Solid Foundations
Dan Butler, 29, a radio journalist, and his husband, Hugh O’Connor, 31, a theatre production designer, are also in a relationship with Charles Davis, 28, another theatre production designer.
Heh. Sorry, mustn’t laugh. I denounce myself. And in case you’re wondering, yes, the above is from the Guardian’s ‘Lifestyle’ section, where polyamory – or glorified slutting by emotional inadequates – is still the latest thing and breathlessly endorsed. It starts off quite romantically:
[Dan and Hugh] met as students at a party… And then the night was over, and Dan was one of the last people there. He said: ‘Goodbye, Hugh.’ And I thought: ‘Oh my God. I have no idea what this guy’s name is. I really like him.’”
Ah, bless.
They moved in with each other after about two months, and held an unofficial wedding in 2014, before same-sex marriage in Australia was legal. They legalised their marriage in 2018… “I remember feeling the happiest I’d ever felt with Dan,” says Hugh.
So far, so rosy. Readers should note, however, that, despite all this professed happiness, Dan and Hugh’s marriage was an “open” one “from the start,” which is to say, not really a marriage at all. The misuse of terms, in attempts to repackage dissatisfaction, inadequacy and commonplace grubbiness, may crop up again.
“And then when we met Charlie. It was like this extension of a really positive energy.”
For instance.
Charles also had a boyfriend, but that, too, was an open relationship,
Why, it’s almost as if there were a pattern, a trajectory.
I remember one morning, the three of us had just gone to the beach and Hugh had a meeting, so Dan and I drove Hugh back to the studio. And then Dan drove me back to my suburb and dropped me off. I think he leaned in and kissed me. We were parked outside my apartment block and I looked across the street and saw my boyfriend.
Those golden romantic moments, to treasure forever.
And so, inevitably,
They all got together in late 2017.
And bliss ensued.
How did Hugh and Dan navigate bringing someone else into their marriage? “I guess like we’ve navigated every other part of our relationship,” says Hugh. “By being honest about what we’re feeling and talking to each other. And not having any expectation of how we were meant to behave and feel. Allowing each other to feel different emotions, whether it’s jealousy, resentment, anger…”
Ah yes. Allowing your other halves – sorry, other thirds – to feel “jealousy, resentment, anger” – where allowing means causing repeatedly, with what are described as “quite intense situations.” Say, by excluding one of the people in your three-way vanguard romance. We learn that Dan, for instance, is “confronting” his feelings of jealousy and is “working on eliminating them.” Clearly, then, the ideal basis for any lifelong love. An inspiration to us all. And thanks, no doubt, to that “really positive energy.”
For readers intrigued by the domestic particulars,
Hugh and Dan live together, and Charles lives five minutes away. “Hugh and I exist in our marriage, and that’s one thing. And we also have our relationship with Charles,” says Dan. “We both try to keep that healthy by seeing each other individually, and then the three of us spend a fair bit of time hanging out as well. Like any relationship, it’s still changing.”
I suspect more changes lie ahead, sir. And you have to wonder how these 30-year-olds, who are still behaving like 20-year-olds, will cope with being 40 or 50.
We’re fortunate in that we all we run in very liberal circles, and all our families are very progressive.
I’ll just leave that there, I think.
Previously, and somewhat related.
Like one of the posers on intelligence tests. If Bert is married to Mavis, and she is the sister of Beryl, who in turn is married to Bert’s grandfather, who lives in the house at Number 53.
Those golden romantic moments, to treasure forever.
Actual snort. 🙂
If Bert is married to Mavis, and she is the sister of Beryl, who in turn is married to Bert’s grandfather, who lives in the house at Number 53.
While parsing the thing, it was a little tricky to keep track of all the parties. Thankfully, the married couple’s boyfriend’s other boyfriend wasn’t dragged into the drama.
Growing up isn’t for everyone.
Growing up isn’t for everyone.
Well, there is, I think, an air of arrestedness, of overstretched adolescence. As you say, a failure to grow up, or to think ahead. Again, you have to wonder how these 30-year-olds, who are still behaving like 20-year-olds, will cope with being 40 or 50. And whether their marriage, open or otherwise, will still be a thing. When it may matter most.
It’s also worth noting the standard rationalisation in articles about polyamorous entanglements, about “not trying to get all their needs met by one partner,” not having to bear the obligations of a lifelong commitment. (As another polyamorist put it here, “I don’t have to give her all the attention that’s needed.”) There’s a whiff of excuse-making, of rationalised selfishness. And again, this is presented as something radical and bold, rather than, say, a personal shortcoming, a failure to mature.
