Responsible Spokespersonship and Open Marriage on (Shudder) Dr. Phil

Alan over at the Polyamory in the News blog has put up a post that has attracted a lot of attention and comment about yesterday's piece on open marriage on the Dr. Phil Show. 



Kenya and Carl are a couple who have been speaking out on their form of responsible nonmonogamy for some time now.  They were courageous to agree to go up against Dr. Phil, just as was author Jenny Block when she went up against Bill O'Reilly and into a few other similarly hostile situations.

It's a very personal decision to accept such invitations, yet by accepting them we spokespeople also take on a significant amount of responsibility to others like ourselves.  For several years Dr. Phil's producers repeatedly asked we poly community spokespeople to provide people to appear on the show, and we consistently declined.  Especially since the Newt Gingrich supposed request for an open marriage story broke a few weeks ago, we spokespeople have been delighted at the fair treatment we've been given by members of the media, but we are under no illusions about the likelihood of being treated with respect by Dr. Phil.  Evenso, it's the viewers in his audience who have open minds we would be trying to reach.  Based on what we know about Dr. Phil's interview style, there was and still remains plenty of reason for concern that not enough of our message would make it into the final cut to outweigh all the ways in which we would be made to look bad.

Alan, usually the poster guy for the mild-mannered, had what is for him an uncharacteristically strong but evenso understandable reaction to Carl's statements that appeared to justify dispensing with practicing safer sex, and I share Alan's frustration.  We spokespeople can't afford the luxury of making highly controversial statements on subjects such as STI prevention, especially on national television, and give the impression that we - and by implication, those like us - are being irresponsible.  I've seen one or two other leaders do this sort of thing under the notion that they must speak their truth no matter what.  In my personal opinion, such defiance ignores the potential for harm that comes along with it and pretty much disqualifies us as effective leaders and spokespeople.  I'm not saying I think this is absolutely true in Carl's case, not if he learns from the experience. 

As spokespeople, honesty is important to doing an effective job, but avoiding needlessly creating negative impressions is even more important considering the responsibility we take on when we speak to large audiences. Isn't the point that we want our words to clear up misunderstandings and have a positive impact? Why would we choose to make statements that would undermine that goal? It's terribly counterproductive to let this happen when in fact what we have to share is a message of just how ethical and healthy responsible nonmonogamy can actually be. We do neither ourselves nor our communities any service by playing into the hands of our critics.  Our words can have far-reaching consequences and affect the lives of thousands of people we don't even know. This responsibility MUST be taken seriously if we are to make the world a better, safer place for healthy families that don't fit the traditional model. 

I already know that I share many of Kenya and Carl's values, and I am grateful for their courage and especially for their lending a voice to this subject from the perspective of people of color. I applaud their commitment to self-determination and the example they set for others to create the family life and responsible relationships that best meet their needs. 

Author Pamela Haag refers in her recent book "Marriage Confidential," to those of us living a consenting and openly nonmonogamous life as renegade couples blazing a trail for others to follow. This is no more true for anyone than it is for we spokespeople who stick out our necks into the line of fire to raise awareness and counter misconceptions. We are all learning as we go, and we are all in this together.  I'm pretty sure many polyamory spokespeople, including myself, would be happy to collaborate with Carl and Kenya in this regard and learn from each others' experiences.

Sustaining the Momentum

Friends, I am still feeling the Momentum. By that I mean I still feel the incredible energy, passion and intelligence that everyone concerned with last weekend's Momentum conference held in the DC suburb of Silver Spring, Maryland contributed to it. Of course, there is never enough time to meet everyone, see everything, and catch up with friends while spending several hours videotaping programs for KinkAcademy.com and PassionateU.com, as well as sitting on two panels and giving a workshop, but I did my best.  Our task was to talk and collaborate about how to advance the cause of feminist sex-positivity and support alternative relationships, all via the use of new media. This served to inspire a wide range of amazing and thought provoking programs.

Probably the best and most impressive aspect of this event for me was the keynote panel on Friday night. It was such a thrill to see so many of my favorite sex geeks on one panel and speaking brilliantly as to the challenges we still face in achieving a more sex positive world. The panel was moderated by Las Vegas professor and media comentator Dr. Lynn Comella (on the right), and participants continuing right to left were sexologist and author Dr. Carol Queen, sex educator Reid Mihalko, sex educator and author Tristan Taormino, and author Jenny Block. Though I had never met Lynn before, I am friends with the others, and considering how infrequently I get to actually see them, with us being spread out all over the country, it was quite a thrill to see and hear them put their collective heads together - very powerful! These really are a substantial portion of the U.S. sex positive brain trust, if you will. 

I absolutely must give a shout out to Tess Danesi and Diva, a/k/a producers of the New York Sex Bloggers Calendar, for putting on an inspiring, intriguing and affordable conference. This was the first MomentumCon, but we are assured that it will not be the last. 

About 30 of us spent Saturday night in Baltimore at Baltimore adult toy shop Sugar's Red and Black Ball, an excursion arranged by ball emcee Reid Mihalko, who got us all there on the sex geek bus.  (Here I am in a picture with fabulous sex educator and Babeland sex toy reviewer Dr. Ruthie as we gathered to board the bus.)   And I would be remiss not to include the picture to the right of the ever fabulous Cunning Minx of the Poly Weekly Podcast, looking absolutely regal in her red and black costume.  And I mustn't forget to give a shout out to Sugar owner Jacq Jones, who has a lot to be proud of and who put on a fabulous celebration of what I believe is Sugar's fourth anniversary supplying quality adult toys to the people.  That's me with that gorgeous goddess of a woman below to the left. 

Considering the focus on new media, it was great fun to read all the live blogging and tweeting that went on from the conference.  Those who couldn't be in attendance can still see all the tweets, many of which were instantaneous quotes from presenters, panelists and audience members, via the hashtag #mcon.  Such brilliance! 

