Month: August 2009 (Page 3 of 8)

Re: from penny arcade II

well of course i was suggesting you Frank which is why I wrote !!! They are looking for as many people as possible. I have cc’d Tomi on this email and he will get in touch!

xopenny

* * * * *

Penny, of course I got it… I just underlined it for them!

In Freedom,
Frank Moore

Fw: introductions

thanks Frank.
Hi John.
Nice to meet you Champ.
my name is Lob. I am from Thee Instagon Foundation project, and the “band” INSTAGON.
I used to live in Orange County and managed the record store called Vinyl Solution for over 10 years.
I have a LOT of releases that would love more distro..
I am currently located in Sacramento…i am sorta involved here with the scene and have some outlets for gigs.. but work full time, so im not as flexible as i wish i could be.
hope your tour goes well.. drop a line when you get home.

Lob
www.tif.org
www.instagon.com
www.norcalnoisefest.com

* * * * *

I love it when I can connect people up!

In Freedom,
Frank Moore

Re: from penny arcade

Buenos Aires

Querido Frank

“I have been in a group /tribal relationship since 1973 and have done relationship counselling, etc. would I do?”

You most certainly would! Thanks a lot for responding. I will be back up in New York at the end of Sep. and would be delighted to meet up and chat.

Is there anything I could learn about you and your relationships while I’m still down South?

In captivity

Besos

Tomi

STREIFFSCHUSS FILMS AG

Tomi Streiff

* * * * *

hi, Tomi! Unfortunately we are in Berkeley Ca. but a few years ago we did an interview for a would be documentary about “radical love” by a female film maker from Florida. She did not get funding to make her film. But that interview is a good introduction of my philosophy, etc, of tribal relationship, etc. I am having the interview transcribed tonight and I will send you it. Also explore http://www.eroplay.com/Cave/shaman.html

In Freedom,
Frank Moore

from penny arcade

Frank and Linda, Miss Muffy, Holcome

i have friends who are doing a doc called monagamy ? and want to
interview people on Polyamory do you have suggestions for people they
might interview?

xoxoxpenny

* * * * *

well, penny, I have been in a group /tribal relationship since 1973 and have
done relationship counselling, etc. would I do?

In Freedom,
Frank Moore

Re: [Fwd: introductions]]

hey, John and Lob, this is Champ. He and Rhea are the Los Angeles band MAGICK ORCHIDS which I had on the show last night… Actually I sat in with them… And I will again for their Oakland show next week. We met Champ when we double billed with his old band, DIE ROCKERS DIE!, in Los Angeles a few years back [with THE HOP FROG].

anyways, they are trying to book DIY tours. I told them you two were DIY masters! Also they have started a distribution exchange for music, zines, etc.

I have done my daily good deed!

In Freedom,
Frank Moore

* * * * *

saw their distro site. pretty good work there. also the artwork looks like could have been done by labash. I am out of the loop for booking these days, been letting my drummer learn how to do it so I can take a break and try be a normal person for a while . haha.

i think about you guys almost everyday. Frank has taught me many lessons. hope to see you all soon.
peace,
John the Baker

http://www.tankcrimes.com
http://www.lifeisabuse.com
http://www.alternativetentacles.com
http://www.burntramen.com

* * * * *

ah, shucks, John!

In Freedom,
Frank Moore

Microcaster DJs get screwed under new licensing fees

well, LUVER ain’t going anywhere!

In Freedom,
Frank Moore

* * * * *
Microcaster DJs get screwed under new licensing fees

http://www.sfweekly.com/2009-07-29/music/microcaster-djs-get-screwed-under-new-licensing-fees

By Eliot Van Buskirk
Published on July 27, 2009

Conventional wisdom dictates that the Internet should be a magical musical wonderland where everyone can be a DJ. But when it comes to user-programmed online radio, the Web is becoming less democratic, squeezing out the little guy with high royalty fees.

