Polyamory, reporter Jessica Bennett explained in her July 29 article, is the act of “engaging in loving, intimate relationships with more than one person – based upon the knowledge and consent of everyone involved.”
While Bennett acknowledged that keeping track of multiple partners’ (and their partners) needs and wants isn’t for everybody, she concluded, “perhaps the practice is more natural than we think: a response to the challenges of monogamous relationships, whose shortcomings – in a culture where divorce has become a commonplace – are clear.”
Bennett offered Terisa Greenan’s arrangement as an example of a successful polyamory situation. Terisa, who is married to Larry, is also the girlfriend of Matt and Scott. Matt is married to Vera, who is dating Larry, Terisa’s husband. Matt and Vera have a child together. Terisa, Larry and Scott live together in a house in Seattle, which Matt, Vera and their child visit during weekends.
Sound creepy? Not to Bennett. And she reassured critics in both the conservative and gay movements who expressed fear of polyamorists seeking government benefits and harming their respective causes. “The majority of them don’t seem particularly interested in pressing a political agenda; the joke in the community is that the complexities of their relationships leave little time for activism.”
Story Continues Below Ad ↓
Bennett briefly touched on emotional ramifications of polyamorous lifestyles, such as bruised feelings when Larry called Terisa “sweetie” and how Scott sometimes “has had to put up with hearing his girlfriend have sex with someone else,” but those too were dispelled. Larry told Bennett that because everything was in the open, “it’s not as if anybody is betraying anybody else’s trust.” Terisa piped in, “We really don’t let anything go unsaid.”
Ken Haslam, a curator at the polyamory library at the Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender and Reproduction and a polyamorist himself, said, “It’s all very straight forward if everybody is just honest about what’s going on in their brains – and between their legs.”
But all that communication doesn’t do polyamorist parents any good in custody cases. Bennett briefly noted that despite anecdotal research that indicates “children can do well in poly families – as long as they’re in a stable home with loving parents,” few long-term studies have been done on the subject that can hold up in court. Biological anthropologist Helen Fischer similarly touted stability as “what’s healthy for children” in the article as well.
The “stability” statements ignore other research that has found children raised in traditional intact families have lower levels of anti-social behavior than those raised in non-traditional families. A 2004 Heritage Foundation study found that “mothers and children are safest and thrive best in a married family.”
—Colleen Raezler is a research assistant at the Culture and Media Institute
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Well, that's just dandy.
July 31, 2009 - 07:32 ET by MazziWell, that's just dandy. But why don't they shut up? Does anyone CARE what happens behind their closed doors?
I see what's coming. We get to see a few groups who are "dealing with it" sucessfully. Next up will be the ones who are whining because they get mocked and ridiculed for their insistance on public ly disclosing their perversions. Then? Yep- demands that these people be afforded some kind of constitutional protection. The pop psychologists will jump all over it, deciding that it is in fact not a "life-style choice", but a hard-wired need to share their love.
Then, the holy grail. Groups protesting and picketing - parading just in time for the evening news with their bastard children looking adorable in their little "I have 6 mommy's" Tshirts, demanding that they be allowed to marry as a group and get the same benefits as the rest of us. And those who protest shall be branded "intolerant polyamor-acists".
It's coming. Mark my words.
"I would rather be historically accurate than politically correct" ~ My husband's T-Shirt
Frankly, I wouldn't give a
July 31, 2009 - 07:34 ET by motherbeltFrankly, I wouldn't give a rat's tail WHAT these "consenting adults" do, but when they start having children in messes like this, that's something else.
Isn't it amazing that liberals feel free to stick their noses into people's traditional marriages and worry about terrible abuses like homeschooling, because they are so "concerned" about the children and yet this is all good to them?
So now it's "whatever floats your boat" when it involves this kind of perverted, self-centered behavior by adults. They do the same with divorce, remarriage and moving kids away from their fathers...oh, hell, I'm not going to start on that or my head will explode!
"The majority of them
July 31, 2009 - 07:46 ET by kg"The majority of them don’t seem particularly interested in pressing a political agenda"
So Newsweek will push it for them. Typical liberal media creating news.
"DumbAssity of Dope"
This DOES affect us all
July 31, 2009 - 10:24 ET by ThisnThatCheck out page 973 of the Health Care bill: Include standards, as appropriate, for the collection of accurate data on health and health care by [among other things] race, ethnicity, primary language, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity.
