family - your second cousin, your hairdresser's boyfriend, that person of indeterminate gender you met at the bus stop - all these can be considered family who will support and care for your parents/children! thank you, you're welcome!"
Also, I do *not* believe it is "sexist" to recognise the work of women within the home, or of stay-at-home wives/mothers. The rush is on to recognise women as economic units, that their place is out there working to support the economy and not their families, and various strains of feminism have not helped that. Some women may not choose to remain within the home and have felt trapped and coerced by that, but equally some women would prefer not to be working outside the home and feel trapped and coerced by *that*.
This is not about equality, it's about cutting expenditure. The State will "strive" to support, but there's no reason it won't reply to your request with "Well we'd love to, but we just can't. We strove, but in vain. No money, you see. Can't hire on extra healthcare staff. You're living down the country, it only is economic to provide these services in Dublin. If we give it to you, everyone will want it. Good luck, just keep on keeping on!"
It's not sexist, it's not religious paternalism, to have language in the Constitution recognising the special place of women and the contribution of 'unpaid' labour to supporting society. It *is* sexist to reduce us all to neutral units in an amorphous entity of 'the family' which is not by marriage or blood but some kind of feeling from a 'durable relationship' which means whatever you want it to mean, and which can be terminated on the same terms.
Okay, this doesn't have anything to do with the post and has probably been said before, but who else, every time there's a Highlights post, is like "Well, I thought I had read the comments to the posts, but apparently I didn't, since I don't recall seeing any of these comments"? Were they just all posted after I had stopped following the comment sections or whatever? Or, more likely, they're just in the comment threads that I collapsed since the first comment didn't seem particularly interesting.
Also: "The second happiest are people who have sex so frequently and compulsively that it’s impossible for them to be angry with their partner for sleeping around because not-sleeping-around seems as impossible to them as falling upward. "
...I guess this is just a type of personality I fundamentally don't understand. I know them, I'm friends with them, but still, if they go "Well, I accidentally ended up having sex with her, and..." when telling the story, I won't say anything, but I'm thinking "What, your clothes accidentally ripped off and you accidentally fell on top of her and your dick was accidentally hard and you both accidentally started bucking?" It always just feels like the sort of stuff people who very well know there's no compulsion and accidents and they do have self-control tell themselves to justify their behavior... but what do I know, this is probably one of those fundamental disconnects between different groups of humans.
It seems like some people "accidentally lose self-control", while others hold themselves responsible even for the moments they lose self-control.
Something similar happens with alcohol, I think. For some people, what they did while drunk, is as if a different person did that -- you certainly cannot blame *them* for that behavior. I had my moments with alcohol when I was younger, but no matter how drunk I got... it was still me. Even when I had a problem keeping balance or talking coherently, it was still obvious that whatever I was doing, it was *me* doing it, albeit clumsily.
That said, perhaps we should not generalize too much. There is such thing as a multiple personality disorder. Maybe for some people it is contextual. It only happens when they are drunk. Or, possibly, when horny.
The only way I could make the "accidental" comment legible is 1) ironic / arch distance, to make it less uncomfortable to talk about, or 2), they really just mean that they didn't plan it, that it was impulsive.
I think everyone is gonna have a hard time debating this so long as 1) people have very different definitions of the primary term and 2) incentives to define it differently/ambiguously in relation to themselves.
> An alternative is that Aella got a bad sample (but her sample ought to be much more representative than mine), or that poly people lie / misremember / have a hard time answering surveys
Or that a random sample of subscribers to Aella isn’t a random sample of the population.
That said I don’t suppose that matters much to the argument that full polly > intermediate polly.
I don't understand the difference between "Aella got a bad sample, but her sample ought to be much more representative than mine" and "a random sample of subscribers to Aella isn't a random sample of the population"
And I don’t understand why you think her sample is more representative than yours - numbers?
Clearly people who sign up to her Substack are there for the sexual content, and that’s not a true random sample of the entire population. It’s probably a more sexually adventurous population.
That said, it doesn’t invalidate the findings. Even if people who sign up for her content are more sexually adventurous than the general population this doesn’t eliminate the distinction between the full time and part time polyamorous, since both are probably more sexually open.
What is Aella’s content on TikTok? I could only stand the app for a couple of days before I deleted it so I honestly don’t know. If I had to guess though it would be in the same vein as her Substack.
From my vague recollection of Aella describing the survey population, I think it was the survey itself going viral on TikTok, independent of anything else Aella does.
I find any self selected sample inherently suspect. Aella has made the point that her surveys are actually a lot more rigorous than much of what gets published in the social science literature, but that just inclines me to say "burn the social science literature to the ground".
DISCLAIMER: I don't know any poly people IRL so all this is speculative. I'm speaking as a libertarian-ish person here; my personal religion, Orthodox Christianity, will be recognizing the validity of polyamory around the same time it canonizes Beaker the Muppet. I believe prostitution should be legalized to avoid a lot of pernicious add-on effects while still believing prostitutes are plying a morally illegitimate trade and should be viewed with contempt. Same general principle here, though I don't view polyamory in general anywhere near as negatively as prostitution so don't take that as a comparison! More of an analogy. Hope that makes sense.
With that said, I can accept that there are people who are more happy in polycules or what-have-you for whatever reason. I find it hard to fathom, but it's a big world etc. It seems likely to me that these people are not especially common compared to the people for whom monogamy, broadly, works--though this may be because we have way more experience with monogamy and the ways it can go wrong, so we are generally better at patching it up. Encouraging poly could easily make a few people happier while also encouraging many more people to rationalize their failures of monogamy with a trendy new thing (and, yes, probably messing up kids in the process, though to be fair the kind of people who seem likeliest to do this also seem like the kind of people who would mess up their kids anyway). I'm not sure the two are compatible as coexisting norms, as normalization of polyamory makes it more attractive as a lure for shitty monogamists to justify doing their thing wrong--which would inevitably create friction. And possibly vice-versa, IDK.
Then you have the basic stability problem of building consensus in groups larger than two. If my wife and I disagree on something important, that's bad, but it means two people have to come to an agreement. Add a third person, and you now have three times as many bipolar relationships to keep in harmony; add a fourth, and it doubles compared to having three, etc. And relationships are, by nature, dyadic; I don't have a relationship with "my family" as a unit, I have a relationship with my wife, and with each of my three sons. You can only relate to other people, not to collectives, unless you're psychologically very peculiar. My family unit works because my sons don't get a real vote in major decisions (though of course we think about how they will be affected). Ancient polygyny sort of worked because women had an absymal legal and social status so only the man got a vote. I imagine it was still pretty toxic much of the time.
I'm not even talking about sexual jealousy here, just the potential fault lines from different priorities, the human tendency to form coalitions around shared interests, etc. If I get a job in another state or something, I have to get one person to agree, my wife. Add a third person and I have to juggle in how it incorporates their work life too, and if I am willing to drop the new opportunity to keep them, etc. If that person is, strictly speaking, my wife's second husband, I might think he's a great guy and maybe not be jealous (this is hypothetical alternate sheep, real me would totally be jealous) but the new job is going to be comparatively more attractive to me than if "she" were my second wife. Meanwhile my wife might feel that we could use the extra income compared to keeping otherwife around, since her music gig is tied to the local scene and doesn't bring in much money. Just an off-the-cuff example of why modern plural marriage sounds like a mess to me. Certainly not the kind of arrangement I'd want to bring children into, leaving aside any other objections. If it comes to being expected to factor in other people's kids with my wife and how any decision affects them too, crikey, what a headache. It's like establishing stepfamilies on purpose instead of as a patch for one or more prior ended marriages.
I can take it on faith that there exist groups of people who can make these multipolar clusters work, in the same way that I can accept there are saints who spent decades of their lives standing on pillars. It just doesn't feel like the kind of thing you should encourage large numbers of people to try.
As Deiseach notes, Beaker is usually a martyr anyway. His main obstacle is not being (apparently) Christian, though for all we know "Mee-mee-mee-mee" translates to "I believe in one God, the Father almighty."
This is a good reason to do hierarchical poly, where you and your primary partner make the big decisions for yourselves, and prioritize each other. This does require being forthcoming about what new partners can expect, e.g. "The position of 'wife' has already been filled and I'm not looking to revise that".
In general, I think hierarchical poly gets a lot of what people want out of monogamy while being less restrictive.
... do a lot of people really want to be second or third banana, though? It's not quite "concubine" but intuitively it sounds better to get full consideration from one person than a minority share in a sort of romantic corporation.
Secondary relationships are no more of a consolation prize than friendship - they're good in their own right. Primary partnerships require higher compatibility, since you're building a life together, maybe having kids. There are a lot of people who aren't compatible with me enough for that, but still compatible enough for us to come to care about each other, to have a good relationship that's more bounded in scope, etc.
Also, your secondary partner might have a primary partner of their own, and doesn't want multiple primaries any more than you do.
Well, my first response to that is that, if it gets that ornate, we're better off not legitimizing it just to avoid the massive complications it would introduce to case law, especially if (as I expect would happen) precedents set by poly are seen as potentially binding on ostensibly monogamous couples (the boundaries of poly being so fluid and the arrangements existing along a continuum). It's frustrating and error-prone enough when there are only two people involved.
Mind you, this is a bad time to be making a poly push, since we're now seeing a lot of unforeseen repercussions to the gay rights movement. I expected the bakery lawsuits; the teenage girls getting mastectomies, not so much. Not that this is relevant, but IDK how much appetite the average normie has for rocking the boat anymore.
You could end up with the official Chinese Imperial harem system, where there is only one Empress, but the rest of the concubines, mistresses, and casual flings are ranked in order of importance and status. If formalised, that might mitigate some of the problems: A is my primary, and has this status and legal rights and expectations from me; B and C are secondaries, and so on down.
If B has her own primary, then you are a secondary or even tertiary with that status and so can't make demands of "dump your husband and run off with me, baby!"
I think only Caroline Ellison thought that was desirable, and no doubt she was imagining herself as the emperor. Which, in a Silicon Valley environment, she probably was.
You write "Aella’s survey includes data from 430,000 people! The average social class is somewhere between lower-middle and middle, so this isn’t just capturing elites, and should be able to address concerns that polyamory only works as a “luxury belief”." However, I can't see any data on social class in the file she provides https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/180EK7HaTu-W9cKC599AeLMTVLRhxTAfbaLh9n-B4hek/edit#gid=0. I may have missed it. And, this may sound a bit defensive, but self-reporting of social class is notoriously unreliable: in short, most people throughout history have thought they are poorer than they are, because our brains are very finely tuned to perceive (often illusory) differences in status, and to feel bad about them. This just an example, of many, from popular media https://nypost.com/2023/08/14/some-of-the-richest-people-in-america-feel-very-poor-survey/. I suspect that people in the Bay Area who think they are struggling aren't really struggling as much as upper-middle class people in, say, West Virginia; not to speak of Namibia and Peru, where they are going to watch those Netflix shows about cool polyamorous people starring Hollywood hotties.
Hmm, this could blow this way of topic but (from the NYPost article you provided).
> A survey conducted by Bloomberg of 1,000 Americans making at least $175,000 a year — putting them in the top 10% of US tax filers — revealed that 25% say they are either “very poor,” “poor” or “getting by but things are tight.”
if they are living in an expensive city that could be true. Gross income != disposable income. And disposable income isn‘t that useful either if $20,000 goes twice as far in Arkansas than New York.
But the big problem here is the use of population percentages when the distribution is a Pareto not Gaussian. It’s early possible to be in the top 25% and poor - this is true of most of history and today.