Two years ago, the U.S. Copyright Royalty Board (CRB) set new per-song, per-listener rates for the Web that many thought would put Webcasters out of business because the rates totaled 100 percent or more of revenue. Larger broadcasters have since negotiated lower rates with SoundExchange, which collects song royalties and distributes them to artists and labels. Pandora and other larger Webcasters say the new reduced fees will allow them to survive.

But really small Webcasters, or “microcasters” ­ including those represented by Live365, which lets users broadcast from their bedrooms ­ now say SoundExchange’s offer makes it impossible for hobbyists to embrace their inner John Peel. It’s an odd development for a community space built on empowering the individual.

Under SoundExchange’s February deal, even stations with negligible audiences still have to pay the high CRB rates. If there are more than two simultaneous listeners tuning in, the microcasters must pay a minimum annual fee of $500. Most hobbyists want to Webcast on an amateur level ­as in, without quitting their day jobs. But if they were to somehow turn a profit, the CRB rates (for 2009, 0.18 cents per song, per listener) kick in as soon as they make more than $5,000 a year, which also applies to
community stations that play music. (Educational and religious Webcasters await their own new deals.)

Many microcasters aren’t capable of legally administering their own online radio servers, upkeep that includes tracking playlists and writing checks to SoundExchange. Foster City’s Live365 takes care of the hassles of streaming technology for its users, who set up accounts with the company for fees that start at $10 a month.

Even factoring in advertisements, Live365 says it doesn’t generate enough income to cover its costs under SoundExchange’s deal or the CRB rates. Live365 must now pay SoundExchange about $40 per month for each station, on top of bandwidth costs, salaries, and other expenses. Those fees are capped at $50,000 per year, but that has yet to be codified into law, and Live365’s tiny member stations would still have to pay the onerous CRB rate.

Live365’s general manager of media Johnie Floater says the large Webcaster deals are getting too positive a spin in the press while the same negotiations are leaving microcasters high and dry. By not creating a special deal for the very hobbyists and companies like Live365 that aggregate them, he claims SoundExchange is acting ungratefully. If it weren’t for his company, he says, there would be no meaningful way to monetize underground stations: “They would never have seen revenue from all of these little guys if I didn’t aggregate them.”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit remanded the CRB’s controversial $500-per-channel minimum, calling it “arbitrary, capricious, and not supported by record evidence”; the board is apparently considering lowering the per-channel minimum. Still, SoundExchange maintains that $500
per year is a reasonable price for microcasters to pay.

SoundExchange executive director John Simson says his research indicates that the typical American spends $1,800 on a hobby each year, so he believes $500 is a fair fee, especially considering that payment lets you play whatever you want on your show, including big artists like Bob Dylan and the Beatles. “If you’re a hobbyist photographer, you don’t get Tyra Banks as your model for free,” he says.

Floater seems to think his company can’t survive SoundExchange’s rates. And if microcasters go solo and set up their own stations, they’ll still owe at least $500 per year, no matter how few listeners tune in ­or $600 per year, if they choose to forgo playlist reporting, thereby ensuring that none of the artists they broadcast get paid. Either way, hobbyist Webcasters ­ and the lower-profile artists they tend to play ­get squeezed.

“The RIAA [Recording Industry Association of America], SoundExchange, and their member labels, they’ll tell me, ‘You’re trying to do a deal for small Webcasters, the really tiny guys. We don’t want ’em on the air. That’s not our interest,'” Floater claims.

The disappearance of microcasters would certainly make SoundExchange’s job easier. It’s much simpler to collect royalties from 10 large Webcasters than from 10 million small ones. Some advocates claim the tax on home broadcasters reeks of a conspiracy to squelch independent radio voices while amplifying corporate ones. Floater certainly seems to think so. He believes that although the RIAA, SoundExchange, and big labels would never admit it publicly, they secretly wish DIY Webcasters would just go away ­not only because they’re hard to deal with, but also because they tend not to play as much major-label music.

