Back in May 2013, it suddenly dawned on me that I’d been noticing a concerted push in recent years by the New York Times to prepare the media, which tends to slavishly follow the agenda set by the NYT concerning what is news that fits to print, to make the Next Big Thing in the wake of the imminent triumph of their gay marriage campaign (what I called World War G) be the promotion of transgenderism (World War T).
I think the 'poly' thing has its own internal 'coalition of the fringes' problems, even leaving aside the African and Muslim angle.
> de facto polygyny = alpha-male / male-dominated harems and/or 'serial monogamy', a tale as old as time, both white (Boris Johnson, Elon Musk) and black (Nick Cannon, Antonio Cromartie, Travis Henry) versions - women both publicly hate and secretly love them
> "swingers" = right-coded, military/police, Florida Man types, culmination of 'libertarian barstool conservatism' (Ashli Babbitt, Christian Ziegler)
> 'polyamory' = genderfluid Brooklyn 'cuddle puddle' types, culmination of 'gender theory' as bioleninist revenge of the spiteful mutants (stereotypically unattractive, masculine women & feminine men)
"...mentions of the word “polyamory” in the bellwether New York Times went from rare to routine when transgenderism took off in the mid-2010s"
If the y-axis shows total articles in the entire year that 'mention' the word, it cannot be called routine, I think, if only coming in at a rate of 10 to 20 per year, or one to two per month. The projected 2024 rate, though, gets up to one per week. That meets my arbitrary criteria for "routine," or nearly so. But still not "yet" at the threshold needed to fulfill the Sailer Next-Big-Thing political prophecy.
On the other hand, many of the 2023 and 2024 mentions of "polyamory" might be references or followings-on, first- or second-order, to the Sam Bankman-Fried affair. (Late-2022 collapse of FTX, his celebrity status for a long while, finally his arrest, then trial and conviction in spring 2024).
It's easy to overestimate how often various topics come up in the New York Times. For example, polygamy has been a fairly big deal in the world for thousands of years, a much bigger deal than polyamory, but it's been mentioned only once every six weeks this year.
Suddenly: a guy from Utah! What will they do with our plygs? On the one hand, polyamory is definitely Stuff White People Like. But what happens when The Wrong Kind of White People do it?
NYT is no doubt pushing what they hope is the next big thing but I have my doubts.
That story is not a happy one. The wife turns out to be a lesbian and wants an open marriage (they have a 5-year old daughter). By the end of the story the man has met another woman in the open marriage and decides he likes her better. End of marriage. The lesbian doesn’t seem bothered. No word on what the kid thinks.
The purpose of marriage is to create a family, to have children and raise them well. But the left seems to consider children -- if they consider them at all -- as a nuisance byproduct of hedonism.
Polyamory breaks down the traditional family, polygamy is, if anything, a more extreme version of the traditional patriarchal family.
For that reason I find it hard to believe the NYT and its fellow travelers will jump aboard the polygamy train anytime soon.
It’s probably true there are a fair number of women who might be amenable to it - the demand for chads vastly exceeds the supply - but many women were pleased to be housewives too and it didn’t stop the relentless assault on that oft-happy arrangement.
What's particularly pertinent is if (when) multiple wives (plus of course their entire extended families) will be included in the (sadly legal) chain migration model the US immigration department practices.
It’s a social fad. Kids who are unsure of their sexuality during puberty is as old as Croesus. The radical progressive view of early intervention with puberty blockers will be addressed in the medical community. Socially you’ll see a waning of trans identity tweens as the zeitgeist evolves and this becomes passé.
There was a swingers movement during the last Creedal Passion Period (link). It didn't take. I don't thing this time will be different. Free love is a perennial, flaring up each CPP but it doesn't seem to take.
I think the 'poly' thing has its own internal 'coalition of the fringes' problems, even leaving aside the African and Muslim angle.
> de facto polygyny = alpha-male / male-dominated harems and/or 'serial monogamy', a tale as old as time, both white (Boris Johnson, Elon Musk) and black (Nick Cannon, Antonio Cromartie, Travis Henry) versions - women both publicly hate and secretly love them
> "swingers" = right-coded, military/police, Florida Man types, culmination of 'libertarian barstool conservatism' (Ashli Babbitt, Christian Ziegler)
> 'polyamory' = genderfluid Brooklyn 'cuddle puddle' types, culmination of 'gender theory' as bioleninist revenge of the spiteful mutants (stereotypically unattractive, masculine women & feminine men)
> 'open marriage' = blue-state AWFL laptop-class women, culmination of feminism (Miranda July, Molly Roden Winter)
"...mentions of the word “polyamory” in the bellwether New York Times went from rare to routine when transgenderism took off in the mid-2010s"
If the y-axis shows total articles in the entire year that 'mention' the word, it cannot be called routine, I think, if only coming in at a rate of 10 to 20 per year, or one to two per month. The projected 2024 rate, though, gets up to one per week. That meets my arbitrary criteria for "routine," or nearly so. But still not "yet" at the threshold needed to fulfill the Sailer Next-Big-Thing political prophecy.
On the other hand, many of the 2023 and 2024 mentions of "polyamory" might be references or followings-on, first- or second-order, to the Sam Bankman-Fried affair. (Late-2022 collapse of FTX, his celebrity status for a long while, finally his arrest, then trial and conviction in spring 2024).
It's easy to overestimate how often various topics come up in the New York Times. For example, polygamy has been a fairly big deal in the world for thousands of years, a much bigger deal than polyamory, but it's been mentioned only once every six weeks this year.
Suddenly: a guy from Utah! What will they do with our plygs? On the one hand, polyamory is definitely Stuff White People Like. But what happens when The Wrong Kind of White People do it?
NYT is no doubt pushing what they hope is the next big thing but I have my doubts.
That story is not a happy one. The wife turns out to be a lesbian and wants an open marriage (they have a 5-year old daughter). By the end of the story the man has met another woman in the open marriage and decides he likes her better. End of marriage. The lesbian doesn’t seem bothered. No word on what the kid thinks.
Comments not enabled.
"Comments not enabled" is probably the biggest tell in the book.
"No word on what the kid thinks."
The purpose of marriage is to create a family, to have children and raise them well. But the left seems to consider children -- if they consider them at all -- as a nuisance byproduct of hedonism.
Polyamory breaks down the traditional family, polygamy is, if anything, a more extreme version of the traditional patriarchal family.
For that reason I find it hard to believe the NYT and its fellow travelers will jump aboard the polygamy train anytime soon.
It’s probably true there are a fair number of women who might be amenable to it - the demand for chads vastly exceeds the supply - but many women were pleased to be housewives too and it didn’t stop the relentless assault on that oft-happy arrangement.
It could be that polygamy could be legalized for verified Muslims only, or some such arrangement as that.
What's particularly pertinent is if (when) multiple wives (plus of course their entire extended families) will be included in the (sadly legal) chain migration model the US immigration department practices.
This is a really weird focus. Your crystal ball is cloudy.
I hope so. However, that's also what people said when he predicted the trans push.
It’s a social fad. Kids who are unsure of their sexuality during puberty is as old as Croesus. The radical progressive view of early intervention with puberty blockers will be addressed in the medical community. Socially you’ll see a waning of trans identity tweens as the zeitgeist evolves and this becomes passé.
Jealousy will inevitably ruin any polyamorous relationships. Period. Give me a break.
There was a swingers movement during the last Creedal Passion Period (link). It didn't take. I don't thing this time will be different. Free love is a perennial, flaring up each CPP but it doesn't seem to take.
https://mikealexander.substack.com/p/cycles-of-radicalization