fullygoldy | Studio 60 Pimps Polyamory!

Woo hoo!

Spoilers behind the cuts.

During last night's new ep (Monday), Matt is participating in an on-line auction for a dinner date with ex-girlfriend, Harry. He is upping Harry's current love interest's bids by a dollar. "It's at $500." "Make it $501." However, the auction is to raise funds for an organization that promotes teen abstinence. Having been a teen (and arguably still locked into that phase of his life), Matt knows that preaching abstinence to teens is pretty useless. He doesn't want to give these people any more of his money than absolutely necessary (that's the rationale behind the $1 bids). When the bids reach $1200 ($1201), he tells his assistant to find a non-profit organization that is the opposite of the one hosting the auction so he can contribute an equal amount to them to make his winning the auction a wash.

Lucy: You want me to find an organization that promotes sex?
Matt: This is L.A. You ought to be able to swing a cat and find three or four.
(Goldy: I know! He can contribute to MAPC!)

Later, Lucy comes in and says, "I found you a group. Loving More."
Matt: What's that?
Lucy: They're with the National Polyamory Society.
Matt: Perfect
(Goldy: Woo hoo! (while falling off the couch) OMG!)

Even later, the bidding is at $4000.
Matt looks at Lucy: $4001.
Lucy: $4002 to the sex people?
Matt: Yeah.
When Danny told Jordan to start running, because he was coming for her, I wasn't bothered by it. I know some people found it creepy or inappropriate, but I thought it was cute, and in-character for Danny. However, in Monday, Jordan tells Danny that his reference-letter campaign has embarassed her in front of her peers, is unprofessional, and she asks that he stop. She has a slew of reasons why she does't want to get involved with him besides the not wanting to. She has answered "no" every time he proposes a date, and now she says "please stop." Danny says "No." and walks away.

For me, this has officially stopped being cute or funny. What happened to "no means no" Aaron? If he truly has feelings for her, and he thinks he's falling in love, then respect should be at the top of the list of ways he's going to express his feelings. He should respect her wishes and her person. Danny should grow up. OTOH, the true reason he can't have an adult relationship with a woman is that he's actually in love with Matt, so why am I complaining that he's screwing up with Jordan? Well, the screwing up doesn't bother me, just the disrespect. No always means no, and no one, no matter how cute or clever they are, is entitled to ignore no and create an uncomfortable atmosphere for the object of their desire. That's creepy.
Loving More gets mentioned on broadcast television! YAY!!

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I am so glad somebody else thinks Danny is just creepy at this point! Because, as you said, Jordan very clearly said, 'NO!' It's the sort of arrogant sexism that creeps into Sorkin's shows sometimes, the idea that women are irrational creatures who just need to be coddled and pursued relentlessly until they see reason. The Dating Plan, in Sports Night, comes to mind, as Dana looks crazy at the end of that storyline and Casey comes off as the sympathetic character.

I loved the poly bit, too!

What's really funny is that if you look at the reaction to the Christmas Show ep on my flist, everybody else was saying how creepy Danny had been in the last scene, and i thought I was the only one who wasn't offended by it. I still think that scene was cute, but I think if he'd even said, "I'll stop embarassing you and pursuing you in public, but I'm still coming for you" the last scene of Monday would have been salvageable. But it would depend on the delivery, because I think I'd rather have a public stalker than a private one.

also:
but, but, but. Dana *was* irrational and crazy. She invented the Dating Plan! Casey waited a long time to even approach Dana, he relentlessly pined for her maybe, but he didn't start pursuing until the kiss, and then she chopped him off at the knees afterward with the dating plan. And he agreed to her plan. How is that relentless pursuit?

At least Sorkin doesn't depict women the way Heinlein did. Sheesh.

Okay, you're right about the Dating Plan. It's been a long time since I've seen those eps, and I was just going with the overall impression I have that Dana was constructed as semi-hysterical. Maybe it's just that Sorkin hasn't written an emerging relationship that isn't fucked up in some really strange way, which he doesn't necessarily do with the established ones (Isaac/Esther, Jed/Abbey, at least in the beginning).

Heinlein?

Hey Shosh, I forgot to come back and reply to your guestion!

