It’s nearly two weeks into the New Year and should be a time of possibilities. But I hear a lot of pessimism around me. “It’s going to be a horrible year”, “The economy’s cratering”, “We’re going to hell in a handbasket”, and “Why can’t we agree on anything?” are some of the laments that capture the zeitgeist of our times.

Writing that made me think of John Laurie as the ineffably dour Scot, Private Wilson in Dad’s Army, “We’re doomed!”.

I don’t exactly disagree with the zeitgeist. Or, at least, the we are doomed part of it. I had an uplifting, positively cheery conversation just before Christmas with another bright-eyed Tigger-type friend, and we agreed that it’s time to talk ourselves down from our collective perch of pessimism and back onto our “high-flying discs” (Abraham Hicks).

Pessimism on purpose

For sure, it’s a cold, complicated world out there. But it’s also a wonderful place if we see it that way. We don’t have to be Private Wilson. After all, it’s a new year. A blank canvas. I get that 1 January is just a number—a day like any other day. But symbolically, it’s so much more. It’s an opportunity to forgive ourselves for previous false starts and failures. A moment to take stock. To review, recharge and re-set. Not just to rinse and repeat.

In a previous blog, I wrote about the German idea of Zweckspressimus. Great word, don’t you think? It’s one of those complicated German compounds which translates as something like pessimism on purpose. In other words, the attitude of expecting the worst to feel relief when the worst doesn’t happen. This outlook is undoubtedly one way of coping in a very uncertain world, but it seems like the sort of vibe we should avoid, like the plague. Surely, we should be going hard out for the opposite — what can go right will go right?

Optimism is an inspiring fellow traveller

If we can talk ourselves into a black hole of negativity and pessimism, can’t we talk ourselves into a different place? We can push out positive energy and have great expectations and aspirations. If enough of us step away from the cliff face of doom and look up and out at what might be, in a good way, perhaps this world of ours wouldn’t look so grim.

My life is at a crossroads, and I’m not sure what will come at me in 2025. I’m a bit anxious, to be honest. Last year, I made significant changes to my business and the direction I see my life going as I move into the older adult space. I’ve stacked my odds as well as I can to keep all my various plates—work, life, health—spinning effectively.

Ralph Waldo Emerson said, “Finish every day and be done with it; you’ve done what you can”. I love this concept. I love it so much that I’m exploring it in a subsequent blog. But, at the start of a New Year, I’d take it a step further and say, finish every year and be done with it; you’ve done what you can.

“If nothing changes, nothing changes.” Courtenay C Stevens.

It’s so easy, and often comfortable, to predict the worst. To play the fashionable victim card. Depress ourselves with interminable doomscrolling. I do believe in the concept of self-fulfilling prophesies. If we think it will be so, then likely it will be. As a species, we’re awfully good at awfulising. What if we just turned the tables with the following wind of a New Year? I’m not debating that the world is a mess; we may be going to hell in that proverbial handbasket. But there’s not a whole heap I can do about that. I can find a whole heap that’s good in my little part of it. There’s still adventure, fulfilment, and joy to be had.

My life is at a crossroads, and I’m not sure what will come at me in 2025. I’m a bit anxious, to be honest. Last year, I made significant changes to my business and the direction I see my life going as I move into the “older adult” space. I’ve stacked my odds as well as I can to keep all my various plates—work, life, health—spinning effectively.

Finish every day and be done with it; you’ve done what you can.
Ralph Waldo Emerson

I have long tried to apply Emerson’s elegant psychology about accepting one’s limitations. We are so often driven by our to do lists that we don’t feel satisfied if we don’t complete them, even if there are good reasons why not. I love this concept so much that I’m exploring it in a subsequent blog. But, at the start of a New Year, I’d take it a step further and say, finish every year and be done with it; you’ve done what you can.

Ringing in 2025 with eyes wide open

Bascially, we can’t control some things, but we can control how we think and respond to the life’s shifting sands. Theoretically, it’s no harder to hope for the best than the worst. It’s just a different choice. Of course, that’s easy to say—stepping away from the hive mind of doom is often challenging. Putting my money where my mouth is, I’ve started my new year with a plan to expand on all the groundwork I did last year for my life and business, including travel plans I’ve postponed several times. So, I am ringing this New Year with excitement and the belief that whatever comes will bring adventure and growth. I wish you the same for your 2025.

