Free Love and Liberation Teleconference Tomorrow!

The more I get to know sex and relationships coach Kamala Devi of Showtime's Polyamory: Married and Dating, the more impressed I am with her approach to open relationships and the expertise and philosophy she has to share.  So I recommend without reservation her free Love and Liberation Teleconference which takes place less than 24 hours from now tomorrow, October 17, 2012 at 12PM PDT.  More than 250 people have signed up.  She's also going to give those who sign up a recording of the teleconference to share with loved ones and review again themselves. 

Participating in the free teleconference does not obligate you further.  However, you can find out more about the entire Beyond Monogamy series Kamala is offering and what it can do for your poly life - at an impressively affordable price, I must say - and sign up for the free telecon here. 

I think you will find that it's worth your time.  This is an opportunity for more in-depth learning about how to create happy poly relationships than you get from 90 minute in-person workshops.  Kamala is quite a resource. 

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.

Polyamory on the 11:00 News on DC ABC affiliate WJLA

My husband, Tim, and I had the privilege of being interviewed about our polyamorous open marriage recently, and it was shown on Washington, D.C.'s ABC news affiliate WJLA on the 11PM news on Thursday, February 9, 2012.  Also included are local polyamorists Sarah Taub, Michael Rios, and Jonica Hunter, none of whom are married to each other and who live together in what polyamorists refer to as  "V" relationship.  Their contribution was highly valuable in that together we were all able to give a couple of different yet common examples of how people arrange their nonmonogamous romantic lives. 

A fairly brief article entitled Polyamorous Relationships: Managing Multiple Romantic Partners that is not a transcript of the video to go with it is also available, as well as a slideshow entitled The Faces of Polyamory of all of us who were in the video, including a few wedding and honeymoon pictures of Tim and me. 

The story about Newt Gingrich's supposed desire for an open marriage broke about a month ago, and since then there has been a frenzy of media interest in we polyamorists that has not yet ended.  In fact, as ironic as it is, Newt's ex, Marianne Gingrich's contention that Newt asked her for an open marriage so he could continue to have a relationship with his mistress, Calista (now his wife) is responsible for we advocates finding ourselves with an opportunity to raise awareness unlike anything we could otherwise achieve on our own.

Yes, polyamory and open marriage are in the mainstream center stage spotlight, and there are a lot of us, including those involved with the Polyamory Media Association and Loving More Nonprofit, who are scrambling to meet all the requests.  If you have an interest in being interviewed either by a newspaper or appearing on a TV show, or any other sort of media event, please visit the PMA and educate yourself about best practices so as to be ready to shine on behalf of all who practice responsible non-monogamy.  Thanks!

Polyamory on Starz Series Party Down

So lately I've been getting into a new ensemble comedy series on the Starz premium cable network called Party Down, about a group of people who work for a catering company by that name. It stars, amongst others, the awesome Megan Mullally (sans that awful nasally voice she did on Will & Grace) and rising star Lizzy Caplan who played Jason Stackhouse's hippie girlfriend, Amy Burley, in Season 1 of True Blood.   Each episode of Party Down is the story of what happens at an event they are catering.  In this week's episode #204, they are catering a wake given by the family of a prominent, newly-deceased African American businessman. 

SPOILER ALERT - If you think you may see this show and don't want to know ahead of time what happens in episode 204, read no further. If you want to know more or just don't care either way, scroll down a bit....


Down....


Down....


Down....


Down....

SO! Present at the wake is, of course, the deceased's widow and his daughter.  The daughter hired and is the liaison to the Party Down staff.  We learn fairly early on that these ladies have an expectation that representatives from "the Phoenix office" of the deceased's employer would attend to pay their respects, and there's resentment when it seems no one has been sent to honor their dead executive who over the years spent a lot of time away from home working in that office.

A pretty blonde woman with a mixed race teenaged son arrives, and someone assumes she is the rep of a homeless shelter who is expected to pick up extra food being donated to the shelter.  But she is distraught, and it is soon obvious that she is not from the homeless shelter and knew the deceased VERY well.  The hostess/daughter figures this out and orders the caterers to do something to keep the deceased's paramour from encountering the widow and tipping her off that her dead husband had had another family stashed away. 

