Thursday, February 19, 2009


I read "Dear Prudence" on Slate Magazine. I must admit that I have more respect for Margo Howard's advice (and still read her column on than for Emily Yoffe's, but she makes 'prudent' points on occasion.

There was a letter in today's column from a female polyamorous individual in a relationship with a married couple who is facing judgments and intolerance from their teenage children. Prudie filled her reply with judgments, stereotypes, and all-around not helpful advice with which I cannot even remotely agree. I have to write something somewhere about it.

I will first start by saying that I am a completely heterosexual, monogamous female. This does not mean that I cannot love other females; I have, I do, and I will again, but they don't do anything for me on a sexual level. I will say again: this does not mean I cannot love them. I will also admit that I don't know how many other details may have been edited out of the original letter.

Prudie's first assumption, based on the text that was presented, is that polyamorous connotes homosexuality. That may not be the case. It is very possible that there are two women sharing one man in this case. People can do that and still be polyamorous. We don't know in this case.

Prudie also assumed that polyamorous people have frequent, eccentric sexual encounters and orgies. This is a stereotype, and certainly not the case if everyone in this triple relationship is heterosexual.

Merriam-Webster defines polyamorous as "the state or practice of having more than one open romantic relationship at a time." Take it for what it is, Prudie, and not for what you think it is, or what your personal prejudices make it out to be. You gave some very bad advice that was very likely not based on the truth of the matter.

No comments :