The new Polyamory Weekly #127: Radical Ideas on Marriage is up! Direct download is here.

Subscribe now with iTunes one-click!
Please Digg this podcast at Digg’s PW podcast page!

0:00 Introduction and host chat
Intro, under-18 warning and re-direction to;
friend me on Twitter
and answer questions about what you want on the show, call 206-202-POLY with comments.

2:00 Announcement: Many Loves workshop in Chicago, October 20th!
Many Loves: Workshop for Individuals and Families Practicing or Curious About Non-Monogamy. This workshop provides a supportive and safe environment for people to explore issues of non-monogamous practice and identity. Topics to be covered include: stigma management, safer sex issues, physical and emotional intimacy, boundaries, jealousy, cheating and infidelity in non-monogamous relationships, types of non-monogamy within relationships (open relationships, polyamory, etc), families and children, the workplace, resources, social networks and alternative identities.

Saturday, October 20th, from 10AM to 1PM at the Center on Halsted (3656 North Halsted, Chicago, IL 60613). There is a $15 fee for this workshop and you must be aged 18 years or older to attend. Please contact David Rodemaker (472-6469 x 472) with any questions.

3:30 Topic: An Essay on Marriage by Nobilis
Nobilis discusses his ideas on marriage as a contract; what the justifications for and consequences of divorce show about the legal and contract nature of marriage; radical ideas on how to negotiate the marriage contract. Please answer his intriguing question: if you were creating your marriage from scratch with no legal or religious preconceptions, what would YOU put into your marriage contact? Minx wants to know! For his erotica, visit his site.

12:00 Listener feedback: the Seven-Year Itch
James comments that six years is about right–four years for the marriage, and two years to fight to see if they want to stay together; Crispin from Perth, Australia sends in an audio comment on how he pre-arranged the length of his marriage with his wife; Minx comments that what you negotiate now may not be what is important to you in five, ten or 20 years; Nobilis sends an audio comment about using a family contract with a limited term and specified structure

17:30 Listener feedback: Dealing with ex’s socially
James comments on additional factors in how long you should wait before being socially comfortable with your ex; E writes in from the other camp–she doesn’t feel any need to stay in touch with ex’s, but does speak up when she sees unhealthy patterns with the ex and current partner

20:55 Topic follow-up: STD rates in circumcized vs. uncircumsized men
Evan wrote in to comment that male circumcision is associated with reduced risk of genital HPV infection in men whether or not their female partners have cervical HPV or cervical cancer. Circumcision is associated with reduced risk of cervical cancer in women with high-risk sexual partners. In men with low-risk sexual behaviour and monogamous female partners, circumcision makes no difference to the risk of cervical cancer. The actual study is here.

Questions? Comments? Feedback? Email or call the listener comment line at 206-202-POLY. And hey, why not attach an audio comment to that email? 🙂 Check out PolyWeekly at Thanks for listening!


Commenting area

  1. Hello!

    Just listened to the Podcast and I actually know of another study that specifically looks at circumcised vs non-circumcised men and prevalence of HIV.

    Basically – there was a study in Africa being done where the rates of HIV went down so drastically by circumcising men (as adults) that they actually ended the study because they felt it was unethical to not offer the uncircumcised men to be circumcised – that statistically significant. Even more interesting – is that the study found it had to do with that the cells under the foreskin are more receptive to HIV… that is my VERY non-scientific overview. Here is a link to the study and some articles.

    One more point – the question then is, in a society such as America where the rates of HIV are lower, would such a drastic method of increased protection be worth the potential risks of circumcision. Lastly – I think ever person has the right to choose to modify their body – including foreskins. I’ve known a man who had a circumcision as an adult and I’ve known men with foreskins who consider it genital mutilation and wrong.

  2. One more – the Question and Answer section of research

    “9. How could male circumcision prevent HIV infection?

    There are several proposed mechanisms for how male circumcision might reduce a man’s risk of HIV infection. The foreskin’s inner mucosal surface is more susceptible to HIV because it has more immune cells vulnerable to HIV infection than the external surface. Furthermore, the foreskin acts as a physical barrier, trapping HIV next to the mucosal surface of the penis for a longer period of time. In this moist environment, the virus can also survive longer, potentially increasing the risk of infection. Small tears in the foreskin as a result of intercourse could also promote entry of the virus. After circumcision the penile shaft and glans develops more epithelial keratinization, a process which makes the penis less susceptible to viral invasion.”

Comments are now closed for this article.