Poly, Weakly: (Not so weakly), or How Poly Slouched Toward Maturity

Have we reached a turning point in non-monogamy?  Has the weight of responsibility tipped the scales against the one-true-wayists who refuse to accept any limitations on their behavior?  

Cunning Minx, who has often inveighed against rules, instead favoring boundaries, and against hegemony of the couple in a relationship when others are involved, has come out against policing others' relationships.  Praise PolyJesus!

That is not a small thing.  Minx has, for better or worse, been an outsized influence on the poly community, lacking as it does for spokespeople.  When she jumped on the "no rules" bandwagon, that take went from being unconventional to being the baseline faster than you can say "divorce court".  When she ranted about couple privilege, that became "a thing", or at least a source of way too much Tumblr whining.  When Minx mashed social justice language into the poly world, it opened up a whole new arena at the oppression olympics and suddenly white, straight, cis Mid-Westerners were streaming to the Web to complain that they had it worse than anyone, anywhere, ever.

 But somewhere along the line, a shift occurred and Minx has decided that we shouldn't judge other peoples' relationship.  Well, I say shift, but truly it was a blog post wherein someone took down Minx's form of poly wherein you ever only date one person.  I wish it was one of ours, but that's doubtful.  No matter the source, she was hurt, and the judgement is off.  And that's a very good thing.  Maybe it represents a long overdue maturing moment in the community.

If Minx missteps anywhere in the episode, beyond going into a little bit too much detail about the kinks that disgust her and shouldn't be judged, it's that she repeatedly uses "poly" as an umbrella term for all flavors of non-monogamy.  She does it so much that is comes across as a fundamental misunderstanding as opposed to simply misspeaking.

"Life on the Swingset" is another podcast about non-monogamy that frequently looks at poly, even if the examination is often no deeper than Shira B. Katz talking about how well she does poly and the shininess of the emotional wreckage she leaves behind her.

This week, "Life on the Swingset", looked at the routes that non-monogamous relationships can take and how to get them started.  As an episode bonus, Shira B. Katz isn't on it to divert attention for long stretches to talk about herself.  Seriously.  Unfortunately, the podcast gets bogged down for way too long on a ridiculously granular debate about whether introducing non-monogamy to a relationship is like turning a cruise ship, climbing a mountain, or fucking an angry gorilla.  

At the halfway point, the Swingsetters managed to right the listing mountain gorilla ship that is the episode and start discussing the difficulties associated with various forms of non-monogamy.  Overall, the episode had some good discussion.

What these two podcasts had in common, besides coming out nearly back-to-back, is that they represent the sort of more mature, serious discussion about poly and non-monogamy is has been lacking for way too long.  It doesn't mean the emotional-bomb-throwing relationship anarchists and secondary-supremacists have been silenced, but it at least shows that the adults are still talking.

Poly, Weakly: Episode 378 (The truth hurts; are you listening, Mrs. The ex-Greydancer, hurts)

-I'm back.  Why do I keep doing this to myself.
-Wut, no LG?  Awww.
-So she tells us about a new poly site she'll link to on the blog and then says, "(I)f you have the iPhone, or Windows, or Amazon app, you'll be able to find it there as well."
 Jebus, lady, there are blind septuagenarian shut-ins with a better understanding of technology.  Next time, Minx, have Ted Stevens cover the goings on with series of tubes.
-I stand corrected.  She's tech savvy.  She explained that, "There's a plug-in for Chrome, so if you use the Chrome browser, there's a plug-in."  Got that?
-She rattled off the categories of relationships one can select on the OKCupid plug-in, including "communicative".  Why do I not think they have this as a relationship model?
-She's exchanged the Twitters with someone.  Again, having a hard time believing this.
-So she hasn't been on OKCupid because LG has been taking all her time, what with meeting up on most weekends.  There isn't a polyamorous bone in her body, is there?
-"I listed that I was looking for romantic relationships, which is actually not true."  Damn, you really had us going there, you cunning minx.
-People wrote in seeking advice from Minx, hopefully for the humor value rather than needing any actual guidance.  Otherwise the poly community would be full of really fucked
up people and their even more fucked up relationships.
-She offers "Q" some dating advice moments after admitting that she's really bad at dating.  While that's pretty crap, this episode is amazing for its honesty mixed with a dash
of bold-faced lies.
-Oh good, "Q" is looking for two bi guys to start a poly family with her and plans to write a user manual on how to do it, but she's also wants to know if Minx has any ideas
about how to do it.  Good Lord, this is the poly community in a nutshell.
-Minx tells "Q" not to be too picky and keep her options open.
-Oh damn, here's a little more shitting on Greydancer's ex-wife.  Nice to know that wound hasn't healed since we last visited (it was in the wedding vows).
-"I just didn't feel I was a good person to date because I was kinda getting knee jerky and paranoid about how the metamor was going to treat me"  That statement started out great;
too bad she felt the need to finish with a bullshit qualifier.  Well, back to stroking herself.
-She admits that she too was into bi guys but "but never managed to date one".  Pro tip, there's a lot you won't be able to check off your dating bucket list if your complete
dating history can be written in crayon on the back of a beer mat.
-"I had a little brain storm".  That term does not mean what you thinks it means, part 498.
-Something something, rambling about kink negotiation in creating scenes.  WTF? She's given up on answering this question.  Just as well.
-"I don't like feeling like I'm just a fuck...wham bam thank you man." Thank you, man?  Uh, is this her admitting that gender play is her secret kink?
-"I want to be able to receive attention and affection on a fairly regular basis."  Episode 378: surprisingly honest.
-So she had issues with single guys providing enough attention and affection to meet her needs and wonders if she was coming across as needy.  It's not that the jury's still out
on this one, it's that they've turned in their badges and gone home.
-Oh, she thinks single guys blowing her off was because she's poly, and therefore not supposed to desire affection.  Yep, people treated you like a clingy basket case because you're
poly. That fits.
-Another letter seeking advice.  What the fuck is wrong with you people?  Can't you get advice from that schizophrenic guy down at the Greyhound depot?  You know, the one with a
cigarette butt in his hair?  He'll offer advice and is strangely more grounded.  Just sayin'.
-Oh damn this is a train wreck relationship.  "R" is in a triad with a couple and she's yiffing with some other guy who has an 18 year old fuck toy.  Somehow, lack of maturity is
an issue here.
-Wait the other woman is like totally being a bitch, "R" is like nuh uh, but the she put it on her blog, and the girl is totally like oh no she didn't.  Ugh.
-Minx is concerned that really young partners may not have enough relationship experience to allow them to handle these situations.  Again, Minx said that.
-What about communication?  Did you try that?  Minx thinks that would help.
-Third reference to Mrs. The ex-Greydancer in this episode.  All water under bridge.  Water deep enough that a careless metamor could drown in, should she fall and hit her head, right?
-"Good advice, bad advice, I'm never sure."  I think that's a solid hint that it's the latter.
-She wants to "crowdsource" feedback.   That term does not mean what you thinks it means, part 499.  She meant to say "brain storm".
-And with that, I'm outta here.  I've got to go warn Greydancer that his ex-wife is in danger.

