Polyamory: The Next Sexual Revolution?

[Amby 490]

Terisa Greenan and her boyfriend, Matt, are enjoying a rare day of Seattle sun, sharing a beet carpaccio on the patio of a local restaurant. Matt holds Terisa's hand, as his 6-year-old son squeezes in between the couple to give Terisa a kiss. His mother, Vera, looks over and smiles; she's there with her boyfriend, Larry. Suddenly it starts to rain, and the group must move inside. In the process, they rearrange themselves: Matt's hand touches Vera's leg. Terisa gives Larry a kiss. The child, seemingly unconcerned, puts his arms around his mother and digs into his meal.

Terisa and Matt and Vera and Larry—along with Scott, who's also at this dinner—are not swingers, per se; they aren't pursuing casual sex. Nor are they polygamists of the sort portrayed on HBO's Big Love; they aren't religious, and they don't have multiple wives. But they do believe in "ethical nonmonogamy," or engaging in loving, intimate relationships with more than one person—based upon the knowledge and consent of everyone involved. They are polyamorous, to use the term of art applied to multiple-partner families like theirs, and they wouldn't want to live any other way.

Terisa, 41, is at the center of this particular polyamorous cluster. A filmmaker and actress, she is well-spoken, slender and attractive, with dark, shoulder-length hair, porcelain skin—and a powerful need for attention. Twelve years ago, she started datingScott, a writer and classical-album merchant. A couple years later, Scott introduced her to Larry, a software developer at Microsoft, and the two quickly fell in love, with Scott's assent. The three have been living together for a decade now, but continue to date others casually on the side. Recently, Terisa decided to add Matt, a London transplant to Seattle, to the mix. Matt's wife, Vera, was OK with that; soon, she was dating Terisa's husband, Larry. If Scott starts feeling neglected, he can call the woman he's been dating casually on the side. Everyone in this group is heterosexual, and they insist they never sleep with more than one person at a time.

It's enough to make any monogamist's head spin. But the traditionalists had better get used to it.

Researchers are just beginning to study the phenomenon, but the few who do estimate that openly polyamorous families in the United States number more than half a million, with thriving contingents in nearly every major city. Over the past year, books like Open, by journalist Jenny Block; Opening Up, by sex columnist Tristan Taormino; and an updated version of The Ethical #######—widely considered the modern "poly" Bible—have helped publicize the concept. Today there are poly blogs and podcasts, local get-togethers, and an online polyamory magazine called Loving More with 15,000 regular readers. Celebrities like actress Tilda Swinton and Carla Bruni, the first lady of France, have voiced support for nonmonogamy, while Greenan herself has become somewhat of an unofficial spokesperson, as the creator of a comic Web series about the practice—called "Family"—that's loosely based on her life. "There have always been some loud-mouthed ironclads talking about the labors of monogamy and multiple-partner relationships," says Ken Haslam, a retired anesthesiologist who curates a polyamory library at the Indiana University-based Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender and Reproduction. "But finally, with the Internet, the thing has really come about."

With polyamorists' higher profile has come some growing pains. The majority of them don't seem particularly interested in pressing a political agenda; the joke in the community is that the complexities of their relationships leave little time for activism. But they are beginning to show up on the radar screen of the religious right, some of whose leaders have publicly condemned polyamory as one of a host of deviant behaviors sure to become normalized if gay marriage wins federal sanction. "This group is really rising up from the underground, emboldened by the success of the gay-marriage movement," says Glenn Stanton, the director of family studies for Focus on the Family, an evangelical Christian group. "And while there's part of me that says, 'Oh, my goodness, I don't think I could see them make grounds,' there's another part of me that says, 'Well, just watch them.' "

Conservatives are not alone in watching warily. Gay-marriage advocates have become leery of public association with the poly cause—lest it give their enemies ammunition. As Andrew Sullivan, the Atlantic columnist, wrote recently, "I believe that someone's sexual orientation is a deeper issue than the number of people they want to express that orientation with." In other words, polyamory is a choice; homosexuality is not. It's these dynamics that have made polyamory, as longtime poly advocate Anita Wagner puts it, "the political football in the culture war as it relates to same-sex marriage."

Continued here... http://www.newsweek.com/id/209164 it's pretty long, but interesting

Edited July 29, 2009 by Amby

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

some gay rights supporter will wander in and blast the people in the story now

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Sounds like a natural, loving way to live. Now, if I could only convince my wife of that...

I miss my hippie days!

[JVKn'CVO 11]

and an updated version of The Ethical #######—widely considered the modern "poly" Bible

Priceless!!!

Saludos,

Caro

[bhajishah 4]

"mommy can me and daddys whorze go build a sand castle"

[panamania79 2]

"mommy can me and daddys whorze go build a sand castle"

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

"mommy can me and daddys whorze go build a sand castle"

I think you misunderstand the concept.

[Brian&Naty 0]

"mommy can me and daddys whorze go build a sand castle"

I think you misunderstand the concept.

As interesting a concept as this is. The real truth is that the players are totally self involved. hedonistic. While the good side can multiply by 4, the bad side can also. Instead of 2 egos, there are now 4. The child does not have a core father figure, but then again, many single parent families lack this as well. There is no real challenge of commitment. There is no loyalty. You can try and define it with some new designer term, but bottom line is that it is just another self serving, "look at me" ideology that serves no real purpose in the long run but to complicate life and possibly give a warped value system to the child. But then again, its not about child is it? Its about ME ME ME and ME.

[maliciant 7]

Back when I was single, I spent some time on some dating sites, and well, I talked to some polyamorous people, what I noticed was that usually these people are often exceptionally unnattractive, and it's more often than not that there is one woman and several men, polyamorous or just an easy chick with a bunch of dudes who don't really care so long as they get some action...

[Peikko 1,575]

It does not appeal to me. However, if that's what people want to do, so be it. Problems would arise if people wanted to formerly cement these types of relationships into legal contracts. The difficult areas would lie in how to assign the right to make decisions on behalf of a 'spouse' in the event of mental incapacity for example. These are not easy problems to solve.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The thing with that of course is that its the antithesis of marriage - there's no workable way that such an institution could be enshrined into law without fundamentally destroying the idea of marriage.

None of these issues apply to gay marriage of course, but that's not what the folks pushing the slippery slope argument want people to believe. Bait and switch is all it is.

[Chica Yeyé 41]

Good for them. I would not engage in polyamory or polygamy or polyandry; but have absolutely no problem with people who do. It is really none of my damn business. As long as they love each other(s), and educate their children; who am I to judge? Really.

[Jenn! 918]

I have no problem with consenting adults engaging in their relationships of choice. I do believe though, that the practice of polygamy is often not truly consensual.

[jundp 191]

I agree with Len. It's not for me, but if it works for them, who am I to judge?

[Peikko 1,575]

It's hard to imagine that it would be. The mere dynamic of having more than one partner necessarily complicates every aspect of the relationship. The more heads there are, the more differences of opinion there are likely to be