The health bill has a provision to study and collect data according to the above -- specifically so the Government can figure out a way to include the results of the study into its comprehensive health care plan. There it is for you, in black and white.
What does this mean? We will pick up the costs of these arrangements, and every other arrangment these perverts can think of. The Obama Government includes everybody -- except, of course, for conservatives or traditionalists. Beware!
___________________________________
Maybe this isn't going to help. Maybe you're better off not having this surgery but taking the painkiller - Obamacare
Openness
July 31, 2009 - 07:35 ET by KC MulvilleWell, see, if we're just open about it, it's all OK. Like when you want to rob the bank. If the tellers would just hand over the money, we wouldn't have to bring in the guns and wear those itchy masks.
Sheesh
There's a reason why people sneak around when they cheat on their spouses. It's because the cheating is wrong in the first place. The deception to hide the cheating is not the crime; the cheating is the crime.
Just to say the obvious: once you legalize gay marriage (on the juvenile idea that anyone should be allowed to love anyone) then you have no legal theory to prevent any arrangement under the sun. Since everything is OK, nothing is wrong. It's the fulfillment of the Sixties' free love movement ... any and all sex is to be promoted.
once you legalize gay
July 31, 2009 - 08:37 ET by motherbeltonce you legalize gay marriage (on the juvenile idea that anyone should
be allowed to love anyone) then you have no legal theory to prevent any
arrangement under the sun.
And yet the gay activists insisted all along that there was no "slippery slope."
Yes
July 31, 2009 - 09:46 ET by KC MulvilleThey had no slippery slope by intention. Gay marriage advocates may not have wanted a free-for-all, either. (Just because you're gay doesn't mean you're a polyamorist.)
But the problem is that once you embrace the idea that we should all be free to love anyone we please (as David Boies argues), you have no legal way to stop it. If you open one door, you can't stop from opening all of them.
Remember the argument in Lawrence v. Texas, the decision about sodomy. They assured us that nothing in the decision should be used to promote gay marriage. Six months later, Massachusetts used it to justify legalizing gay marriage. Legal language is like a leaky boat ... it doesn't matter if it's a little leaky or it's an unintentional leak. A leak is a leak. The leaky legal theory that is used to defend gay marriage can't stop the leak in other cases, including polyamory, incest, or anything else.
There is a formula that the
July 31, 2009 - 12:00 ET by MrSnugglesThere is a formula that the leftists use. First, they deny any accusations that they intend to do this or that (ie. that gay marriage will lead to bigamy). Then, when the time is right, they come out and admit that all along they wanted bigamy to be legal.
its like pushing a big rock down a steep hill and denying that it will ever hit the bottom.
Geeze
July 31, 2009 - 07:37 ET by BKeyserThe sixties really did a number on this country, huh? We just can't get free from the "if you can't be with the one you love, love the one you're with" communal thought process.
I think the real Progressive motto is "let's progress back to Woodstock when everything was right with the world."
Same song popped into my
July 31, 2009 - 09:43 ET by mattmSame song popped into my head. (And I hate that song - I need to listen to some Yes or Zep - or Mozart, to clear my brain)
It's funny how the lefties who introduced the value system that produced a 50% divorce rate are now using that divorce rate to justify even more of their warped ideas.
When you need a flow chart
July 31, 2009 - 07:39 ET by MazziWhen you need a flow chart to understand who is sleeping with who - you have too many partners.
"I would rather be historically accurate than politically correct" ~ My husband's T-Shirt
Flow chart
July 31, 2009 - 08:56 ET by Matthew PhilbinColleen actually made a flow chart for the article, but we scrapped it in favor of the video.
Is this a real story?
July 31, 2009 - 07:42 ET by IamTinmanAre there any studies that show that polyamorist groups (can't bring myself to call them families) are indeed stable?
Or as I suspect, is this just some Newsweek "reporter" with a deadline and really not terribly significant at all?
I was thinking, "Is this a real video?"
July 31, 2009 - 08:42 ET by mom_roxWhen one of the gay guys mentions that he and his male partner might consider adding a woman to their relationship, but "preferably a transgendered woman", I thought I was watching a video from The Onion.
When Newsweek downsized, editor Jon Meacham said that he wanted Newsweek to bring the reader an "intellectually satisfying" experience. So we've come to the point of trying to make Hugh Hefner's lifestyle mainstream.
it's been done people!!!