Daughter and staff cook up a scheme where the mistress is introduced to the widow as a representative from the Phoenix office.  The mistress manages to play it cool until she walks up to the casket and starts bawling.  She recovers somewhat and just as she is introduced to the widow as being from the Phoenix office, someone who is REALLY from the Phoenix office shows up and says to the widow something like, "We wanted to convey our condolences.  Though we only saw him a few times a year, your husband was well respected ...."  Yadee yadee yadee.... 

At this point a look of realization comes over the widow's face, and naturally everyone thinks the sh*t is about to hit the fan.  But instead of the widow freaking out, imagine my surprise and delight when she says very pleasantly something along the lines of "Oh, you must be her!  Well, I'm so glad you could come by.  This must be your son.  What a fine looking boy.  You know I always thought you'd be Asian, he always liked the Asian girls.  Anyway, we so appreciate your being here."  At this point she turns to her daughter and the catering staffers and says with a smile:

"Thank goodness he and I had an open marriage.  We never would have lasted if we hadn't!"

Of course, everyone is left standing with their mouths agape, not believing what they've just heard (while I'm sitting at home clapping and cheering), as the widow strolls away chatting with another guest.  As awesome as that all is, there's still more - the episode closes with the arrival of a pretty Asian woman and HER racially mixed teenaged son. 

You can see a couple of clips from episode 204 here, though none of them references this part of the story line.  Otherwise, all I can say to this is THANK YOU MO' NIQUE!

Open Marriage on the Fox Medical Drama, House

The concept of open marriage is gaining mainstream traction largely via Mo'Nique's recent admission about her open marriage to Barbara Walters. It seems that the default assumption is that an open marriage is designed to allow sexual flings without romance or commitment, so I'm just as glad the word polyamory wasn't used in last night's episode of the Fox medical drama, House. Here's the preview FYI.



You can also watch the episode here.  In the opening scene a woman is having sex with her lover when a knock comes at the hotel room door and it is her husband.  She had forgotten to sign a paper needed for one of their children that day.  But instead of all hell breaking loose, the husband is invited in, obviously feels awkward and says he's not sure how to behave under those circumstances. Nevertheless, he introduced himself to the lover and they shook hands very politely.  As soon as the husband leaves, the wife develops severe abdominal pain and sends her lover after her husband.  So far so good as to the open marriage story line.

Lots of conversation happened throughout the episode, so much that it seemed that the woman's mysterious illness was a subplot line.  It was strange that the medical staff kept asking their patient questions that were pretty rude and not necessary to make a diagnosis, but they did facilitate discussion about the problems with monogamy, even going so far as to one character saying it's unreasonable to expect our partner to meet all our needs forever.

Certainly the medical staff was curious, and one doctor named Taub who had apparently had repeated affairs (I don't watch this show normally) was inspired to bring the subject up with his wife, though in the ill-advised setting of a restaurant in public.  This resulted in his wife reluctantly granting him Thursday nights with the woman he works with whom he fancies, only later to withdraw her permission out of fear.  Instead of asking her to work on the reason for the fear, the husband immediate caves in and says he only wants her, only the next day to head off to his new love interest's apartment.

When the subject of open marriage first came up between Taub and his colleagues, he was the first one to condemn it, saying "A functional open marriage is like a unicorn. It's a mythical creature that doesn't exist."  Fail!  I'll have to hand it to the writers on that part of the story, apparently they know there are many hypocrits out there who are a lot more comfortable with cheating than with toughing out the transition to conducting their multiple relationships openly, honestly and ethically.

I felt very sorry for the patient's lover when he showed up at the hospital, flowers in hand, out of concern for his lover only to be greeted with hostility and orders by the husband to leave because he was intruding on their family.  Even his lover/the patient told him he should leave.  It said loudly and clearly that his relationship with her was to remain superficial and a low priority for her.  Add in that the lover was referred to at one point by one of the medical staff as the patient's "boy toy," and it became clear that it was OK to treat the extracurricular sexual liasson as cheap, tawdry, and not worthy of respect. 

