Our occasional commenter Sierra Black is the subject of a 20/20 documentary scheduled to air on ABC tomorrow night (Friday the 20th) at 10PM Eastern Standard Time. You should watch it.
I’ve had the great blessing of getting to know quite a lot of you (some better than others of course) in the few years I’ve been blogging, but Sierra is one of the few I’ve met face to face. She and her husband Martin have more than once been guests in my home; my daughter occasionally babysits for Sierra’s daughters Rio and Serena. (The picture at the top was taken in my living room.) My family and Sierra’s camp together (along with quite a few other friends) every summer, and while we’re not always in close touch, we do keep track of each other. They’re good people.
The 20/20 program will focus on Sierra and Martin’s unconventional relationship choices. We here at The Big Questions are strong enthusiasts for all things consensually unconventional.
Sierra reports that:
Throughout this process, I’ve worried about everything from how my relationships will be portrayed to what middle America will think of my housekeeping…
It would be a lovely thing if you stopped by her blog (or commented here) to let her know you’re okay with her housekeeping, in all senses of the word. Or, of course, to raise thoughtful objections, if you’ve got them. But please be gentle! Sierra’s my friend.
Hi Sierra,
I really enjoyed your article. I think it’s a great thing your doing to encourage open mindedness about sexual lifestyles.
I have always found the expected demand of sexual ownership of one’s partner to the exclusion of others slightly sinister – even if that ownership is mutual. And I’ve never understood the strong social norms in favour of life long monogamy.
At the risk of causing a lot of controversy with the first comment (and this is just a hypothesis), it may have been a convenient norm historically because it made it easier for men to control women. In an environment where women were generally economically dependent on their spouse, having close romantic ties to other men would increase freedom to leave unhappy relationships…. I remember Prof Landsburg wrote a similar hypothesis on why Polygamy is good for women in ‘The Armchair Economist’.
Whatever the reason for those norms, I think it’s great that you’re making others aware that there is more than one way to live a happy and committed relationship. Thank you for being prepared to share aspects of you private life for that worthy cause.
Mark
If I may: I do fully support what you call her housekeeping. A human life is sadly very short and denying yourself and your loved ones something you both want and mutually consent to is something you are likely to regret later in life. Very probably not for everyone, but for those who make this choice responsibly it is a right thing to do, I believe.
I am a bit less sure about going on TV with it. Why would one want to expose oneself and, more importantly, one’s loved ones and friends to all the negative attitudes, prejudice and other bad stuff that is most likely to arise instead of just enjoying happiness in your private life? If you want to inform people who are genuinely interested, isn’t it best done say, through a blog? That way people who for some reason do not like you or your way of life will have no problem avoiding you and that will diminish the potential for conflict.
Unlike say, matters of economic policy, where your views get you exactly nowhere unless they are shared by sizable parts of the society or at least the scientific community, open relationships can be enjoyed with only your immediate partners sharing your views. Of course that does not fully apply to some ultra-conservative communities, where one could be ostracized even on a suspicion of some unorthodox behavior, but this is not really the case in most developed countries for quite some time.
I think the logic of international relations should apply – unless they prepare troops to attack you, why would you cross their border waiving your flag? Just put it up on a nice square in your capital city and let those genuinely interested come in friendship.
In other words – if your ship is thinking, your best course of action is of course to do whatever it takes to alert the fellow passengers and the crew. But if what you need is easily accomplished in the privacy of your cabin why would you make announcements over the PA system?
I hope you have a frank discussion with her about her awful decisions: supporting socialist candidates.
It’s interesting that the sex posts on TBQ generate so much less controversy than the arithmetic ones.
From the article: “Nothing in my life is a secret, it’s simply my private business.”
Look, I don’t agree with what she’s doing. I think it’s probably bad for her and her husband and almost certainly bad for her children. But it’s not my business to intrude on how she runs her private life. At least, that would be the case, if she hadn’t decided to make her private life public. When you put things that ought to be private in the public sphere, by say, writing an article in Salon and being interviewed by 20/20 about them, then you lose the right to complain about being criticized for your private behavior.
I have, what I expect is, a common observation. It’s their choice, more power to them, but I don’t think I could do it. Of course, when I think about those who married as teens and spent every free moment until death a good part of a century later, I think I the former is a far more likely choice that the latter.
I guess I have to be the one who throws in the stink bomb. Who said this, about restricting the choices of other families?
“I’d cheerfully vote for the abolition of legal marriage”
Sierra did, on her blog.
Ken B: “It’s interesting that the sex posts on TBQ generate so much less controversy than the arithmetic ones.”
Hilarious! (And correct.)
Ken B:
Ever since Wittgenstein, us mathematics types have succumbed to staying out of these types of gooey debates about morality with respect to sex, feelings, and “society”.
@Scott H: Like most math types, I think Wittgenstein is hoplessly wrong about mathematics. He completely misunderstood Godel’s theorem for instance (he rejected it with a naive and silly argument). [And no I can longer remember W’s argument, just that it was hopeless.] About that which he could say nothing he was not silent.
I LIKE this attitude. Really like it. It feeds my need for conflict avoidance.
But I’m not sure it’s good public policy.
Want to screw up your own life? That’s largely your own business. Want to screw up your kids’ lives within your own property? That’s a more debatable proposition. Want to screw up your kids’ lives with the full expectation of eventually unleashing them upon the world? That’s a pretty much undefendable proposition. I may not have an interest in your private life, but the manner in which you raise your kids is rarely a matter that affects only those making the decisions. (And that’s ignoring the idea that the kids themselves have autonomy interests.)
The gang at Family Scholars has really pushed me to confront the limits of parental autonomy where kids are concerned. In particular (and going a bit off topic), they argue that kids derive so much benefit from being raised by their biological parents that kids would be better off not being born than being born into circumstances that we know will fail to meet this standard. Yeah, they acknowledge that parents sometimes die/split up/become incapacitated, precluding the ideal outcome, and that second-best arrangements then become necessary. But they distinguish these arrangements from arrangements such as sperm/egg donations, in which a child’s interest is sacrificed by design.
I struggle with the idea that we promote a child’s interest by adopting policies that preclude the child from existing. But I’m more open to the ideas that society may have an interest in reducing the number of kids raised in sub-optimal circumstances. (I have difficulty anticipating the substitution affects that might be triggered by limitations on sperm/egg donations, but that’s a whole ‘nuther topic.)
Thanks for the shout out! I’m so happy to be your friend. This made my day.
@Dmitry: Why do it? Because people who make unconventional relationship choices *are* affected by society’s attitudes and ignorance (or knowledge). On one end, a member of a multi-adult family who is in labour might be told that they can only have one of their partners with them. On the more extreme end, someone might lose their job or custody of their children for having such an “amoral” lifestyle.
Positive public portrayals of people living their lives in unconventional ways are important, because they help reduce the prejudice out there towards them (science to back up this statement: http://www.comm.umn.edu/department/pch/ ).
@Ken. B. The full quote is:
“I’d cheerfully vote for the abolition of legal marriage; would love to see the state sever the link between state-sanctioned domestic partnerships and the personal decision to marry.” (http://childwild.com/2012/01/25/what-marriage-means-to-me/)
I agree with (what I infer to be) her stance. I contend the government should not recognize marriage as such, but should simply enforce contracts. Yes, I recognize we can’t help but get involved with issues of children’s welfare. It certainly solves the gay marriage issue. If we don’t recognize heterosexual marriage, it becomes a non-issue.
Dimitry,
Want to screw up your own life? That’s largely your own business. Want to screw up your kids’ lives within your own property? That’s a more debatable proposition.
I think what she’s doing will end badly. Her life-style should not be celebrated and she should be shamed, even shunned. Tolerating others faults doesn’t mean accepting them. It certainly doesn’t mean celebrting them and putting them on 20/20. Liberty doesn’t mean libertine. The reality is that liberty only means something if you can live morally.
However, the shaming and shunning are the limits of how far things should go, though.
I can almost hear in your sentence above: “the government should do something”. As much as Sierra can screw up her kids, I have yet to see anyone as screwed up as those who are wards of the state. For all the bad things I see people do, I think the government should do something about only a few of them, a damn small few. I have little doubt that as bad as Sierra will screw up her kids, well meaning bureaucrats would destroy their lives. For the children of course.
@David Wallin: Indeed it is the full quote. You admit the wording seems ambiguous I take it? Otherwise you would not be inferring. It seems to me to limit the choices of others, and of society to set ‘defaults’, not expand them. It is not the suggestion that we allow gays or threesomes to form domestic partnerships or that they be allowed to marry. It is the suggestion that there be no legal marriages.
I don’t get why she wants to abolish legal marriage, because she also says that marriage is very important to her personally. I guess I will have to watch the TV show. But she is getting her wish anyway, as the anti-marriage forces are gradually destroying marriage in our society.
We talk about what we know?