July 31, 2009 - 07:46 ET by kdizzydazeAnd they called it a commune in the 60's. Don't worry, the polyamorous will be espousing their demand for equal rights in a town hall near you soon.
Man, the look on that girls face in the still reminds me of Squeaky Fromme. That or the look of someone who has been huffing compressed air for too long.
John Travolta said it best in Grease - "sloppy seconds ain't my style"
SO?
July 31, 2009 - 08:18 ET by Willis_Leon_JohnsonIt's just one commom slut admiring the lifestyle of another common slut?
Sounds newsworthy to me.
Is this twit a 'journalist"? or a Urinalist?
http://gjresult.com
A Complete Lie
July 31, 2009 - 08:18 ET by needleI distinctly recall, though I cannot put my finger on any specific quote, that when gay marriage was first being publicly advocated by homosexuals and their allies this sort of thing, polygamy, polyamory, was never to be part of their ultimate intention.
For all I know that some of those people may still think that way; but I do not believe that this was true for the thoroughly amoral satanic staff of Newsweek. I believe that this is what they have intended all along. Promoting the debasement, corruption, and destruction our society is what Newsweek and Liberalism is all about, starting with “a culture where divorce – promoted by Liberals two and three generations ago – has become a commonplace.”
Newsweek claiming “The majority of them don’t seem particularly interested in pressing a political agenda; the joke in the community is that the complexities of their relationships leave little time for activism” is a complete lie. But then lying is also what Newsweek is all about.
- Relying upon the State Run Media for your information is like relying upon an embezzler to manage your portfolio.
Time for a book plug
July 31, 2009 - 08:40 ET by BlueCat57It is time again to plug "The Marketing of Evil". In the book it explains the tactics used by homosexuals to make homosexuality mainstream.
I imagine the polyamorists are using the same playbook.
It is an absolute must read.
If anyone knows of a book that lays out a strategy on how to counter these tactics let me know. (While the Bible is a good answer, I'd be interested in other books as well.)
This surprises anybody?
July 31, 2009 - 08:41 ET by moderncommentaries83This surprises anybody? Really?
I - along with many others - made the assertion long ago that if it's "discriminatory" to define marriage as between one man and one woman, on the basis that it excludes the alternate sexuality of homosexuality, then there is no possible logical way to conclude marriage will not continue to be discriminatory if it's re-defined as being between two consenting adults.
Because that definition of marriage excludes those who believe polyamory, bestiality, necrophilia, pedophilia, or what-have-you sexual proclivity is their lifestyle choice. And, darn it, it's not "fair" if we don't all embrace everything that turns them on, we're just a bunch of backward bigots.
And, please, mark my words - the day is coming in the not-too-distant future where people decide that consent is no longer necessary in a relationship, either, because it might stand in the way of someone's sexual fulfillment and happiness.
Aut viam inveniam aut faciam
consent not necessary in a relationship
July 31, 2009 - 08:50 ET by SickofLibsThere is a certain cult, oops, I mean religion, where this has been written in stone, oops, I mean codified, since the 7th century.
Re 7th
July 31, 2009 - 09:41 ET by slickwillie2001Yep, this is the great unsaid in the article. In countries that are on the edge of the abyss like Canada and the UK, 'polyamorism' is being accepted as long as the immigrants practicing it arrived that way. Then they can bounce back to the theocratic dictatorship that they came from to pick up another one. That's the camel's nose under the tent.
Funny that those on the far-left ridicule the long-obsolete Mormon practices related to polyamory and even use it against Mormon politicians, but are too PC to extend that criticism to those still practicing it today.
Will Newsweek publish the
July 31, 2009 - 08:54 ET by Radical1979Will Newsweek publish the stats of STD's and spread of HIV's within these groups?
I don't think it's the institution of marraige that's failing, it's the people involved.
Excellent comments--
July 31, 2009 - 09:04 ET by misterbillExcellent comments here today on this subject.
As an older person, my moral code may be a little stodgy for most people. However, I do believe that the change in attitude ala the acceptance of, (and I really am sarcastic here), "ALTERNATE" life styles has affected the total moral compass of many Americans. The increase in corruption I have noticed may be the result of more people being caught these days, but I believe it is the end result of a society being exposed on a regular basis to deviant behavior. Then the media brands those of more traditional values as haters, etc.(This same tactice by the MSM is used against anti illegal immigration folks, universal health care opponents, etc..
