To review this article, select My Account, and then select View Saved Stories.
Find everything you save to your account
By Jennifer Wilson
In Season 1 of HBO’s “Succession,” telecom heiress Shiv Roy (Sarah Snook) surprised her up-and-coming co-star Tom Wambsgans (Matthew Macfadyen) by sharing her fears about monogamy on their wedding night. “If there’s an opportunity for anything more than the total boxed death march,” she confesses, still wearing a dress. Determined to get married, Tom pretends to agree to everything, but, a season later, he withdraws from a threesome aboard the A Circle of Relatives Sails and withdraws from the agreement altogether, claiming that Shiv “shanghaied” him “into an open marriage”: a flexible industrial arrangement at the borders.
A brief study of popular culture will tell you that Tom, aside from his complaint about laissez-faire capitalism, is in the current times. Marriage has been complicated lately. Everywhere one looks, the door that couples close upon entering the sanctuary of marriage remains ajar. Tired of outdated relationships, prestige television has swapped adultery for a newer, more youthful model, exploiting open relationships for the sake of drama. In fiction, consensual non-monogamy has made its mark in a number of recent books, including “Luster” (2020) by Raven Leilani, “Acts of Service” (2022) by Lillian Fishman, and “Couples” by Maggie Millner . (2023). Array, a novel whose name plays with the intertwined nature of the couple among Brooklyn’s polyamorous young people. In film, the couple has stayed on top of the setup, with films like “Passages” (2023) and next year’s “Challengers” continuing the excitement of the third. In March 2023, Gucci created a perfume ad featuring Julia Garner, Elliot Page, and A$AP Rocky all gazing lovingly into each other’s eyes to the 1950s doo-wop song “Life Is But a Dream. ” . The video is titled “Co-creating a world of open-hearted happiness in the new Gucci Guilty campaign. ” The ménage à trois has become so fashionable that, in the fifth season of Netflix’s “The Crown,” Princess Diana joked with Martin Bashir about her husband’s affair with Camilla Parker Bowles: “There were three of us at this wedding, like this which was a bit crowded”, lacks the sting of the original. On the contrary, by today’s standards, another 3 people are not enough. “Riverdale,” the CW’s adaptation of the Archie Comics classic, ended its series by revealing that Archie, Veronica, Jughead and Betty were all a romantic “quad. “
What are all these couples, groups, and open politics doing next to each other all of a sudden in the culture?To some extent, art catches up with life. 51% of adults under the age of 30 told Pew Research in 2023 that open marriage was “acceptable,” and 20% of all Americans say they have experienced some form of non-monogamy. Will and Jada Pinkett Smith’s extramarital “entanglements” have (Pinkett Smith once clarified that their marriage is rarely very “open”; rather, it’s a “transparent relationship”). In 2020, HGTV’s reality show “House Hunters” saw a couple looking to locate their dream home: one with a three-sink vanity. That same year, the city of Somerville, Massachusetts, allowed common-law partnerships to be made up of “two or more persons. “
Read our notable new fiction and nonfiction reviews, updated every Wednesday.
Some, like sex therapist (and “Open Monogamy, A Guide to Co-Creating Your Ideal Relationship Agreement,” 2021), Tammy Nelson, have attributed the acceptance of more components to domestic boredom born of the pandemic; It is believed that after being stuck with a user all day, couples are willing to open up more than their groups. Nelson is part of a cohort of therapists, counselors and counselors, along with Esther Perel and “Savage Love” columnist Dan Savage. that inspire married couples to think more flexibly about monogamy. His recommendation found an enthusiastic following among thriving attendees of the “festival of ideas” circuit, presented at meetings at Google, SXSW and the Aspen Institute.
