Most of the women on The View consider themselves to be progressive stalwarts. Each day, they rail against Donald Trump and the Republican Party’s retrograde policies, especially in terms of bodily autonomy and sexual freedom.
But when the topic turns to polyamory, they would like to hit the breaks!
Whoopi Goldberg & Co. recently discussed New York Magazine’s deep dive into polyamorous relationships, and the conversation left a lot to be desired. The topic never even received a fair shake: Whoopi couldn’t stop laughing when describing the article.
How about we take this to the next level?
Subscribe to our newsletter for a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
“Some of these folks have been married for years, and the people want to find out navigate being in a relationship with more than one person,” she said. “Then I’m supposed to ask you all, are you open to this?”
The answer was unanimous: “Nope!”
Joy Behar argued Americans are too conservative to embrace the concept, though we can’t help but wonder if the legendary comedian was projecting?
“We’re too puritanical in this country,” she said. “Janet Jackson’s boob popped out, and the country went bananas. How many orgasms can one girl fake?”
While we admire Joy for her longstanding support of LGBTQ+ rights, we fear the octogenarian is showing her age on this one. Given that one in nine Americans have engaged in a polyamorous relationship, it’s fair to say millions of people in the U.S. are far more open to the arrangement than she thinks.
That’s especially the case when it comes to LGBTQ+ folx. Polls find 77% of bisexual and gay men and 56% of bisexual and lesbian women have been in some sort of consensually non-monogamous setup.
Now, it’s important to note that consensual non-monogamy is a broad term. It covers everything from open relationships to polyamory, along with arrangements in between. People can be monogamish, form a relationship escalator or adhere to a vee structure.
The key is experiencing compersion, the pleasure one derives from their partner enjoying sexual or romantic happiness with another person.
While every relationship is different, there is a big common denominator: consent. Polyamory goes both ways, despite what Sara Haines may think. In fact, the Bible of polyamory, Ethical Slut, was written by a woman.
And published in 1997!
“I know this applies to women and men, but when you read ‘ethical non-monogamy,’ weren’t you sitting there going, ‘A man definitely decided this?’ ‘I’m not gonna be monogamous, but it’s a good thing, and we’re fine!’ I can barely handle one,” she said.
Alyssa Farah Griffin followed up, saying she thinks both partners would never want to be polyamorous. Apparently, the Trump White House vet thinks romantic relationships are a zero-sum game.
“It is my belief there is no way one of the two partners in a polyamorous relationship isn’t actually jealous the other one is sleeping with someone else. They’re pretending,” she said.
Sunny Hostin, meanwhile, declared she’s close-minded, describing herself as a “cavewoman.”
“I know these people are more evolved than I am. I’m more cavewoman in my relationships, like ‘You are mine.’ That’s more me,” she said. “But what I don’t understand is, some of these people are married, have children and have jobs. How do you have the time to do that, with let alone one men, or several men and women?”
At the risk of sounding obnoxious, their very narrow, very heteronormative views on relationships show the prevalence of monogamy in American society. People in polyamorous relationships follow their own rules, not some glorification of the 1950s nuclear family.
With that in mind, it’s no secret why polyamory is so commonplace in the LGBTQ+ community. The practice is a sign of liberation.
But like all good trends, the straights are coming to steal it.
Come fulfill your polyamorous desires now, before it becomes the sexualized version of luxury condos.
decrans
As a person who lived on a polyamorous genderqueer commune, I’ll say this. The same high-drama fights occurred year after year. This post illustrates the idyllic Polyanna-ish viewpoints of the American far-left. Regardless of what the gender dynamics were in each relationship, it’s undeniable that there was a serious power play issue that would come out in one way or another. With a number of poly relationships, partners were ranked. There was a “main chick” or a “main guy” and everyone else was second banana. Meanwhile, y’all are the same people yammering about hierarchies and systemic oppression. Please. And since we’re in a trans backlash, the vast majority of Americans are not co-signing this beyond Sommerville, Mass. Alex Reimer can keep banging it out in WeHo. I hate to say this, but Joy Behar has some sense on this matter. Joy’s right. Broken clocks and whatnot.
bachy
It sounds like participants eventually fall into roles seen in primates in which there are alpha males and alpha females, with the rest falling into a sub-hierarchy. Since this arrangement occurs among other mammals in the natural world, why would it be considered problematic in a human polyamorous commune situation? I’m pretty sure survival-of-the-fittest style competition is desirable in many conservative ideologies.
dbmcvey
So, you lived in a “polyamorous genderqueer commune.” Do you ever think the problem is you can’t do anything in moderation?