The thing is, yes, you can be in the top 25% and have good reasons to feel poor but you are NOT poor. Feelings are not stats. That's why asking people whether they struggle financially doesn't tell you a lot. Lots of people who are very wealthy struggle financially all the time, including Donald Trump
There are places in the country where $50,000 a year buys you a reasonably solid middle-class lifestyle, and other places in the country where $50,000 a year would leave you homeless. We have a tendency to think a dollar is a dollar, but this isn't really the case; a dollar is worth whatever it will buy you.
This is more obvious when different places have different currencies - once you have an exchange rate, it becomes fairly obvious that high nominal incomes can in fact leave you in poverty - just consider cases of hyper-inflation.
What is less obvious is that there is an implicit exchange rate between different places in the country. A dollar can literally be worth less in one state than another; it buys less food, it buys less house, it buys less fuel. The degree to which this is the case is somewhat limited by trade, but certain goods and services that cannot be meaningfully traded, like housing, can distort intuitive understandings of what it means to be "rich" and "poor" far beyond the simple cost of sending a truckload of carrots to a city might imply.
Further, class is about much more than wealth in the US. If you live in NYC and you make $175,000 annually, it's very unlikely that you are a member of the lower class as contrasted to "the elites," no matter how bad your liquidity problems are. The only occupation I can think of that could pull that kind of income and live in a major metro without accumulating plenty of education and other social capital along the way is "drug dealer."
I tend to stick to economic classes - which is in any case the subject since we are talking dollars. Being educated to PhD level in film studies butters no parsnips unless the PHD student has a job buttering parsnips.
I thought we were talking about whether polyamory was a practice either most prominent in or primarily benefitting elites, as per the topic the Atlantic article, Scott's response, and the (objectionable to me but I'm rolling with it) notion of a "luxury belief".
Edit: Also, how does a PhD student in film studies rake in $175,000? A very lucrative side hustle? Inherited stock dividends? Whether a film studies student is wealthy (can "butter parsnips") answers an unrelated question. As does the fact that one can be wealthy and nevertheless short on cash. My whole point was that "free dollars to spend" is not a great proxy for elite status.
Since you are bluntly insisting that others just don’t get it, let me be blunt: you are badly wrong. They’re objectively not poor.
If you don’t understand that you don’t understand what 175k/yr can buy in NYC. The area median household income is 125k! Certainly you are not suggesting that somehow NYC, with that median income, is a low cost of living area? No, that would be ridiculous. So let’s drop this and move on: they say they are poor and are not poor.
Not having X figure of ‘disposable income’ (a subjective category in itself) doesn’t make you poor. Being unable to afford necessities makes you poor. 175k/yr in NYC makes you well able, more than most people (and most people are doing fine—neither starving nor struggling, and in fact going on pretty decent vacations) so the distribution being Pareto is irrelevant) to afford necessities.
It is very difficult for me to take rich people seriously when they complain about being poor and list "school fees" alongside mortgage and food (I live in a country with a good public education system).
Everyone is reading the words "very poor" and "poor" but not the words "getting by but things are tight".
It is not reasonable to be making $175K and claim to be "poor" and certainly not "very poor", but "getting by but things are tight" might be a perfectly reasonable thing to say if your expenses are high. The next category up is "comfortable", and not everyone feels that.
Also, "here is a person who is richer than you but feels poor" is a standard hate-read clickbait story which gets dragged out every month. It's a great thing to learn to ignore.
I dispute this. It's not THAT much more expensive to live in an expensive city alone. My experience is that the people who make that kind of money in an expensive city are not doing enough to cut their costs. There are people who make far less living in the same city, but they 1) live in a less nice area; 2) don't send their children to expensive private schools; 3) don't have child care services, but instead rely on family or neighbors more often, or if they do have child care services, it is a fairly cheap service and not an expensive one; 4) don't own an expensive car (and maybe no car at all).
This naturally doesn't mean you can't have tight finances in the top 25% in a city, but if you do, there's probably something you're doing a poor job optimizing, or perhaps some expenditures that are "expected" of someone in your *social* class that those in lower social classes mostly ignore.
Okay I was confused about poly before, so this really helped me. As someone who is not jealous, loves sexual variety, and is not interested at all in additional emotional relationships, I just couldn't understand that there were so many people who want more emotional relationships.
That being said, I feel constantly shamed for my extremely high socio-sexuality. Ideally, I'd like to see a hooker of different ethnicity 1x a month. While I see marriage more about building a life together, less about sexual desire, I don't look like I did at 25 either. But I guess that's not a thing with a name that society can pressure my wife into.
Why would you let your wife stop you? This way of thinking is totally foreign to me. Actual me would never agree to such a binding on the first place. But if I was in marriage and my wife wouldn't let me see a monthly hooker I'd just cheat.
So in this hypothetical, there's a person you are closest to in the world, who you made the decision to marry. And they tell you that they would be deeply hurt if you slept with other people. Your reaction is to violate their boundaries and their trust? If so, you're not ready for meaningful relationships, whether mono or poly.
To be fair, he did say he would never have agreed in the first place. So in this hypothetical, his wife is now forbidding it, in violation of what he would have considered necessary, and is assumed to have been discussed before the marriage. If she changed her mind, then the only options I see are 1) cheating, or 2) divorce.
I wouldn't have reacted nearly as strongly if divorce had been the one he'd said would be his reaction in that situation. That represents a consistent position of "that would be a deal-breaker for me". But not even mentioning it and jumping straight to cheating? I stand by that being fucked up. Like, where's the recognition of the other person there?
It's an immature response. "You are trying to change our agreement, thus I am going to privately renege on it without communicating my lack of acceptance." vs. "Your are trying to change our agreement, and I will not continue in our agreement unless you choose to keep its terms."
Yes. Why would I even consider letting their jealousy control my life. They should learn to control their emotions. If its too annoying to fuck other people openly then id cheat yeah.
Well, I hope you're aware that people like you are the literal reason for family breakdowns, traumatic childhoods, and a large part of the world's misery. And that you are the lowest filth on the planet, and you should be full of unending shame for your existence.
(Incidentally, I'd like some clarification on the comment policy here. Are comments like the above, proudly saying that they'd hurt someone, horribly, with a smile on their face, acceptable? If they are, is it acceptable for me to tell them what kind of alleged "person" they are? Seems true and necessary by any moral standard, but people here are often absurdly polite to such sociopaths, maybe expecting they'll be banned, but they're often not. A ruling from Scott would be much appreciated!)
It does feel a bit strong to call someone a sociopath and lowest filth on the planet for someone discussing a hypothetical opinion around conditions in which they imagine engaging in infidelity. It's name-calling and in that sense is more heat than light. It seems more useful to make an argument against the stance than to take aim at the person. That's just my two cents about norms I prefer in this space.
I'm not clear what argument I'm supposed to make to that. What if he'd said "if I saw a woman in a skimpy outfit yeah I'd rape her, it's her fault for being dressed like that, and for rejecting me"? Are you supposed to respond with "respectfully, I think that's slightly unreasonable"?
A decent person would say they might do some bad thing in some circumstances, and add that's it's wrong, and they're ashamed that they would. If they didn't say that, and just said they'd do the thing, that's questionable enough but maybe ambiguous. If they also outright say it's the victim's fault for expecting to be treated kindly and decently, then yeah they're about as clear an example of a sociopath as I can think of.
Does this require further argument? Is some part of that conclusion controversial?
While lowest filth is purely name-calling, I would argue that sociopath as a term is usefully descriptive. It helps us use language to describe reality.
If someone suffers negative consequences from accurately being described as a sociopath, they only have their own actions to blame.
(I'm not calling you woke, just a related thought.) One reason I despise woke thinking is that, in order to spare bad feelings or achieve a social goal, it gleefully perverts the accuracy of language.
Or I suppose wokeness could alternatively be described as a way of thinking where changing language will somehow magically change reality. Totally abhorrent to how my mind works, completely incompatible with success in any reality-tethered work.
It's a bit extreme to say lowest filth on the planet, I can think of plenty worse. Sapph is being honest about their requirements, and while it's not what I'd consider a marriage, if their partner is on the same page, it's their business.
That's not to say you have to approve or have no right to feel this is not the kind of person you would want to have anything to do with. But we do try to be nice here (and I know, the irony of me, famously abrasive, saying that) so a little less heat on all sides?
TBC I have never cheated on anyone, Ive been openly no restriction poly (I prefer to say free love) for a long time. My longest partner, who I have supported in sickness and in health, read my comment and didn't seem very bothered. As she put it 'sapphire is not a marshmallow test passer'. Having self awareness makes you the lowest scum. Im pretty sure if I had made mistakes earlier in life and ended up in a mono marriage I would in fact cheat. Many do and I am not a champion of marshmallow tests. Of course thanks to my self awareness I have avoided making these promises I know I would never keep. I see no reason to dislike myself for my nature.
I find your name-calling and very strong words off-putting, and I think you probably did it because you misrepresented the situation, then thought Sapph was some sort of monster, and so, didn’t know how to debate with him other than resorting to shamming.
He never said he would badly hurt someone with a smile on it faces, he was just refusing to let himself be controlled. Now maybe he could manage the situation better than that, but you know, breaking relationship also hurt people (and some more than infidelity, and other less).
Also, he said he would cheat, but it is unclear he means lying about it here (and not just having sex with other when the other one don’t want it).
I think we are collectively overestimating the importance of (sexual) trust. I sincerely believe that in many cases, cheating can actually be the most ethical decision.
Consider the most common scenario: you are in a monogamous relationship. For the first few months or years, everything is fine, but then sexual frustration becomes unbearable, and you feel imperiously compelled to have sex with others. There are simply no other ways around it. Despite this, you are very happy with your partner in all other aspects.
Now, you could discuss opening up the relationship with your partner, but if they are opposed to the idea, you are left with two choices: cheat or force your partner to make a decision—either they agree to open up the relationship, or you end things (this is an imperative urge).
Forcing your partner to decide can either break the relationship, which is tragic if everything else is good (a rarity in itself), or they agree but live with resentment (in part because you have made the power dynamics explicit) and jealousy, knowing you are sleeping with others.
If you cheat, in the ideal case, everyone remains happy: your partner is either unaware of it or they might suspect it but tolerate the ambiguity (maybe because it is socially less costly and/or more acceptable in terms of self-image). In the worst case, if the cheating is laid bare, you generally end up in the same situation as if you had forced the issue from the start.
I do not believe cheating is the morally right decision in all cases. However, for most people experiencing strong sexual frustration in a relationship with a partner who is highly jealous—a common situation—cheating seems like the ethically superior solution. Therefore, I suspect it would be better for society if we stopped judging those who cheat so harshly. In fact, much of the harm from cheating may arise because we place too much value on sexual trust. In that respect, polyamory (or open-relationships), which still highly values sexual trust, does not promote the evolution of norms in the right direction.
> but then sexual frustration becomes unbearable, and you feel imperiously compelled to have sex with others. There are simply no other ways around it.
Scott also says something a little like that, and I think this is a bad way to say it, because, what about people who just can’t find partners and are as much frustrated by that (and probably more) ?
It is always bearable, and there are other ways, even if it could be quite bad.
That's cheating and a good reason why you shouldn't be married. If you can find someone who doesn't care if you fuck around, or who fucks around themselves, then great, both of you can be temporarily sharing living space while you fuck around. Don't call it a marriage, though.
EDIT: That sounds very judgemental. What I mean is, you construct your relationships as you like, and find compatible persons. But I don't think that further diluting down the already tattered social concept of marriage to include "if my spouse is so stupidly old-fashioned as to expect sexual fidelity from me now we put a ring on it, I'll just lie, deceive and cheat because sex is the most important thing to me and that should be okay" is going to make things better.