Heinlein = Robert A. Heinlein, author of numerous sci-fi books, including Stranger in a Strange Land, and Starship Troopers. He is credited widely with the ground-breaking intro of sex into the genre, as well as giving the feminine gender more prominent roles in his stories. Unfortunately, his women, while incredibly smart, capable and talented, are also universally styled as sexy playmates who'll eventually revert back into the feminine stereotypes of the '50s and '60s so the male hero can rescue them in some way. The stories are pretty great, but the characterizations can be pretty annoying in this day and age.

IMO, the thing that saves it is the fact that he's even trying to imagine a world where women are equal, at a time when society would have preferred women to just be June Cleavers. Unfortunately also, in later years, he had a tendency to recycle his plots and devices, so he eventually stopped being interesting.

He sounds interesting. My shelves are literally overflowing with books that I've been meaning to read, but when I clear through my backlog, I'll have to check out some of his early stuff.

Let me know when you're ready and I'll give you some recs, even mail you some books if you want :)

Thanks! That's sweet of you. *hugs*

Warning - party pooper who doesn't know what she's talking about ahead....

I didn't see the show, don't watch the show, and can't comment on the context.

But from the quotes above, it sounds like Loving More and polyamory are portrayed as irresponsible swinging and sex.

What ever happened to "we're not a swing club, dammit"??

Or maybe...just maybe...I don't get it because I don't have a very good sense of humor. :D

I liked it because Matt wanted something that was the opposite of the ridiculous philosophy that you could convince all teens to abstain from sex, especially given that he cited the latest report showing teens who sign abstinence contracts have at least as high a rate of STDs as those who don't.

And, when Lucy said "National Polyamory Society" Matt didn't say "what's that?" He said, "perfect" as if he knew exactly what it meant. I thought that was a cool touch. I bet some people will be scrambling for a definition, because Sorkin's audience tends to be more cerebral than average TV viewers.

Finally, in Sorkinese - everything gets converted into shorthand; if you're not paying attention, you miss out on the terminology big time. So when Lucy says "sex people" it's shorthand for "the sex positive group you'd rather give money to." And I've got no beef with saying polyamorists are sex positive.

Almost forgot to respond to this! :D

And see...that's why I said I didn't know what I was talking about! I'm glad to hear about the "more cerebral than average TV viewers."

One of my concerns was that most people would see a simple dichotomy (abstinence vs irresponsible sex) and not examine the issue any further.

As far as "sex positive" - most definitely!!!

Just worried that polyamory would once again be considered the same as swinging instead of loving relationships that sometimes include positive sex. Those damn fine details, you know.....

Hi folks, your friendly neighborhood poly activist here. For the record, there is no active non-profit called the National Polyamory Society. There is a Polyamory Society website, but that's all it is, a website, and I don't think it's a non-profit.

What Lucy actually says is "LovingMore - they're with the national polyamory movement."

And yes, Matt was looking for a non-profit that promotes sex. They could have more accurately chosen the National Coalition for Sexual Freedom or the Institute for 21st Century Relationships, or the Woodhull Freedom Foundation, all non-profits that advocate for sexual freedom - i.e. whatever goes on between consenting adults that is other than married-monogamy-until-you-die, so that includes poly relationships. Instead they chose LovingMore - maybe they liked the name, maybe a writer or producer is poly or poly friendly and wanted to give polyamory a plug, even if it isn't exactly referenced in the correct context. It's very positive that Polyamory wasn't bashed like it has been on network TV, largely in the 1990s.

The important thing is that the LovingMore name and the phrase "polyamorous movement" were clearly mentioned, hopefully sending scads of viewers to google these for more info.

Best,
Anita Wagner

Thanks for the comments Anita. I'm well aware that there's no "NPS" but I was quoting from memory, and really, I'd been doing so much squeeing during the scene that it doesn't surprise me at all that I mis-remembered the exact dialogue.

My real glee came from Matt saying "perfect" to polyamory without asking what the heck it meant. Like he already knew something about it. The really cool thing is that the topic isn't dropped immediately, as the next episode gets into defining polyamory for the masses *and* making the distinction that the money isn't going to something *purely* sex-related.

I'm happy.

No problem, didn't mean to be critical, just correcting potential misunderstandings.

I'm through the roof happy with this week's episode, they did indeed get it right this time (except Matt's secretary, Suzanne, kept referring to LM as "the sex people.")

Best,
Anita

Studio 60 Pimps Polyamory!

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

No such thing as National Polyamory Society

Re: No such thing as National Polyamory Society

Re: No such thing as National Polyamory Society