Poly, Weakly: Episode 372 (Swingers explain non-monogamy to Minx)

-The Swingset people are remarkably articulate.  It throws a stark contrast on the maturity difference between the voices of the poly community and those
of the dirty swingers CM dislikes so much.
-They spend 5 minutes explaining how close swinging is to poly, even two sides of the same coin, and then CM asks if they're trying to bring the
different communities together.
-Minute 9, CM manages to be a real ass.  She's not open or a swinger so why does she need their community?  They talk about voting blocks and
collective power, and CM seems lost beyond the concept of her clique.
-He makes a good point that swinger-open-poly needs to band together like LGBT.  Minx's snort almost sounds like feedback.
-Is CM not a swinger?  She hasn't pointed it out in a while.  Oh wait.  Nevermind.  Could it be clearer that she looks down on it?
-"Don't dom me," CM tells a joke and it's actually funny.
-Oh shit, Cooper calls out poly people for saying casual sex is icky.  Sadly, it whooshed over CM's head.
-OFFS, she's calling out donations again.  She always brings up the amount.  Damn it's vulgar.
-Hundreds of thousands of people helped?  Seriously?  If only the UN had her efficacy.

Poly, Weakly: Episode 371 (I can't finish this now. It is too shit to deal with)

-Hey there's a new conference and the podcast gets money for it.  Not directly said, but you know, it's the thought of money that counts.
-Oh shit, there are classes oriented toward secondaries and talking to metamors.  Wait, a polyamory bootcamp?  Seriously?  Do they break fingers too?  Please!
-Wooo! the conference includes poly speed dating, also known as speed dating.  Still stupid.
-LG is back...yay...
-a letter from some whose short-lived relationship was failing. Oh fuck.  I don't care.  I really don't.  This podcast just makes me weep.

When Sex Is NOT Fun: The Conclusion

Buckle up for another long post, folks.  If it weren't for our Chicago correspondent, this blog's revival would be mostly about the "Sex is Fun" podcast, so I want this to be the last time I address Kidder, Jade, Lorax and the whole drama for a while, at least.  Which means I have lots of things to say.

For those of you who haven't been paying attention, my first haterade post on Kidder got some attention from the "Sex is Fun" crew and they've continued commenting on posts both the Boy and I have made about their podcast.  It's like I'm talking to famous people!

A new podcast plopped today, and again, basic personality differences aside (Kidder's style will probably always rub me the wrong way - he's a Virgo, after all) I was relieved to hear what sounded like actual emotional growth, honest communication, and a genuine owning of shit by both parties.  In all seriousness, this is a podcast that should be listened to by anyone who is considering non-monogamy or is engaged in it.

I'd intended super-snarky post that I never got around to making, as new podcasts kept emerging which kept changing my viewpoint.  I was initially reacting to episode #276, in which I felt Kidder enlisted his crew to take Jade to task for fucking up with regards to her open relationship.  I thought that podcast was a trainwreck.  As a listener, I felt manipulated.  It was clear that Kidder was very upset with how things were progressing in his relationship, but was addressing them passive-aggressively.  After the initial wind-up post which I had intended to lead into an analysis of all the ways episode #276 was an example of Doin' It Wrong, I found I'd been linked to by Kidder, and tracked down the source: Facebook.  Where I got to witness Kidder's descent into social-media madness which had all happened a couple of weeks earlier.

I want to make something very clear. I am not now, nor will I ever be against people speaking publicly about the good and bad parts about relationships in general and open relationships in particular.   Quite the contrary: I think people should. I wouldn't have this blog at all if I didn't think that.  One of my biggest critiques of "mainstream" poly stuff on the Internet is that it rarely talks openly about the pitfalls and problems that non-monogamous relationships will likely encounter.  My problems with Kidder's relationship difficulties were not that he was talking about it, but rather how he was talking about it.

Kidder has admitted, repeatedly, that posting about his relationship problems explicitly breaking a promise he made to his wife.  And he did it anyway, because she'd broken promises to him and he wanted to know "what it would feel like."  In the latest podcast he was even more honest, and perhaps inadvertently admitted that since she'd broken promises, he felt he had the right to make her feel what he'd felt.

This is inherently, basic relationship 101 stuff that is NOT OKAY.  He was purposefully being vindictive, because he was hurt.  And because he's Internet-famous, everyone else heard it, too. He has yet to acknowledge this was a fuck-up, and something he should be apologizing for as opposed to trying to spin as a good thing because it lead to him getting support and hearing stories.  He could have heard those stories and gotten that support without being vindictive and punishing.  He didn't hit the "post" button thinking, "I'm sure this will save my relationship!"  Likewise, he insists on calling her paramour "her boyfriend" knowing she hates it.  It's punishment, pure and simple.  And while the impulse to respond tit-for-tat, to hurt your partner when they're hurting you, are all perfectly normal and understandable, that doesn't justify it.

In the most recent episode of the podcast, Kidder acknowledged that he'd failed to use "I" statements and blamed Jade a lot in a way that put her on the defensive.  I was really gratified to hear this, even if again, this is basic relationship 101 stuff that people should really have down pat before embarking on something as daunting as opening up a relationship.  But he still failed to make the connection between being mean and acting hateful towards Jade privately - which he showed genuine remorse for (a sign you're probably not actually a narcissist, Kidder) - and exhibiting the same behavior publicly.

So, that's why I was so irritated in the first place.  While again, I agree that people sharing their intimate lives via social media can be a good thing, I still also believe that doing so in the heat of the moment (and under the influence of substances) is a bad idea.  I am no stranger to this behavior, I've had an online journal since 2000 which has always made my partners uncomfortable because I tend to write about whatever I'm going through on said journal.  The difference is, I haven't done it publicly - it's always been accessible only to people I trust.  And since it's not, I don't use it punitively.  I try to walk the fine line between speaking my truth - which is enormously helpful for me - and not violating my partners' privacy. I view it much in the same way I would going to friends in real life for support.  I haven't always been sensitive to my partners' feelings in this endeavor, but when I have fucked up, it's been through genuine error, not because I wanted to publicly shame my partner.

This doesn't mean I censor myself, but I might censor who can read what I write, for instance, as opposed to putting it out there where everyone can see.  I might, in the heat of my anger, write something, but not post it, then reread in the morning to make sure I was posting my emotional truth as opposed to angry word vomit.  Given that Kidder and Jade seem to meet people who listen to the podcast/read their Faceboks, I can only imagine the amount of anxiety and awkwardness that comes as a result of Kidder lashing out the way he did, and as much as I think the last podcast was awesome, he has yet to take any responsibility for it.  Sometimes "radical honesty" can be code for "being a dick."