@Roger: There’s a big difference between “marriage” as a contract with terms defined by the government and “marriage” as a personal and spiritual commitment defined by your own values and those of your community. You can be against the former while still embracing the latter.
@David Wallin again.
To exapnd. Like several here I think going on 20/20 makes little sense if your goal is quiet toleration. It makes sense if your goal is acceptance. So I think it is reasonavle to see see Sierra as in some sense demanding more than just toleration.
Rowan, are you giving your own opinion, or speculating about Sierra’s opinion? My comments are about what she wrote online. See What Marriage Means To Me.
OOPS. Fingerslip before I completed my remarks. To continue …
A more radical demand, for approval, cannot be ruled out. But everyone knows that it will never be forthcoming from a large segment, I’d say most, of society. (We see rejection in some comments here.) In that context I need to be persuaded the ‘let’s abolish marriage’ isn’t somewhat a begrudging response. Those old enough will recall that before gay marriage became a desideratum the abolition of marriage was a demand from gay activists.
Aside from that it’s a rather extreme social experiment to undertake just to assuage the feelings of a fairly small minority who are not actively harmed by anyone else’s marriage.
Maybe Sierra meant something more like what you inferred, but it’s not what she wrote, which is what I am responding to.
nobody.really: “We talk about what we know?”
You are just baiting me with such nice slow fats ones right over the plate, aren’t you?
Ken: I guess at least we’re in agreement that nothing would be improved by having Sierra’s kids taken by the state and that’s good (fuck’s sake), but maybe you should leave speculation about their mental health to those of us on this blog who have met them? (Spoiler: There’s a reason Dr. Landsburg didn’t even bring the subject up. Her kids are fine. Ridiculously so.)
Roger: I don’t get why she wants to abolish legal marriage, because she also says that marriage is very important to her personally.
Hint: there’s an adjective on one side of that sentence that’s missing on the other side. It’s a pretty important one.
Ken.B: But everyone knows that it will never be forthcoming from a large segment, I’d say most, of society.
Never? Pfffffffff. If I had a nickel for every time someone said that to me about gay people circa 1985, I could have retired rich without ever having to complete high school.
Here is the only safe assumption you can make about the american sexual mores of the year 2212 and for that matter 2112 and even 2612: they will not be the same as those of today. Might be looser, might be tighter, but they will be different, potentially radically so.
(Especially on a blog that tends to lean towards the libertarian) is it not fairly convincing (I would say obvious) that there is something rather sinister about Government choosing to recognise a certain subset of relationship over others, whether that is only monogamous heterosexual relationships, or only monogamous relationships; especially when that comes with a shed load of engrained social prejudices about what a marriage should be beyond the legal requirements?
I also question the suggestion that it will ‘screw up’ children; does anyone have any empirical support for this claim, or at least a theoretical argument for why? If it’s just because they will grow up in a family that does not conform to social expectations around relationships, that presumably applies to mixed race relationships too (or at least certainly would 40 years ago). Are you then willing to generalise your claim to relationships like that too? Or is there something particularly different to this form of consensual relationship?
I imagine that the main reason this relationship is hard or difficult for any member of the family is because of arbitrary social expectations and common ignorance. A public appearance to talk about you lifestyle must confer significant external benefits on others who live such a lifestyle or would like to. That can surely only be praised.
Google up “non-identity problem”.
Doctor Memory,
but maybe you should leave speculation about their mental health to those of us on this blog who have met them
Care to point out where I speculated about their mental health? I know, I know, it’s just a lot easier to erect a straw man to knock down rather than engage what I’ve actual written (fuck’s sake).
@DoctorMemory: You deny that a ‘large segment’ of society disapproves of gay marriage? Really? In any case I think my point stands. In 1985 gay marriage was nearly unimaginable, so there were demands from gay advocates to abolish marriage altogether.
Relationships like this work well until they suddenly don’t. When/If it ends, there will be endless finger-pointing and I told you so about the cause of it. It might even end as a result of jealousy over an open partner involved. The bottom line is that relationships take work. One could argue that a relationship like this requires more work, but isn’t that likely to help rather than hurt?
I almost deleted my comment because it was so disjointed and random, but it’s what I was thinking. I think I like the math arguments better.
Ahoy, Sierra. I appreciated the article. My partner and I are poly as well. We have to keep it a secret from some, my fundamentalist parents especially. When we told her more liberal parents, they came near to canceling their plans to pay for our wedding. (And her mother accused her of all kinds of nasty things, like taking advantage of me. Cached thoughts strike again.) They eventually decided to carry on as if we had never told them, so to maintain peace we have to lie about how we met certain people, etc. It’s lousy to have to lie about our lives but they could be much worse. Thanks for writing about it.
@KenB: Are you being deliberately disingenuous? Unless you’ve been hiding under a rock, it’s impossible to not know that acceptance of homosexuality and gay marriage in the US has been steadily on the rise, and that trend is only going to continue, given that a large majority of young people support extending marriage rights (citation: http://www.gallup.com/poll/147662/first-time-majority-americans-favor-legal-gay-marriage.aspx).
While it’s strictly true that a “large” segment of the US opposes gay marriage, it seems that you are deliberately missing the point that that segment is not nearly as large as it once was, and is rapidly shrinking. DoctorMemory may be premature in making his statement, but not very premature. Further, your assertion that “most” of society opposes gay marriage is blatantly false (assuming the society you refer to is the US).
I think this behavior may qualify as insane.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insanity
“Insanity may manifest as violations of societal norms…”
In other words, what is sane or insane depends on societal norms, like it or not.
Ken@4:50pm: Care to point out where I speculated about their mental health?
We seem to have a lot of Kens here. Was this another Ken?
“I think what she’s doing will end badly. […] Tolerating others faults doesn’t mean accepting them. […] As much as Sierra can screw up her kids…”
If by this you meant that her parenting methods would “end badly” and were a “fault” and represented “screw[ing] up her kids” in some incredibly specific way that somehow would have no effect on their mental health, then I can only ask that you try working on your phrasing. Otherwise, I feel entirely safe in my summation of your stated opinions.
If your defense is that you were speculating about their future mental health as opposed to their current mental health, that’s frankly pretty weak. Again, there are people here, including your host, that know these people personally: consider listening to them.
Then on to KenB at 4:53: “You deny that a ‘large segment’ of society disapproves of gay marriage?”
That would be a very silly thing to deny. Luckily, the points of contention (raised by you) were “never” and “most”, not “right this minute.” and “a large segment”. (We also weren’t talking about gay marriage specifically at all– the example I raised was of the acceptance of homosexuality in general, of which marriage is a linked by obviously not entirely overlapping issue.)
This kind of lifestyle is not for everybody … certainly not for me. Knowing that my beautiful wife is having sex with someone else would drive me mad. And I think that mine is a fairly mainstream attitude. Evolution did not favor male genes that were too tolerant to such things… but I also have no problem with other people having different lifestyle from mine.
Rowan,
Further, your assertion that “most” of society opposes gay marriage is blatantly false
Are you sure about this? Thinking something should be legal really does not mean “doesn’t oppose”. I think many if not most people are against adultery, but many if not most of these people don’t think it should be illegal. I oppose gay marriage, but I don’t think it should be illegal.
Sounds good, but I’m too much of a germaphobe.
Ken B:
In what way is the abolition of legal marriage infringing on peoples rights? Is the abolition of homeowner tax credits or food stamps an infringement on someones rights? What right, exactly, is being infringed upon?
which is a closer match to Sierra?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo
or
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Pan
I would be very interested to know the reasons behind the objections voiced about Sierra’s lifestyle. So far, I’m only seeing baseless assertions.
My guess is that those who find fault with Sierra’s lifestyle have purely religious reasons for doing so. Am I wrong?
I, for one, believe that Sierra’s family provides an encouraging and inspiring example that we humans are capable of finding happiness in more ways than any of us can imagine. And that is a very, very good thing.
Thank you for sharing, Sierra.
Todd,
I would be very interested to know the reasons behind the objections voiced about Sierra’s lifestyle.
Do you celebrate the plural marriages of the mormon polygamists? If Mitt Romney admitted that he was a polygamist tomorrow, would you celebrate this and ask those who would reject him and his lifestyle for the “reasons behind the objections”, claiming you only hear “baseless assertions”? I find who ask the question you ask to be two faced on most subjects, based solely on who we might be talking about from minute to minute.
Ken B had it right when he pointed out the ridiculousness of flailing and contradictory stands people take when they choose unconventional lifestyles. Before it was all “let’s abolish marriage”; ask inner city blacks how that’s worked out for them. Now it’s all “let’s have polygamist lifestyles”; why don’t you ask the women and lost boys of these societies how that’s worked out for them.
Additionally, I am an atheist, so you are wrong when you claim that all you’ve heard are objections for “purely religious reasons”. Please point out the “purely religious reasons” you find in my previous posts.
