"I do not think polyamorous people are on the right track." - Bret Weinstein
As much as I love and respect a lot of what Bret Weinstein does for internet content, I was a little taken aback by his comments on the Joe Rogan podcast where he implied that he would counsel against practicing polyamory, suggesting that people should "think very carefully" about what they're doing.
I'm sure that he understands this point, but it may not be clear to people listening to the podcast that polyamory has been discussed not only as a practice but also as a sexual orientation. More importantly, it has been introduced as a better definition to describe human sexuality.
Monogamy is a bad definition because it sort of forces the status quo onto what we see people do. The current prevailing definition is that humans are serial monogamists who often cheat (~30% according to some studies). Quite literally, the definition itself admits that these people are not naturally monogamous. Even people who are faithful can still develop feelings for others - or even fall in love with others while retaining faithfulness. Even for those situations, polyamory is still a better definition. Many of us know what it's like to be in love with more than one person at once. Well, there you go.
Bret Weinstein goes on to argue that "the reality of a pair-bond is way better than we fear." He's right that many people do not want to grow bored or despondent in a relationship - or worse. Everyone knows that many men are divorce raped and that terrible relationships can be a nightmare to navigate out of. He's also right that pair-bonds are great, but he's sort of overlooking that ALL pair-bonds are great, whether that's your primary partner or not.
The issue of security in the relationship seems to be where he was going with that, so I'd like to point out that one part of Chris Ryan's thesis in Sex at Dawn is that human relationships are naturally fluid. This is certainly true for friendships. Even despite the mountain of societal pressure we place on marriage, about half of them fail, and many more wallow in the doldrums of despondency.
Bret then points out that "They are promoting the idea that this is the sophisticated way to live." His wife adds, "That this is the way of the future." Actually, the opposite is true. Evolutionists conceive of polyamory as the way of the past, the way that explains all the instincts and behaviors we see in the present day. In that way, monogamy is the institution vying to align our nature within the apparatus of civilization, not polyamory.
The very reason that monogamy makes sense as a practice is actually because of an understanding of polyamory as an orientation, because it predicts strong primary pair-bonds. In the context of civilization, monogamous marriage provides security and stability for the family unit, which is the building block of healthy society. In that way, monogamy is actually the sophisticated way to live.
Mischaracterizing polyamory could potentially be very bad. Restricting freedoms is unethical to me. Practicing without understanding could lead to break-ups, broken hearts, or bad decisions. But it's also pretty important that people are free to do what they please. And if people find themselves happy in an unorthodox relationship, I think that they should be encouraged and supported.
Here's a good example of who I'm talking about.