And this barely scratches the surface of all that is and was Momentum.  Though this was it's inaugural event, it sold out, as I suspect it will every year considering all the positive buzz it's getting so don't get left out - buy your ticket early in 2012. 

MOMENTUM CON - Featuring New Media Roundtable – Tips and Tools for Social Change

Hi all - Here's info on the second of my panels at Momentum. In case you haven't heard, it's amazingly affordable to attend this event, well under $100 ($55 as I write this.)

New Media Roundtable – Tips and Tools for Social Change (will be presented on Saturday, April 2nd, from 9:00 a.m. until 1:10 p.m.)

New media provides a wide variety of optons for individuals and groups to create an online presence. Publishers can choose to blog, podcast, vidcast, or collaborate through wiki-based platforms. In addition, there are numerous resources for promoting your content. How do you choose which tools to get your message across and to build awareness about your cause?

This discussion is for those who have considered publishing new media content, or who want to use tools like Facebook or Twitter to build an audience and community, Hear from our panel of experienced educators and activists on how they used (or built upon) existing tools in order to engage their respective audiences.

New Media Roundtable is a panel discussion moderated by Cunning Minx aided and abetted by panelists Avory, Jenny Block, Jessica Karels and Anita Wagner.

Jenny Block on Richmond's Virginia This Morning

Jenny Block, author of Open: Love, Sex and Life in an Open Marriage, is still going strong with media events since the publication of her book about 18 months ago. Her latest appearance was yesterday, January 11, 2010, where she was interviewed by the hosts of Richmond's Virginia This Morning morning show. See video below. All the media experience she's had as a result of the book has lead to a poised and polished delivery of her (and our, i.e. we polyamorists') message. She's certainly braved some daunting challenges, including facing off with Bill O'Reilly and several thousand born again Christians on ABC's Nightline - both trial by fire without question. This latest interview is more friendly, and she looks fabulous.

Jenny's success has also led to her being the Sex Talk columnist for Dallas-Ft. Worth's free weekly entertainment newspaper, QuickDFW.com

Go Jenny!

  

Questioning Monogamy

I'm really loving how Tiger Woods's extramarital affairs have inspired a variety of writers to write columns that question monogamy.  (For your very own "Question Monogamy" t-shirt, go here.)    For example, two online articles published today make some especially interesting points.  Huffington Post brings us Jay Michaelson's It's Not Just Tiger: Monogamous Marriage Is An Anomaly , and Newsweek Online just published my girl Jenny Block's The Case Against Monogamy - Why is everyone so surprised about Tiger Woods? When it comes down to it, monogamy doesn't always work.

What I love about all this is that it is drawing attention to the notion that because monogamy is so difficult for many to make work over the long term, everyone needs to wise up to the fact that monogamy should be an intentional choice, not something people do just because they think they're supposed to. 

Other polyamory advocates and I have been saying this very thing for a long time.  None of us contends that monogamy is wrong, or bad, or uncool, or especially inferior.  We just want people to know that they have another legitimate option, and that for some polyamory may work better and be more ethical than monogamy. 

Whatever way people arrange their intimate lives, committing to monogamy by rote because it's what we are "supposed" to do is clearly a bigger risk than most people realize and can result in tremendous heartbreak for those who find it more difficult to stick with than they anticipated.  It's also a mistake for those who hope they can give it lip service while sneaking around behind their monogamous partner's back, which appears to be Tiger Woods's bankrupt strategy. 

Though we polyamorists are often villified for our choices, I am proud to say that I will never cheat on a partner, and neither are any partners likely to cheat on me, because none of us has to.  We make relationship agreements we can stick to, and if we find we no longer can, then we talk with our partners and renegotiate the rules of the relationship.  In this way trust is maintained.  Jenny gets it SO right when she say of her partnerships ....

"We love each other and want to be together, but monogamy is not the cornerstone of our partnership—trust is."

May it some day be so for everyone, no matter what their relationship choice. 

In Dallas? Support Jenny Block This Thursday in Nightline Face-Off!

The following is a plea for support from author Jenny Block as she prepares for a live taping of a high profile debate with those who oppose polyamory and open marriages.  Please pass it along to anyone you know who may be able to show up and cheer her on. 

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

Dear Friends and Colleagues,

I've been invited to participate in a debate about adultery and the Ten Commandments for an episode of Nightline, airing on September 24.

The best news is that you're invited to be a part of the studio audience.

The taping is being held this Thursday, September 17 at 6:30 p.m. at:

Fellowship Church
2450 N Highway 121
Grapevine, TX 76051-2002
(972) 471-5700

Also on the panel are Pastor Ed Young of Fellowship Church, Noel Biderman of ashleymadison.com, and Jonathan Daugherty of Be Broken Ministries.

I sure would love to have your support and to see your smiling faces in the audience. Plus, you can ask questions and appear on the show too!

Looking forward to seeing you there!

All the best,

Jenny

Family Web Series Creator On Seattle Local News, Oprah Interested

I've posted here before on Terisa Greenan's wonderful web series called "Family", about a Seattle male female male triad's trials and joys. There are now 15 Family webisodes on Youtube, and Terisa and company continue to crank them out as the number of hits on Youtube continue to soar - 81,000+ so far.

Today KOMO in Seattle has published a news article and video about it that is basically fair and sensible. You can read the article, which seems to be pretty much the video piece word for word.

Well-known author and matchmaker, Dr. Pepper Schwartz is a Professor of Sociology at the University of Washington in Seattle and has in the past acknowledged that the human tendency to desire more than one partner is natural. So, I'm disappointed at the tone of her comments on the video. Of course, who knows what else she said that didn't make it into the story. What she says is true in some cases, but far from all, and the main reason what she says IS true is that people still need to gain the skills to make it work.

The editing made Terisa sound a little flaky in one instance, though I know that not to be the case. Who can blame her if perhaps she was coming from that giddy place poly people find when they have such an abundance of love in their lives? It's pretty heady stuff and an experience her nasty commenting critics will perhaps never have. How unfortunate that many people can't (or won't) look outside the monogamy box, even if for only a moment, when evaluating a story like this one.

