Re: Washington Post Article Post #3, brought up the concept of Polygamy ..... can we assume that was a typo? It really shouldn't be confused with polyamoury. They are quite different.
And, comments posted over the last few days on a number of polyrelated forums/groups, commented very positively on this article and specifically mentioned the research & time that the journalist spent trying to present a balanced view. This was a major PR job in a major media - Kudos to W. Post ..... all the way from Canada!
I did find it a bit disturbing as I read a few of the thoughts above .... the concept that the great big over-whelming vanilla crowd would rather be accepting of the cheating & lying crowd (sniggers - "Oh, it is done all the time!!") than swingers & polys, who may not walk exactly the same path, but are pretty clear that in relationships (& life in general??) there has to be a better way than to cheat, lie, & be dishonest.
.... And, for the record, there are so many 'flavours' of 'polyness', many of which do not include an element of physical sex - lots of intimacy probably, because there is a lot of love & emotion involved, but it may or may not include sexual activity.
M. |