I think Scott is on to something with the "majority I know of are women" because "women want emotional relationships" but I also think other commenters are on to something about men wanting easy access to sex. This could end up the same way as all other trade-offs between men and women: the women want emotional connections, the guys want sex, so the guys put up with the relationship stuff so they can get sex, and the women have sex with Joe, Tom and Billy-Bob because they get different connections from each of them.
Your last paragraph makes me feel some kind of despair. Maybe it's a perfectly fine way for most men and women to accommodate their differing preferences. But it feels kind of awful and grim to me. You?
Late replying, sorry for that. Yeah, it's a bit grim, but I think if it's a fact of life, then acknowledging it and working around it is the better choice than pretending it isn't at work. Also, men will get over wanting only sex after a while (citation needed) and look for emotional connection too, when they want to settle down or get serious, and women will get a bit more adventurous about "I'm not looking for anything but a fling right now". Meeting in the middle is a good enough compromise.
If it goes on for years that "I want something deep but the guys just drop me when they get bored/I don't want marriage and kids but I have to fake it to get past a second date, then she gets all upset and dumps me when it turns out I'm not on the same calendar about 'we need to have a baby now'" then it's awful. No idea what to do about that, though.
TBC I have never cheated on anyone, Ive been openly no restriction poly (I prefer to say free love) for a long time. My longest partner, who I have supported in sickness and in health, read my comment and didn't seem very bothered. As she put it 'sapphire is not a marshmallow test passer'. Having self awareness makes you the lowest scum. Im pretty sure if I had made mistakes earlier in life and ended up in a mono marriage I would in fact cheat. Maybe in these spots I could get divorced or something but if I had kids I prolly would just cheat. Divorce with kids is too much drama and would risk my relationship with my kids! Many people cheat and I am not a champion of marshmallow tests. Of course thanks to my self awareness I have avoided making these promises I know I would never keep. I see no reason to dislike myself for my nature.
Okay, you know your nature and are honest with your partners. That's fine.
If you did marry, have kids, and cheat because "uh, divorce too much hassle", then you would be disgusting scum. It's not better for kids to have a parent who privileges their dick over honesty and fidelity. If you're willing to lie in order to get your dick wet, then you're willing to lie when it comes to them if it's something you want - marshmallow tests, right?
You're not doing that. I'll give you credit for that. My general opinion is, what two adults get up to is their business, it's when kids are involved that you have to pass marshmallow tests, otherwise you're worthless. Divorce and working out access is better there than "Parental Unit is not going to be able to come to your school play because they are going to lie about having to work overtime but in reality they're hitting the hot sheets motel with the new pickup".
Just be upfront, if you're willing to look long enough, you can find this (based on people I know in life with similar or more outlandish agreements in their relationships).
There are many people who want a relationship but can't seem to find a good one, for various reasons. I'm one of them. For people like that, is the polyamory vs. monogamy discussion meaningful? I've been asked which I would prefer, and I'm never sure how to answer. I know I prefer one good relationship to zero, but I have no idea whether I would prefer two good relationships to one (or having a partner who has two good relationships instead of one) since I can't seem to even find one.
I've seen some to-and-fro over that question: if you can't get a relationship, or at least a permanent/committed one, then part of a relationship is better than nothing - half a loaf is better than no bread. ' Incel guy getting to be on a rota of other betas who all get crumbs of attention and sex from a woman is better than being always alone' kind of talk. Not really kind to any of the parties involved, but I suppose for some people half a loaf *is* better than no bread: being in a partial relationship even as part of a polycule where the main person, be they male or female, has lots of partners while the individual partners are all only involved with that one person and are not having other relationships as well.
Yeah - the BATNA is being single and celibate for life. Especially if you want kids...people are willing to put up with a LOT in order to have a shot at the white picket fence and 2.5 kids.
If you’re you are male and trying to find a woman on a dating app, I recommend deleting the damn apps. Find some setting or activity that you can at least sort of like where you will be around a lot of people in your age range. If it takes you a while to find something, that is time well spent. If it costs money it’s worth it. Consider activities you normally would not: yoga retreats, dog training classes, rock gyms, political action groups, church, choruses, weekend conferences. Go to them and strike up conversations with both men and women.
I second this, and think this is all great advice for a guy except the rock climbing gyms - I've been a climber for a decade and change, and that's one of many "90%+ male" hobbies I have, and I've been climbing and in climbing gyms all over the US (and in other countries) in terms of sampling into that 90%+ ratio.
Other hobbies NOT to do, as I consider myself an *expert* at finding 90%+ male hobbies inadvertently: car racing (any type), car modding, car shows, powerlifting, Ninja, triathlons, OCR, bouldering, scrambling, difficult hiking, anything to do with AI, computers, programming, or crypto, surfing, racquetball, Wim Hof stuff, rationalist stuff, philosophy stuff, mathematics stuff, maker labs or spaces, trading, finance, startups, VC, and BJJ.
Basically, if you're the standard rat-sphere guy who likes to tinker and build stuff in any medium whatsoever, OR if you're a fit person who likes doing and achieving difficult things with your body, don't do *anything* you actually enjoy for it's own sake.
Things Eremolalos hasn't mentioned with at least SOME chance of meeting interesting people of the opposite sex: Raves, festivals, Burning Man, live music, house parties, dance classes, cooking classes, easy hiking, dog parks and dog walking (highly recommend this, especially if you raise and train puppies), book clubs, frisbee golf, and farmers markets.
That's interesting, my experience with rock climbing is much more gender equal than that; perhaps I only dabbled in the more casual end of things?
I took a salsa class, and most dance classes I went to were well over 50 percent women. I didn't meet anyone there, but it did wonders for my confidence and comfort being in physical proximity to a range of people, and more comfortable moving in my body overall.
I had to look up who Wim Hof was, and yeah. Definitely oriented towards male-only interest. The guy likes to sit on ice floes in his underpants? You do you, Wim, but I'm staying indoors with the heating on.
Though there are some women who also do that year-round swimming thing (in Ireland's cold waters) so maybe not 100% male interest, more like 98% percent?
Alas, that breathing exercises and cold exposure are not enjoyed by the fairer sex!
That said, I do have a good friend who actually teaches and leads Wim Hof breathing groups, and he has a very nice weekly breathing get-together at his house that's pretty coed, probably close to 50/50.
But, it's also a super-hippie group, and they do drum circle and jamming and psychedelics and stuff all together too, so not sure if it's due to the overall culture, due to the breathing, or due to the other stuff.
Counterpoint: please DON'T do something you DON'T genuinely enjoy. As a person who genuinely enjoys things, it makes things marginally less enjoyable when people show up just to Meet Someone.
I remember thinking this in my teenage years. I read a bunch of books on how to get women, and...
"So basically I have to stop doing the things I like, start doing things I don't like, change my personality, and then if I succeed I get something that's maybe 50% better than masturbation, and have to pay alimony and child support if it gets to the marriage and kids stage and dissolves like half of them do? Yeah, I'm playing video games."
Yeah, one does have to actually like women and enjoy their company to have a long-term relationship with a woman. You don't have to join the knitting group, but the view that a relationship with a woman is 50% better than masturbation speaks volumes. Your honesty about that hopefully spares women who want something deeper from wasting their time.
Quite plausibly he's playing video games with women whose company he enjoys. As a long-term relationship, even. Platonic friendship with women works on a completely different system than romance.
Or maybe his video gaming den is a (virtual) man cave, but you seem to be assuming facts not in evidence.
Well...that was 30 years ago. I was referring specifically to sex (which as a man I was supposed to want, and I guess I did back then). There are other aspects to relationships like emotional closeness, support, sharing things you do with someone with common interests, and of course many people enjoy having kids and raising a family, but I assumed at that point I would never be able to access them since I was a geek and had no common interests with women. There were female geeks, of course, but given the preponderance of male ones, only the most successful ones were going to be able to find one, and I wasn't in that category, so as you said, why waste anyone's time?
Several decades and a bunch of mediocre relationships later, I would say I was...sort of wrong? I never did find someone I really liked, though there were some short-term flings the other person claimed to enjoy, and I did to some degree. My statement was never that relationships were pointless, simply that they were pointless for me. Once I had enough time outside of the notorious academic longhouse (as the kids say), I tried a couple of times without success. I read a bit on Game (I remember Roissy and pre-Nazi Heartiste), which actually did help somewhat, but I wasn't socially perceptive to get away with a third of the stuff or evil enough for another third of it. (The other third kinda helped.)
It turns out sex is actually *less* fun than the other thing, which was a total surprise. My understanding is this is not the common experience--I mean, some of *the women* certainly seemed to enjoy themselves, believe it or not (of course, that part I had read a few books on as well), and I had heard from a young age how men are always doing stupid or evil things to get sex. (The news seems to bear this out.) Wanting sex less than your partner does have all kinds of amusing side effects--they run around begging *you* for it (I thought it was supposed to be the other way around?), though if you don't initiate sometimes they start thinking they're unattractive and feel bad.
It's possible if you find the other person physically attractive it's a different experience--certainly the importance other men seem to place on physical attributes would make you think so! At this age it's extremely unlikely that's going to happen though.
I'm either some kind of ace (aromantic? asexual?) or a very clueless heterosexual. Which one I'm not sure, and I doubt it matters at this point. ;)
Oddly, I remained friends with a few of my exes afterwards, even. (I guess all those pop-psych talks on validation and communication helped somewhat?) One or two kept trying to get back together--one kept sending me notes on Valentine's Day years later, which I found deeply disturbing. Of course, it might have just been my salary. I have to ask myself that every time--is it me, or the money they want? I'm assuming (particularly given the picture painted, and trying to avoid the traditional male ego) it's the money, but who knows? Maybe I really was better than I thought I was. I don't know why anyone would like me, but apparently they did!
Anyway, like you said, I'm done wasting everyone's time.
As an aside, I've never played video games with women--never found one who liked to play. I don't even play video games much anymore, though every few years one catches my fancy for a little while. Though I do appreciate John Schilling going to bat for me. ;)
As a widower considering whether to attempt to remarry - yeah, having someone to share my life with again would have value beyond sex but
>So basically I have to stop doing the things I like, start doing things I don't like, change my personality
for _maybe_ finding someone again is a hard no. Value beyond sex is still a finite value. Some negotiated changes are reasonable. Turning my life inside out is not.
I wonder if the gender distribution in climbing gyms is highly location-dependent? I live in China and in my experience it's about 50/50 in gyms in my city, maybe 60/40, definitely not 90/10...
In rock gyms around Boston it's about 50-50. Gyms have made an effort to become pleasanter and more upscale, and there's exercise equipment & showers as well as rock walls. For many people, it's just their gym. In the actual climbing area there are still plenty of women, and I'd say maybe 10% of them are highly athletic and climbling like 5.11's. Mixed groups at the bouldering walls too. Bouldering walls are a good place to meet people because often there's a cluster of 10 so so people working on the same hard route, and there's lots of kibbutzing -- "what did you do here? " "matched hands" etc. Outdoor climbing is considerably more male, but that's not as good a setting to meet people anyhow. If you climb in the Gunks, that restaurant a lot of people go to after climbing-- I think it's called Bacchus -- is a good place to meet other climbers.
I haven't climbed in China, so not sure, but it certainly seems possible. I've been to a climbing gym in Bangkok, and the ratio was slightly better than the US - maybe 80/20 or 70/30? Was in rich neighborhood in Sukhumvit.
But *actual* climbing, like on rocks with harnesses and ropes? That's 90% male anywhere I've been.
