But the children are barely mentioned by the author of the article, as well, and the author does not have an open marriage. I find that omission odd.

That said, statistics and data analytics are not of themselves problematic, and can be / are very useful. A number of industries and advances we enjoy would not exist were it not for the employ of the methods these use.
.

From where I stand / believe, and from my own intuition, says there are many problems with “open marriage”, many of which have been articulated here.

Would like to see if there is any information to back that all up, is all my query was about.

Seems to me if we are as certain as we are that we have the correct view of things, it should stand up in comparison by several measures, should it not?

Could divorce rate, as just one example, not be one of those?

I’d expect it to be higher, precisely because of those complications we talk about here. Don’t you?

Or, should we not dare bother to ask or seek the answers to these questions?

I suppose in a society of organisms all of which are alike in this, there will develop methods of dealing with the issues which the participants may find acceptable. And nowadays, bastard and abandoned children are likely to be less of a problem since contraception and abortion are so readily available.

In a mixed society however, the problem comes in with the establishment of the progressive-liberal social predicate, which as Rawls states it is a primary, group “commitment to a shared fate”.

Obviously the poly-amorous and the monogamous have divergent existential interests, and their life-ways are going to be functionally incompatible.

As always, in a truly libertarian (and not just sexually libertine) society many of these issues would become moot; as the obnoxious (from whichever point of view) could be socially distanced and disengaged and left to undergo their separate fates.

But in a system of redistributed life costs, the price of your neighbor’s neuroses or behavioral incontinence is an increase in your own burdens: Eventually, to the point where the cold medication you could once freely buy becomes inconvenient to get; or the antibiotics which your child needs, become useless; or you pay millions in taxes to treat a disease contracted by men who seek to be buggered by other men. An act you would justifiably kill in order to prevent being perpetrated upon yourself.

Those kinds of social alliances or cost sharing alignments, simply do not make any sense.

1, from the married guy’s point of view, there’s something off about a guy who will “share” his wife with another man. Something psycho-sexually not quite straight with him probably enables this; it’s not just a matter of turnabout being fair play. After all, you can go to any bar and pick up an attractive and willing chick if you want to commit adultery. You don’t need to hook up with another couple.

Look at the case of that clown Richard Carrier, and one will see how in retrospect it appears that a only partially veiled sublimation of his so-called poly-amorous bi-sexual impulses was the driving force for that dweeb’s program of attacking Christianity.

2. This idea of purely recreational multi-partner sex is itself, while superficially plausible in a well scrubbed and sufficiently antiseptic world of imaginary barbie dolls, ultimately intellectually incoherent and conceptually dishonest. Unless, that is, you are already a nihilist. But even then, it’s self-refuting logically; and even if it is not “felt” to be that way. This, because all of the nihilist’s actions become equally pointless, even its seeking of pleasure … much less the programmatic seeking of such activities.

It is the program of a not too finicky glutton who has no reason to live anyway.

Particularly because I think the thing often missed (on purpose) in the discussion of these trends is how completely they screw up the children. I’m not an expert but have been working with students for decades and I’ve seen the universal bad effects of less than optional situations at home

God’s way works.