Polyamory History: Polysaturation in Print!
A look at the article “A love triangle? Try a hexagon” by Leonora LaPeter in the Tampa Bay Times in 2007
I can fall into a real rabbit hole reading old newspaper articles. They’re not just a reflection of what ‘happened’, but you also get a sense of the questions and concerns the author anticipates their contemporary readers having.
In a recent dive, I read the article that I believe brought the word ‘polysaturation’ into the lexicon*. And good grief, I both love and hate this article.
On the one hand, the decision to write about a woman with three male partners feels refreshing. I so often hear the stereotype that polyamory is just ‘some dude who wants to cheat’. Showing that a woman might desire more than one romantic partner, and that it’s possible for them to sit at a table** together without anger or aggression feels fairly revolutionary.
It’s also wonderful to see mentions of female polyamory pioneers like Deborah Anapol and Morning Glory Zell-Ravenheart. These women’s writings, in particular, is still relevant to the work I do with clients today.
And reading this article gave me such pings of nostalgia. Future historians, please note that having a romance start in a Prius chat room feels exactly right for the early 2000s. Adorable.
On the other hand, the way this article describes this friendly polycule having sandwiches on the beach feels like it’s looking through a funhouse mirror. The author goes out of her way to include people’s eye and hair colors like you would find in a romance novel. When talking about the relationships themselves, the author uses language that is light and frothy, while also highlighting every time a polyamorous relationship ended in breakups or divorce. It makes a lot of claims that polyamory is ‘new’ and for ‘educated white people’, like a new toy for yuppies to play with.
But the hardest thing for me about this article is the how it includes opinions about polyamory being dangerous. An academic is quoted stating that polyamorous relationships would open up children to more potential for abuse. A court case where a woman lost custody of her daughter is attributed to polyamory. An article from Focus on the Family is also quoted claiming that homosexual and group marriage would help people pool benefits (and they say it like it’s a bad thing). None of these opinions are commented on or countered in the rest of the article.
It’s almost like the author, finding a calm and reasonable group of marginalized minorities, decided to dig up dirt to throw at them.
I cannot intuit the intent of the author (who went on to receive a Pulitzer Prize for journalism in 2016) or the subjects of this article. Everyone might have gotten exactly what they wanted from its publication.
It is also almost certain that this article helped some readers put words to feelings they had. Words are important. Words help you find other people who want the things you want. I have no doubt that lives changed, polycules formed, and babies were born to loving families because of this article****.
But I think that the sensationalist tone of this article adds to the perception that polyamorous love is both ‘dangerous’ and ‘not real’ when compared to monogamy. As a mental health counselor who has talked to many people with many relationship styles, that’s untrue. I see no reason why relationships outside of monogamy would be more dangerous than those that are monogamous. We humans are complex, and the way we care about people can take many forms.
And that love is real. No matter what a future Pulitzer Prize winning journalist thinks about it.
ADDITIONAL NOTES:
* see my 9/10/23 post on Substack for more about this topic.
** Not a ‘kitchen table’ yet, but we’re getting there.
*** The word ‘polycule’ doesn’t occur in this article, but I will use it to describe the participants out of convenience.
**** With the caveat that ‘experts’ quoted in this article might think those children should be taken away or denied benefits.