"Why I Won't Bow To Monogamy"

Ebony

"Black America has a fierce attachment to monogamy, as our religious and cultural roots shun the idea of polyamory, which is the practice of having more than one open relationship at a time," writes a columnist in Ebony, the best-known African-American magazine (circulation 1.2 million). She argues that it's time to consider the matter more widely.

Why I Won't Bow To Monogamy

'You and me' isn't the only way to experience real love.

By Arielle Loren

...Between Disney movies and beloved Huxtable-like family shows, the media has fed Americans the same message: monogamy is attainable and something we all should strive for. But with startling divorce rates and monogamy-attempting couples struggling with infidelity, reality tells a different story. It reaffirms that indeed human beings are not biologically constructed to be monogamous. And perhaps, we ought not be so quick to shun our natural tendencies.

...Kenya K. Stevens, CEO of JujuMama LLC, author, and love coach, provides an alternative perspective. “Open marriages are relationships that encourage fearless, authentic, living, and the ability to show up in a relationship as a real person. Open relating moves us beyond guilt, shame, insecurity and jealousy, the same things that plague and often end monogamous marriages,” she explains.

If you talk to polyamorous couples and singles, you’ll find that sexual variety is just one of the many attributes of an open relationship. The core of the practice is built on forming loving, supportive bonds between individuals that deeply care about one another’s happiness.

Sounds beautiful, right? But can it really work?

Stevens and her husband, Carl, have been married 17 years, 6 of which they’ve practiced an open marriage. She continues, “We enjoy our open marriage because the openness entails being able to show up authentically with one another. We do not feel the need to keep even our most private thoughts to ourselves as other couples might. We have decided that nothing matters more than being real with one another, telling the truth, being fearlessly honest. We are committed for life, yet we enjoy friendships, and partnerships, both sexual and non-sexual with other human beings beyond just the two of us.”

Apart from the outside partnerships, it sounds like the same type of happiness that most monogamous couples are striving to experience. The Stevens’ have three children, and have built a life teaching couples how to achieve both authentic monogamous and polyamorous relationships....

Read the whole article (Jan. 30, 2012). Here's more on Kenya and Carl Stevens.

Six days earlier, a different columnist argued against open marriage.

[Permalink]

One day before primary, big poly article appears in Florida Republican country

Tampa Bay Times

The Tampa-Orlando axis is not a stronghold of alternative culture. This morning it's in the national news as being the home to nearly half of Florida's Republicans. But it has had an active poly social scene for many years, thanks in part to Shara Smith, Franklin Veaux, and others in and around their network.

Today, the day before the crucial Florida Republican primary, Smith forms the lead to a 1,300-word feature article in the Tampa Bay Times about polyamory and why it is not like Newt Gingrich.

The Tampa Bay Times is the region's largest newspaper and has influence beyond its size. It was named the St. Petersburg Times until one month ago, and under that name it long earned a reputation as one of the country's best newspapers.

Coming on the eve of the primary, with Gingrich plummeting in the Florida polls (especially among women), the article's timing is surely no coincidence. The paper is rubbing his nose in his mess, using the local poly movement with its emphasis on high ethics as a foil to make him look bad by comparison.

I think this is the first time we've ever been used as a political football in a good way for us. (Usually we're used as a warning of the chaos supposedly looming beyond gay marriage.)

Still, I was rooting for anybody to take down the insufferable Mitt Romney. I'm from Massachusetts where Romney used to be governor; 'nuff said.

Polyamorists Say They're Not Like Newt

By Leonora LaPeter Anton

Shara Smith has three boyfriends, two in Tampa, one in Portland. Her Portland boyfriend has half a dozen "partners," including Shara. Her Tampa boyfriends are dating not only her but each others' wives.

It's complicated, to be sure. But Smith, 35, believes that some people, like herself, are not meant to be monogamous. They are polyamorous, meaning they have more than one long-term relationship going on at once.

Recently, Newt Gingrich found himself in national headlines that suggested the GOP presidential hopeful was an unlikely member of this group after his ex-wife, Marianne, alleged he had once asked her for an open marriage.

Marianne told ABC's Nightline that Newt informed her of his six-year affair with congressional aide, Callista Bisek, now his third wife, and wanted permission to continue seeing her.

"And I just stared at him, and he said, 'Callista doesn't care what I do.' He wanted an open marriage, and I refused."

Far from embracing Gingrich as a celebrity adherent, some in the polyamory community were quick to distance themselves, saying his alleged actions gave their lifestyle a bad name.

"Gingrich: Don't Destroy Non-monogamous Family Values." That was the headline on a podcast called Polyamory Weekly this past week.

"Non-monogamy in its many forms takes a tremendous amount of communication and work to ensure the happiness of all parties involved," wrote someone using the pseudonym "Cunning Minx" on Polyamory Weekly, "and it is most decidedly not an escape hatch for a guy caught with his trousers down."

"The thing about polyamory is that everyone has to agree to it and so as long as you have any partners who didn't agree to it, it's not polyamory — it's cheating," Shara Smith said.

Smith, a camera operator and video lighting technician from Orlando, said she decided monogamy was not for her after she kept falling in love with two men at the same time.

"I decided that the only way was to have an open arrangement in which everybody was honest," she said.

Polyamory is not part of the cultural mainstream. In fact, most people who practice it guard their identities. It has come up in divorce cases and the workplace, threatening child custody and jobs.

For one man or woman to take on multiple significant others is still a big taboo here in America, says Joseph Vandello, an associate professor of psychology at the University of South Florida.

"I think people have more of a problem with open marriage where neither partner is lying to each other than to an adulterous marriage where they are cheating behind each other's back," Vandello said....

Read on (Jan. 30, 2011), and leave a comment.

The article includes a sidebar with some poly terminology, such as

Bright-eyed Novice: a person who has just discovered polyamory. Handle at your own risk as they tend to date as if eating at a buffet, they are still unaware of the amount of energy and work they will need to make their relationships work and have not yet refined their communication skills.

[Permalink]

"Three's Company": Poly life in the northland

Winnipeg Free Press

It's been more than a week, so the obligatory Gingrich reference is buried far down in this excellent profile of a group household and others in the warm poly network of icy Manitoba.

The Winnipeg Free Press is the province's leading and oldest newspaper. Today's Saturday edition serves the role of a Sunday newspaper elsewhere. The article is on the front page of the E section.

Three's company

Loving more than one person isn't a problem for people in polyamorous relationships.

By Carolin Vesely

Michelle, 39, has been married to Michael, 50, since 1995. They live in rural Manitoba and have two school-age children.

In 2005, however, Michelle found herself falling in love with Liam, a friend, fellow musician and bandmate she'd known for as long as she'd known her husband. He sang at their wedding, in fact.

Turns out the feelings were mutual.

This is typically where the weaving of the tangled web begins. Except that Michael not only knew about his wife's extramarital attraction, he consented to and supported her decision to get romantically involved with the divorced father of two.

Seven years later, Michelle, Michael and Liam are sitting in a downtown cafe telling a reporter how they managed to prevent the destruction of either a marriage or a friendship.

Let's just say that since 2007, Michelle and Michael's marital home has had two master bedrooms. And there are three names on the deed.

"I alternate nights," Michelle, a research scientist, says in response to what is probably the question most often asked of people who practise polyamory.

And Michael's relationship with the man eating soup beside him?

"Somewhere between good friends and brothers," he says of Liam, a 49-year-old fellow IT professional and, in poly lingo, his "metamour" -- the partner of one's partner....

..."We're not terribly fond of people who come along on our forum and say, 'I'm polyamorous but my wife doesn't know'," says Anlina Sheng, a Winnipeg polyamory activist and moderator at polywinnipeg.com. The forum has about 200 members in and around Manitoba.

You might say polyamory is free love with strings attached. Although practitioners have multiple romantic partners, openness and honesty are core tenets of the lifestyle.

Sheng, a 29-year-old freelance graphic and web designer, has a live-in boyfriend, a Winnipeg girlfriend, and casual male partners in both Illinois and the Yukon. They all know about each other.

"This feels really natural to me. It's not something I chose," says the one-time Green Party candidate, who has been "poly dating" since she was a teen and likens being polyamorous to being gay....

John Ince, a Vancouver lawyer and spokesman for the Canadian Polyamoury Advocacy Association, estimates that about three per cent of Canadians live in multiple-partner relationships....

Polyamorous relationships are post-modern, secular, egalitarian and consensual, says Ince, while traditional polygamy is a pre-modern institution with religious and patriarchal roots.

...Her feelings for Liam did not negate, trump or interfere with her love for her husband -- which has only deepened and grown for their ability to stay together through the whole experience, Michelle says.

"What I had to learn through this whole process is that fidelity does not have to be defined through exclusivity, she says.

"Polyamory provided me with a context to make sense of my feelings for both (men), understanding that just as a parent can have deep and equal love for more than one child, so can an adult have deep and equal love for more than one partner."

