Hey Monogamous People - Mind Your Own Fucking Business

Listen folks, I get that my belief that I can love more than one person at a time is novel and quirky (and possibly even offensive) to you and that you're very invested in your serial monogamy. It's important to you, I know. You've pushed all of your chips in on that hand. So when someone else comes along with a different take on things, you're threatened.

But let me be very blunt here: Unless my penis is inside you, my relationship style and status are none of your fucking business. None. Zero. Not one goddamn iota. So keep your fucking noise tube shut.

Why are my hackles up? Well, I met someone the other night at a party. I felt like we had some chemistry even though we didn't get to chat much. I wasn't anything more than cordial though because I was djing at the party and there wasn't much of a chance to flirt or even really get much of a conversation going.
Instead, I asked a couple of people if they knew her and could I get an introduction. Just a chance to say, "Hi, we met briefly at the party the other night. I'm Connor."

If you are asked to make the introduction and you are friends with both parties, you do it and without comment. You don't approach the other person and say, 'Hey, my friend John wanted to meet you. Oh and he has two kids, he's late on his mortgage and he's really into toe sucking.' You know why? Because it's not your fucking business. If that's a problem than just tell John you don't feel comfortable making an introduction so John can ask you about your bigotry.

I want to be introduced as Connor, not The Non-monogamous Guy. You know why? Because it doesn't matter for an introduction. I wasn't asking you for permission to fuck your friend, to marry your friend, or even to date your friend. I was asking for an introduction.

Guess what, geniuses? Most folks are monogamous. I know that because I'm not an idiot. If you think monogamous folks should only hang out with other monogamous folks and non-monogamous folks should hang out with other non-monogamous folks, maybe you should propose shipping us all off to an island where you won't have to be reminded of us.

Also, next time, why stop with my relationship beliefs? Just ask and I can provide my credit report, my dick size, a full breakdown of my ethnicity and a schedule of my bowel movements. That way whomever I'd like to be introduced to can really take stock before they chose to speak to me.

Polyamory: Married and Dating - A Review

This review has been coming for awhile. I knew about the show, Polyamory: Married and Dating, from early on and while I've seen Showtime doing some interesting things, I was nervous about them covering this particular topic. I've been non-monogamous for about 12 years. I stopped using the word polyamorous for a few reasons, but primarily because it seemed like it was becoming sort of limiting. I also have a degree in Communications focusing on film and television and have worked in the industry for a number of years, including producing my own reality/travel series pilot. I'd like to think I have some decent insights into both the show and it's content.

I watched the second and third episode and for those not familiar with it, the show follows two groups of people. One is a married couple, Anthony and Lindsey, who are both dating Vanessa (they refer to themselves as 'The Triad').  The other is two married couples dating each other, Michael and Kamala and Jen and Tahl.

The series, which runs 30 minutes per episode over a 7 episode season, covers their interpersonal dramas, their dramas as they date 'outsiders', and their group sex. It's fairly graphic and the conversations, while surely edited, don't appear to be censored at all.

The easy way to review this show would be to discuss the various situations and dialogues that the characters get in. We could discuss why Kamala has a hard time sharing her girlfriend, Roxanne, with her husband Michael or anyone else. Or we could talk about whether or not it was ethical for Vanessa and Anthony to ambush Lindsey on her date with her boyfriend Krystof.  But that's a diversion. That's the slight of hand that the show's producers deftly create. Unfortunately, it's a trick that works on polyamorous folks as well as monogamous ones. We're just as vulnerable to media manipulation as anyone else.

I can't discuss the true character of the people involved in this show. They may be wonderful people making an altruistic attempt to show the inner workings of their unusual lives or they may be narcissistic sociopaths out to make a buck. The truth probably lies somewhere in-between as it does with most human beings. And there's the rub. We really can't know these people. At all. In fact, we're worse off than if we met them on the street. Bad information is worse than no information.

Let's go back to the scenario where Anthony and Vanessa ambush Lindsey during her date. Did Anthony and Lindsey come up with the idea to do that? Or did the producers? Was Vanessa actually surprised or was she told to act surprised? How much was edited from the scene? We have to realize that we aren't seeing these people's lives, we're seeing the reconstructed, re-editing of a staged version of their lives. A shadow of a shadow produced by a company that has profitability as it core standard.

Really, all you have to watch of Polyamory: Married and Dating is the opening credits.  You have quick cut scenes of bodies grinding on each other, running around, laughing, women kissing women (note: no men kissing men), lots of skin, all set to a rock music score.  They're all pretty, well off, white people in Southern California. Some time is spent discussing jealousy issues and personal limits and far more time is spent showing group sex and displaying the women's bisexuality.

Do they have jobs? They seem to just roll out of bed, fuck and then go on dates. I laughed out loud in episode three when Kamala arrives at her girlfriend's house in her silver Prius. As she walks up the drive, what car does Roxanne have parked there? A silver Prius!

