It’s clear that polyamory is having a moment, albeit one that—as with many phenomena these days—exists more in the media than in the world at large. Think of it as the interpersonal version of a show like Succession, which became the subject of endless think pieces, despite having a peak viewership six times smaller than that of a regular-season NFL game. By this analogy, a Brooklyn polycule is “Connor’s Wedding” and normal marriages are a Chiefs–Steelers game.

Nonetheless, these things have a way of trickling down into society itself over time—such has been the trajectory of changing sexual mores in America since the 1960s. And this has more broadly been the promise of much postwar liberalism: that we can eat our bohemian cake and have it too, without losing the comfort and security of bourgeois society. Thus, with polyamory, anyone can live like Jules et Jim, minus the tragedy at the end. …

But let me adduce an even more serious charge against polyamory: despite its sex-positive presentation, it is contrary, and perhaps even hostile, to the spirit of Eros. Its true god is not Venus or Bacchus but Bentham. And it is oriented less toward unbridled sensuality and hedonism than toward the endless proceduralism and rule-making of a union local in search of a quorum for new delegates.

[Whether or not you agree with Polansy’s premises or conclusions, his essay is a joy to read. It is one of the best essays I’ve read in a while. I also happen to agree with Polansky in this instance, but will look forward to reading more of his work. — Ed]