T and I had dinner with Terisa, Scott and Larry last month, along with her third and his wife and child. She and I had spoken by phone but never met, and I found her and the rest of the family to be delightful. Terisa is a warm, sincere, smart woman - and, of course, talented!

The family on which "Family" is based did a great job and deserves our thanks for being willing to expose themselves to public opinion as they have. Many of the comments at the end of the article are pretty vicious, much as they were for Jenny Block when she first came to the attention of the public over a year ago when her book Open: Love, Sex and Life in an Open Marriage was published. The very idea that either Terisa or Jenny are simply greedy sluts as alleged by commenters in both cases is laughable, yet people insist on making sweeping assumptions about their motives. It seems to come from a place of defensiveness, one into which I wish we had more scientific insight. This is not new, but it continues to amaze me how easily this kind of thing pushes people's buttons, and not in a good way. It just goes to show how far we still have to go to gain tolerance and awareness for polyamorous people and families.

I am delighted to hear that Oprah found Terisa. Her producers have been promising for some time now to devote one of her shows exclusively to the topic of polyamory. Robyn Trask of Loving More has in the past fielded requests for poly participants in other Oprah episodes where what was being discussed really wasn't polyamory. She educated the producers so that they now understand what polyamory is, and I'm glad to see that their interest is still strong.

Jenny Block Goes Up Against Focus on the Family on Fox News

Hey, check out poly author Jenny Block's brief interview on Fox today. Jenny was up against Glenn Stanton, Director of Global Family Formation Studies at Dr. James Dobson's conservative marriage movement org Focus on the Family. Note while Jenny describes her family and opinion Stanton's disrespectful "oh please" expression before he ever opens his mouth.



At least Jenny got the last word this time, which was not the case when she appeared on Fox's Mornings with Mike and Juliet - see my post - a while back.

She held her own pretty well. Would have loved to have heard her debunk Stanton's contention that every society that has allowed multipartner marriage has ended up with situations where women are collected and thrown away. This, at least western culture and specifically the United States, is a different place and time, where women are liberated and patriarchy no longer applies to the situation, at least not to egalitarian polyamory. THAT is the point that we must make to knock all the props out from under the opposition.

Also, the opposition keeps raising multipartner marriage as if we are clammoring for it. In my observation very few polyamorists say this is what they want, though they DO want a system that is more fair. Most who are intentional about their family structures arrange for most of the legal rights they are missing out on via legally binding contracts. Tax benefits would still be missing, but it's hard to conceive of a time in the foreseable future when government will permit multipartner marriage. I see this as due to the tremendous changes that would have to take place in the tax code, social security system, etc., to acommodate it. Same-sex marriage doesn't make such changes necessary.

Bottom line, I don't think we should let them bait us into debating the merits of legal multipartner marriage. Neither should we permit ourselves to continue to be used as the poltiical football in the same-sex marriage debate. Our existence is no reason for marriage equality to be denied to those who seek it for two same-sex partners, especially when there isn't even a movement within the polyamory community or its leadership in that direction.

I don't mean any of this as criticism of Jenny, not at all. It's just a matter of refining the message a bit. She is a brave woman for being willing to repeatedly go on Fox to spread the word and hopefully raise some consciousness. I hope it helps her book sales, too.

Amazon's "Cataloging Error" of Polyamory, LGBTs, Other Books

UPDATE: Amazon has restored the books I reference below to their normal searchable ranking status. We're still learning how the LGBTQ books have fared. It seems that others are still in limbo, with the authors still pleading with Amazon to do the right thing. An example is Mark Michaels and Patricia Johnson's tantra books in hardback and paperback - somehow the "glitch" never excluded books available on Kindle, Amazon's electronic reader.

Here's what the New York Times says Amazon has reported. Apparently whatever happened, it was genuinely inadvertent, an admittedly "embarrassing and ham-fishted cataloging error."
-----------------------------------------
In a highly disturbing attempt to make their searches more "family friendly" (not to mine, certainly) Amazon implemented over the weekend a new policy that uses its ranking system to derank and exclude from searches on the topics "polyamory" and "open relationship" just about every contemporary book on those subjects. In particular this includes the just released new edition of the Ethical Slut, Tristan Taormino's Opening Up, Jenny Block's Open, and Pete Benson's Polyamory Handbook, all published within the last year. Also affected are, of course, books with erotica, on sacred sexuality and tantra. And then there are all the LGBTQ books also affected. I am very concerned about this appallingly ham-handed attempt at being family friendly that is in effect censorship, especially considering that Amazon is the largest book vendor anywhere.

I have so many author friends who are seriously adversely effected by this, including but not by any means limited to those listed above. It is frightening to think that this can happen so easily, thus resulting in polyamorists being unable to find the most basic texts on polyamory on Amazon without knowing the name of the book they need. Ironically, apparently if you already have the URL for what you want to buy, it can be found and purchased that way. So Amazon will still gladly take our money. If Amazon were a realtime store, this is analogous to their selling our books from a back room only to customers who come in and ask for it by name.

As many people know, I frequently give workshops on various aspects of conducting polyamorous relationships, and Amazon has just deranked what amount to MY TEXTBOOKS. This is very serious, especially if it becomes a trend with other book vendors, both for our valued authors and for our community.

As of Sunday night Amazon's customer service people have been telling concerned authors who call them that there was a glitch they are going to fix in the next 48 hours. No public statement has been made as of yet, and it's looking less and less like a glitch is really responsible. See here for more on that, and also search for the hashtag #glitchmyass on Twitter.

In the meantime, there are no such issues at Barnes and Noble and Borders, who at least as of now are surely glad to take our money. Plus, you can usually order these texts directly from the authors on their websites or from other sources, as the links above demonstrate. If you do a Google search for these books by name and/or author, the Amazon links come up and you CAN still go there and buy the books, but I urge you not to and instead too patronize less abhorent vendors.

