509 - Frank Smith Gets Real about Queer Polyamory
Welcome back, Frank!
Frank Arthur Smith is back on the show to talk about his comedy series, non-monogamy in queer media, and much, much more! He was last on the show for episode 413 to talk about Open To It, his LGBTQIA+ comedy series.
Frank is a queer writer/director/actor/producer originally from Boston. He was most recently staffed on children's comedy OCEAN EXPLORERS on YouTube. Previously, he wrote on Disney Channel’s RAVEN’S HOME.
He also starred in Episode 5 of Emmy Award-nominated TIDYING UP WITH MARIE KONDO on Netflix. His LGBTQIA+ comedy series, OPEN TO IT, in which he stars, writes, directs, and Executive Produces, debuted at Outfest, the largest queer film festival in the world, and received over 1 million views online, before being acquired by OUTtv, a Canadian cable channel available in over 15 million homes, and US streaming service with over 1 million subscribers. The show can be seen worldwide at opentoitseries.com and features RUPAUL'S DRAG RACE stars Manila Luzon, Laganja Estranja, Honey Davenport, and Pandora Boxx, as well as Deaf drag queen influencers, Deafies in Drag.
Today, Frank talks about the following topics with us surrounding polyamory and the relationship dynamics of non-monogamy:
In Episode 4, you tackle the theme of feeling left out when a partner prefers someone else. How common is this issue in real non-monogamous relationships?
Shame and struggles with body image in the queer community.
What are some early signs that preference or favoritism might be developing in a triad or other multi-partner dynamic?
How can someone address feelings of being left out without coming across as possessive or controlling?
In your experience, what are some healthy ways to balance attention and affection among multiple partners?
How do you think this issue manifests differently in queer couples compared to other relationship structures?
What advice would you give to someone who feels they're always the "least preferred" partner in their relationships?
How can partners work together to ensure everyone feels valued and included?
He also tackles the topics of jealousy and communication within non-monogamous relationships:
Episode 11 deals with reconciling jealousy despite claiming to be "above it.” Can you tell us a little more about what comes up in that episode and what inspired it?
How can someone distinguish between healthy concern and unhealthy jealousy?
How do the characters in "Open To It" navigate these feelings? Are there lessons viewers can apply to their own lives?
In Episode 4, Cam is hurt by Greg's solo hookup and missed performance. How crucial is open communication in situations like this?
What are some common communication pitfalls in non-monogamous relationships, and how can people avoid them?
How can partners create a safe space for vulnerable conversations about jealousy and insecurity?
What role does self-reflection play in addressing jealousy in non-monogamous relationships?
Lastly, Frank offers some practical advice about non-monogamy by answering these questions:
Frank, you've mentioned that you and your partner Matt have learned some valuable lessons. Can you share some insights about maintaining "even ground" in partnerships?
You've said you rarely see people solo. Can you elaborate on why that works for you? How might others decide if this approach is right for them?
How do you use group text threads to keep everyone on the same page? What other tools or practices have you found helpful for maintaining transparency?
For our listeners who might be struggling with jealousy or feeling left out, what concrete steps can they take to address these feelings?
How can people set and respect boundaries in non-monogamous relationships without feeling like they're being too restrictive?
What are some strategies for building and maintaining trust among all partners in a non-monogamous dynamic?
How can someone new to non-monogamy start developing the emotional skills needed for these complex relationship structures?
What's the most important lesson you've learned about maintaining healthy non-monogamous relationships that you wish you'd known earlier?
Find Frank on TikTok and Instagram @frank.arthur.smith and check out his comedy series’ Instagram @opentoitseries!
Transcript
This document may contain small transcription errors. If you find one please let us know at info@multiamory.com and we will fix it ASAP.
Jase: On this episode of the Multiamory Podcast, we're talking about non-monogamy in queer media with writer, director, actor and producer, Frank Arthur Smith. His LGBTQIA+ comedy series Open to It debuted at Outfest, which is the largest queer film festival in the world, has received over a million views online before it was acquired by OUTtv, a Canadian cable channel available in over 15 million homes, as well as a US streaming service with over 1 million subscribers. The show can be seen worldwide at opentoitseries.com. Frank, welcome to the show again. It's good to have you back.
Frank: Thank you for having me. It was important to come out as monogamous, so thank you. This is a brave part of my journey.
Dedeker: Oh, yes. Is this your press release that you're putting out, your press conference?
Frank: I am close to it. Yes.
Jase: We had you on the show before when the series had first come out right around that time. That was episode 413 back in March of last year. Where I wanted to start us off here is in reading the longer version of your bio that you sent over, that you were recently a staff writer on a children's comedy series called Ocean Explorers, which was on YouTube, as well as you've been a writer for Raven's Home on the Disney Channel. What's the deal with writing children's content and then writing a very adult show, like Open to It, with swearing and sex and very mature themes?
Frank: The age old, for love or for money. Honestly, it's interesting. I do love writing kids TV actually as well. I just have, I think, both facets to my personality where I couldn't just do one or the other. I need to be able to swear and take my shirt off sometimes.
Jase: What's that shift like, moving from a writing room and sessions, working on children's content versus this? They're both comedies, so I'd imagine there's some things that are similar, but are there parts that you have to really shift your brain into a different mode to do it or is it actually less different than we all think?