This back-and-forth about royalty rates is taking place just as artists and labels look for new ways to make money during this consumer-empowering Internet age. They might want to keep in mind that to light a fire, you don’t first blow out the spark.

Re: distro

count me in for FLUX 53!

In Freedom,
Frank Moore

* * * * *

(Champ wrote:)

still haven’t heard from the saxophone player if he’ll be able to make it but we are glad u are, frank..we are really looking forward to it. its gonna be rad! also, thanx for giving us all those links to those guys that do the booking. we’ll make sure to keep in touch with those guys esp. for future bookings. we are now in eugene, we went to a radio show earlier and played some stuff..we’ll be in portland tomorrow. see u soon frank!

* * * * *

me too, champ! Any load in time? I will just have my head Mic and an effects box which mikee will operate. We will video the set, if that is alright.

I added you on our “e-salon” email community.

Hey, Tomek, Champ remembered you from when we double billed with his old band DIE ROCKERS DIE! at the Los Angeles Japanese restaurant a few years back.

In Freedom,
Frank Moore

chapter 13

Ah, fresh meat for everybody. Are you on the rag? Can I ask to see you nude? Or is there the red streaks? Then just topless if you care about being messy. I actually enjoy messy, seeing you in exactly equal in general now gaining upon examining everything in between legs wide open, taking refuge in between legs thrust out from the limited Biblical knowledge that if there is another space here for the creative joy of exciting novelties. Why don’t people who thought I was spinning around talk like this, talk as directly like this without being thunderstricken? I actually enjoyed looking deep within intimacy, playing, trying again before they could come into understanding lively sensations into her or you nude sliding on whims. If you care about being human, figure out how boring being so safe is. Below I will continue pandering to risk taker and freedom in exactly with you and at various depths of immediate wooing and passion. Madame, had you drugged last prayer to see what day of the brown blood-stains were absorbed in my skin, penetrating into a private satisfaction of thinking telepathic gem? A couple of terrible apprehensions of exciting novelties to risk yourself, wipe it totally unconscious, unexpected opportunities united by taboo and passion of revolt and her asshole and her partner Steve. We have been working with cycles of words and images flowing green according to the non- linear paths within the inner maze furrowing towards me and images imagine all goes back to Paris entrusted with cycles of exciting happenings, hoping that the motor neurons cycles of folly won’t dead end, but wisdom spirals downwards and upwards and inwards and outwards in my carnival of brutality and probable failure and being only able to procure so absorbent of words, you could not get rid of my Body of Christ, my body and soul longing for dangerous sewage in Montana with an erasable ink.

People can subvert those rules. We shall test it! Totally! But I am puzzled by taboo and being only able to procure food money when people with concerns about my luck and whatever between my eyes and being usually available in that way. God is a pizza of terrible apprehensions of immediate wooing of revolt. It was seeing you again distinctly visible however that comes across the street.

Am I boring being so safe? Am I boring you yet into bed? Not deaden boring, I hope you are boring into a trance, quivering flesh of pleasure, hot body inter- independent living web with a lot of trap doors, hidden vices passages that are beyond everything—most dangerous sects and now carpeted with crimson crape bestrewn with huge silver moons—thin crescent and full amazing shit covers entire world of blossoming of pleasure of possessing and now narrowly watched, attentively, certainly head on crashes pull me mad. Are you coming to the contact with the rapture of respect for my folly? The rapture of all sorts of extraordinary dimensions bearing upon examining everything, everybody else, including being dirty. Fun life, let me dig down into this unexplored galaxy of pleasure. Not deaden and full of uneasiness increased with cycles of possessing and full of hallucinations bereft of you. If you want to come down on madame Alboni and get extremely disturbing and legally questionable, you yet maybe are Beyond dying. Always asking when I will provide us with fixed lips parted and get tipsy and get into his pockets and conversed in groups of extraordinary supernatural modality of relationship dynamics upon my credulity and bob up with people who thought I was successful and bob up on that weekend.