This event quickly went viral over the weekend. Social networking site Twitter saw the search term #amazonfail quickly rise to the number one topic of Easter Sunday tweets, even more than "Easter" and "Masters". The hashtag #amazonfail is being used as a form of protest. Twitterers who have an opinion or more at stake include #amazonfail in their tweets so a thread is created. Just put #amazonfail in the Twitter search field to find those tweets.

Excellent explanations and analyses of all this can be found here and here.

PLEASE SIGN THE PETITIONS at Change.org here and on The Petition Site.

Let's hope that Amazon can be persuaded to come to its senses. No doubt LGBT activists are already making Amazon's management's life miserable. Especially if you ahve an Amazon account, please do all we can to help by, as I have, writing to Amazon expressing the unacceptable nature of their decision, the value of the materials being deranked, how long you've been a customer, how much you have spent with them (a guess is fine for these purposes) and how it is that you will be cancelling our account very soon if this problem is not solved to our satisfaction.

Another Hired Non-Expert

Marriage and family therapist Dr. Dan Gottlieb recently discussed on NPR's Morning Edition the subject of non-monogamy in the context of findings in the General Social Survey that men and women of all ages are unfaithful. Brenda, the interviewer, references Jenny Block's book Open: Love, Sex and Life in an Open Marriage. Like clockwork, Gottlieb, yet another hired expert marriage and family therapist like Dr. Diana Kirschner whose lack of awareness on the subject of open marriage I comment on in this post, declares: "... a lot of younger couples when they do have these internet flirtations [believe] that it enhances the romantic and sexual relationship. Well, it does, in the short run, and it does in the moment." So he gets that variety in one's love life can be beneficial. But then he continues by saying "... in the 70s we tried open marriage and we tried swinging and all that stuff. Doesn't work, period. It can't work in the long run, being unfaithful, because ultimately relationships are about trust."

He's right - they absolutely are about trust. Where his arguments break down is where he fails to get that trust is not broken when monogamy is absent from the relationship agreement by mututal consent. Also, common wisdom from a variety of fronts says that we already know free love doesn't work because we tried it in the 1970s without success. I can see why some think that's proof enough, but what they don't know is that free love back in the day was fraught with problems because its practitioners lacked the relationship/communication skills and in most cases the integrity to conduct their relationships in ways that work for all involved. As I am fond of saying, polyamory and open marriage today, with their increased awareness of what works and what doesn't, are Free Love 2.0.

Newsflash: It's not the sex/love with others that damages a marrage, it is the violation of the promise *not* to enter into other sexually intimate relationships that is guaranteed to damage trust. Seems entirely feasible to me for a reasonably savvy therapist to intuit, but the ones I hear speak to the subject don't fulfill that hope.

We have so much work yet to do to educate these therapists as to the truth. Some of that can be accomplished with information campaigns, and some of it via peer-reviewed studies. Clearly, and understandably, even those therapists who are so highly regarded as to be hired to speak on radio and TV don't have experiences that demonstrate that it is entirely possible to maintain trust while conducting an open marriage or poly relationship. Not only is it possible, but I and my partner, T, are happily making it work, as are hundreds of other polyfolk I know.

I agree with Gottlieb, to a degree, when he goes on to say, "I think there is another factor, Brenda, with infidelity. There is ample research that we have fewer intimate friends. There is a longing for human contact, whether we are aware of it or not. As a result of our increased isolation, we have more and more expectations on our partner. They have to be our lover, our best friend, our soulmate, the one who understands us - it's not reasonable for one person. And when they don't meet all of those needs, we think there is something wrong in the marriage, we get angry and disappointed, and many go outside to try to get those needs met."

He's right, of course, that it is very difficult to be all things to one person. What he is implying is that developing emotionally (but not sexually) intimate friendships are the solution. I'm sure Gottlieb is a lovely and knowledgable man, and with a little more vision and understanding of the dynamics of successful open relationships, he may be a potential convert.

Speeches at Poly Pride Rally

Several of the speakers at the Poly Pride Rally in New York City on October 3, 2008, on the Great Hill in Central Park have posted their remarks online: keynoter and poly author Tristan Taormino (pictured here) who inspired us all, author Jenny Block, who spoke on communication and her experiences since her book was published a few months ago, Polyamory-in-the-News blogger Alan M. with a cautionary message, anthropologist Leanna Wolfe on polyamory culture, and my remarks on the mainstreaming of polyamory.

Enjoy!

Poly Pride Celebration in NYC

Polyamorous NYC's polyamory pride weekend happened this past weekend, and I'm still flying high on the incredible energy that typified every single experience I had there. I have to say right up front what a fantastic job Polyamorous NYC did in organizing and producing this event. Producer Lyndell Moore (in picture to the right, second from the left) deserves big props, as does Poly NYC president Birgitte Philippides (far left), under whose capable and dedicated leadership this event spread its wings and soared, along with the support of founder Justen Michael Bennett-Maccubbin (3rd from the left) and all of the committee members who together created a weekend I'll always remember.

The event spawned press coverage both in the New York Times and the New York Post , plus interest from others like a free-lance film maker who gathered footage to support a poly documentary pitch to HBO and who interviewed many speakers and attendees at the Saturday afternoon rally and picnic.

Polyamory Weekly podcaster Cunningminx was also there, and it was a great pleasure to both meet her (finally!) and once again be interviewed for the podcast. (See picture of Minx and me above.) You can hear Minx's podcast coverage part one of two of the event and my interview (28 minutes in) here. And of course, Alan M. of Polyamory in the News was also there documenting the day's events.

I also had the honor of introducing to one another two of this year's new poly book authors, Tristan Taormino and Jenny Block, with me at left. Also it was the first time Jenny and I have met, though we've been on-line friends and collaborators for many months now.