I was just at Stonegoat in Bangkok a couple weeks ago & felt pretty similar to China, I agree with the above that most of the gyms I've been to in China don't have much of a gym bro vibe, don't think it's the exotic Western factor though, it's become very popular here (four new gyms have opened in Hangzhou where I live in the last year or so!) and there is a strong base of regular climbers that are not in it for the novelty. A lot of them climb outdoors but I would guess it may be true that the distribution is a bit different, I don't have as much experience outdoors due to cowardice :D (although I did tick my first outdoor lead recently, so hoping to get out more)
At my last job, the young-engineers social circle was about 20% female (because engineer, subtype aerospace), but nearly 100% actual rocks with harnesses and ropes climbers.
And for that matter, the last woman to ask me on what I think was meant to be a date, from a different engineering-based social group, invited me to a rock-climbing gym. Unfortunately I have mutant feet that basically disallow rock climbing, so I had to decline that particular offer.
And I have three nieces and three nephews, with one of each into rock climbing and the niece by far the most enthusiastic of them.
So, triple independent anecdata leading me to believe that rock climbing is not in fact a 90/10 sausage fest in the contemporary US.
Yes, I'm currently doing those things. I'm not on dating apps, and the hobbies I've enjoyed that haven't been 90%+ male are easy hiking, choir singing, and volunteering.
Last year I asked about 10 women out, and got two first dates and no second dates. Does that sound normal and I just need to keep trying, or does it sound like I need to do something differently to find more women who are interested in first and/or second dates?
From what you've said, it sounds like you're asking a reasonable amount of women out, and just not finding one who clicks with you.
I'd recommend staying the course and hoping for a better match, but you might have burned through the "single and looking" pool in your current groups with asking 10 (I have no idea how big your city or your groups are), in which case you should find new hobbies / groups with new candidates.
>you might have burned through the "single and looking" pool in your current groups with asking 10 (I have no idea how big your city or your groups are), in which case you should find new hobbies / groups with new candidates.
To be clear, are you talking about abandoning my current groups to look for new ones? That would work for some groups that I'm not particularly attached to, but I picked these hobbies in the first place because I like doing them, and I want to keep doing them regardless of relationship status. For some of my hobbies, I've found only one group in the area that works for me - I definitely don't want to abandon those. I also don't have infinite time to spend on new hobbies while maintaining the ones I already have.
I'm not completely out of "single and looking" women to ask out, but the options have dwindled, so this has been on my mind as well.
>To be clear, are you talking about abandoning my current groups to look for new ones?
Yes, exactly. And of course, triage gracefully instead of with hacksaw abandon - but the other downside you can run into for the groups you keep, is you can turn into "that guy" if you're *known* for asking all the single women for dates in the group, and then your chances are basically below zero, because you're tagged as a creep within the group, and existing people will warn new women about you pre-emptively. A bit unfair, I'll agree, but it can definitely happen.
This is another factor to consider when deciding if finding entirely new groups or hobbies is likely to be a better direction overall.
I think we might be talking past each other a little. I do hobbies because I enjoy them. I don't want to give up an activity completely, because I enjoy doing it. Meeting women to date is an extra positive thing, but not meeting women to date doesn't suddenly make a hobby unenjoyable.
Now of course, that leaves the option of finding a different group for the same hobby. That's possible for some and not for others - some of my hobbies have only one group near me, and I really don't want to ditch the activity completely even to meet more women. (That goes for my hobbies which are 90%+ male as well, although I'm not counting them for this conversation.)
On the topic of your comment, I don't think I've turned into "that guy" in any of the groups I'm in - but I wouldn't necessarily know if it happened, so it's possible. I'll keep that in mind as a potential failure mode.
I don't know what's up with that. I wonder if your dating invitations were too "datey"? All the people I dated started off as friends, or at least as acquaintances I knew well enough to joke around with. If there's a woman at the activity you're drawn to, it might work better to try to finagle an activity that's in sort of an intermediate zone first, rather than moving straight from meeting them at the activity to asking them out. Like maybe ask the woman and a couple other people if they'd like to go out for a beer after choir singing, or whatever. Or at the volunteer activity, sit at the table where she is, or try to be in the subgroup she's in, that sort of thing. Also, don't just try to meet women, try to make some guy friends, too. If you have a larger friendship group, that will give you another way to meet women. Also, if you're being friendly to guys, it takes you of the category of "obviously just here to meet a woman," and puts you in the much more appealing category of "friendly guy."
If you don't know anything more about the woman than that her name is X and she's here at the activity, then a first date isn't going to feel much different to either of you than a first date between people who met on Tinder. That's a bad feeling, and most people have had way more than enough of it -- 2 strangers auditioning each other for the role of lover. Yeech!
Of course, you may already be doing what I'm suggesting -- getting to know them some at the activity before asking them out. If you're already doing that, maybe ask one of you're frankest friends whether they have any idea what you're doing that's keeping things from taking off with any of the women you meet.
I kind of feel like that's more finesse than a lot of people here, myself included, can successfully execute, though it may be good advice for the general public.
Well I noticed that, but I don’t think that it necessarily affects the results with regard to total polyamory vs partial polyamory
He has an entire post about this. I'm too lazy to look it up for you. The gist is: sure, a biased survey is imperfect. Just guessing willy nilly based on no data whatsoever is worse. So we're going to go with the biased data approach. (if you don't like it, collect some data yourself in some better way)
Yeah, that's the point. Collecting that data is a lot of work. Scott and Aella have done that work. So let's use their data. One day someone else with a lot of energy and a large audience will make a better data set, or you (or I or whoever) will do it ourselves.
In the meantime, complaining about bias in the data isn't doing anyone much good, because the biased data is the data we have, and the unbiased data is fictional.
Honestly, it's better than a lot of the other surveys--it's bigger, and doesn't have to pass through the ideological filters of academia. But your point is still valid.
Taking this for granted: I have observed a similar phenomenon in poor rural white communities, but polygamy would be a misnomer since few are married.
Probably a way to pool resources when resources are scarce. I've seen this as an argument for increasing polyamory among young people--housing prices are up, people share, and they're young and horny and one thing leads to another.
I haven't seen this in black communities (not around enough I suppose) but have seen it in poor white communities. There seems to be some serious consent issues and a whole lot of pain and jealousy involved.
I know of a situation where a mom and her adult daughter were both living with the same guy, and he got them both pregnant at the same time. They all hated each other because of it but continued to live together (for a time, no idea how long) because of lack of options.
Based on this and many other comments, banning this commenter.
Fun fact, Ireland is replacing the more Catholic parts of its constitution which reference to durable relations.
From “ The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.”
The proposal is to add “ whether founded on marriage or on other durable relationships”, after family.
Hard to see how this wouldn’t legalise some forms of polyamory, maybe not in marriage but in other legal forms.
Ah, the two referendums which Leo and the rest of the [redacted] swear blind will mean more support for caregivers, honest, cross their hearts and hope to die.
I don't think it will include poly but I'm damn sure it will mean not a penny extra for the health budget on care assistants, allowances for carers, expanding places in nursing homes or Section 38/Section 39 agencies or more funding for the community and voluntary sector.
https://www.drugsandalcohol.ie/24538/1/Caring%20at%20what%20cost.pdf
It's a way of looking progressive without committing themselves to actually *doing* anything. A bunch of D4 chattering class liberals who dearly wish they were living in London or New York and are bored and want something to occupy themselves set up as the Citizens' Assembly (mar dhea) and every so often produce claptrap like this - "oh, there's sexist language in the Constitution, let's change that!"
I think you may take it from this I'm going to be voting "Hell, no! Dev's constitution is good enough for me, you pack of Blueshirts and backstabbing Soldiers of Destiny!" on this one 😀
Seconded. The wording of the amendment promises only that they'll "strive" to support care assistants, without committing them to actually doing so.
I think hoping that a constitutional phrase "The state recognizes X as a primary unit of society with inalienable rights" will force the funding for care assistants is a terrible way of conducting policy. If you want to fund care assistants, pass a law funding care assistants. Don't try to impose some bespoke interpretation of a vague line in the constitution.
This is part of my lemons and vinegar reaction. Like a lot of other countries, people here are looking around and going "If the economy is doing so great, how come I'm struggling to get by?" We have a housing crisis which has been going on for decades now and no sign of any changes. Despite regulations and even a body to regulate the residential tenancies sector, bad landlords are still getting away with blue murder. We've got a burgeoning crisis around refugees/migrants, where unhappily a small minority of genuine far-right/white supremacy actors are trying to get a foothold in Ireland for a long time now and are using incidents to cause trouble and stir up a public backlash - there has been a rash of arson incidents around buildings rumoured to be turned into emergency provision.
So what does our government do about all this? Well, time for a bullshit feel-good maneouvre! The gay marriage referendum went so swimmingly that they haven't stopped patting themselves on the back over it, and we got the Citizens' Assembly (and it's a good job you can't see my expression as I type those words, I make Squidward look like Pollyanna):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens'_Assembly_(Ireland)
Meant to be a way for The Public to get a voice on topics, turned out to be the Usual Suspects of activists, well-heeled do-gooders, and government-appointed jobsworths:
"Questions considered include: abortion, fixed term parliaments, referendums, population ageing, and climate change.
...A 2019 editorial in The Irish Times said that the Citizens' Assembly's work on abortion was a "great success" that "paved the way for the resolution of [a] potentially contentious social issue" and "a vital step on the road to generating support for constitutional change".
(No joke, I am *snarling* here reading that, but that's a whole other rant about the Irish Times, the Horse Protestants, Castle Catholics, Shoneens, provincialism dressed up as cosmopolitanism, etc.)
Three guesses how the Citizens' Assembly recommended we go on abortion, and "let's not" is never one of them. They're also considering "death with dignity" (this is the new term for euthanasia) at the moment, but that's still too hot of a potato so, until the temperature on that one cools down, let's address the most pressing problem affecting the nation, the crisis that has the plain people of the republic gathering in the streets to discuss it in hushed tones, the predicament that keeps strong men awake in their beds at night and has the wretched women of Ireland weeping as they toil, barefoot and pregnant and chained to the kitchen sink:
Sexist Language in the 1937 Constitution!
Well, "gender equality", but that's what it comes down to. See, it is so terribly, terribly awful that women working in the home is assumed to contribute to the stability of society. Women should be out there working in factories and offices and growing the economy, instead of taking care of their families, the aged, and the young!
"In 2019, the Irish government announced two further Citizens' Assemblies including gender equality.
This assembly was tasked with exploring and, within 6 months, making recommendations on; barriers that facilitate gender discrimination towards girls and boys, women and men; removing gender related economic inequalities, reassess the economic value placed traditional 'women's work'; women's full participation in workplace and political; considering the gender imbalance in care; and gender imbalance in low pay sectors".
This campaign is using all the Greatest Hits Tactics from the gay marriage success, which in turn were re-purposed for the abortion referendum: we're modern now! equality! these legal restrictions harm and repress people! and of course, the good old scare tactics about the influence of the Catholic Church (even though, right now, the state of the Church in Ireland is such that in my own diocese, the bishop is looking for suggestions about lack of clergy to service all the churches so - close down parishes? the liturgy of the Eucharist once a month? what?)
Let's get some facts in here, instead of my ranting. What are the two referenda, what is the language that is so offensive/harmful, what is the proposed amendment?
This is going to be a long one, so I'm splitting this into three. Wall o' text is not easy reading.
"On Friday, 8 March 2024, Irish citizens will be asked to decide if changes should be made to Article 41 of the Irish Constitution.
The proposed changes are also called the Family Amendment and the Care Amendment."
https://www.electoralcommission.ie/referendums/referendum-information/what-are-you-being-asked-to-decide-on/#FamilyAmendment
"The 39th Amendment to the Constitution ...deals with Article 41.1.1°and Article 41.3.1° of the Constitution, both of which relate to the Family.