Frank: It might surprise you to know that doing children's comedy has made me a better adult comedy writer for the reason that one of my friends once described it, and this sounds pejorative, but I mean it in an affirming way, writing kids TV is like writing with one hand tied behind your back because you can't do a lot of what we're talking about. You can't have swears, you can't have adult references and stuff. If you're going to make people laugh, you really need to make it about the characters and their interplay and just that age old, they have opposite personalities and they bump heads and it's funny.
I carry that into my adult comedy where, yes, I have more toys I can play with, but ultimately, it is about characters with opposite personalities bouncing off each other. I think it's easy to forget that. I would argue there are some very adult things that don't succeed because they're leaning too hard into the dick jokes and stuff and forgetting the humanity that makes it really work.
Dedeker: Sure. Gosh, that reminds me of all of my college years watching everything that Adult Swim had to offer and remembering the few gems and a lot of flops for sure.
Emily: You've been on the show before, but for people out there who haven't listened to that episode, can you just give us an overview of what Open To It is about?
Frank: No. Go listen to old episodes, do the back catalog, be fans of Multiamory. Come on. Open To It, it's indeed an adult comedy series about a couple that's experimenting with an open relationship, but it's a take that's very silly and sexy because I found the world of polyamory, both heterosexual and queer, to be very serious and heavy in a lot of media. I wanted to show a take that was more life-affirming and just letting people laugh at the silly moments that arise because a lot of silly moments arise. A lot of limbs, a lot of fluids.
Jase: I do think that's something that is really striking in watching the show compared to a lot of other content out there, is that it is a comedy, it is light, but it's like, you'll still run into awkward situations, but I feel like people are able to laugh some things off quicker. What I've been trying to figure out is, is it actually a great example of more real life examples of if you've got a good healthy base for your relationship, you can laugh off a lot of stuff that might be this serious earth-shattering problem in a less stable relationship or is it repairing a little too fast for the sake of comedy? Like how people in comedies insult each other horribly all the time and no one gets too upset about it.
I've been trying to figure out because there's a certain amount of realism to it when I watch the main couple in terms of how quickly they can lighten the mood with a little bit of a joke and get back into caring for each other. There's something about that that's a little bit inspiring of like, "Yes, that is how it goes sometimes," and I'd like it to be like that more often. I'm just curious, how does that compare with your real-life experiences?
Frank: I think the show is aspirational for my relationship too, but for anybody. It's funny because I think as the show's progressed, I really have tried to make it more what you were saying of still keeping it light but not laughing off things too easily. When I was on, only the first three episodes were out and now episodes 4 through 7 are out with the rest to debut very soon. Episode 4 in a way is a direct response to three because my character does betray his partner by missing something important of his to have a hookup. They do just laugh it off by the end because that was all that I'd produced at the time.
Then when we were able to do three more episodes and conclude the season, I also heard the feedback from people who were like, "I feel like he got off really easily." I was like, "Okay, all right. Heard." I appreciate when people can give thoughtful feedback and I like to take that in and better my art, so episode 4 really is centered around now his feet are being held to the fire a little more for like, "No, that really wasn't cool." We got to have both of my character's boyfriend gets some funny revenge in, but by the end, they have a serious talk about like, "I need you to know how that wasn't cool and can't happen again."
Dedeker: How much are you drawing from your personal experiences?
Frank: Not as much anymore. The first three episodes are loosely based off things that happened to Matt and me, but Princeton is really just a composite of three different people that I encountered. Then from episodes 4 on, it really has been just inspired by the characters and what I think they would do, so Greg has really moved away from my own life. Thank goodness because my life isn't as interesting as his. Well, in a good way. I wouldn't want to get into the mess as he does. There's a pride special out now and I have not punched a bigot in the face before, unfortunately. That's a forthcoming life goal.
Dedeker: All right. Well, it's never too late.
Emily: You got to get on that though. Really.
Frank: It just happened naturally where I still have things I insert from time to time. I have been to a naked party and so there are elements of that that are in the show. Episode 11 is the naked party episode and sometimes people do just creep up to you without saying anything. That has happened and I was like, "I'm putting that in because it's funny." I wouldn't say whole storylines are borrowed from my life anymore.
Dedeker: Even, I think that at least what I've noticed on the writer side is I think there's been a big cultural conversation the past couple of years and many, many op-eds and long Atlantic pieces about writers starting to get into more and more hot water for even cribbing a little bit of stuff, like details from their personal life.
I'm wondering for you, the stuff that you have written that's inspired by your own personal challenges or situations you've run into, how much of that did you have to negotiate with people or just like, "Okay, I'm going to make this composite and hope that no one recognizes themselves." Which is definitely something that I've done. What's been your approach to that or has there been any ripple effects of doing that in your personal life?
Frank: Yes, one guy did recognize it was him actually.
Dedeker: Awkward.
Frank: That was an awkward conversation for sure. I invited it because I invited him to the first screening ever, so perhaps I should have realized he would figure out it was him. He was surprised and was like, "Hey, in the future you might want to run it by people," but also he was like, "You did anonymize it, nobody would know." He did think it was funny. Now he announces it to people upfront. He's like, "Have you seen Frank's show? This episode's about me." I'm like, "Oh my." Fortunately, the person who recognized it, he's all about it. It's become a running joke where I'm like, "Nobody was asking you this."
Jase: Right.
Emily: Funny. The three of us, I feel like, come a little bit more from the lens of non-monogamy and polyamory in slightly more of a heterosexual context. Would you say hookups and threesomes and just having sex outside of a main relationship tends to be a little bit more of the norm in gay culture?