Here's a picture of me (taken by Minx - thanks, Minx!) on the podium where I spoke about The Mainstreaming of Polyamory.

Entertainment at the rally was outstanding. I especially enjoyed America's Got Talent competitors the Glamazons - four sassy big women pictured here who are the stuff of many a wet dream - and the Raven Schecter trio who were both polished and hilarious. Here's a piece of their performance also recorded by Minx.


You can find a complete list of the speakers and performers here, and, not surprisingly, Tristan Taormino's keynote address was both entertaining and inspiring. I especially appreciated her call for the Same-Sex Marriage Movement to stop "throwing polyamory under the bus." What she is referring to is the ill-advised distancing from polyamory the SSM leadership does - primarily its leader, Evan Wolfson - in order to avoid any confirmation that Stanley Kurtz's slippery slope actually exists - which it does as multi-partner marriage is concerned. Politically expedient or not, that practice is unethical and discriminatory.

OK, down off my soap box and on with Poly Pride events review.

And that, so far, is just what I had to tell you regarding the picnic and rally, which was the feature event of the weekend. In addition to that, there was a Friday night cuddle party, the largest held anywhere ever, with over 110 people in attendance.

On Saturday night there was an awesome after party held in a classy loft space overlooking the Hudson River. There was a great DJ and a steady stream of performers from the vamping drag performers the Pixie Harlots to talented burlesque performer Nasty Canasta

And as if all that weren't enough, Sunday morning brought us a fabulous poly book authors reading and signing event where nine authors read from their works. It was held at the Blue Stockings radical book store in the east Village, and the room was packed - clearly the late partiers didn't let anything stop them from soaking up all that poly wisdom.

Lastly, 34 poly leaders, activists and community organizers gathered for a well-facilitated summit on polyamory activism during which there was a great exchange of ideas that sparked synergy that I look forward to sharing and building on in the days, weeks and months ahead. The next poly leadership summit will be held on Monday, March 2, 2009, following the Poly Living conference to be held the previous weekend, February 27 to March 1 in the Philadelphia suburbs. Poly Living is put on by the Loving More organization, which was well represented at poly pride weekend by Loving More Managing Director Robyn Trask and her partner Jesus Garcia. (Pictured here with Tristan Taormino and myself.) One of the biggest benefits to the polyamory community of this poly pride weekend is that many of the priorities recognized at the leadership summit are also priorities Loving More has already been pursuing. There was so much enthusiasm from those gathered for helping Loving More to move those projects along that Loving More will benefit and so will the polyamory community.

Whew! Once again, I can't thank Poly-NYC enough for all their hard work in putting on this historic polyamory pride event. Years from now it will be seen as a time when polyamory in all its colors and shapes and sizes took a big step forward toward becoming the legitimate, vibrant and gratifying choice in intimate relationship structure that it truly is.

Juliet Huddy is No Fan of Mine ....

It's unfortunate that Blogger for some reason failed to send me for publishing a strongly-worded comment from Mornings with Mike and Juliet show host Juliet Huddy when she sent it to me on September 26. She is definitely not happy with me and my assessment of the outcome of the September 25 segment of the show on open marriage that featured author Jenny Block.

In Ms. Huddy's comment, which I posted today as soon as I received it, she certainly gave me the full force of her opinion, to wit:

As the host of the show you just maligned, I'd like to respond to your accusations. Suggesting my colleagues are inserting their political leanings into the content of our show is not only offensive, it's wrong. Suggesting they lack integrity is also offensive, and WRONG.

The 'missing segment' you're referring to was a mistake made by a young webmaster, it's as simple as that. There was no strategy to eliminate your "side"; there was no conspiracy. It was an oversight and it was corrected immediately.

Our producers came up with this topic because they felt it was worthy of discussion. They worked hours trying to find a fair balance, and they achieved that goal. Mike and I both agree it's a fantastic, interesting, worthy subject to discuss.

The only one who lacks integrity...

Well, let's just say it's easy to buy into stereotypes ("Of course, this is Fox we're talking about here"). It's also real simple pick up a phone and get the facts. Your sneering comments about Fox and our fantastic, fair producers are inane. Fox gave you an outlet to air your side, which Jenny did quite eloquently. Do your homework and quit insulting my colleagues.

I went back and read my original post, and though I can see why it may not please her, I'm having a hard time seeing myself through her eyes. Yes, I made a couple of assumptions that turn out to be incorrect, but as you will see below, I believe they were reasonable ones based on the facts at hand in the moment. So, by and large, after mulling it all over I really must stand by what I said. Here is my response to Ms. Huddy:

Ms. Huddy, I can understand your anger and your desire to defend your producers. Perhaps in your pique you did not notice that the same day the open marriage segment aired I added an amendment to the very top of the post that says that when asked to make the entire segment available instead of only the anti-open marriage portion of it, your producers agreed to do so. There was no reason for me to believe that the duties as to what goes up on your website would be left in the hands of someone who was not up to the task. Impressions count for a lot, and for whatever reason, the failure to include both sides of the story gave a very poor one.

Also, unfortunately for you and your show, Fox has a well-established reputation for leaning to the right. My perception is founded in reality and not on stereotype. There is plenty of data to illustrate that Fox has a vested interest in not offending the conservative base that represents the majority of its viewers. When one then factors in that anything other than life-long, heterosexual, one man/one woman marriage is considered contemptible by social conservatives, there is absolutely no reason for me to believe that your show is somehow exempt. You may not like being judged by the company you keep, but it is a fact of life. That said, based on the information you have provided I am willing to accept that it is possible that not all Fox programming is the same. I’m happy for the update and your defense of your producers, but in truth what is unknown here is to what extent your programming is controlled by Fox executives.