Riding the rail is harder for guys than girls with their slits, slots, pussies! Sliding down on the fire station pole is rough on the nut sacks! Same is true with the stripper pole brass Bright. Hold yourself away from the pole or your sack will be pulled up and down bloody mucous buildup poor balls! But naked pussy can take the pole inside purple velvet cushion lips and sliding warm juicy sweaty rubbing aroused up and down and around the pole inside pleasure. The same with horse back riding! Balls crushing, your whole pitiful weight bouncing on your balls, galloping banging crushing hours upon hours of rubbing raw peanut butter! But clit bouncing on leather or on hairy warm live horse flesh, pleasure building each hoofbeat. The same with motorbike or tricycle. Macho is very painful! That is pretty much the different between the genders! And clit bouncing up and down on the saddle strapped tightly round the body of the beast create unlimited series of impressive orgasms on the long ride with horse power increased under ordinary conditions, favourable pressure expectations to live up and down on the saddle! Some weaker sex! I hope you will play in my skin chestnut-brown rubbing against all kinds of ridiculous rules like genders. We all are by- sexual progressive untreatable terminal disorder of impressive series of softly-incisive comments upon hours of rubbing aroused, smiled superbly with people who wanted me to dance on the nut sacks in charge of explosive animalism, appearing through green woods surmounted by taboo and being only able to procure real feeling for our private satisfaction of seeing sexy girls with their slits wide open. Yes, I am by- sexual skirts chaise with people who thought that was a sin! I am by- sexual of seeing sexy bodies melting away like brown sugar before your eyes. You know if you want to come and pick up what sort of laying-ground and being usually available in that way! God, enough of this! Gay and straight are just social theory of dueling and being only able to be the goals of social schizophrenic conditioning limiting who you can love, who you are attracted by. Nobody is willing to say this! However look at ancient Greeks and Romans! Many had their spouses to pass their existence seeds on and to insure their property lines would continue pandering to whichever issues of control over the country. But they had their male students, slaves, whatever for dinner of passionate zest and energy of action and lively sensations. Their wives also had their own private slaves of both sexes and girlfriends for fingering, licking kiss dear love ya in pleasure hot bed of orgies explore over oils of passionate intensity of expression. And don’t you get me started with cult whores!

Gay/straight is social schizophrenic conditioning limiting who you are attracted by, who you can love, who you can imagine staying with. Really it is like thinking you are attracted by pussies with red sea hair trim and you based your whole pitiful little crutch ting-a-ling tingling life on tiptoe for fear of betraying your preference! When it is all wide open in an infinite continuous stream widens the whole dinner of passionate virtually every piece of pounding of expression of unaccountable gestures for long excursions outside of the two glassy surfaces of grey!

Fuck it! This is the end of this chapter!

In Freedom,
Frank Moore

Polyamory: The Next Sexual Revolution

what do you mean by “next”? We here have been living this for about forty years!

In Freedom,
Frank Moore

* * * * *

Polyamory: The Next Sexual Revolution

http://www.newsweek.com/id/209164

Only You. And You. And You.

Polyamory­relationships with multiple, mutually consenting partners­has a coming-out party.

By Jessica Bennett | Newsweek Web Exclusive
Jul 29, 2009

Terisa Greenan and her boyfriend, Matt, are enjoying a rare day of Seattle sun, sharing a beet carpaccio on the patio of a local restaurant. Matt holds Terisa’s hand, as his 6-year-old son squeezes in between the couple to give Terisa a kiss. His mother, Vera, looks over and smiles; she’s there with her boyfriend, Larry. Suddenly it starts to rain, and the group must move inside. In the process, they rearrange themselves: Matt’s hand touches Vera’s leg. Terisa gives Larry a kiss. The child, seemingly unconcerned, puts his arms around his mother and digs into his meal.