Here’s a question for you: why do the most stable and prosperous societies we see have monogamous marriage and nuclear families at their foundations? Jealousy is a bitch and human nature largely unchangeable. The best we can do is to discover institutions that best suit that nature. One of the best so far is monogamy and nuclear families.
For those who feel compelled to celebrate Sierra, I find this quote to be very apt: Upper classes give lip service to whatever they are supposed to endorse, and then mostly ignore it to do what helps them personally.
Ken (@ 2.34): Just to avoid confusion again, you were not talking to me this time? Because neither the name nor the quote belong to me….
Ken: You said: “The reality is that liberty only means something if you can live morally.”
I infer that you think Sierra is not living morally especially because you think she should be shamed and shunned- is this right? I would be interested to understand how you define moral.
And “As much as Sierra can screw up her kids”. This could be either a statement of her right to do so, or an expression that you believe she is actually doing so. You imply that it is the latter.
If so, this would provide justification for the belief that her life is not a moral one, but it is pure speculation. You have no evidence that her kids will be screwed up.
This is probably why Todd suspected a religious motivation – opinions on morality that are not based on evidence often have a religious basis.
You also draw false analogies between Mormon polygamy and “open” polyamory. I am sure you can see the difference if you try. Accepting different forms of consenting relationships does not imply acceptance of every form of relationship that shares the feature of having more than two people in it.
And your parallel between “lets abolish marriage” and inner city black kids not thriving is very poor. Whatever has happened in inner cities has happened without abolishing marriage. I think you are getting confused between “marriage” and “relationships”. Nobody is advocating abolishing relationships.
It is just as well we are naturally monagomous. Otherwise lots of people would have affairs, and it would end up with a high rate of divorce. There is plenty of evidence that that does screw up kids.
Personally I do not approve of abolishing marriage. Whilst contracts between individuals could in theory reproduce many of the features of marriage, they would be extremely complex, difficult to include pension after death, and would often be set up when “in love” and therefore irrational. There are very good reasons to keep marriage as a legal institution.
@ Rowan:
“Why do it? Because people who make unconventional relationship choices *are* affected by society’s attitudes and ignorance (or knowledge).”
…
“Positive public portrayals of people living their lives in unconventional ways are important, because they help reduce the prejudice out there towards them (science to back up this statement: http://www.comm.umn.edu/department/pch/ ).”
But all people are always affected by society’s attitudes. Some people just do not like other people as part of their inalienable rights. Is it always a good pretext to engage in unsolicited propaganda? If I, say, prefer cats and hate dogs (which I do not), should I go on TV and sing praises to cats while degrading dogs and their owners (even if to highlight perfection of my favorite creatures)? If I am sane, I just buy a cat and avoid confronting my opposite numbers from the dog-lover world.
The distinction I made in my initial comment was between private life where an individual can make all desired changes individually or within a small group and matters like economic policy where most decisions can only be taken by a majority or at least a large minority, and most decisions affect everyone directly (that is, not via “I do not like what my neighbor is doing”).
What is called “positive portrayal” in the study you quoted is, strictly speaking, a form of propaganda. And propaganda is a powerful tool that clearly has negative consequences as well. Same applies to working other people’s sense of guilt. What those measures do is they polarize people. Some turn to supporters but some also go from mild to strong detractors.
What I was saying was that going on TV let alone engaging in outright propaganda has its costs and is more likely to be warranted on society-wide issues, affecting everyone or nearly everyone directly and demanding society-wide or at least a majority consensus, that on private life issues.
I firmly believe that being friendly and open to people who do not like you and recognizing their right not to like you is ultimately more effective in reaching genuine compromise with these people, if you want it for some reason. Trying to beat them into submission by PC and propaganda can eventually come back to you quite painfully (not to mention all the costs imposed on the society in the meantime).
(just for the record, the study you quoted leaves quite a couple of questions open – just do not want to waste space here analyzing it).
@Harold
“It is just as well we are naturally monogamous.”
Is this one based on evidence or religious belief?
“Otherwise lots of people would have affairs, and it would end up with a high rate of divorce.”
1. But they do, don’t they?
2. Can it be that a natural polygamous intent to have an affair is stopped on many occasions by external factors (divorce expenses, fear for children, social stigma, etc.)?
3.Do people always get a divorce when one of them has an affair? Even without the other partner knowing?
Dmitry, in your response to Harold I believe your sarcasm detectors were offline.
@Rowan: I did not say ‘most’ oppose gay marriage. This is just a falsehood on your part. I didn’t even say it about polygamy. I did and do say a large number do. That is plainly true.
@Chad:
“Ken B: In what way is the abolition of legal marriage infringing on peoples rights? ” Again I didn’t say anyone’s right would be infringed. I said their choices would be reduced. They would loose the choice the be legally married.
@DoctorMemory: You have misunderstood my senstnece. Let me be clear: I mean you have failed to correctly parse it, not that it was unclear. I wrote
“But everyone knows that it will never be forthcoming from a large segment, I’d say most, of society. ”
It being acceptqance of polygamy. So you misidentifed the referent of it. This senctence contains a clause
“it will never be forthcoming from a large segment, I’d say most, of society” which itself contains a parentetical. The object is ‘a large segment’. The “I’d say most” is perenthetical, and is in fact phrased with a distiancing construction ‘I’d say” indicating this is just a remark not germane to the logic of the phrase.
So I made an assertion about ‘a large segment’ and its attitude to ploygamy. I grant you ‘never’ is hyperbole.
Since you construed ‘it’ as encompassing gay marriage I addressed the point you tried to make.
I didn’t even say it about polygamy.
A quote from your response that engendered this thread: But everyone knows that it will never be forthcoming from a large segment, I’d say most, of society. Note the word “most”.
What we are arguing is not the present, but the current trend that has strong implications for what the future might bring. It’s the word “never that Doctor_Memory and I take the most objection to, and where I feel you are most incorrect.
DoctorMemory:”We seem to have a lot of Kens here. Was this another Ken?”
Evincing precisely those mad reading skills I credit you with.
Rowan:
“@KenB: Are you being deliberately disingenuous? [snip] While it’s strictly true [what yopu said]”
Disingenuity through truth!
Rowan:
“It’s the word “never that Doctor_Memory and I take the most objection to”
Helpful to know you can read his mind, saves answering him.
1. Read my note on parsing.
2. Agreed: ‘never’ is (obvoiusly) hyperbole. Substitute add ‘in a short enough time frame to make much difference to those like Sierra who want acceptance while they are still raising their children’ after ‘never’ and bask in my concession.
KenB: Ah, so you *do* think I can read minds! I was supposed to read yours and come to the “obvious” conclusion that “never”, in this case, is about fifteen years. Thanks, that clears everything up!
Rowan:”Ah, so you *do* think I can read minds.”
Yes. It’s prose you struggle with.
maznak: “but I also have no problem with other people having different lifestyle from mine.”
Hear hear.
The thing is, I wish BOTH sides of the issue felt this way.
Most people have multiple sexual partners and relationships that include sex throughout their lifetimes. I don’t see
how suddenly the attempt to try to openly and honestly change only the “socially acceptable” timing where you can have multiple partners so long as you’re not seeing them at the same time is such a bad thing. If you’re going to have multiple partners perhaps having multiple partners at the same time is more efficient ?
KenB: Have you been hounded by people criticizing your relationship style? Are there non-monogamous evangelists knocking on your door and trying to give you copies of Opening Up? I’m curious on what you base your impression that non-monogamous people have a problem with your lifestyle. Taking the opportunity to explain theirs does not imply disapproval of yours.
(Although, granted, I have no idea what your lifestyle *is*, and therefore whether I might have a problem with some aspect of it.)
@Rowan: Rick Santorum wants to abolish certain forms of marriage. Does this suggest he wants to impose his view of marriage on you? I think it does, and I don’t think that conclusion depends on ‘Rick Santorum’.
KenB: Let me see if I understand your reasoning here.
1. Sierra supports the abolition of the legal definition of marriage that restricts it to being between a single man and a single woman.
2. Therefore, Sierra supports the abolition of heterosexual, monogamous marriage.
3. Therefore, Sierra has a problem with anyone having a committed, heterosexual, monogamous relationship.
I humbly submit that there are some serious (and, in my opinion, unsupportable) leaps of logic between those statements.
Rowan:
1. Sierra supports the abolition of the legal definition of marriage that restricts it to being between a single man and a single woman.
Like Ken B, I (perhaps mistakenly) read Sierra as saying considerably more than that, i.e. that she (at least tentatively) supports the abolition of *all* legal marriages.
Now, I’m still not sure what she might (or might not) mean by that, exactly. Does that mean that if individuals draw up a marriage contract, the state should not enforce it? Or does it mean that the state should not set the terms of a default contract? Or does it mean that the state should not confer privileges (e.g. tax statuses) that depend on one’s marital status? I think it’s possible she meant all, none or some of these things — or that she meant simply that she was open to some or all of these things but hadn’t really thought through the details. I agree that Ken B could easily be guessing wrong about this part, but I do think he’s right that her words support at least *something* stronger than the interpretation you’re giving.