Fox’s intentions would have been a lot more clear had Dr. Kirschner not been given the last word. Many psychologists think they know all there is to know about open relationships and are only too happy to speak on the subject for pay, lack of knowledge notwithstanding. In fact, there exists amongst untrained therapists an inexperience-based bias against open relationships because all they see are people for whom it isn't working. People for whom it is working don’t seek them out, so their "knowledge" is based on a flawed and incomplete perspective. It is entirely untrue that failure is inevitable in open relationships. I know many, many couples for whom it works and works well, and as they learn and implement the relationship skills required, there are more of those all the time. Your show ended by giving quite a different impression without asking Jenny Block or any other person for their response. As such, I stand by my criticism of that aspect of the show.

I appreciate that there was interest in the subject, and should that interest continue, I'd be happy to assist your producers to be sure that any future treatment of it achieves their goal of being genuinely fair and complete.

Open Marriage on Tyra Banks

Today Tyra Banks dedicated her show on the Fox network to open marriage. She first featured Kamala and Michael, a polyamorous married couple. Tyra asked Kamala and Michael about their rules for conducting other relationships. Kamala said they have four rules, but Tyra let the discussion move on before Kamala got to finish the questions. However, the two that were included were important, i.e. open, honest communication as #1, and safer sex practices as #2.

It was very beneficial that Kamala’s girlfriend of 12 years, Sarah, was also a guest. A fair amount of time was spent establishing the chronology of Kamala and Sarah and Michael’s relationships with each other, and a lovely example resulted of how open relationships can work and work well over the long term, even as new partners come into the picture. As other members of what I’ll call their intimate network were introduce and referred to, it was interesting to see the shocked looks on some of the audience members’ faces. I realize this kind of family structure is unthinkable to some people, and I don’t mean to belittle their naiveté, but I did find it rather exciting to see an intimate network of people demonstrate how it is done and done successfully.

A couple of standard questions were asked and answered well by Kamala - she's a great spokesperson, by the way. Tyra remarked that Kamala, Michael and family all had long hair and asked whether there was a way poly people recognize each other. Kamala used that as a segue to debunk the stereotyping of poly people as eccentric hippie sorts of people. I'm very tired of that old assumption. Even if it's historically correct, it's no longer the case. Kamala stepped up and adeptly fielded that question. Happily, all of the people in open marriages who appeared on this program looked very good and were people mainstreamers can relate to, which is extremely important in presenting polyamory in a way that people can understand.

Happily, the expert on today's program was Jenny Block, author of Open: Life, Sex and Love in an Open Marriage. In only a couple of minutes Jenny very effectively backed up what Kamala and Michael and company made clear, that these relationships are about much more than sex and that they are deeply loving and familial. As experts go, Jenny was a huge improvement over these shows looking to so-called experts like Diana Kirschner.

Also in the audience was Polyamorous-NYC's president Birgitte Philippides. Birgitte spoke compellingly about the importance of not worrying about what others think and instead living a life authentic to who we are - I think that will resonate with a lot of viewers.

But, Tyra and producers clearly elected to focus on the guests on the couch whose relationships were the focus of the show, which was OK, because none of them were disastrous, and they mostly spoke to their individual situations very well.

An audience member asked in a very hostile tone where Kamala and Michael's 18 month old baby is during all their “carrying on” or some such reference. Kamala explained that her and Michael’s partners have "aunty and uncle" relationships with their baby. Framing the answer this way effectively neutralized the implied accusation that children are exposed to inappropriate activities when their parents have an open marriage.

Another audience member said she found the whole idea of open marriage disgusting due to risk of STIs - these are usually people who have zero tolerance for these risks and likely come from a very sex-negative, sex-is-dirty, perspective.

I didn’t like the way they blindsided Melissa, the best friend of Monique who was present with her husband, Keith, by bring Melissa out and asking her on camera with no advance warning whether she'd be interested in being intimate with Monique and Keith. Before bringing Melissa out, Monique and Keith both spoke very well about Monique's desire to have some of the same kinds of sexual experiences as Keith has had before they got together. Melissa's reaction was total shock. When Tyra pushed her for an answer, to her credit she said she wanted to think about it and wasn't ruling it out but that the three of them needed to talk together later before she would give them an answer. That was exactly the right decision on her part, and the fact that she didn't go all Jerry Springer on them and say "hell no" lent even more credibility to the whole open marriage concept. It also demonstrated the strength of her friendship with Melissa and Keith.

One audience member was very critical of Monique and asked her how she could jeopardize her long-time friendship with Melissa this way. Melissa’s response was to re-emphasize that they are already very close and love each other as dear friends and that she was only asking the question, not trying to coerce Melissa into saying yes. Her response sounded entirely sensible and is another example of how reason was able to debunk misconception.

Even Kelly, a guest with her husband (whose name I didn't get) who was the example of someone who had but no longer wants an open relationship was fair-minded and said when asked what she saw when she looked at Kamala and Michael and their other three partners that she saw a complicated situation that nevertheless seemed to be a happy one for those involved.

Near the end of the program Tara took off in a rather weird direction, i.e. trying to link the guests' parents' divorces to their choosing to be non-monogamous. I don't think I've ever heard anyone try to draw that parallel before. Only one of the guests on the couch said his parents are still married. The rest denied that there is any connection, and they had Katie-Couric-interviewing-Sarah-Palin looks on their faces, i.e. "what the heck is she talking about?"

The bottom line here is that there were no train wrecks here and I don't think we could have asked for this one to have turned out any better.

Since the program aired there have been quite a few very negative comments posted by viewers on the show's website, many posted even before they actually saw the show (if they actually ever did.) It's pretty clear that such comments are going to be routine when TV focuses on polyamory. Our goal should be to look forward to the day when that doesn't happen, because it will prove that we'll have been so successful at raising consciousness that no one thinks twice about it. That's a pretty tall order, though, considering the culture war over marriage, specifically same-sex marriage, but progress is being made there, and our time will come as well.

