I recently listened to a podcast of the radio program 1A (on National Public Radio), in which there was a thirty-five minute discussion of polyamory (consensual non-monogamy). One large scale 2017 survey of the phenomenon indicated that more than twenty percent of the surveyed individuals engaged in the practice at some point in their lives. A 2014 survey indicated that 4%-5% of Americans reported currently being polyamorous.
The 1A program involved an interactive discussion amongst multiple individuals who engaged in this lifestyle, including a woman who had researched and written about the phenomenon. An interviewer was involved to moderate the discussion and keep it flowing. Much in keeping with NPR’s general approach to differing lifestyles, the interviewer was highly open-minded to the subject and, by and large, asked softball questions, with minimal challenge to the beliefs and practices of the participants.
All of this was to be expected, but one thing in this story was appalling and, in my opinion, unforgivable: In the last two minutes of the interview, after having discussed how fulfilling, manageable and convenient such a lifestyle could be for the polyamorous adults, a mere thirty seconds was spent commenting on how such a lifestyle might affect children. The interviewer did not even bring the question up. Realizing that the time was nearly up, the polyamory researcher deliberately interjected the statement that, in regard to children of polyamorous parents, “a lot of those kids are in really good shape with all the attention they get” from the members of these relationships. (It was a strange and ambiguous statement. If five thousand of such children were studied, three hundred of them were doing well, and four thousand seven hundred were doing horrendously; one could technically say “a lot of them are in really good shape.”)
What is going on here? Why was this obviously important issue left for the last two minutes of the discussion? Why did the interviewer not make time to discuss it earlier? And what actually are the facts about how children are impacted by non-traditional family structures?
Consider this: A 2009 study, based on data from 2,297 families, found that families living with a man who was not the biological father of all the children in the home and families living without a man in the home were significantly more likely to be contacted by CPS, as compared to families in which the biological father of all the children lived with the mother. (Berger LM, Paxson C, Waldfogel J. Mothers, Men, and child protective services involvement. Child Maltreatment. 2009;14(3):263-276.) Another study, conducted 2005, indicated that young children living in households with one or more unrelated adults are fifty times more likely to die from an inflicted injury than are children living with two biological parents. (Schnitzer PG, Ewigman BG. Child deaths resulting from inflicted injuries: household risk factors and perpetrator characteristics. Pediatrics. 2005 Nov;116(5):e687-93. doi: 10.1542/peds.2005-0296. PMID: 16263983; PMCID: PMC1360186.) Further, an additional study reported that children raised with one biological parent and their non-biological cohabiting partner were 19.8 times more likely to experience sexual abuse, as compared to children raised by their married, biological parents. (National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect (NIC-4), 2004-2009, Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, available at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/opre/research/project/national-incidence-study-of-child-abuse-and-neglect-nis-4-2004-2009)
Of course, an advocate for polyamory might respond to all these findings by saying that polyamory does not necessarily imply that the biological parent is not residing with the other parent in a stable home for the children. This is true, and it is also true that any other relationships could be pursued outside of this family home. However, to be realistic, the variety of polyamorus relationships is huge, including “throuples,” that is three equal adult partners living in the home (basic biology will mean that one of them is not the biological parent), partners coming in and out of the home (for a day, a week, some months), or serial longer-term relationships. The above-referenced research is pertinent for all of these arrangements. Further, the greater complexity of polyamorous relationships raises many problems and concerns for parents, such as, how are children affected if one parent feels that having the other parent in the home cramps their polyamorous style too much, and how much emotional energy does a polyamorous parent have for their children if they are juggling the competing needs and demands of their multiple relationships?
There is much of concern here and much to be discussed. And none of it was discussed on the 1A program. Why not? Was it politeness? Was it NPR’s policy of celebrating diversity and supporting disempowered and disenfranchised groups? OK, NPR is NPR. But seeing polyamory from this perspective is too simplistic. Yes, be supportive of the disempowered and disenfranchised. But who has less power and less of a voice than children? They need more than thirty seconds of a 35-minute discussion when their wellbeing and lives are at stake as their parents experiment.