(Note: I edited the above for clarity a couple of times; if you’ve read it once, it might have changed slightly since then.)
Dimitry,
Ken (@ 2.34): Just to avoid confusion again, you were not talking to me this time?
Yes, that’s right. I was responding to nobody. Sorry for the confusion.
The thing I like about TBQ is no matter how careful you are not to say something, commenters like Rowan will just claim you said it.
“Sierra supports the abolition of the legal definition of marriage that restricts it to being between a single man and a single woman.”
That for instance is precisely what Sierra did not say.
And precisely what I did not assert her her to have said. I in fact explicitly contrasted that position with the one she stated. To quote myself, “It is not the suggestion that we allow gays or threesomes to form domestic partnerships or that they be allowed to marry. It is the suggestion that there be no legal marriages.” Rowan has once again grossly misrepresented what I wrote.
Steve: “Like Ken B, I (perhaps mistakenly) read Sierra as saying considerably more than that, i.e. that she (at least tentatively) supports the abolition of *all* legal marriages”
Yes, and I think I made clear at the beginning and in my remarks to David Wallin that it is possible she meant something else. Her blog writing seems informal (not a criticism) and if she clarifies that, no, she didn’t mean that then I would accept that as a clarification not a correction or a change. But for now I’m going with the words as I read ’em.
Harold,
I infer that you think Sierra is not living morally especially because you think she should be shamed and shunned- is this right?
Yes that’s right. Open marriages, adultery, polygamy (including polyamory), etc should be discouraged.
I would be interested to understand how you define moral.
The whole philosophy or as it pertains to polygamy and polyamory? This isn’t the time to debate the former. And I’ve been pretty clear as to the latter.
This could be either a statement of her right to do so, or an expression that you believe she is actually doing so. You imply that it is the latter.
I imply both.
If so, this would provide justification for the belief that her life is not a moral one, but it is pure speculation. You have no evidence that her kids will be screwed up.
The most troubled people I know come from families where the parents were libertine and selfish, where the father marched girl friend after girl friend through their childrens lives and the mother marched boy friend after boy friend through their lives. Children learn how to form relationships from their families, particularly their parents. The lesson that her children are learning is the one you’ve learned: the expectations of the acceptance of all the relationships you engage, regardless of the all ready existing relationships in your life.
This is probably why Todd suspected a religious motivation – opinions on morality that are not based on evidence often have a religious basis.
So? What’s wrong with basing morality on religion? From what I’ve seen in history, the morality displayed by those who claimed their morals were “scientific” destroyed entired civilizations. The most damaging social policies in the west were proposed by those who claimed “scientific” morality. I’ll take a religiously moral person over a “scientifically” moral person everyday of the week and twice on Sunday.
You also draw false analogies between Mormon polygamy and “open” polyamory.
Actually, I am not. Human nature as it is makes the problems associated with both pretty similar. Jealousies are terrible things and family splitting. You simply want those analogies to be different so you can continue to be a hater against mormons, while celebrating people like Sierra. As I said before, two-faced.
Accepting different forms of consenting relationships…
This is your problem. You just expect people to accept other people’s choices. Our society isn’t based on, nor should it be, acceptance. It’s based on tolerance. In other words, noting that there are very few things that should be forcibly stopped (illegal) and that there are many, many destructive things should not be forcibly stopped. Noting that we should not make certain activities illegal, DOES NOT MEAN ACCEPTANCE. I means tolerance.
Whatever has happened in inner cities has happened without abolishing marriage.
Marriage was discouraged and disincentivized in the inner cities. It is not a very poor parallel. It’s what life looks like without marriage: broken families and broken relationships and libertine and morally degrading.
I think you are getting confused between “marriage” and “relationships”.
I am definitely not confusing these two. Inner city blacks clearly have relationships with each other. There are plenty of relationships that are formed and broken and many of those are broken as a result of the evil programs put in place to “help” them. I think you are confused about the difference between a “marriage” and a “relaitionship”. A marriage is something sacred and the most important of relationships.
The libertine goal of viewing marriage as just another relationship is a foolish endevour and bound for misery for most, if not all, who follow that idea.
KenB: So I made an assertion about ‘a large segment’ and its attitude to ploygamy(sic).
Yes, you did. And you further asserted that this attitude would “never” change significantly, a hypothesis that you continue to back up with precisely zero evidence. This was, and remains, ridiculous: I brought up one counter-example from the last twenty years; there are plenty of others. (A little thing called “divorce” comes to mind: what was the divorce rate in 1912 again?)
The problem isn’t my reading skills, the problem is your armchair historiography.
@DoctorMemory: ” ‘never’ … [which] you continue to back up with precisely zero evidence [more screedy goodness snipped]”
There are those killer reading skills on display again. What did Ken B ‘continue’ to say? Let’s go to tape:
” Agreed: ‘never’ is (obvoiusly) hyperbole. Substitute add ‘in a short enough time frame to make much difference to those like Sierra who want acceptance while they are still raising their children’ after ‘never’ and bask in my concession”
Okay, I’ll give this another shot.
KenB, as I now understand it, your reasoning is:
1. Sierra supports some kind of change(s) relating to the law(s) surrounding marriage.
2. Therefore, Sierra supports the abolition of “marriage”.
(I’m not sure what you mean by “marriage”, actually, since I don’t recall you defining it, so I’m therefore not sure what it is you think Sierra is for abolishing.)
3. Therefore, Sierra has a problem with anyone having a relationship that resembles “marriage”.
(Again, you haven’t defined this “lifestyle” that you think Sierra “has a problem” with, so I’m not sure what it is you believe she is against. Committed relationships? Monogamous relationships? Monogamous committed relationships?)
I still think your logic leaves something to be desired. Actually, if anything, now it’s *more* unsupportable.
A pox on both your houses. Well pox is too strong. More like a mild rash actually.
Let me explain.
Posters like Ken, and possibly Roger, and maybe nobody.really, actively want society to exact an informal price from people like Sierra.
I understand their position, but I think they underestimate or undervalue the pain this causes.
Look at swimmey’s comment for an example.
Understand too that Sierra is not advocating the kind of deceit, betrayal, and mistrust that goes with adultery.
Quite the opposite actually.
But I also draw unflattering conclusions from Sierra’s position on abolshing marriage.
This goes far beyond a simple demand for acceptance.
There is something about it that feels like take that; it is privative.
It is also social engineering on a grand scale.
Sierra too underestimates the costs including the psychological costs to those who value the legitimation and conformity their marriage represents.
I admit I could be wrong about what she means, but that is what I object to.
Anyone here I haven’t ticked off yet?
Rowan
I give up. She wrote “I’d cheerfully vote for the abolition of legal marriage”. And you still cannot see why I conclude she supports the abolition of legal marriage? Instead you make up lists of positions I have never held. For YOU, I’ll go for the pox.
KenB:
Anyone here I haven’t ticked off yet?
Color me not ticked off.
I do think you’ve read more into Sierra’s support for “abolition of marriage” than is plausibly warranted because, as you said, she writes rather informally and might not have meant what you’re reading her as meaning. And even if she did mean that, I think it’s a more defensible position than you seem to think, but that’s a discussion I’ll put aside for now.
On the other hand, I absolutely agree that she must have meant *something* by it, and that Rowan’s reading does not strike me as a natural one.
@Steve: You are right of course I could be reading more into this than she meant, as I have acknowledged all along. My conclusions about Ken et al are much firmer. In part I am going from experience, having had quite a few friends who were not only polyamorous but considerably more ‘wild’ than anything Sierra describes, and I am drawing on my knowledge of their attitudes. This could well be unfair to Sierra. But it is true of SOME poly advocates.
KenB: Perhaps you can explain this post of yours, then?
maznak: “but I also have no problem with other people having different lifestyle from mine.”
Hear hear.
The thing is, I wish BOTH sides of the issue felt this way.
From that I took you to mean you feel that people with a “different” lifestyle to yours (whatever yours is, and whatever “different” is) have a problem with your lifestyle. You said earlier that your basis for that post was Sierra’s statement on legal marriage. Hence my attempts to put your reasoning in clearer words.
Steve: I’m not sure what you mean by my reading of it at this point. My last few comments have been an attempt to paraphrase and sum up KenB’s position, as I understood it.
Steve Landsburg:
Clearly I need to try harder!
I’m so confused. 3 hours to happy hour. That’ll make it all better. Cheers.
HEY! How dare you talk about my mother like that?!?
Sierra’s husband clearly has the best scenario possible. His wife is with another woman (many men’s fantasy) and tells him about it. He ALSO gets to be with a “girlfriend” of his choice, in addition to his wife.