Fox's Morning Show with Mike and Juliet Gives Open Marriage Nay Sayers Last Word

Update on Friday, September 26, 2008:

Late yesterday after receiving my e-mail letting her know that her portion of this segment had been excluded from video of the rest of the segment posted on the show's website, Jenny Block contacted the show's producers and asked them to play fair and post her segment of the program. To their credit, they agreed, and you can now see it here. You can see the second part wherein nay-sayer, uninformed guests get the last word, here.

Original post:

This morning Jenny Block, author of Open: Love, Sex and Life in an Open Marriage and pictured to the right with guest couples therapist Dr. Diana Kirschner, was a guest on Fox TV's daily live Morning Show with Mike and Juliet, where hosts Mike Jerrick and Juliet Huddy, pictured below, engage in discussions with guests about hot topics in pop culture, women’s health, fashion, parenting and relationships, and general entertainment.

Unfortunately Fox, like some other talk shows, set up open marriage to discredit it. In the beginning all went well. Jenny did a fabulous job - no surprise there. She spoke intelligently and articulately about her life, her relationships, and got out a lot of great messaging about how open marriage can work and is a valid choice. Juliet asked respectful questions, including some of the usual "but what about" questions that come to people's minds when they first hear about such relationships. So, at the beginning people who saw the live segment heard much positive messaging about open relationships.

Mike actually pointed out that open marriage does work for some people, at least for Jenny and for a poly couple that was seated in the audience and briefly interviewed. (Unfortunately, I didn't manage to get their names.) The wife said she had had a relationship with a girlfriend that recently ended. Both she and her husband came across well, presented themselves well visually and had a pragmatic demeanor when answering questions. Definitely a positive.

The producers of this program spent the last two days thoroughly canvassing polyamory community leadership to find two couples willing to be guests. They sought a couple whose story mirror's Jenny's, i.e. a couple who opened their marriage at the wife's request due to the wife's bisexuality. Finding that couple wasn't so difficult, but they also sought a couple for whom an open relationship didn't work. I respectfully declined to help with that part of the search, since I personally don't see how providing people for whom polyamory didn't work is in our community's best interests. There are already plenty of people who believe polyamory can't work, why would we help perpetuate that myth?

Evenso, the person the producers found to serve that purpose was Jennifer Gates, author of Survivors of an Open Marriage. Gates blamed inability to control emotions as the reason her open marriage nearly ended – after ten years of it being open, BTW. It is still intact today, though now closed and monogamous.

It's too bad that Gates and her husband didn't have the kind of resources now available - like Jenny Block's book, for example - to guide them through dealing with the emotional challenges of polyamory. Many, many polyamorists know that for those who are serious about it - as Gates and her husband clearly were for ten years - emotional challenges don't have to result in broken hearts.

It's also too bad that it is only Gates' story and the very negative opinions of Dr. Diana Kirschner that Fox has decided to make available on their website. More on that below.

So when asked to respond to Gates' story, Dr. Kirschner said, "Usually this whole thing is a recipe for disaster. There is competitiveness, jealousy, very limited time and affection, time for sex, and all these resentments start. The head says we think we can handle this but other feelings take over and you get a run away train effect and a lot of people get their hearts broken."

If I had been there to respond, I’d have said that this isn't necessarily so for those who have or are willing to develop great relationship skills and whose existing relationships are solid. Failure IS NOT inevitable. This is where Dr. Kirschner may wish to update her understanding of this subject.

Juliet then asks Kirchner, “What happens 10, 20, 30 years down the line? Two people are agreeing to do this and they’re adults, then you start to blur the lines of love and monogamy and communication and loyalty. What’s going to happen to the state of marriage, the culture, in 30 years?"

Kirchner’s response: “It’s interesting. Of course the divorce rate is very high, and that’s with just two people. Can you imagine with three people, how much more complicated that is, whose going to be left out, who’s going to get a broken heart?”

So there it is, the conservative party line that says that open relationships are dangerous and further weaken marriage, an already seriously weakened institution. And that may be true to the extent that people don’t have access to education that has the power to result in a positive outcome and MORE happiness than monogamy brings for many people.

Mike asks, “Does open marriage ever work?" and Kirchner responds, “Yes, for some people, but by far for the vast majority of people it backfires completely."

And that’s it - the uninformed opinion got the last word. Fox has chosen to post on its website only the second half of the open marriage segment. The entire first half which includes Jenny’s interview is excluded, with only the part that says that open marriages don't work included. Of course, this *is* Fox we're talking about here, and it seems that Fox doesn't have the integrity to include the whole story, not if it sets them up for accusations by their conservative viewership of promoting or sanctioning open marriage.

For another review of this see Joreth's blog post.

Here's to the Freedom to Have Our Cake and Eat It, Too!

It's the 4th of July, and I've been thinking about freedom and independence from a variety of perspectives. One of them is that of someone who believes in the freedom to love more than one. It's a point of view that begins with an independent spirit, even in the face of much public condemnation.

Over the last month or so ever since Jenny Block's book came out, I've been doing a fair amount of responding to negative comments to her columns on open relationships on the Huffington Post and Tango websites. As is very commonly heard and read online wherever controversy over polyamory exists, her critics often accuse her of wanting to have her cake and eat it, too. This accusation is always made in a tone of snide consternation.

I am bemused when this happens. I understand that polyamory makes a lot of people uncomfortable, and why. Yet this one particular comment stands out to me every time it is made.

What I want to say in response, but feel it unwise to, is, "And your point is?" Sarcasm is a bad means of effective communication and usually makes things worse. But really, my point is, what's wrong with that?

Another accusation along the same lines is "You just want to have it both ways." Both these assertions are made in irritation, if not outright anger, and seem to come from a place that says, "The rest of us are playing by the rules. We'd like it that way, too, but it's wrong."

What's wrong with people sharing love and intimacy and building intentional families that provide love, support and other resources for both children and adults that would not otherwise be unavailable? The truth for more and more polyamorists every day is, nothing, nothing at all. As long as no one is discriminating against us and targeting us with words of hate - and if they are, that's a wrong for which they bear responsibility - we just want to be left to live our lives in a way that works better for us.