The new monogamy skepticism of the moneyed gets some screen time in the pandemic-era breakout hit “The White Lotus.” The show mocks the leisure class as they mope around five-star resorts in Hawaii and Sicily, stewing over love, money, and the impossibility, for people in their tax bracket, of separating the two. In the latest season, Ethan (Will Sharpe) and Harper (Aubrey Plaza) are an attractive young couple stuck in a sexless marriage—until, that is, they go on vacation with the monogamish Cameron (Theo James) and Daphne (Meghann Fahy). After Cameron and Harper have some unaccounted-for time together in a hotel room, Ethan tracks down an unbothered Daphne, lounging on the beach, to share his suspicion that something has happened between their spouses. Some momentary concern on Daphne’s face quickly morphs—in a devastatingly subtle performance by Fahy—into a sly smile. “A little mystery? It’s kinda sexy,” she assures Ethan, before luring him into a seaside cove. That night Ethan and Harper have sex, the wounds of their marriage having been healed by a little something on the side.
“The White Lotus” is rarely the only recent cultural offering that showcases the non-monogamy of the wealthy as a vaccine against beloved divorce. In HBO’s 2021 remake of “Scenes from a Marriage,” Mira (Jessica Chastain) and Jonathan (Oscar Isaac), a top corporate tech executive and professor, respectively, are having dinner with their friends Peter (Corey Stoll) and Kate (Nicole Beharie), who are in an open marriage. When they were monogamous, Kate tells Mira, they made love a little bit and now, “I’ve exhausted it,” Kate boasts.
These programs, with their well-off couples willing to experiment with open relationships as a marital stimulus, describe the unexpected fate of a radical social proposal. Non-monogamy, once the domain of utopian communities like Oneida, which Marriage, despised as just another form of personal property, is increasingly presented not as a risk to bourgeois marriage, but as a means to save the system and everything that entails.
“American Poly,” a new book written by historian Christopher M. Gleason offers some explanations of how we got here. (The term “polyamory” is thought to have been coined in 1990, but Gleason is an earlier antiquity to encompass the diverse bureaucracy of consensual agreements. )not monogamy. ) Gleason’s e-book is not intended to be an in-depth examination of laid-back love in the United States, a story that includes more information about its adoption through socialists, beatniks, and queer liberationists. Instead, “American Poly” focuses more closely on the polyamorous movement of the 1960s. Gleason argues, persuasively, that the new polyamory as a set of concepts and practices was articulated through the kind of more productive lax love advocates placed in the face of the backlash of conservatives in the 1980s. They were regularly socially liberal, fiscal conservatives who sought to make love as flexible as the market.
One such figure was Jud Presmont, the leader of Kerista, a free-love movement that grew to prominence in San Francisco in the sixties, attracting the admiration of Allen Ginsberg. Keristans were faithful, albeit in groups of up to twenty-four. To discourage romantic attachment and possessiveness, they referred to these love nests as “best friend identity clusters” (B.F.I.C.). There were two people to a bed, but on a rotational sleeping schedule, insuring equal bonding time among B.F.I.C. members of the opposite sex. (Reading about this, I recalled a friend telling me, “Poly people just have a scheduling fetish.”) Though the Keristans pooled their finances and shared child-care responsibilities, they were decidedly not socialists. Presmont’s passion for polyamory was matched only by his desire to defeat the Soviets, and to see America triumph over Communism. During the nineteen-seventies and eighties, the group even started several businesses, including one that rented out Macintosh computers called Utopian Technologies. Its members believed “the freedom to do what they were doing was proof of America’s greatness,” Gleason writes.
As the sexual revolution took hold in the 1980s, polyamory adapted to the times. Gleason cites the influence of one user in particular, Ryam Nearing, a curious woman from Keristan who settled near Eugene, Oregon, with her two “husbands. “”Nearing had separated from the movement over problems of organized faith (he found Kerista as dogmatic as the Catholicism he had left behind) and romantic attachment. I didn’t need a very productive friend identity group; She was looking for a marriage, even if it was a marriage with two men. “Nearing was specifically tailored to the struggle for moral non-monogamy in the Reagan-era cultural climate,” Gleason says. She was pro-family, pro-loyalty, and fiscally conservative.