This sounds like the least unpleasant form of polyandry for husbands. Ask husbands to start letting their wives be with other MEN is a much harder task. Many wouldn’t, even if they themselves get to sleep with other women – or hear about their wives lesbian encounters.
Rowan: My apologies if I haven’t been reading carefully enough to follow your argument.
When you wrote:
1. Sierra supports the abolition of the legal definition of marriage that restricts it to being between a single man and a single woman.
I thought you were attempting to paraphrase Sierra’s stated position, and this seemed to be to be a pretty misleading paraphrase. But maybe you were actually paraphrasing your understanding of Ken B’s understanding of Sierra’s position? Or paraphrasing your understanding of some relevant *piece* of Ken’s understanding of Ken B’s understanding of Sierra’s position? I confess to having gotten a little lost here.
So, who complained about this topic being less popular than the math ones?
The inevitable inequality among shared poly families is probably the biggest PR problem that poly marriage faces. I find it hard to believe that children won’t notice even small disparities between the amount of money and time that their mommy or daddy spends with them and the amount they spend with their other families. Certainly, the angst, envy, and bitterness of the children of those with multiple families are among the most enduring themes in fiction.
I am surprised to see this comment about abolishing marriage getting so much derision. It does not seem very different from a sentiment I have seen expressed in Libertarian discussion many times: that the state should get out of the business of marriage altogether. Why is this different?
I hope this is the new math!
“Consensually unconventional”…great phrase. If fiscal conservatives could shed the social baggage they might find a surprising number of converts (or ‘strange bedfellows?). Freedom = freedom. I don’t have to agree with it – in fact that’s the real test of how much you value liberty. Yes kids are a special case and we can speculate on what’s best for them, but unless someone is actively trying to harm them what are we really going to do about it? (OK maybe healing by prayer is the exception.)
Of course I shouldn’t have to *subsidize* it either. An honest question — could someone tell me the difference between marriage and civil union? Seems obvious to me people should be able to do what they want with their *own* assets (e.g. bequeath to whoever they want); but is the debate all about getting the tax break? One can argue that when we’re talking about who has a claim on the assets of *others*, people at least get to vote on that. However I think I too would prefer just keeping the govt out of the business of using the tax code to social engineer, including endorsing certain types of relationships, and focus it on raising needed revenue in the least damaging way. It was always a pretty indirect way of supporting child-raising anyway.
I enjoyed Sierra’s Salon article, but I was surprised to learn that monogamous relationships are simple.
Popular among the Unconventional Conventioneers.
For what it’s worth, I’m primed to support Sierra Black’s choice. She’s doing something that does not have any obvious externalities that I value, and she’s willing to risk opprobrium to do it. Hard not to admire that.
That said, now the challenge is to find ways that her conduct DOES have externalities – that is, to show that convention is not arbitrary, but rather reflects optimal public policy accrued through the experience of millennia, even if the underlying rationale has been forgotten. And I have some sincere concerns along these lines. These concerns will not be affirming to Sierra Black or people in like circumstances. I hate to reward candor with carping, but here are two thoughts for consideration:
1. It’s not uncommon that parents surrender expensive hobbies as they build a family. As rapscallion suggests, one traditional advantage of monogamy was that it enables couples to reduce the amount of resources dedicated to attracting new mates, and redirect those resources to child rearing, etc.
Admittedly, sex can be a very inexpensive form of entertainment. It can be about the most expensive form you can devise. If you regard the ability to have additional sex partners as a kind of “free lunch,” you’re likely to reach one kind of conclusion. If you don’t believe in free lunches, then you may come to regard Sierra Black’s conduct in another light. How expensive is polyamory? Don’t know, but it might be relevant to people’s perceptions here.
I mean the word “expensive” as understood in terms of opportunity costs. For some people, the cost of attracting new mates may be greater than the benefit. But I know seven couples that have broken up when one member (always the man, as it turns out) has discovered that he could not live within the confines of a monogamous heterosexual marriage; perhaps not coincidentally, the man was also coming to terms with his homosexuality. Thus, the opportunity cost of polyamory with a bisexual spouse may be far less than the opportunity cost of trying to maintain monogamy with a bisexual spouse.
In short, monogamy may well be an optimal strategy for MOST people for building wealth and child-rearing. It may not be the optimal strategy for Ms. Black’s family. But to the extent that Ms. Black’s speech undermines a norm that is optimal for the largest number, she may be generating benefits for herself at the expense of society.
2. To the extent that sex is a limited resource, the norm of monogamy enables lower-status (heterosexual) men to gain access to mates. So, what is the externalized cost of polyamory? Well, what is the social consequence of having lots of low-status men with limited access to mates? Given the gender disparities in various parts of the world, we may well find out. I’m not optimistic.
To be blunt, the norm of monogamy may have evolved to promote social stability by helping otherwise undesirable guys get laid. That thought may offend people’s sense of autonomy. But bands of disaffected young men have a way of offending people’s sense of autonomy, too.
Tim:
I am surprised to see this comment about abolishing marriage getting so much derision. It does not seem very different from a sentiment I have seen expressed in Libertarian discussion many times: that the state should get out of the business of marriage altogether. Why is this different?
I’m equally surprised. As I’ve said in earlier comments, I can think of many different ways to interpret Sierra’s comment; depending on the interpretation I might either agree with it or disagree, but in no case would I read it as antagonistic to the rights of others. (I might or might not think that it was detrimental to the rights of others, which is related to the fact that I might or might not disagree with it, but thinking it’s a bad idea is not the same thing as thinking it’s antagonistic.)
Ken: You believe that Sierra will screw up her children, citing personal experience as evidence. Does Sierra’s life look like she and her partner “march a succession of boyfriends and girlfriends” through their lives? We learn a lot of lessons from our parents. One that Sierra’s children will learn is about honesty. I honestly don’t know how succesful these relationships will be long-term. But I do know that a whole lot of “normal” relationships do not work out. The evidence seems to be against stable liftime pairing. I see no reason to assume that the children will turn out any the worse. We also have first hand testimony that so far, the kids are alright.
I have expressed no opinion of mormons. Your take on the religiously moral also depends on the religious belief, I presume? Polygamy is moral under old-style-mormanism (although not for 100 years or more) and Islam, but you do not defend these as religiously moral.
Do you really think that Sierra’s situation is pretty similar to that of the polygamous women in their homemade dresses we recently saw on TV after their husbands were prosecuted? I see a whole lot of differences. I also think that the inner city problems cannot mainly be placed at the door of policies discouraging marriage. What children need is a stable, loving, caring environment where they feel absolutely secure. Anything else matters little. I do not see why this cannot be offered in polyamorous relationships.
Harold,
citing personal experience as evidence.
It’s not just my personal experience. The statistics on children from traditional nuclear families vs. those not are pretty clear evidence. As are statistics on the background of those who have severe problems in their lives.
I honestly don’t know how succesful these relationships will be long-term. But I do know that a whole lot of “normal” relationships do not work out.
The same thing could have been said of all those people who are represented in those statistics I refer to above. I don’t know how Sierra’s children will turn out either. I hope they turn out well. But I am not as hopeful for them as I would be if Sierra were a committed monogamist.
I see no reason to assume that the children will turn out any the worse.
You mean except for the statistical evidence that surrounds people’s lives who are not raised in nuclear families vs. non-nuclear families.
I have expressed no opinion of mormons.
Wrong. You said “You also draw false analogies between Mormon polygamy and “open” polyamory.” You claim they are very different implying Mormon polygamy is somehow worse than “open” polygamy.
Your take on the religiously moral also depends on the religious belief, I presume?
Yes. However, while I find Mormon polygamy to be immoral, I would still prefer the average polygamist mormon over the average “scientific” moralist. That many religions display some bad tendecies does not in any way negate the historical fact of the horror inflicted on this world by “scientific” moralists.
Do you really think that Sierra’s situation is pretty similar to that of the polygamous women in their homemade dresses we recently saw on TV after their husbands were prosecuted?
I see a lot of differences as well, in the details. On the whole, though, polygamy and polyamory do not end well and certainly not as well as monogamy. Poly-xxx means splitting loyalties in the setting of intimate family.
Ken,
I would indeed celebrate polygamy, mormon or not, if it were consensual. Why on earth shouldn’t I? You would do well not to assume hypocrisy before you have any idea what another’s stance is.
“Additionally, I am an atheist, so you are wrong when you claim that all you’ve heard are objections for “purely religious reasons”.
I said nothing of the sort. Your self-righteous proclamations of immorality sound exactly like what a religious fundamentalist would say, and your lack of a supporting argument seemed to be the smoking gun, so I inquired as to whether religion was indeed your motivation. I stand by that; your comments have been indistinguishable from fundamentalist religion.
You seem to have had some personal experience with this, so perhaps that is the basis for your claims of immorality, but it certainly isn’t sound reasoning (at least none that you’ve provided). I can’t think of a non-religiously based argument against polyamory, but I would be interested to hear one.
