A ‘Female-Led Relationship’ Goes Bad… Really Bad

 

A few years ago, the Yale College Dean’s Office sponsored a campus talk by a Manhattan “polyamory” activist. This woman proceeded to tell us of the joys of open marriages, citing, for example, her own long term relationship with a married man, which she said went on with his wife’s blessing.

Ah, New York.

The speaker let us know how unnatural monogamy is, and just how much happier we could be if we freed our minds a bit on the issue of, you know, having sex with various people other than our spouses or with various people who had spouses — as long as we were honest and open about it.

I don’t know why the Yale Dean’s Office wanted to promote polyamory, but I do remember wondering to myself at the time how children fit into these relationships.

Christmas time in Polyamory Land must be a hell of an occasion. Does Daddy spend time with his “other special lady” during the holidays, or does the special lady come over to share the joys of Christmas morning, say, along with Mommy and maybe her other man too?

When these kids open presents marked “from Daddy” — it’s an experience suffused with mystery and intrigue!

A recent Dear Prudence column at Slate brought all these questions back to mind:

Q. Paternity: My wife and I have a female-led relationship. Before we got married, I agreed that she could “take other lovers,” while I would remain faithful to her alone. She said that she might not ever see anyone else, but she liked that I knew she could. Well, now she’s pregnant, and I’m wondering the obvious. We do have intercourse, but not often…

Not often, you say?

Gee, I would never have guessed that…

It’s amazing how selfish and entitled our sexual culture is becoming. People act as though their sexual urges are far more important than the lives of their children — if they are thinking of their children at all.

The idea that our sexual urges must be harnessed and restrained for the well being of others we love is totally foreign to the progressive good-timers who form these so very modern relationships.

“What will make me happy right now?” is as deep as the reasoning goes. Just, you know, so long as you are “open” and “honest” about it.

When every pregnancy test feels like a game of genetic roulette, you know that relationships, “female-led” or otherwise, are being formed by adults who have ceased to prioritize the welfare of the children they produce.

There are 37 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Profile Photo Inactive
    @MichaelC19fan

    I believe according to the law of most states the cuckold husband is financially responsible for Schrodinger’s Baby for the rest of his life. Sort of funny how evolution or whatever you might call it has taken over Mr. Cuckold and now he is worried the kid might not be his.   

    • #1
  2. Profile Photo Contributor
    @MollieHemingway

    Yale should teach a course in how babies are made.

    • #2
  3. Profile Photo Coolidge
    @Skyler

    ” these so very modern relationships.”

    Nothing modern about it.  In fact it’s one of the reasons civilization were created, to end this kind of nonsense.

    • #3
  4. Profile Photo Podcaster
    @EJHill

    My son once asked me about some similar type of nonsense he saw on TV.  I told him that whatever a couple does to keep “spice” in the marriage is fine as long as it is consensual and remains only between them. Introducing a third party into a relationship is never healthy.

    Liberals love to declare themselves the true friends of science and that religious people are ignorant and superstitious. Yet it is they who continue to deny simple biological differences in humankind and how that relates to a healthy civilization. And they think that each person can chase their passions without regard to the passions of others – passions that include other emotions other than love and lust, like hatred and jealousy.

    • #4
  5. Profile Photo Inactive
    @JohnnyDubya

    Today, for the first time, my wife and I received in our joint inbox a spam email with the subject line “Life is short. Have an affair.”  It was an advertisement for Ashley Madison, the website that caters to adulterers.

    If I could have put my fist through the interwebs and virtually punched Ashley Madison’s founder in the face, I would have.

    • #5
  6. Profile Photo Contributor
    @FrankSoto
    Nathan Harden: 

    The speaker let us know how unnatural monogamy is…

    Other unnatural developments of civilization: Houses, cars, surgery, medical imaging, climate control, courts, farms.

    • #6
  7. Profile Photo Member
    @MBF
    Frank Soto

    Nathan Harden: 

    The speaker let us know how unnatural monogamy is…

    Other unnatural developments of civilization: Houses, cars, surgery, medical imaging, climate control, courts, farms. · 0 minutes ago

    Toilet paper is completely unnatural. Imagine how much happier we’d all be if we freed our dingle-berries!

    • #7
  8. Profile Photo Member
    @JClimacus

    This sounds like a time warp to the ’70s. Did the speaker advocate key parties?

    • #8
  9. Profile Photo Inactive
    @WhiskeySam

    We are in the “Circling the Bowl” phase of the cultural life cycle.

    • #9
  10. Profile Photo Member
    @Fredosphere
    Frank Soto

    Nathan Harden: 

    The speaker let us know how unnatural monogamy is…

    Other unnatural developments of civilization: Houses, cars, surgery, medical imaging, climate control, courts, farms. · 17 minutes ago

    And declining infant mortality rates. . . .oh wait–“infants”–what are those?

    • #10
  11. Profile Photo Member
    @DeanMurphy
    EJHill: Liberals … think that each person can chase their passions without regard to the passions of others – passions that include other emotions other than love and lust, like hatred and jealousy.

