Compulsory monogamy as sexual socialism for mediocre men

Not in a bad way...

Welcome to Sex and the State, a newsletter about human connection. To support my life’s work, upgrade to a paid subscription, buy a guide, follow me on OnlyFans, follow me on Twitter, support me on Patreon, or just share this post 🙏

~~~~~

In response to yesterday’s post, Actually, monogamous folks are way more sex-obsessed,

Robert Taylor

commented:

I’m glad alternative relationships are becoming more accepted, but I think this could exacerbate social inequality and reinforce social hierarchy. Monogamy culture is like sexual socialism for mediocre men. I think without it, you will have average woman marry average men for emotional labor and security, while having sex with higher status men, and not requiring much from them. The could lead to a lot of resentment( just look at dating app discourse), and this inequality like economic inequality could lead to further destabilization.

I have thoughts.

Sexual socialism for mediocre men

First, compulsory monogamy is, in effect, sexual socialism for mediocre men. Do I need to explain this? I will explain it. Every additional woman any one man marries in addition to his existing wife or wives means another man must have no wives. Polygyny is a winner-take-all situation. You usually only see it with extreme wealth inequality. Basically, when the average woman’s kids are more likely to survive if she’s the third wife of a rich man than if she’s the only wife of a poor one.

So how do you ensure most mediocre men have the opportunity to marry under normal wealth inequality? You enforce monogamy by social sanction, legal sanction, or both. Now, this is all a bit tongue-in-cheek because from my understanding of the literature, most women most of the time prefer monogamy.

However, I suspect most women prefer monogamy most of the time precisely because in most circumstances it provides their kids the highest chance of survival. When women get to consider the question under conditions in which child survival doesn’t depend on relationship structure there’s evidence that they like monogamy less than men do.

Which just kind of makes sense. The average woman is going to get laid whether monogamous or non-monogamous social norms prevail. The average man has no such assurance.

Will the real Chads please stand up

Robert is worried that without strong monogamy norms average women will marry average men for emotional labor and security and have sex with higher status men without requiring much from them.

As someone who’s been described as a leader in the Bay Area consensually non-monogamous community, I feel I should weigh in here. Obviously, I’m always looking at other people’s relationships from the outside. But as front-row views into CNM couples’ go, mine has been pretty good. And obviously I’ve been in a CNM relationship or two myself.

To me, this worry reeks of a mono person applying mono norms to CNM relationships. For instance, the idea that a man would need a man who’s having sex with his wife to bring something other than sex with his wife to the table or face resentment is just… extremely monogamous thinking.

It sees sex as something… it’s actually hard to put words to this idea. You know how monog men try to control what their partners wear because they think if other men see her ankles or whatever they become less valuable? Like the scarcity of the sight of her ankles is what gives them value? The idea is that when other men view or touch a woman she loses value, because her value is stored up in her pristine, unviewed condition. She is valuable because she is rare. It’s great to get to touch her and see her because no one else gets to.

Like, it’s honestly almost kind of an idea that’s too stupid to accurately describe with language that makes sense because it does not, actually, when at all investigated, make any damn sense. This actually describes a lot of the “ideas” that comprise compulsory monogamy.

Because none of that is actually true in any objective sense. You can certainly decide that another man having sex with your wife takes something from you. But if you simply decide otherwise, that then becomes equally true! If I take $50 from you, you can decide all day long that you’re not $50 poorer, but you objectively still are. If I have sex with your wife while you’re playing golf, you’re simply not objectively any worse off.

Men who are actually, fully bought into CNM norms don’t need a man who has sex with their wives to do anything else for them because they realize these men aren’t taking anything from them. It would be, to such men, as if they required me to “bring something to the table” in order to compensate them for getting mani-pedis with their wives. What’s the essential difference? Either way, the wife should come home happy. What further compensation does a decent husband need?

The idea that a woman’s value is inextricably tied to her scarcity is just so narrow and condescending. “She’s special because only I get her.” Well, only I get to eat the last moldy bagel in this sleeve, my dude. But for my partners, I prefer to choose them based on their personality, talent, moral intuitions, hard work, hilariousness, etc.

It’s also a perfect example of the monogamous being way more sex-obsessed than CNM folks. If your wife is a nail tech, for instance, she gets more valuable the more nails she does. Why is sex necessarily, fundamentally different?

The real beta cuck is the guy who thinks his wife lost value because she fucked another man instead of getting a pedicure while he was golfing. It’s the guy who jealously controls what his wife wears and who she talks to because her value to him is predicated upon her ability to make him feel special by remaining scarce.

The Chad isn’t the guy who fucks your wife without compensating you. It’s the guy who tells his wife to have a good time because he knows what they have isn’t based on scarcity, but abundance.

All this to say, you’re allowed to like scarcity. Or, more realistically, to dislike sharing. What I can’t abide is when you want to say a person necessarily, objectively loses value when they become sexually less scarce. That’s absurd. You’re choosing to see loss where none actually exists. Which is a fine choice for you to make, I guess. But it’s still a choice. You didn’t lose $50. You’re an insecure lil bitch. Admit it.

What’s really destabilizing

I doubt CNM has any real potential for mass social destabilization anytime soon, unfortunately. The real threat isn’t too many people dating too many people, it’s too many dating no one.

As I said, CNM folks make up a small percentage of the population. And while CNM is growing, singles comprise a larger percentage of the population, are growing faster, and are far more destabilizing.

Again, I think loneliness is the biggest problem facing modernity and the rise in singledom is both a cause and a result of rising loneliness.

If we’re worried about destabilization, I think we need to be looking at loneliness, which causes or exacerbates authoritarianism, paranoia and conspiratorial thinking, trauma, low and declining labor force participation, rolelessness, deaths of despair, diseases, mental illness, and brain damage. If anything, CNM is an answer to loneliness and therefore a somewhat stabilizing force in our society.

~~~~~

This ⬇️ is an affiliate link! Sign up today to support me!

Join the reading revolution! Get key ideas from bestselling non-fiction books, distilled by experts into bitesize text and audio. Explore our vast library of over 5,500 titles and stay up-to-date with 40 new titles added each month.