Polyamory in The Atlantic Part One-The Emotional Life

The decline of The Atlantic continues with Up for Polyamory? Creating Alternatives to Marriage.

Three things always arise when one reads an article about polyamory:  self-regard for being different, men with no dignity and lots of talking.

This interview is no different. The subject is Diana Adams, who practices alternative family law (but really seems to be a feminist divorce lawyer) in Brooklyn.

She's a good example of the left's penchant for credentials. Adams attended Yale as a political science major and got her law degree at Cornell. She has held a hodge-podge of volunteer and pro bono positions, and

When not practicing law, Diana Adams is a self-defense instructor and nationally ranked martial artist, a relationship coach and workshop leader for individuals and couples seeking greater honesty and communication, a freelance writer working on her first book, and is involved in the New York City art community.

The writers of these polyamory articles are usually impressed with the quirky independence of their (typically female) subjects. Almost as impressed as the subjects themselves.

When I was a child...I had a doll house and a rich fantasy life...I was also an amazing mom to all my dolls, but it was always a little mysterious about where they had come from and whether they all had the same father. A little neighbor boy once said to me, "I’ll be the daddy." I thought about that for a moment. I said, "No, you can be my gay lounge singer friend. That’s much more fun." I’ve always liked boys. I just like them better in groups.

Ain't she somethin'?

For all the precociousness, there's an immature emotional interior revealed here. What's important is that the boxes on her checklist are marked off. Not gay and can't carry a tune? That's not important--put on this Hawaiian shirt and start crooning.

It's tough to compel people into the role you have for them, so it's a good thing she's an expert on asking for "what you you want boldly, clearly, and compassionately."

Humans in general have a hard time with monogamy. That’s always been the case. We used to have a sense that it was acceptable for husbands to go out and have other lovers, but with the shift to egalitarianism, rather than to say that woman could do that too, we’ve gone in the other direction.

Because people had difficulty sticking to the traditional rules and sometimes fudged them, the rules need to be thrown out altogether. What's needed is an entirely new set of rules that encompass and excuse every possible act that one can rationalize. That way, we can do whatever we want and never have to feel guilty about it.

Sexual relationships are complex and irrational. Progressives believe you can approach life rationally, that everything can be plotted out on a graph, or in law or in a narrative. They believe they can make sex rational. Good luck.

I think it's interesting to see the way that when people get into a monogamous couple dynamic, they often have to neuter their sexual desires. As the initial intensity of a relationship shifts to feelings of long-term love, you can end up in a sexless marriage, and I think that’s a huge contributor to infidelity and the breakup of a lot of families. 

Should we talk about the best ways to keep the spark alive in long-term relationships? No, we should start telling people that straying is okay.

Sexual desire is not only inherently good, it's the most important thing in the world. "Long-term love?" Worthless--unless one is getting one's rocks off. Living without sex? "That's unpossible!"

"We put so much emphasis on a partner being everything—that this person completes you—and when that doesn’t happen it creates a lot of pressure."

Ms. Adams, this isn't the message of traditional matrimony--this is the message of romantic movies.

If your romantic ideals are too much for one person, just increase the number of people working on the project. All your emotional dreams can come true, polyamorists tell us, but you're going to need a bigger staff.

What do your other lovers give you that your primary partner can’t?
Well, for example, with my female partners, I feel a different kind of power dynamic. I feel a protective impulse toward women I’m involved with. It's a different kind of love feeling. My partner Ed [Vessel] is a wonderful feminist man, though sometimes I’d really like to be out on a date with the kind of man who wants to open car doors for me and treat me like a princess. I don't want that all the time, but I might want that once a month.

Once again, it's about getting a list of things she wants. But it also shows that Adams lives in a flat, colorless world.

Theoretically, in a traditional marriage, the husband takes the hand of his wife and they go off together into the rest of their lives. What joys and pains will they share together? What changes will they undergo? At the end of their lives, how will they feel about it all?

We throw our lot in together. We know that bad things will happen. We know that good things will happen. We know that, whatever happens, we'll have to come to terms with it--what will come and how it will change us is a mystery.

Adams, in contrast, has arranged her life so she can have a man open a car door for her whenever she wants. That and regular orgasms. How rich.

The convenience of an a la carte emotional menu comes with a cost. Most dangerous to the polyamorous ideal is jealousy.

There are different versions of jealousy. One version might be a feeling of scarcity. Another can be insecurity. The way that I discover what version I’m dealing with is that I ask myself, “How old do I feel right now?” And when I'm insecure, I'm feeling like I'm 13.

No matter how many times jealousy is dissected and analyzed, it still finds a way to sneak back in. From a NYT profile of Adams' primary relationship in 2008:

[S]he was less pleased when she noticed the toothbrush that Mr. Vessel had bought for his other steady girlfriend when she slept over. 

That Mr. Vessel had a second girlfriend was not the issue.[...] The problem was that the other woman’s toothbrush was “a really fancy one that says ‘Primo’ on it, and mine is a junky one that says ‘Duane Reade,’ ” said Ms Adams, 29. For about a month, she was a little miffed every single time she brushed her teeth.

You know, it's more difficult to manage feelings of jealousy when your partner is definitely sleeping with someone else.

Jealousy is an emotion that we treat in a really blunt way. We often say somebody’s jealous and then that's an excuse for all sorts of bad behavior: throwing a drink in someone's face, or storming out, or manslaughter. In manslaughter, it's basically a defense: “I walked in on my wife having sex with another man and I killed them.” We treat jealousy almost with this reverence, but we don’t unpack what’s behind it.