Although Michelle and Michael were legally married in a religious ceremony in 1995, there has been no ceremony or rite to mark her relationship with Liam, although they often talk about having one. And they do wear matching rings to reflect their commitment.

...When asked why he didn't issue his wife of 16 years an ultimatum, Michael, who is soft-spoken and bears a striking resemblance to Liam, replies: "I think I understood what I'd be asking her to give up."

"Which is exactly why I love him as much as I do," Michelle says.

For more info on Winnipeg's poly community, go to www.polywinnipeg.com.

Read the whole article (Jan. 28, 2012). It includes short sidebars on poly lingo and other items.

The comments need help. Go do it. Registration is easy.

The people profiled certainly seem like excellent folks. Polys often say that this life, among those who make it work long-term, forces personal development. Often it really does, writes Shaunphilly:

...In my experience, having these complicated networks of relationships with people of various strengths, weaknesses, and different levels of experiences exponentially increases your own relationship experience and makes it more likly that we will mature faster....

My experience with polyamory has opened me up to people of quality (and some not so quality who have returned to either normality or to unhealthy poly relationships), circumstances of personal challenge, and the freedom to truly be myself in ways that I don’t often see in mainstream culture....

My polyamorous lifestyle creates motivation to make myself a better person. It has contributed significantly to this effort that is, frankly, invisible to much of the world. When you live an abnormal lifestyle and have abnormal opinions, the abnormality is most of what the world sees.

I wish more people could understand what both skepticism and polyamory have done to improve my life. Sadly, most of the people I know and see only rarely have only a superficial understanding of it all, and usually avoid talking with me about much of it.

Its a consequence of being weird, I suppose. So, thank you, weird people in my life, for getting it. May we continue to be weird together.

[Permalink]

Confronting the slippery slope, and more Gingrich fallout

Piles of new stuff are arriving!

● This website will be mentioned all across Canada in tomorrow morning's Globe and Mail, Canada's leading national newspaper, in one of the post-Gingrich articles that are coming out all over about open marriages and people who make them work (or don't). But they got my URL wrong, wouldn't you know. (They eventually fixed the online version.)

Open marriage: Who does it, how it works and why it doesn’t

By Tralee Pearce

Forget about how much Newt Gingrich paid in taxes last year. The accusation that the Republican presidential hopeful asked one of his ex-wives for an open marriage is the character question that has captivated us.

Political implications aside, observers were left with a more pressing concern: Wait. Is open marriage really a thing? Isn’t it just cheating on your spouse? Do people really DO that?....

Yes, in fact, some do, though there’s little information or research available about how prevalent open marriages are – or how often they work. But when open arrangements do work, they make life “a little more interesting and better,” according to one Toronto man who had an open marriage for years. “Monogamy is so boring to me.”

As the revelations unfolded, those in the open-marriage community – some refer to their arrangements as “polyamorous” – found themselves defending the practice as something very different from “Gingrichy behaviour,” as the blog Polyinthemedia.com put it.

Blogger Sierra Black found herself explaining her open marriage in the wake of the Gingrich news. Both she and her husband have girlfriends....

...[Says the Toronto man,] “I still regard it as, for super-high-level, awesome marriages, why not? You’re so committed to each other, who cares whether you occasionally have an affair?”

Montreal marriage therapist Vikki Stark says it’s a particular kind of couple who can choose to have an open marriage and make it work. They have to share the same philosophy about non-monogamy and agree on the fine print.

“It requires a lot of maturity on the part of the individuals. It’s a very idealistic choice, thinking that ‘We can have a stronger relationship because we’re going to be honest about the fact that it’s very hard to be monogamous,’” she says.

Even then, she says, a truly open marriage “seems to me an unstable configuration.”...

...And the practice can be a precursor to a break-up of a marriage if one partner is coerced into it....

Read the whole article. (It's in the paper edition Jan. 27, 2012.)

------------------------------

● At Alternet, Theresa "Darklady" Reed declares:

Memo to the News Media: Newt Didn't Want an 'Open Relationship' -- He Just Wanted to Cheat

You don’t lie about an affair for six years and then ask permission.

...The mainstream media is repeating the term as though it were an accurate description of what the couple discussed, with some going so far as to unsuccessfully flash their hipster credentials by referring to it as “polyamory.”

Meanwhile, those who actually have open or polyamorous relationships are wondering what to make of the situation. On the one hand, it’s great to have the entire country talking about the way that some real people have real relationships... and how those real relationships often don’t match the cultural mythology. On the other hand, it’s being discussed largely by people who haven’t got a clue about real world relationship alternatives... or how those who crave an ethical non-monogamy are customizing them to satisfy the unique needs of their individual households.

...Books including The Ethical Slut, Opening Up, Love in Abundance, Redefining our Relationships: Guidelines for Responsible Open Relationships, and Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality provide advice, insights and support for those who seriously want to nurture and maintain multiple simultaneous sexual and/or romantic connections....

Read her whole article (Jan. 26, 2012).

------------------------------

● Meanwhile, the lead article at Salon right now is by gay activist and prolific Jewish religion writer Jay Michaelson:

The polyamory trap

The right wants to use the "slippery slope" of polyamory to discredit gay marriage. Here's how to stop them.

Newt Gingrich may have scored political points by refusing to talk about an ex-wife’s assertion that he asked that their marriage be “open,” but he also thrust polyamory into the national conversation.

This was new territory for many people, but not for LGBT advocates, who hear about it all the time. Won’t legitimizing same-sex marriage lead to legitimizing polyamorous relationships too? If two men can marry one another, why not one man and two women? This argument is a favorite of former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum, the so-called Christian right and the right-wing blogosphere.

Responding to these arguments is a challenge. On the one hand, I reject the tactic of distinguishing the good gays from the “bad” poly people. Further marginalizing the marginalized is just the wrong trajectory for any liberation movement to take. And it reminds me of the way that some mainstream gay activists have sold out transgender and gender-nonconforming groups....

On the other hand, I don’t want to fail to draw any distinction, either. I don’t know what polyamory’s approval ratings are, but I bet they aren’t high — Newt Gingrich notwithstanding. At the very least, it would be bad politics to agree and argue that there really is no difference.

How about this response, instead: to question whether the “slippery slope” is the right way to argue at all....

[Later:] ...We should do the same when it comes to polyamory: just decline to answer. Really, there are a host of questions that arise in the case of polyamory to which we just don’t know the answer.... We as a society are in a position to make an informed decision about same-sex marriage, but not yet, it would appear, about polyamorous relationships.

...Now, it may alarm some people not to totally shut the door to legitimized polyamory. Maybe it’s not a strong enough rebuke to curry favor with some conservatives. But it is the only intellectually responsible position for LGBT activists (and allies) to take. Whether Newt is our ally or not.

Read the whole article (Jan. 26, 2012).

I think he's at sea. If you accept the framing of civil rights and social acceptance as a slippery slope down, you've lost the debate before you open your mouth. So it's no wonder that this guy can't make sense. Slipping on a slope is a painful accident that leads downward. Instead, reframe it as a stairway up. In fact, each step is a deliberate, effortful, carefully chosen advance toward a more humane, just, enlightened world.

With that framing, you can consider which steps are upward, and which steps to take.

Or as Tree of Polycamp Northwest fame once put it, awkwardly,

Giving blacks the vote, women the vote, contraception — it's all a slippery slope to a place of better social justice and acceptance.

------------------------------

● More post-Gingrich discussion of good open relationships, in USA Today:

'Open marriage' isn't a license to cheat, experts say

By Sharon Jayson

...as those words receive new attention amid the GOP presidential contest, the experts say it's important to note that among couples who practice open marriage, they don't consider it a license to cheat.

"The spouses do not consider themselves cheaters," says Pamela Haag, whose 2011 book Marriage Confidential included discussions with couples in open marriages.
"Spouses in open marriages agree to non-monogamy before-the-fact...."

Historian Stephanie Coontz, who has researched the history of marriage, says in certain cultures around the world, extramarital sex for one or both partners is accepted. "The problem in America is that the so-called 'open marriage' has usually been somewhat one-sided. To be a real 'open marriage,' it has to be a mutual decision," she says. "For most of history, men had open marriages and women didn't.

..."To the extent [Gingrich] was trying to impose that against her will it had nothing to do with openness. It has to be mutually desired — not mutually extorted."

...Dossie Easton, a marriage and family therapist in San Francisco... says open sexual relationships require the parties to be honest, have mutual consent and a willingness to negotiate how it's going to work and make sure that people's feelings are acknowledged....

Coontz says couples should discuss their feelings about monogamy.

"Do they want to make it a 'make or break it' thing or build in certain leeway so it does not seem like betrayal if it happens?" she says. "I'm not advocating one way or another, but it's a conversation couples should have about what their commitment to each other is."

Haag, of Baltimore, says estimates suggest about 5% of all marriages meet that definition of "open."

