SM tipster “Sirc” sent us the Village Voice review of a documentary that has been around for over a year, but seems to finally be opening to a larger audience (Oct 19, 2005 NYC, Nov 11, 2005 LA). The film is titled ‘Three of Hearts: A Postmodern Family.’ From the review:
This well-told doc follows nine years in the lives of a gay couple and the woman they invited to share their relationship. When we meet this happy threesome–Sam, Steven, and Samantha–they’re trying to get pregnant. In winning interviews spliced between suspenseful EPT tests, the assertively bourgeois strivers chat about their setup, their decision to marry, their spa business, their mix-and-match sex (“There’s never a feeling of being left out!”). Actress hopeful Samantha explains how her traditional Indian family absorbed the news.
Ummm. Wow. Trinogamy. I just imagined the sound of several desi parents dropping dead of heart attacks. Hell, I almost suffered a heart attack when I saw the trailer. That “horror-movie feeling” descended upon me. You know, it’s like when you watch a character on-screen with your eyes half covered saying, “Don’t do it. Don’t go in there. You are going to get knifed. Ooooh, they went there.” The “monkey wrench” in this case is the birth of a baby. How will it change the dynamic given that only one man is the biological father? In a perfect world without human insecurities a relationship like this could probably work. There is unfortunately no such perfect world. I don’t know how it turns out but I am pretty curious.
The filmmaker gives her quick take on the film and its coincidental political overtones:
We began filming “Three of Hearts” in August 1996, the night of Samantha’s 30th birthday party. When I got home from the first night of filming my boyfriend at the time, and later husband David Friedson told me that the senate had passed the Defense of Marriage Act that day, defining marriage for purposes of federal law as the legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife. David pointed out that the love story I had elected to tell was highly political. And as we premiered in Toronto, the whole issue was exploding in San Francisco, Massachusetts and around the country. So even though our film is not overtly political, we take pride in the fact that it does have political overtones.We thank Sam Cagnina, Samantha Singh and Steven Margolin for their courage in sharing with us eight years of their journey.
The reviews of this film are glowing. Here is screening info.
wow – gut reaction – uncomfortable – for you all who’ve echoed ‘that’s so cool’ – if you are willing to get into a polyandrous relationsip through your partner – would you be equally willing to get into a polygamous relationship? or… vice versa.
I don’t have friends like these! LOL!
who was being forced into some sort of situation under the garb of acceptability and openness?
Force is a loaded word. If it is physical force, then it’s rape and cops need to get involved. If it is not physical, and merely enticing etc, and if my friend asks for my advice, I would advise him/her against this behaviour.
M. Nam
Well I was personally addressed, so I felt I had to respond:
You’re absolutely correct. I have a tendency to be inclusive with my speech. What I should have said was, “Who are YOU to be so judgemental?”
This doesn’t exactly add up in my head but okay. If you feel that I’m “messing” with your “perogative as a free citizen” again, let me know and I’ll stop.
These are someone else’s words, not mine.
Thank you, that’s what I thought.
I would have answered this with: “I will answer this question after you tell me who are YOU to tell me what to do or what not to do with the neurons in my brain.”
Judging is a personal action – neurons firing away in our brains. Pronouncing it out loud is a social action – some are appropriate and others inappropriate. Acting on the judged person is a political/civil action – this is wrong and tantamount to crossing the line.
M. Nam
PS: Sorry about getting posts mixed.
It seems that Dhaavak and I have coincidentally been thinking along the same lines.
Let me play Devil’s Advocate for a second. If you think that a polyandrous situation is a potentially viable, acceptable option, and one which “shouldn’t be judged”, do you also believe that a one husband-four wives scenario as per (for example) orthodox Islam is also a perfectly fine arrangement ?
Although she was in her early 20’s, she was still an adult and she must have some idea what was going on .I mean I am in my early 20’s and I would like to believe that I have some idea of whatÂ’s going on. Back to my area of interest: The kids. Now you have kids who I believe will not be capable of understanding until they are older if at all. Aside from learning the colors, my grade school experience taught me that any deviation from the normal will be made fun ad nauseum (the apparent word of the day) How will these kids grow up?