Those criticisms aside, it really was a good episode.  Jade's side had been missing for most of this and I was glad to hear it and some of my suspicions about the difference in the two sides was validated.  They spelled out some basic concepts anyone in open relationships should adhere to, along with the aforementioned non-blamey "I" statements, is validating your partner's feelings.  As I mentioned before, I am wary of validating crazy feelings that are based on irrational cognitions, but there comes a point, particularly in the delicate stages of opening up a relationship where it is super-important to validate your partner even if you think their feelings are nuts.  Jade apparently failed at this hardcore.  I've found it's also a good thing if you are the insecure party to acknowledge that hey, your feelings might in fact be crazy - but can you please validate me anyway?  That way your partner doesn't feel like they did something wrong (which will put them on the defensive) but you'll still get the validation you need.  And it's just honest.  It's useless getting into a tit-for-tat argument where you're trying to justify if your feelings are "correct" or not.  If you open up saying, "Hey, these feelings may be nuts, but they exist, can we deal with that?"  you're more likely to get the response you need.

I am sincerely glad that Jade and Kidder have talked it out, that Kidder acknowledged that Jade isn't the only person who fucked up here, and that Jade genuinely seems to realize that she was kind of being an asshole.  Too bad they couldn't not bring "Sex At Dawn" into it, which reminds me I never followed through on my Christopher Ryan interview.  Oh well.  His book sucks.

This is a win for all us partnered non-monogamous types!  Some of Kidder's Facebook fans have noted that for a hater, I sure am invested in all this.  Well, of course I am - I have been listening to the podcast for years now.  I wouldn't listen if I found it totally loathsome.  (Note: How often to I listen to Polyamory Weekly now?  Oh wait, I don't.)  I may have a lot of issues with how Kidder presents himself but I am always genuinely rooting for sex-positive people who talk honestly about sex, because I think it's important.

I also hope that a lot of the hardcore fans of SiF don't see Kidder as a guru (he's just a guy, guys) and realize there are a lot of ways to do non-monogamy, and what Kidder and Jade present is just one valid way of many valid ways. As Kidder and Jade admitted, they really are just newbs to all this.  I still think of the Boy and I as newbs, too.  Frankly, I'm way more wary of people like Tacit and Joreth of PolyWeekly fame who present themselves as experts while giving terrible advice based on limited experience.  In spite of the problems I have with how Kidder handled this, he isn't presenting himself as an expert and instead is being incredibly honest about his fears and insecurities and problems, which I applaud.  Both because it's cool and because it gives me blogging fodder.

Too much tl;dr?  Here's the short version:
1) Everyone will make mistakes when negotiating new boundaries of openness.  Expect it. It's not the end of the world.
2) There's a difference between discussing the hardships you're going through publicly and lashing out at your partner publicly
3) Be thoughtful when you engage social media to talk about your relationship problems.
4) Use "I" statements, always always ALWAYS
5) You can - and should - validate your partner's feelings even if you don't agree with them.  Validation and agreement are not the same thing.
6) Don't fucking lie.
7) Don't use your partner's current issues with you to air previously-unexpressed grievances.  Tit-for-tat is a way of taking the focus off their problems with you and blaming them instead.  Don't do it.
8) Own your own shit.

HTH YALL

When Sex is NOT Fun: Gin & Tears Edition

GirlAboutOaktown has had her say on the ongoing SiF meltdown. I was affected by it, but in a different way.

The first 20 minutes of episode #278 was really heavy. It was the most gripping, brutal 20 minutes of podcasting I've ever heard. It actually hurt to listen to, especially as someone who's gone through the torrent of emotions that starting an open relationship can bring. Seriously, if there's ever an open relationship/polyamory archive, this section of the podcast should have a permanent spot.

In that first 20 minutes, one hears a tremendous amount of pain in Kidder's voice. It sounds as if Jade was really trying to push his buttons. How else could she keep going on with it, aware of how much it was hurting him?

At about 20:20, though, the podcast took a dark, narcissistic turn. Up until this point, it was the hardest to listen to podcast I've ever heard, and I've listened to numerous German language podcasts. Once the mood turned, though, it was all about Kidder's rage and my sympathy dissolved. I started to wonder if he was just chumming up the waters for the sake of it. So he hasn't fucked anyone else because Jade didn't allow it. So he backed off his relationship with another member of the SiF podcast. That doesn't mean that Jade didn't let him have sex and emotional connection with someone else. She's been through a lot of the angst he was going through, but it didn't end up on Facebook.

As I said above, I went through a storm of emotions when my partner finally consummated her nearly 5 year long flirtation (and a little more) with a friend of hers. The night she called me to ask if it was okay to go ahead, I was 400 miles away. Immediately, I felt helpless, as if my world was drifting away and I was powerful to stop the changes. I pictured many ridiculous scenes, like the two of them sitting up in bed together, enjoying a post-coital cigarette after a mind-blowing fuck, talking about how it was the best thing either of them had ever done.

Then a funny thing happened. She started chatting online with me. It had been many hours since I last heard from her, but here she was. I asked her questions, and started to feel better that the same woman I loved was chatting with me now, and things were really the same.

When I woke up the next morning, I still had plenty of anxiety, so I put my mind to work to find someone to hook up with. It wasn't punitive. It was just that I wanted to remind myself that open relationships have benefits as well as difficulties. Sure, she was probably back to fucking him that morning (and she was), but that I could go have fun and it was okay.

The next time she hooked up with him, I was still anxious, but less so. The next time after that, even less so. One of the things I had realized early on that made it get better, was being able to spot the jealousy and weirdness creep in, and trying to remind myself that, while they were valid feelings, they were my own to deal with.

Kidder is free to own those feelings, but he has to learn to own them completely and honestly. She did some things that hurt him and his hurt was reasonable, but his reaction wasn't.

In his shoes, I would have been hurt by the New Orleans trip issue. He suggested that they go to New Orleans together for a little romantic getaway, since he had to travel there for work. She declined, citing money issues and needing to find a sitter. When she realized that the other guy would be nearby, she started making travel plans. That was pretty clueless on her part.

Jade also sexted the other guy about illicit office sex right after rejecting Kidder's advances in his office. This one is a bit different. While I can see how he'd feel hurt, if he looked at it honestly, he'd realize that much of what is sexy is built on fantasy. One may be really put off by the act of having anal sex, but in dirty talk, finds nothing hotter than going on about a spit-lubed double anal fuckfest. If our fantasies mirrored what we really do, they'd lose their power. Anyone who thinks I'm full of shit about this one, I defy you to be honest about whether you'd be willing to show your partner every bit of porn you've ever masturbated to.

I thought so.