"We do know they exist," Coontz says. "But in the context of Americans in particular — with a very strong identification of sexual fidelity with love — it's the exceptional couple that works this out."

Read the whole article (Jan. 23, 2012).

------------------------------

● An online women's magazine in Australia asks, after the obligatory reference to American politics,

Is Polyamory the New Gay?

By Linda Kirkman

...Family consists of people who treat you like family, to paraphrase Joss Whedon, and can be so much more than [the] narrow definition.

...Is being a monogamous couple the only acceptable option for healthy relationships?
For some people that is just right, but it is not for everybody. There is a growing awareness of polyamory as a way to form relationships and families.

Polyamory isn’t easy to define, because there are many variations to the sort of relationships that can happen. US podcast Poly Weekly defines it as “respectful non monogamy”. Australian polyamory social networking site Polyoz defines it as “the philosophy and practice of loving more than one person at a time with honesty and integrity”....

...I read The Ethical Slut (now that’s a book only a brave woman reads on the train) and thought it was the best book I had ever read on how to manage communication in relationships. One of its authors, Janet Hardy, spoke in Melbourne last year and was booked out, with the room overflowing.

Adaptability to social change makes us more resilient and healthy as a society.
Discrimination and stigma based on sexual orientation or family type diminishes us. The more aware and accepting of positive diversity in relationships the more healthy our society is.

...I hope it won’t be long before people in poly relationships don’t feel the need to protect themselves with pseudonyms. A same-sex couple having a baby would no longer feel the need to hide their identity in this way.

I look forward to a society where any loving family, irrespective of how many people it includes or what sex they are, feels safe to be open about who they are.

In that respect, poly is the new gay.

Read the whole article, in The Hoopla (Jan. 24, 2012).

------------------------------

● Salon, cited above, recently ran a sex-and-drugs awfulness tale that the author (or maybe Salon) titled "Our Polyamory Disaster." Partying on Fire Island 24/7 in the 1990s: coke, meth, jealous hot-tub humping, trampled boundaries, nasty sniping, orgies not as puppy piles but jackal piles:

What followed next was a naked version of a comedy of manners — minus the comedy and the manners. Rachael confronted Mandy in the kitchen. Mandy burst into tears. Jason confronted Rachael in the bedroom about confronting Mandy. Rachael burst into tears. I confronted Jason in the living room about confronting Rachael. Rachael and Mandy burst into tears. When I confronted Rachael about cavorting with Jason, things got personal.

“You’ve got nerve,” she said. “After that late-night stargazing session in the pool?”

“Why don’t you go and snort up a few more lines,” I said. “It brings out such a lovely side of you.”

...Rachael and I returned home, where our sleep-and-food-deprived bodies finally teamed up with our ravaged nervous systems and our bruised egos to let us have it, right in the old cerebellum....

Update to "Our Polyamory Disaster," March 17, 2013: The writer, Nicholas Garnett, posts a new article on some of the article's fallout for him and a warning about daytime talk TV: I sold my soul to Ricki Lake: A provocative Salon essay landed me a spotlight on daytime TV. Then, I had to suffer in it.

[Permalink]

More on healthy poly families vs. Gingrichy behavior

"Open marriage" rocketed in Google News rankings after Newt Gingrich's second wife dropped her bomb on Thursday and he responded with a flame-throwing condemnation of... the news media. Amid the attention, advocates of healthy, ethical open relationships and polyamory have been seizing this chance to tell their stories of how it can be done right — with agreement and caring and kindly love all around.

I posted a bunch of these yesterday, from some of the world's foremost media. Here are a couple more, both by Sierra Black, stressing the benefits that her caring poly network provides for raising a family.

On the mom-site Babble.com, "for a new generation of parents":

Strollerderby:
Open Marriage Isn’t So Bad

...While that seems like a slimy request from a cheater trying to wiggle out of having betrayed his wife, Newt’s not alone in wanting non-monogamy. Anywhere from 1 % to 10% of couples are living intentionally non-monogamous lives.

My husband and I are among them, and we’re pretty happy with our arrangement.

Tonight after we tuck the kids in, my husband will kiss me goodnight and head over to his girlfriend’s house. It’s not a secret or a problem; that’s just how our marriage works. We both have other partners.

I don’t know what we’d do without them. Our friends and family are wonderful, but it’s my girlfriend I call when I need a ride to the hospital with a sick kid. There’s something about the intimacy of a romantic relationship that makes me feel better about asking her if I can bring my vomiting child in her car.

I don’t know how monogamous couples do it....

Whole article (Jan. 21, 2012).

-------------------------

On Salon:

Our successful open marriage

My husband and I may seem strange for wanting multiple partners. To my kids, this is what normal looks like.

By Sierra Black

I spent a recent weekend up in Maine with my girlfriend and our three kids. We went on long canoe trips, made mountains of buttery waffles, and read Rainbow Fairy books aloud till the words blurred together on the page. When the kids had gone to bed and the house was quiet, we crawled into bed and had sex so hot I thought the sheets might catch fire.

When I got home, I told my husband all about it.

My marriage is open. It’s also happy and stable. After I shared our mountain adventures, he filled me in on the highlights of his weekend: a small triumph at work, some quality time with his girlfriend, a successful home repair. We curled up at the end of the night, watched some old “Dr. Who” episodes and went to sleep in each other’s arms.

I never thought I’d have anything in common with Newt Gingrich. But if the claims that he once asked his ex-wife, Marianne, for an open marriage are true, then we might be more alike than I thought. Unlike that alleged scenario, however (which began with an affair), my husband’s and my open marriage has been based on openness and honesty from day one.

In fact, I’ve never been in a monogamous relationship. This openness in my romantic life stems in part from feminism and in part from idealism. I’m passionate about owning my own sexuality. I can’t stomach the thought of handing the reins of my sexual life to someone else, even someone I love and trust as much as my husband.

I’m also passionate about sharing.... I embraced nonmonogamy, or polyamory as the cool kids like to call it, because I’m good at it. I’m prone to falling for people; my girlfriend likes to say I fall in love with lampposts. I’m good at communication and mediation. I’m bad at rules. Clearly, polyamory was for me.

When I got married and started a family, I just kept doing what I’d always done.

While some people leave polyamory behind with their wild youth, there are large numbers of families that quietly continue to embrace this life while raising kids and growing old together. Some of them form households with several adult “spice” (a humorous plural of spouse). More commonly, they do what I do: live with one spouse, whom they raise kids with, and step out for date nights with other lovers.

...My life sounds complicated, but in many ways it’s routine. The children are the main focus of our attention. My husband and I have three kids. We spend a lot of our time doing the things any parent does: picking the kids up from school, shuttling them to and from activities and birthday parties, cooking them dinner and reading them bedtime stories.

Since we’ve always been poly, I often wonder how monogamous couples do it. I get so much support from my lovers. No one else, not my friends, not my parents, no one, is as willing to deal with the messes and mishaps of parenting as my sweeties. There’s something about romantic intimacy that builds a family-type closeness. These are the people I call when I’m puking my guts out and can’t take care of my kids, the people who call me when their car gets towed and they need a rescue.

Polyamory enthusiasts like to point out that the word means “multiple loves.” They really want to stress the loving commitments people make, the way these networks of relationships support each other. It’s not about the sex, you hear over and over again.

This always makes my girlfriend and me giggle. Here’s a tip: It’s about the sex. If it weren’t, we’d be close friends and I wouldn’t be writing this article....

Whole long article (Jan. 21, 2012).

-----------------------

National Geographic show to re-air. If you missed the remarkably good TV documentary about a 17-year triad family that the National Geographic Channel aired on January 10th, it'll be on again Tuesday the 24th at 10 p.m. Eastern time. (Schedule.) The 20-minute segment is the second of three in the one-hour "Odd Couples" episode of NatGeo's "Taboo" series. I think it would have come off better if it were not sandwiched between other "odd couples" to gawk at, but still. (The show is not available online.)

[Permalink]

Newt Gingrich case prompts (some) excellent non-monogamy coverage

The Newt Gingrich open-marriage story is creating a huge public opportunity to talk about, in pointed contrast, ethical and successful non-monogamy. The Polyamory Leadership Network (PLN) is buzzing right now about all the coverage and opportunities.

For instance, Sarah Taub and Michael Rios got themselves into a press release put out by the Institute for Public Accuracy, which promises reporters "reliable independent sources for breaking news":

"Open Marriage"?

SARAH TAUB, sarah@sarahtaub.com, http://www.sarahtaub.com
MICHAEL RIOS, michael@rios.org, http://www.michaelrios.com

Taub and Rios teach workshops on relationships including on open relationships and polyamory and are frequent presenters at polyamory conferences, such as those put on by Loving More, a national polyamory organization, which just released a statement on Gingrich: http://polyinthemedia.blogspot.com/2012/01/loving-more-responds-to-newt-gingrich.html

Taub said today: "Successful open relationships are consensual and based on trust, mutual respect and lots of communication. It’s very difficult (though not impossible) for a cheater to 'come clean' and create an open marriage with his or her spouse, because the initial situation is inherently non-consensual and trust has already been broken. Some extraordinary people can make it work, but the cheater must have a huge amount of humility, patience and respect for the other partner, including respecting his or her right to say 'no.' This is not how Marianne Gingrich described Newt Gingrich’s approach."

