Polyamory.com Forum  

Go Back   Polyamory.com Forum > Polyamory > Press and media coverage

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-05-2013, 09:41 PM
Natja's Avatar
Natja Natja is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 824
Default Nasty anti blog

http://thestir.cafemom.com/love_sex/...e_polygamy_its

And oh boy...the comments are rather vexing, not just form the antis either...check this one out....

Quote:
i just want to state that "polyamorous" and "open" are not the same thing. Polyamorous means you live with love 2 people and they live in your home. Open means the same thing as swingers.
or

Quote:
keeping in mind I am not polyamorous this is how it was explained to me.

Polyamory is a relationship between 3 or more people. Sex partners may or may not enter the primary home - in my experience, when any of the people have children the meetings take place where the children are not present. Children may or may not be aware of the others as their parent's friends but they are not n the position of being a parental figure. There are specific rules, agreed to by everyone involved before anyone has sex.. The number of outside partners is discussed and agreed upon by all involved, most often in the groups I know a new partner is named and agreed to by those in the group before any sex occurs.. It is not swinging and there is nothing like trolling bars picking up people for a one night stand.

Open marriage is "swinging" when both partners have sex with others with pretty much no rules and no discussion of who or how many partners are involved. One night stands are not unheard of.
Where are they getting their information from????
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 04-05-2014, 09:40 PM
kdt26417's Avatar
kdt26417 kdt26417 is offline
Official Greeter
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Yelm, Washington
Posts: 5,921
Default

Re:
Quote:
"Half of all marriages end in divorce, so the best way to combat that statistic is to eradicate the stability of marriage between committed partners?"
Hmmm. The stability of marriage resides in monogamy? I'll have to think about that.

Re:
Quote:
"Agree or not, at least gay and polygamous marriages show some sort of committed union between adults -- promises to stay together for life."
W'll gee, if you're gonna cite those marriages, at least cite polyfidelity while you're at it.

Re:
Quote:
"Of course promises get broken, but how can you raise children in such chaos that no promise is ever even made, let alone attempted to be lived?"
I get it, adults are transitioning in and out of the child's life like a revolving door. "Do it for the children" is certainly the loudest pro-monogamy argument I've heard (from multiple sources).

Re:
Quote:
"Kids with gay parents or more than one mom will have some stuff to overcome, even if for no other reason than it's not the societal norm -- but at least they know where they belong."
Wait ... in poly, don't the biological parents tend to keep their kid regardless of whether they keep their poly partners? The kid then still belongs at home then ... That's not hard to see, is it?

Re:
Quote:
"But what happens when Dad's girlfriend, who is acting as a surrogate mother, decides it's time for her to move on?"
Jenny Erikson doesn't seem to be considering that how involved an adult is in a child's life can (should) be proportionate to how committed that adult is to staying in the child's life. Just someone Mom or Dad are dating for the next few months? presumably won't become anything more than an acquaintance to the child.

Re (from ZamEnt25):
Quote:
"People doing what works for them is why our society is in the mess it's in."
LOLOL! ... I'm sorry, that's just ...

Okay, right. So, new battle plan. Henceforth we will do what *doesn't* work for us. And that should solve the problem.

Re (from wamom223):
Quote:
"And maybe just maybe if you don't want to forsake all others you shouldn't take vows you have no plans on keeping."
Certainly. I'm all for marital vows that don't include forsaking all others.

Re:
Quote:
"I think people who think like you are trying to ruin the human race."
Bwa-ha-ha-haaaaa, my plans to ruin the human race are proceeding stupendously! [hunches over and rubs hands quickly while eyes dart back and forth]

Re:
Quote:
"Funny how all these open marriages types are also narcissistic."
I am? How does wamom223 know that?

Re (from wamom223):
Quote:
"The problem I have witnessed and read about are that with that many relationships to maintain they very rarely have enough left over for their children."
A reasonable concern. Depends on the details, I guess.

