There's an important Op-Ed in today's NY Times by the fabulous Stephanie Coontz called Taking Marriage Private in which she advocates for the ending government's role in marriage. Coontz is a well-known author and commentator on family matters in western society. She has testified before Congress as an advisor on family matters, and her opinion on this specific matter will carry a lot of weight.
In 2004, she received the Council on Contemporary Families first-ever "Visionary Leadership" Award. She serves as a marriage consultant to The Ladies Home Journal.
From her website:
"Stephanie Coontz teaches history and family studies at The Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington, and is Director of Research and Public Education for the Council on Contemporary Families, which she chaired from 2001-04. She is the author of Marriage, A History: From Obedience to Intimacy, or How Love Conquered Marriage, (Viking Press, 2005), The Way We Never Were: American Families and the Nostalgia Trap (1992 and 2000, Basic Books), The Way We Really Are: Coming to Terms with America's Changing Families(Basic Books, 1997), and The Social Origins of Private Life: A History of American Families.
One of her biggest contributions is the debunking of the nostalgia surrounding the concept of the "nuclear family", i.e. one man and one woman married for life with two kids and a dog and the white picket fence, as the ultimate form of family.
What has this to do with polyamory? I am convinced that it is the only way to even the playing field that at present unfairly grants benefits to couples that other committed partnerships are denied.
For a more detailed treatise on this subject, see the 2006 visionary statement entitled Beyond Same-Sex Marriage - A New Strategic Vision for All Our Families & Relationships which advocates for:
Ø Legal recognition for a wide range of relationships, households and families – regardless of kinship or conjugal status.
Ø Access for all, regardless of marital or citizenship status, to vital government support programs including but not limited to health care, housing, Social Security and pension plans, disaster recovery assistance, unemployment insurance and welfare assistance.
Ø Separation of church and state in all matters, including regulation and recognition of relationships, households and families.
Ø Freedom from state regulation of our sexual lives and gender choices, identities and expression.
Monday, November 26, 2007
Poly Jealousy Survey Participants Needed
Rachel Clark is a final year Applied Psychology student at Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, and is conducting research concerning jealousy in polyamorous relationships. Her survey is limited to questions for people who use the primary/secondary relationship structure, I imagine for good reason, since polyamorous relationships take so many forms that the data would be difficult to quantify without such specifics.
If you are in a poly relationship and use the primary/secondary model, please take a few minutes and complete the survey - it's vitally important to learn more about jealousy in poly relationships, since this is understandably the highest hurdle to cross in making polyamory work for the average poly person. You can find the survey here.
This research is especially important to me as a poly educator who regularly presents programs on resolving jealousy in polyamorous relationships and who is making plans to write a book on the subject in 2008. If this subject interests you, feel free to download my handout and bibliography on it here.
If you are in a poly relationship and use the primary/secondary model, please take a few minutes and complete the survey - it's vitally important to learn more about jealousy in poly relationships, since this is understandably the highest hurdle to cross in making polyamory work for the average poly person. You can find the survey here.
This research is especially important to me as a poly educator who regularly presents programs on resolving jealousy in polyamorous relationships and who is making plans to write a book on the subject in 2008. If this subject interests you, feel free to download my handout and bibliography on it here.
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Margo Explains
I'm happy to say that advice columnist Margo, on whose advice to a poly woman I recently commented, has posted a follow-up in her latest column on the offense many polyfolk took at the tone of the advice given. I very much appreciate her going to the trouble to clarify her remarks and her open minded, realistic point of view.
Saturday, November 24, 2007
What I Find Exciting About Polyamory
Recently Crabmommy commented on Miriam Axel-Lute's excellent essay, And Baby Makes Four, in which Miriam talks about the benefits of poly parenting. Several of us responded with information about polyamory in general as questions by other commenters were posted. We polyfolk were focusing on the practical benefits of polyamory, but Crabmommy wanted to hear about the exciting stuff, stating that calendars and scheduling sounded very boring and like a lot of work. And of course, we polyfolk had intentionally not focused on sex when explaining our relationships.
Since Crabmommy was so respectful and seemed so sincere in her interest, here's how I responded.
It's exciting to be loved by more than one person. It's amazing to have the ardor of more than one, have more than one who is happy to kiss you hello, happy to cuddle with you, and yes, happy to make love with you. It's very validating. And it helps a lot in that we don't end up in the rut many find themselves in in long term monogamous relationships, no matter how committed and generally satisfied we are with that partnership.
