Guru falls

Al99

Active member

kdt26417

Official Greeter
This is really bad news, and as I see it, a blow to the entire poly community. :( Obviously these women's stories need to be told. Their voices need to be heard.
 

MeeraReed

Active member
I've never particularly liked Franklin's writings. I don't quite understand what they are saying he did, though?
 

Al99

Active member
I've never particularly liked Franklin's writings. I don't quite understand what they are saying he did, though?

I will add that while respecting his very significant contributions to the poly community, I have posted before about personally finding his landmark volume "More Than Two" to be overly opinionated (vs a neutral discussion of the issues) - sometimes to the point of arrogance (as in coming across as a self appointed authority), as well as being overly verbose.

That said, and despite the current situation, I still believe that "More Than Two" is a must read for the committed polyamorist, because even if you disagree with him, the topics and issues he addresses in the book make for great conversation topics and food for thought.

Al
 

Tinwen

Active member
Six women have come forward with stories of experiences with Franklin that do not align with his public persona, his self-described stories of his relationships, or the values stated in his writing. These women include all three of his past nesting partners, as well as the women who have featured most prominently in his personal narratives.
So ... where are there stories? Are we just supposed to believe the writer summing it up?

I'm also rather confused.
 

SEASONEDpolyAgain

Active member
The piece is not investigative journalism, it's someone's (or a quite a few someones') perspective.


http://louisaleontiades.com/polyamorys-metoo/

" In the interests of full disclosure, I am in the final semester of a Masters in Journalism, in Berlin, although I have published many articles and three books (two by Thorntree Press which is co-owned by Franklin Veaux) prior to taking this course"

"I have indeed spent the past months approaching various people and/or potential witnesses in the capacity of a journalist to establish the truth as far as I am able, behind the evolution of the modern polyamory movement (in particular, the role of Franklin Veaux), and done extensive web research in order to corroborate and support the testimonies submitted to me."

He claims that she is a friend of his ex. So it sounds like the ex had some concerns about what happened between them and her friend used her position as a journalist/journalism student to corroborate her experiences with him. They may well have unveiled a predator but I do question how much of this was self-serving. Does that matter? Depends on how true it is. If it's true, it doesn't. If it is a misharacterization of a relationship breakdown, it doesn't seem worth the backlash that will inevitably come to the accusers.
 

icesong

Member
If it is a misharacterization of a relationship breakdown, it doesn't seem worth the backlash that will inevitably come to the accusers.

If it was just one ex, sure, sometimes relationships go toxic and even people who are not systematic abusers do abusive things. But six??
 

dingedheart

Active member
I got a question. 6 out of how many ?? 6 out of a 100 might not tell you much...I mean might not tell you much about abuse. 6 out 8 says something different.

Also like anything else within in a specific community there might be several people not wanting to enter such a public fray. They’ve moved on and wish to leave all that unpleasantness behind them.
 

MayDecember

New member
In addition to this, my work will form part of a thesis which will examine how the growth of an unregulated movement via the internet and social media helped to disguise these behaviours for so long. This thesis will not be published.

If you already know the conclusion before you write the thesis then there is no reason for the thesis, for interviews, for "research". That is just confirmation bias.

This bolded part here is not true. The law does regulate and haul off to prison people who don't adhere to it, like prohibiting poly marriages in the first place. Go ahead and put your two wedding licenses on facebook. You are going to jail.

The statement has a hue of "prior restraint", that we should "regulate" what is put out on the internet, to protect people. When this very woman used the internet and social media to do this work! She *gasp* used the unregulated internet and social media!

Well it just doesn't go far enough. We don't need to regulate Poly people's speech and activity on the internet. We need to regulate everyone. This woman should not be able to put out this material without being "regulated" first.

The Church Committee proved we have a lot more to worry about with government using its power to control speech than with people lying or hurting others because they are assholes.

It looks at a glance to be an exercise in drawing the wrong conclusion. She may be right that her subject is a manipulative, predatory con man. He's a pretender compared to the standards in the field like Jim Jones, boy he whacked a thousand people. Pol Pot - a third of his country. Stalin, Mao, tens of millions each.