Worse still, the acceptance, no, the advocacy by the members of the clergy on behalf of the homosexual community has caused me to step back from my religious affiliations. I have long held that if videos of these abhorrent actions were displayed on Sunday morning in church, (God forbid), the tolerance level would not be so great. I will not attend a church that elevates those practicing these aberrations to be our spiritual leaders.
At the same time, at the risk of sounding hypocritical, I am one who hates the sin and not the sinner. If one of my children/grandchildren were to embrace the homosexual lifestyle, I would regret their choice, but love them still.
but really.... this is
July 31, 2009 - 09:10 ET by MidAmericabut really.... this is just the death rattle of a once respected magazine trying desperately to get some attention. They might as well switch to the cheap newsprint paper and be placed along with the rest of the tabloids that have screaming headlines about women having babies fathered by bigfoot.
TYPICAL EVENING WITH TERISA
July 31, 2009 - 09:33 ET by BuxomAnnieMcGreggorTERISA: Larry, could you please change the baby's diaper.
LARRY: Yeah, NO.... I haven't seen the DNA results yet, not sure he's my responsibility, honey! Besides, I did the dishes last night and I wasn't even here for dinner. I cleaned up after you and Scott.... so I think I can sit this diaper change out.
TERISA: That reminds me, where DID you go for dinner last night?
LARRY: I was out with an old friend... Marcia
TERISA: Wait... wait... wait a minute! Who the F&@# is Marcia? You know I said we were going to have to put limits on this open arrangement, damnit!
*cell phone rings in background*
LARRY: Sorry, babe... gotta take this call.
TERISA: I'm tellin' ya I'm sick of bein' stuck here.... I NEVER GET OUT!
LARRY: Yeah, babe... whatever. And you might want to change that diaper you were asking about.... it's getting sort of ripe.
"We retort..... you decide."
You got a warrant?
July 31, 2009 - 09:47 ET by Willis_Leon_JohnsonIt's illegal to tape private conversations...
http://gjresult.com
July 31, 2009 - 10:20 ET by jessieHAnd they all got AIDS & died.......The End.
come on lefties
July 31, 2009 - 11:36 ET by candancePlease come here and explain how just six months ago we were paranoid for thinking society would push us to accept having more than one mate at a time.
Slippery slope? What's that?
Definition of Marriage
July 31, 2009 - 12:32 ET by WagaThis is one of the reasons gay "marriage" doesn't make sense to me. If it's just based on consent, then why not consenting groups of adults like this? How about close relatives and siblings?
The point is not against people wanting loving relationships with each other, even if others consider them abnormal. But, let's call marriage something simply between a man and a woman. For everything else, just call it something else.
OK, but let's also go with
July 31, 2009 - 14:19 ET by RR GOPOK, but let's also go with a multi-party parliamentary form of government where we can hold elections when the supreme leader is screwing up and we won't have to be stuck with him for the full term.
That would have made those with BDS quite happy as well I would think.
Too bad Newsweek doesn't have a "poly" belief concerning health care.
One of the 34% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 61% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory (yep...approval for Congress now at 39%...do you believe that!?).
OLD.
July 31, 2009 - 15:35 ET by someloudthunderWe already did this garbage in the 60s with free love and it only worsen the abilities of parents to raise children.
It's no here to say because a human relationship cannot be a happy one with more than one partner. It's just impossible.
Sixties Again?
July 31, 2009 - 16:18 ET by DoktorFrankenFree love. Communal living. Multiple partners. Menage a trois.
And just how did all of those things work out? Just ask anyone from all of the many broken relationships that these situations caused. Humans - especially Leftists - are not mature enough to handle that kind of emotional involvement. I believe it was proven with ''studies'' decades ago.
Just ask any old hippie.
slt & Dok... Both of you
July 31, 2009 - 16:19 ET by bigtimerslt & Dok...
Both of you hit the nail on the head.
I remember all of that well too.
Old indeed...guess people our age are supposed to have dimmed memories.
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
polyamory
July 31, 2009 - 18:34 ET by BaabooSICK - OOOOOOOOOO'S !!!!!!!
What's this really called?
July 31, 2009 - 22:04 ET by ItchyZSluts in the city. No less.