Polyamory is a way that heterosexual men can “hedge”, or invest, in various women, to the degree that they want to, and benefit from the returns until the investment is no longer worthwhile. There are many things that can make the investment become less worthwhile -when women start to ask for something in return, or demand more emotional, social, or sexual accountability, or transparency, or care activity. The polyamorous hedge then becomes a shield against accountability, and a guarantee that there is other attention to exploit without having to really offer anything back. Should the return gain fail on one relationship, or should you be asked to be accountable for your actions with that woman, or invest more by caring more, you have created other relationships to fall back on and reap gains from. Hedging is utterly objectifying, exploitative, and violent.
SO RIGHT ON.
I’m kind of ambivalent about the het framing, because guess what we all internalize the patriarchy (even femmes like me), but gawd I love this post and it’s utterly pragmatic realness. All the kink and poly books I read never told it as real and always presented multiple partnerships as some utopian, we’re-so-evolved enlightened liberal woo, and are utterly dismissive of any kind of critiques.
Be wary of those that use polyamory as a shield for their shittiness, because they’re out there darlings and there are a lot of them.
Living in a city, it’s so easy to experience paranoia and have it manifest in your work - like Tricky, or Mark Stewart. You’re dealing with control systems and if you tackle them in any way, confront them in your work the same way William Burroughs did, it’s such a fine line you can’t walk it. It’ll cut into you. If you deal with those things you will become emeshed in them. If you explore paranoia you will become paranoid. Myself, I’m really trying to get rid of that. Not to say it isn’t happening everywhere all the time. I find it very unhealthy to focus on it these days.