Every one of them regulating speech in their area of rule. Every one of them championing the poor, wretched victim-people they were, uh, victimizing themselves. Hypocrisy on the mass-murdering scale.

Being an expert in the study of one man on the internet does not make one Jefferson, Adams, or Lincoln.

It was her right to go through his published work, contact people, and interview them. Then put her work out in disagreement with her target.

But this problem of manipulating people with speech is culture-wide and the most dangerous perpetrator is the state itself.

She does not realize in this thesis statement the cure is more free speech, not less. More people to point out dangerous ideas and harmful people as she is claiming to do herself.
 
Last edited:

icesong

Member
I don't think that's what the author meant at all - what she meant was that there was no top-down definition of "this is what polyamory is and isn't and here's how one should do it" and different people were exposed to it and took away different approaches from social media. Certainly the varying relationship models on this board prove that...
 

MeeraReed

Active member

SEASONEDpolyAgain

Active member
I think that reads as someone with poor boundaries lamenting over a relationship that exploited those poor boundaries. Incompatibility does seem to be an issue too. For example:
"You are not jealous or insecure or possessive or controlling, you know how to build relationships with your metamours, you know how to communicate and manage expectations and de-escalate group conflict, you know how to feel compersion."

For a lot of poly people who have perfectly healthy relationships, none of this would be relevant. They don't have those metamour relationships and there isn't any "group conflict" because there isn't any "group".

I've seen people who continually exploit boundaries meet people who won't allow it and it's meant you don't see that ugly side any more.

Franklin appears to be a guy who attracts women with poor boundaries and benefits from it in those relationships. I think there is an element of Eve blaming him for choices she made to sustain their relationship. I've been there - for example - feeling resentful for turning down a job for a relationship that didn't last much longer. That was my choice and I learned to stop blaming them for it after some guided reflection.
 

opalescent

Active member
SEASONEDpolyagain, you just blamed Eve Rickert and all the many women coming forward for their own abuse. That’s victim blaming and it’s not ok.

I’ve been gaslighted and manipulated by a partner. I am good at setting boundaries. But that didn’t prevent them from reeling me in. Now I have no contact with that person. But no amount of good boundary management on my part would have made their manipulation of me acceptable. Abuse doesn’t magically stop or never happen because the person being abused enforces boundaries.
 

SEASONEDpolyAgain

Active member
SEASONEDpolyagain, you just blamed Eve Rickert and all the many women coming forward for their own abuse. That’s victim blaming and it’s not ok.

I’ve been gaslighted and manipulated by a partner. I am good at setting boundaries. But that didn’t prevent them from reeling me in. Now I have no contact with that person. But no amount of good boundary management on my part would have made their manipulation of me acceptable. Abuse doesn’t magically stop or never happen because the person being abused enforces boundaries.

From what Eve said, that isn't abuse. Taking her money and preventing her access to funds is financial abuse. Your partner cajoling you into spending an inordinate amount of money to sustain the relationship is not.

My point is that obviously, from what she said, there was friction over his other partners (likely he neglected her during NRE), for other people, their mindset means they just wouldn't feel that way about it. They'd either be happy with what he offers or move on. No friction or crying at night - just accept the incompatibility and end the relationship. Or adjust their expectations.

Same with metamours, if KTP is never a goal for you, or you even specifically prohibit it in your relationships, then a lot of what she had issues with won't even be relevant.

My point is that I don't think Eve's story reads as "red flags" for Franklin. Not any more than it reads as "red flags" for her. I don't think it's an account of abuse so much as a relationship that became abusive for the people in it as it didn't meet their needs. Additionally, the tone of "this will happen to you" comes across as jealous and bitter rather than concerned for new parties.
 

Tinwen

Active member
There are some red-ish flags.
Consistently choosing women decades younger.
The money thing. (Which is not so much about the money, rather imbalance in the give and take of the relationship.)
His exes and common friends cutting contact.

So yeah, probably not the most healthy person to date. I do believe her.

Still, I must wonder a little bit. If a person has had multiple relationships, and you gather the exes, won't you be able to point out unhealthy patterns ... for pretty much anyone?
 
Top