To wrap this up for now, I'd like to suggest that maybe Kidder and Jade were not ready for this now, if ever. They went to a swingers' resort and did a full swap, started calling it an open relationship, and collapsed into poly drama in a record amount of time. It's like deciding to visit the zoo and then taking up bullfighting all in the same afternoon. Kidder is no sexual Hemingway. Maybe a bush league Bukowski, but only for the intoxicated rage.

Sex is NOT Fun: Nor is This Super-Long Post

Kidder Kaper and Krew (this K thing is fun) found my last post and have responded!  12 comments on one post may actually be a record for us here at Sex or Television!  I was all set - a week ago - to write a scathing post detailing all the weird relationship stuff Kidder has put out there, but the most recent episode of Sex Is Fun has made me rethink this, because despite the fundamental problem that it's yet another  show entirely about Kidder and his life, actual self-awareness was demonstrated in the episode, as was genuine, heartfelt sadness that makes it very hard to continue in this vein of snark.

Fact is, my own personal issues with how Kidder runs his podcast and responds to people on the Internet aside, opening up your relationship is a fraught, terrifying thing to do.  If you have some time, and you're a personal relationship drama voyeur like me, I'd recommend listening to episodes #276 and #278 of Sex Is Fun. You'll be missing a lot of backstory, of course, some of which I'm still missing too, but it should give you a decent idea of the stuff I want to talk about.  And since I'm not going to get into the details of rehashing the history of their relationship troubles here, you'll have to listen to see how what I'm saying applies to their situation.

As I've written before, I don't subscribe to the theory, popular amongst Polaymory activists, that open relationships have to be 100% "fair" to be "good."  I am all for individuals and couples setting their boundaries and then communicating them to each other and renegotiating them.  I think that "irrational" or "unfair" boundaries are fine, provided the other partner is totally OK with abiding by them.  Where you run into a problem is when an irrational/unfair boundary conflicts with what the other partner wants.

Kidder, by his own admission, is really insecure, and has a need to "feel special."  I think right there that is a personality trait that is going to make moving forward with a seriously open relationship pretty tricky.  People with those needs, right or wrong, are often going to feel neglected even in a relatively happy long-term monogamous relationship, just because without "NRE" (poly-speak for "new relationship energy" which is a ridiculous term that normal people call "infatuation") it is human nature to fall into ruts, take your partner for granted, and so forth and so on.  When you open up your relationship to the possibility of your partner experiencing NRE with another person, that's like murder on someone who is already insecure and has a need to always feel like they are the most important person in their partner's life.

That said, I am not a huge fan of the idea that all beliefs and feelings are automatically "valid" just because someone feels them.  Having been in a relationship with someone who was seriously mentally ill and thus held completely ridiculous and inaccurate cognition as a result of his mental illness, I think it's ludicrous to say we have to honor everyone's feelings at all times.  Crazy feelings are crazy, and while we can feel sympathy to the person having the crazy feelings, it doesn't mean we have to validate the false cognition said crazy feeling is based on.

I honestly feel that in order to do any serious amount of openness seriously, both partners need to feel absolutely secure in how "special" they are to their partner without necessarily needing a huge amount of reassurance about it.  Because opening up is challenging even for the most secure people, really.  To this end, I'm not convinced that Kidder and Jade are really good candidates for having a more open relationship (apart from what they've been doing all these years that didn't challenge their relationship as much).  And it sucks for them, because they both obviously want a higher degree of openness but are unable to agree with each other's boundaries on how to handle that.  They both want an emotional and sexual relationship with other people that threatens the other person.

It's almost like the SiF people are at one end of the spectrum and the PolyWeekly folks are at the other.  The latter discusses jealousy in open relationships by refusing to deal with it or making pat remarks about how bubble baths and "taking care of yourself" is the cure to jealousy.  The SiF point of view seems to be that twinges of jealousy are to be responded with by demands on your partner and endless "processing" as opposed to any sort of introspection or willingness to try to work on and move past the insecurities that are causing said jealousy.  I will say, as someone in a committed relationship, that I am overall more sympathetic to the SiF approach because at least it is more likely to ensure the survival of the primary relationship, whereas the PolyWeekly folks are incensed by the very idea of a primary relationship, because it's not egalitarian enough.

I think there's a line in-between that isn't particularly popular and doesn't have some sort of cute catchphrase, but involves both respecting your partner's boundaries but a willingness to advocate for your wants; communicating when you're feeling insecure or upset with your partners actions but also being willing to endure feeling shitty at times and owning your own shit.

Here's an example.  The Boy and I started our path to what is now a pretty open relationship by having threesomes with other men.  None of them went terribly well, and I was frustrated after the last one and tired of the effort and the awkward sex.  I told the Boy that I'd actually be OK with him, in the future, having sex with men without me present, although we'd have to discuss the terms in more detail at another time. I also told him that I wouldn't be comfortable with him having sex with the guy we'd just finished having sex with, though.  (Hey!  Semi-irrational boundary!) 

The next day I checked the joint e-mail account the Boy and I had set up for arranging said threesomes, and saw that the Boy had e-mailed the guy we'd just had sex with about hooking up one-on-one.  I was shocked and furious.  I called him from work and demanded to know why he'd do that when I'd just brought up the possibility of him seeing other guys without me and specifically said I didn't want either one of us to have anything to do with that guy.  What did the Boy do?  He lied.  He claimed he hadn't sent that e-mail.  When he realized I had proof, he copped to it.  I was livid, sick to my stomach, threatened to break up with him, told him he'd just ruined any chance he'd had of being able to have sex outside our relationship if our relationship even survived.  At the time I felt righteously furious, now I realize I was being a little melodramatic.

This mirrors a lot of the kind of things that led to Kidder's current troubles.  He caught his wife chatting with her paramour and didn't disclose it when he asked.  My partner lied to my face about making a sex date with another person.  How did we get through this huge betrayal of trust?

We talked about it.  Not for days or weeks, but for like, a couple hours.  I realized the Boy and I had a miscommunication - he thought I'd essentially given him permission to fuck other guys, full stop, and was really excited by this new freedom. When I called him to confront him, he realized that he'd triggered all my fears and insecurities about having a cheating bisexual partner (as my ex cheated on me repeatedly with men) and panicked.  And because he didn't want to appear to be just like my ex, he lied.

Like Kidder, I wasn't mad that my partner wanted to have sex with someone else - I was upset that I'd been lied to.  And I felt like I'd granted him this gift, something that wasn't easy for me and in the very first instance he could, he fucked it up and proved himself untrustworthy.  Actually so far, I'd say based on the podcasts, that what I was feeling and what Kidder was feeling intially - why did you lie to me after I'd just granted you something awesome? - were very similar.  So dudebro, I feel ya there.