We learn that Dan, for instance, is “confronting” his feelings of jealousy and is “working on eliminating them.”
Dear Dan, the feelings are a warning that something’s wrong.
He’s not sure? Tsk!
Shame on you all! These people are stunning and brave (or is it brave and stunning) and so is the journalist for writing about it, which I suspect is the real reason for the story.
He’s not sure? Tsk!
Well, after a while, I suppose it’s difficult to keep track of who did what.
Shame on you all! These people are stunning and brave (or is it brave and stunning) and so is the journalist for writing about it, which I suspect is the real reason for the story.
There is that. Though it’s still a little peculiar when people air the details of their relationship – what one might usually think of as private territory – publicly, in a national newspaper, as if it were something to boast about and be applauded for. Because they’re so progressive. It’s just a wee bit self-exalting.
Not sure I’m seeing the difference from a Church St bathhouse circa 1975. Also, did anyone else find a soupcon of cliche in two “theatre production designers”?
Astute observation about the Grauniad hack from fnord and, in reply, from our host.
Not sure I’m seeing the difference from a Church St bathhouse circa 1975.
The attention-seekers and self-styled ‘activists’ – the types most likely to be given space in the Guardian – are very often the ones doing damage to the reputation of gay people.
Speaking of people boasting and expecting to be applauded for it:
https://twitter.com/AITA_reddit/status/1245064349468819459
Enjoy!
Enjoy!
She sounds nice. Not at all like a hostage situation waiting to happen.
Hmmm.
“Dan, Hugh, and Charles”…
Sounds like a bad law firm. Or 70’s band
*Hamilton, Joe Frank, and Reynolds*
Though it’s still a little peculiar when people air the details of their relationship – what one might usually think of as private territory – publicly, in a national newspaper, as if it were something to boast about and be applauded for. Because they’re so progressive. It’s just a wee bit self-exalting.
I think it’s more desperation than exaltation. ‘If we can say we’re happy and it’s there in the papers in black and white, then it MUST be true.”
Speaking of people boasting and expecting to be applauded for it
I didn’t know that you could build a bitch shield from lego….
‘Oh my God. I have no idea what this guy’s name is.
Does it really matter? It must get tiring keeping up with all the names that are likely to come and go. Although, how many theatre production designers can there be in one town anyway?
The attention-seekers and self-styled ‘activists’ – the types most likely to be given space in the Guardian – are very often the ones doing damage to the reputation of gay people.
“This is the person calling you a n*zi on social media”: Do not click this link if you have a weak stomach or are at at work.
Do these ‘journalists’ even bother to read what they write?
The ‘marriage’ is ‘open’ which means just about anyone can walk in. The only ‘navigation’ is in finding the door.
This is why we have AIDS.
It’s like throwing yoghurt down a windsock.
Dan, for instance, is “confronting” his feelings of jealousy and is “working on eliminating them.”
Given the state of pronouns these days, are we sure “them” refers to “feelings” and not to one or more of the gentlemen in the story?
David, here’s another promising candidate for a fisking:
https://jezebel.com/help-i-think-im-in-love-with-andrew-cuomo-1842396411
I mean, like, wow. 😳❓
That Lego lady is a fright. As are all three or more persons in the open (jealousy! Resentment!) marriage and this jezebel ninnyhammer. Why do liberals so often “love” their politicians?
David, here’s another promising candidate for a fisking:
If that ain’t enough…
That one isn’t even from 1 April.
But wait, that’s not all…
Yep, what is getting them going is the tight white shirts.
But wait, that’s not all…
Chelsea says of Cuomo:
That’s right Chels, those complex sentences usually contain multiple lies; like we’ve run out of ventilators while sitting on a stockpile of them; or like when he chose not to invest in increasing the ventilator stockpile and instead made investments in a doomed solar power investment.
There’s nothing like the lies lefties tell themselves.
Hamilton, Joe, Frank, and Reynolds:
🎼. Don’t pull your love out on me, baby.. 🎼
Um. Maybe we better not go there. Bartender! Next topic, please, and HURRY!
can string together a complex sentence that doesn’t contain a single lie
Oh?
She wrote “[…] a single lie […]”, @Darleen…
Farnsworth: not the tight white shirts, it’s the nipple piercings that do the trick. Check ’em out.
Must be a bitch for these guys to find just the right card in the Hallmark store.
‘Polyamory in a pandemic: who do you quarantine with when you’re not monogamous?’