Terisa and Matt and Vera and Larry ­along with Scott, who’s also at this dinner­ are not swingers, per se; they aren’t pursuing casual sex. Nor are they polygamists of the sort portrayed on HBO’s Big Love; they aren’t religious, and they don’t have multiple wives. But they do believe in “ethical nonmonogamy,” or engaging in loving, intimate relationships with more than one person ­based upon the knowledge and consent of everyone involved. They are polyamorous, to use the term of art applied to multiple-partner families like theirs, and they wouldn’t want to live any other way.

Terisa, 41, is at the center of this particular polyamorous cluster. A filmmaker and actress, she is well-spoken, slender and attractive, with dark, shoulder-length hair, porcelain skin­ and a powerful need for attention. Twelve years ago, she started datingScott, a writer and classical-album merchant. A couple years later, Scott introduced her to Larry, a software developer at Microsoft, and the two quickly fell in love, with Scott’s assent. The three have been living together for a decade now, but continue to date others casually on the side. Recently, Terisa decided to add Matt, a London transplant to Seattle, to the mix. Matt’s wife, Vera, was OK with that; soon, she was dating Terisa’s husband, Larry. If Scott starts feeling neglected, he can call the woman he’s been dating casually on the side. Everyone in this group is heterosexual, and they insist they never sleep with more than one person at a time.

It’s enough to make any monogamist’s head spin. But the traditionalists had better get used to it.

Researchers are just beginning to study the phenomenon, but the few who do estimate that openly polyamorous families in the United States number more than half a million, with thriving contingents in nearly every major city. Over the past year, books like Open, by journalist Jenny Block; Opening Up, by sex columnist Tristan Taormino; and an updated version of The Ethical Slut­ widely considered the modern “poly” Bible­ have helped publicize the concept. Today there are poly blogs and podcasts, local get-togethers, and an online polyamory magazine called Loving More with 15,000 regular readers. Celebrities like actress Tilda Swinton and Carla Bruni, the first lady of France, have voiced support for nonmonogamy, while Greenan herself has become somewhat of an unofficial spokesperson, as the creator of a comic Web series about the practice ­called “Family”­ that’s loosely based on her life. “There have always been some loud-mouthed ironclads talking about the labors of monogamy and multiple-partner relationships,” says Ken Haslam, a retired anesthesiologist who curates a polyamory library at the Indiana University-based Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender and Reproduction. “But finally, with the Internet, the thing has really come about.”

With polyamorists’ higher profile has come some growing pains. The majority of them don’t seem particularly interested in pressing a political agenda; the joke in the community is that the complexities of their relationships leave little time for activism. But they are beginning to show up on the radar screen of the religious right, some of whose leaders have publicly condemned polyamory as one of a host of deviant behaviors sure to become normalized if gay marriage wins federal sanction. “This group is really rising up from the underground, emboldened by the success of the gay-marriage movement,” says Glenn Stanton, the director of family studies for Focus on the Family, an evangelical Christian group. “And while there’s part of me that says, ‘Oh, my goodness, I don’t think I could see them make grounds,’ there’s another part of me that says, ‘Well, just watch them.’ ”

Conservatives are not alone in watching warily. Gay-marriage advocates have become leery of public association with the poly cause­ lest it give their enemies ammunition. As Andrew Sullivan, the Atlantic columnist, wrote recently, “I believe that someone’s sexual orientation is a deeper issue than the number of people they want to express that orientation with.” In other words, polyamory is a choice; homosexuality is not. It’s these dynamics that have made polyamory, as longtime poly advocate Anita Wagner puts it, “the political football in the culture war as it relates to same-sex marriage.”

Polys themselves are not visibly crusading for their civil rights. But there is one policy issue rousing concern: legal precedents concerning their ability to parent. Custody battles among poly parents are not uncommon; the most public of them was a 1999 case in which a 22-year-old Tennessee woman lost rights to parent her daughter after outing herself on an MTV documentary. Anecdotally, research shows that children can do well in poly families­ as long as they’re in a stable home with loving parents, says Elisabeth Sheff, a sociologist at Georgia State University, who is conducting the first large-scale study of children of poly parents, which has been ongoing for a decade. But because academia is only beginning to study the phenomenon­ Sheff’s study is too recent to have drawn conclusions about the children’s well-being over time ­there is little data to support that notion in court. Today, the nonprofit Polyamory Society posts a warning to parents on its Web site: If your PolyFamily has children, please do not put your children and family at risk by coming out to the public or by being interviewed [by] the press!

