“married and dating”, what!? half a million people in “polyamory” – 12min

Posted: July 24, 2012 in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , ,

For those that think “Friends with Kids” does not promote this, see the (secular) movie review at the bottom.

In July, 2009, Newsweek ran a feature article on “relationships with multiple, mutually consenting partners,” entitled, “Polyamory: The Next Sexual Revolution.” Last week, Showtime launched a reality TV show called “Polyamory: Married and Dating.” To quote from Newsweek’s 2009 article, it’s “enough to make any monogamist’s head spin.” And all this, of course, is being touted as a great thing, a celebration of love and freedom, a deliverance from the monotony and constraints of monogamy.

The Showtime promo [warning: sick content] pulls no punches and makes no excuses:

Narrator: The polyamorous lifestyle may shock some. But with American divorce rates hovering around 50 percent, these families are on the front line of a growing revolution in the traditional monogamous relationship.

Michael: I want people to know it’s okay to live a life this way, it can be good. Because it is. It’s beautiful. We love it.

Jennifer: I want people to know that monogamy isn’t the only way.

Vanessa: If it were socially acceptable, I think there would be way more poly people.

Tahl: It feels like how we really should all be living.

Natalia Garcia, director: I really believe that a lot of people are going to watch this show and their jaws are going to drop. And they’re also probably going to wonder, Am I poly?

Narrator: Follow two not-so-typical families –

Kamala: Mommy and Daddy are going to ask Jen and Tahl to come and live with us. How would you like that?

Kid: Yeah. I like ‘em.

Narrator: – that are changing the way America thinks about love.

Yes, it’s all about who we love, a statement we’ve heard before – repeatedly – in another context. Perhaps President Obama needs to allow his views on marriage to “evolve” just a little bit more? After all, don’t all Americans have the “right” to be with the person (or persons) they love? – Source

Secular movie review:

Although the movie does capture this characteristic of parenting, it actually focuses on a concept that some may find controversial: two people who are friends, but not lovers, having a child together so they can experience the joys of parenthood without the perceived pains of a monogamous relationship.

The film starts with a cell phone ringing, and the clock reveals it is very early in the morning. Jason Fryman (Adam Scott of NBC’s “Parks and Recreation”) answers the call from Julie Keller (Jennifer Westfeldt, who also wrote and directed the film) asking him a joking question regarding ways he would prefer to die. Fryman’s response and the ensuing conversation immediately gives the audience the idea that Fryman and Keller are the best of friends and sets a comedic tone that is prevalent throughout the film.

Fryman and Keller make clear their parenting beliefs right from the onset: everyone is doing it wrong. Their mutual friends are two married couples, Alex (Chris O’Dowd) with Leslie (Maya Rudolph) and Ben (Jon Hamm) with Missy (Kristen Wiig), who have had tremendous problems keeping their lives together since they had children. Using their friends and the general American population as examples, Fryman and Keller determine that their concept of child rearing while in a polyamorous relationship is superior to the standard, monogamous relationships most couples in America culture choose. Their concept skips the fighting and the inevitable divorce and goes straight to a shared custody system. With Fryman being a sex addict, Keller’s biological clock ticking and both of them wanting kids, the decision to conceive was not difficult.

What is scary about this concept is that many Americans growing up in families torn apart by divorce relate to this situation and many viewers might see this system as a real solution to their problems.

Check out Line of Fire Radio. Listen to full audio here.

Download audio segment 1 & segment 2.

  1. In theory I believe there is hardly something wrong with it. I mean, it’s consensual, and if it’s based on friendship… In my personal idea relationships based on friendship last longer, much longer, than “romantic” ones. If I were to build up a steady life for children, I’d rather do that with my best friend than with a lover.
    Sex is a basal, human need. You can’t say “okay, we’re friends having a kid so now we’re never going to have sex anymore”. I understand that you can be “married and dating” in that idea.
    Of course, I’m not sure if the theory and the application in real life are completely alike. Human relationships are a puddle of emotions, and you would really have to be damn good friends to withstand the trouble of dating and parenthood together, not to mention that the people you’re dating might be looking for something entirely else than what you’ve got to offer.
    For the children involved your friendship would have to be based on respect and care for each other; I think those are more important values than the “value” of the monogamous couple…

    • Servant says:

      Your lover should be your best friend. 🙂

      …the other question obviously is to what extent does consenting adults make the difference? If that’s all that matters then double-standards won’t do – brothers etc etc etc should be allowed to also marry or whatever they want to do – if there is no scientific or socially obvious objection against it… right?

      In terms of love, you speak from, what seems to me to be a Hollywood understanding of love. That kind of love is *guaranteed* not to last… (due to what we know about people & how they think etc).

      …this is not exciting love, romantic maybe, but that’s boring these days right?

      If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. So now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

      1 Corinthians 13 ESV

    • Servant says:

      Your practical considerations are valid I think – the challenges you foresee… let’s at least agree that there is only one option / arrangement that has stood the test of time… for some reason. …and why it is failing these days – that’s a topic for another post probably.

Want to add your perspective?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s