Especially when we are getting involved with someone new, we have all the same falling in love excitement (we call that new relationship energy). That excitement follows us home to our existing relationships and often recharges them as well. We are grateful to our existing partners for their generosity of spirit in being willing to share us, and that enhances the existing relationship even more.
And yes, making love with and being pleasured by two people creates a lot more sexual energy and powerful loving feelings than we experience with one. This is not to put that down, one-on-one sex has it's own charm and intensity and is plenty gratifying for plenty of people, myself included. Most poly people still have sex the majority of the time with only one person at a time. Some never have sex with more than one at a time and conduct their relationships separately. That's certainly true for me and my partner these days.
It's exciting to be in relationship with someone who doesn't want to own you and who doesn't have excessive expectations about your meeting all their needs all the time, someone with the confidence to give you the gift of freedom to love others without being threatened. It's not always easy, but those who succeed at this eventually get to that point, and it's a powerful bonding experience when they do.
After having been cheated on in a former marriage, it is also exciting to me to know that the trade off for sharing my partner with others is that he's never going to cheat on me and I don't have to worry about going through that kind of betrayal and heartbreak again. There's no reason for him to.
For some it's exciting to have an extended family, a "bouquet of lovers" as Morning Glory Zell, the person who coined the term "polyamory", referred to it in her excellent essay of that title, penned in 1990. We and our partners gather with their partners for holidays, birthdays, commitment ceremonies, and so forth. It's sort of an instant group with whom to party and celebrate.
Since Crabmommy was so respectful and seemed so sincere in her interest, here's how I responded.
It's exciting to be loved by more than one person. It's amazing to have the ardor of more than one, have more than one who is happy to kiss you hello, happy to cuddle with you, and yes, happy to make love with you. It's very validating. And it helps a lot in that we don't end up in the rut many find themselves in in long term monogamous relationships, no matter how committed and generally satisfied we are with that partnership.
Especially when we are getting involved with someone new, we have all the same falling in love excitement (we call that new relationship energy). That excitement follows us home to our existing relationships and often recharges them as well. We are grateful to our existing partners for their generosity of spirit in being willing to share us, and that enhances the existing relationship even more.
And yes, making love with and being pleasured by two people creates a lot more sexual energy and powerful loving feelings than we experience with one. This is not to put that down, one-on-one sex has it's own charm and intensity and is plenty gratifying for plenty of people, myself included. Most poly people still have sex the majority of the time with only one person at a time. Some never have sex with more than one at a time and conduct their relationships separately. That's certainly true for me and my partner these days.
It's exciting to be in relationship with someone who doesn't want to own you and who doesn't have excessive expectations about your meeting all their needs all the time, someone with the confidence to give you the gift of freedom to love others without being threatened. It's not always easy, but those who succeed at this eventually get to that point, and it's a powerful bonding experience when they do.
After having been cheated on in a former marriage, it is also exciting to me to know that the trade off for sharing my partner with others is that he's never going to cheat on me and I don't have to worry about going through that kind of betrayal and heartbreak again. There's no reason for him to.
For some it's exciting to have an extended family, a "bouquet of lovers" as Morning Glory Zell, the person who coined the term "polyamory", referred to it in her excellent essay of that title, penned in 1990. We and our partners gather with their partners for holidays, birthdays, commitment ceremonies, and so forth. It's sort of an instant group with whom to party and celebrate.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Friday, November 2, 2007
Polyamory Watch - a Resource for Proponents of Traditional Marriage
Maggie Gallagher, the woman who Stanley Kurtz made very happy with his slippery slope argument against same-sex marriage, operates the conservative Institute for Marriage and Public Policy based in Manassas, Virginia. Maggie and her cohorts have been belly up to the feed trough of your and my federal tax dollars pretty much since George Bush took office. They use our money to oppress stable, healthy, loving homes and families that don't look like they think they should, which is basically anything that isn't one man, one woman, til-death-do-us-part monogamy.
Maggie Gallagher, with Kurtz's support, is, have no doubt, the chicken little of the debate on marriage and public policy, and she has taken to including a section in her daily postings called "Polyamory Watch" in which she provides links to on-line news articles that reference polyamory.
Many polyfolk want nothing to do with the mainstream and prefer to stick their heads in the sand in hopes of continuing to exist under the mainstream radar. If ever there was a sign that doing so is no longer possible, it is that there is now a regular feature on the website of a hugely well-funded organization that thinks polyamory is enough of a threat to marriage to warrant its own special reporting section. I don't know whether to be pleased or appalled, but I'm definitely not surprised.