Rios said today: "Open marriages are consensual, honest and based in love. Saying 'let me have an affair or I'm going to divorce you' is not consensual -- it’s coercive.... If Gingrich had approached his wife with his feelings beforehand, perhaps she would have said, 'yes, well, actually I’ve been thinking about that possibility myself,' and then they could have honestly had a healthy, open marriage. But what we're hearing about is an affair that started in deception and ended in coercion -- and that's neither loving, nor honest, nor consensual. It's not an open marriage or polyamory by any stretch of the imagination.”

As a result of this, Sarah and Michael got booked for a radio talk show: at KSCO in Santa Cruz, CA, for two whole hours. I listened in. What a great show! Michael and Sarah, and callers alerted by the poly internet, just totally astonished the host, blew his mind and won him over with our awesome goodness and clarity. For two hours! (listen here.) We're such a great bunch.

Meanwhile, much bigger fish are frying. The BBC is running a fine article on its website featuring PLN mainstay Anita Wagner Illig and open-relationship book authors Tristan Taormino and Jenny Block, with pictures of each, plus poly-movement éminence grise Deborah Anapol:

Is it possible to have a happy open marriage?

By Daniel Nasaw | BBC News, Washington

Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich's ex-wife has said they divorced after she rejected his request for an "open marriage".

People in open marriages have told the BBC that if her version of events is true, the former House Speaker broached the subject the wrong way.

Several years after their wedding, Jenny Block realised that even though she loved her husband and wanted to be with him, she needed more.

Today, Ms Block, a writer, lives with Christopher in Dallas. Her girlfriend Jemma does not live with the couple - but spends a lot of time in the house.

"It's been me and my girlfriend and me and my husband, and the two of them are really good friends, but they're not sexually involved," says Ms Block, 41, author of Open: Love, Sex and Life in an Open Marriage....

Polyamory versus swinging

In interviews, people in open marriages say that although it is not for everyone, it is absolutely possible for adults to be in committed, emotionally satisfying relationships with more than one person at a time.

The preferred term is polyamory, a word coined in the early 1990s in the US in part to distinguish from swinging, in which couples approach sex with other people as a joint endeavour, or arrangements in which partners are allowed to have sex with other people without romantic attachments.

"Polyamorous relationships tend to be ongoing, sustainable, emotionally bonded, committed relationships with more than one person, with the knowledge and consent of everyone involved," says Anita Wagner, who says she has been in polyamorous relationships on and off for the last 15 years.

"When it works, it's wonderful. It's an abundance of love and affection and experience."

The keys to a successful, happy polyamorous relationship are up-front consent and negotiation of ground rules and boundaries, say relationship counsellors, sex educators and polyamorous couples.

"That can range anywhere from 'you can only have sex when you go on business trips and you're out of the state', to 'you can have another girlfriend but I'm the primary partner, so I come first'," says Tristan Taormino, a sex educator, writer and feminist pornographer.

..."It would sound more like, 'I've been feeling like I've been wanting to open the marriage, can we talk about that,'" says Deborah Anapol, a San Francisco psychologist and relationship therapist who has been coaching polyamorous couples for three decades....

...Even couples who believe in polyamory in theory find it difficult to broach the subject.

"It takes a lot of courage to look someone you love in the eye and tell them that you fancy another person, even if you've agreed already that you're going to do this," says Ms Wagner.

"It's not something we're used to doing. We have no role models for this."

...Describing her relationship with Jemma, [Block] says: "I just always say picture your best friend, only you have a romantic relationship as well.... This is so much less about sex than people who aren't in these relationships know."

Read the whole article (Jan. 20, 2012).

-------------------------

The New York Times site quickly put up a remarkable collection of eight articles on open relationships (January 20) in a pro-con debate format — though only two could be construed to say that open marriage is always bad news. The others range from pretty much “it can work really well and this is how you do it” to “wouldn’t it be great if people could discuss and consciously choose the type of relationship they are creating.”

One of the articles is by Dan Savage. He nails a crucial point:

Voters Accept Adultery, but Not Honesty

My favorite moment in Thursday night's GOP debate: Newt Gingrich angrily denying his second ex-wife’s account of the end of their marriage — “Let me be quite clear: The story is false!” — and the socially conservative South Carolinians in the hall rewarding the former speaker of the House with sustained applause.

...Gingrich wasn't denying that he had a six-year-long adulterous relationship with a Congressional staffer, a woman 20 years his junior, an affair that he conducted while overseeing the impeachment of Bill Clinton after his affair with a White House intern. Gingrich’s affair with a Congressional staffer is a long-acknowledged fact. That former Congressional staffer was sitting in the audience last night: her name is Callista, she’s the third Mrs. Gingrich, and she is — according to every profile written about her — a “devout Catholic.”...

All Gingrich was denying with that “false!” was the allegation that he had asked his second ex-wife for an open marriage.

...The lesson in Gingrich’s angry denial and the applause that greeted it: An honest open relationship is more scandalous, and more politically damaging, than a dishonest adulterous relationship. An honest, mutually consensual nonmonogamous marriage — which is not what Newt was proposing (you can’t negotiate an honest open marriage with your spouse six years into an affair) — is newer and somehow more threatening than the “traditional” cheating Gingrich engaged in....

Read the Whole article.

Also in the NYT collection are Dossie Easton and Janet W. Hardy, authors of The Ethical Slut:

The Right Way to Try Openness

Open marriages can work, and have worked for thousands of couples over decades if not centuries. However, there’s much more involved in maintaining an open marriage than simply asking for one. Such relationships require an ongoing commitment to communication and mutual support, and will almost certainly involve some journeying in the vulnerable territories of jealousy, insecurity and anger – but what marriage does not?

Opening a previously monogamous relationship is customarily negotiated before the openness occurs. Polyamorists consider it bad form to introduce one’s spouse to one’s secret lover with a cheery, "Honey, I've been thinking we should open our relationship!"

Much pain could be avoided if couples discussed monogamy as an option during the dating phase of their relationship, rather than assuming it as a default....

Whole article.

And so are the Sex at Dawn authors:

No One Approach Is Ideal

By Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jethá

In Spanish, the word for wives, “esposas,” also means handcuffs.

The key to loosening the handcuffs of marriage is open communication between two (or more) open-hearted people....

Just as it took Nixon to open relations with China, maybe — just maybe — Gingrich’s Shakespearian mendacity will finally crystallize a “thou dost protest too much, methinks” meme in American political consciousness. How many cases of red-faced homophobes must be exposed as closeted self-hating homosexuals before advocating anti-gay legislation raises too many eyebrows to be worth the risk? How many outspoken defenders of “traditional marriage” (whatever that is) must be exposed as adulterers before voters just roll their eyes at those two words?

...For all the oft-repeated claims to the contrary, civilization doesn’t depend upon the sanctity of any particular form of marriage, but upon honoring the dignity intrinsic to any mutually respectful, mutually beneficial relationship....

Whole article.

--------------------------------

In The Guardian in Britain, one of the world's major progressive newspapers:

I could teach Newt Gingrich a thing or two about open marriage

My husband and I feel desire for more than just each other – and act on it. But polyamory is about informed consent

By [pseudonym]

Today I should have been spending quality time with my girlfriend while waiting for my husband to join us, but instead I have been thinking Newt Gingrich's marriage....

I consider myself "polyamorous". The word is a fairly recent creation, coined in the early 90s to mean: "The practice, state or ability of having more than one sexual loving relationship at the same time, with the full knowledge and consent of all partners involved."

The way that this works in my life is that, instead of there being two of us, there are five....

About three years ago, we came to know another couple.... We have all had other relationships with other people through this time too, but we have decided that we all want to grow old together. Although it might be difficult to understand, despite being legally married only to Alan, I view my relationships with Ben, Catherine and Dan as equal.

Living like this enables us all to have all our relationship needs met, without having to put all that expectation on one person – and not having to be that one true love for anyone else. We love one another because we know one another – not because of who we wish the other person was, or because if they lose us they lose everything. It's so freeing, and at the same time a huge commitment. Freeing because you don't have to be everything to one person, but a commitment because you are signing up to be one of the most important people in many lives, not just one.

Last summer, we finally had the conversation about the rest of our lives....

Read the whole article (Jan. 20, 2012).

----------------------------

At Slate:

Do Open Marriages Ever Work?

