Washington Post Sends Big Valentine to Alternative Lifestyles

Photo of Kristen Fyfe.
By Kristen Fyfe | February 13, 2008 - 14:15 ET

Triads. Quads. V's.  No, it's not a math lesson, it's the terminology used to describe relationships by polyamorists.  Not sure what those are?  Lucky you have the February 13 edition of The Washington Post's "Style" section to enlighten you. And if you read far enough into the copy you'll also find a game plan for redefining marriage. More on that in a minute.

In what can only be described as a Valentine to immorality and provocative behavior, the Post ran a 2554-word feature on polyamory that describes a practice most readers - even the liberal fans of the Post - would find disturbing. Sometimes called "swinging" or "wife swapping," polyamory is the practice of openly having several sexual partners, regardless and sometimes in spite of, marital status. 

"Polyamory isn't about sex, polys tell you. It is about love. It is about loving your primary partner enough to love that they have a new secondary partner, even when their New Relationship Energy with that person leaves you, briefly, out in the cold. It's about loving yourself enough to acknowledge that your needs cannot be met by one loving person. It's about loving love enough to embrace it in unexpected form -- like maybe in the form of your primary's new secondary! -- in which case you may all form a triad and live happily together."

That is Post reporter Monica Hesse's summation of what polyamory is, and presumably the crux of why she traveled to a Poly Living convention in Pennsylvania to write about it.

While the journalistic ideal of balanced reporting is not generally expected in any paper's Style section, one does also not expect to find public relations material for destructive behavior.  That is in effect what Hesse's article "Pairs with Spares" is. She spent a good deal of ink describing the various convoluted relationships she encountered and gave voice to the narcissistic reasoning of the practitioners.

Perhaps unwittingly, she also shed light on what may become a new front in the battle to redefine marriage.

"People in my generation are recognizing that they have more choices when they're deciding what they want their families to look like," says Diana Adams, 28, a polyamorous lawyer who specializes in alternative family law in New York. "This is an important historical moment because of the gay marriage conversation. We're becoming more accepting of gay parents, of single parents." She hopes to soon start a family with her two male partners.

 This description of what practitioners of alternative lifestyles hope to achieve culturally was significant.  In her story Hesse mentioned that people at the conference were attending seminars like "Kids and Poly Relationships: A Human Relations Primer About Melding All Your Loves" and "HapPoly Ever After: Long-Term Poly Partnership." Rather than just titillate with such provocative statements, Hesse would have done readers a service by seeking comment from social scientists and family experts to discuss the impact of such behavior especially as it relates to children and their overall developmental health.  Instead, Hesse followed the statements of the alternative family lawyer with this:

About a dozen poly parents discuss both changing public perception and the daily grind of child-rearing at the "Kids and Poly Relationships" seminar.

"My oldest son is very attached to our current girlfriend," one male participant says. "It's happened before with a relationship that didn't last." He wants to know how to protect his son while still giving him the opportunity to know the girlfriend.

A woman in her mid-30s wants to know how to enter the poly dating scene again. "I've basically been baby-hibernating for the past five years," she says, but now she'd like a partner in addition to her husband.

"My 13-year-old is embarrassed of us," says one concerned dad, with an expression of profound shame.

The session leader, a clinical therapist, laughs. "All 13-year-olds are embarrassed of their parents."

The overall story seemed to be written with a sense of awe and wonder.  Hesse ended the piece by focusing on a young couple at the conference.  While the man is demonstrating "proper cuddle etiquette" with another woman, his partner looks on "contentedly."  Hesse concluded, "They seem ridiculously in love."

What is ridiculous is the amount of column inches and ink the Post gave to the promotion of destructive behavior.  The fact that this feature ran in the same section as the KidsPost (the page the Post dedicates to younger readers) was also irresponsible. 

Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Valentine Day is now just VD

As in have a happy VD!

iranian uranium; iranian ICBM's iranian satellites..

4 (unthinkable) H-bombs, NOW THAT'S SOME CHANGE

Keep the change Bob. h/t Sam Peckinpah

must make this corporate policy asap, have a pride parade or two

hang in there gays! peds! necros! mutant ninja turtles! whether it's real or robot - PC culture is steamrolling your way:)

 

Will and Grace

Uncle Wilbur and little Gracie

Mortician Wilburger and old Mrs. Grayson

etc

etc 

polyamory = me, me,

polyamory = me, me, me.

Pathetic.

Sorry. This is just sick.

This is more of what happens when, instead of morals, the "rightness" of something is decided by whether you can get enough people to go along with it.

 

Dust off the tie dyes!!!!

Free love, man! Could someone pass me that bong?