I guess I am somewhat zen about the badmouthing (and spread of misinformation) polyamory endures. People tend to fear the unknown and polyamory is a big unknown for a lot of people. They're going to greet it with xenophobia at first. In time, though, their rants will become the soil in which reasonable dialogs arise. So in a way it's a necessary process.

One thing Erikson's article illustrates is that polyamorous rights is the next big debate following (on the very heels of) gay rights. You can learn a lot about when and how polyamory will come to be accepted by listening to its enemies talk.

As a part of that listening process, I do try to give due credit for any valid concerns our opponents raise during the debate. Sometimes I don't know if a particular concern is valid or not, so I just make a note of it and consider it in future discussions. We do know that along with the poly success stories, there are poly horror stories. I find merit in examining both.

Polyamory isn't necessarily bad for kids (often quite the opposite in fact), but I do know of at least a case or two off the top of my head where the kids suffered because of it (or because of the way it was handled). I think it's fair to ask me to be concerned about that.

One thing's for sure though: Polyamory isn't going away. We're going to see more and more of it as time goes on. And overall, I think that's a good thing.
__________________
Love means never having to say, "Put down that meat cleaver!"
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-06-2014, 06:15 AM
SchrodingersCat's Avatar
SchrodingersCat SchrodingersCat is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Saskatchewan
Posts: 2,130
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kdt26417 View Post
Jenny Erikson doesn't seem to be considering that how involved an adult is in a child's life can (should) be proportionate to how committed that adult is to staying in the child's life. Just someone Mom or Dad are dating for the next few months? presumably won't become anything more than an acquaintance to the child.
Aw heck, I've been with Auto for over 2 years and we have no plans of going anywhere soon, but I'm still not even the slightest bit involved in a parental role with her kids, nor will I ever be.

Partners don't usually move in and begin acting as surrogate parents without intending to stick around for a while.

Not to mention, how many single parents move in with a partner without any marriage commitment, and then how often do those relationships fail?

Allowing people to parent your children without an explicit long term commitment isn't a poly issue, it's a modern parenting issue. Monos botch it just as often as polys.
__________________
Gralson: my husband (works out of town).
Auto: my girlfriend (lives with her husband Zoffee).

The most dangerous phrase in the English language is "we've always done it this way."
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-06-2014, 08:59 AM
london london is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: UK - land of the free
Posts: 1,635
Default

I agree that it's a parenting issue. Just as many monogamous single parents allow a stream of people into their children's lives. It's simply more understandable for a monogamous single parent to do that because of course, we are all looking to replace the child's biological parent in the child's life as well as our own. So as bad as it's viewed, there's a lot of pity for poor single mum who got dumped by her baby daddy and now she needs to find a new daddy for her bastard child.

The desire for non monogamy is already seen as pathological by many, so it's not just "single mum", it's "crazy nymphomaniac single mum whose baby daddy had a lucky escape seeks new victim(s) to help her fuck up her kid".
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-06-2014, 12:09 PM
Magdlyn's Avatar
Magdlyn Magdlyn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Metro West Massachusetts
Posts: 3,785
Default

Opening subject summary:

Quote:
You know the story: Boy meets girl, boy marries girl, boy invites another girl into their bed, and girl is strangely ok with it, because she has her own lesbian lover on the side anyway.

Wait, what?

Welcome to polyamory, the strange perversion of what love in marriage looks like. On Showtime’s Polyamory: Married & Dating, married couple Michael and Kamala talk about their open marriage, and why monogamy “just doesn’t work for them.”
OK, I decried sarcasm on another thread, but here in response to stupid article I will use it: Yes, let's summarize what poly is all about from the example of ONE triad shown on a sensationalizing TV show!

Ugh, I hate the idea in the media that poly is all about MFF triads! That's just more patriarchal bullshit. Of course, the male in the TV show has "2 wives." Of course the wife's other lover is seen as someone "on the side." Since that "lesbian" isn't also fucking the guy, she must be just a piece on the side!

