Four’s Company? After Gay Marriage, Polyamory is Next

ACCULTURATED ^ | Andrew Stiles 

Just hours after the Supreme Court declared a constitutional right to same-sex marriage on June 26, Politico published an op-ed explaining why “group marriage is the next horizon of social liberalism.” If your first reaction was to dismiss this out of hand, you haven’t been paying attention. As the 21^st century progresses, it is going to become increasingly difficult to answer the question “what is marriage for?” or even “what is marriage?” And, no, don’t blame it on the gays.
If the Internet is to be believed, “open marriages” are, quite possibly, the next social frontier that, sooner or later, could even merit a “national conversation.” Polyamory, which, for the record, Microsoft Word refuses to recognize as an English word, but refers to individuals who engage in “consensual, ethical, and responsible non-monogamy,” appears to be inching its way into the mainstream. (Note: I was planning to write something here about how polyamory “doesn’t have its own flag yet,” but I should’ve known better.)
“Polyamory is Next, And I’m One Reason Why,” writes Sara Burrows at The Federalist, citing her Ron Paul libertarianism as a contributing factor in her decision to “save” her relationship by casting off the shackles of monogamy. As it turns out, salvation is a recurring theme in polyamorous lore. For example: “My Husband And I Had A Threesome And It Saved Our Marriage.” Something, presumably, is being saved by the fact that “These Five People Are Having a Baby Together.”
Then there is the amusing tale of Michael Sonmore, who described in the pages of New York Magazine how his feminist ideology (along with “an ocean of red wine”) compelled him to embrace his wife’s request for unlimited extramarital excursions. “Honoring our vows and fulfilling her desires was a false choice,” he realized. Now he longs for the nights when she comes home late, crawls into beds, and tells him all about her hot sex with “Paulo.”
This is actually a textbook example of “ethical cheating,” a term coined by Brandon Wade, the thrice-married founder of OpenMinded.com, a website for people looking to embark on a “journey toward polyamorous partnering”—or, perhaps, for those who are hesitant to join the (proudly unethical) cheating platform Ashley Madison after hackers breached the site and threatened to expose its millions of users. Wade’s ethical cheaters are advised to openly discuss their intentions with their spouse, and are warned to “expect a bit of defensiveness.”
It’s not just something people write about on the Internet. Recent polling shows that 16 percent of Americans find multiple-spouse relationships “morally acceptable,” up from 7 percent in 2001. On the other hand, just 8 percent said the same about married individuals having an affair, although they were presumably referring to the “unethical” variety; the pollsters failed make the distinction. It certainly hasn’t gone mainstream—yet. Give it time.
I’m not married, but probably will be at some point. By then, monogamy may be as socially frowned-upon as celibacy is now (and celibacy will be even lamer, like wearing a fedora). Group sex will be the new “hanging out,” and children’s television shows will be subtitled in pornographic emojis. Letting your wife cheat on you will be like watching the WNBA; you should at least pretend to enjoy it in the interest of fairness. Open marriages will become more popular if only due to the unassailable power of FOMO. Bill Clinton will be devastated.
And who knows? Maybe we should all just embrace our polyamrous future, and everything will be, sort of, okay? Maybe divorce rates will go down on account of all the “saved” relationships? Some people find the thought of being contractually obligated to have sex with only one other person until one of you dies unappealing. At the same time, they like the idea of getting married and having a fun wedding and bachelor party and having kids and letting them choose their own gender and raising them to be the Michael Jordan of NFL punters and so on. They want the best of both worlds. It’s a free country. Fine.
But if the standard, two-person marriage really is a crucial element of our society—one that is a primary indicator of economic success—and it represents a meaningful commitment to something greater than ourselves and whatnot; if years from now we somehow manage to screw that up along with everything else, we should at least figure out who to blame. And it won’t be the gays, and it won’t be Paulo; it will be me and all the other Millennials who were taught from birth to believe that we’re all super special and should get whatever we want all the time, free of consequence, and go our entire lives without encountering an uncomfortable thought—that things like “commitment” and “upholding vows” and “the Constitution” and “getting a job” are just meaningless abstractions from a bygone age. Who knows what these things were once used for? Who the hell even cares?