But instead of making a podcast where I got my friends to passive-aggressively rehash the wrongs my partner had done to me, I talked with the Boy and sat with my feelings, and was able to realize that his intention was not to betray me or hurt me.  And that my reaction - overreaction - to the Boy's e-mail put him in a place where he was terrified to admit to it because of my insecurities and past. It didn't take "three years" to work past, it took about a week or two before I was cool with him going off and fucking someone else.  And he did.  Crazy!

Of course, moving is easy to do when you have faith in your partner.  Despite the fact that he'd just lied blatantly to me, I still believed that on the whole the Boy was truthful with me.  What strikes me about these podcasts, particularly the latter one, is that Kidder does not believe Jade will be truthful with him.  Which is apparently borne out by the events that follow.  The question is, then, is Jade just a terrible lying liar who lies, or does Kidder's reactions - perhaps, dare I say, overreactions - to Jade's initial "disclosure glitches" help create an environment that almost guarantees she won't fully disclose to him?  That I can't say, because I am not Lorax, their relationship counselor. (Btw, guys, that's kinda fucked up, just sayin'.)

The latest podcast certainly makes it sound like Jade is a terrible lying liar.  But it's also clear that the amount of disclosure needed - full access to all chats, texts, Facebook pages, etc - is a bar that makes having an open relationship kinda tricky.  Kidder is defensive of his need to have full disclosure to be OK with the openness, but the full disclosure also gives him the ability to monitor everything obsessively and stew over real and periceved slights in a way that doesn't come across as totally healthy. I have, in theory, a "right" to know all of the Boy's activities online.  I have almost never taken advantage of that right because I don't feel a need to.  I trust him.  When I have, what I've seen has validated my trust.  I guess it's a different can of worms when what you see does the opposite.  If Jade is as untrustworthy as Kidder describes, then I don't see how they can even consider having any serious degree of openness in their relationship.  But in that case I also don't get why they even have a relationship.  Trust is important for a lot of reasons, not just because you're involving other people in your sex life.

I should note, for the sake of fairness, that I have violated the Boy's boundaries too.  I had (oral) sex with a guy without his permission, told him immediately a fterward, and to be totally fair, his reaction to it was so much more sensible than my response to his indiscretion.  This is the thing that is missing in the discussion of opening up on SiF - WHEN NEGOTIATING OPEN RELATIONSHIPS, PEOPLE WILL FUCK UP.  This needs to be shouted from the rooftops. There is absolutely no way to move forward with open relationships without a certain amount of fucking up, miscommunications, "disclosure glitches" and the like.  It's just the way this goes.  After gazillions of years lurking in Poly and Swinging boards, it seems that people run into the most trouble when they don't expect people to fuck up, and then are blindsided and really upset when it does happen, and then freak the fuck out.

What people don't seem to realize about open relationships, even if they claim to, is that it really does take a lot of internal work.  I don't mean endless discussions with your partner, but internal discussions.  I feel like someone in an open relationship should constantly be thinking about how they're creating their own cognitions, and whether those cognitions are based in reality or their own insecurities.  While it's apparent that Jade fucked up, big time, it also seems like Kidder created a self-fufilling prophecy, based in his own insecurity and fears that he isn't "special" where he was going to, from the get-go, interpet any behavior on Jade's part as proof of what he already believed.  Jade played her role perfectly, as the Boy said when we were discussing it this morning, almost as if she was pushing the buttons that would make him freak out the most.  It's the sad dance of bullshit that I think most of us in long-term relationships will somewhat identify with.  But to do openness successfully, you have to radically alter these sorts of programmed responses.  Sometimes it's more important to shut up and sit with your feelings as opposed to making demands.  Otherwise you're just going to end up in a war for control, which appears to be exactly what happened.

I mean, if either of us had demanded a partner cancel a date because we weren't feeling 100% secure and OK with it at that moment, I don't think we would have ever really opened up our relationship at all.  It takes your partner doing something that perhaps you're scared about, having it happen, and then realizing in the end that your survived and it wasn't that bad to feel cool about it next time.  Or at least, that's how it worked for us.  Our approach may not work for everyone, but we have a remarkably open relationship with few restrictions or need to monitor each other, and we both used to see ourselves as highly monogamous, insecure people.  And I've found that once you realize you can live through something you're terrified of and feel OK about it later, more and more boundaries you used to see as inviolable start to feel unnecessary.  I went from the point where I knew I'd never be OK with the Boy having sex with another woman.  Now I think it's something I could handle, although I know it would still intially cause me some distress and anxiety.

Let me make a terrible analogy: anal sex.  Although a lot of people like to claim that "if you do it right" anal sex won't hurt at all, the reality is that even with tons of foreplay, using small plugs and a ton of lube, and so forth, for most people, intially having anal sex with a penis-sized object will have some discomfort, if not "pain" exactly..  It'll feel uncomfortable and perhaps provoke some anxiety.  If you can slowly work past that, you might end up really digging it.  Or you might be able to do it, but not find it enjoyable and worth the discomfort and effort.  But if you stop at the first sign of discomfort, you're never gonna get that dildo up your butt, period.  Of course, you also have to have trust that your partner isn't going to shove that thing up there before you're ready. 

Or to sum up all this tl;dr: open relationships are not for control freaks and although it's trite, trust is paramount, but so is the willingness to forgive, a genuine desire to move forward, and actively try to give your partner the space to be trustworthy. It's a real leap of faith. The Boy has his own, somewhat different take on this (one that's a lot harsher on Jade, actually), so I'll try to get him to weigh in.  I still have a butt-load of opinions about how Kidder handled this stuff, particularly on his public Facebook, but I wanted to use this post as a way to maybe take some lessons from this volcano of drama that people could use to think about what kind of philosophical and practical approach they take to openness, not to tear Kidder a new one.  But I still might!  Anything can happen at Sex or Television!  I hope some of the people who came here via Kidder's Facebook page will stick around, because we talk a lot about open relationships and non-traditional sexuality in general here.  And I write posts that are way, way, way too long.

When Sex is NOT Fun: A Haterate Mini-series

So much for that promise to update the blog more regularly, huh?  Let's just say that uprooting your entire life and moving around the country is a bit more daunting than one might imagine. But no time for excuses, because I've got some hate to share with y'all.  But because of my tendancy to get long-winded, I'm gonna break it down into a couple of posts.

In the world of sex-positive blogging and podcasting, the "Sex is Fun" podcast is one of the best-known.  It's also a podcast that I should like, because in theory it's a group of diverse, knowledgeable "sex educators" (more on that later) talking about sex, open relationships, toys, health, and all that important stuff, with an inclusive, queer-friendly take on things.  On the surface, it sounds great.  And certainly it has been, and there have been many episodes I've enjoyed.

The problem is that the creator and main host of the podcast, a guy who goes by the disturbingly awful moniker "Kidder Kaper" is a creepy, douchey narcissist.  And I'm only being half-insulting here.  In a particularly apt display of self-awareness, Kidder does in fact identify himself frequently as a narcissist.  Which is good.  Because he is.  The problem is he's quite proud of this, and is happy, lately, to let the podcast revolve around him.