Your appeal to studies is thoroughly unconvincing without providing the source, or at least a more relevant description. Non-nuclear families could mean many different things.
For instance, I could (correctly, I think) state that black men tend to make better NBA players than white men, but if we’re discussing only a particular kind of white man (say, Europeans over 7 feet tall) that statement may not hold true (and may be reversed). Your studies, at least as you have characterized them, are just not that relevant here.
Ken – “I would still prefer the average polygamist mormon over the average “scientific” moralist. That many religions display some bad tendecies does not in any way negate the historical fact of the horror inflicted on this world by “scientific” moralists.”
But you’ve already backed up your claims with science.
“The statistics on children from traditional nuclear families vs. those not are pretty clear evidence. As are statistics on the background of those who have severe problems in their lives.”
So name one way in which you are not Hitler. Also, please clarify the difference between logic/evidence-based morality and scientific morality.
Oh my, sorry for dropping the H bomb. I don’t think it was irrelevant, as Ken was referring to the eugenics movement, so I hope it’s taken in good humor.
I watcbed the 20/20, and Sierra did not explain what she meant when advocated abolishing legal marriage. There are several possibilities, but they all involve changing the rights of others, and not just herself and her family.
I can’t think of much more to say to Ken that has not already been said. Any studies would require comparison between the relationship options under discussion, and I think data are thin on the ground. You cannot say monogomy is statistically better than all other relationships, including failed ones, and then conclude that monogamy is statistically better than all relationships.
On abolishing legal marriage, I assumed this meant the legal aspects – tax, inheritance, ownership of joint resources etc. One could argue that the current support for marriage is social engineering on a grand scale. We are just so used to it that we see it as a default situation, and the protections offered as a right. I do not see that removing state involvement would restrict anyones rights – they could still have a religious or secular marriage service, and make any private commitments and vows they wished. As I said above, I believe there are very good practical grounds for keeping legal marriage.
Todd,
I would indeed celebrate polygamy, mormon or not, if it were consensual. Why on earth shouldn’t I?
Because it’s immoral.
You would do well not to assume hypocrisy before you have any idea what another’s stance is.
You would do well to recognize that you are in fact hypocrite. Would you celebrate your wife taking multiple partners? You certainly wouldn’t celebrate that, but you celebrate others doing the same thing. This is exactly the point of the link I provided above. People who live their lives well fail to preach what they practice because you notice that you have to say PC things to signal that they are in fact open minded (despite not believing what they are saying) because “[u]pper classes give lip service to whatever they are supposed to endorse, and then mostly ignore it to do what helps them personally.”
“Additionally, I am an atheist, so you are wrong when you claim that all you’ve heard are objections for “purely religious reasons”.
I said nothing of the sort.
Todd’s comment on 4/19 @ 2240: My guess is that those who find fault with Sierra’s lifestyle have purely religious reasons for doing so.
Todd, if you are this unaware of yourself or just this willing to lie, I really don’t have any more time and energy to have a discussion with you, including responding to the rest of this comment, which I didn’t read, once I read your blatant hypocrisy/lie.
Professor Landsburg,
When telling your readers that your family and Sierra’s camp together every summer, you went to the trouble of adding the parenthetical “along with quite a few other friends.” You might wish to examine the impulse that led you to include this superfluous information and what it really says about your acceptance of the Black’s choices. I will take it on faith that Sierra and her family are “good people”; however, should Sierra and her husband choose to do a cost-benefit analysis of their marital arrangement, I would not assume that the how the children might be doing as adolescents has anything much to do with how they will fare as they mature.
You would do well to recognize that you are in fact hypocrite. Would you celebrate your wife taking multiple partners? You certainly wouldn’t celebrate that, but you celebrate others doing the same thing.
Ken: You would do well to check your assumptions. There is no reason to believe that everyone (or anyone) commenting here in support of Sierra’s lifestyle or views is monogamous themselves.
Ken:
You would do well to recognize that you are in fact hypocrite. Would you celebrate your wife taking multiple partners? You certainly wouldn’t celebrate that, but you celebrate others doing the same thing.
This, I think, is way out of line. First of all, there is no hypocrisy in celebrating diversity. I celebrate my colleague Michael Wolkoff’s enthusiasm for tennis, even though I have no desire to play tennis myself. Is that hypocrisy?
And second, as Rowan points out, you have (as far as I am aware) not the slightest idea how the people you’re responding to run their personal lives, and hence no basis for your implicit assumptions.
Roger:
I watcbed the 20/20, and Sierra did not explain what she meant when advocated abolishing legal marriage
I think this is probably because a) any discussion of abolishing legal marriage would have been quite off topic and b) if 20/20 *were* to do a segment on abolishing legal marriage, they’d be (I hope) interviewing lawyers, economists and other experts, not a blogger who (while admittedly very bright and insightful) has never claimed to be an expert on these matters.
In general, I continue to think that far too much is being made of a single offhand comment that Sierra herself never claimed was a well-thought-out or terribly well defined position. There are a lot of policies I’d be open to considering, and that I might mention I’d be open to considering, without feeling like I was obliged to defend them in detail, especially when there was already an interesting discussion taking place on another topic entirely.
Ken,
I am astounded by your senseless ranting. As is apparent from even what you quoted, I was asking a question–not making an assertion, as you have charged. The fact that you cut it off where you did implies that you were well aware of this.
If there is any rational reason behind your insistence that polyamory is immoral, and I am increasingly doubtful that there is, I would be sincerely interested to hear it.
Ken: Let me expand on Todd’s comment. Todd said this:
If there is any rational reason behind your insistence that polyamory is immoral, and I am increasingly doubtful that there is, I would be sincerely interested to hear it.
I want to add that “That’s immoral!” is not an argument. Your arguments are welcome (and as you know, I’ve appreciated many of your arguments in the past). If you have a general theory of morality from which this follows, I’m genuinely interested in hearing about it. But in the absence of any relevant theory, this is not the place for this kind of arbitrary judgment.
Sierra can explain herself further on her blog, if she wishes. As it is, her opinions on marriage are confusing.
Steve, you seem to be saying that you don’t want Ken saying that something is immoral unless he also posts a “general theory of morality” to back it up. But he is expressing an extremely commonplace opinion, and it hardly needs explaining.
Roger:
But he is expressing an extremely commonplace opinion, and it hardly needs explaining.
It seems to me that there are an awful lot of commonplace opinions that demand a lot more dissection than they usually get. That, in fact, is the driving philosophy of this blog.
Ken did give some supporting arguments, such as “I think what she’s doing will end badly.” And “The statistics on children …”
Martin-2: “So name one way in which you are not Hitler.”
Oh! Oh! I can! Hitler has not been insulted on this thread by Martin-2!
@Steve: Re http://www.thebigquestions.com/2012/04/19/hi-sierra/#comment-48934
Look, I have criticized Ken explicitly on this thread, so I am not defending his position. But your remark is frankly inconsistent. You wrote “They’re good people”, a straightforward moral judgement, and provided no general theory of morality in support.
Whatever. Just don’t start feeling conciliatory and saying things like, “Having re-read the comments, I’m coming to the conclusion that nobody.really is Hitler….”
@nobody.really: Old news!
Actually I think that while you’re wrong here, you’ve made
some good arguments.
As far as I know, statistics or published studies on children raised in Western, openly non-monogamous families don’t exist yet, so I’d love to know Ken’s source on them if he’s got one.
To introduce a more educated opinion into the “Think of the children!” line of discussion: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/love-without-limits/201103/polyamory-and-children
Ken B:
But your remark is frankly inconsistent. You wrote “They’re good people”, a straightforward moral judgement, and provided no general theory of morality in support.
I made an offhand comment; Ken made a controversial statement that is the centerpiece of his remarks. It seems to me this creates a difference in the required level of argument.
Rowan: Have you read the paper on which that Psychology Today column is based? It’s a series of anecdotes, collected from people who agreed to be interviewed, with apparently no attempt to control for the obvious selection problems, the correlation-versus-causality problems, etc. (See Chapter 13 of ##tbq for examples of good approaches to such problems.) It infuriates me that people get paid to do this kind of “research”.
No, I didn’t have access to the paper. I grant you that it’s not a quantitative paper, but I think the blog post overall reinforces my point that hard data on these kinds of families doesn’t exist yet (or at least, didn’t exist a year ago, when it was written).
SL:I made an offhand comment; Ken made a controversial statement that is the centerpiece of his remarks. It seems to me this creates a difference in the required level of argument
Oh piffle Steve. You were advancing a reason for readers who might be leery to accept their ‘unconventional relationship choices’. The phrase I quoted came as the summing up of the para preceding it, which was you vouching for their goodness and decency. I can assure you that good and nice people do this, which surely must be relevant to any judgment. That’s the gravamen of the piece, not an offhand remark.
