I don't want to link to anything that even hints that polyamory is an acceptable alternative, but unfortunately, it's Scott Alexander at Astral Codex Ten, making some powerful arguments about who gives relationship advice in general, and some approval of such things is thrown in along the way. He claims he knows happy people in polyamorous relationships, but they aren't the sort who write books about it. I deeply want him to be mistaken on this. In fact, he notes, people who write advice books in general are often those who don't do very well at relationships.
Included...
There are probably some acceptable times to write a memoir, like when you’ve just conquered Gaul.
Yes, this exactly. It may be that all the people who write memoirs shouldn't have, while a host of others whose example would be more edifying never will.
One thing I learned during the Nostalgia Destruction Tour is that there are few witnesses or none to all those events now, and even those witnesses remember them poorly or not at all. So I could write a memoir that paid very little attention to the truth if I liked, so long as I avoided making claims for which there exist contradicting documents. Because then even if I was challenged, it would be my word against theirs. Hmm...
Unfortunately, my wife is one of the people who has a good memory...no wait, she doesn't either...
9 comments:
I think of these things as self-degradation memoirs. The main drive is the modern mania to author a book. An aspiring author why lacks extraordinary literary talent and imagination must turn to non-fiction, and those who lack extraordinary learning must turn to memoir. Of these, as you say, there are two type: (1) my conquest of Gaul, ascent of the north face of Mt. Everest, etc. (2) my self-degradation by sex, drugs and/or rock-and-roll. The last sort is nowadays very popular among aspiring female authors whose literary talent, imagination and learning is not extraordinary. If they are not hideous, all they have to do is sleep around and then write it up as if it were principled, groundbreaking, and brave. Of course these exercises in narcism do great damage because they glorify promiscuity in the eyes of women who are naturally monogamous. Every harlot is an evangelist for harlotry.
I too thought he had some very good points, both about the broken nature of those who write such books and the unhelpful nature of the books successful people would write. It’s like asking a very long-lived man the secret of his longevity, and being told that he credits whiskey and cigars. (https://taskandpurpose.com/military-life/oldest-living-wwii-vet-whisky-cigars/)
“How have you sustained a successful three-way marriage?”
“Well, we love and trust each other.”
“Yes, but how?”
“We just do, but if there’s any problem we communicate with each other and resolve the dispute peacefully and without jealousy.”
“Yes, but how?!?”
I heard the story about Matthew Arnold*, but cannot verify it, that he was complaining to his mother about the churches, that these vicars knew what their parishioners should do, and the parishioners knew as well. "I would just tell them to go and do it!"? His mother replied "Ah, but Matthew, would you tell them how?
* My second choice would be McCauley.
Grim's point is important. These books should come with a warming label: "Written by a Freak--Do Not Try This at Home, Kids!" Most humans are possessive and expect the same from their spouse. I would guess that the endurance of an open marriage also requires a rough balance in the extramarital relations of both spouses. That or one spouse who is asexual.
I would think, though I don't know, that the difference between male jealousy and female jealousy may also come into play. I linked to an older study two weeks ago https://assistantvillageidiot.blogspot.com/2024/02/jealousy.html that men tend to have more sexual jealousy, women more emotional jealousy. As we are talking about unusual people to begin with, that may not obtain in these cases, but it will certainly be the case that they will not be strictly identical. We can therefore let the standard example apply for the sake of the argument, because if it not this precise difference, it is another. Even a "rough balance" at first can be upended. She may tolerate or even shrug at sexual relationship with another woman because she feels secure in her emotional primacy, or at least significant importance. If that is jeopardised - if he develops a New Favorite - that looks suspiciously lasting, it may feel different. Similarly, a man may feel comfortable with a partner who has other relationships - until by reason of age, illness, or attractiveness she has brought on not only an entertainment, but a replacement for him in bed. There not only has to be a rough balance, but a continuing rough balance.
Yeah, as my oldest son says to his daughters (I wish I had taught him the line) "What could possibly go wrong?"
I might pick up the memoir of Vercingetorix if I could find it.
I hung out with Wiccans and other assorted neo-pagans for some years during my 20s, which would be the only time I could say I knew a number of people in polyamorous relationships. It's a big part of that scene, and for the men it may be the main draw.
(So, I'm very curious what social circles would lead one to knowing MANY people in happy polyamorous relationships.)
Anyway, it's just my impression from that time, but the people in the polyamorous relationships seemed more devoted to the lifestyle than each other. It was all part of this rebel experimental lifestyle, the witchcraft and romance and rejection of normality. All of those relationships, from my outside perspective, were unhappy, although the people in them wouldn't have agreed. They all crashed and burned sooner or later, but those I talked to would blame each other and insist polyamory was the right idea.
The writer at Astral Codex does make good points about people who write memoirs, but he or she seems personally invested in polyamory as well. That's my subjective impression, anyway.
Fascinating about the Wiccans. I believe they have an inordinate percentage of Borderline Personality Disorders among them, which would be a further explanation. As for Scott Alexander, he is a psychiatrist in San Francisco, which could explain some of his exposure.
Well, BPD would certainly make sense of some of what I saw. That's interesting. Also, many of them were kind of misfit types and trying to make their own little society and culture. I'm a misfit myself, so that part of it was how I fit in. I read their books and attended some of their rituals, but never could buy into the belief system. Anyway, I didn't intend to sound mean when I described them.
And yes, that would seem to explain how he knows many people in happy polyamorous relationships. I want to think his definition of happy is different from mine, but I really have no idea.
Post a Comment