By Brian Palmer

It works for some people. There has never been a scientific study of the success rate of open marriages, because different couples work out their arrangements in different ways. A marriage can be polyamorous from the beginning, or a couple might experiment only after tiring of monogamy. Some spouses have purely sexual relationships outside the marriage, while others have lasting emotional commitments to third parties. Lumping all of these together and comparing their aggregate divorce rate to those who have traditional marriages wouldn’t give an accurate picture.

A couple of points are rather clear, though. There’s strong anecdotal evidence that open marriages can last for decades, but one that’s born of an ultimatum — like the threat that Newt Gingrich allegedly made to his ex-wife — would be unlikely to succeed.

According to psychologist Lisa Diamond of the University of Utah, gay men are more likely than any other group to practice polyamory. For a forthcoming study, she asked 120 cohabiting couples in the Salt Lake City area whether they had explicitly agreed to have sex outside of their relationships. Almost one-quarter of the gay male couples said they had a polyamorous arrangement. That’s compared with about 7 percent of the heterosexual couples and 3 percent of the lesbians. Previous studies have suggested similar proportions, although none is large enough to state the prevalence of open marriage with any certainty....

People involved in open marriages and relationship counselors have a few tips for anyone who is considering such an arrangement, based on their personal experiences. First, they point out that open marriages work best when both partners are committed to the idea of non-monogamy in the abstract.... Second, polyamorous couples who have a secrecy policy — in which the partners are free to pursue outside relationships but are forbidden to discuss the trysts — re tempting trouble. Third, it’s worth testing the waters before committing to an open relationship: for instance, going with your partner to a bar and behaving as though you’re both single, but without going home with someone else, to see how that feels for both of you....

Whole article.

-----------------------------

At the influential gay site The Bilerico Project a blogger posted Polyamory, thy name is Newt. To this, Christina at JT Eberhard's Freethought blog reacted with rage:

...As my friend TheNerd said, “Comparing Gingrich to polyamory is like comparing wife-beating to BDSM.”

I’ll say something perhaps stronger: Newt Gingrich is to polyamory as rape is to “making love”.

...I don’t want to play the no-true-polyamorist card, but polyamory is the ability to open your heart to multiple loving, consensual relationships – built upon ideals such as honesty, respect, consent, ethics, communication, trust, and love.

What’s missing from Newty are most of those things. He got the “multiple” part right, but failed miserably at the rest....

She goes on with more great talking points that you can lift and use. Whole article.

More coming for sure.

[Permalink]

Loving More responds to Newt Gingrich news

Of course you're following the Newt Gingrich circus. Last night, two days before the crucial South Carolina Republican primary, Gingrich's second wife Marianne went on TV to say he asked her for an open marriage so he could carry on his affair with Callista Bisek, who became his third wife. When asked about it at last night's Republican debate, Gingrich furiously turned a righteous tirade of blame on... the news media.

Some commentators (such as Stephen Colbert this morning) are saying, "At least he was enough of a gentleman to ask permission." This misses two points that, if Marianne is telling the truth, make the episode an awful example of unresponsible non-monogamy:

1) He carried on the affair for six years before asking, and

2) Apparently it wasn't a discussion, it was an ultimatum: open marriage or divorce.

Last night Loving More director Robyn Trask issued a press release:

Polyamory as a Right and an Issue Enters the Mainstream and GOP Presidential Debate

...Loving More is both pleased and concerned to see the issue of polyamory and open relationships coming into the mainstream conversation.

It is about time this important issue is being discussed. What is of concern to polyamorist leaders is a true understanding the definition polyamory and open relationships, as well as some people associating polyamory — open honest non-monogamous relationships — with cheating.

Gingrich cheated on his wife and then after the fact offered to open his marriage. Polyamory is defined on Loving More Nonprofit's website: "Polyamory refers to romantic love relationships with more than one person, honestly, ethically, and with the full knowledge and consent of all concerned." A full FAQ can be found at the Loving More website as well as commonly used terminology.

Loving More recommends people be honest and communicate with their partner when they are even considering open relationships or polyamory. Cheating and then asking for openness almost never works. Trust, which is so essential to a healthy relationship, is undermined when we deceive and lie to a spouse or partner.

Polyamory and other forms of ethical non-monogamy are about being honest, authentic and transparent with our partner/s; it is about commitment and honoring agreements. Very few human beings are truly monogamous and it is time that people begin to understand that with billions of people in the world, relationships can come in many shapes and sizes. Monogamy is a beautiful choice for many, but it is not for everyone. Loving More recommends people be honest with who they are....

We'll see if Robyn gets any traction in the press.

All this is sure to make for interesting discussion at Loving More's upcoming Poly Living conference in Philadelphia February 10–12. (I'm the keynote speaker.) I hope to see you there.

For the record, here is Loving More's statement of what it's about:

What we believe

Loving relationships and healthy families can come in many beautiful and valid forms. How people choose to experience relationships and love is an individual and personal choice. Through education about polyamory and other relationship or love styles, we hope to allow people the freedom to be open and honest about their personal love and relationship choices, without fear of the prejudice or hardships that being non-traditional can bring. Through education, publicity and research, we intend to open the door to freedom and safety for those who choose polyamory as individuals and as families.

Loving More® is a national non-profit corporation and 501(c)3 charity, educational website, online community, and magazine dedicated to the support and education of polyamory and polyamorous issues, supporting the polyamorous community both nationally and internationally for more than 25 years....

UPDATE: Here's a nice item: a press release from the Institute for Public Accuracy, which is headquartered in the National Press Building in Washington, DC, and bills itself as offering "Reliable Independent Sources for Breaking News":

"Open Marriage"?

Friday, January 20, 2012

SARAH TAUB, sarah@sarahtaub.com, http://www.sarahtaub.com
MICHAEL RIOS, michael@rios.org, http://www.michaelrios.com

Taub and Rios teach workshops on relationships including on open relationships and polyamory and are frequent presenters at polyamory conferences, such as those put on by Loving More, a national polyamory organization, which just released a statement on Gingrich: http://polyinthemedia.blogspot.com/2012/01/loving-more-responds-to-newt-gingrich.html

Taub said today: "Successful open relationships are consensual and based on trust, mutual respect and lots of communication. It’s very difficult (though not impossible) for a cheater to 'come clean' and create an open marriage with his or her spouse, because the initial situation is inherently non-consensual and trust has already been broken. Some extraordinary people can make it work, but the cheater must have a huge amount of humility, patience and respect for the other partner, including respecting his or her right to say 'no.' This is not how Marianne Gingrich described Newt Gingrich’s approach."

Rios said today: "Open marriages are consensual, honest and based in love. Saying 'let me have an affair or I'm going to divorce you' is not consensual -- it’s coercive. Being married and then waiting to come clean until after you've started an affair is is not open or honest. If Gingrich had approached his wife with his feelings beforehand, perhaps she would have said, 'yes, well, actually I’ve been thinking about that possibility myself,' and then they could have honestly had a healthy, open marriage. But what we're hearing about is an affair that started in deception and ended in coercion -- and that's neither loving, nor honest, nor consensual. It's not an open marriage or polyamory by any stretch of the imagination.”

For more information, contact at the Institute for Public Accuracy:
Sam Husseini, (202) 347-0020; or David Zupan, (541) 484-9167

As a result of this, writes Sarah, on Saturday

Michael and I are scheduled to be on a radio talk show with Michael Zwerling of KSCO Santa Cruz, CA. It's the "Saturday Special" show, 10 am to 12 noon PST -- that's 1 pm to 3pm EST.

You can listen to the show live online -- the link is buried below the fold, on the left, at http://www.ksco.com

The number to call in is 831-479-1080.

Wish us luck! Zwerling seems to be a right-wing libertarian, so it should be lively.

Lots more stuff is flooding my inbox. New post soon.

[Permalink]

Conservative fear: "The Mainstreaming of Polyamory"

The American Conservative, and elsewhere

I guess we must be getting somewhere if we're in the presidential race. Here's Rick Santorum being interviewed by Glenn Beck on Fox News a while back:

SANTORUM: ...We went from Lawrence v. Texas to now a Constitutional right to same sex marriage and they’re going into a Constitutional right to polyamorous relationships. This is the slippery slope that we’re heading down.

GLENN: Polyamorous relationships. Polyamorous. That is the most incredible —

SANTORUM: That’s the term.

GLENN: Don’t use polyamorous. (Laughter.) Geez. One last —

SANTORUM: I said it.

Santorum at a recent contentious event (above):

So if you're not happy unless you're married to five other people, is that OK? Reason says that if you think it's okay for two, then you have to differentiate for me why it's not okay for three.

Michele Bachmann is out of the race, but a couple months ago her Iowa campaign co-chair, Tamara Scott, had this to say:

“You talked about the red herring and you brought up 'polygamy' and I even have articles on polyamory. There are sects of polyamory, those are people who are involved in a committed relationship – a man and a wife or a boyfriend and girlfriend, that is their committed relationship – then they have several other relationships in combination with that.”

