If Made In Chelsea Were Polyamorous

If you don’t know already Made in Chelsea is a BAFTA award-winning ‘structured-reality’ television series that began in 2001. The series follows the lives of affluent West London socialites as they gossip, date, banter, galavant  and cavort their way through lives without financial consequences. It is part fly-on-the-wall documentary, part scripted-soap, hence ‘scripted-reality’ – although in truth this means it falls somewhere between a low-budget episode of Gossip Girl and a dull episode of Big Brother. So sit back and relax as Spiffy, Tamara, Leo, Archibald et al. sip champagne, go for cocktails, converse awkwardly over dinner, and pause to look meaningfully into the sunset/countryside/cityscape/oncoming traffic.

However, once you’ve watched a few episodes the basic premise becomes clear – it’s all about relationships. Conversations tend to concern who is dating whom, who wants to date whom, who used to date whom, who cheated on someone whilst dating, and who is about to cheat on someone whilst dating. But despite all this talk of relationships the one thing the Made In Chelsea lot don’t do very well is fidelity. Many tears are shed as relationships fall apart, get fixed and fall apart again. The characters/real people desperately strive to be happy in faithful monogamous relationships but just end up perpetuating the stereotypes of overly clingy, needy women desperately seeking a man to make their lives alright and louche, unreliable, wannabe Lothario men desperately seeking a woman to have sex with. This is it as far as plot is concerned (yet it does prove bizarrely compelling).

However, so much of the drama could be avoided if the Chelsea bunch embraced the social phenomenon known as polyamory. From the Greek poly meaning ‘several’ and the Latin amor meaning ‘love’, polyamory is the practice of “consensual, ethical and responsible non-monogamy” (Jillian Keenan) – it allows for multiple partners to be involved in mature sexual and romantic relationships.

So what would this mean for the Chelsea set? Well, Tiffy would no longer have to cry at night whilst Harry is off getting it off with Lara because all three could consent to a relationship style that allows for both Tiffy and Harry to see other people. Whilst Tiffy and Harry could remain ‘primary partners’ they could each agree to the other having a certain number of ‘secondary partners’ perhaps for sex, emotional support, shopping sprees etc. It would be a carefully constructed and agreed to non-exclusivity. And if it worked jealousy would fly out the window because both halves of the primary partnership would enjoy the other finding satisfaction elsewhere. Meanwhile, Tiffy and Harry could drop the small talk, which takes up far too much of each episode’s running time, and get straight to the real emotional stuff of making a polyamorous relationship work – expect numerous DMCs, honest accounts of their feelings and much energy being put into making each other feel emotionally secure. There would be no stigma to saying one feels vulnerable, insecure or jealous because in an open and honest polyamorous relationship everyone is there to look after everyone else.

Of course, the bit that people might struggle with in polyamory isn’t the non-monogamy part but the “consensual, ethical and responisble” part. It’s all too easy to imagine the label ‘polyamorous’ being stuck on a relationship that is actually unequal and psychologically upsetting. Harry could just use it as an excuse to sleep around whilst Tiffy gets miserable at something that she had no say in. That’s not polyamory, that’s cheating. Cynicism aside the Made in Chelsea-ers might well be capable of engaging in mature, polyamorous relationships. Things could actually work and then there would be a lot less back biting, far less jealousy and hardly any overblown emotional drama. Basically, what little plot there is would dissipate because no one wants to watch lots of happy people in functioning, respectful relationships. So maybe it’s best the Chelsea set stick to what they’re best at – hit and miss monogamy.

Jurassic Out-Of-This World

All willing disbelief suspended, all fond memories of the original shelved and all expenses paid for an average seat at the Odeon – yup, time for Jurassic World. And my Gobisaurus, there was not a lot that film didn’t do – a blazing example of anti-capitalist, Marxist, feminist critique. Here are a few of the highlights.