In Article 41.1.1° “The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.”
In Article 41.3.1° “The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack.”
In this amendment there is one vote for two proposed changes. The Proposal involves the insertion of additional text to Article 41.1.1° and the deletion of text in Article 41.3.1°. These proposed changes are shown below:
Proposed to change Article 41.1.1° text in bold:
Article 41.1.1° “The State recognises the Family, *whether founded on marriage or on other durable relationships*, as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.”
Proposed to change Article 41.3.1° by deleting text shown with line through it:
“The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, *on which the Family is founded*, and to protect it against attack.”
...The constitutional protection of the Family would be given to both the Family based on marriage and the Family founded on “other durable relationships”.
The Family founded on marriage means the unit based on a marriage between two people without distinction as to their sex.
The Family founded on other durable relationships means a Family based on different types of committed and continuing relationships other than marriage.
So, different types of family units would have the same constitutional rights and protections.
The institution of Marriage will continue to be recognised as an institution that the State must guard with special care and protect against attack."
Here is where I get very heavy-handed with the sarcasm, so you may want to skip this. Oh, so marriage is not the foundation of the family? 'Other durable relationships' are just as good? Funny, I thought the gay marriage campaign was all about how marriage was so very, very necessary and no, civil partnerships would not do and no, without the right to marry, same-sex couples were doomed to loveless, lonely lives? They just needed to wait a few years and then it would all be the same whether you're married or not, shacking up or an open relationship or three baby mamas on the go is just as good as Mr and Mrs Smith!
And what exactly *is* an "other durable relationship", anyway? You have to be living together for five years? Does it include that ten minutes you spent shifting that fella in the gay club while your partner (not spouse, and what is going on there?) was at home, Leo? Yeah, cheap shot*, but if you're going to be out there in your good suit yammering about "other durable relationships", you need to define them. As I said, I've worked in social housing, I've seen "other relationships" and they're none too durable, Leo dear. "Yes, we were family yesterday, but I'm dumping you today so get out of my council house" happens a *lot*. At least a marriage certificate, even if it's "only a piece of paper" gives you rights, and I'm awaiting the first court case, should this amendment go through, over "I met this girl, I moved in with her, three weeks later she kicked me out, I'm claiming my family rights under the clause of other durable relationships".
The next amendment will be to take out that phrase about "moral institution" because it's so religious and judgmental and icky, now isn't it? Keep your morals off my private life!
I'm also laughing about that bit about the State protecting marriage because look at the bit about marriage as "between two people without distinction as to their sex"; you've already sold the pass there with same-sex marriage, why should I believe you'll make any efforts to resist the Zeitgeist on further tweaks and 'improvements'? We've been discussing polyamory on here, why should I believe that there won't be a push for "okay, we've decided that between three to five people can be in a legal relationship analogous to marriage - sorry, that's not good enough, what about equality? okay - in a marriage. But not ten, that would be silly".
*Interesting question, though. Leo has been out as gay for a while, he's been our First Gay Taoiseach, the other guy is his long-term boyfriend (they were even hosted by Mike Pence and Pence's sister in a photo-op at the Naval Observatory), their parents are not objecting or unsupportive, and re: The Nightclub Kiss, that got defended as "everyone in the Dublin gay community knows Leo is in an open relationship" and indeed it was more an amusing tidbit than a public scandal, and he's leader of the party that introduced legal same-sex marriage, so why no marriage? Could it possibly be that - gasp! - the whole "the gays will die, just die, if you don't make same-sex marriage legal" was just a... tactic????
Referendum Two, and the one which really gets my goat.
"The Care Amendment
The 40th Amendment to the Constitution will be on a green coloured ballot paper. It proposes deleting the current Articles 41.2.1° and 41.2.2° and inserting a new Article 42B.
Article 41.2.1° “In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.”
Article 41.2.2° “The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.”
The Constitution currently, by Article 41.2, refers to the importance to the common good of the life of women within the home and that the State should endeavour to ensure that mothers should not have to go out to work to the neglect of their “duties in the home”.
In this amendment there is one vote for two proposed changes. The proposal involves deleting Article 41.2.1° and Article 41.2.2° and inserting a new Article 42B, as shown below:
“The State recognises that the provision of care, by members of a family to one another by reason of the bonds that exist among them, gives to Society a support without which the common good cannot be achieved, and shall strive to support such provision.”
It is proposed to delete the entirety of current Article 41.2 and insert a new Article 42B.
The new 42B would, firstly, recognise the importance to the common good of the care provided by family members to each other.
Secondly, it would provide that the State would “strive to support” the provision of such care within families."
Okay, let's be upfront - the State has never been able to make sure women don't *have* to work outside the home, and the whole assumption of caregiving/emotional labour (a terrible phrase but it does for once fit here) by women as wives, mothers, daughters as 'free labour' that relieves the responsibility of the State to provide social supports to the needy members of society isn't edifying.
But this crappy amendment is not going to change all that. In the same week, I've read an online newspaper article about a mother complaining about the *long* waiting list for her child to get necessary assessment to access support services, and an opinion piece by some hopeful that by the magic of the changed language, the State will finally start providing all the needed support.
Dream on, second person. I'm working for a Section 39 agency, my boss got me to write a begging proposal for extra funding, but everybody knows the Health Service has no spare capacity, is burning through funding and still needs more, and is understaffed and overstretched. Magic feel-good bullshit Constitutional change is not going to affect that, it's more likely the State will now say, in response to appeals about being a wife and mother who is a caregiver, that "but now you are not the sole person charged with this! anyone can be family - your second cousin, your hairdresser's boyfriend, that person of indeterminate gender you met at the bus stop - all these can be considered family who will support and care for your parents/children! thank you, you're welcome!"
Also, I do *not* believe it is "sexist" to recognise the work of women within the home, or of stay-at-home wives/mothers. The rush is on to recognise women as economic units, that their place is out there working to support the economy and not their families, and various strains of feminism have not helped that. Some women may not choose to remain within the home and have felt trapped and coerced by that, but equally some women would prefer not to be working outside the home and feel trapped and coerced by *that*.
This is not about equality, it's about cutting expenditure. The State will "strive" to support, but there's no reason it won't reply to your request with "Well we'd love to, but we just can't. We strove, but in vain. No money, you see. Can't hire on extra healthcare staff. You're living down the country, it only is economic to provide these services in Dublin. If we give it to you, everyone will want it. Good luck, just keep on keeping on!"
It's not sexist, it's not religious paternalism, to have language in the Constitution recognising the special place of women and the contribution of 'unpaid' labour to supporting society. It *is* sexist to reduce us all to neutral units in an amorphous entity of 'the family' which is not by marriage or blood but some kind of feeling from a 'durable relationship' which means whatever you want it to mean, and which can be terminated on the same terms.
Okay, this doesn't have anything to do with the post and has probably been said before, but who else, every time there's a Highlights post, is like "Well, I thought I had read the comments to the posts, but apparently I didn't, since I don't recall seeing any of these comments"? Were they just all posted after I had stopped following the comment sections or whatever? Or, more likely, they're just in the comment threads that I collapsed since the first comment didn't seem particularly interesting.
Also: "The second happiest are people who have sex so frequently and compulsively that it’s impossible for them to be angry with their partner for sleeping around because not-sleeping-around seems as impossible to them as falling upward. "
...I guess this is just a type of personality I fundamentally don't understand. I know them, I'm friends with them, but still, if they go "Well, I accidentally ended up having sex with her, and..." when telling the story, I won't say anything, but I'm thinking "What, your clothes accidentally ripped off and you accidentally fell on top of her and your dick was accidentally hard and you both accidentally started bucking?" It always just feels like the sort of stuff people who very well know there's no compulsion and accidents and they do have self-control tell themselves to justify their behavior... but what do I know, this is probably one of those fundamental disconnects between different groups of humans.
It seems like some people "accidentally lose self-control", while others hold themselves responsible even for the moments they lose self-control.
Something similar happens with alcohol, I think. For some people, what they did while drunk, is as if a different person did that -- you certainly cannot blame *them* for that behavior. I had my moments with alcohol when I was younger, but no matter how drunk I got... it was still me. Even when I had a problem keeping balance or talking coherently, it was still obvious that whatever I was doing, it was *me* doing it, albeit clumsily.
That said, perhaps we should not generalize too much. There is such thing as a multiple personality disorder. Maybe for some people it is contextual. It only happens when they are drunk. Or, possibly, when horny.
The only way I could make the "accidental" comment legible is 1) ironic / arch distance, to make it less uncomfortable to talk about, or 2), they really just mean that they didn't plan it, that it was impulsive.
I think everyone is gonna have a hard time debating this so long as 1) people have very different definitions of the primary term and 2) incentives to define it differently/ambiguously in relation to themselves.
> An alternative is that Aella got a bad sample (but her sample ought to be much more representative than mine), or that poly people lie / misremember / have a hard time answering surveys
Or that a random sample of subscribers to Aella isn’t a random sample of the population.
That said I don’t suppose that matters much to the argument that full polly > intermediate polly.
I don't understand the difference between "Aella got a bad sample, but her sample ought to be much more representative than mine" and "a random sample of subscribers to Aella isn't a random sample of the population"
And I don’t understand why you think her sample is more representative than yours - numbers?
Clearly people who sign up to her Substack are there for the sexual content, and that’s not a true random sample of the entire population. It’s probably a more sexually adventurous population.
That said, it doesn’t invalidate the findings. Even if people who sign up for her content are more sexually adventurous than the general population this doesn’t eliminate the distinction between the full time and part time polyamorous, since both are probably more sexually open.
Actually, Aella's respondents are more than 99% not from her Substack. Most of her respondents come from her going viral on TikTok.
Oh, ok. I didn’t see that. I retract the statement.
What is Aella’s content on TikTok? I could only stand the app for a couple of days before I deleted it so I honestly don’t know. If I had to guess though it would be in the same vein as her Substack.
From my vague recollection of Aella describing the survey population, I think it was the survey itself going viral on TikTok, independent of anything else Aella does.
Huh, I didn't realize that a survey was the sort of thing that could go viral. I'm gonna guess that she wrote it in a way that made it fun to take.
I find any self selected sample inherently suspect. Aella has made the point that her surveys are actually a lot more rigorous than much of what gets published in the social science literature, but that just inclines me to say "burn the social science literature to the ground".
DISCLAIMER: I don't know any poly people IRL so all this is speculative. I'm speaking as a libertarian-ish person here; my personal religion, Orthodox Christianity, will be recognizing the validity of polyamory around the same time it canonizes Beaker the Muppet. I believe prostitution should be legalized to avoid a lot of pernicious add-on effects while still believing prostitutes are plying a morally illegitimate trade and should be viewed with contempt. Same general principle here, though I don't view polyamory in general anywhere near as negatively as prostitution so don't take that as a comparison! More of an analogy. Hope that makes sense.
With that said, I can accept that there are people who are more happy in polycules or what-have-you for whatever reason. I find it hard to fathom, but it's a big world etc. It seems likely to me that these people are not especially common compared to the people for whom monogamy, broadly, works--though this may be because we have way more experience with monogamy and the ways it can go wrong, so we are generally better at patching it up. Encouraging poly could easily make a few people happier while also encouraging many more people to rationalize their failures of monogamy with a trendy new thing (and, yes, probably messing up kids in the process, though to be fair the kind of people who seem likeliest to do this also seem like the kind of people who would mess up their kids anyway). I'm not sure the two are compatible as coexisting norms, as normalization of polyamory makes it more attractive as a lure for shitty monogamists to justify doing their thing wrong--which would inevitably create friction. And possibly vice-versa, IDK.