Grrr...
__________________
Love withers under constraint; its very essence is liberty. It is compatible neither with envy, jealousy or fear. It is there most pure, perfect and unlimited when its votaries live in confidence, equality and unreserve. -- Shelley

me: Mags, 59, living with:
miss pixi, 37
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 04-06-2014, 02:28 PM
KerryRen KerryRen is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 90
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Magdlyn View Post
Ugh, I hate the idea in the media that poly is all about MFF triads! That's just more patriarchal bullshit. Of course, the male in the TV show has "2 wives." Of course the wife's other lover is seen as someone "on the side." Since that "lesbian" isn't also fucking the guy, she must be just a piece on the side!
The MFF+ thing is something that bothers me about media portrayals of poly lately. Frequently I'm seeing in the Mormon context, but it shows up in other situations too.

It is one way poly is done, sure, but show enough of it and the general population will construe that is the only way to do poly, IMHO. I'm happy to see poly portrayed -- it was hardly findable outside of SF/F when I was struggling with my first triad -- but there's more to it than the MFF V or Mormon plural marriages and others aspects should be shown.
__________________
-- Kerry J. Renaissance
39 y/o female, married/bisexual/poly/pagan/disabled/fan

In a V with
- Liam, 52 y/o straight male (married, 14 years)
- Jai, 41 y/o bi male
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 04-06-2014, 04:28 PM
kdt26417's Avatar
kdt26417 kdt26417 is offline
Official Greeter
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Yelm, Washington
Posts: 5,921
Default

Re (from london):
Quote:
"The desire for non monogamy is already seen as pathological by many, so it's not just 'single mum,' it's 'crazy nymphomaniac single mum whose baby daddy had a lucky escape seeks new victim(s) to help her fuck up her kid.'"
Heh.

Re (from Magdlyn):
Quote:
"Yes, let's summarize what poly is all about from the example of *one* triad shown on a sensationalizing TV show!"
Jenny Erikson's a wee bit paranoid, methinks.

Re:
Quote:
"Ugh, I hate the idea in the media that poly is all about MFF triads!"
An idea that spreads like wildfire ...

Re (from KerryRen):
Quote:
"It is one way poly is done, sure, but show enough of it and the general population will construe that is the only way to do poly, IMHO."
They will and do so construe. I believe it's related to the rash of UH's we get.
__________________
Love means never having to say, "Put down that meat cleaver!"
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 04-06-2014, 06:49 PM
Tonberry Tonberry is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,386
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SchrodingersCat View Post
Allowing people to parent your children without an explicit long term commitment isn't a poly issue, it's a modern parenting issue. Monos botch it just as often as polys.
Pretty much what I was thinking. There are so many things relating to children that people use as arguments against polyamory, that occur in monogamous relationships too.

There are divorces, step-families, boyfriends and girlfriends of your parents, etc, in tons of families nowadays. Pretty much every time someone says "but polyamory is wrong because what would happen in this scenario involving parenting?" there are examples of these cases happening right now in mono families.
You don't even need to look at divorced and remarried families (or single parents) for that. These things often happen with friends of the family, too. Are parents not supposed to have friends in case they have a fallout and the children miss their buddy?
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 04-07-2014, 12:40 AM
kdt26417's Avatar
kdt26417 kdt26417 is offline
Official Greeter
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Yelm, Washington
Posts: 5,921
Default

Re:
Quote:
"Are parents not supposed to have friends in case they have a fallout and the children miss their buddy?"
Point being, look at it from the child's point of view. What affects the child the most is whether this or that person is around (in the child's company), not whether the person in question is spoiling the traditional marriage covenant. Kids don't exactly need to know just what the grown-ups are doing in the bedroom anyhow!
__________________
Love means never having to say, "Put down that meat cleaver!"
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 04-07-2014, 05:00 AM
Tonberry Tonberry is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,386
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kdt26417 View Post
Point being, look at it from the child's point of view. What affects the child the most is whether this or that person is around (in the child's company), not whether the person in question is spoiling the traditional marriage covenant. Kids don't exactly need to know just what the grown-ups are doing in the bedroom anyhow!
Exactly. I think if someone becomes important enough in your child's life, then they should be able to stay in their life (unless they're dangerous), even if they aren't part of yours much anymore.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
media

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:36 PM.