Although, I cannot reference an exact study, but I think I have read that people with dysfunctional families (abusive / alcohol / etc) are (slightly) more likely to have some sort of social problem later in life. That being said, although these kids are being loved at home (allegedly, the truth none of us will ever know), they will face social ridicule. I know this one kid (granted its a small sample size) who was really “fat” in high school who still talks about how much she was being made fun of. It was this really that ultimately lead her to loser her weight in college for the 5 year reunion. Granted she has some control over this, but the fact of having 2 dads and a mom will be attached to you forever. Anyways, I think there is obviously some chance that these kids will have social problems through out their for something that they have no control over, and that obviously is not fair. One could make the argument that these kids could, should they choose, not to talk about it, but the very fact they are hiding something could very easily lead to some sort of intimacy issue.
Also, as a side note, going back to the point of marriages falling apart under 5 years, I think they were under the pressure of making it work since it was so outside the box. (perhaps a competitive nature?? ) Some people, in my experience, work harder and longer at something especially when they are told that it wonÂ’t happen. I think there is some basis for that here by the mere fact that they made documentary to broadcast their success at their union (marriage?). Kind of to throw it in everyone face who doubted them? Kind of like the girl I know who lost her weight just to show people! Just a thought.
Consent (which requires a legal age and explicit decision) and conscious decision (which requires a functioning brain) are important to consider. As long as both factors are present, I don’t see a problem with either scenario. Now, tell me which scenario are both factors more likely to be absent/present?
If society eventually widely accepts this type of union, I am sure these people will be hailed as trail blazers. The only place I see it happening is in China because of the one child rule and the proclivity of not liking girls. (I am not that well read on the subject, but I think there have been cases in India where they kill a female baby)?
Semantics isn’t my strong suit, but I’ll do my best. Your definition of judging there kinda sounds like “having an opinion.” And your definition of “pronouncing it loud” is what I thought passing judgement was. (Like, the difference between saying, “In my opinion this is wrong,” versus “This is wrong.”) Everyone has opinions but not everyone is judgmental.
Is it possible to not personally agree with their choices, yet be respectful and accepting and treat them equally all the same? For example, it’s possible to be pre-choice yet be personally opposed to abortion for religious/moral/whatever reasons. (Anecdotally there are in fact many pro-choicers who fit this profile.) The difference is that while you yourself would never have an abortion, for whatever reason, you wouldn’t disrespect someone else who did, and you stand up for their right to choose.
I thought that was kind of where you were going, but then you said this:
Perhaps I should have asked you to clarify: do you then mean that you would in fact treat these folks differently based on their lifestyle choices? Or would you not give anyone the time of day if their life depended on it? Because that’s what it sounds like to me.
I think Rupa’s pretty much right here. You don’t have to agree with something, but at the same time, as long as nobody’s being manipulated, forced, or exploited, it doesn’t mean one should harass them. However, it is important to bear in mind that not every situation in life is necessarily “morally equivalent”, notwithstanding the current trend for political correctness. Common sense (for one’s own sake) and being responsible for both the situation and its future consequences (again, for one’s own sake and also, more seriously, for the sake of any children involved) are extremely important and have to be taken into consideration.
By the way, with all due respect to BongBreaker, not all of us are Hindus, so the Draupadi example isn’t necessarily going to cut any ice with everyone. But I can understand why that example would be quoted in the context of this particular scenario and in the context of SM as a whole.
Two thoughts
1) Children raised by gay parents are better educated and have higher standards of living than the average child.
2) With so many single parents raising kids out there I cannot believe that anyone would be offended by three loving involved people interested in having a child.
Dhaavak, Jai Singh, one clap for each of you. As long as there’s honest consent, it’s fine.
Anna, you’re right, its disturbing when people are so judgemental… but then again, one shouldn’t be “required” to be non-judgemental either, don’t you think? Quick question about this: >>perhaps it’s only christians who think that…
um… what??!! That’s a bit unlike you…
Confusion, confusion! Care to clarify, Razib saahib?
1 cycle of brown lovin’ = 2 cycles of white lovin’ 🙂
Hear Hear!
Rupa,
It depends on the situation.
I don’t agree with smoking – I think it is a bad habit. Yet, I respect smokers, and I will defend their right to smoke – but only as long as I don’t have to inhale. So when I have parties, I have a strict rule. No smoking inside. I don’t care if its is -30degrees and a blizzard out there. Step outside if you guys want to smoke.