Ken B: But when I said “They’re good people”, I was conveying a piece of information that might not otherwise have been available, namely: I know these people and they generally behave in ways that most of us recognize as good. When Ken says “That’s immoral”, I don’t see any information being conveyed, or any argument being made, or any other contribution to the discussion.
Ken B,
Steve’s comment, I believe, is reasonably interpreted as a statement that (1) he does not find the Blacks’ lifestyle immoral and (2) polyamory aside, they are good people in the usual sense of the word. You are asking Steve to defend at length (1) but the main point of the statement, I think, is (2) which shouldn’t need lengthy argumentation. As Steve has said, (1) is mostly inconsequential, a personal opinion that Steve was not offering as an argument.
Additionally, the burden of proof is on the one who deems a behavior immoral, not the one who deems it moral. Or do you believe that all actions are to be assumed immoral unless they can be proven not to be?
@Todd: I am NOT asking Steve to defend his judgment. Nor do I doubt it.
As for the rest, perhaps you have confused me with Ken. You wouldn’t be the first (he must be devilishly handsome.)
OK, maybe I am missing something, but what then is wrong with this set of exchanges?
Abbot: Why shouldn’t we ban the Nazi parade through Skokie?
Costello: Because they have free speech.
Abbot: Why shouldn’t we celebrate the Nazi parade through Skokie?
Costello: Because it’s immoral.
Anyone really object here? Anyone think Costello has not made a point?
That he has made neither argument nor conveyed information?
Because I think he’s making a distinction between allowing and celebrating.
Ken was not asked why we shouldn’t allow or accept polygamy (sic), but why shouldn’t we celebrate it.
Okay, KenB, I’ll bite: then what is Ken’s definition of “celebration”, and in which comments here does he observe this “celebratory” attitude which he is fighting so hard against?
@Rowan: Ken responded to Todd:
Previous comments had already revealed Ken was unwilling to go past legal toleration of polyamory. This is why my first A/C exchange was about a legal ban.
If you scroll back Ken is pretty hardcore, and objects even to ‘acceptance’ — he wants to shun her not just quietly ignore her.
Ken B,
When you called out Steve for being inconsistent, I took you to mean that if he expected Ken to provide the reason for his assertion (polyamory is immoral), then Steve should also provide the reason for his own assertion (the Blacks’ are good people). Unless I have missed something, you ARE asking Steve to defend his judgment, in order to be consistent, given that Steve wants Ken to defend his.
And I’m pretty sure your charge of inconsistency here is wrong anyway, for reasons both Steve and I have provided.
I’d think that the default, in the absence of proof, should be that you don’t assume that actions are either immoral or moral at all.
If you do anyway, a moral judgment of good should require as much of a “general theory of morality” as a moral judgment of bad. It’s inconsistent to claim that one requires such a theory but the other does not.
I apologize for not reading through all the comments so if this point was made already, ignore it.
Any statistics for nuclear vs. non-nuclear families should be viewed with the utmost scrutiny. If we want to compare delicious apples with mandarin oranges, that is a straight forward comparison. If we want to compare Delicious Apples with all other fruits it seems like a silly comparison.
When it comes with nuclear vs non-nuclear family statistics I fear and expect most of the statistics to group all nonnuclear families together, and I also expect not well collected enough to represent (with a large random sample)the specific sort of choices Sierra and her family are living.
Ken Arromdee:
I’d think that the default, in the absence of proof, should be that you don’t assume that actions are either immoral or moral at all.
If you do anyway, a moral judgment of good should require as much of a “general theory of morality” as a moral judgment of bad. It’s inconsistent to claim that one requires such a theory but the other does not.
Agreed.
On the other hand, when I’m describing someone to you, I won’t hesitate to use phrases like “She’s a good person” to convey the information that she’s the sort of person I’d expect you to recognize as good.
@Steve, Todd:
I think Ken did in fact adumbrate a theory for his judgment. Let me try to summarize it. (Note to Rowan and other proof texters: I am epitomizing here). Ken is using a Kantian perspective of a universal rule. Poly behavior will adversely affect children, by confusing them and destabilizing their affective relations. It will also adversely affect the participants over time, as it will destabilize their long term relationships. (This will further harm kids.) Thus they are failing each other, and inevitably burdening the rest of us. Furhter, lauding this behavior will have marginal effects, inducing more people to damage their own relationships by being drawn into the lifestyle.
All these arguments were made before the brief exchange to which Steve objected.
[@Ken: How’d I do?]
@Ken Aromdee: Exactly.
I agree it seems most sensible to presume all actions are amoral until one is able to run them through a consistent filter.
Question for either Ken (or anyone else in a mythical universe where all names are possible): Supposing Sierra truly believes her choices are in the best interests of her kids (but you do not), is “immoral” the right term, as opposed to merely foolish / misguided? Does a moral judgment require intent or can it be fairy rendered purely in effect? [Insert crude analogy of murder vs. manslaughter.]
You also might flesh out better how we’re “burdened”, in a sense other than one we impose on ourselves such as in the health care debate. Unless you’re literally talking about something like a higher propensity for crime, it seems like you’re required to invent some rights here, like to a bigger pool of well-adjusted potential mates etc.
I do agree with what I take to be Ken B’s main point, that there’s a meaningful difference between quiet / respectful tolerance and acceptance, with the latter denoting a sharing / endorsing of one’s values which is certainly not something one can ‘demand’ of others. Ms. Black would presumably say that’s not her purpose, which leaves others wondering ‘why so public then?’ I can see how there may be value in raising awareness of things that are more common than commonly realized. The concern may be that high-profile anecdotes can just make things seem more common than they really are. In any case, the only reason I can see for any “lauding” here (if anyone has actually done that) is not of the underlying personal behavioral choices, but if some view her taking a public stance on this as courageous for its own sake. Those who are genuinely concerned for, say, the kids’ privacy may view it more as self-serving.
“Question for either Ken”
Thou shalt have no other Ken before me.
I am reluctant to delve further into “Ken B speculatively explains Ken” but the burden I had in mind, and the rationale, and attributed to Ken is this. We want in society long term affective relationships. (That’s high falutin for people growing old together.) There are clearly social benefits to that. If polyamorous relationships lack the requisite stability, that will impose a cost on the participants and on the rest of society. Agree or not it is an argument. In fact it’s Steve’s favourite kind: a consequentialist argument. And Ken made it early on.
Off topic, let me add this ‘old couples growing old together is a good thing’ is one of the best and most conservative arguments I can make for legalizing gay marriage.
Ken B:
If polyamorous relationships lack the requisite stability…..
Is there any reason to expect this? I’m not aware of any useful research on this topic (though I’m sadly aware of much garbage posing as research), so the best I can do is resort to my own casual observations. I have a pretty wide circle of friends, some monogamous, some poly, and it seems to me that long-term stability is about equally common among both groups. I can see reasons why you might expect otherwise in either direction, but my own casual observation is that those reasons seem to roughly cancel out.
I think I count as a Ken, bu not as “either Ken”. Ah well.
A good answer to this is that harming someone out of recklessness can be immoral just like harming someone out of malice can be immoral. If she does bad things, mistakenly believes that those bad things are moral, and holds those mistaken beliefs because she is reckless about what she believes, then she is still acting immorally. Most “bad guys” think they are doing good in their own mind, after all.
Someone who does bad things because of a justifiable mistake isn’t acting immorally, but not every mistake is justifiable.
Also, part of the context of this is what attitude we should take about her lifestyle, not just her personally. If she mistakenly believes she is doing good, and the mistake isn’t her fault, then we can’t condemn her for “being immoral”, but we can still condemn her actions and insist that they cause harm and should not be imitated.
Ken Arromdee:
If she mistakenly believes she is doing good, and the mistake isn’t her fault, then we can’t condemn her for “being immoral”, but we can still condemn her actions and insist that they cause harm and should not be imitated.
You’d need a lot more than a belief that her actions cause harm. We condone actions that cause harm all the time. Nobody (I’m pretty sure) believes that there’s a moral obligation to always do that which is best for your children, regardless of the cost to yourself.
I see people all the time who harm their children by, for example, not exposing them to ideas that I believe are beautiful. But it’s a long way from there to labeling these folks “immoral”.
@Steve: re http://www.thebigquestions.com/2012/04/19/hi-sierra/comment-page-2/#comment-49098
First, I do hope you haven’t fallen into the trap of thinking the case I laid out is mine. It is my summary of Ken’s.
I have no evidence for the notion. In fact of the 3 longest lasting relationships I know of, I suspect at least one involved ‘wife swapping’ back in the day. The other is a gay ‘marriage’ of about 45 years.
Ken B:
First, I do hope you haven’t fallen into the trap of thinking the case I laid out is mine.
I had not in fact fallen into this trap, but I see how the wording of my response makes it look like I had. Sorry for that!