Frank: It's certainly not as taboo as I perceive it to be in the heterosexual world. Though that's certainly changing, I think, with time where people can be more open about being open. I think it's just, for me, when people sometimes ask, "Why do you think there's a higher incidence of non-monogamy?" to me, it's always been because comes from non-acceptance early on and obviously, not complete acceptance now even, but because we weren't allowed into certain spheres like the married world, we were like, "Okay, well, if we're not allowed to exhibit our love in a traditional way, who says we have to do anything in a traditional fashion?"
That can extend to things like not having children, for instance, or just having multiple partners. That there aren't any predefined ways of what being queer and in love is, and so why not do it the way that feels right for you? I've always said, as long as there's consent and communication between adult partners, then do what feels right. It's when they're not fully agreeing and not fully communicating about it that the issue arises.
That being said, I think because there's this stereotype of, everyone's chill about being open, then if you're not that person, you can be feel bad because you're like, "Am I a square that I want a monogamous partner? Is that bad?" I've had friends ask that out loud and I'm like, "Of course not. You're square to me, but not to the world."
Jase: Well, that actually brings up something that I wanted to mention, is that, in general with this show, and I feel like I've noticed this to be true in a lot of gay media specifically, that there's this overconfidence that people put on of that talking about how hot they are or having this like, "Oh, sure. I know you want some of this." There's this bravado to it, this overconfidence.
A lot of the characters have that in this show, making jokes about that, but then every now and then we'll have moments where they'll level with each other, even right after a scene of being very confident about themselves hooking up with another couple, then talking to each other about some of the baggage they still hang onto about feeling like they were less attractive when they were younger or baggage they hung onto about being told they were bad for being queer or that God wasn't going to like that or something.
I'm just curious about your experience of that outward overconfidence. Is that more of just an attitude way of joking or flirting or is that something that comes from you as a way of coping with things or what are you going for with that in a character?
Frank: I don't cope, I'm fine, Jase. God, get off my dick.
Yes, I perceive it to be a lot of the time bravado, to be honest. I think that's why I like the characters having these vulnerable moments with their partners and with their friends because there's so many things you can be in this world where you experience invalidation along the way and queer is but one of many.
I think you do have to develop some kind of a thicker skin in order to cope with certain frustrations that get in your way, and often that's around appearance. Because you're like, "Oh, well, if I'm beautiful, then no one can take me down because I have that." Sometimes the beauty does come at a cost. I do share some history with Greg where I was not what would be perceived gay in shape for a lot of my life. One straight friend even one time told me, "You're straight average, so you're gay fat." I was like, "Wow, you don't get to use that label. Not cool."
Emily: Damn. He is rough.
Frank: I have encountered, even as of this week, some truly beautiful fit people who when you crack the nut a little, do not see themselves that way. It's heartbreaking because you want everyone to know what a fine fox they are, but you also I think learn not to judge people by their appearance in that way of, just because they look a certain way doesn't mean they see themselves that way and feel the way they look.
Jase: Yes. Have you seen the show Uncoupled I think is what it's called?
Frank: No, I haven't watched it yet. What'd you think?
Jase: I can't remember if I finished the first season or not. What I enjoyed about it, so just for backstory, is that it's a stars Neil Patrick Harris, and basically, amongst all of his gay friends, he's the single one that people are trying to find someone to date. It's a dating comedy drama kind of thing.
What I think is interesting about it is that I feel like his character really shows up as the, "I'm not confident about how I look," and really feels that. I just noticed that is in contrast to, I feel like, the way that gay characters are usually portrayed in media, is generally having a little more confidence about how fabulous and great they are. I did think that was an interesting take. That on that show, it is more about a little bit his lack of self-confidence in some ways. Even though I think most of us would look at Neil Patrick Harris and think that's a very attractive man.
Frank: Yes. When he's been deemed the ugly one, you know it's all over.
Frank: No, I think it's wish fulfillment, is part of it too. I think Princeton is often people's favorite character because he just runs through the world being like, "I am hot shit and I know it." He gets all these characters, he plays the third on the show for those of you who are foolish enough not to have watched Open To It yet. Then in season 2, especially, his vulnerability shows a lot where you see despite being beautiful and being able to get whatever hookup he wants, he is perpetually single and perpetually alone and is trying to figure out why he's not being taken seriously even when he's laying his heart out there. As a crazy rich girlfriend would say, fit hot guys have problems too.
Jase: Nice.
Dedeker: Is that the truth?
Jase: Yes.
Dedeker: Well, I think that's a good transition to talking a little bit about the triad dynamics that you're exploring with this particular season of the show.
Frank: Yes, so in figuring out where to take it next, season 1 ends on a cliffhanger of, are they closed after all or are they going to keep being open? Of course, in the season 2, we're not showing to be monogamous. That'd be weird. Although Jane the Virgin, she wasn't a virgin anymore, so we could have done that. In season 2, they're trying to figure out, the guys, what they want out of being open and why they sought it in the first place. What feels right for them is something that is a little more relationship-y. They don't just want hookups.
Which is funny because when I envisioned the show, I really thought it was just going to be a hookup of the week kind of thing and just rotate people in and out. Then Jason, who plays Princeton, just really worked his way into my heart. I thought he was so funny and so affecting as the character. Then weirdly enough, the show changed from being a will they, won't they of the main couple because so often people are like, "Are they going to break up over polyamory?" I never wanted that, but then I was like, "Oh, I think it's actually a will they, won't they with Princeton the third?"