The notion of multiple-partner relationships is as old as the human race itself. But polyamorists trace the foundation of their movement to the utopian Oneida commune of upstate New York, founded in 1848 by Yale theologian John Humphrey Noyes. Noyes believed in a kind of communalism he hoped would fix relations between men and women; both genders had equal voice in community governance, and every man was considered to be married to every woman. But it wasn’t until the late-1960s and 1970s “free love” movement that polyamory truly came into vogue; when books like Open Marriage topped best-seller lists and groups like the North American Swingers Club began experimenting with the concept. The term “polyamory,” coined in the 1990s, popped up in both the Merriam-Webster and Oxford English dictionaries in 2006.

Polyamory might sound like heaven to some: a variety of partners, adding spice and a respite from the familiarity and boredom that’s doomed many a traditional couple. But humans are hard-wired to be jealous, and though it may be possible to overcome it, polyamorous couples are “fighting Mother Nature” when they try, says biological anthropologist Helen Fisher, a professor at Rutgers University who has long studied the chemistry of love. Polys say they aren’t so much denying their biological instincts as insisting they can work around them­ through open communication, patience, and honesty. Polys call this process “compersion”­or learning to find personal fulfillment in the emotional and sexual satisfaction of your partner, even if you’re not the one doing the satisfying. “It’s about making sure that everybody’s needs are met, including your own,” says Terisa. “And that’s not always easy, but it’s part of the fun.”

It’s complicated, to say the least: tending to the needs of multiple partners, figuring out what to tell the kids, making sure that nobody’s feelings are hurt. “I like to call it polyagony,” jokes Haslam, the Kinsey researcher, who is himself polyamorous. “It works for some perfectly, and for others it’s a f–king disaster.”

Some polyamorists are married with multiple love interests, while others practice informal group marriage. Some have group sex­ and many are bisexual­ while those like Greenan have a series of heterosexual, one-on-one relationships. Still others don’t identify as poly but live a recognizably poly lifestyle. Terisa describes her particular cluster as a “triad,” for the number of people involved, and a “vee” for its organization, with Terisa at the center (the point of the V) and her two primary partners, Scott and Larry (who are not intimate with each other) as the tips of each arm. Other poly vocabulary exists, too: “spice” is the plural of “spouse”; “polygeometry” is how a polyamorous group describes their connections; “polyfidelitous” refers to folks who don’t date outside their menage; and a “quad” is a four-member poly group.

It’s easy to dismiss polyamory as a kind of frat-house fantasy gone wild. But in truth, the community has a decidedly feminist bent: women have been central to its creation, and “gender equality” is a publicly recognized tenet of the practice. Terisa herself is proof of that proposition, as the center of her cluster. She, Scott, and Larry have all been polyamorous since meeting in the Bay Area in the ’90s, where they were all involved with the same theater community.

Terisa and Scott started dating first. Both were getting out of long-term monogamous relationships­ Terisa had been married for six years­ and knew they wanted something different. They fell in love, and though they were committed, they began dating around. Two years in, Scott introduced her to Larry, a pit violinist and mutual acquaintance. When Larry was offered the Microsoft job in Seattle, he asked Terisa and Scott to go with him. “We were like, ‘Wow, are we really going to do this?’ ” Terisa remembers. “And we sort of just said, ‘Well let’s jump in!’ ”

It wasn’t long before they realized there was a thriving community of Seattleites living the same way. There were local outings, monthly poly potlucks, and a Sea-Poly e-mail list that served to keep everyone informed. Larry even found a poly club for Microsoft employees ­listed openly on the company’s internal Web site. (Microsoft declined to comment on the message board, or whether it still exists.) The trio has been together ever since, and they share a lakeside home in Seattle’s Mt. Baker
neighborhood, where they have a vegetable garden and three dogs. They often go on walks along the lake, hand in hand in hand. “I think if we were all given a choice, everyone would choose some form of open relationship,” Scott explains, sitting in the family’s hillside gazebo overlooking Lake Washington. “And I just like variety,” Terisa chimes in, laughing. “I get bored!”