Then you have the basic stability problem of building consensus in groups larger than two. If my wife and I disagree on something important, that's bad, but it means two people have to come to an agreement. Add a third person, and you now have three times as many bipolar relationships to keep in harmony; add a fourth, and it doubles compared to having three, etc. And relationships are, by nature, dyadic; I don't have a relationship with "my family" as a unit, I have a relationship with my wife, and with each of my three sons. You can only relate to other people, not to collectives, unless you're psychologically very peculiar. My family unit works because my sons don't get a real vote in major decisions (though of course we think about how they will be affected). Ancient polygyny sort of worked because women had an absymal legal and social status so only the man got a vote. I imagine it was still pretty toxic much of the time.
I'm not even talking about sexual jealousy here, just the potential fault lines from different priorities, the human tendency to form coalitions around shared interests, etc. If I get a job in another state or something, I have to get one person to agree, my wife. Add a third person and I have to juggle in how it incorporates their work life too, and if I am willing to drop the new opportunity to keep them, etc. If that person is, strictly speaking, my wife's second husband, I might think he's a great guy and maybe not be jealous (this is hypothetical alternate sheep, real me would totally be jealous) but the new job is going to be comparatively more attractive to me than if "she" were my second wife. Meanwhile my wife might feel that we could use the extra income compared to keeping otherwife around, since her music gig is tied to the local scene and doesn't bring in much money. Just an off-the-cuff example of why modern plural marriage sounds like a mess to me. Certainly not the kind of arrangement I'd want to bring children into, leaving aside any other objections. If it comes to being expected to factor in other people's kids with my wife and how any decision affects them too, crikey, what a headache. It's like establishing stepfamilies on purpose instead of as a patch for one or more prior ended marriages.
I can take it on faith that there exist groups of people who can make these multipolar clusters work, in the same way that I can accept there are saints who spent decades of their lives standing on pillars. It just doesn't feel like the kind of thing you should encourage large numbers of people to try.
(Off topic, but now I'm picturing Beaker being martyred in various traditional ways, and it's very sad.)
Doesn't seem that much different than a traditional The Muppet Show episode.
But now we know that "mee mee ma nee na ma" translates to "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani".
Beaker wouldn't have to be martyred, he could be a Servant Saint along the lines of St. Zita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zita or St. Genevieve https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genevieve or St. Martin de Porres https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_de_Porres
Beaker certainly puts up with a lot of abuse, is faithful, loyal and hard-working, and is often wronged by those about him.
I motion for someone to find Beaker’s miracles. He must have a few. Anyone?
As Deiseach notes, Beaker is usually a martyr anyway. His main obstacle is not being (apparently) Christian, though for all we know "Mee-mee-mee-mee" translates to "I believe in one God, the Father almighty."
This is a good reason to do hierarchical poly, where you and your primary partner make the big decisions for yourselves, and prioritize each other. This does require being forthcoming about what new partners can expect, e.g. "The position of 'wife' has already been filled and I'm not looking to revise that".
In general, I think hierarchical poly gets a lot of what people want out of monogamy while being less restrictive.
... do a lot of people really want to be second or third banana, though? It's not quite "concubine" but intuitively it sounds better to get full consideration from one person than a minority share in a sort of romantic corporation.
Secondary relationships are no more of a consolation prize than friendship - they're good in their own right. Primary partnerships require higher compatibility, since you're building a life together, maybe having kids. There are a lot of people who aren't compatible with me enough for that, but still compatible enough for us to come to care about each other, to have a good relationship that's more bounded in scope, etc.
Also, your secondary partner might have a primary partner of their own, and doesn't want multiple primaries any more than you do.
Well, my first response to that is that, if it gets that ornate, we're better off not legitimizing it just to avoid the massive complications it would introduce to case law, especially if (as I expect would happen) precedents set by poly are seen as potentially binding on ostensibly monogamous couples (the boundaries of poly being so fluid and the arrangements existing along a continuum). It's frustrating and error-prone enough when there are only two people involved.
Mind you, this is a bad time to be making a poly push, since we're now seeing a lot of unforeseen repercussions to the gay rights movement. I expected the bakery lawsuits; the teenage girls getting mastectomies, not so much. Not that this is relevant, but IDK how much appetite the average normie has for rocking the boat anymore.
You could end up with the official Chinese Imperial harem system, where there is only one Empress, but the rest of the concubines, mistresses, and casual flings are ranked in order of importance and status. If formalised, that might mitigate some of the problems: A is my primary, and has this status and legal rights and expectations from me; B and C are secondaries, and so on down.
If B has her own primary, then you are a secondary or even tertiary with that status and so can't make demands of "dump your husband and run off with me, baby!"
I think only Caroline Ellison thought that was desirable, and no doubt she was imagining herself as the emperor. Which, in a Silicon Valley environment, she probably was.
This is all starting to remind me of my neighbor's amusing accounts of being the secretary of his Rotary Club.
You write "Aella’s survey includes data from 430,000 people! The average social class is somewhere between lower-middle and middle, so this isn’t just capturing elites, and should be able to address concerns that polyamory only works as a “luxury belief”." However, I can't see any data on social class in the file she provides https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/180EK7HaTu-W9cKC599AeLMTVLRhxTAfbaLh9n-B4hek/edit#gid=0. I may have missed it. And, this may sound a bit defensive, but self-reporting of social class is notoriously unreliable: in short, most people throughout history have thought they are poorer than they are, because our brains are very finely tuned to perceive (often illusory) differences in status, and to feel bad about them. This just an example, of many, from popular media https://nypost.com/2023/08/14/some-of-the-richest-people-in-america-feel-very-poor-survey/. I suspect that people in the Bay Area who think they are struggling aren't really struggling as much as upper-middle class people in, say, West Virginia; not to speak of Namibia and Peru, where they are going to watch those Netflix shows about cool polyamorous people starring Hollywood hotties.
Hmm, this could blow this way of topic but (from the NYPost article you provided).
> A survey conducted by Bloomberg of 1,000 Americans making at least $175,000 a year — putting them in the top 10% of US tax filers — revealed that 25% say they are either “very poor,” “poor” or “getting by but things are tight.”
if they are living in an expensive city that could be true. Gross income != disposable income. And disposable income isn‘t that useful either if $20,000 goes twice as far in Arkansas than New York.
But the big problem here is the use of population percentages when the distribution is a Pareto not Gaussian. It’s early possible to be in the top 25% and poor - this is true of most of history and today.
The thing is, yes, you can be in the top 25% and have good reasons to feel poor but you are NOT poor. Feelings are not stats. That's why asking people whether they struggle financially doesn't tell you a lot. Lots of people who are very wealthy struggle financially all the time, including Donald Trump
There are places in the country where $50,000 a year buys you a reasonably solid middle-class lifestyle, and other places in the country where $50,000 a year would leave you homeless. We have a tendency to think a dollar is a dollar, but this isn't really the case; a dollar is worth whatever it will buy you.
This is more obvious when different places have different currencies - once you have an exchange rate, it becomes fairly obvious that high nominal incomes can in fact leave you in poverty - just consider cases of hyper-inflation.
What is less obvious is that there is an implicit exchange rate between different places in the country. A dollar can literally be worth less in one state than another; it buys less food, it buys less house, it buys less fuel. The degree to which this is the case is somewhat limited by trade, but certain goods and services that cannot be meaningfully traded, like housing, can distort intuitive understandings of what it means to be "rich" and "poor" far beyond the simple cost of sending a truckload of carrots to a city might imply.
Further, class is about much more than wealth in the US. If you live in NYC and you make $175,000 annually, it's very unlikely that you are a member of the lower class as contrasted to "the elites," no matter how bad your liquidity problems are. The only occupation I can think of that could pull that kind of income and live in a major metro without accumulating plenty of education and other social capital along the way is "drug dealer."
I tend to stick to economic classes - which is in any case the subject since we are talking dollars. Being educated to PhD level in film studies butters no parsnips unless the PHD student has a job buttering parsnips.
I thought we were talking about whether polyamory was a practice either most prominent in or primarily benefitting elites, as per the topic the Atlantic article, Scott's response, and the (objectionable to me but I'm rolling with it) notion of a "luxury belief".
Edit: Also, how does a PhD student in film studies rake in $175,000? A very lucrative side hustle? Inherited stock dividends? Whether a film studies student is wealthy (can "butter parsnips") answers an unrelated question. As does the fact that one can be wealthy and nevertheless short on cash. My whole point was that "free dollars to spend" is not a great proxy for elite status.
But they are poor. That’s my point. And people who don’t understand that don’t understand statistics. You are thinking Gaussian distribution.
Since you are bluntly insisting that others just don’t get it, let me be blunt: you are badly wrong. They’re objectively not poor.
If you don’t understand that you don’t understand what 175k/yr can buy in NYC. The area median household income is 125k! Certainly you are not suggesting that somehow NYC, with that median income, is a low cost of living area? No, that would be ridiculous. So let’s drop this and move on: they say they are poor and are not poor.
Not having X figure of ‘disposable income’ (a subjective category in itself) doesn’t make you poor. Being unable to afford necessities makes you poor. 175k/yr in NYC makes you well able, more than most people (and most people are doing fine—neither starving nor struggling, and in fact going on pretty decent vacations) so the distribution being Pareto is irrelevant) to afford necessities.
It is very difficult for me to take rich people seriously when they complain about being poor and list "school fees" alongside mortgage and food (I live in a country with a good public education system).
Everyone is reading the words "very poor" and "poor" but not the words "getting by but things are tight".
It is not reasonable to be making $175K and claim to be "poor" and certainly not "very poor", but "getting by but things are tight" might be a perfectly reasonable thing to say if your expenses are high. The next category up is "comfortable", and not everyone feels that.
Also, "here is a person who is richer than you but feels poor" is a standard hate-read clickbait story which gets dragged out every month. It's a great thing to learn to ignore.
I dispute this. It's not THAT much more expensive to live in an expensive city alone. My experience is that the people who make that kind of money in an expensive city are not doing enough to cut their costs. There are people who make far less living in the same city, but they 1) live in a less nice area; 2) don't send their children to expensive private schools; 3) don't have child care services, but instead rely on family or neighbors more often, or if they do have child care services, it is a fairly cheap service and not an expensive one; 4) don't own an expensive car (and maybe no car at all).
This naturally doesn't mean you can't have tight finances in the top 25% in a city, but if you do, there's probably something you're doing a poor job optimizing, or perhaps some expenditures that are "expected" of someone in your *social* class that those in lower social classes mostly ignore.
Okay I was confused about poly before, so this really helped me. As someone who is not jealous, loves sexual variety, and is not interested at all in additional emotional relationships, I just couldn't understand that there were so many people who want more emotional relationships.
That being said, I feel constantly shamed for my extremely high socio-sexuality. Ideally, I'd like to see a hooker of different ethnicity 1x a month. While I see marriage more about building a life together, less about sexual desire, I don't look like I did at 25 either. But I guess that's not a thing with a name that society can pressure my wife into.
Why would you let your wife stop you? This way of thinking is totally foreign to me. Actual me would never agree to such a binding on the first place. But if I was in marriage and my wife wouldn't let me see a monthly hooker I'd just cheat.
Very magnanimous.
So in this hypothetical, there's a person you are closest to in the world, who you made the decision to marry. And they tell you that they would be deeply hurt if you slept with other people. Your reaction is to violate their boundaries and their trust? If so, you're not ready for meaningful relationships, whether mono or poly.
To be fair, he did say he would never have agreed in the first place. So in this hypothetical, his wife is now forbidding it, in violation of what he would have considered necessary, and is assumed to have been discussed before the marriage. If she changed her mind, then the only options I see are 1) cheating, or 2) divorce.
