emanation of psyche

that's the argument, though, right? the poors need enforced monogamy to be happy so everybody needs enforced monogamy otherwise it's mean to the poors? which at object level means, as always, that non-elite women need to stop thinking they have elite options like divorce?

Or we can read it as "average people for the most part struggle under sexual mores that elites find congenial" -- whatever the intentions of the OP. There are those who want to ban divorce and institute other bad and zany policies, and I do not want any part of that.

yeah. i mean, it's an argument, and there could be something to it. it smells pretty strongly of leaning heavily on condescension, though. my experience of "average people" tends to indicate they can handle complex-as-shit sexual mores without particularly blinking

Fair. Maybe the issue is not so much "can this person handle this particular non-standard arrangement" (they probably can or they wouldn't be in it) but pushing people to be open to all the degrees of freedom "which you would be if you were cool and not a prig"...I don't know.

Most people crave structure, limits, guidelines, a paint-by-numbers life in most respects. Those who know they want something different, whether the motivation comes from a specific need or from a restless will or from the thrill of transgression, they will go and find it.

Thanks to both of you for a thoughtful discussion. Re: ChaosPrime’s concerns:

1. I think we all—even clever elites—benefit from social norms that push us away from vice toward virtue. Just because elites can enjoy metabolizing more poison before it stops them from succeeding economically doesn’t mean it’s good for them, or that poison is steak

2. Women of all social classes need to be able to walk away from abusers. But that’s different from no-fault divorce.