I liked that the subject matter sparked a lot of conversation between a lot of different characters and that we heard a lot of the same discussions that poly people have, especially when starting to explore.  On the other hand, it seems that the writers decided to take the safe course and ultimately demonize open relationships, especially anyone who would have a sexual relationship with someone who is married, even if the married partner has permission. 

I think we can ultimately consider this a win due to it's power to reach millions and the likelihood that it will spark discussion amongst the viewers. Still, I look forward to the day when everyone gets to live happily ever after in the relationship structure that is best for them.

Mo'Nique's Open Marriage Admission Spawns Wider Coverage

It's very exciting to see what is happening in the media and online as a result of Mo'Nique's admission that she and husband Sidney have an open relationship. Here's my friend Jenny Block, author of Open: Love, Sex and Life in an Open Marriage, in a Dallas TV interview on the subject which was just posted to the Dallas CW affiliate's website.  (The CW network serves younger adults.) And of course included is requisite marriage and family therapist expert, in this case Dr. Ross Stewart, who typically claims that since the marriages of all in open relationships he's counseled have failed, then open marriage is proven not to work. Why does it never occur to these people that theirs is a biased sample?? He doesn't see the people whose open marriages are working well for them. Duh.

 

If you are reading this on Facebook, you can see the video here.

Mo'Nique Tells It Like It Is About Her Open Marriage

Here's the clip where you will hear exactly what Mo'Nique had to say about her open marriage in her interview with Barbara Walters aired last night. You can mouse-over the bottom portion of the video and use the slider bar to move ahead to the pertinent part, which is between 7:30 and 9:15 if you aren't interested in the entire interview.

If you're reading this on Facebook, you can see the video here after a short commercial.

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!

  

Polyamorous Personal Development Guru Steve Pavlina and Wife Separate

After posting very candidly to their very popular personal development website early this year about their decision to open their marriage, I'm sorry to say that author and personal development guru Steve Pavlina and his wife, Erin, have decided to divorce.  Steve cites polyamory as part of the reason in his recent blog post entitled Separation.

Steve says that the communication demands were too much for them to handle.  Yes, there is a big investment of time and energy up front when a married couple transitions to an open marriage.  I imagine both are very busy people from what I see of their work, and they are raising two young children, so maybe they underestimated how much time and emotional energy would be required to accomplish what they intended. It's easy to do.

But that's not all of it. Steve writes that the poly path and the emotional intimacy and self-examination required along the way revealed truths that pointed them toward separating as the best course.   So it sounds like polyamory didn't kill the marriage, it just revealed flaws and truths that now point them in different directions. 

This is one of those situations that makes a good example of why I say that polyamory isn't for sissies.  Not that the Pavlinas are sissies, certainly not.  I mean that it's not for the faint of heart because growth does indeed happen, and sometimes with it, change that is unpredictable.  Still, theirs is a good example of how polyamory can serve to further us on our paths to living an authentic life, even when that involves the pain of ending relationships in order to establish new relationships more suitable to who we are.   

In any case, I wish Steve and Erin well as they continue to pursue their own paths to fulfillment and happiness.

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

Jada Pinkett Smith is SO one of us ... and so is Will

DC's local NBC affiliate's website has video today of interviews with Will Smith and Rosario Dawson on their new film, Seven Pounds. Both discuss Will's nervousness about shooting the steamy love scenes between the two of them.

Apparently this is the first really hot sex scene Will has done. Hard to believe, I know, but apparently true. The interviewer was shocked to hear that Will wanted Jada to be on the set and watching when the scene was shot - which Rosario says he kept putting off until the end of production.