Are they supposed to end up with him or are they on their own journey? He comes in and out of their lives in the second season while they're trying to find a more permanent partner and by season's end, not to spoil too much, but maybe that's answered, maybe it's not. You'll have to watch and find out.
Jase: Oh shit. I can't spoil it for you because I've not finished watching season 2. I've just watched some of it. I know. Terrible. Something I did find was really interesting is that as the show's progressed, we've also dealt a lot more with the other characters and the other relationships, like their next-door neighbors, the lesbian couple and what their relationship dynamic is as they see their friends open up their relationship.
It raises that question of like, "Should we be doing this? Is this a thing we should do? " Them wrestling with those questions, as well as at times following Princeton and being in his conversations with other people that's not centering those original couples at all. I do like that we're getting to explore a lot of different experiences with different characters.
Frank: Thank you. I think it was important for me to show the women, one, just because in queer media I think I was like, "I definitely want to show female sexuality alongside male sexuality," but also that you can see polyamorous people all around you and it can still not necessarily feel right for you and wanting to explore what that would be like.
Emily: Absolutely. Do you think that you can find early signs of preference or a favoritism happening in something like a triad relationship? Because I believe that's something that you explore, that one character starts to have feelings or favoritism for one part of the triad over the other.
Frank: Yes, in my experience it's always been fairly clear right away. There's, obviously, the physical aspect of it, but also you just see how people click with one another and what their personalities are. That's why for Matt and me it became a rule that when we find a partner, we have to all be on the same text thread because I think when things were going awry, there was too much offlining. It's not that anything illicit was happening, it was just that, suddenly, there was more bonding, more jokes, people were being left out and not understanding references, and I was seeing how it's easy for that sort of triangle to crumble if one direction is being massaged more than the other.
Dedeker: Right.
Jase: That's interesting to put it that way in terms of staying in on the in-jokes, or the references, or things like that that are made. I could definitely see how that makes sense, where if we were always together in person, even if there is more chemistry between certain people, everyone still experiences the jokes and has an opportunity to be in on it. With our digital communication, it can be this like, "Well, mine all happens in this vacuum of just text with this one person that you, even if I'm sitting next to you while I'm doing it, you're not observing that conversation, that communication in the same way."
Frank: Yes, and here I was, thinking I was doing everybody a favor by being like, "I'm the social organizer. I'm the scheduler." Great, but inevitably, as you're setting dates, you'll send a meme, or you'll mention like, "Hey, last night was great," and then there is personal conversation that arises that then the other partner isn't privy to. I was just noticing how that made a difference once or twice, and was like, "All right. Let's not do that anymore." It wasn't anybody's fault. Nobody was trying to be like, "Ha, ha, now I have him. Let me text the best joke ever," but things happen.
Emily: That's a very specific way in which you practice non-monogamy, or is that not something that you're doing anymore?
Frank: No, that was something that became a conscious choice for Matt and me, is, even if one of us meets a person first, and sometimes how it presents for us is, we almost always do things together, but if someone's out of town or something, then it might be just a one-on-one thing. Then as quickly as doesn't feel thirsty, to transition it to a group hang and then a three-way text thread.
Emily: Nice.
Jase: "As soon as doesn't seem thirsty." That's--
Frank: It's like, "I want you to meet my man. Quick. I don't want to be in trouble." It's not like that.
Emily: There you go, yes.
Jase: That's actually something worth looking at a little bit, too, in terms of where the show might be going in the future is that, from your own experience, like you said, mostly you're a couple, and then you'll play with other people or maybe have dates separately sometimes but not usually. So far, it seems like that's most of what the couples, what all of the couples on the show have been doing. I'm curious if that's something you've thought about at all in terms of different types of non-monogamy that could show up with the characters?
Frank: I think for Elsa and Reggie, the lesbians, originally I envisioned that Elsa would be exploring that more than Reggie, but as we went along, that didn't quite feel right anymore. I see what you're saying of like that was a storyline I tended to explore, like one partner's doing it, and the other one's like, "Have fun. I'll see you later." Actually, no, now I'm remembering, I'm like, "Yes," so we are exploring that in a different couple in season 3 because I don't think it felt right for Elsa and Reggie.
With the new character in season 2, Kat, she has a girlfriend, Olive, where now they have that dynamic, and Kat is seeing people on her own and Olive is just super chill and like, "Whatever. I don't care," very happy-go-lucky. What ends up happening in season 3, which is still being written, but the intention is for Kat to come back from a date and see Olive really friend-bonding with someone, and then to flip it on set and she's jealous that Olive is forming friendships while she's out hooking up, and it's like, "Oh no, I'm missing out on something."
Jase: Wow. That's awesome. I like that. Also, showing that a more queer platonic-type relationship can be really significant and can be really serious for people.
Frank: Arguably, to Kat, is more threatening than if she'd walked in on her just banging it out, her having a soulful conversation is more upsetting.
Emily: That's fascinating.
Jase: That's a great thing to explore because I think that can really surprise people when that comes up in real life.
Emily: Can we touch on that a little bit more, the different flavors of jealousy that maybe come out amongst the characters, especially in episode 11, dealing with this reconciling jealousy despite claiming to be above it all, or above the jealousy, or any of those conflicting feelings that may happen? What are other ways that characters get jealous on the show?