Want some inspiration for 2025, why not buy my book.

In extended essays drawn from my not uncolourful life, and traversing the joys of schadenfreude, strategic gift-buying, the value of teeth, and lessons to be learnt from the Rime of the Ancient Mariner, I explore ground rules and tactics for avoiding the beige and staying highly visible. Along the way I share some takeouts and philosophies, with reference and deference to legends like George Eliot, Cleopatra, and Coco Chanel.

“Self-deprecating and revealing, perceptive and funny, Frances Manwaring’s writing, like the non-beige approach to life itself, will lead you to unexpected and exotic destinations. A delightful and entertaining read about blazing a colourful trail through life.”
Karen McMillin, Director, New Zealand Book Lovers

Buy Boook

Previous posts referenced in this one

May we not live in interesting times

Carpe Diem Baby!

It seems that relationships are getting more complicated by the minute. Or maybe we’re just in an age of micro-definitions. Take the polycule. A concept I was happily unfamiliar with until I read about it last weekend. In case, like me, you didn’t know, polycules are a version of polyamory. Polyamory being of course, the juggling act of engaging in multiple romantic, typically sexual, relationships, with the consent of all the people involved.

New names, old behaviours

I’m pretty sure that the only thing that’s changed is that we’ve now got names for stuff that people have been at since Adam and Eve got chucked out of Eden. People experiment with all sorts of sexual combos. They always have. You only have to think ‘Mormon’ and ‘sister wives’. The practice of taking multiple wives or lovers goes back to the earliest of times—some anthropologists believe that up to 80 percent of early humans were polygamous. But it seems to be a thing now in a way it hasn’t been before, perhaps because of the predominance of social media in shaping or naming trends. As a consequence, there’s an emerging sexual zeitgeist with a growing vocabulary to define an increasing number of relationship variants meaning we can now choose our “lovestyle”, not just our lifestyle.

So we all know about throuples right? Three-way relationships where all three participate. Throuples—also known as triads—have been in vogue for some time as celebs open up about their non-conventional preferences. For example, in 2011, Charlie Sheen openly talked about living with two 24-year-old girlfriends, he called his “goddesses”. Throuples don’t necessarily live together, but they are in an acknowledged and sexual relationship. Imagine if Menelaus, Helen and Paris had the open-mindedness to form a throuple, instead of Paris stealing Helen away from Menelaus and the ten years of mayhem and destruction that followed. Troy might still be standing, as I’ve said before.

So, what is a polycule?

In a polycule, three or more people might be involved but don’t all necessarily have sex. Let’s put that in context. Priam is in a sexual relationship with Hecuba and Athena. Hecuba and Athena don’t shag each other. So this group is not a throuple. But they are a polecule because, like the atoms in a molecule, they are connected to each other through Priam, who functions as a “hinge”. The person in the middle. Hecuba and Athena are “metamours”. People whose lover has another lover but with whom they have no romantic relationship. .e., the partner’s other girlfriend or boyfriend or their lover’s spouse. So if you’re partner has another lover, they are your metamour, and you are theirs.

With me so far? I repeat, it’s complicated. The word polycule itself is a construct combining polyamorous and molecule. I’m sure all you chemistry lovers are familiar with the concept of molecules as groups of atoms that are bonded together. In polycules, it’s groups of people that get bonded.

But wait, there’s more…a one-sized polycule doesn’t fit all

Polecules vary in size and shape— some can be extensive. There’s the parallel poly when members of the group know their lover has another lover but don’t form any relationship with them. There’s also garden table poly, which means the various partners all socialise convivially together. The difference between your bog standard polyamory, as far as I can make out, is that polycules are largely a constellation of intimate connections that are not all about sex.

So if I were in a polycule (I’m not BTW), it could go something like this. I’m dating Hector and Paris. Paris also dates Helen and Cassandra. Hector dates Andromache and Hecuba. I’m not necessarily dating Helen, Cassandra, Andromache or Hecuba. Let’s face it: what woman wouldn’t feel her cup runneth over if it contained only Hector and Paris? But the others are nonetheless integral parts of my polycule, being my lover’s lovers and all. We’re all intimately connected. In the garden poly variety, we’d likely all pitch up at Trojan royal family feasts to listen to Cassandra’s latest doom-scrolling prophesies.