Will says he was very nervous about being in bed with Rosario and her being naked. He didn't want to touch the wrong place or do the wrong thing, and there are all those production people looking on to add to the stress. Sounds like he didn't want rumours getting back to Jada, which seems strange since it's common knowledge that they have an open relationship, at least in theory. In fact, the following is a direct quote from Will:

'In our marriage vows, we didn't say "forsaking all others". We said, "You will never hear I did something afterwards". Because if that happens, the relationship is destroyed.'

Will's also been quoted in the past saying that they have an agreement that if they sexually desire someone, they talk about it and go from there. He has also said that Jada is the queen of his life, and that as along as she is happy and he doesn't do anything to hurt her or make her unhappy, then yes, sexual flings are an option.

At first his reluctance and nervousness on the set seems inconsistent with that admission, but I imagine the burden for public figures is much greater in terms of getting attention from the press about anything that remotely smells of infidelity. I can see why he'd not want any rumors to be flying about that might upset his and Jada's agreement and introduce doubt about their agreement to be transparent to each other when they fancy someone else.

Jada *was* on the set, and she told Will in front of Rosario and others that ...

...he was not to embarrass her (by wimping out) and that he "had to bring it ..."

That Jada is one cool lady! Rosario says there was lots of tongue, and that she could tell it was permitted, though Jada didn't say so specifically.

I hate to think that Hollywood actors actually have to negotiate every move with their realtime loves when they do love scenes with others, but jealousy knows no boundaries when left on its own to do what it will. But of course, most of the movie set sex scenes are carried out with somebody really hot, so I guess it makes sense that it has very real power to push buttons.

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.

Dolly Parton's Open Marriage?

"If we cheat we don't know it, so if we do cheat, it's very good for both us. I don't want to know it, if he's cheating on me. If I'm cheating on him, he wouldn't want to know it. And if we do, if that's what's making it work, then that's fine too.” - Dolly Parton, quoted speaking of her 30+ year marriage to her limelight shunning husband Carl Dean while opening a children's school in Rotherham, UK, December 5, 2007

What???? I don't know for sure, but if this is really true, I'm going to be one happy Dolly-lovin' woman. Who knew Dolly and Carl have a don't ask don't tell relationship? She's very careful to speak hypothetically, so this may or may not be actually true, but it sure seems like she's thought a lot about it.

I'm not condoning cheating, not at all. That said, I've always thought that polyamory would be a potential problem-solver for showbiz types with strong marriages.

I grew up in the next county over from Dolly. I used to be ashamed of her, I'm ashamed to say, but that was when I was young, stupid and caught up in the culture of rock and roll. As she and I both got older and she became so successful, I came to recognize her for the authentic, shrewd, open-minded and talented woman she truly is. I saw her concert in Fairfax, Virginia earlier this year. It was great. It was also entertaining to note the huge range of fans in the audience, from drag queens to young families with kids to a full row of geriatric folks in wheelchairs.

There have long been rumors that Dolly is having a lesbian or bisexual affair with her best friend, assistant and traveling companion, Judy "Sissy" Ogle, much like similar rumors about Oprah Winfrey. I'd sure love to know if it's true. Maybe she'll write an update to her original memoir that will be published once she's gone - which I hope won't be for a lot of years. She's 62 y.o. What with Cloris Leachman appearing on Dancing with the Stars at age 82, anything's possible for older women these days.

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!

More on Tilda Swinton's Poly Family

Back in February when the fabulous actress Tilda Swinton won a best supporting actress oscar, I posted here about her win and details about her poly family and her lover, Sandro Kopp, all of which she has been very open about in the press.

Now the Australian online news source LiveNews has published an article called "Love Geometry" that tells us that Swinton's partner, John Byrne, has had another partner for two years now, 42 y.o. theatre lighting director Jeanine Davis. Byrne is quoted as saying "“It’s all very relaxed and amicable. We have not hidden away and Jeanine is very much part of my life. Tilda knows all about it and is more than happy with the situation. It’s all very relaxed and amicable. Tilda has Sandro and the arrangement works very well.”

I hope we'll see many more celebrities go public about their own open relationships - doing so will be quite a boon to mainstream tolerance and even acceptance of polyamory as a legitimate choice and relationship orientation.