Scott said polyamorous relationships exist in Boston and Illinois, two places that recognize gay unions. She then suggested that that gay marriage would lead to people marrying objects, such as “when a woman marries the Eiffel Tower.”

We're usually discussed only in this secondary role, as part of the magical steam pit at the bottom of the lubricated gay-marriage slide where people marry turtles, ducks, and France's national phallic symbol.

But some conservatives fear us directly for who we really are. In a paleoconservative magazine online:

The mainstreaming of polyamory

By Rod Dreher

...Andrew Sullivan today linked to a personal account of a young man who came to call himself a polyamorist after a girl he met invited him to fly to her home to have sex with her, with her husband’s consent. What’s interesting about this is how the man’s conscience kept trying to stop him. For example:

“Is your husband really ok with this?”

“Do you want to ask him?” she asked.

“No!” I quickly exclaimed.

The whole thing just felt odd. I tried to put my finger on it, but I couldn’t. Eventually I concluded that my feelings of weirdness grew purely from the fact that she was married and what that word meant to me. It didn’t make a whole lot of sense to expect someone else to conform to my notion of what a marriage was, so my reticence was not from any concern that could be considered rational. And as someone who has made a career out of telling people that emotional responses should not take precedence over rational ones (and as someone who likes sex with attractive, super nerdy women), it did not take Christina long twisting my rubber arm until I agreed.

At least once more, when confronted by her husband, he balked. It felt wrong. But the husband talked about his girlfriend, and how cool polyamory was, and, well, that was that. And now:

I’ve learned a lot from Christina and Chris, but chief among them is that I am polyamorous and would have been much sooner if not for a bunch of wonky societal myths. And so I write blog posts like this, because that’s why we come out. We come out to normalize something we think are awesome in order to dispel those myths.

We’re going to be seeing a lot of this, I bet. People who have nonjudgmental attitudes about sex deciding that the only thing keeping them from violating taboos is fear. And when that is conquered…

...Scalia has shown how and why, when gay marriage comes before the Supreme Court, a majority of justices will rule it to be a constitutional right. How could they not, given Lawrence [v. Texas]? And having so ruled, what rational basis is there to deny polyamorous, er, entities legal recognition? By then, though, it may not even be controversial, given the progressive liberalization of attitudes toward sex.

Read the whole article (Nov. 22, 2011).

Some historical perspective: The argument that gay marriage is a slippery slope to polygamous marriage goes back at least to the late 1990s and hasn't evolved since, even with the arrival and normalization of gay marriage during this time.¹

From about 2003 to 2006, some major organs of the American right tried to whip up polyamory as the next great threat against which they could defend American civilization. A driver in this was Stanley Kurtz, an intellectual for top conservative think tanks, who splashed the topic on the cover of the Weekly Standard, in the National Review, and elsewhere. It didn't take. Anti-poly hysteria gained no traction beyond the conservative movement's immediate followers, so leaders dropped it and went on to other things. The 2003–06 effort may have served mainly to make more of the public aware that happy, successful poly households even exist — which was less known at the time, and which is a key part of our own nefarious agenda.

I'm still waiting for a real backlash, and it keeps not coming. Meanwhile we've made good use of this long window of opportunity to define ourselves to the public on our own terms. More on this: Winning the Race to Define Ourselves... So Far.

And here's a much longer historical perspective, spanning centuries: The Long, Slow Sexual Revolution, by Greg Downey at PLoS Blogs/ Neuroanthropology.

UPDATE THURSDAY: More politics! From The Hill: “In an explosive interview, Newt Gingrich’s second wife, Marianne Gingrich, says the former House Speaker wanted an 'open marriage,' but that she refused.

“Her revelation comes as the presidential contender is closing in on front-runner Mitt Romney ahead of South Carolina's GOP primary.... Marianne Gingrich says in the interview that her husband wanted an open marriage so that he could remain married but continue a romantic involvement with a congressional aide who eventually became his third wife, Callista Gingrich.” Read on.

----------------------------------

1. As I've written before:

Same-sex marriage is simple and, from a structural point of view, not legally innovative. That is, it maps exactly onto the vast legal regime that's already well developed for straight marriage. (This has been true ever since courts started regarding men and women as equal parties in marriage.) By contrast, state recognition and regulation of poly relationships would require many new legal structures, precedents, and policies.

How would the law mandate, for instance, property rights and responsibilities in partial poly divorces? What about the rights and responsibilities of marriages that merge into pre-existing marriages? Setting default laws for multiple inheritance in the absence of a will, allocating Social Security benefits... it goes on.

And because there are many different basic kinds of poly relationships, compared to only one basic kind of couple marriage, each would need its own legal regime — and we know how good the state is at sorting out complicated personal realities.

Moreover, unlike couple marriages, poly relationships can change from one kind to another kind while continuing to exist. An equilateral triad can become a vee or vice versa, or something in between. The flexibility to adapt — to "let your relationships be what they are" — is a core value in the poly circles I know. How would the state keep up with your particular situation?

I've also heard it argued that opportunities would abound for unscrupulous people to game the system in ways that the law couldn't easily address: for people to pretend that their poly relationship is a different kind than it really is, or that they're in poly relationships when they're not. For instance, could gang members group-marry to gain immunity from each other's testimony?

In polyfolks' discussions that I've been in, the talk comes around instead to business-partnership models for poly households, such as subchapter-S corporations or family LLCs or LLPs. These are already well developed to handle a wide variety of contractual agreements between any number of people. (Though they have to be maintained properly, with formal annual meetings and such, or they lose their validity.)

Looking further ahead: Good law follows reality rather than precedes it. Fifty or 100 years from now when poly households are commonplace and their issues are well understood, I'm sure an appropriate body of law will have grown up to handle the issues that arise. At least that's how it works when civil society is allowed to go about its business, free of religious or ideological compulsion.

[Permalink]

All polyfamily warmth and cuddles on NatGeo TV

The National Geographic Channel

UPDATE: The show re-aired January 24th, according to the National Geographic Channel's schedule. It will air again on January 31st at 6 p.m. Eastern and Pacific time.

----------------------

Would you and your polyfamily dare to be followed around and filmed by the National Geographic for a show called "Odd Couples," on a cable series called "Taboo," which is about weird anthropological practices worldwide?

An equilateral triad family in the San Francisco area, who have lived and loved as a household for 17 years and are raising a teenager, gave the NatGeo series a very careful look, saw quality beneath the titillating surface, and decided that it was worth the risk.

And damn, they were right.

The show, filmed last June, aired this evening (Jan. 10, 2012). What a sweet portrayal it turned out to be, from start to finish! Cuddly kindness and family warmth; intelligence and thoughtfulness — and such a steady smooth flow was evident among these people after their many years together. There was some mostly good commentary by a few talking-head experts (Peter Singer, Helen Fisher, Elisabeth Sheff). The 15-year-old in particular was articulate, perceptive, and proud to have so many good parental figures. The show went on for nearly 20 minutes including commercial breaks. It ended with them making a trip to Redwood Forest National Park (above), where they have an annual ritual of renewing their wedding vows.

The adults on the show, Dany, Lon and Troy, had been on pins and needles about how the editing would be done. They need not have worried!

The tone was far warmer and more thoughtful than the voiceover of the 3-minute preview that NatGeo put up three weeks ago.

The show is not online yet and probably won't be until NatGeo is finished running reruns. The poly part was the second of three 20-minute segments making up the 1-hour show. It will get my "The Best" and "Show Your Parents" tags — assuming your parents are not the type to drop dead at seeing a three-way kiss and a lot of serious group snuggles.

Congratulations to everyone involved. That was a brave gamble, and you won.

[Permalink]

Tonight's polyfamily on TV, and recent others

● Tonight (Tuesday Jan. 10) the National Geographic Channel airs a segment about a longterm California polyfamily (above, from the NatGeo site) that it filmed last June for its "Taboo" series. "Taboo" is on at 9 p.m. Eastern time; see schedule. The polyfamily segment seems to be the last of three in the one-hour episode, which highlights. . . umm. . . unusual people and practices. The episode's title is "Odd Couples."

For more about it, and some thoughts and reservations by the people who participated in it, scroll down near the end of my post last week.

UPDATE: Just watched it. What a sweet portrayal from start to finish! Cuddly kindness and family warmth, intelligence and thoughtfulness, and such a steady smooth flow together after 17 years as an equilateral triad. They certainly need not have worried about how the show would treat them. See my next post.

The show is not online yet, but if/when it is, it'll get my "The Best" and "Show Your Parents" tags.

Now, on to the other committed poly triads on TV in the last few days:


● The California household of Jaiya Ma, Jon Hanauer, and Ian Ferguson continued their big-media blitz with an appearance on ABC's "Good Morning America" last Wednesday, Jan. 4. Watch it here (4 minutes).

Local ABC stations are airing clips from it, such as this one in Philadelphia: Polyamory -- Could you do it?.

