Recently, something odd happened here at the Psychology Today cyber-port. A fellow blogger posted a story called "Why open marriages don't work," which was shortly thereafter removed. In response, that blogger posted a new story called, "
Free Speech Under Attack," explaining how her post had been removed by the editorial overseers at PT. Still, the editorial guidelines do clearly state to all authors that PT reserves the right to remove a post at any time.
In the first case, ("Why open marriages don't work" ) the author chose to disable reader comments. As a result no one could agree or disagree with what she had written. Many people chose to write directly to the PT management and the author herself with their responses. In the second case, the author left the comments section open for only a matter of hours, before she not only closed comments but also deleted some of them. I know, because one of those comments was mine. I had written a short thank you note to another commenter named Cormac, who I felt had clearly and succinctly explained her concerns about the post and how difficult it was to argue for free speech if, in fact, comments on a piece (and thus the free flow of ideas) were disabled.
Indeed, if you read the comments under the Free Speech Under Attack piece, you'll see that many of the comments address this very issue (and others). But then, when the author closed comments no one else could respond. True the author did state outright that she would delete libelous or nonsense comments. But neither of these fit my note of gratitude, nor Cormac's detailed letter (which I post below) to which I had responded with thanks. To be clear, I have the utmost respect and appreciation for the editorial decision making here at PT, and was surprised that an author accused the management of attacking free speech at the same time she disabled and (shortly thereafter) deleted comments.
I agree with the author that free speech is critical, and another PT blogger spoke bold and persuasive words underscoring the profound need we all have for the free flow of, and exchange of, ideas in his post Purging a Blogger Who Offends Sets a Very Dangerous Precedent. He also reiterated the value of open comments--that when comments are enabled, people can further examine, dialogue about and critique the ideas that rile some readers up. Then the dialogue itself may deepen the conversation and learning to the point where either an idea is discredited outright or it offers participants a new perspective and understanding they didn't have before.
This is the beauty of the process. Peer-review works. Especially in an arena where new and boundary-pushing ideas are at the fore. Or when people have dangerous and factually wrong information that they choose to publicize. In the first case peer review can widen the scope of critical thinking and help blaze vital pioneering trails. And in the latter, it can staunch a tide of risky ineptitude.
In this particular case, the original post essentially attacked the idea of open marriage, suggesting that it could not work (you can read part of that original post here). Another professional (and PT blogger) has since expounded on that, suggesting that, in fact, open marriages can work sometimes. Her comments are enabled and so people can talk about it. Even the first author in question posted a comment. She wrote, "Comparing the choice of a personal lifestyle (meaning open marriage, my insertion) to homosexuality, which is an aspect of identity and not a lifestyle choice, is specious."
To which the author replied, "some poly people feel it is the same, an aspect of identity, hardwired, not a choice. i don't think we know enough scientifically to be sure either way."
Similarly, at least one conversation ensued on an entirely different website about the "Why open marriages don't work" post--which, in turn, helped readers voice their concerns to the editors at Psychology Today....concerns that one can imagine lead to the removal of the original post. Had these readers been able to post comments in the first place, perhaps there would not have been a removal.
What's more, in that first post about "Why open marriages don't work", the author used a book she had clearly not read as the launching point for her missive on why open marriages can't work. The piece she wrote showed what some readers thought was a surprising lack of professional understanding regarding how other professionals understand "open marriage." Some readers also saw it as very derisive. Further, the NYT's best-selling book she derided is heavily researched and has not only won the 2011 Society for Sex Therapy & Research Consumer Book Award, (which was given to Esther Perel's internationally bestselling Mating in Captivity in 2010), but it was also named as a 2010 favorite book of NPR and Audible.com's Best Book of 2010. [For interested readers, here are two short blog reviews (mine and another) with links to many additional reviews and information. Another PT blogger likewise used this book as a launching point from a very different perspective, to discuss the challenges of Marriage and Sexual Frustrations]
So this brings me to the crux which concerns me most:
Given the tone of her original post (Why open marriages don't work), the disabling of comments, and the outright deletion of commenters' responses to her more recent post "Free Speech Under Attack" the question must be asked, is the author more concerned with free speech, or with curtailing the discussion of open love and mate-sharing in long-term partnerships?
The evidence I see suggests the latter, and for that I am worried (and I do hope I'm wrong, and will find out how wrong I am in my comments section). This is an important conversation--in much the same way that talking about being gay was and is important--that has every freedom-of-speech-right to be hashed out in an open, censorship-free forum. Perhaps especially in a forum such as the one here at Psychology Today where so many bloggers and readers stand at the frontlines of supporting and healing couples and marriages.
So in hopes of opening the lines of communication again, I'm including (with their permission) a letter posted at a different venue that responds to "Why open marriages don't work" and Cormac's response to Free Speech Under Attack that was deleted (others were deleted, too. If yours was one of those, feel free to post it in my comments section).
Perhaps the editors will consider reposting "Why open marriages don't work"... with comments enabled. Then sit back and let our vital right to exchange ideas and information do the work.
Simon & Garfunkel's The Sound of Silence
(Click to the next page to see the letters I've re-posted.)