Frank: For very light spoilers, only to get you all to watch it, episode 11 is called Open to Naked Parties, and Matt, my fiancé who works on the show with me as my co-showrunner, he wrote and directed this episode, so you know it's great. What happens there is the guys are going to Princeton's naked pool party to figure out where they stand with him, and they run into a past hookup, Jasper, who's deaf. Inevitably, things happen, and then Jasper and Princeton come face to face, and it's a whole explosion. I think Princeton is surprised in that moment by how jealous he is of Jasper's relationship with them.
We see that earlier in the season too. I think he's continually surprised by how, for someone who I think he feels so self-assured and independent, that I think he craves partnership very much, and he feels it with the two of them. Then to see someone else having the bond that he wants to have, and through a language barrier, because only Greg signs in the relationship, so it is a little tougher for them to converse. They figure out their ways, but I think that's hard for him to see right in front of him at a pool party that was designed to just have everyone come and worship.
Jase: Right. Now that makes sense, especially if it's supposed to be centered around him. Actually, that's one of the things I wanted to ask about was the episode where Jasper is introduced, who's played by Jared DeBusk, I think is how you say his last name. One thing I noticed is that he's also a sign language consultant for shows. I looked a little bit at Jared's IMDB and some of the other projects he's been involved with, and I've noticed one of the things that's interesting about some of the projects he's been involved with is how the subtitles are done for when signing is going on.
I watched a video that he had up there where the subtitles would show up where the hand gestures were, and would also show up in the screen in the order they were signed rather than the order we would present the words in spoken English. Like sometimes you'll say the end part before the beginning part, just the word order would be different, how sentences are constructed. I noticed there was a little bit of that going on in Open To It as well, that the subtitles in that section were not just appearing normally, they were fading in in a different order. Is that the same thing that was going on there? I don't know ASL well enough to know for sure if that was accurate.
Frank: Yes. It's a two-part thing there, and I'm really impressed you observed that. One was to show the order in which the words are showing for people who were unfamiliar with sign language as to give them a quick preview of that, but also because Greg is rusty with his sign language at the time, to show how he's receiving it and how it's hard for him to put together the sentence because he's like, "It's been a while. Oh, right," and he's not connecting it fast yet.
Jase: Got it. I wondered about that. That's really interesting. Then he makes mistakes and gets corrected and stuff. I just thought that that scene was really cute and fun in the way that everyone's trying to make everyone else feel comfortable, and everyone's a little nervous about it, not quite sure what to do, but he comes in, he's like, "It's all right, guys. Here we go. We're going to have this experience as a first time for all of us to do this exact configuration."
I enjoyed that in that particular scene, I kept worrying because I'm watching a sex comedy, and I'm like, "Something's going to go horribly wrong here. What's going to be the terrible thing that happens?" and it's like, "Oh, no, this was actually just really cute," and seeing that relationship, then Princeton gets upset about that. I just thought that was a cool example of how you can also be exploring other new things that's not just, "Oh, a threesome for the first time, a foursome for the first time," but it's like, "Oh, we're also doing this other thing that's new to us."
Frank: Thank you. I think that was something that I really cared about was, it started from just like, "Huh, they haven't had a hookup. It hasn't had a weird quirk about it in a while," at the end of the day, so I was like, "I just want to do that."
Dedeker: To go a little too smoothly for--
Frank: Kind of, and I was like, "You know what? They deserve a smooth night. I don't want the drama of the episode to be theirs." I'd loved working with Jared on episode 5 and just thought that would be a cool dynamic to explore as like, "Oh, when you have an interabled threesome, what does that look like?" Jared deserves a lot of credit because he definitely gave me input on like, "If you show--"
He's now very happily married, but at the time when he was single, being like, "Okay, if you showed up to a hook-up with a hearing guy, what would that be like?" He was like, "Oh, we'd text or we'd write stuff down," and I was like, "Oh, the writing stuff down. I could work with that. That feels funny." Jared is an ASL teacher by day and also when he's not acting, and taught me how to speak it, or sign ASL. He clearly didn't teach me how not to be a dummy on podcasts.
Frank: He definitely was influential in how that storyline evolved. I love working with him. He's a good friend. It's just cool that, like I've said before, I can communicate in that language, roughly because of him.
Emily: That's so cool.
Jase: That's awesome. That's really cool. I have a friend who, she's always very passionate anytime she sees good, accurate portrayals of deaf characters on TV, especially when they're actually played by deaf actors, which is true in this case as well. I was thinking of her. I'm like, "I need to show her this episode and see what she thinks." I'm sure she'll be excited about that.
Frank: It was a wonderful experience, the whole episode, because we also had a deaf director, Jules Dameron, who really just brought a very-- I think, in a lot of ways, he was a great choice for the episode because he identifies more with drama, and so was willing to explore that emotional layer of this particular storyline. Then we also had a whole ASL interpreting crew because we had a few deaf people on set and multiple hearing casting crew came up to me after and I'd never experienced anything like that because you would have an interpreter, a body man almost for the deaf individuals.
Then you also have people around the room because the set is a big place, and so you need to communicate messages all over. Almost like hot potato, the messages getting passed around the room so everyone can be clued in. I think that was very unique for most people who were arriving there and I think gave us an appreciation of what it takes to create an inclusive set. We're also a low-budget indie, so it made me feel a little indignant of like, "If I can do it, you big productions can step up."