Maggie Gallagher, with Kurtz's support, is, have no doubt, the chicken little of the debate on marriage and public policy, and she has taken to including a section in her daily postings called "Polyamory Watch" in which she provides links to on-line news articles that reference polyamory.
Many polyfolk want nothing to do with the mainstream and prefer to stick their heads in the sand in hopes of continuing to exist under the mainstream radar. If ever there was a sign that doing so is no longer possible, it is that there is now a regular feature on the website of a hugely well-funded organization that thinks polyamory is enough of a threat to marriage to warrant its own special reporting section. I don't know whether to be pleased or appalled, but I'm definitely not surprised.
There is Such a Thing as Bad Publicity
Over the last couple of days the online poly community has been buzzing about syndicated columnist Margo's response to a letter written by a poly woman. It's not at all positive, and as we usually hear when polyamory and its believers get mangled in mainstream media, some polyfolk have trotted out that old saw about there being no such thing as bad publicity. Others say it opens an opportunity for public discourse.
But this is NOT such an opportunity, because there is no way to respond that will be published. Margo's inaccurate and snarky statements just sit there in this instance for all to see with no opportunity for public debate. Sure, we can have an interesting discussion about it within the poly community, but we are preaching to the choir. And writing to Margo to enlighten her is all well and good, but she's not likely to amend her remarks. The best we can hope for is that she speaks more knowledgably and fairly if and when the subject comes up in her column again.
It's a mistake to rationalize away our discomfort by saying there is no such thing as bad publicity. There's a big difference that makes it not true for sexual minorities, who are already publicly skewered and the subject of strong bias and condemnation such as in this situation. Yes, it's good to have people who are open minded hear the term polyamory anytime. That part can be positive if they then seek out information and resources, but there is also considerable reinforcement for harsh judgments about polyamory at play. Respected public figures and pundits hold a lot of sway in terms of how they influence public opinion, i.e. if Oprah or Dr. Phil say it, then it's true. That saying applies more accurately in neutral circumstances where public opinion is not already very negative based on public taboo and the inherent nature of the behavior to which a substantial number of people already object.
In some circumstances there IS such a thing as bad publicity - like being a congressman and being outed as a regular seeker of sex in men's restrooms in airports, for example. I don't mean to come across as defeatist here - we aren't defeated. We push forward, and some will temporarily push us back, or try to, at which time we speak up and point out the inappropriateness of the push back. Ultimately we will find more tolerance and acceptance as time passes, but public advocacy for sexual minorities and the winning over of the hearts and minds of the public is not a linear process. The fewer times respected opinion makers speak against polyamory, the faster our progress will be and the less work will have to be done to achieve it.
But this is NOT such an opportunity, because there is no way to respond that will be published. Margo's inaccurate and snarky statements just sit there in this instance for all to see with no opportunity for public debate. Sure, we can have an interesting discussion about it within the poly community, but we are preaching to the choir. And writing to Margo to enlighten her is all well and good, but she's not likely to amend her remarks. The best we can hope for is that she speaks more knowledgably and fairly if and when the subject comes up in her column again.
It's a mistake to rationalize away our discomfort by saying there is no such thing as bad publicity. There's a big difference that makes it not true for sexual minorities, who are already publicly skewered and the subject of strong bias and condemnation such as in this situation. Yes, it's good to have people who are open minded hear the term polyamory anytime. That part can be positive if they then seek out information and resources, but there is also considerable reinforcement for harsh judgments about polyamory at play. Respected public figures and pundits hold a lot of sway in terms of how they influence public opinion, i.e. if Oprah or Dr. Phil say it, then it's true. That saying applies more accurately in neutral circumstances where public opinion is not already very negative based on public taboo and the inherent nature of the behavior to which a substantial number of people already object.
In some circumstances there IS such a thing as bad publicity - like being a congressman and being outed as a regular seeker of sex in men's restrooms in airports, for example. I don't mean to come across as defeatist here - we aren't defeated. We push forward, and some will temporarily push us back, or try to, at which time we speak up and point out the inappropriateness of the push back. Ultimately we will find more tolerance and acceptance as time passes, but public advocacy for sexual minorities and the winning over of the hearts and minds of the public is not a linear process. The fewer times respected opinion makers speak against polyamory, the faster our progress will be and the less work will have to be done to achieve it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)