We’re now touching on a way I think about this: call me low-falutin’, but I find arguments alleging a “burden” – at least in a sense we might actually consider doing something about – more compelling when involving ‘positive’ actions that harm others, as opposed to someone not taking an action that could’ve benefited others. While Ms. Black’s situation surely can be framed either way, it strikes me as more a case of the latter. For example, she could’ve simply decided her lifestyle preferences were more conducive to remaining single with multiple non-committal relationships (sequential or simultaneous)…which is pretty common. Of course she did choose to have / raise kids under those circumstances, but I’ve observed a general agreement on this blog that having kids — at least by people who *want* and value those kids — tends to have positive externalities. It’s not clear how introducing a marriage that provides a consistent father presence to that equation turns it net negative. So is it fair to say that the charge at that point essentially becomes that by not giving up those other relationships she’s depriving society of some (unspecified) benefits?
I would also say most “bad guys” (and probably everyone) are good at *rationalizing* the things they do. Instead of putting ourselves in a position of having to define at what point consistency in holding and applying one’s views become “reckless” = immoral, maybe it’s better to fall back on the lawyerly notion of whether a “prudent person” would have a “reasonable basis” for thinking their beliefs and actions will have good consequences?
@iceman: Until now I assumed English was your first language. Live and learn! :) However, celebrating a lifestyle is a ‘positive’ action.
Ken B: Any worth your points may have is being obscured by their vitriolic presentation.
Also, I believe you are confounding discussion of the morality of Sierra’s lifestyle itself with discussion of the morality of “celebrating” (by which I take you to mean “encouraging”) Sierra’s lifestyle. The first must be decided before the second can be evaluated.
I said you can call me low-falutin’, not illiterate. I already agreed there’s an important difference between tolerance and acceptance / celebration. But we were talking about “burdens”, and if you really believe there’s a net burden being imposed on you (or whoever you’re paraphrasing), it’s not clear why you’re even bound to tolerance. You’re suggesting “celebrating” (e.g. arguably the effect of a puff piece on 20/20) can increase the burden by encouraging more of the behavior. Rowan’s saying that presumes there is a net burden in the first instance, which is what I was probing.
Here’s the question again, in my native tongue: is there also an important difference between someone doing something that involves a net negative externality, and someone doing something that is net positive but perhaps not as positive as if they had chosen to do more / do it in a different way?
Ooh how about this — my taking $5 from you is a burden; is my giving you $5 also a burden if I could have given you $10?
A pre-emptive strike — on this thread I probably should’ve qualified “probing” with “(so to speak)”
Rowan – if you’ve visited this blog before you know that the thrill of being the potential subject of Ken B’s incisive and acerbic wit at any time is part of the price of admission…and worth every penny.
Actually he often makes good points (which of course just means I often agree).
@Rowan: And you are confounding explanation and clarification with endorsement. (And I’m very sorry if logic burns you like acid.)
@iceman: I can think of lots of things that burden us, but which we should tolerate. Offensive speech is a good case in point. Smoking in your own home is another. And nobody.really made an argument here about raising children, which may or may not be correct, but is coherent.
I think there IS an important difference in your 5 and 10 example. And assuming the difference in your behavior was otherwise benign or immaterial, I would celebrate you for choosing the more generous one. I would also favor ways to split that extra wealth with you to encourage you to do it more often. Cue Steve on cutting capital gains taxes …
Until now I assumed English was your first language. Live and learn! :)
…
(And I’m very sorry if logic burns you like acid.)
You clearly have a different definition of “logic” than I do. I would call those statements insults — not to mention inflammatory, unnecessary, and pointless, unless your point is to distract from the topic at hand.
@Rowan: “inflammatory, unnecessary, and pointless”
Pretty much what I’d say about all those posts where you made up stuff I never said and said I said them. And made up things Sierra didn’t say and said she said them.
Ah yes, here we have Ken B’s other favourite tactic — making vague statements that have strong implications, then accusing anyone who draws those implications of making up things he “didn’t say”. Now I’m sorry I didn’t write down my mental prediction that this would be next in my comment above…
Rowan wrote this:
So a claim about what Sierra said, and about an alleged trail of reasoning I based on it.
But of course as I have pointed out repeatedly Sierra said she wanted the abolition of legal marriage, which is nothing like Rowan’s point 1. The whole thing is just Rowan’s confusion and confabulation foisted upon me, baselessly.
Ken B, I posted that specifically to *check with you* that I was understanding your reasoning correctly — much like you posted earlier trying to elucidate Ken’s reasoning. Apparently it’s perfectly okay for you to do that sort of thing, but not for anyone else?
@Rowan: Let’s split the difference as I am sure this exchange is boring everyone. It is certainly boring me. Stipulated: You completely misrepresented me, and did it repeatedly. I was snarky to you.
Ken B and Rowan: I quite understand why each of wants the last word on this, but I do think that Ken B is right that it’s gotten boring for everyone else. The record of who said what when is all here for anyone who’s really interested to sort through, if any such people exist, and I think there’s no need to rehash it further. You’re both cheerfully invited to continue with spirited and contentious debate about substantive issues but I think it’s time to shelve the “Who misrepresented whom?” discussions and related matters.
It reminds me of the catholic priest and the protestant vicar arguing about their religion. “All right, all right”, says the priest. “Lets agree to differ. You do it your way, and I’ll do it Gods way.”
@Harold: ;-)
Now for something completely different:
We might agree on examples of net social burdens we should tolerate (a distinctly non-utilitarian position?), but I’m not sure we’ve established any yet…and the question on the table was, is polyamory one of them?
– Free speech – clearly we believe this is a net social plus (and personally I don’t worry much about ‘offensive’ words but actions, which are punishable; in fact this blog proves that I can derive the most entertainment value from statements I may find objectionable, as they stimulate the discussion).
– Smoking at home – I presume this is about the health care costs = burden-we-choose-to-impose-on-ourselves (which came up on a recent post).
– Polyamory – I agree nobody.really articulated the case as well as could be, but my question remains do we think having kids under those circumstances is really net negative, or just less positive than if the parents made all of our preferred lifestyle choices – i.e. the difference between taking your $5 or giving you $5 instead of $10.
I’d add that it could be most of the search costs are in finding the one stable mate who shares in the child-raising, and from there the costs diminish. Also IMHO kids are more resilient than we often give them credit for. Most of us can probably think of things our parents did that we vowed not to emulate. Lots of influences out there, and it takes a village right?
BTW nobody.really also proposed an interesting (if indelicate) negative channel sans kids – “To be blunt, the norm of monogamy may have evolved to promote social stability by helping otherwise undesirable guys get laid.” A stronger argument for legalizing prostitution? And there will always be unattractive women too, so couldn’t polyamory simply increase the options within all strata of ‘desirability? The presumption here seems to be that desirability is less important and frequency more important for males than females. (‘To be blunt, barring any social stigma desirable guys will nail anyone in sight so the undesirable women won’t need it from the undesirable guys.’) All of which may be true. Makes me really wonder how ugly Mormon guys survived back in the day.
@iceman: I think there’s another issue lurking here which I will drag out into the open only because I like causing trouble. There is a really important difference between polygamy and polyamory.
First there is the practical aspect. Polygamy, as widely practiced in the world, is accompanied by rules that make the whole thing tough on women. It will be difficult to deal with this in our society if we simply legalize polygamy, which will essentially mean legalizing a certain kind of oppressive polygyny. (Can you hear the howls yet?)
On a theoretical level, marriage involves the community and common law in ways sex alone does not. Maybe not in some imaginary libertarian future, but in society as it is now, everywhere in the world, this is true. Enforcing contracts, presumptions of privilege, etc. So the considerations for messing with it are different. (More howls.) In short while your sex life is really none of my business, that may not be true with your marriage. [Please not I have not stated my opinion either way.]
I think n.r’s argument is a lot stronger applied to polygamy.
“I think n.r.’s argument is a lot stronger applied to polygamy.”
Agreed, at least where, as you indicate, in practice it’s really “polygyny” (another new term for me!). Not sure who would ‘howl’ at calling that oppressive? This was the gist of my last paragraph above, and why I hypothesized the mythical ugly Mormon guy. (None of the Romneys would seem at risk here.)
I suppose if the rules were applied symmetrically, the social implications of polygamy vs. polyamory wouldn’t be too different. Perhaps fear of commitment = fewer such relationships.
“In short while your sex life is really none of my business, that may not be true with your marriage.”
This is where I asked sincerely (of anyone) what the difference is between marriage and civil union? Is it all about the tax break? Please advise. Again, it seems obvious to me people should be able to bequeath etc. their *own* assets as they see fit – to your point about contracts and common law. But if we’re talking about who has a coercive claim on the assets of *others* (i.e. taxpayers), that seems like an issue which at a minimum people get to vote on. Is their more to your reference to “the community”? And again I qualify all of this with a preference for using the tax code to raise needed revenue in the least destructive way, and not for endorsing certain types of relationships.