Dedeker: Sure. That fair.
Jase: Yes, that's a great point.
Dedeker: That's fair. I want to zoom out a little bit because I'm curious if when you were setting out to first write this show, are there any tropes in queer media or tropes in non-monogamy representation that you were hoping to avoid? I know you mentioned the whole everything's all serious all the time. That seems like that's one of them, but any others?
Frank: Yes, I think I didn't want to dangle a breakup ever. I wanted the main couple to be rock solid and that they have their lessons to be learned all the time, but that the drama does not come from breaking up or not, the drama comes from other people because other people bring drama. Additionally, just that I didn't want it to ever be like they were cheating on one another. That just wasn't interesting to me.
I feel like you see that all the time. I don't think polyamory and cheating go hand in hand. It obviously happens, of course, but I think their relationships were just you have missteps that are more about misunderstandings and ingrained beliefs than I'm going to go have sex with someone without my partner knowing and try to hide it. I think there's just a lot more to it than that.
Emily: Do you feel like non-monogamous and gay representation has gotten better in media over the years? We did actually a tour in 2018 where we had a ton of non-monogamous media in our episode that we did live for our tour. We put a ton of different non-monogamous media in that episode at the time. I think it was a lot better than it has been than we did in an episode previously a few years before that. I just wonder, do you see anything out there that is getting even better, and where do you want it to go from here too?
Frank: Yes, I think it's talked about a lot more, which is great. We've done a lot of queer film festivals and even a few heterosexual ones.
Dedeker: Wow.
Frank: I know, we're groundbreaking, truly. I think that you see it all the time, which is great. I still feel the boundary I want to break more is that it's still used as a tool for drama and I would like to see it used as a tool for comedy a little more and/or just incidental. That a character happens to be polyamorous and that's not a focus of the storyline, just how people rooted for-- I think that's when you have true acceptance of a character's gay or a character's disabled, and the storyline isn't all about that. It's just that is but a facet of their character. I think that just makes for more interesting media to me.
Jase: I love that. I feel like that's always the thing I keep waiting for is when we can have those portrayals where that's not the focus of their character, that just happens to be a trait of theirs and it's more about these other aspects, so that's great. Maybe this show will get there at some point. Maybe they'll become comfortable enough that the drama becomes all these other things.
Frank: I know, yes, I go back and forth on that, of what does the audience want to see from this? Because I had an episode planned that I didn't go forward with where I was going to have Princeton presenting at a philosophy conference and it just wasn't hitting. I was looking at the outline and something wasn't right. I was like, "I think the people are showing up to see Princeton fuck or get fucked." There's obviously more around it than just that.
I think for the show I'm making, I'm glad I've shown characters' workplaces and shown their lives outside and their connections outside just their sexual connections, but I still have reservations sometimes about how far afield from the central premise of exploring non-monogamy can I go before people are like, "Next channel." I think that's just something you figure out as time goes on.
Dedeker: That's always the challenge with any kind of representation is that-- well, maybe not any kind of representation, but specifically about non-monogamous representation, that we want to see ourselves reflected back to ourselves and we are whole human beings, right? The moment that a representation doesn't reflect ourselves back perfectly, people get upset, and so there is that constant balancing of wanting to flesh out these characters and make them feel real while also wanting to stay focused as a storyteller.
Frank: Yes, it's funny reflecting on what I haven't put into the show. Even Cam's doing drag, I was like, "Oh, at one point, maybe he should try to get on a famous drag series." Then that felt the same way of like, "I don't know if people are showing up to see that." I think more so than anything, it's not even about whether there's polyamory in it or not, but I think a good storyline in a comedy has to service more than one main character.
I think that was what I was running into more than anything, was like, if just Cam is featured in a drag storyline or just Princeton's featured in a philosophy storyline, it's just not doing enough work for the ensemble. Because we have six main characters, the main five and Kat at this point, and Jasper is the seventh really. Yes, you just have to have storylines that feature two to three people or it's not a great use of screen time.
Jase: Yes, you have to find ways for their lives to overlap a little bit more. I noticed you had some scenes with the drag stuff, but where another character would be the photographer and then another would show up to help schedule something, you have to get them all involved in the scene somehow.
Frank: That's why, though, polyamory makes writing easy sometimes, because I'm like, "Anyone can hook up with anyone. We can have five people in the same relationship. Great. Game on."
Jase: That's a good point.
Emily: I feel like non-monogamy recently has really gone on this upward trajectory of people know about it, now it's in the New York Times, and it's becoming much more "mainstream." Clearly, it's still not 100%, of course.
Dedeker: I'm always going to be the one waving the flag of disagreeing with that. The reason for that--
Emily: Yes.
Dedeker: We're going to fight about this right now.
Emily: No, just, I talked on this panel last night and they were talking a lot about the fact that non-monogamy is having a big moment right now and why is that? That became a topic of conversation. Because of that, I do wonder, is that maybe why people are more excited and willing to watch a show like this or have non-monogamy represented in media at all?
Frank: Yes. I think it's having its come-up moment, but it's not yet passe. I think that's what I see is it's still a little forbidden and unfamiliar and that's what excites some people about watching it. Maybe a few years from now it'll be too familiar and people won't care anymore. I think we are maybe hitting it at the right moment where people aren't closed off to it, but also don't know enough about it. We're maybe hitting a sweet spot of like, "Ooh, I've heard of that. Let me look at that and see what that's like."