But I don't want this to be all entire petty haterade, so let's give credit where credit is due.  Kidder is a straight married white guy in his late 30's, who is pretty knowledgeable about sex.  He's a big proponent of anal pleasure for men, which is rare and cool enough to be worth noting.  Even more surprising is that lately he's become something of a proponent for greater acceptance of male bisexuality - in the swinging scene, in porn, just in general.  Good for him.  Have I said enough nice things about him yet?

Kidder describes himself as a "sex educator" although as far as I can tell, he defines "education" as being a sex podcaster who has written a sex manual.  He has no academic credentials or certifications to back up this title. Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but when it comes to something as serious as educating about sex, I think the resume should be a little more padded.  He apparently got into the business by writing sex games.  Seriously.  The whole "Sex is Fun" podcast is tied in directly with a line of sex games.

Luckily there are co-hosts, including "Gay Rick" who is an actual HIV/AIDS educator, and LauraRad who also has an actual professional background in sex education and is one of the more thoughtful members of the team. "Coochie" is the sound engineer but also chimes in, as does "Lorax" who handles the web aspect of things and also is Kidder's bff/a girl he wants to fuck.

The problem with the podcast can really be boiled down to Kidder, who has a habit of making himself the focus of everything.  Even when interviewing sex-positive superstars like Tristian Taramino, he still manages to turn the focus back on the important part: Kidder.  He's made entire episodes that are simply anecdotes about parties - not sex parties, mind you, just normal parties.  Oh, he's also a douche on the forums.  Let me share some of Kidder's wisdom with you.

On homebirthing:
"Who really cares if people choose to give birth at home? There are too many people on the planet anyway. I guess as long as they don't want society to pay for their oxygen deprived (special in a bad way) children, I say go for it. I really don't care if they have the proper training OR they just have a doula."

On dudes threatened by their partner's masturbation:
"Whenever a partner is jealous, regardless of why, it is usually a good idea to identify what you are doing to make them feel unspecial. If they feel as though your masturbation is leaving them high and dry, it seems reasonable for you to prove to them that it doesn't, in-fact you could even show them how much better your sex is because you masturbate."   
Or their partner might just be a dick who can't deal with women getting off without them.

On Kidder the Caveman:
"I've found that fighting who I am is only moderately successful and destroys all that which makes me, me. A long time ago, the tribe needed my kind, to stay awake, keep the fire burning and protect us all from predators that attacked in the night. Even more important than our nocturnal sentinel abilities was our imagination, that was given free range range free in the wee hours of the night. So as important as dreams are, they pale in comparison to ideas."
This might seem unfair out of context.  But it made no sense in context either.

On boycotting a sex resort for not allowing queer men:
"Boycotting them now isn't boycotting Desire at all. It is boycotting us. Continue as you wish but know that if we fail to get a good showing, you are hurting us and our goal to make them realize that we are a force to be reckoned with...So do what you will, but know that we're the ones holding the bill at the end of the day when this trip fails."

On charges the podcast focuses on him too much:
"It would be incredibly stupid to call the show the "Kidder Caper Show" especially because my name is Kidder Kaper you illiterate twat. I will always rant about religion and I will say whatever the FUCK I wish about tattoos whenever the FUCK I feel like saying it. "Tats are dumb!" See I just did it again."
He really dislikes tattos and body  piercings I guess? But I'm glad he clarified the spelling of his fake last name.

On pussies:
"Laura Rad and Gay Rick are significantly better educators than I am, especially if the students are big pussies. (If you got offended by the word "pussies" in the last sentence, you are definitely in the "pussy camp") Me, I'm better at dealing with big boys and girls that can take the truth without a bunch of sugar to help make the truth more tasty."

On his wife's sexual shortcomings:
"She also has trouble giving me head for very long without experiencing jaw pain and is quite selfish when it comes to letting me play with her ass. The things that she offers me for putting up with these minor annoyances are FUCKING IMMEASURABLE, so much that I feel like a complete douchebag for even contemplating complaining that I don't get to pump ball juice her in the ass as often as I may like."
Despite the supposedly romantic spirit of this quote, calling his wife "selfish" because he can't fuck her ass all the time is a dick move.  Also: ball juice?

On "Pedal-Stools":
"I think it is a terrible loss to the American consciousness that we raise people on pedal-stools that have done absolutely nothing to deserve even a mention in the freaking classifieds, while others who are actually doing amazing things for humanity are rarely getting any mention in the popular press."
I'm just being petty now, but I cannot get over "pedal-stools."

Hopefully these hilarious quotes from the master of sex education (in the same way that I, by having a blog about sex and thinking about sex, am also a "sex educator")  have given you some insight into the irritating showboat that is Kidder Kaper (thank god I know how to spell that!)  This is really just a set up for part 2: When Kidder, open relationship expert, finds himself deeply threatened by the dreaded "full swap" and uses his podcast to bully his wife.  Or we can just call it an educational series in how not to do open relationships.  Because I'm an educator!

Nina Hartley's Sexwise

Nina Hartley has had an amazing career as a sex educator, author and adult film actor. It's with some interest that I recently spotted an announcement that she is launching a new web venture called Sexwise, which aims foster discussion about "sex, sexuality, and sexual expression." The discussion/education community is Sexwise.me. Additionally, there's a Web talk show component at Sexwise.tv. This is not to be confused with Susie Bright's book, Sexwise, or the BBC's global sex education project, Sexwise.

 

I'm excited to see sex-positive discussion being fostered. The people of United States are so deeply fucked up about sex that good information and discussion are in critically short supply. We're still arguing over whether we should educate teens about sex or have them pray away temptation and raging hormones.

That said, one has to wonder about the subscription nature of this, in addition to the viability of a web show. The latter issue may be due in part to the fact that I just sat through the whole first season of the polyamory web series, "Family" and spent several days trying to get that theme song out of my head. The content level has to be high from the start to get people to sign up and continue to subscribe. Production values of the show will have to be reasonably high as well. The target audience will have to be pretty sex-positive, especially to keep up with it and pay for the privilege. That's a group that she'll have to keep engaged by not talking down to them, while also avoiding spending too much time on the sexual fringes.

I really hope this works out for her and that site gets more people talking frankly about sex. The site goes live tonight at 7pm PDT.

Edit: The Girl would like to note that she had the opportunity to meet Ms. Hartley on multiple occasions while working for a PO Box store in Berkeley in the early 2000s.  Nina was one of her favorite customers, and always had a great dirty joke to share.  

Poly Weekly Podcast: You're Why Mommy and Daddy Yell

The Girl and I have been discussing polyamory and listening to the Polyamory Weekly podcast. We usually listen, but a recent road trip has given us time to catch up on episodes and complain to each other about it. This show has been on for several years and has improved a bit over the years, but it is still able to send us into apoplectic fits.

