¯\_(ツ)_/¯
That time I was accused of “crazy talk” on Good Morning America
There’s always a significant amount of risk in participating in mass media to get a message out. They get to control who says what, and can craft any kind of narrative that fits their agenda with clever editing. Sometimes their agenda is supporting the subject, sometimes it’s diminishing it, other times it’s stirring up controversy to drive views and advertising revenue.
I had a positive experience working with Laurie Segall on her series Sex, Drugs, and Silicon Valley for CNN. I also published a controversial companion piece called Why I Choose Non-monogamy. After the series aired, I received several media inquiries for additional interviews. I turned down many, but when Good Morning America asked, it seemed like a risky but worthwhile opportunity to share my experience with a broader (though not necessarily friendly) audience.
The interview took place yesterday at my apartment in San Francisco and aired today:
My phone interviewer, Matt Knox, asked balanced questions, and gave me time to present my perspective. After it ended, I felt like it’d gone well enough, considering the personal nature of the topic, and how complex non-monogamy is compared with monogamy.
I mean, just look at this:
How do you turn that into soundbites? Turns out you can’t.
But my intentions for this interview were straightforward: 1) call attention to how modern technology is changing the environment in which we create relationships, and 2) suggest that polyamory and non-monogamy may be increasingly relevant as this new environment (and its inherent challenges) becomes more commonplace.
Unfortunately, the anchors and their guest, professional matchmaker Paul C Brunson, couldn’t seem to make sense of it. Brunson, monogamously married for 13 years, went so far as to call the few seconds of video from my hour-long interview “crazy talk”.
Brunson suggests that monogamy is how human beings “rise above” non-monogamy; that monogamists are “mature human beings”. He concludes by asking, “What’s wrong with commitment? Why can’t we admit that anything worth any value in our life came because we made a commitment?”
I agree with him, but only on his last point.
Learning to make commitments and fulfill them is an important measure of a responsible adult. But nothing about committing to a specific set of agreements with another person implies that those agreements demand exclusivity. It’s a choice.
I choose to define my commitments to my partner, with my partner. We decided what’s right and appropriate for us. We work through these agreements as mature adults. We don’t rely on anyone else to determine what’s right for us. And we revisit our agreements regularly to gauge how our agreements are working for us — whether they are realistic or need adjustment. It’s how our relationship grows, and how we continually invest in our commitment to each other and to the other people in our lives.
Being honest and direct about my desires, fears, and insecurities has proven to be incredibly humbling. It makes me vulnerable, which makes me feel uncomfortable. No one wants to be rejected for revealing their most intimate desires, no matter what their desires might be! As I’ve come to know more about myself and my wants (in turn learning to trust my partner completely) I’ve found that sharing my desires without fear of judgment or rejection brings an incredible amount of empowerment and liberation.
Don’t get me wrong — I haven’t completely overcome my fear of rejection or my insecurities. They persist. But by staying committed to each other’s ongoing growth, we decide to make space to allow each other to explore what we want out of life, and out of our relationships.
As a result, I am not threatened by my partner having desires of her own, even if they don’t include me. Nor am I threatened by my partner finding someone that she likes better than me, or is more attracted to than me. These things may happen, whether we are monogamous or non-monogamous. They’re absolutely scary moments to confront, but they don’t require a conventional response.
Instead, I choose to react in accordance with the agreements we’ve made to each other. Instead, we decide how much space is necessary to understand, explore, and grow through these moments. We’re pragmatic and open, rather than dogmatic and closed.
Does it take more time, energy, and attention to succeed with this approach?
Abso-fucking-lutely.
Is it right for everyone?
Absolutely not.
But does this approach demonstrate the level of commitment we’re willing to make to each other in pursuit of a lasting, meaningful, happy partnership together?
Hell yes, without a doubt.
Update: Paul Brunson tweeted to me after reading this piece. I appreciate his response:
