The slippery slope fallacy is an argument that claims an initial event or action will trigger a series of other events and lead to an extreme or undesirable outcome. The slippery slope fallacy anticipates this chain of events without offering any evidence to substantiate the claim.^[1]

We’re past the “fallacy” mark when it comes to sexual orientation ideology.  Equating sexual desires, temptations, and behaviors to a permanent part of personhood is leading to rather dark and confusing places in society, sorry to say.  Here we’ll review yet more evidence to substantiate this claim.

Polycules

In August the TV show called “Riverdale” featured a surprise as it released the final episode – the four lead characters (Archie, Jughead, Betty, and Veronica – yes, based off of the old comic book series) ended up in a polyamorous relationship, also known as a “polycule.”  A Dec. 2022 article entitled, “What’s a polycule? An expert on polyamory explains this relationship”^[2] explains:

These relationship networks are known as “polycules” or “constellations,” and they can be complex and interconnected. The word polycule is a blending of “polyamory” and “molecule,” reflecting relationship configurations that often resemble the chemical structure of molecules.

When you click the link in the quote, you’ll find multiple relationships interconnected under the following terms:  “solo poly,” “co-parenting,^[3]” “cohabitating,” “nesting partners,” “sexual partnership,” “asexual/nonsexual partnership,” “long distance relationship,” “monogamous,” “mono-poly relationship,” and “former partners.”  It is a confusing jumble, with some combinations that are hard to understand.  (I.e. -  A “long-distance relationship” maintained with a “former partner.”  Doesn’t that simply mean you’re still in touch with someone you used to be more involved with?)

The main illustrated mix of relationships in the “polycule” involves 21 people:

Another confusing example is where some long-distance relationships are also listed with a separate designation as “nesting partners.”  When I looked up what the difference was, there were a variety of meanings for these terms.  (As people are currently making this up.[5])  One source claimed the term “nesting partner:”

“…is often used to replace the term primary partner, while still describing a higher level of entanglement, in order to avoid hierarchical language.”^[6]

What is “avoiding hierarchical language” referring to?  Here’s an explanation from another source:

Part of the appeal of polyamory is the ability to choose which elements are part of your partnership, rather than defaulting to the “relationship escalator.”

“The relationship escalator is where you’re dating, get serious, become exclusive, live together, get married, and have children,” Labriola says. “Somewhere along the line, you merge finances.” Many polyamorous people, in her experience, want to jump off the relationship escalator and not assume any steps are necessary to have a committed relationship. But that doesn’t mean poly people don’t want any of the trappings of a traditional domestic partnership — which is where nesting partners come in.

The concept of poly people living with one or more of their partners isn’t new, by any means, but that time five or six years ago when Labriola started hearing the actual term “nesting partner” coincided with the rising popularity of “relationship anarchy.”

While some polyamorous people refer to their long-term, committed partners as “primary partners,” relationship anarchists reject the hierarchy implicit in a model that characterizes relationships as primary and secondary. By referring to a live-in partner as a nesting partner instead, polyamorous people deconstruct that hierarchy. “Amongst young 20- to 40-year-olds doing polyamory, the idea of hierarchy seems to be a dirty word,” Labriola says.

For her part, Labriola thinks the term “nesting partner” obfuscates what actually is the primary relationship. “If you’re living with someone for 20 years and share finances and a home, you make decisions based on that relationship more than any other,” she says. “[I find that] those relationships are much more likely to succeed long-term.”^[7]

So, using the term “nesting” instead of “primary” supposedly deconstructs the relationship hierarchy.  Yet, the counselor sought out by the author^[8] pointed out that changing the word doesn’t change the degree of attention and focus required in a relationship involving more shared responsibilities. 

What is clear is we’re being asked – no, we’re expected – to accept these as defining aspects of personhood.  “Asexual,” polyamorous” and the like are being taken as varieties of sexual orientation, and therefore deserving of the rights bestowed upon those who identify as gay or lesbian.  “Ambiamorous” is an additional term is being used to cover all the bases in this view of personhood:

“A person is ambiamorous if they are comfortable being in a monogamous or polyamorous relationship,” Yau says. “This is not to be confused with someone who is happy to date multiple people casually until they pick their favorite for a monogamous relationship — that's just regular dating.”^[9]

How can you tell the difference?  It’s up to however a person feels and then sees themselves at the time.  Completely subjective.

Response to Riverdale

What was striking about the Riverdale episode was learning about a polyamorous activist organization, newly minted in 2022, called OPEN or the “Organization for Ethical Non-Monogamy and Polyamory.”  Their response to the relationship between the main characters on the show was posted on social media soon after it aired:

Our full statement:  It's tempting to celebrate every portrayal of non-monogamy in popular media. After all, non-monogamous families and relationships are underrepresented and often misunderstood in our culture and the media, despite representing about 5% of American adults.^[10]

That said, it's frustrating that Riverdale used its characters' non-monogamous relationship as a "shocking twist" rather than engaging with an authentic portrayal of non-monogamy as simply being part of people's identities.

We didn't see or hear anything about why these characters practice non-monogamy, what it means for them, the substance of their relationship agreements and communication practices, or any of the other underlying motivations and work that makes relationships of any type function.^[11]

“…rather than engaging with an authentic portrayal of non-monogamy as simply being part of people’s identities.”  Identifying as non-monogamous - otherwise known as EFBD (every frat boy’s dream – I’m coining the acronym) is another round of “this desire is just who I am,” taken to its logical, and devastating, conclusion.  No doubt there is meaning and substance behind all of these relationships, just as there is meaning and substance behind all human emotion.  Just what that meaning is, however, is something we need to stop and think about.  (We’ll return to this train of thought later in this series.)

The Blessings of Commitment

How common is this new identity trend?  On a recent podcast with Benjamin Boyce, fellow podcaster Leslie Elliott noted seeing many people using “ENM,” (Ethical Non-Monogomy) on dating apps.  She stated they are “…telling you they’re happily married, but looking for some side action.”[12]  Later, Elliott remarked that people are “missing something if they’re looking for that shallow of a relationship.” And “there is a societal cost” to these relationships. 

Sadly, those experimenting with these new ways of identifying themselves are being robbed of the beauty, substance, and benefits of a lifelong, exclusive commitment to one person in marriage. 

Much has been written elsewhere about how legalizing no-fault divorce started our society down this slide, which is rapidly accelerating into a freefall.  In the wake of that decision commitment in marriage has been undermined.  In the 2015 Obergefell decision the sex of the individuals involved no longer mattered.  And now the number of persons involved in these relationships is being expanded, swept up into the mis-categorization of sexuality as identity. 

We’ll continue to explore these ideas in the next part of this series.