 Hello, God? It's me, Phil. Please strike down all of this filth and let the rational, moral, responsible people start over.

Exactly MB!

Consensus truth is not truth.

Consensus science is not science.

Consensus morality is not morality.

I'm starting to notice a pattern here. . .

-PJ

"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07

Great one Kristen.  The

Great one Kristen.  The trains are running right one time with this one (no pun intended).

:knocking on monitor:

Wonder if Binxly is reading this.  This was my hole card in the gay marriage thread that I never even got around to using.

I have several friends who have tried this.  Trust me, it only looks good on paper.  Every partner you add to the mix raises the demand for personal attention by a factor of X, where the variable represents the number of people in the group.  You can't put someone's "personal needs" on a rotating schedule either.

-PJ   

"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07

Polyamory? Nice name.

I guess if you rename something, it makes it OK.

Isn't that the same...

Isn't renaming things the M.O.?

Partial birth abortion becomes "late term" abortion

State sanctioned discrimination becomes "affirmative action"

Adultery becomes "polyamory"

Moral reprehensibility becomes "alternative lifestyles"

 Weren't they all over Mitt Romney's case about polygamy in the Mormon church? YEP!!! But "polyamory" is a good thing!

 

 

Gay marriage becomes

Gay marriage becomes "gateway to bestiality"...

And "Pro-Family" becomes

And "Pro-Family" becomes "Slippery Slope to genocide".

See how that works!

See how that works!

Yes Bal, the "slippery

Yes Bal, the "slippery slope argument" is indeed a logical fallacy. . .

 

 

. . .but not in retrospect.

Thus, irony.

-PJ 

"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07

Show me.

Show me.

Well, bal, if polyamory is

Well, bal, if polyamory is OK, what's wrong with incest? If that's OK, why not besitality?

The only thing stopping those other things is that they haven't gotten enough people to agree that it's OK yet. the only problem is that they are not "legal." When they get enough people to agree with them, they will band together, like gays have done, and get laws passed to make them legal. And then it will not be permitted to speak out against them. The response will be, "Hey, it's legal!"

 

 

But polyamory isn't "OK." It

But polyamory isn't "OK." It isn't mainstream just because someone writes an article about it. 

I'm sure polyamory was around in the '60s and '70s. Did that lead to it being OK and incest being OK? No.

mb

What else is wrong?

This for starters....thank you liberal bastion of Broward County (home of the hanging chad...arghh!).

So now I am liable to be sued if I don't choose to hire a freak show waiting to happen to disrupt everything....this is lovely. (/sarc).

Hey!  It's legal....and ultra protected under the law, to boot. 

I'm going to have to re-read Decline & Fall of the Roman Empire.  Forewarned is forearmed.

David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

 

No problem Bal. . .

B: Show me.

Okay Bal.  Just think back and compare with today.  That's all you have to do. 

Some quick examples:  The rise and fall of the Roman Empire (why?), the writings of Francis Schaeffer, that quote about "those who do not learn from history. . ." and all that crap.

Is it valid?

What do you have when the individuals that make up any given society begin to determine their own individual moral code apart from any "norm"?

Is that a slippery slope fallacy, or just sound social theory?

My point is look behind you and you'll see that maybe you went down a road you didn't mean to travel in the first place.

-PJ  

"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07

But you'll also see examples

But you'll also see examples of when the slippery slope folks were just freaked out over nothing. 

I'm sure when some people saw the first bikini they said "This will lead to the downfall of society." Did it? No.

They probably said the same thing when they saw Elvis perform. Did he cause the destruction of society? No. 

Well many kings used to

Well many kings used to have concubines and mistresses along with their wife.

Notice how many kingdoms are still around???

 

Do you realize how much it costs to run for office? More than any honest man could afford. -Montgomery Burns

I thought there was no

I thought there was no slippery slope attributable to "gay marriage"?

 

Call me crazy, but I'm not

Call me crazy, but I'm not sure that's why there aren't kingdoms anymore. Afterall, world leaders still have affairs, obviously. 

That's one

That's one reason...corruption always destroys nations, moreso than war.

Look at the Romans, Greeks, well any ancient society really. There's a big reason why they aren't as great as they once were. America is going down that road and fast.

 

 

Do you realize how much it costs to run for office? More than any honest man could afford. -Montgomery Burns

I'm wondering exactly why

I'm wondering exactly why the media liked to harp on Romney's Mormonism so much, and why the polygamy thing kept resurfacing, as though it were of contemporary relevance. Shouldn't they (the media) want to embrace polygamy as just another "lifestyle"? [/idle musings]

www.rhjunior.com Great comics with a hefty dose of Christian and anti-nutjob goodness.

"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." -Miyamoto Musashi