It's as though the producers ran the polyamorous community through a media strainer and came up with a half dozen people who were attractive,  filmable and most of all, willing to have their personal lives dissected for a period of weeks or months.  Forget words like 'average' or 'representative' or 'cross section'. I'd love to hear about the people in all of their lives who refused to participate in the show. How many of their lovers or friends were invited on and said, 'I want none of this'?

Already, I see people all over the internet saying things like: "@MoeTruth For the people who don't know what polyamory means...It consists of having a side lover while married to someone.."  Of course, to argue that means arguing against the title of the show, Polyamory: Married and dating. I realize that trying to capture an entire lifestyle in a half hour show is daunting. Of course these two groups of people are not necessarily representative of all polyamorous people. But they never say that and the show is setting a precedent that may be hard to alter for those of us who have to deal with this on a day to day basis.

As I said before, I don't know the participants in this show and I'm refusing to make any kind of personal judgments about them. I just don't know anything about them. What I know about this show though is that it's about pretty, privileged people navigating the dramatic waters of daily group sex.

In the show, Jen said, about her sister's take on polyamory, "I don't think she understands that it's not all about sex. I think that's what she thinks it is." Gee, wonder where she could have gotten that idea?

Gay Rights and Polyamory, The Next Front

The rights for same-sex couples to marry has been at the forefront of civil rights in the U.S. and quite a few other nations for the last five or six years.  While many states have voted one way or another, further entrenching each sides commitments to progression or regression, there are many of us out there who've already personally closed the door on this issue and are simply waiting for the rest of the world to play catch up.

Should same-sex couples be allowed to marry? Of course.  It's not debatable to me. It's a no-brainer. It's no more a question than, 'should I be allowed to buy an apple at the grocery store and eat it in my own home?'.  Duh.

For those of us who have thoroughly decided this issue though (on either side of the debate) and are ready to move on, we have to face the next issue coming up.  It's one that the religious right has already had nightmares about.  The Family Institute's Laurie Higgins summed it up well, saying, "“Some will take offense at my comparison of homosexuality to polyamory or adult consensual incest because — they argue — those conditions are immoral and homosexuality is not."

There are many hot catch-phrases out there right now.  Things like 'redefining marriage' or 'homosexuality isn't a choice' are repeated ad nauseum on both sides. Both sides have a tool box of verbiage and hyperbole that they use over and over, to little effect on those who are in their hardened moral bunkers.

Interestingly, last week, in Australia, the first real visible crack appeared in the 'left' side of this whole thing.  "Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young has come under attack from polyamorists, including some who are members of her party, for insisting that marriage should be between two people of any sex, but no more than two."  In the same article in the Australian National Affairs, "Alex Greenwich, the national convener of Australian Marriage Equality, told The Australian that his lobby group's concept of marriage was "what it's always been" of "two people who rely on each other in a relationship to the exclusion of all others"."

The answer to these quandaries will play out the same way they did with slavery, women's right to vote and every other significant social equality movement in history.  Slowly but surely, a tiny war will be won for a group of people, while still marginalizing another group. What people need to do is step back and see is the larger pattern.  There are only two directions:  more freedoms for all of us or fewer freedoms for all of us.

You only need two words, and an understanding of their meaning to solve this whole problem: Liberty and Consent.  Apply them to any issue, any problem and you have the solution.  Should two men be allowed to marry?  Yes, as it is their liberty to do so, so long as both consent.  Should two men and a woman be allowed to marry? Yes, as it is their liberty to do so, so long as all three consent.  Should a person be allowed to shoot heroine? Yes, as long as he/she consents, it is their liberty.  Should a person be allowed to sell their body for sex? Yes, as long as he she/consents, it is their liberty. (And before some of you out there jump all over me for this - consent, by definition, must be obtained from someone who has all the components of being *able* to consent.)

Of course, this is all great in theory and it's a nice equation on paper.  But what about the realities and practicalities of dealing with this issue when it comes to government and legislation?  There's an ugly truth there and it's one that I'm afraid is going to not be very popular.  The government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all.  It has no business encouraging or promoting its citizens into any kind of social constructs.  It's completely unethical to give massive tax breaks to a married couple with six children while a single person pays massively higher proportional taxes.  A citizen is a citizen is a citizen.  The government should only see a human being.

If government stepped away from marriage, then families could make their own legally binding contracts that worked for them, regarding wills, inheritance, etc.  People could go to whatever church they want to attend and get married by whomever wants to marry them.  If people want their church to change their definition of marriage then it can be up to the members of that faith. Freedom of religion wins too.

So, rather than spend years on gay marriage rights, only to re-entrench ourselves with debates about polyamory and consensual incest, can we just step back and look at the problem from the larger perspective?  People have a right to their own bodies.  People have a right to give consent to others regarding their bodies.  The government needs to recognize the values of *all* of it citizens. It can do so by getting out of the marriage business entirely.

Remember, we need to fight for every person's rights. That means the people we disagree with too.  The only thing we can all agree on is that we want the right to decide for ourselves what's best for us.  So, I'll stick up for your rights to believe whatever you want for yourself.  As Thomas Paine said, "He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."