Jase: I do feel like we're in a time where because the words are getting thrown around a lot more and there has been a few of these articles or things written that have gotten a lot of attention that it's like we have this double-edged sword of more awareness but also a lot more misunderstanding. Because if your only exposure is, "I read this one article from this one point of view, now I think it all looks like this or I think it all looks this other way."
I feel like it's almost we're in a time where we have even more need to show a variety of stories and a variety of ways this can look, so that we don't get caught in this monolithic idea of, "Ah, well, that always means this thing." That then people either make their judgments or get into it thinking it's all that when it's not. Those misunderstandings that can come up.
Frank: Personally, I think I spoke to you all about this last time, I only feel light pressure about positive portrayals of non-monogamy because I've never been attracted to media where the main characters are all crap buckets, so that was never what I was going to write regardless. I also don't think it's interesting if they don't disagree on anything and everything works out all the time.
I feel pretty comfortable saying, "Hey, this is very much a net-positive relationship. It's why they're together. They love and care for one another, but that doesn't mean they're not going to commit errors here and there that end up in situational comedy." I don't know how you three feel about yourselves as ambassadors of the community.
Dedeker: Oh, ambassadors.
Jase: What a question.
Emily: We definitely fuck up all the time. At least I do, maybe not them.
Dedeker: To be totally honest, to be totally frank, these days when I am presented with an article, an op-ed, someone's like, "Did you see this episode of such and such show? There was a triad in that episode," whatever, or the reality shows or whatever, I tend to avoid them. Part of that is just me personally, because I literally spend my days seeped in this topic and sometimes I'm like, "Can I just think about something different for two seconds?"
Some of it is that weird-- I think that I would throw myself under the bus in saying that I think I have weird standards for representation where I think that I am trying to seek out this very, very narrow window of what's messy enough, but not so messy that it's making all of us look bad. It's probably an impossible target to hit, to be quite honest. If I try to think about what's my ideal, what's the show about, non-monogamy or the representation of non-monogamy that I'd be super excited to consume, I suppose over the past few years, mostly it has come down to those pretty real and pretty raw representations where people aren't afraid to talk about the awkward parts.
It's also not somebody's just rant about how it didn't work for them. I don't know. See, I feel like the more that I spin this, the more that I can split hairs on what to me feels like good representation, but I'm curious to hear about from you, my fellow ambassadors, what you think?
Frank: I'll cut in with something tangential of I have a friend who wrote episode 10, José María Luna, he does video essays in addition to being a writer, and his most recent one was called In Defense of Queer Misery. Essentially, the thesis was darker, heavier queer pieces speak to him more because he finds them more life-affirming. He finds the more joyous, positive things feel like they're putting on a performance that doesn't quite resonate with him. We definitely have had words about that topic before, and even watching it, he calls me out in the video as liking Love, Victor, and he's like, "Bad." Texting, being like--
Dedeker: "My feelings were hurt."
Frank: I think what was really striking to me was then going through the comments section, which you're never supposed to do, but I was seeing how people really resonated with his point of view of, "I feel not alone when I watch pieces with heavy drama and despair." What a lot of people were saying was, "I like pieces where there's despair, but it ends in a good place ultimately." That was something I wasn't appreciating enough, is that you can have heavy pieces that still have a happy ending or that have the character find some solace and peace, so I disagree with Dedeker about messier stuff doesn't have to mean mess all the time. It can be, starts a mess, ends cleaner.
Dedeker: I think, yes, the more that I think about it, I think I'm often craving a sense of normalcy around it, and that's a projection of what I crave in my own life, is what I crave in my own life is to drop the word non-monogamy or polyamory and to not have someone bat an eye. I think that sometimes my wish fulfillment is wanting to see that reflected in a piece of media where this feels very normal, even when it's messy, even when it's great, and the more I describe it, the more boring it sounds. I'll toss the ball back to you, Jase.
Jase: We have always said for a long time that a show about a good, highly functioning relationship, whether it's non-monogamous or monogamous, would just be boring and that's why that's not what you see on TV. We don't see really good, healthy monogamous relationships either because those aren't that interesting unless your story is about something else, which I think, like you mentioned, Frank, that's something I really want to see is the non-monogamous, polyamorous character where their drama is about other stuff. That's not just about that. I think that it's the same thing when we first started having gay characters on TV.
At first, their whole purpose is being a joke and then eventually their whole purpose is being the gay character who's dealing with all the gay stuff, even though now they're not just a joke, they're more of our protagonist. I feel like only somewhat recently, and even then just barely, do we have gay characters who their story's about something else. That that's not the whole purpose of their character, that's not their whole arc is about either coming out about realizing they're gay, about getting acceptance for it. I think we've got some of those now, but honestly, I'm having trouble calling some to mind. I think we're just barely getting there and we're not even close to that yet with non-monogamy, I don't think.
Frank: Well, what I take up the mantle with nowadays is how I have this debate with friends because some are like, "Oh, we don't need as many queer-focused shows because queer characters are so seamlessly integrated into everything now." I just have a little bit of an issue with that still. I feel like there is nothing wrong with queer-led, queer-focused series to exist and yet they've been taken off the air one after another, I have my list I go through of Workaholics, Please Like Me, Everything's Gonna Be Okay, EastSiders, Work in Progress, Schitt's Creek, Queer as Folk.