    Almost.  Liberals believe that “bad” emotions (hatred, jealousy) are the fault of the feeler, you just aren’t enlightened enough to not feel those mean things.  So you are obligated to go to therapy to have those bad parts of your psyche “fixed”.

    “Good” emotions like Love and Lust “just happen” and one *must* pursue them to their illogical conclusions or you just aren’t fulfilled as a person.  (or is that filled as a vessel?)

    • #11
  12. Profile Photo Moderator
    @MikeRapkoch
    Skyler: ” these so very modern relationships.”

    Nothing modern about it.  In fact it’s one of the reasons civilization were created, to end this kind of nonsense. · 44 minutes ago

    Yes. That is why the modern marriage movement (SSM, Polygamy, and soon, I fear, incestuous marriages), has similarities with other movements like rabid environmentalism. The environmentalist are always talking about energy alternatives: wind, solar, power stations in back yards. 500 years ago wind and sun were chief sources of energy. There is a push to go back to energy types long gone. Polyamory advocates are attempting to return to pagan practices. The left is trying to roll things back to an age of chaos and death. To the left progress is the reversal of progress. It is Rousseau’s state of nature myth run amuk.

    • #12
  13. Profile Photo Member
    @DeanMurphy
    Fredösphere

    Frank Soto

    Nathan Harden: 

    The speaker let us know how unnatural monogamy is…

    Other unnatural developments of civilization: Houses, cars, surgery, medical imaging, climate control, courts, farms. · 17 minutes ago

    And declining infant mortality rates. . . .oh wait–“infants”–what are those? · 7 minutes ago

    Do you mean escaped fetuses?

    • #13
  14. Profile Photo Moderator
    @MikeRapkoch

    Well, except whale oil.

    • #14
  15. Profile Photo Inactive
    @Douglas

    Polyamory, Latin for “I’m a whore”.

    • #15
  16. Profile Photo Moderator
    @MikeRapkoch
    1967mustangman

    skipsul

    Mike Rapkoch: Well, except whale oil. · 40 minutes ago

    Mmmm… Whale oil sound good on pancakes. · 4 minutes ago

    Well Futurama told me it would power our cars in the year 3000 · 17 minutes ago

    Back 30 years ago when I was a disc jockey I had a chance to here the great song “Whale Meat Again.” Obviously prophetic.

    • #16
  17. Profile Photo Inactive
    @Ansonia

    I think monogamy developed because men and women have in common that they naturally love their biological children more often than they love other children.

    • #17
  18. Profile Photo Contributor
    @NathanHarden

    This particular event was directly sponsored by the Dean’s office–something that sets it apart from the numerous other guest lectures that go on at Yale in a given year. Show me the Dean’s office’s program on marital fidelity and I’ll reconsider.

    To your broader point–Value neutral education is not really possible anyway–despite the claims of FIRE and others. There are ALWAYS choices about what is and isn’t appropriate for the classroom, what has educational value and what doesn’t.

    Larry3435

    Nathan Harden:

    I don’t know why the Yale Dean’s Office wanted to promote polyamory

    Is that a bit of leftist thinking creeping in on you Nathan?  If the Dean allows a speaker with a particular view, that is “promoting” that view?  Should the Dean be banning speakers with inappropriate messages?  Because that’s how the left sees it — First Amendment and FIRE be damned. · 33 minutes ago

    • #18
  19. Profile Photo Member
    @

    Yikes! It must be tricky for him to have sex with his wife without a pair of testicles.

    • #19
  20. Profile Photo Inactive
    @CrowsNest
    Larry3435: Is that a bit of leftist thinking creeping in on you Nathan?  

    The First Amendment was not thought by its authors to override the ability of states and localities to regulate certain forms of speech (obscenity laws). It was meant to protect political speech from Congress.

    It was certainly not intended to regulate what private entities permit or denounce within their own walls.

    Is there no difference between Congress and a dean’s office?

    What has made FIRE necessary is a longer story, including our somewhat incoherent jurisprudence on expression, the role federal student loans have played as a back door to regulation/coercion, as well as the knee-jerk, extraordinarily heavy-handed and selective enforcement of speech codes that allow expression of every imaginable kind–the more gratuitous the better–except that which might offend Progressive pieties. Especially egregious that such codes emerge at institutes of higher learning.

    That is the rub. Our society has completely lost the capacity to distinguish between forms of speech that are politically significant and must be protected, and every form of expression.

    On what reasonable grounds could you reject a pornographic billboard outside of an elementary school?–You fascist! You book burner! 

    • #20
  21. Profile Photo Inactive
    @CrowsNest

    A “female-led” relationship…..

    I think that’s what the kids used to call “whipped”.

    • #21
  22. Profile Photo Member
    @JosephEagar

    I don’t understand why leftist practitioners of polyamory also find it necessary to criticize monogamy.  The open-relationship people I’ve met seemed to view it as a “some people are polyamerous, others are monogamous” sort of thing.  They certainly didn’t see monogamy as some sort of abusive social construction that has to be torn down.

    It never ceases to amaze me how important it is to leftists that society venerate–not just acknowledge or tolerate, but venerate–their chosen lifestyles.

