So, where does this come from? I understand monogamy; polyandry; polygamy and queerness. Polyamory sounds like, what's the word? Libertine (-ness) ? Not very convincing. We used to say people were promiscuous if they were of that persuasion. Is this the new defense of that animalistic behavior? Sorry. I don't get it... I have a writers group meeting to enjoy now...
Neuman.

嗨,劳拉!
我试图登录评论即将播出的无政府秀(第一次播出是在2015年，当时我独自一人)。进不去，只好从这条路走。希望我的评论能被发表，我是这样说的:在这个人类时代的后期，在我看来，无政府状态的事情已经被有意或无意地尝试过，并且发现不足。我知道，这太老套了。但让我们从历史和逻辑上来看我的断言(如果这在我们的理性世界中是可能的)。在有政府之前，是无政府状态。快进到宗教的出现，镇压和谋杀仍然存在，但从人类残忍的泥潭中出现了一些秩序甚至文明的表象。无论你是支持还是反对宗教影响，它开始发挥某种程度(被迫)的人性，因此是未知的。复杂性开始抬头，甚至在教会的保留下，科学和技术出现了，并开始进一步改善人类的状况。现在，让我们假设无政府状态从前宗教和前科学时代一直到现在。 Where do we suppose we would be? Certainly not on the moon; and, probably not even in outer space. Maybe not even here. And that is succinctly my point. If we have no form of governance, we have little impetus towards self-restraint.

I always enjoy Ian Shoales' wrap-ups to the program. But this time, he had it right. After exploring so many complicated angles on human relationships, perhaps "bitter solitude" is in fact preferable.

Having once subscribed to the idea of soulmates, eventually settling for someone who was madly interested in me (for a moment, anyway), settling into marriage with that person only to be divorced by her four years later, followed by a rebound relationship, and a decade of solitude since — only at middle age do I now find myself coming to the conclusion that the urge toward romantic or intimate relationships in general seems to be driven by the biological imperative to reproduce. Once a person ages beyond that, at least I just wind up shaking my head, wondering what the whole thing or big deal was about in the first place — the having to possess a person, reveal ourselves to them, merge with them, always have them at home for us.

乡村歌手娜奥米·贾德曾在一次电台采访中说:“孤独是创造力最好的朋友。”只有在孤独中，我才发现自己可以写小说，而独立出版小说将成为我下一个非常意想不到的职业。如果我还没离婚，谁知道我还会做什么苦差事来支付账单和满足配偶。此外，我现在似乎能够在小说中创造出比在现实世界中体验到的更令人满意的关系。唯一缺少的是身体上的陪伴和满足。但就像许多其他事情一样，年龄也在导致它褪色…我不再介意。

I second your remark concerning a show on solitude. It appears that few people know (or care) what that means. It also seems to me that privacy evokes little interest as an alternative to being constantly connected.

The notion of polyamory takes me back to relative childhood---I had not recently thought of or remembered the writings of Robert Rimmer: The Harrad Experiment and The Rebellion of Yale Marratt. Actually, the books belonged to my older brother and were not the sort of reading material I was suppose to have access to, at 6 and 1/2 years his junior. We humans do a lot of social experimentation, and sometimes those experiments evolve into customs, traditions and practices. There is no saying what or when we may be doing tomorrow. There is also, likewise, little that may be said about what may be scorned as depraved or praised as forward-thinking, fifty years into the near future. All one need do is look at where we were fifty years ago. It is clear: if you don't like what is happening now, just wait a bit. I won't be around. My grandchildren will. They will have the onerous task of figuring it all out. Grave new world, or the flood of inevitability?

雷的博客比这个节目还好忍受。我认为在陈述或论点中没有足够的怀疑或平衡。

Polyamory is more complex and spotted than portrayed here. We got some inkling of that in the hierarchical vs. anarchic polyamory but that was elusive. The devil is in the details and for many people (given Ray's Blog data... most people) that is a straight-up truth. Polyamory is a moral, ethical and legal wrong. Certainly not the progressive, smart and modern choice presented by Carrie.

我可能得在聪明点的时候回溯一下。有数据显示，知识分子更有可能是多角恋者。知识分子喜欢用爱情来代替享乐主义和激情。从我的经验或我读到的科学来看，这种激情是无法被超越的。但我又知道什么呢?显然小。

If the majority of polyamory occurs in the intellectual elite, and some point toward left leaning politic as well, it is equally indulged by other data that shows conservatives have more fantasy of multiple partners, not to mention more repressive over-lording subculture for right and the more base alike.

Here’s something not presented in the show or Ray’s blog: polyamory is a privileged behavior of the powerful and financial elite. That is true in history and its modern manifestation. There is no trend toward having multiple consensual partners that can’t be explained in economic excess. We are living in a time of unprecedented living standards.

Working class societies and primitive cultures in history and prehistory have strong and primal monogamous traditions and ethics. That deserves some thought. I can’t explain it exactly. In a strong polyamorous family wouldn’t that have economic benefit? Families are messy regardless perhaps and not the ends here to the polyamorous means.

这里也没有“同意”的概念。对多角恋关系的长期研究很少，因为它们很少，这需要数据但我还是要参考Ray的博客。这些关系是短暂的，在等级多角恋中的“主要”关系会受到打击。列出你的例外，它们来自特权和所谓的知识自由，我想……我不知道。

Finally and most importantly, I have to see data on children… and I’m not offering up my own. I saw the recent documentary Wild Wild Country on Netflix, it was disturbing to say the least in it’s unspoken threat to children at that commune. Though it wasn’t universal and perhaps not an issue (I think it was), I don’t condone role modeling polyamory to kids at all. The whole idea of polyamory is one for mature, equal and consenting adults and no others. I’m uneasy with that kind of attitude, but I feel it strongly. Children need special liberty and protection. It is complicated but also fundamental to my thought around polyamory.

总的来说，不是我最喜欢的节目或话题。如果我有任何改变，我会读这本书，并把我的想法写回来。我面临的挑战是真正拿出好的数据或想法，这些数据或想法可以提供任何理由进行批评。

In so far as polyamory was likely to re-visit in the schema of the blog, I worked out another notion about it. Those Rimmer books, years ago. "Experimented" with the idea. I later dismissed it as human hedonism. Anyone may argue this from any stance they may choose. I call to attention the random practicality of genes. Not ours but those of other living things. While it is true that some creatures mate for life, this is not predominant. It is obvious many have life spans which limit reproductivity. Mating seasons take on orgiastic proportions while off-spring mortality challenges specie survival.

In modern human society, child-bearing is postponed, in lieu of personal development and economic stability.. Our primarily conscious co-habitants have no notion of such things. It is sometimes said that we do things because we can, not because we should. Your post on troubled history at least tacitly affirms this premise. Life extension is a fledgling avocation: pretty far from science, near as I can tell. Is it conceivable that reproduction into the geriatric years may be possible? Could (or would) we do that? Possibly. Should we? As the holographic image in I, ROBOT solemnly pronounced: that is the right question. Is polyamory necessary or desirable? Need and desire are both propositional attitudes. The assessment is yours to make...

In the midst of a grisly pandemic (which experts hope will morph into an endemic), I am anticipating the next installment on this subject. Thinking about the risks attending close contact with others, I shiver just a little at open relationships. Immunizations have no doubt saved lives---will save more, we hope. Yes, I am hopelessly traditional. But I am too old to change; too disinterested to care. So, we shall see what, if any, new epiphanies emerge in the February podcast. I must say, given the current totality of circumstances, that show interests me more than it would under less dire conditions.
My love to you, Ms. Maguire,
HGN