They just all kind of are, "Smile. They're collapsing on themselves," and that's really hard for me to watch and yet, I love how Elite, for instance, on Netflix is one of their most popular shows, and has gotten even queerer and queerer as time has gone on, and that's beautiful to witness. Man, the characters are hot on that. If you are of any sexuality, watch that show. They have some beautiful people.
Dedeker: What is it, Elite?
Frank: Yes. It's basically like How to Get Away with Murder, but teens at a prep school and they're all played by adults, of course. All that's to say, yes, so we're obviously not there with polyamory where I'm like, "There's no poly shows anymore because they're so effortlessly in every series," but just a warning of what acceptance could look like.
Dedeker: What about you, Emily? What's your desired representation, your desired non-monogamous media?
Emily: I do think that a waypoint for a lot of people, especially when they're discovering non-monogamy is, "I'm opening up a relationship with a partner," and going through the trials and tribulations of that, but yes, ultimately having it be hopeful at the end or hopeful, maybe if it's a film or something, that it works out for them. Maybe I'm thinking about this just because I'm currently in the midst of opening up a semi-monogamous relationship with a partner and walking back into non-monogamy myself after a very long period of time of not doing it.
I think, yes, having even just a representation like that because I think so many people start there, that that would be really nice for people to be able to see and then see it work. To be like, "Okay, I can grab onto that and I can figure out for myself that perhaps everything's going to be okay."
Frank: It's beautiful. I love that.
Dedeker: You're wanting some hope is what I'm hearing?
Emily: Yes. Yes, I do want some hope. Amazing. As we wrap up here, what are you hoping that your viewers are going to take away from watching Open To It?
Frank: That I'm beautiful and that it's not just bravado. Also, I think I want everyone honestly to watch and have security in their own relationships. If they're monogamous and want to stay that way, to feel like, "Great, those silly queers on screen, I'm doing it right," but if they're also inspired by like, "Hey, that might be fun. I'm going to talk to my partner and figure that out," that that's a wonderful experience too My guiding light has always been, whatever works for you and makes you happy, that's what I want for you.
Obviously, if people are hiding being polyamorous from themselves, I don't want that. That's all. Just for people to see other people making a variety of choices on screen as they do in Open To It and just say like, "Hey, any of these choices could be valid with the right person at the right time, and game on."
Emily: Hell, yes.
Jase: I think something I'd add to that of something that I would like more of us to be able to take away from the two main couples on your show is that in both cases, the couples are very good at hearing no from their partner and then very quickly stopping and listening, instead of just pushing for like, "Oh, but I want this, but I want this." That sense of like, "Oh, you're not into this. Okay. Let's do a different kind of hangout then, if that's not what you're feeling." That they're very quickly responsive to that in a way that I think is really great and is something that I feel like we really try to cultivate for people in their relationships.
You're really listening and able to adapt quickly to when you're noticing that your partner, or the person that you're with, that their vibe is changing, or that they're saying like, "Hey, I'm not sure I want to do this," of being really responsive to that. I do think that's a really cool thing those characters model, but without having it be like, "Oh, I'm so worried all the time," because it's still a comedy, so it's light in the way that it's handled but that they do respond very quickly.
Frank: If I'm thinking of this correctly, I don't think we ever use the word boundaries on the show, but the show is very much all about boundaries.
Dedeker: Ooh, I love that.
Jase: Yes, it is.
Frank: Even for instance, in the pool party episode, Elsa becomes Princeton's liaison, coordinating all his hookups, and Reggie comes in and is like, "You left me in the car What's going on?" They have to have that discussion about like, "You can't just ditch me and do whatever he asks of you. We have a relationship that needs centering." I think if this were a drama, the show would be called Boundaries because I think it's all about that, of what's comfortable with your partner, with your friends, and expressing that, and to Jase's point, absolutely hearing a no and being like, "I need to listen more closely," not, "I need to push past this."
Jase: Yes. I think if people could just take that away, we've already made a lot of progress right there.
Frank: Oh yes.
Jase: Awesome. As we close here, could you let us know where can people find the show? I know I mentioned it at the beginning but where can people find it, and also what can they expect in terms of it ending up on OUTtv in different countries around the world, what's the plan there?
Frank: Yes, so we're going worldwide, baby. You can always find the show at opentoitseries.com. Right now, as I speak, episodes 1 through 7, season 1, and the pride special are all available. The pride special is a more timely episode about a drag queen story hour getting interrupted by protesters, so don't expect it to be sexy, but expect it to be meaningful and hilarious. Then we have season 2 coming out, so it'll premiere on OUTtv in Europe and Latin America on September 1, and then it will be on OUTtv Canada, US, and let's see, other English-speaking countries, New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, UK, and Ireland.
That should be January 2nd, and then we're also discussing when it's going to come to Asia, but yes, always check opentoitseries.com, and it will almost certainly be available in all territories. It's just a question of when.
Jase: Awesome. Well, thank you so much for joining us again today, Frank.
Frank: Thank you for having me. It's a pleasure to be open to it.
Frank: I hate myself for that, I'm sorry.
Jase: All right. Thank you. Everyone at home, we would love to hear from you with our question of the week which we're posting on our Instagram at multiamory_podcast, is how would you like to see non-monogamy represented in TV and film? In other words, how perfect do you want it to look? How messy do you want it to look? How dramatic, how comedic? We would love to hear from you. You can respond to that anonymously and then we'll share some of the answers that we think are interesting.