I wouldn't have reacted nearly as strongly if divorce had been the one he'd said would be his reaction in that situation. That represents a consistent position of "that would be a deal-breaker for me". But not even mentioning it and jumping straight to cheating? I stand by that being fucked up. Like, where's the recognition of the other person there?
It's an immature response. "You are trying to change our agreement, thus I am going to privately renege on it without communicating my lack of acceptance." vs. "Your are trying to change our agreement, and I will not continue in our agreement unless you choose to keep its terms."
Yes. Why would I even consider letting their jealousy control my life. They should learn to control their emotions. If its too annoying to fuck other people openly then id cheat yeah.
Well, I hope you're aware that people like you are the literal reason for family breakdowns, traumatic childhoods, and a large part of the world's misery. And that you are the lowest filth on the planet, and you should be full of unending shame for your existence.
(Incidentally, I'd like some clarification on the comment policy here. Are comments like the above, proudly saying that they'd hurt someone, horribly, with a smile on their face, acceptable? If they are, is it acceptable for me to tell them what kind of alleged "person" they are? Seems true and necessary by any moral standard, but people here are often absurdly polite to such sociopaths, maybe expecting they'll be banned, but they're often not. A ruling from Scott would be much appreciated!)
It does feel a bit strong to call someone a sociopath and lowest filth on the planet for someone discussing a hypothetical opinion around conditions in which they imagine engaging in infidelity. It's name-calling and in that sense is more heat than light. It seems more useful to make an argument against the stance than to take aim at the person. That's just my two cents about norms I prefer in this space.
I'm not clear what argument I'm supposed to make to that. What if he'd said "if I saw a woman in a skimpy outfit yeah I'd rape her, it's her fault for being dressed like that, and for rejecting me"? Are you supposed to respond with "respectfully, I think that's slightly unreasonable"?
A decent person would say they might do some bad thing in some circumstances, and add that's it's wrong, and they're ashamed that they would. If they didn't say that, and just said they'd do the thing, that's questionable enough but maybe ambiguous. If they also outright say it's the victim's fault for expecting to be treated kindly and decently, then yeah they're about as clear an example of a sociopath as I can think of.
Does this require further argument? Is some part of that conclusion controversial?
While lowest filth is purely name-calling, I would argue that sociopath as a term is usefully descriptive. It helps us use language to describe reality.
If someone suffers negative consequences from accurately being described as a sociopath, they only have their own actions to blame.
(I'm not calling you woke, just a related thought.) One reason I despise woke thinking is that, in order to spare bad feelings or achieve a social goal, it gleefully perverts the accuracy of language.
Or I suppose wokeness could alternatively be described as a way of thinking where changing language will somehow magically change reality. Totally abhorrent to how my mind works, completely incompatible with success in any reality-tethered work.
It's a bit extreme to say lowest filth on the planet, I can think of plenty worse. Sapph is being honest about their requirements, and while it's not what I'd consider a marriage, if their partner is on the same page, it's their business.
That's not to say you have to approve or have no right to feel this is not the kind of person you would want to have anything to do with. But we do try to be nice here (and I know, the irony of me, famously abrasive, saying that) so a little less heat on all sides?
TBC I have never cheated on anyone, Ive been openly no restriction poly (I prefer to say free love) for a long time. My longest partner, who I have supported in sickness and in health, read my comment and didn't seem very bothered. As she put it 'sapphire is not a marshmallow test passer'. Having self awareness makes you the lowest scum. Im pretty sure if I had made mistakes earlier in life and ended up in a mono marriage I would in fact cheat. Many do and I am not a champion of marshmallow tests. Of course thanks to my self awareness I have avoided making these promises I know I would never keep. I see no reason to dislike myself for my nature.
I find your name-calling and very strong words off-putting, and I think you probably did it because you misrepresented the situation, then thought Sapph was some sort of monster, and so, didn’t know how to debate with him other than resorting to shamming.
He never said he would badly hurt someone with a smile on it faces, he was just refusing to let himself be controlled. Now maybe he could manage the situation better than that, but you know, breaking relationship also hurt people (and some more than infidelity, and other less).
Also, he said he would cheat, but it is unclear he means lying about it here (and not just having sex with other when the other one don’t want it).
I think we are collectively overestimating the importance of (sexual) trust. I sincerely believe that in many cases, cheating can actually be the most ethical decision.
Consider the most common scenario: you are in a monogamous relationship. For the first few months or years, everything is fine, but then sexual frustration becomes unbearable, and you feel imperiously compelled to have sex with others. There are simply no other ways around it. Despite this, you are very happy with your partner in all other aspects.
Now, you could discuss opening up the relationship with your partner, but if they are opposed to the idea, you are left with two choices: cheat or force your partner to make a decision—either they agree to open up the relationship, or you end things (this is an imperative urge).
Forcing your partner to decide can either break the relationship, which is tragic if everything else is good (a rarity in itself), or they agree but live with resentment (in part because you have made the power dynamics explicit) and jealousy, knowing you are sleeping with others.
If you cheat, in the ideal case, everyone remains happy: your partner is either unaware of it or they might suspect it but tolerate the ambiguity (maybe because it is socially less costly and/or more acceptable in terms of self-image). In the worst case, if the cheating is laid bare, you generally end up in the same situation as if you had forced the issue from the start.
I do not believe cheating is the morally right decision in all cases. However, for most people experiencing strong sexual frustration in a relationship with a partner who is highly jealous—a common situation—cheating seems like the ethically superior solution. Therefore, I suspect it would be better for society if we stopped judging those who cheat so harshly. In fact, much of the harm from cheating may arise because we place too much value on sexual trust. In that respect, polyamory (or open-relationships), which still highly values sexual trust, does not promote the evolution of norms in the right direction.
This is an interesting argument.
> but then sexual frustration becomes unbearable, and you feel imperiously compelled to have sex with others. There are simply no other ways around it.
Scott also says something a little like that, and I think this is a bad way to say it, because, what about people who just can’t find partners and are as much frustrated by that (and probably more) ?
It is always bearable, and there are other ways, even if it could be quite bad.
That's cheating and a good reason why you shouldn't be married. If you can find someone who doesn't care if you fuck around, or who fucks around themselves, then great, both of you can be temporarily sharing living space while you fuck around. Don't call it a marriage, though.
EDIT: That sounds very judgemental. What I mean is, you construct your relationships as you like, and find compatible persons. But I don't think that further diluting down the already tattered social concept of marriage to include "if my spouse is so stupidly old-fashioned as to expect sexual fidelity from me now we put a ring on it, I'll just lie, deceive and cheat because sex is the most important thing to me and that should be okay" is going to make things better.
I think Scott is on to something with the "majority I know of are women" because "women want emotional relationships" but I also think other commenters are on to something about men wanting easy access to sex. This could end up the same way as all other trade-offs between men and women: the women want emotional connections, the guys want sex, so the guys put up with the relationship stuff so they can get sex, and the women have sex with Joe, Tom and Billy-Bob because they get different connections from each of them.
Your last paragraph makes me feel some kind of despair. Maybe it's a perfectly fine way for most men and women to accommodate their differing preferences. But it feels kind of awful and grim to me. You?
Late replying, sorry for that. Yeah, it's a bit grim, but I think if it's a fact of life, then acknowledging it and working around it is the better choice than pretending it isn't at work. Also, men will get over wanting only sex after a while (citation needed) and look for emotional connection too, when they want to settle down or get serious, and women will get a bit more adventurous about "I'm not looking for anything but a fling right now". Meeting in the middle is a good enough compromise.
If it goes on for years that "I want something deep but the guys just drop me when they get bored/I don't want marriage and kids but I have to fake it to get past a second date, then she gets all upset and dumps me when it turns out I'm not on the same calendar about 'we need to have a baby now'" then it's awful. No idea what to do about that, though.
TBC I have never cheated on anyone, Ive been openly no restriction poly (I prefer to say free love) for a long time. My longest partner, who I have supported in sickness and in health, read my comment and didn't seem very bothered. As she put it 'sapphire is not a marshmallow test passer'. Having self awareness makes you the lowest scum. Im pretty sure if I had made mistakes earlier in life and ended up in a mono marriage I would in fact cheat. Maybe in these spots I could get divorced or something but if I had kids I prolly would just cheat. Divorce with kids is too much drama and would risk my relationship with my kids! Many people cheat and I am not a champion of marshmallow tests. Of course thanks to my self awareness I have avoided making these promises I know I would never keep. I see no reason to dislike myself for my nature.
Okay, you know your nature and are honest with your partners. That's fine.
If you did marry, have kids, and cheat because "uh, divorce too much hassle", then you would be disgusting scum. It's not better for kids to have a parent who privileges their dick over honesty and fidelity. If you're willing to lie in order to get your dick wet, then you're willing to lie when it comes to them if it's something you want - marshmallow tests, right?
You're not doing that. I'll give you credit for that. My general opinion is, what two adults get up to is their business, it's when kids are involved that you have to pass marshmallow tests, otherwise you're worthless. Divorce and working out access is better there than "Parental Unit is not going to be able to come to your school play because they are going to lie about having to work overtime but in reality they're hitting the hot sheets motel with the new pickup".
Just be upfront, if you're willing to look long enough, you can find this (based on people I know in life with similar or more outlandish agreements in their relationships).
Only if you're like in the top 1% of guys. I mean, I'm sure Brad Pitt could find that. But even Jeff Bezos wound up divorced.
There are many people who want a relationship but can't seem to find a good one, for various reasons. I'm one of them. For people like that, is the polyamory vs. monogamy discussion meaningful? I've been asked which I would prefer, and I'm never sure how to answer. I know I prefer one good relationship to zero, but I have no idea whether I would prefer two good relationships to one (or having a partner who has two good relationships instead of one) since I can't seem to even find one.
I've seen some to-and-fro over that question: if you can't get a relationship, or at least a permanent/committed one, then part of a relationship is better than nothing - half a loaf is better than no bread. ' Incel guy getting to be on a rota of other betas who all get crumbs of attention and sex from a woman is better than being always alone' kind of talk. Not really kind to any of the parties involved, but I suppose for some people half a loaf *is* better than no bread: being in a partial relationship even as part of a polycule where the main person, be they male or female, has lots of partners while the individual partners are all only involved with that one person and are not having other relationships as well.
Yeah - the BATNA is being single and celibate for life. Especially if you want kids...people are willing to put up with a LOT in order to have a shot at the white picket fence and 2.5 kids.
If you’re you are male and trying to find a woman on a dating app, I recommend deleting the damn apps. Find some setting or activity that you can at least sort of like where you will be around a lot of people in your age range. If it takes you a while to find something, that is time well spent. If it costs money it’s worth it. Consider activities you normally would not: yoga retreats, dog training classes, rock gyms, political action groups, church, choruses, weekend conferences. Go to them and strike up conversations with both men and women.
I second this, and think this is all great advice for a guy except the rock climbing gyms - I've been a climber for a decade and change, and that's one of many "90%+ male" hobbies I have, and I've been climbing and in climbing gyms all over the US (and in other countries) in terms of sampling into that 90%+ ratio.
Other hobbies NOT to do, as I consider myself an *expert* at finding 90%+ male hobbies inadvertently: car racing (any type), car modding, car shows, powerlifting, Ninja, triathlons, OCR, bouldering, scrambling, difficult hiking, anything to do with AI, computers, programming, or crypto, surfing, racquetball, Wim Hof stuff, rationalist stuff, philosophy stuff, mathematics stuff, maker labs or spaces, trading, finance, startups, VC, and BJJ.