We've been listening for about 2+ years and have gone through much of the archives.  In that time, we've laughed, groaned, shaken my head, and hit the skip button so often and frantically I've started to wonder if it's all a Skinner box experiment and we're the hungry rodents.

First off, I'm so thankful she's now got co-hosts, especially Pepomint, who has to be the most genuinely clued in to what she claims the podcast is supposed to be about.  I love his insights on relationships and queer issues, even if his most recent appearance drove us to fits on a recent drive up the interstate.

That said, I really don't think the show is particularly pansexual, despite the show's subtitle that it's from a "pansexual, kink-friendly point of view."  The host describes herself as boobie-sexual. Boobie-sexual?  That's not a sexuality, but a fetishization of a body part vis a vis cock-obsessed men.  It strikes me as an queer-appropriative bid to get attention.  We did get exactly one transgendered-themed episode, but that didn't bring much except for the host's clumsy ignorance regarding trans issues while interviewing a trans man.

CunningMinx tells us so often that it's not all about the sex and that it is all about communication.  That wouldn't bother me if it was acknowledged that it is about the sex at times.  Instead she sometimes comes across as even sex-averse.  There was a regrettable group sex episode in which the participants sat around giggling over how very naughty a tame-sounding group sex session at a convention was.  This is the new sex-positive media? There are SAT questions with more sexual content.  Where was the frank discussion about the dynamics and difficulties of group sex?  The host's contributions struck me as a bit sex-phobic and derailing.

On PolyWeekly, we're beaten over the head with the message that it isn't all about the sex. Hell, that's even the show's tagline. Unfortunately, it's really never about the sex. It's about kink, drama, and cuddles, most often. The drama could at least make for interesting listening, but it's usually glossed over with platitudes about how everything can be fixed with communication. The sex-negativity is also on display in the “Happy Poly Moments” segment of the show. These stories feature poly-identified people sharing pasta with a partner and a third and cuddling on the sofa to watch Stargate following a particularly grueling convention in which they went as the a hairy Scotsman, Chun Li, and a sexy Chewbacca. That's it. The moral of the story is that they can all appreciate each other's company in a cutesy, non-threatening, completely neutered way. At least talk about the Wookie sex.

Without sex and sexuality, we're dished up talk about poly in the media and discussion of cons and cuddling.  The discussions of articles about poly fall into two categories: Yay, they get poly, and boo, they don't get poly.  There's rarely serious contextualization or examination.  That part has gotten a bit better, especially with the addition of guests to discuss the articles.

Kink is one area where extra attention is paid, due in no small part to the fact that the host considers herself kinky. The host and cohorts have talked about BDSM and role play a bit, but kink is often brought up in the generic sense of a word that is already too generic. It comes across that kink and poly are inextricably tied together. That all ties back into the one-true-wayism that the Girl referenced earlier. What about the bigger issues of people engaging in poly to explore kinks their primary partner isn't into, or kinks engaged with one partner that trouble another one? Kink covers a lot of ground and that is rarely glimpsed on the show.

As top dog of poly podcasts, it fills an ambassadorial role for people wondering about it and that's where it fails the hardest. It doesn't have to be a 24/7 sales pitch, but it should try to give reasons why one would actually want to be polyamorous. Sure, we're often told that jealousy isn't a problem, but not how it is really overcome (spoiler alert: it's not). It's often presented as a sci-fi convention-haunting kink geek, pansexual domain. This guarantees that it will stay a fringe element.

Finally, we're constantly driven to fits by the fact that non-monogamy, especially, polyamory, can get messy and difficult, but the show often glosses over that. Some relationships won't survive it. Many will come close to collapse. The show approach is that poly problems are all fixable with communication and a disturbingly Randian approach that what you want is alright as long as you want it. New Relationship Energy (NRE) is the hormone-driven state of euphoria felt early in a relationship. That enthusiasm for the new and tendency to ignore the primary relationship is a minefield, but rarely is there a word of caution to the people experiencing it. Instead the put-out partner is told to deal with it and accept that NRE happens, even while acknowledging that the behaviors exhibited are often selfish and cruel.

Given all my issues with the show, one may wonder why I listen.  First, there's not much out there on the topic.  Second, it does entertain me and my partner, if only so we can sit around afterward and discuss.  That makes the train wreck moments that much more enjoyable.  Kind of like watching Mystery Science Theater.  We play PW Bingo, and try to see who can first check off the boxes labeled, "ooh, boobies", "Heinlein", "naked", "it's all about communication", "and that's the great thing about poly", etc.

I also enjoy hearing the other voices of the poly community.  While I don't think much of Ravenheart Oberon Zell, the show playing his lecture was immensely entertaining.  The guests often do a good job of adding to the discourse and I appreciate their opinions, even when I don't always agree with them.

We're Doing It Wrong: How Poly Should Be

So it's only fair that since I praised Pepomint for his post "Respecting Sexual Identity" and his blog, Freaksexual, in general in the inaugural post of Sex and Television that I can take him to task without feeling too guilty.  Fact is, Pepomint is one of the few serious critical thinkers that the Boy and I have seen writing seriously about poly issues and how they intersect with queerness, feminism, and kink.  That's fantastic, but obviously I'm not going to agree with one person about everything, and while driving down the 101 with the Boy last Sunday, caught a discussion between Pepomint, Tacit, and Joreth (I don't know where they get these names either, folks) on "Polyamory Weekly" podcast about the concept of "Primaries" and "Secondaries" in polyamorous relationships.  And I hope the words below are understood as a rant and not as some sort of reflection on my opinion of those who spoke them.  Except maybe Joreth, she did the previous "Poly and Athiesm" episode on the podcast and has a lot to answer for!

Full disclaimer: we don't define ourselves as being polyamorous as an orientation (in fact, I question it as an orientation akin to sexual orientation but that's a subject for another rant) nor do we consider our relationship polyamorous.  This isn't by choice, exactly - in our years reading polyamorous communities extensively on the web, as well as a handful of books, it's become clear that the community consensus of how polyamory is defined excludes us, despite the fact that we're non-monogamous.  I'm okay with this, although I am often frustrated at how narrow-minded polyamorous communities can be regarding other non-monogamous types, whether it's swingers or people in open relationships that don't necessarily focus on multiple "romantic" relationships.  I think there's a lot of sex-negativity tied up in the poly community's response to these alternative relationship styles - oops, getting off track again.  Subject for yet another future post.

But the point is, poly already seems to have a fairly narrow definition.  For those who might be new to the concept, it's basically a relational style in which one is open to having multiple, concurrent romantic relationships.  It is stressed that this does not meant cheating, because it's open and honest, and that it's "not all about the sex," as in, these relationships probably usually involve sex but the primary focus is loving, romantic partnerships.  I think from the outset this is problematic, particularly in the somewhat naive focus on the bizarre medieval concept that is "romantic love" set apart from say, loving friendships.  Basically, if you're in an open relationship, but you have one say, "life partner" (what a terrible term that is!) and several "friends with benefits" that isn't polyamory, because while you may be genuinely emotionally intimate with your fuckbuddies, it's not a romantic relationship.