The trio have had emotional moments. Scott had a hard time the first time he heard Larry called Terisa “sweetie” nine years ago. Larry was nervous when Terisa began semiseriously dating somebody outside the group. There are times when Scott has had to put up with hearing his girlfriend have sex with someone else in the home they share. And there have been moments when each of them have felt neglected in their own way. But they agreed early on that they weren’t going to be sexually monogamous, and they are open about their affairs. “So it’s not as if anybody is betraying anybody else’s trust,” says Larry.

There are, of course, some things that are personal. “Terisa doesn’t tell me a lot of the private stuff between her and Matt, and I respect that,” says Scott. When there are twinges of jealousy, they talk them out­by getting to the root of what’s causing the feeling. “It’s one of those things that sounds really basic, but I think a lot of people in conventional relationships don’t take the time to actually tell their
partner when they’re feeling dissatisfied in some way,” says Terisa. “And sometimes it’s as simple as saying, ‘Hey, Larry,’ or ‘Hey, Scott, I really want to have dinner alone with you tonight­I’m feeling neglected.’ We really don’t let anything go unsaid.” As Haslam puts it: “It’s all very straight forward if everybody is just honest about what’s going on in their brains­ and between their legs.”

Larry and Terisa married last year­ with Scott’s permission ­in part for tax purposes. Larry owns the house they all live in, and Scott pays rent. Household expenses require a complicated spreadsheet. Terisa, Larry, and Scott all have their own bedrooms, but sleeping arrangements must be discussed. Larry snores, so Terisa spends most nights with Scott­ which means she must be mindful of making up for lost time with Larry. Terisa and Larry only recently began dating Matt and Vera, after meeting on Facebook, and now every Friday, the couple bring their son over to the house and the three of them stay all weekend. Matt will usually sleep with Terisa, and Vera with Larry, or they’ll switch it up, depending on how everyone feels.

The child, meanwhile, has his own room. And he’s clearly the most delicate part of the equation. Matt and Vera have asked NEWSWEEK not to use their last names or the name of their child ­for fear, even in liberal Seattle, they might draw unwanted attention. Though Terisa doesn’t have children­ and doesn’t want them­, she adores Matt and Vera’s son, who calls her Auntie. Recently, the child asked his father who he loved more: Mommy or Terisa. “I said, ‘Of course I love momma more,’ because that’s the answer he needed to hear,” Matt says. He and Vera say they are honest with him, in an age-appropriate way. “We don’t do anything any regular parents of a 6-year-old wouldn’t do,” he says. For the moment, it seems to be working. The child is happy, and there are two extra people to help him with his homework, or to pick him up or drop him off at school. They expect the questions to increase with age, but in the long run, “what’s healthy for children is stability,” says Fischer, the anthropologist.

It’s a new paradigm, certainly­ and it does break some rules. “Polyamory scares people ­it shakes up their world view,” says Allena Gabosch, the director of the Seattle-based Center for Sex Positive Culture. But perhaps the practice is more natural than we think: a response to the challenges of monogamous relationships, whose shortcomings ­in a culture where divorce has become a commonplace­ are clear. Everyone in a relationship wrestles at some point with an eternal question: can one person really satisfy every need? Polyamorists think the answer is obvious­ and that it’s only a matter of time before the monogamous world sees there’s more than one way to live and love. “The people I feel sorry for are the ones who don’t ever realize they have any other choices beyond the traditional options society presents,” says Scott. “To look at an option like polyamory and say ‘That’s not for me’ is fine. To look at it and not realize you can choose it is just sad.”

« Older posts Newer posts »