    • #22
  23. Profile Photo Member
    @Larry3435
    Crow’s Nest

    The First Amendment was not thought by its authors to override the ability of states and localities to regulate certain forms of speech (obscenity laws). It was meant to protect political speech from Congress.

    It was certainly not intended to regulate what private entities permit or denounce within their own walls.

    Is there no difference between Congress and a dean’s office?

    Whether or not the First Amendment does or should apply, a college campus is not the appropriate place for censoring the peaceful presentation of any point of view to a voluntary audience.  Marketplace of ideas – what better place?

    • #23
  24. Profile Photo Member
    @Larry3435
    Nathan Harden: This particular event was directly sponsored by the Dean’s office–something that sets it apart from the numerous other guest lectures that go on at Yale in a given year. Show me the Dean’s office’s program on marital fidelity and I’ll reconsider.

    To your broader point–Value neutral education is not really possible anyway–despite the claims of FIRE and others. There are ALWAYS choices about what is and isn’t appropriate for the classroom, what has educational value and what doesn’t.

    I did not understand this to be in a classroom.  I thought it was a guest speaker, to a voluntary audience, without granting scholastic credit for attending.  If so, anyone should be allowed to speak.  Even leftists.  Even morons.  Even <gasp> Ann Coulter.

    • #24
  25. Profile Photo Contributor
    @NathanHarden

    How about Neo-Nazi promotion? How about NAMBLA promotion? How about a magical UFO cult? You see, it doesn’t work to say “anyone should be allowed.” Academic freedom has it’s limits. A university has to make decisions about what is or isn’t worthy of its limited time/space/resources. Within broad bounds, universities sometimes even have to decide what is morally worthy. (See first two questions above.) Sure it’s important to allow unpopular views to be heard. But while absolute academic freedom sounds nice in theory, in practice academic freedom isn’t as simple a matter as some would have you believe.

    Larry3435

    Nathan Harden: This particular event was directly sponsored by the Dean’s office–something that sets it apart from the numerous other guest lectures that go on at Yale in a given year. Show me the Dean’s office’s program on…

    I did not understand this to be in a classroom.  I thought it was a guest speaker, to a voluntary audience, without granting scholastic credit for attending.  If so, anyone should be allowed to speak.  Even leftists.  Even morons.  Even <gasp> Ann Coulter. · 8 minutes ago

    • #25
  26. Profile Photo Inactive
    @AdrianaHarris

    It irks me that the left promotes such lack of restraint with drugs and sex, but they want to control what you eat and which light bulbs you can buy. Just keep watering that lawn while society’s house burns down.

    • #26
  27. Profile Photo Member
    @Larry3435
    Nathan Harden: How about Neo-Nazi promotion? How about NAMBLA promotion? How about a magical UFO cult? You see, it doesn’t work to say “anyone should be allowed.” Academic freedom has it’s limits. A university has to make decisions about what is or isn’t worthy of its limited time/space/resources. Within broad bounds, universities sometimes even have to decide what ismorally worthy. (See first two questions above.) Sure it’s important to allow unpopular views to be heard. But while absolute academic freedom sounds nice in theory, in practice academic freedom isn’t as simple a matter as some would have you believe.

    There you go again, with that word “promotion.”  Anyway, if a Neo-Nazi or pedophile got a significant audience on a college campus, then the admissions office has a much more serious problem than the speaker program.

    There was some best-selling UFO author back in the 70’s (I can’t recall the name), and I would bet he spoke on some campuses.  Wouldn’t bother me none.

    • #27
  28. Profile Photo Inactive
    @gnarlydad

    Used to be anyone who’d made it through puberty was an adult. Chronology, and all that. Not so true anymore. People old enough to marry and start families should know better than to start swappin’ bed partners every time they get a little wiggle in their waddle.

    • #28
  29. Profile Photo Inactive
    @CrowsNest
    Larry3435: Whether or not the First Amendment does or should apply, a college campus is not the appropriate place for censoring the peaceful presentation of any point of view to a voluntary audience.  Marketplace of ideas – what better place?

    If we put aside the 1st Amendment question, that is if we presume it doesn’t apply to this situation because it ought not, we’re in much more interesting territory. We find ourselves confronted with the question: what is a university?

    And here, you and I probably agree that controversial opinions should especially find refuge of one kind or another at universities–they should be considered and weighed and debated and deliberated upon and not merely dismissed. But the university is a special kind of island, and its only goal is not allowing controversy to be aired peaceably.

    Two other quick notes:

    I have never been much of a fan of the term “marketplace of ideas”–the coin of the realm there is too infrequently knowledge and wisdom.

    The violence criteria you posit, “a peaceful assembly”, is also revealing: so long as no physical damage is done, no reason can be found to discourage any view anywhere.

    • #29
  30. Profile Photo Inactive
    @skipsul
    Mike Rapkoch: Well, except whale oil. · 40 minutes ago

    Mmmm… Whale oil sound good on pancakes.

    • #30

Comments are closed because this post is more than six months old. Please write a new post if you would like to continue this conversation.