Just getting out of a divorce and considering dating again, I felt like your story (“Savvy, Sexy, Single,” May 2008) was written especially for me. It was fun to read, and I was impressed by the insight of your local experts. It helped shed some light on the otherwise murky world of dating and relationships. And the idea that chemistry is a matter not only of attraction but of equality certainly helps me as I try this whole thing again. I don’t usually write a response to articles—I just really enjoyed this one! I’d actually love for there to be a series of articles on dating in Portland.
Shadi May Boudreau
Not in my house
As a reader from Vancouver, I was excited to get a magazine that kept me up-to-date on what was happening in the Portland and Vancouver area. But the last two issues have caused me to ask to cancel my subscription.
Your April issue contained the article “Tangled Up in You and You and You…” about swinging couples in Portland. I had to tear it out so my teenaged children would not read it. Then the May issue came out containing “Savvy, Sexy, Single: A Three-Step Guide to Getting Exactly What You Want.” Though not as bad as the [article in the] April issue, this still is not the type of reading material I want my children to look at. The pictures alone send messages that I believe are not appropriate for children. In the article, Stacey Wilson writes, “Commitment doesn’t just mean a trip to the altar anymore.” That was too much for me. Once again, I had to tear out this article so my children wouldn’t read it.
Maybe I am close-minded, but I do know that my children and I do not need this magazine in my house anymore. I’m sad, but I must ask for a refund.
I appreciated Bart Blasengame’s article “Tangled Up in You and You and You…” in the April edition of your magazine. His somewhat open-minded exploration of the concept of polyamory, tempered with his personal honesty over the nefarious characterization he had long given this lifestyle, gave a well-balanced glimpse at this growing trend. However, he did leave out a contingent of polyamorous playmates: online polyamory facilitated by virtual chat rooms or virtual worlds like Second Life (www.secondlife.com). These relationships are sometimes considered safe explorations of intimacy, since there is typically no physical meeting of the individuals. However, the darker side is that many folks are dabbling in this emotional lifestyle while not sharing their actions with their spouses or partners.
“The other adoptions failed because the birthparents were too attached, a problem from which this woman obviously did not suffer,” wrote Stacy Bolt (“Labor of Love,” P-Town Diary, March 2008).
As a birthmother, I am highly offended by the opinion that being too attached to one’s own flesh and blood is a problem. Yes, it was painful for her to learn that one after another, two expectant mothers had decided to parent their own children [instead of putting them up for adoption], but as the mothers of those children, they had every right to be attached to them and to change their minds. The third child—well, fathers are parents too, and no matter what he did to wind up in that prison, it does not take that right away from him.
A pregnant woman and the father of the child are expectant parents, no matter what plans are being made for the child after birth. Until those papers are signed, that baby belongs to them and no one else.
I do not usually do this, but I was struck by something I read in the May issue of the magazine. In the editor’s note (“Mission (Barely) Possible”), you talk about how hard it was to get the pictures [for “The Hidden Coast,” May 2008] due to the weather. You describe the fact that your photographer logged 1,400 miles in his car over a few days. In this day and age that is not something to brag about. With global warming, and the need for conservation, one would think you would try to be a responsible environmental citizen.
This article appeared in the June 2008 issue of Portland Monthly.