Another attempt at normalising polyamory

Via TJ in the comments, the mainstream media has another go at normalising polyamorous relationships. This time it’s the BBC:

Prof Aviram said she found little appetite for marriage among polyamorous groups when she first started her research in 2004 but she began to see a change around 2012.

Prof Aviram believes changing attitudes may be due to wider acceptance of same-sex marriage around the world, making way for new taboos to be broken.

“Perhaps in the 1970s, same-sex marriage was as unimaginable as group marriage is today,” she says.

When same-sex marriages were legalised, some folks warned that it would put the institute of marriage on a slippery slope to mockery and obsolescence. Reading this, they may have been onto something. Of course, for many people this was the whole point.

[28-year-old DeAnna Rivas] suggested to her husband, Manny, that they start experimenting with another woman in 2014.

After the birth of their second child, DeAnna was struggling with depression and felt she could not get enough emotional support from her husband alone.

“I was so unhappy I couldn’t express my feelings to him. I had another part of me that was missing.

“When we met Melissa it just felt right.”

DeAnna, an art teacher, now lives with both Manny and 20-year-old Melissa James; they share incomes, childcare and household duties, and a bed.

So at twenty years old this Melissa is apparently mature enough to decide getting into a polyamorous relationship with a married couple with kids is the right thing to do. Here’s my prediction. Within a few years Melissa will be out of the relationship and will either:

1. Angrily defend her past choices, screaming abuse at anyone who questions them backed by a veritable phalanx of middle-aged feminists with green hair and neck tattoos. She’ll double down on the stupidity and learn nothing.

2. Write this off as youthful naivety, deal with it, bury it, and move on. With luck, she’ll go on to lead a normal life.

Manny, 30, says some people are upset by the relationship – a previous employer even threatened to sack him as a result – but others are intrigued.

Can we hear from Melissa’s father, please? Or did he walk out when she was 12, which would explain everything.

If things are going to change, there need to be more role models to show people that polyamorous relationships can last long term, she adds.

Manny Rivas says he “would love for us to be able to get legally married and show people there’s nothing wrong with it, show people you can make it work.

Getting married would show us only that the legal system in the US can be manipulated in the interests of social engineering. What would show people polyamorous relationships can work is an interview with three partners who’ve made it work over three decades and whose grown-up children are normal and speak of a happy, stable childhood.

Oddly, these media puff-pieces praising polyamory are remarkably short on such examples.

Share

17 thoughts on “Another attempt at normalising polyamory

  1. I thought that after same sex marriage we would have polyamour marriages and campaigns for incest to be legalized. Not a surprise at all.

  2. The case described is understandable: she really doesn’t want sex post infant two plus gets a livein babysitter, he gets a nubile younger woman who fancies him, third party gets better accommodation than she could afford on her own plus learns how the world exploits the naive.

  3. The case described is understandable: she really doesn’t want sex post infant two plus gets a livein babysitter, he gets a nubile younger woman who fancies him, third party gets better accommodation than she could afford on her own plus learns how the world exploits the naive.

    Heh, quite. Dressing it up as luuuuuuurve and wanting marriage is the bit I take issue with.

  4. They’re giving guardianship rights to Melissa. I’m sure nothing will go wrong.

  5. I think it’s a huge stretch to assume that it’s the guy getting the bulk of the poly…

  6. The legalization of polygamous marriage is inevitable. To oppose it is Islamaphobic, and we can’t have that.

  7. these media puff-pieces praising polyamory are remarkably short on such examples.

    Well, because they don’t exist. Most of these relationships don’t last beyond five years. And while it’s fair to say that many traditional marriages don’t either, it’s pretty rare that when a traditional marriage breaks up, one or both of the partners rejects the entire foundational concept of the relationship – settling down with a single person. The same is not true of polyamory. When most triads or quartets break up, it’s because somebody settled down with a single lover they’re more-or-less exclusive with.

    A friend of mine is polyamorous, and I’ve pointed out a couple of times that we single people have a word for polyamory – we just call it fucking around. It’s this need for external validation, to tart it up as being about love and commitment and other societally accepted things that’s so offputting, and so revealing about the psyches of the people involved.

  8. It would work if we were constantly in a low intensity war, with young men dying more than females.

  9. “It would work if we were constantly in a low intensity war, with young men dying more than females.”

    Doubtful, or you would have seen a lot more of it in Russia post WW2.

  10. The more I read of polyamory, transgender, obese people claiming positive body image, etc. the more I realise that there’s an awful lot of people who are functioning mentalists.

  11. “Getting married would show us only that the legal system in the US can be manipulated in the interests of social engineering.”

    And we ALREADY know that.

  12. I have said before that I used to work in noospapers and the thing you soon learn is that journalists are generally not very bright. So with a low boredom threshold they get attracted to the shiny and new, even if it is morally doubtful because it is more exciting to write about than chip-pan fires or logging council meeting minutes (though sometimes the two are indistinguishable).

    As for the professor finding more evidence then the normal response, correctly, is it depends what you are looking for. Generally people who dig gardens find more earthworms than those that don’t.

  13. Legalized, OTC contraception was probably the death-knell for marriage. When we divorced sex from parenthood, we also decoupled parenthood from marriage. If you believe, as I do, that the institution of marriage was created as a mechanism to ensure recognition of paternity (maternity needs no artificial mechanism to be recognized), then making paternity optional and easily avoided eliminates the sole justification for legal recognition and support for said institution, and allows the re-definition of the word to include just about any relationship, regardless of its social utility.

    “Love”, on the other hand, is its own reward. It doesn’t need, or merit, any legal recognition or support.

  14. I think it’s a huge stretch to assume that it’s the guy getting the bulk of the poly…

    Heh!

  15. They’re giving guardianship rights to Melissa. I’m sure nothing will go wrong.

    These people are insane.

  16. It’s this need for external validation, to tart it up as being about love and commitment and other societally accepted things that’s so offputting, and so revealing about the psyches of the people involved.

    Yup!

  17. As for the professor finding more evidence then the normal response, correctly, is it depends what you are looking for. Generally people who dig gardens find more earthworms than those that don’t.

    Heh! That’s a good analogy which adequately explains a lot of newspaper reports.

Comments are closed.