Jurassic World

Consumerism Will Destroy Us: So, the two young white male protagonists arrive at Jurassic World, twenty-two years after lots of people got killed at Jurassic Park, and it’s basically a giant zoo. Screaming kids are riding baby Triceratops, screaming crowds are watching great white sharks being fed to Mosasaurus and profits are screaming (in delight) as the park rolls out its latest asset – a genetically engineered new dinosaur, the Indominus Rex. The film paints a pretty grim picture of humans as greedy, selfish consumers. Meanwhile, it swiftly becomes apparent that the money behind the park is corporate, so much so that the companies want their brands to form part of the dinosaurs’ names – the Nokiasaurus, iRex etc. The dinosaurs are also referred to as ‘assets’ and seen as profit-making objects rather than real living creatures. Put this alongside the film’s own product placement, what with Mercedes, Coca-Cola and Samsung all getting an appearance, and there’s a pretty strong anti-consumer capitalism message going on here. Not to mention that the entire park actually forms part of an elaborate military project to breed dinosaurs as weapons – so it’s not just the greedy business types pulling the strings it’s also the war generals, quite the military-industrial complex going on here.

Of course, this would not be part of the Jurassic Park franchise if the dinosaurs did not escape and kill lots of people – which they do. We see one woman get chomped by the Mosasaurus, multiple people get flayed by Pterodactyls and the Indominus Rex goes on a feeding frenzy.  The moral of this story: consumerism will destroy us – in a wonderful irony, befitting of even the most esoteric of French philosophers, the very products of consumerism (namely, genetically modified dinos) will turn on those that consume them by…consuming them. Ouch.

Nature Does Not Exist: First there was the earth – a barren lump of rock, then there was nature – trees, rivers, animals etc, then there were humans. We labour under the belief that humans are not part of nature, hence our endless quest to reveal nature’s secrets and dominate it. Simultaneously, we idolise the time of pre-human nature and in Jurassic World they try to recreate it by breeding extinct dinosaurs. However, as one of the chief scientists in the film reminds us, “nothing in this park is natural” because the humans have been tinkering with the dino DNA right from the start. But that still begs the question “what is natural?”

That’s an incredibly difficult question to answer if we still believe in the binary of pristine, nonhuman nature versus dirty, human artifice. We can never win if humans are the ones that render everything unnatural simply by existing. So, I suggest we give up this confused notion of nature and accept that that sort of nature never existed. Instead we can place humans alongside animals, rivers, plants etc, in a broader understanding of the natural world. This can also include all the mechanical and technological contraptions that humans like to create. Thus, rather than having degrees of ‘natural’ we could have degrees of ‘engineered-by-humans’ – i.e. a rock-as-hammer being a less engineered human technology than, say, a car. Of course, this says nothing for how humans treat the world they form part of, pretty badly basically.

White Men And Families Will Save Us: Jurassic World is a 12A, it’s a film for all the family. Thus, it’s only right that Bryce Dallas Howard’s character, Claire Dearing – the park’s white, single, overly organised, female stereotype operations manager, ends up with Owen Grady (played by Chris Pratt), the white, rugged, dino fighting, sexist, male stereotype Indiana Jones knock off. Meanwhile, Zach and Gray (yes, he is called a colour) the two white, siblings who start the film squabbling end up fulfilling male and fraternal stereotypes thanks to numerous near death experiences with dinosaurs. Also, the implication at the end of the film is that their possibly-divorcing parents will stay together now the dinosauar attacks have put everything in perspective.

Indeed, the majority of characters that do positive things in this film are white, whilst the evil scientist is of Chinese descent and the dubious billionaire that owns the park is Indian. However, there is one white baddy – a gun-toting  military man who wants to use the dinosaurs as weapons, he ends up getting eaten by a Velociraptor. At least the film passes the Bechdel test as Claire talks with her sister, Karen (the mum of Zach and Gray), about something other than men…how to raise children.

In brief, the moral of this story is that it helps to be white, male, heterosexual and part of an atomic family, or planning to start one. That’s how to survive the dinosaur apocalypse.

Redemption: Just when we thought all was lost and the Indominus Rex was about to eat everyone the T-Rex, Velociraptor and Mosasaurus all come to the rescue and render the Indominus Rex very much dead. So, there is a happy ending of sorts as the friendly dinosaurs  help the white, heteronormative humans restore some form of order. It’s a confused message perhaps but it does imply globalised consumer capitalism does not have to spell the end of humankind. There may well be hope for us yet, thank you dinosaurs.