Nearing has created a nonprofit organization called Polyfidelitous Educational Productions; In the summer of 1986, she organized a conference, PEPCON, billed as a “networking weekend with workshops, films, games, dance and discussion groups. ” Topics included “Cooperative Parenting,” “Sharing Money,” and “Tantra. “
Join through Deborah Anapol, a polyamorous clinical psychologist, Nearing has made non-monogamy the kind of lifestyle you can bring to your parents. In 1994, Nearing and Anapol began publishing a magazine called Loving More. Their purpose was to provide the task of polyamory in language they believed would be well-earned by the general public. Sharing the benefits of polyamory, they emphasized that it is based on honesty, personal responsibility, and a structured code of ethics. This coalition of polyamorists “did not rebuke conservative respect for family values,” Gleason writes. Rather, they internalized the conservative emphasis on stability and commitment, reframing the maintenance of multiple intimate partners not as a destruction of family values, but as a mandatory change. In the family dynamic that distances the family from alienation, isolation and economic hardship. Non-monogamy can simply be an aid to the faithful spouse, they argued, a relief valve that may simply prevent you, a frustrated wife or husband, from blowing the roof off the entire institution.
As polyamory gained wider acceptance in the 1990s, the motion shed its last countercultural hurdles, Gleason argues, signaling the move away from New Age spirituality in favor of “ethical” and “rule-based” approaches to polyamory. These precepts were codified in “The Ethical” through Dossie Easton and Janet W. Hardy (1997), a sexually positive consultant colloquially known as “the polybible. “It’s Keristan’s terminology (like “compersion,” the feeling of joy that comes from seeing your spouse sexually satisfied with someone else) and a list of do’s and don’ts, adding “REFRAIN from visiting visitors until your lover has finished cooking. . . and serve dinner” and “DON’T go with your lover, letting your spouse chat with your partner. “lover’s spouse. “
So many rules!” “American Poly” shows that Americans are very American. Good Puritans, we’ve turned marriage into paintings and non-monogamy into even more paintings: anything that requires software programming, self-help manuals, and even netpainting events. Presumably, participants will be able to do at least icebreaker activities.
Halfway through “More,” Molly Roden Winter’s memoir about her open marriage, she picks up a copy of “The Ethical” at the Strand, “a bookstore big enough to imply the shame I feel,” she writes. Today, Roden Winter writes in wonderful detail about the mechanics of transitioning his marriage from monogamous to open (a little extra sex) to fully polyamorous (in which couples are allowed to have full-blown concurrent relationships). when it should. At one point, she registers with AshleyMadison. com (motto: “Life is short, have an adventure”) using the pseudonym Mercedes Invierno, her last call in Spanish. “The double sin of cultural appropriation and misrepresentation among Latino fetish men is hardly vital in Ashley Madison’s world,” she said, devouring the attention she receives on the site “like a hot bowl of churros. “
At the beginning of the book, Roden Winter is the married (monogamous) mother and housewife of two young men or, as she puts it, “the nose cleaner, the dishwasher, the manipulator at home. “She wants, well, more. One night, when her husband, Stewart, came home late from work, he lost his brain again. During an enraged stroll through the depraved streets of Park Slope, she bumps into an old colleague from her coaching years who invites her to a nearby bar, aptly named The Gate, where she will cross the line into monogamy for the first time.
Inside, she meets Matt, a younger guy who invites her to a few rounds of IPA. The description of him is generic: tall, jeans, hair. Their verbal exchange is devoid of the slightest fragment of religious joke. It is a preference born of deprivation and despair. She provides Matt with her number, and when she gets home, he sends her a text message, which Stewart is spying on. As it turns out, he’s excited. Matt becomes the couple’s marital lubricant. In bed, Stewart imagines Matt is probably somewhere “thinking about what he would have liked to do to you,” he tells his wife, before running his hands over her panties. Roden Winter is fascinated: “‘Fuck me,’ I say, perhaps for the first time in our married life. “
Throughout, Roden Winter emphasizes that this experience supports and deepens her bond with her husband. “Sometimes when Stewart does something new, he moves his tongue differently, I freeze,” she writes. “Where did they tell him to do that? I’m wondering,” she continues, before having a hard orgasm reminiscent of the early days of their relationship. Later, you’ll see “Get Out” with a guy she met on OKCupid who is on the edge of her concept. to interpret the symbolism of the film. ” And the cotton in his ears was so cool!”she remembers telling him about a meeting with OKCupid. “It’s like he’s this symbol of slavery to escape from slave owners. “He compliments her on her insight, then falls silent, not as impatient as she imagines Stewart will be going back and forth with “Mercedes Winter” about race relations.