This is irksome to someone like me, who was told point-blank on a poly forum that fuckbuddies don't count because maintaining a friendship that is also sexual with someone is "easy" while romantic relationships are "hard."  I don't know about you kids, but dealing with everyone's emotions surrounding transitioning a years-long friendship into a sexual relationship while still remaining friends is one of the more challenging things I've done.  Are those challenges different than having two romantic relationships?  Absolutely.  But it's insulting, particularly given the idea that poly is supposed to be this super radical redefinition of the way that people love and experience relationships, to already have such a narrow boundary enforced.  But wait!  It gets even narrower.

In Polyamory Weekly Episode #232, the above-mentioned co-hosts took one of fundamental styles of a poly relationship - the hierarchical "primary/secondary" situation - took it out back, beat it, and totally forgot the safeword.  It wasn't just a critical examination of the concept or the copious issues that accompany it (namely, the fact that secondaries are often treated like shit) which would have been welcome, particularly on a podcast such as PolyWeekly that rarely engages in any serious critique.  It was an intelligent, interesting discussion that also managed to be entirely dismissive and judgmental.  As I shouted to the Boy, "It's like they're finally having the sort of conversation I've been dying to hear on this podcast, and being total dicks about it!"

A quick primer: some poly people have "hierarchies" of relationships in which they engage in a central, committed relationship with one partner, and then have one or more "secondaries" and while it's understood this is also a loving relationship, it will likely not have the same degree of real-world enmeshment as understood vis-a-vis kids, shared financial obligations, and so forth.  Other people people prefer to treat all relationships as different, but equal in importance and priority.

It also is particularly telling in light of my previous post about the "One Penis Policy" in poly relationships and not entirely ironic given the content of Pepomint's "Respecting Identities" post.  What we were told in this episode was that people who engage in heirarchical poly structures are:

• Doing so out of fear
• Inherently devaluing secondaries
• Engaging in a "little monogamy" despite obviously not being monogamous (respecting what identity wha? who?)

When I first started reading about poly, non-hierarchical structures were presented as a way to be poly, along with hierarchical structures.  This has now clearly shifted to the former being accepted as "real poly" by a large segment of the community  and the latter being completely shit upon.   It doesn't matter if everyone within your poly relationships are happy with hierarchical structures or if it works for you: you're doing it wrong.

There's a term in poly for this kind of bullshit: One True Way-ism.  And that's exactly what this is.  As I said before, I'm down with a serious look at the problematic elements and pitfalls of a poly hierarchy.  Hell, I welcome it!  But it's profoundly insulting to tell people who have made commitments or set boundaries with their partners that work for them that they are doing so out of fear and jealousy, and are basically just as bad as those (boo, hiss) monogamists.

I think it's pretty obvious why this one-true-wayism is ridiculous, but let's break it down anyway.  For starters, the discussion on the podcast never mentioned the possibility that rules/boundaries evolve over time.  Most people are introduced to poly when they are already in a romantic, previously monogamous relationship.  Transitioning from monogamy to polyamory is obviously a process.  This was given absolutely no weight by the PolyWeekly crew, who apparently think it's entirely reasonable to expect a couple, married and mono for 16 years, to jump straight into a style of poly that gives no partner veto power over what the other partner is doing with other people, no room or time to become accustomed and comfortable with going from security in knowing you are the primary focus in your spouse's life to  being "equal" in importance and priority to some 10-years-younger hottie your spouse is banging and totally infatuated with.  This is a great way to be burnt by a poly experience, not to develop an open and honest poly relationship.  It is extremely typical for people in non-monogamous relationships have used rules and boundaries to establish a comfort zone that enables them to later leave behind most, and even sometimes all of those rules eventually, because the trust you've established with your partner in that sort of relationship evolution creates a strong foundation.  Shoving people into the deep end of the pool without water wings does the opposite.

And since I mentioned priorities, can we get over the pollyanna-ish refusal to acknowledge that human beings have limited time and resources which necessitates prioritizing events, and horror-of-horrors, even people.  We don't find it problematic if a mother prioritizes the well-being of her children over a bum of a romantic partner, or if a spouse prioritizes the needs of his partner over his crazy, demanding parents.  It is profoundly difficult to keep everyone happy all of the time, and part of life is having to make choices.  I'm not saying it's not possible to have a truly non-hierarchical poly structure in which all participants are equals, but that it's an extremely advanced relationship skill in a model that already requires better-than-average patience, communication, and emotional regulation.  I'd be willing to wager it's far easier to have a non-hierarchical model in which there is not an established, long-term relationship in the background that was previously monogamous. 

I can think of a million tedious examples of a situation in which partners in a non-hierarchical model could have relationship-ending dramas unfold due to issues that can't be solved with the "poly expert's advice for every problem ever": communication.  Sometimes people just have different needs that cannot be reconciled.  In such a case, people are forced to make choices, and those choices are generally based on - you guessed it! - priorities.  As someone who might have read a bit too much self-help in her time, I find the implied notion of the discussion regarding boundaries deeply troubling.  Fact is, we all have fears and insecurities.  Some people are better than others at understanding their own baggage, and thus articulating what it is they need to feel safe.  The basic poly approach to dealing with troublesome emotions, first articulated in tripe such as "The Ethical Slut" and then repeated endlessly ever after, is to figure why you feel shitty, then take a bubble bath and eat some chocolate.  Problem solved!  Oh, and I left out "communicate."  My bad.

In reality, emotionally healthy and in-touch individuals can know why they are triggered by a behavior or situation, understand that it's "irrational" and still decide they'd rather not deal with that emotion if they can help it: by establishing boundaries with their partner that they both agree upon.  Maybe eventually they'll be able to get past whatever thing it is that triggers their fear of abandonment or seething rage or whatever, but maybe not, but at least they're dealing with it grown ups in taking responsibility for their own emotional state by clearly articulating those needs.  If one of those needs is, "In order to feel comfortable sharing a mortgage/children/a life with you, that I will take top priority ultimately in your decision making as it relates to other partners," that does not make a person less poly, or less evolved, or any other high-horse bullshit.  It just means they're communicating honestly which is exactly what I keep being told being poly is all about.

The point of view expressed in the episode certainly seemed to come from a bunch of burned secondaries who had been treated as disposable or unimportant in a situation where their partner had a primary relationship, and that is certainly understandable and deplorable.  But that doesn't negate or remove the clumsy and offensive armchair shrinking, identity policing, and boundary dismissing tactics employed in what was frustratingly, the podcast's best and yet worst episode to date.