They've also been filmed for ABC's Nightline, which could air any day now. UPDATE: This appeared on January 11; watch it here, or without ads on YouTube here (6:30). It's similar to their previous appearances, baring both their joys and troubles.


● I think an especially significant televised polyfamily was the fictional one on last Thursday's season premier of ABC's "Private Practice." A subplot running through the episode was a polyfi triad seeking to have a baby. Their respectful, sympathetic portrayal blew me away. It reminded me of the first pioneering TV treatments in the 1970s of gays as people rather than as jokes.

"Private Practice" is a medical drama that follows a group of doctors and their lives and patients. In comes a nice, seemingly conventional lesbian couple, Kendra and Rose, to interview with the fertility specialist. They've been together six years and want a child — one woman will be the egg donor, the other will bear the baby. Also along for the interview is the intended sperm donor, Evan. They indicate that he's just a friend helping out, though when questioned, he says he does plan to be around as "the fun uncle." When the counselor advises the women that they need to have him sign away parental rights, they balk, and the truth comes out: they're not actually conventional at all.

"We're all in love," they reveal, holding hands.

"We know it sounds crazy—"

As they're explaining: "That first night was amazing. And, so was the next morning. And, every morning after that. Most mornings."

They intend to be three parents as truly as possible: sperm donor, egg donor, and pregnancy carrier. (I actually know a triad like that!!) The counselor challenges them about the difficulties that they and the kid will face from society at large. They know, and say they are prepared to face it.

The docs in the practice discuss it among themselves. "A what?" "A polyamorous triad." They debate. "...That's the same argument that said interracial and same-sex couples shouldn't have children." The docs come to agreement: they will do the egg fertilization and implant, as the three wish.

But this is a TV drama, right? An ultrasound reveals a problem. "Unfortunately Rose's body is incapable of producing viable eggs or carrying a fetus." Kendra and Evan, meanwhile, have tested out fine; they could have a baby in the usual manner. Rose is devastated, and is threatened about being left behind in such a fundamental way. The three have already explained to the docs that they live by a rule: all decisions must be unanimous. "We have to avoid the two against one, so no one feels ganged up on." Kendra and Evan are just fine with having a child for the three of them regardless of this bump in the road. Rose objects and lays down a veto: "We're not having a baby." And walks out.

She needs time to process this blow, says one of the docs. "Hopefully their relationship will be strong enough to overcome it."

Later we see the fertility doctor in a heart-to-heart with Evan and Kendra. The doc explains that Rose fears "that the two of you might share a bond that she can never be a part of."

And later we see a doctor with Rose. Rose asks, "What if a baby changes everything?" Doc: "If the love is real, it can withstand anything." Rose: "Do you really believe that?" Doc: Well... no. "Sometimes life rises up and wins." Rose: "That's what I'm afraid of."

But life makes no guarantees to anyone; sometimes you just have to move forward on faith. As the show nears its end, we see the resolution. Rose has worked out her decision. "You two can make our baby," she tells Evan and Kendra. Relief. The last line of the discussion: "And we will all be together."

Just, wow.

The 43-minute episode (with several unrelated plots interwoven) is up for viewing on the show's website. It will also be free on Hulu until early February. Title: "Are You My Mother?", air date 1/5/2012.

You can leave a comment on the episode's page (which mostly seems to be hardcore "Private Practice" fans).

[Permalink]

"A family learns the true meaning of ‘in sickness and in health’ "

Washington Post

Remember the story of retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and her husband with Alzheimer's? He fell in love with another woman at his nursing home, and O'Connor gave her blessing.

Today's Washington Post Sunday magazine presents an even more powerful story in the aftermath of a brain-injury tragedy. Robert H. Melton, one of the Post's leading writers and editors (on the right here), barely survived massive brain damage in 2003. Today he is moderately functional though not recovered, living happily with the devotion and efforts of his loyal wife Page, and the steady help and love of Page's other, newer husband, Allan D. Ivie IV, and their combined six kids.

The marriage laws didn't exactly fit.

...Allan, too, was grappling with his feelings. He recalls that early on Page told him she was resigned to being alone with the girls for the rest of her life. “I said, ‘You can’t. Your heart is way too big for that.’ ”

He realized that the only way their relationship could develop was if it included Robert. As he started falling in love with Page, he said to her: “I see this responsibility that you have, and I want to help you with it. I understand this is a package deal.”

Page eventually introduced Allan to Robert, and Allan worked to forge his own relationship with Robert, writing him an e-mail every day and taking him to breakfast at IHOP, Robert’s favorite, whenever he was in town....

--------------------------

Friends used to assume that the holidays were the hardest times for her. But it was really the motions of everyday life. Now, that’s what brings her the greatest joy: making breakfast, setting the table — the long oak table from her dining room in Virginia that now sits in the sunny kitchen. There they all clasp hands to say grace before dinner. The table is big enough to accommodate all of them.

Here's the first page, with photos. Here's the full text (Jan. 8, 2012).

P.S., later: Here is a second, very similar story of a man's brain-damage tragedy, his dedicated caregiver partner, and eventually, a happily poly-ever-after solution: The Love Bucket: Loving Gingerly on DarynKagan.com (video, 3:49. Seems to be dated 080206).

[Permalink]

Dan Savage: "Meet the Monogamish"

Dan Savage is America's most visible advocate right now for negotiated non-monogamy. He invented the term "monogamish" for strongly hierarchical open relationships, and the word seems to be taking hold — joining his previous additions to the English language santorum, pegging, saddlebacking, campsite rule, etc.

For his alt-newspaper column this week, Savage invited open couples to tell their stories.

Meet the Monogamish

Why do most people assume that all nonmonogamous relationships are destined to fail? Because we only hear about the ones that do. If a three-way or an affair was a factor in a divorce or breakup, we hear all about it. But we rarely hear from happy couples who aren't monogamous, because they don't want to be perceived as dangerous sex maniacs who are destined to divorce.

This state of affairs — couples who experimented with nonmonogamy and wound up divorced won't shut up; couples who experimented with nonmonogamy and are still together won't speak up — allows smug and insecure monogamists to run around insisting that there's no such thing as happy, stable monogamish couples.

"You know lots of couples who have had three-ways and flings who aren't divorced," I told the skeptics a few weeks ago, "you just don't know you know them." In an effort to introduce the skeptics to some happily monogamish couples, I invited coupled people who'd had successful flings, affairs, three-ways, and swinging experiences to write in and share their stories. The response was overwhelming — I may do a book — and I'm turning over the rest of this week's column to their stories....

Read on, in Savage's home paper (Jan. 4, 2012).

Note that this is still all about couples. There's a lively discussion on reddit/r/polyamory about Savage's past ambiguous attitude toward polyamory itself, and perhaps toward other queernesses.

To which my friend Shirley Márquez Dúlcey replies,

I'd love to see somebody with more experience and knowledge of polyamory get the kind of mainstream readership that Dan Savage gets; I think his experiences with nonmonogamy are mostly with flavors that don't involve a lot of commitment to other significant others. But he's a lot better than nothing, and he has friends in the community to fill in the parts that are outside his personal experience.

-------------------------

Elsewhere, a Huffington Post writer advises that with the proportion of married households in America dwindling below 50%, the things that make for a successful marriage have been changing from what the culture tells you. Discussing whether your marriage should be closed or open, and under what circumstances, is only one of the considerations to weigh:

Is An Unconventional Marriage The Key To Marital Bliss?

By Lisa Haisha

Just because you're in love with someone doesn't mean you should marry them. And just because you're married to someone and connect with him or her emotionally, spiritually, and physically doesn't mean you can tolerate living with your spouse.

Am I anti-marriage? No. I'm simply saying that as society evolves, so must our perception of marriage. Apparently I'm not alone. According to a report released by the U.S. Census Bureau in October 2006, legally married heterosexual monogamous marriages are no longer the majority of American households, though various forms of marriage-clone relationships continue to flourish....

What is an Unconventional Marriage?

...Being a life coach and having worked with hundreds of people around the world, I've seen many variations of marriage. It's clear that in developing or poor countries, the traditional marriage situation does work for most people. In these countries, the couple is a bonded survival unit. Whether they love each other is irrelevant. They need each other and their children to survive.

Life in developed countries is much different... we often have two strong individuals with unique outlooks building a life together....

For these reasons, an unconventional marriage may be the key to long-term relationship success. This may include being married but living separately, having an open marriage, living together only part of the year, having a common law marriage, or any other arrangement that works for the couple's situation....

What About the Kids?

Many people wonder how non-traditional marriages affect the couple's children. In my experience, they fare just as well if not better than any other children. Think about it... for generations, children have grown up in all sorts of households: with two moms or two dads, in polygamous households, in single parent households, in households where they are living with aunts and uncles and grandparents as their primary caregivers... the list goes on. The exact living arrangement is rarely a reason for any dysfunction; what causes problems are when the children are abused, neglected, or treated harshly in any way. Dysfunction comes from behavior, not from a certain household make up.