We polyamorists refuse to believe we can't have it both ways. We believe and know just the opposite is true. We are indeed HAVING OUR CAKE AND EATING IT, TOO. We are gleefully, joyfully having it both ways with no regrets. We invite all with the courage and vision to examine their societally programmed beliefs to do so. Maybe they'll decide monogamy is right for them regardless, and that's OK. Others are welcome to join us in exploring other valid and ethical ways of living a life of abundant joy and love.

Book Review: Jenny Block's Open

Jenny Block’s book, Open: Love, Sex and Life in an Open Marriage, is literally a revelation. Published by Seal Press in hardback, it is a memoir of her life as a mainstream bisexual woman who, try as she might, couldn’t find the kind of fairytale fulfillment promised by traditional marriage. She has a supportive husband, Christopher, and a young daughter, Emily, who are the center of her life, as they should be. But still, there were issues in her marriage, the biggest one being that she and Christopher have different needs in terms of frequency of lovemaking. She’d had relationships with women before marriage. She thought she could do without them when she decided to do what everyone thinks they are supposed to do and get married. Despite giving the traditional suburban wife and mother role a solid effort, it left her feeling so dissatisfied that something had to change or her marriage wouldn’t survive.

There is no book on polyamory and open relationships like this one. It takes tremendous courage for a mainstream woman to publicly lay her heart and soul bare as Jenny has does here. She openly shares with us her most intimate thought processes and desires through every stage of her adult life, beginning with her experiences exploring her sexuality in college, up to and including details of her and Christopher’s challenges and experiences opening their marriage.

I especially enjoyed Christopher’s afterword. Jenny is smart for including his perspective and in his words. She has been hotly criticized online for the choices she’s made by people who are convinced that Christopher and Emily are the innocent victims of Jenny’s whorish selfishness. Christopher makes it clear that he is a co-partner in this adventure, even though partnering with others is not as high a priority for him as it is for his wife.

Another of this book’s strengths is Jenny’s point of view on how multi-partnering while raising Emily is a good thing and in no way harmful. That’s because Jenny and Christopher are good parents to begin with, and every decision they’ve made has been made with Emily’s best interests in mind.

Jenny is a writer by profession. She has written for print and electronic media on a wide range of topics. She has a master’s degree in English, taught college-level composition for ten years, and has a gift for eloquently articulating the issues and intricacies with which non-monogamists grapple.

Though this is a memoir, Jenny makes the same arguments against lockstep traditional monogamy we hear from seasoned polyamorists. She cites a variety of sources to support her point of view, many of them familiar to polyamorists. And yes, Jenny uses the word polyamory to describe her marriage and relationships, especially later in the book when her sexually open marriage naturally transitions to make room for love and romance with more than one.

Having come from a mainstream background myself, I believe polyamory is a practice that would greatly benefit a wide variety of people from diverse backgrounds and points of view. For me the most remarkable aspect of Jenny’s book is that it is written from the perspective of a fairly average mainstream woman living a mainstream life, her bisexuality notwithstanding. Open: Love, Sex and Life in an Open Marriage may well play a pivotal role in the mainstreaming of polyamory. It has gained the attention of two mainstream women’s magazines. The June 2008 issues of Marie Claire and Glamour have interviews or shorter Q&A’s with Jenny about her book and life. The book is available on the non-fiction new release tables at Barnes & Noble and Borders. There is nothing more mainstream than that.

Look for Jenny’s regular advice column in the women’s online love and sex magazine, Tango, and for her blog posts on open marriage on Huffington Post. You can also purchase the book and read her blog on her website. Enjoy!

Jenny Block on Open Relationships in Huffington Post

Writer Jenny Block, author of the soon-to-be-published book Open: Love, Sex and Life in an Open Marriage, has just made her first blog post to Huffington Post as a regular there. It's called Open Relationships: What the World Already Has. In it she challenges the sanctioning of cheating over the acceptance of honest and open relationships. In one part she speculates about why people have such negative reactions to the concept of polyamory.

.... there is nothing more terrifying than feeling like you're not strong enough to go out on a limb and attempt something that might actually improve your life. Better to yell, "Freak!" at those who are trying. And then everyone doing the yelling -- unhappy, cheating, or just plain judgmental -- feel themselves in the "right" and thus in the clear.

I have another theory about why so many people react so negatively to the idea of polyamory. What if their own spouse should find the idea of polyamory appealing, especially in light of increasing acceptance of this alternative to monogamy? How will they be able to continue to enjoy the illusion of security that monogamy creates? They LIKE having a sense of ownership of their spouse. It makes them feel secure. And if they feel jealous of their spouse's appreciation of another, society says they are entirely justified in crying foul.

Thank goodness there are rules about these things, right? Polyamory is particularly troubling to those who need rules that everyone is expected to following in order to feel safe. Trouble is, one person's sense of security is another person's cage, and a cage is no place to conduct a relationship.

Some say that the potential for upsetting the emotional teacart is evidence enough that polyamory is a bad idea. I see it as evidence that the time is coming when society will re-examine its extreme expectations around love, commitment, possessiveness, and sexual and emotional exclusivity. It seems to me that possessiveness and ownership of one’s spouse is self-serving and therefore more about love of self and avoiding uncomfortable feelings than it is about love for another.

It's true that polyamory demands a lot of self-examination, self-awareness and communication to work. It's also true that jealousy in even agreed-upon polyamorous relationships sometimes occurs. It's a part of being human, a part of our emotional make-up just as much is our apparent desire to pair bond but non-exclusively. The difference for polyamorists is that we own our jealous feelings, avoid casting blame, and we learn together how to effectively resolve jealous feelings instead of allowing them to derail the relationship.

Polyamory isn’t for everyone, true, and monogamy is a legitimate choice. It’s just not the only one. As long as the people who are together agree to the same choice, it’s all good.