“Coronavirus is making everyone polyamorous, in a sense,”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/apr/01/polyamory-quarantine-coronavirus-pandemic
The Graun is really hyping this freakshow.
The Graun is really hyping this freakshow.
So, the coronavirus lockdown is making polyamory either difficult or impossible, with enthusiasts being “forced back into [monogamy]” – and simultaneously, it’s making “everyone” polyamorous “in a sense”?
And again, Brooklyn.
Right, tomorrow’s ephemera has been compiled. It should materialise just after midnight.
Thread.
In case you haven’t seen it, good news everyone, we’re saved.
In case you haven’t seen it, good news everyone, we’re saved.
No good can come of reading Pink News.
No good can come of reading Pink News.
Don’t be silly, how else would we get vital info on which celebrities are providing their immense cornucopia of knowledge to the medical community ?
It is almost as if you are trying to cast a giant shadow over one of the bright rays of hope in these days of troubled times that make the combined sieges of Vicksburg, Dien Bien Phu, and Leningrad look like a Sunday school picnic.
glorified slutting by emotional inadequates
Brilliant.
…this man’s perfectly weathered face and tousled curls…his Pacino-like accent…
Don’t forget his most important asset – the capital D after his name.
In case you haven’t seen it, good news everyone, we’re saved.
Had to check the date on that. March 31, so should nit be an April Fool’s joke. If this is indeed true, if the director of WHO is wasting his supposedly valuable time during a world wide pandemic that has everything grinding to a halt, there is something seriously wrong with anyone who takes WHO seriously and is not SIGNIFICANTLY outraged about this such that they should be calling for heads to roll.
the director of WHO is wasting his supposedly valuable time during a world wide pandemic
During normal circumstances, Teddy would just hoover up the normal backhanders associated with being a UN diversity hire and live a quiet life.
However, the vast bribes received for helping the Chinese cover up have taken him into unfamiliar territory; clearly he’s got blasted on Charlie and started taking calls from Lady Gaga, cos, like, he’s a global celebrity now.
I’m still disappointed Trump hasn’t had a go at the UN….
“I don’t have to give her all the attention that’s needed.”
Buried lede. The people who are in polyamory are in it precisely because of their deep-rooted insecurities and need for constant validation. Well, the women mostly; the guys are there for easy commitment-free sex.
the guys are there for easy commitment-free sex.
Which for some (many?) is because of their deeply-rooted insecurities. I had a roommate many years ago, weightlifting football player type who, even though he had a very attractive and rather intelligent girlfriend who was two hours away finishing college, had to, simply HAD TO, bring home something or other every Saturday night. I’ll never forget coming out of the bathroom myself after returning rather late and coming face-to-face with a woman who had to be at least 50 (we were both in our mid-20’s at the time). Scared me half to death. His mother was my supervisor at work and the story was her husband (his father) left her because he was gay. Additionally his brother we knew was gay. Did I mention this roommate was exceptionally neat. Not that that is neither here nor there.
Buried lede.
Heh. Minor variations of the same do seem to crop up in just about every article on the subject that I’ve seen. As you say, it does rather raise questions as to the personalities involved.
So, the coronavirus lockdown is making polyamory either difficult or impossible, with enthusiasts being “forced back into [monogamy]”
That would be reality intruding; what we (relatively) normal people call a clue. Polyamory and disease prevention are behaviors that are at odds with each other. Surprise!
– and simultaneously, it’s making “everyone” polyamorous “in a sense”?
File under: wind, hot and self-flattering.
In case you haven’t seen it, good news everyone, we’re saved.
Meanwhile, from my friend working at a certain primate research center:
“Coronavirus is making everyone polyamorous, in a sense,”
Remember the Deep Thinkers who instructed us that “everyone is queer”?
Remember the Deep Thinkers who instructed us that “everyone is queer”?
“We’re nearly all vegan now.”
everyone is queer
Sex researcher Kinsey was pretty weird, which may explain why he sought to fraudulently prove that he was no odder than everyone else and that no sexual orientation or behavior was abnormal.
Ordinary people hear “everybody is weird in their own way,” and think of it as a reason to live and let live, neither feeling shame about one’s quirks nor shaming others for theirs.
Others hear the same phrase and take it as a challenge to be the Weirdest In The Room, making the other plain-vanilla weirdos look positively boring, or at least out of touch with the latest fashion.
I know which crowd I’d rather spend time with.
I know which crowd I’d rather spend time with.
Indeed.
As always the Python’s got there first. Listen to the first few seconds of this sketch. Actually listen to all of the sketch, it’s hilarious.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jEIz0SM7dkA