Polyamorists Can’t Solve the Problem of Self-Delusion

In the past few years, thanks to journalists, TikTok, and television, the word “polyamory,” or as some of its proponents call it, “ethical non-monogamy,” has entered mainstream American discourse. The word—itself an ungainly combination of a Greek prefix and a Latin root—denotes an equally unsuitable joining of two (or more) people who wish not to be bound by the obligations of fidelity. Kay Hymowitz comments on a recent spate of articles on the phenomenon:

How could polyamory be ethical? First, partners are supposed to be completely honest with each other. They are not hiding their other relationships; therefore, they argue, they are not cheating. Second, they have frank conversations about emotions like jealousy and fear of abandonment designed to anticipate and respect a partner’s emotions. . . . Though few in the polyamory lobby admit it, this means successful non-monogamy requires a particular kind of high-functioning person. They must be exceptionally high in conscientiousness and executive functioning, and exceptionally low in impulsivity.

Geoffrey Miller, a married, non-monogamous professor of evolutionary psychology at the University of New Mexico, wasn’t joking when he said that polyamory benefits from modern inventions like contraception, STI testing, cities with a wide selection of educated partners—and Google calendar.

[Yet] as educated and conscientious as many polyamorists may be, they cannot solve the problem of self-delusion. People don’t just lie to their partners; they lie to themselves. They often aren’t sure what they really want today, not to mention what they’ll want next month.

Read more at Institute for Family Studies

More about: American society, Family, Sexual ethics

Israel Just Sent Iran a Clear Message

Early Friday morning, Israel attacked military installations near the Iranian cities of Isfahan and nearby Natanz, the latter being one of the hubs of the country’s nuclear program. Jerusalem is not taking credit for the attack, and none of the details are too certain, but it seems that the attack involved multiple drones, likely launched from within Iran, as well as one or more missiles fired from Syrian or Iraqi airspace. Strikes on Syrian radar systems shortly beforehand probably helped make the attack possible, and there were reportedly strikes on Iraq as well.

Iran itself is downplaying the attack, but the S-300 air-defense batteries in Isfahan appear to have been destroyed or damaged. This is a sophisticated Russian-made system positioned to protect the Natanz nuclear installation. In other words, Israel has demonstrated that Iran’s best technology can’t protect the country’s skies from the IDF. As Yossi Kuperwasser puts it, the attack, combined with the response to the assault on April 13,

clarified to the Iranians that whereas we [Israelis] are not as vulnerable as they thought, they are more vulnerable than they thought. They have difficulty hitting us, but we have no difficulty hitting them.

Nobody knows exactly how the operation was carried out. . . . It is good that a question mark hovers over . . . what exactly Israel did. Let’s keep them wondering. It is good for deniability and good for keeping the enemy uncertain.

The fact that we chose targets that were in the vicinity of a major nuclear facility but were linked to the Iranian missile and air forces was a good message. It communicated that we can reach other targets as well but, as we don’t want escalation, we chose targets nearby that were involved in the attack against Israel. I think it sends the message that if we want to, we can send a stronger message. Israel is not seeking escalation at the moment.

Read more at Jewish Chronicle

More about: Iran, Israeli Security