Perhaps the most disappointing aspect of “More” is how closed off it feels about other manly things besides open marriage. A divorce, for example. When the wife of one of Roden Winter’s lovers leaves him for another guy, he mocks the woman to his therapist: “I feel bad for him. Diana is very impulsive. I mean, she’s making plans to marry this guy at the same time. ” that he met recently. ” A year ago. This is a strangely critical expression coming from someone who clearly considers himself a transgressor. But this kind of marital breakdown is extremely unlikely in Roden Winter’s world. While I appreciated his lack of shame around preferences (including a preference for validation), I still might not like to have the same openness about the financial aspects of his marriage. Although he never directly addresses the topic in “More,” it is clear from his lifestyle that Roden Winter and his husband are better off than most of their partners, who tend to be younger, single, and less financially secure than them. . One of their regulations is that they cannot have sex at home, so throughout the book they spend untold sums on hotels, taxis, and coworking spaces in New York. When Roden Winter meets Matt for the first time, she immediately notices her limited living space: “There is no walk-in closet in front of her little studio, no walk-in closet with the same 4 compartments I have in my house. » Who thinks about a locker room during sex? Someone who writes an e-book called “More” is who.
The memoir takes a long time to finish, not unlike a bad Ashley Madison hookup, but not before Roden Winter offers closing remarks in defense of open marriage. She echoes the common refrain expressed by proponents of polyamory that the life style represents an abundance-oriented mind-set, whereas monogamy is a symptom of scarcity culture. “Because love is vast,” she tells us. “Abundant. Infinite, in fact. And the secret is this: love begets love. The more you love, the more love you have to give.” But there is no articulation of what that abundance might look like beyond her private life and the private spaces in which it unfolds. Ultimately, Roden Winter’s memoir represents a very specific, arguably very American version of polyamory—the extension of abundance culture to all corners of the bedroom, but nowhere beyond.
I want more for polyamory than “More.” As ethical non-monogamy becomes the stuff of Park Slope marriages and luxury perfume ads, it’s worth remembering that revolutions don’t fail; they get co-opted—often by people who can afford co-ops. You can understand why Roden Winter might believe that she is ushering in a bright, abundant future by opening up her marriage. A good love affair, when you’re inside it, feels like it could change the world. But changing the world takes more than spreading the love; you have to spread the wealth, too. Maybe that’s just utopian, hippie nonsense. But what can I say? I’m a romantic. ♦
The submersible Titan “an imminent accident”.
Black notes of Prince Harry.
The jokes of 2023.
What happened in San Francisco?
The novelist whose inventions have gone too far.
Why 2023 was the year of Ozempic.
Listening to Taylor Swift in prison.
Sign up for our daily newsletter to receive the best stories from The New Yorker.
By signing up, you agree to our User Agreement, Privacy Policy, and Cookie Statement. This site is made through reCAPTCHA and Google’s privacy policy and terms of service apply.
By Hélène Rosner
By Madeleine Cravens
By Fabio Bertoni
By SC Cornell
Sections
More
© 2023 Condé Nast. All rights reserved. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement, Privacy Policy, Cookie Statement, and your California privacy rights. The New Yorker would possibly earn a portion of sales of products purchased through our site as part of our partner component partnerships with retailers. Curtains on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached, or otherwise used without the prior written permission of Condé Nast. Ad Choices