It's Your Marriage - Do What Works for You....

Read the whole article (Jan. 4, 2012).

[Permalink]

Whole raft of polyfolks on TV today, Thursday, and next Tuesday.

When it rains it pours!

● Jaiya Ma writes that her triad family is about to appear on ABC's Good Morning America this morning (Wednesday Jan. 4), and then on ABC's Nightline. UPDATE: Their Nightline appearance has been postponed to Friday Jan. 6 (11:35 p.m. Eastern time). UPDATE AGAIN: Nope, it didn't air then either; apparently it's been delayed again.

They're certainly making the rounds; see for instance my article on their Anderson Cooper appearance on CNN a couple months ago. They also appeared on CBS's Inside Edition December 12th (it slipped by me at the time): Two men, one woman say polyamorous relationship works for them. Next up, says Jaiya, is Telemundo.

UPDATE: Watch their Good Morning America appearance (4 minutes). At the online woman's magazine Jezebel, Madeleine Davies is not impressed: Meet Jon, the Sad Polyamorist. At BlogHer, Jacqueline Allain also notices a less-than-ideal dynamic and wonders what would happen to the toddler if Jon, the kid's main caregiver, decided to leave: "I would hope that anyone in this kind of relationship is thinking long and hard about what is in the child's best interest." Later Allain apologizes and clarifies after hearing from Jaiya about how the show mis-edited her.

Local ABC stations are airing clips from the Good Morning America show, with light commentary. For instance, in Philadelphia: Polyamory -- Could you do it?.

--------------------------------------

● Thursday evening a new season of "Private Practice" begins on ABC, and here is ABC's summary of the episode:

Thursday January 5 [2012], Episode 5.10 "Are You My Mother?":

Cooper struggles with whether or not to punish Mason after he catches him stealing; Pete and Violet find it hard to split time with Lucas now that they're living apart; Addison makes changes in her home life to prepare for a potential new baby; Violet and Jake work with two women and a man involved in a polyamorous triad;....

LONG UPDATE: Just watched it. The poly subplot was respectful, emotional, sympathetic, and enlightening.

"Private Practice" is a medical drama following a group of docs and their lives and patients. In comes a nice, seemingly conventional lesbian couple, Kendra and Rose, to interview with the fertility specialist. They've been together six years and want a child — one women will be the egg donor, the other will bear the baby. Also along for the interview is the intended sperm donor, Evan. They indicate that he's just a friend helping out, although, when questioned, he says he does plan to sort of be around as "the fun uncle." When the counselor advises the women that they need to have him sign away all parental rights, they balk, and the truth comes out: they're not conventional at all.

"We're all in love," they reveal, holding hands.

"We know it sounds crazy—"

As they explain: "That first night was amazing. And, so was the next morning. And, every morning after that. Most mornings."

They intend to be three parents as truly as possible: sperm donor, egg donor, and pregnancy carrier. (I actually know a triad like that!!) The counselor challenges them about the difficulties that they and the kid will face from society at large. They know, and say they are prepared to face it.

The docs in the practice discuss it among themselves. "A what?" "A polyamorous triad." They debate. "...That's the same argument that said interracial and same-sex couples shouldn't have children." The docs come to agreement: they will do the egg fertilization and implant, as the three wish.

But — an ultrasound reveals a problem. "Unfortunately Rose's body is incapable of producing viable eggs or carrying a fetus." Kendra and Evan have tested out fine. They could have a baby in the usual manner. Rose is devastated, and threatened about being left behind in such a fundamental way. The three have already explained to the docs that they live by a rule: all decisions among them must be unanimous (Hah! say I, but never mind); "We have to avoid the two against one, so no one feels ganged up on." Kendra and Evan are ready to have a child for the three of them regardless of this bump in the road. Rose objects and lays down a veto: "We're not having a baby." And walks out.

She needs time to process this blow, says one of the docs to the others. "Hopefully their relationship will be strong enough to overcome it."

Later we see the fertility doctor in a heart-to-heart with Evan and Kendra. The doc explains that Rose fears "that the two of you might share a bond that she can never be a part of."

And later we see a doctor with Rose. Rose asks, "What if a baby changes everything?" Doc: "If the love is real, it can withstand anything." Rose: "Do you really believe that?" Doc: Well... no. "Sometimes life rises up and wins." Rose: "That's what I'm afraid of."

But, life can never make guarantees; sometimes you have to move on faith. As the show nears its end, we see the resolution. Rose has worked out her decision. "You two can make our baby," she tells Evan and Kendra. Relief. "And we will all be together."

Just, wow.

The 43-minute episode (with several unrelated plots interwoven) is up for viewing on the show's website. It will also be on Hulu until early February.

Title "Are You My Mother?", air date 1/5/2012.

You can leave a comment on the episode's page. There are no comments yet (Friday morning), and there should be.

--------------------------------------

● Next Tuesday, January 10th, the National Geographic Channel finally airs the segment about a California polyfamily that it filmed last June for its "Taboo" series. The segment seems to be the last of three in a 1-hour episode:

9:00 PM Eastern Time — Taboo: "Odd Couples"

For most the ideal spouse tends to be similar in age, social status, and physical appearance. But some marriages stray so far from this ideal, they might be considered "odd." Taboo examines some of these unconventional relationships. We'll meet a woman who's in love with a man nearly three times her height. Then, find out why a man hides his homosexuality, promising to love and obey his wife. And we'll delve inside the inner workings of a marriage made up of three partners.

Watch NatGeo's 3-minute clip from the show with the polyfamily in question.

Writes Dawn, one of the people around the dinner table there:

"I'm hoping that whatever the Taboo folks do with the adults' footage is at least tolerable... and that they have enough ethics not to screw with the kids — who gave some amazing interviews.

So far, I have to say that I'm pretty annoyed that the voiceover sounds like they're going for tabloid titillation. That is of course not what they told us (or at least led us to believe) they'd be doing. Frankly, I'd not have participated at all if Dany hadn't told me that she had taken a look at their other episodes and found them to be pretty good, actually. As with so many others, I was suspicious of any show called "Taboo".... Hopefully the titillation factor will be reduced in the somewhat longer segment, as opposed to the promo, which is *designed* to draw attention by highlighting controversy.

The film crew followed the family around for three solid days, and they were miked much of the time. Dany said that she would sometimes forget that, and of course, when she did, she'd let her guard down. I'm sure that was intentional on their part. [Note to future subjects: you don't have to agree to this. If you do, you can take off the mike for any moment you don't want to be recorded.] The part I participated in was one afternoon, essentially, and I was only miked while actually being filmed. The same was true for the kids and other friends present.

My intent in being present was both to support my dear friends and "tribe members" (our respective kids have been friends since they were 2 and 3 years old) and also to attempt to show poly as a pretty normal life, and to educate others about the existence of polyamory as an option. I hope that the team putting the show together were able to present some of that while also delivering their entertainment factor, without stooping to cheap shots.... *Crossing fingers*....

Dany, the central woman in the episode, writes:

It was a long and complicated negotiation as to whether or not to participate. We knew it was risky and worried about repercussions both personally for our community. We received a lot of assurances from NatGeo that they would be respectful. We watched back episodes of the show and they mostly seemed to take the 'look these people are different and might that might frighten you, but they are okay' approach. It was a family decision to go forward with it. Our teen-age son was particular interested in helping outsiders understand how wonderful he considers his family.

The film crew was great even if they pushed too far sometimes. This opening [of the 3-minute clip, showing one of the three winking to another to go upstairs for sex] makes me cringe, because it's the kind of sleazy approach I hate and doesn't represent us. I am still hoping the rest of the piece makes up for it.

--------------------------------------

● ALSO: Warning for would-be poly documentary subjects. A crew from Firecracker Films is fishing the poly internets for subjects, using the email name "polylovecasting." This is the outfit that made "I Love You. and You. and You" for Britain's creepy freak-show program Tainted Love in 2006. It was a snark job and not what the participants/victims had thought. See my two posts about it at the time: first, second. And read the comments, especially from people who participated. A member of one family they filmed wrote,

When I researched Firecracker Films before we agreed to be filmed, I found out about the "Tainted Love" series Channel 4 was commissioning (then called "the dark side of modern love") and specifically asked them if this documentary was part of that series.

They said no. Obviously, they lied.

This family was filmed for several days but was not shown in the final cut — perhaps because, they suspect, they came across as too normal.

If anyone is tempted to subject themselves to this outfit regardless, at least contact the Polyamory Media Association and/or Robyn Trask at Loving More and get advice on how to try to control the situation, including drawing up a binding contract with the filmmakers about how you do and don't agree to be used — including your right to review and veto the final cut of this and any future uses of all filming done of you, your property, etc. There are standard contracts for this; find one. And, be ready to refuse any sudden request the filmmakers push you to do, and be willing to walk away from the whole thing.

[Permalink]