Basically, if you're the standard rat-sphere guy who likes to tinker and build stuff in any medium whatsoever, OR if you're a fit person who likes doing and achieving difficult things with your body, don't do *anything* you actually enjoy for it's own sake.
Things Eremolalos hasn't mentioned with at least SOME chance of meeting interesting people of the opposite sex: Raves, festivals, Burning Man, live music, house parties, dance classes, cooking classes, easy hiking, dog parks and dog walking (highly recommend this, especially if you raise and train puppies), book clubs, frisbee golf, and farmers markets.
That's interesting, my experience with rock climbing is much more gender equal than that; perhaps I only dabbled in the more casual end of things?
I took a salsa class, and most dance classes I went to were well over 50 percent women. I didn't meet anyone there, but it did wonders for my confidence and comfort being in physical proximity to a range of people, and more comfortable moving in my body overall.
I had to look up who Wim Hof was, and yeah. Definitely oriented towards male-only interest. The guy likes to sit on ice floes in his underpants? You do you, Wim, but I'm staying indoors with the heating on.
Though there are some women who also do that year-round swimming thing (in Ireland's cold waters) so maybe not 100% male interest, more like 98% percent?
Alas, that breathing exercises and cold exposure are not enjoyed by the fairer sex!
That said, I do have a good friend who actually teaches and leads Wim Hof breathing groups, and he has a very nice weekly breathing get-together at his house that's pretty coed, probably close to 50/50.
But, it's also a super-hippie group, and they do drum circle and jamming and psychedelics and stuff all together too, so not sure if it's due to the overall culture, due to the breathing, or due to the other stuff.
Counterpoint: please DON'T do something you DON'T genuinely enjoy. As a person who genuinely enjoys things, it makes things marginally less enjoyable when people show up just to Meet Someone.
Yup!
I remember thinking this in my teenage years. I read a bunch of books on how to get women, and...
"So basically I have to stop doing the things I like, start doing things I don't like, change my personality, and then if I succeed I get something that's maybe 50% better than masturbation, and have to pay alimony and child support if it gets to the marriage and kids stage and dissolves like half of them do? Yeah, I'm playing video games."
Yeah, one does have to actually like women and enjoy their company to have a long-term relationship with a woman. You don't have to join the knitting group, but the view that a relationship with a woman is 50% better than masturbation speaks volumes. Your honesty about that hopefully spares women who want something deeper from wasting their time.
Quite plausibly he's playing video games with women whose company he enjoys. As a long-term relationship, even. Platonic friendship with women works on a completely different system than romance.
Or maybe his video gaming den is a (virtual) man cave, but you seem to be assuming facts not in evidence.
Well...that was 30 years ago. I was referring specifically to sex (which as a man I was supposed to want, and I guess I did back then). There are other aspects to relationships like emotional closeness, support, sharing things you do with someone with common interests, and of course many people enjoy having kids and raising a family, but I assumed at that point I would never be able to access them since I was a geek and had no common interests with women. There were female geeks, of course, but given the preponderance of male ones, only the most successful ones were going to be able to find one, and I wasn't in that category, so as you said, why waste anyone's time?
Several decades and a bunch of mediocre relationships later, I would say I was...sort of wrong? I never did find someone I really liked, though there were some short-term flings the other person claimed to enjoy, and I did to some degree. My statement was never that relationships were pointless, simply that they were pointless for me. Once I had enough time outside of the notorious academic longhouse (as the kids say), I tried a couple of times without success. I read a bit on Game (I remember Roissy and pre-Nazi Heartiste), which actually did help somewhat, but I wasn't socially perceptive to get away with a third of the stuff or evil enough for another third of it. (The other third kinda helped.)
It turns out sex is actually *less* fun than the other thing, which was a total surprise. My understanding is this is not the common experience--I mean, some of *the women* certainly seemed to enjoy themselves, believe it or not (of course, that part I had read a few books on as well), and I had heard from a young age how men are always doing stupid or evil things to get sex. (The news seems to bear this out.) Wanting sex less than your partner does have all kinds of amusing side effects--they run around begging *you* for it (I thought it was supposed to be the other way around?), though if you don't initiate sometimes they start thinking they're unattractive and feel bad.
It's possible if you find the other person physically attractive it's a different experience--certainly the importance other men seem to place on physical attributes would make you think so! At this age it's extremely unlikely that's going to happen though.
I'm either some kind of ace (aromantic? asexual?) or a very clueless heterosexual. Which one I'm not sure, and I doubt it matters at this point. ;)
Oddly, I remained friends with a few of my exes afterwards, even. (I guess all those pop-psych talks on validation and communication helped somewhat?) One or two kept trying to get back together--one kept sending me notes on Valentine's Day years later, which I found deeply disturbing. Of course, it might have just been my salary. I have to ask myself that every time--is it me, or the money they want? I'm assuming (particularly given the picture painted, and trying to avoid the traditional male ego) it's the money, but who knows? Maybe I really was better than I thought I was. I don't know why anyone would like me, but apparently they did!
Anyway, like you said, I'm done wasting everyone's time.
As an aside, I've never played video games with women--never found one who liked to play. I don't even play video games much anymore, though every few years one catches my fancy for a little while. Though I do appreciate John Schilling going to bat for me. ;)
As a widower considering whether to attempt to remarry - yeah, having someone to share my life with again would have value beyond sex but
>So basically I have to stop doing the things I like, start doing things I don't like, change my personality
for _maybe_ finding someone again is a hard no. Value beyond sex is still a finite value. Some negotiated changes are reasonable. Turning my life inside out is not.
I wonder if the gender distribution in climbing gyms is highly location-dependent? I live in China and in my experience it's about 50/50 in gyms in my city, maybe 60/40, definitely not 90/10...
Different culture, it might be an 'exotic western thing' rather than a 'macho thing'.
In rock gyms around Boston it's about 50-50. Gyms have made an effort to become pleasanter and more upscale, and there's exercise equipment & showers as well as rock walls. For many people, it's just their gym. In the actual climbing area there are still plenty of women, and I'd say maybe 10% of them are highly athletic and climbling like 5.11's. Mixed groups at the bouldering walls too. Bouldering walls are a good place to meet people because often there's a cluster of 10 so so people working on the same hard route, and there's lots of kibbutzing -- "what did you do here? " "matched hands" etc. Outdoor climbing is considerably more male, but that's not as good a setting to meet people anyhow. If you climb in the Gunks, that restaurant a lot of people go to after climbing-- I think it's called Bacchus -- is a good place to meet other climbers.
I haven't climbed in China, so not sure, but it certainly seems possible. I've been to a climbing gym in Bangkok, and the ratio was slightly better than the US - maybe 80/20 or 70/30? Was in rich neighborhood in Sukhumvit.
But *actual* climbing, like on rocks with harnesses and ropes? That's 90% male anywhere I've been.
I was just at Stonegoat in Bangkok a couple weeks ago & felt pretty similar to China, I agree with the above that most of the gyms I've been to in China don't have much of a gym bro vibe, don't think it's the exotic Western factor though, it's become very popular here (four new gyms have opened in Hangzhou where I live in the last year or so!) and there is a strong base of regular climbers that are not in it for the novelty. A lot of them climb outdoors but I would guess it may be true that the distribution is a bit different, I don't have as much experience outdoors due to cowardice :D (although I did tick my first outdoor lead recently, so hoping to get out more)
At my last job, the young-engineers social circle was about 20% female (because engineer, subtype aerospace), but nearly 100% actual rocks with harnesses and ropes climbers.
And for that matter, the last woman to ask me on what I think was meant to be a date, from a different engineering-based social group, invited me to a rock-climbing gym. Unfortunately I have mutant feet that basically disallow rock climbing, so I had to decline that particular offer.
And I have three nieces and three nephews, with one of each into rock climbing and the niece by far the most enthusiastic of them.
So, triple independent anecdata leading me to believe that rock climbing is not in fact a 90/10 sausage fest in the contemporary US.
Yes, I'm currently doing those things. I'm not on dating apps, and the hobbies I've enjoyed that haven't been 90%+ male are easy hiking, choir singing, and volunteering.
Last year I asked about 10 women out, and got two first dates and no second dates. Does that sound normal and I just need to keep trying, or does it sound like I need to do something differently to find more women who are interested in first and/or second dates?
From what you've said, it sounds like you're asking a reasonable amount of women out, and just not finding one who clicks with you.
I'd recommend staying the course and hoping for a better match, but you might have burned through the "single and looking" pool in your current groups with asking 10 (I have no idea how big your city or your groups are), in which case you should find new hobbies / groups with new candidates.
>you might have burned through the "single and looking" pool in your current groups with asking 10 (I have no idea how big your city or your groups are), in which case you should find new hobbies / groups with new candidates.
To be clear, are you talking about abandoning my current groups to look for new ones? That would work for some groups that I'm not particularly attached to, but I picked these hobbies in the first place because I like doing them, and I want to keep doing them regardless of relationship status. For some of my hobbies, I've found only one group in the area that works for me - I definitely don't want to abandon those. I also don't have infinite time to spend on new hobbies while maintaining the ones I already have.
I'm not completely out of "single and looking" women to ask out, but the options have dwindled, so this has been on my mind as well.
>To be clear, are you talking about abandoning my current groups to look for new ones?
Yes, exactly. And of course, triage gracefully instead of with hacksaw abandon - but the other downside you can run into for the groups you keep, is you can turn into "that guy" if you're *known* for asking all the single women for dates in the group, and then your chances are basically below zero, because you're tagged as a creep within the group, and existing people will warn new women about you pre-emptively. A bit unfair, I'll agree, but it can definitely happen.
This is another factor to consider when deciding if finding entirely new groups or hobbies is likely to be a better direction overall.
I think we might be talking past each other a little. I do hobbies because I enjoy them. I don't want to give up an activity completely, because I enjoy doing it. Meeting women to date is an extra positive thing, but not meeting women to date doesn't suddenly make a hobby unenjoyable.
Now of course, that leaves the option of finding a different group for the same hobby. That's possible for some and not for others - some of my hobbies have only one group near me, and I really don't want to ditch the activity completely even to meet more women. (That goes for my hobbies which are 90%+ male as well, although I'm not counting them for this conversation.)
On the topic of your comment, I don't think I've turned into "that guy" in any of the groups I'm in - but I wouldn't necessarily know if it happened, so it's possible. I'll keep that in mind as a potential failure mode.
I don't know what's up with that. I wonder if your dating invitations were too "datey"? All the people I dated started off as friends, or at least as acquaintances I knew well enough to joke around with. If there's a woman at the activity you're drawn to, it might work better to try to finagle an activity that's in sort of an intermediate zone first, rather than moving straight from meeting them at the activity to asking them out. Like maybe ask the woman and a couple other people if they'd like to go out for a beer after choir singing, or whatever. Or at the volunteer activity, sit at the table where she is, or try to be in the subgroup she's in, that sort of thing. Also, don't just try to meet women, try to make some guy friends, too. If you have a larger friendship group, that will give you another way to meet women. Also, if you're being friendly to guys, it takes you of the category of "obviously just here to meet a woman," and puts you in the much more appealing category of "friendly guy."
If you don't know anything more about the woman than that her name is X and she's here at the activity, then a first date isn't going to feel much different to either of you than a first date between people who met on Tinder. That's a bad feeling, and most people have had way more than enough of it -- 2 strangers auditioning each other for the role of lover. Yeech!
Of course, you may already be doing what I'm suggesting -- getting to know them some at the activity before asking them out. If you're already doing that, maybe ask one of you're frankest friends whether they have any idea what you're doing that's keeping things from taking off with any of the women you meet.
I kind of feel like that's more finesse than a lot of people here, myself included, can successfully execute, though it may be good advice for the general public.
(Though I personally am no longer looking.)