And? Wouldn’t that justify a bit more balance in articles presenting polyamory ?
Yup.
OTOH, this isn’t a written article, it’s a TV show called “Extreme Love”. They’d probably argue that this was the only couple available with the “they got divorced but they’re all still together! Isn’t that weird?” angle, and that this was needed for dramatic purposes.
Shows like that aim for promoting tolerance, but they also rely upon a freakshow aspect to attract their audiences. And they’re careful not to get into anything too uncomfortable for mainstream viewers. The ethics of making such shows are…mixed.
5 Likes
Three if she cooks?
[quote=“Wanderfound, post:183, topic:99971, full:true”]
OTOH, this isn’t a written article, it’s a TV show called “Extreme Love”. They’d probably argue that this was the only couple available with the “they got divorced but they’re all still together! Isn’t that weird?” angle, and that this was needed for dramatic purposes.[/quote]
Now I remember why I don’t watch TV. 
2 Likes
Sweety, if we can get a babysitter, we won’t need to cruise for reptile vendors.
1 Like
One doesn’t need to chase this sort of publicity. Our local poly community gets official inquiries from reporters a couple times a year, so it stands to reason that any visible and interesting polycule could eventually attract “press” attention without anybody choosing or chasing publicity.
4 Likes
I see it work in practice very often. Does my anecdote cancel yours out?
4 Likes
If everybody loves everybody it works. The network effect comes into play. With 2 people there are just 2 loving relationships. With 3 there are 6. With 4 there are 12. The chances that someone will catch a grudge go up exponentially.
In my life, before the internet I can recall two separate network news stories about children who could bite kraft singles into the shapes of all 50 states.
[ETA: I add this not to trivialize these people’s relationship, but to nullify the idea that “is this newsworthy?” is a relevant question… ]
3 Likes
I wonder, out of all people arguing for “traditional” marriage, how many have took a swing at having one that ended up in an utter failure and a bitter divorce?
3 Likes
I don’t keep detailed notes, but I can generally confirm this: in the non-swinger poly world I inhabit, as well as the local kink scene which overlaps significantly, MMF triads seem a bit more prevalent than MFF.
2 Likes
And thus you all either learn to communicate effectively and honestly with your partners to work out your differences, or you find yourself single. The option to sweep everything under the rug and swallow all resentments in stony silence is a luxury afforded only to the monogamous.
2 Likes
Not trying to jump into you guys’ thing here, but man, this was too precious to pass up…
7 Likes
I disagree.
Generally, yes, a collective noun like “couple” should be treated as a singular for the purpose of verb agreement. For example, “The team scores a lot of goals,” or “The wolf pack hunts its prey.”
The exception to that is when the collective noun is both the subject and the object of the verb. That is, when you’re referring to the members of the group acting upon each other. For instance, “The family fight amongst themselves,” or “The nobility interrupt each other for the chance to have their grievances heard by the King.”
What is the object of “get divorced?” The couple get divorced from each other. Since the members of the collective (the couple) are acting on each other (by divorcing), treating them as a plural (as individual people) for the purpose of verb agreement is the correct thing to do.
4 Likes
Seems like Hawai‘i would just end up a pile of slobbery orange mess.
3 Likes
I have yet to see a truly monogamous “work” long term. Because if there was infidelity in a thirty year marriage, it may have been happy and “successful”, but it wasn’t monogamous.
I guess the Obamas would be the one exception I can think of.
1 Like
Hahaha, yeah, sometimes I just can’t help interacting with old tools in some way or another (we need a ‘good natured ribbing’ emoji). But seriously, that’s a really clever catch!
2 Likes
I do think that legalizing gay marriage was a step in that direction, yeah? I see no reason that we need to regulate who gets married to whom, except when it involves force or the abuse of children. As long as no one is getting hurt or abused, is it our concern, really?
9 Likes
4 Likes
Same reason we all feel the need to comment on it?
3 Likes
