Monogamous versus Polyamorous Cultures
“Monogamous”1) and “polyamorous”2) cultures have very dissimilar approaches to life. Religious practice3) and monogamous marriage4) are the main differences in their contrasting approaches to the sexual act. Coexistence necessitates that the differences be observed by giving parents of both cultures control over the programs that cause conflict: education, adolescent health, and sex education.
In between these two cultures lies the welfare state and its operational bureaucracy. The question is how this state bureaucracy can serve these two very different cultures.
Is it possible for these two cultures to live together in the same political order? Two issues leap to the fore in their political consequences:
2. Public Policy
In the tension between monogamy and polyamory, whether by happenstance or deliberate design, the culture of polyamory has figured out its way to survive and even thrive. It does so by controlling three critical areas of public policy, which yield big gains in “converts” from the culture of monogamy to the culture of polyamory. These three areas are
- childhood education
- sexual education
- the control of adolescent health programs.7)
Controlling these three expands the polyamory culture’s reach into the traditional monogamous culture and gradually dismantles it, especially when aided by the entertainment industry, which today especially, is a very powerful institution aligned with the culture of polyamory with a massive operative bias against the monogamy culture.8)
By controlling these three areas (education of children, sexual education, and adolescent health), the culture of polyamory diminishes the influence and dismantles the authority of parents in the culture of monogamy, particularly in their ability to form their children as members of their own culture.9) In a polemical vein, one could say they “snatch” children away from their parents and from the culture of monogamy.
3. The Sexual Ideal
This “snatching” is almost complete when these three program areas result in adolescents accepting and engaging in sexual intercourse.
Every time the polyamorous (anti-monogamy) programs10) and the media succeed in drawing teenagers into sexual activity they have won a number of victories simultaneously:
- The adolescent has been initiated into the polyamorous culture (albeit without knowledge of what is at stake) by having his first sexual experience outside of marriage;11)
- With the out-of-wedlock births or abortions that follow, they have broken the family before it has started,12) solidifying the polyamorous stature of the adolescent or young adult;
- And, especially, they have pulled the young person away from participating in the sacred, because formerly religious teenagers who begin to engage regularly in sex outside of marriage tend to stop worshipping God.13)
4. Polyamory's Silent Attack
All this the culture of polyamory achieves without any overt, direct attack. It is silent, subtle, but very substantive in its outcomes.
For instance, in the United States in the last decade, the rise of abstinence education— monogamy education—immediately galvanized the institutions of the culture of polyamory in the U.S. into massive political counter-attack, culminating in their recent victory which eliminated federal funding for such programs.14) This came to pass despite all the good that came with abstinence, including reducing teenage abortions, out-of-wedlock births, and sexually transmitted diseases,15) while increasing educational attainment.
In Europe, where the culture of polyamory has greater sway, the clearest illustration of its continuing advance is the attack against home-schooling and home rearing, either in early childhood (up to six years of age) or throughout even longer periods of childhood. In homeschooling, the big three programs (education, adolescent health, and sex education) are all under the control of the parents, and, as shown by in-depth U.S. data, yield outcomes far superior to what the state-controlled programs can yield.16)
Tim B. Heaton, “Factors Contributing to Increasing Marital Stability in the United States,” Journal of Family Issues 23, no. 3 (2002): 392-409.
Phillip Longman, Paul Corcuera, Laurie DeRose, Marga Gonzalvo Cirac, Andres Salazar, Claudia Tarud Aravena, and Antonio Torralba, “The Empty Cradle: How Contemporary Family Trends Undermine the Global Economy,” in The Sustainable Demographic Dividend: What Do Marriage & Fertility Have to do with the Economy?, The Social Trends Institute (2011), available at http://sustaindemographicdividend.org/.