Adams and her ilk have a lot of "reverence" for sexual arousal, even trying to resuscitate it when it fades, but jealousy doesn't deserve respect. In fact, her language implies that it's somehow made up, just an excuse for those that are bloodthirsty or like to toss cocktails at people.

In response to the ancient social construct of jealousy, polyamorists have invented a new emotion:  compersion. One definition at Wikipedia tells us that compersion is "the feeling of taking joy in the joy that others you love share among themselves, especially taking joy in the knowledge that your beloveds are expressing their love for one another."

You know, "I walked in on my wife having sex with another man and I just got the biggest smile on my face."

As I've discussed before, intentionally transgressing one's natural instincts is an occult practice. You're told that your sick feeling is not your conscience telling you that something's wrong but your brainwashing being overcome. Don't worry, after a while you'll get used to it.

It must have been necessary for Adams to conquer jealousy--she seems to be incapable of being alone:

I just had my birthday and my partner Ed is off doing amazing work as a scientist. As a consolation, my long-term boyfriend is staying in the house for the week. So, rather than my boyfriend saying, “Wow why's your partner going out of town when it's your birthday?” he’s asking if my partner is okay having to be away for so long, if he needs support. And my partner is saying, “Thanks for taking care of Diana since I can’t be there.”
...
[M]y dad had a massive heart attack and two of the men in my life came together to be with my family at the hospital. They’re both scientists, so they understood what was going on with his body and were able to explain everything that was happening. Both of them had busy jobs, so they actually coordinated with each other so that one of them was there at all times.

Unless her father is regularly in the hospital, she talked about the same situation in the NYT article almost six years before:

A few weekends ago, she had to rush upstate to see her ailing father. But Mr. Vessel had plans to go to the Jersey Shore with his other girlfriend. 

While both found the situation vexing, “the argument is not ‘I want to do that,’ it’s ‘How can I make you feel better about that?’ ” Mr. Vessel said. “ ‘Perhaps I can check in later that night, and give you a call.’ ” (They also arranged for friends to accompany her back home.)

Can you hear the frustration leaking out of these anecdotes?

Someone else might ask, "How can your partner--the most special man in your life--go out of town on your birthday--a very special day for 35-year-olds such as yourself?"  Someone else might ask--but not Adams. No, she knows Ed is doing "amazing work," so it's okay. Besides, she has her long-term boyfriend for "consolation."

If the two versions of the same situation are even more telling.

Adams' father has a "massive heart attack." Adams wants she and Vessel to be with her family during that difficult time. One problem:  Vessel has a sexy weekend at the beach planned with his other girlfriend. It sounds like he was really conflicted about it, being vexed and all. But polyamory prevailed and they came up with a satisfactory solution:  he'd take a break in between penetrations and "check in later that night."

Worse for Adams is the little tweak she made to the semantics of the resolution. In the original telling, she was accompanied by "friends." In the more recent version, they are "the men in my life." Both are true but the new version sounds a little sexier than the old.

Because Vessel's fine with Adams having other partners, he doesn't have to interrupt his rendezvous for a family emergency or open a car door for her or treat her like a princess. I wouldn't want to spend more than thirty seconds with the guy, but I do admire his style.

Dig deep enough into Adams primary relationship and it sounds less like a bold advance of progress than the rationalizations of a "bottom bitch." Consider this, from the NYT profile:

Partners, particularly the so-called primary partners, also carry veto power over their partners’ new prospects. Last year, Ms. Adams exercised them when Mr. Vessel saw a woman who both concluded was trying to pit one against the other. 

Mr. Vessel didn’t want to believe it. “She was hot,” Ms. Adams said in a stage-whisper, a note of jealousy in her voice.

There's one difference between Adams and the average bottom bitch, though:  She attended Yale and Cornell.

Theoretically, a lazy lothario could find a nice niche within the polyamory community. He starts a relationship with a half-dozen or more female polys, choosing only those with long-term partners. It sounds perfect for a guy who wants regular sex from multiple women but doesn't want to spend a lot of time running game.

In order to prevent these vanilla bros from getting in on the action, there's a high opportunity cost:  emasculation.

The men even have a name for themselves. They call themselves “The Man Harem.” Sometimes they’ll play with that. They’ll all show up in matching clothes – wearing all pinstripes, or all red shirts, for example.

Feeling alpha yet, player?

The NYT article points out another obstacle:

In the era of safe sex and cellphones, a life that seems to promise boundless sex in fact involves lots of talking. And talking. And talking.

That's good for Adams, at least, because she loves talking about her progressive and brave lifestyle. In fact, you can even watch her as the main subject's girlfiend in MTV's True Life I'm Polyamorous.

Of course, she leaves out the downside of being an rationalized adolescent. From The Washington Post in 2008:

"People in my generation are recognizing that they have more choices when they're deciding what they want their families to look like," says Diana Adams, 28, a polyamorous lawyer who specializes in alternative family law in New York. "This is an important historical moment because of the gay marriage conversation. We're becoming more accepting of gay parents, of single parents." She hopes to soon start a family with her two male partners.

It's almost exactly eight years since that article was published. Now 35, Adams has turned those two male partners into a "Man Harem."

No children, though.

Maybe she can dig her dolls out of storage.

Part 2--Adams' political agenda