There are many more varieties—thanks to Cosmopolitan for this further insight. There’s V Polyamory (one person dating two who aren’t involved with each other), Quads, Comet Partners, and Platonic Polycules, as well as the different integration levels of metamours. Polycules can be open or closed (i.e. exclusive or permissive) and may be hierarchical with one person as the primary link between the others or ones where everyone is on equal footing. There’s also Parallel Polyamory—polycule members have other partners, but they don’t interact or have contact. It’s a parallel structure. This spawns teleamours— our partners’ partners’ partners. There are no rules as long as everyone’s consenting. Some polyculers go all in and share houses and bank accounts.

Is the secret to the polycule “authentic love”?

Feminist writer Simone de Beauvoir (1908-1985), most known for her feminist novel, The Second Sex, was famously married to the even more famous Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980). The couple never married, but their lifelong open relationship, which saw each of them pursuing other sexual and romantic partners, lasted more than 50 years. They talked about their approach as “Authentic Love”. Originally Sartre’s idea, de Beauvoir was apparently game to “embrace all experience.” They claimed this approach succeeded because the sole condition was total transparency. Despite the relationship’s longevity, peers questioned how happy they were. It seemed to suit Sartre better as de Beauvoir was reputedly prone to jealousy and had far fewer affairs.

Jean Paul Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir 1954

Which brings up a good point. How do you navigate any polycule variant without someone getting their nose (or other anatomical item) out of joint? Is everyone involved so secure that they don’t doubt their centricity to the melange? It feels as if the starting point is deciding what you want from any relationship. It must be just as crucial that three (or more) people have convergent expectations as two. And what happens if two of a triad are more into each other and even marginally neglect the third? Is there ever the possibility of love equity, or even such a thing?

It’s not all a bed of authentically scented polyamorous roses

Polyamory isn’t legally recognised in Britain or America, so you don’t get the sort of benefits monogamy brings, such as tax breaks, pension plans, sharing mortgages, child custody, and a clear inheritance plan. Come to think about it, we singletons don’t benefit from those either, but it’s not yet illegal to be single or childless (or a single, childless cat lover).

Polyamorous relationships seem to me to come with as many, if not more, hooks than monogamous ones. There are so many decisions to make, not least how you schedule your playtime. Equally, do you meet your partner’s other ‘squeezes’ or leave well alone? Does it help or start to erode the foundations of your relationship with them?

On the other hand, polycules could be the perfect antidote to giving too much or falling too deeply for one person and the anguish that can follow if it goes wrong. Perhaps sharing the love means fewer eggshells to walk on. If one person in the polycule doesn’t feel like it tonight, there’s a fighting chance someone else will, so could it be the answer to duty sex? In this world, Paris wants to watch the footie. Menelaus wants to watch the chariot races on the beach. Helen wants to bring back a bit of that loving feeling. Paris is happy to oblige. Menelaus is happy they’re both happy, and he gets to do what he wants. Perhaps it’s easier with your polycule posse taking up the slack when you’re not in the mood, or can’t be fagged to go out to see a play, have another baby … whatever.

The lovestyle choice for a growing number

I’ve always believed that pretty much anything goes between consenting adults. So, if a polycule or any variation on the them is what does it for you and your polyamours, good for you. In any case, you’re not alone. Polycules are growing in popularity. A recent YouGov poll found that about two per cent of adult Brits are in polyamorous relationships, and seven per cent say they would be open to it. Those numbers aren’t going to turn society on its head. However, it does mean that an increasing number of people are asking the questions differently and challenging norms that no longer work for them.

If you’re into a whole lotta love and not finding conventional couplings are doing it for you, perhaps a polycule might yield better returns for your labours of love. Less chance of love’s labours lost? As for me. Well, I’m too lazy. Or too old. Or both. If sticking with one person for the long haul has proven challenging, how on earth would I wrangle several? Eek. In any case, call me old-fashioned, but for me, “Be my teleamour” doesn’t cut it like “Be my Valentine.”

Category: All

Happy New Year. It’s a blank canvas. What will we paint—doom or delight?