decrans
Survival of the fittest. I don’t disagree. The thing that y’all constantly overlook on these issues: the development, stability, and well-being of children. Historically, courts have applied these standards to several different categories of legal adjudications: child custody, child relocation, termination of parental rights, juvenile court, and cases where the court
must intervene in an intact parent-child relationship. Once again, y’all want to count the eggs before they’ve hatched. It’s a recurring theme. As a former leftist and liberal, I’ve seen it all before with this political ideology.
decrans
Dickvaney, That’s why I overcorrected. I realized conservatives had a damn point all along. Whoops. Meanwhile, your side trafficks in memes and sugarcoated plum fairy dreams you don’t have any clue how to manifest in our reality.
dbmcvey
Really. I mean, you couldn’t just be in a poly relationship, it had to be a poly genderqueer commune. This is why I don’t believe anything you write.
Just like when you made your wild swing to conservatism, you weren’t just suddenly trying to stop trans people from living their lives, you were living with the President of Latinos for Trump. And now you’re living in some other insane white supremacist compound.
Get back on your meds and stop this pendulum of extreme behavior.
decrans
I wasn’t in a poly relationship. I lived in a commune and counted the brawls that occurred. All states, territories, and the District of Columbia have statutes requiring courts to consider a child’s best interests in cases addressing custody, placement, or other critical issues in children’s lives. Do you expect the backed-up court systems to weigh 8 different partners simultaneously? Get real. Your state has problems with the backed-up Medi-Cal beneficiaries. Come up with a plan.
decrans
President of Latinos for Trump. Snort. That was your mind. I lived with a Latina who believed Trump was a better candidate when compared to Biden and Gavin Newsom. They do exist, white gay boy for Mayo Pete. Trump has increased the Republican party vote for people of color. Those are facts while you supported Zero percent of the Black vote Pete Buttigieg. Facts.
decrans
And now you’re living in some other insane white supremacist compound.
I live near a gated community in suburban Nashville with street names after Confederate soldiers. Huge difference. Maybe it’s time for you to get back on your meds. Or become a fiction writer with your borderline obsession about my life narrative.
decrans
Oh! And it wasn’t a ‘wild swing,’ by the way. It started with me agreeing with Meghan McCain on ‘The View.’ Then COVID and a medical gender transition wild goose happened (while progressives clapped like circus seals on the sidelines.) And then, I said to myself, “These idiots think children can consent to this after what I just survived?” That’s how it happened. That ain’t whiplash. That’s a decade in the making. And yes, I do speak about my experiences. And there are other former leftists and liberals like me. That’s why you are see changing voter demographics. Read between the lines, Dave.
dbmcvey
You, allegedly, went from living in a “polyamorous gender queer commune” to being an anti-trans activist. That’s wild. This is a “you” problem.
dbmcvey
If people want to live in a poly life that’s their decision.
I just think it’s funny how Millenials and Gen Z think that everything they do is somehow new and different. These things have been going on forever.
decrans
It’s their decision. Don’t expect the American court system to divvy up property and assets with 100 different partners.
dbmcvey
I really don’t know why that is what you decided the example should be.
You know, many other people can live their lives in moderation. They can be in a poly relationship without it become 100 partners in a mythical “genderqueer commune.”
decrans
Can they? May I remind you that YOUR movement currently believes in 200 genders that can be decided on a whim. And again, American legal systems aren’t set up for this. And y’all don’t seem to be solving it anytime soon. You just want what you want…how society operates within the framework be damned. Sugar plum fairies sprinkling candy canes on Leprechaun Lane. That isn’t a policy idea, babe.
decrans
And lastly, I realize you hang out with Mayo Pete at neoliberal fundraisers in wine cellars. Try looking up Radical Faerie communes on Wikipedia, though.
still_onthemark
@decrans: You are overly worried about the legal system. It’s not set up for ANY partners who aren’t married. But child custody and support are already handled by Family Court where it doesn’t matter whether a kid was born “out of wedlock” or not. The supposed 200 genders don’t apply to anything in the legal system, and paternity is of course determined easily now by DNA testing. What exactly are you concerned about?
Kangol2
DB, the 19th century Transcendentalist movement included polyamorous communes; I mean, this truly is nothing new, though every several generations people think they have invented the wheel or that they need to.
dbmcvey
Kangol, I don’t doubt polyamorous communities. I doubt that decrans was in one.
Man About Town
All of them shouted “NO” to the question “Are you open to this?” I find it odd that there wasn’t at least one participant who said “I’m not open to it for me, but who am I to judge other people’s relationships?”
As for Joy Behar, you can expect these sweeping comments about the population. Shortly after Pete Buttigieg announced his candidacy, she stupidly asked him “Is the country ready for a gay president?”
Did she think he was gonna say “No; I’ll withdraw my candidacy first thing tomorrow”?