Smoking, however affects only the individual (by and large). Threesomes and other “deviant(imo)” lifestyles affect society. It certainly affects their children – adopted or otherwise. It has an adverse affect on their families (most likely, parents).
So, they won’t even be invited to my party. The question of respecting them does not arise. If I have a donut shop and they come in as customers, they will be treated with respect like anyone else. If they have a donut shop, I’ll starve myself but won’t patronise their business.
M. Nam
A beautiful capitalistic statement and morally crystal clear.
I think people are completely mixing up issues here. Multiple sexual partners, desire and curiosity to experience something different are very normal. However, to try and elevate three deviants (actually two heinous freakish conmen and their willing victim) to a demigod level is outrageous. Also the idea that it requires some kind of courage is ridiculous, there are enough cheerleaders of depraved behavior in NYC.
I think a lot of the “negative” reactions you’re seeing on the thread are symptomatic of the allergic reaction a lot of us are developing to people equating having a “politically correct” stance with a guarantee of sure-footedness in the often treacherous landscape of moral discourse. Indeed, as soon as anything even begins to remotely smell like the casting of moral aspersions, or to be more direct, sanctimoniousness, the tendency of a lot of people is to ride off on their PC high-horses, and leave to the rest of us to eat the cosmic dust of their enlightenment. I think that accounts for a lot of the reaction seen on this thread, nothing to do with the actual 3-some. Cause who knows, they might be great people to hang out with. The question is, do you think them being in a 3-some is evidence that they are morally reprehensible people? I don’t know. HowÂ’s that for zeitgeist.
Yes, I do, just as I would people in incestuous relationships. Acceptance does not equal moral license. The former relates to individual choice and freedom, the latter is a cold hard rational choice for taking society in the right direction.
Those advocates of equating monkey behavior to humans, I have some questions for you:
a) Do you believe that there is no difference between primates and human beings?
b) In monkey/animal world, rape is quite acceptable. You must have seen a horny bull trying to mount a horrfied fleeing cow. Now, do you suggest we should allow this in human society?
hahahahahahah
The bull must have a huuuuuge dick
I may have missed who “they” are. Can you clarify?
Christ O’Reilly what a bunch of conservative old goits. The reason I mentioned Draupadi and the Pandavas in the first place was to illustrate that those of you espousing judgemental views are merely regurgitating contemporary moral codes you’ve been told to believe. Times change – so do what is acceptable, surely as brown people you can understand that more than most? Or should we still be burning brides and executing adulterers?
Homosexuals were far more acceptable in ancient Greece and ancient India than they are now. Swings and roundabouts.
I think most of you that are pissed off are pissed off for two reasons – there are gay men involved and the person they’re involved with is Indian.
Live and let live.
(PS – Jai, I didn’t say anything about Hindus, I just said India – and much of India’s history is Hindu.)
I always see squirrels chasing each other and thought it was cute, but now I know whats really going on… Horny little bastards
I actually have never thought about this, but is there consentual sex in the animal world?
Where do the “advanced” people draw the line? Foursomes, fivesomes, gangbangs, sex with animals……
.
The polyandrous situation in which Draupadi found herself was not a normal one in the then prevalent society. In fact most mythological texts term it as an aberration, not to be taken as a precedent. However, polygamy was acceptable and widely practised. Polygamy was allowed because it served a purpose and polyandry was discouraged because it posed a danger to society. Ancient India was characterised by frequent wars. Men were regularly killed in battle, and hence the women outnumbered men. Polygamy was essential because it provided a safety net for the extra number of women, whereas polyandry would only make the situation worse. The society at that time was patrilineal and it was essential to know who the child’s father was for the continuation of the family. Whereas this would be possible in polygamy, it would not be possible in polyandry. Source: http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/mythology_from_india/91885
Jai,
Quoting Mahabharta is not at all imposing Hindu values/ cultural on every one. On the contrary…..
Mahabharta is a metaphysical text that is ingrained in the growth and development of Indian subcontinent for thousands of years – can definitely also be seen purely as a secular, philosophical, salt and grain myths and stories of the land – it transends religion.
live and let live.
BB writes:
Not sure about Greece, but in ancient India homosexuality was tolerated – not accepted.
M. Nam
“By the way, with all due respect to BongBreaker, not all of us are Hindus, so the Draupadi example isn’t necessarily going to cut any ice with everyone.”
Jai, I must agree with Kush and others here: I’m certainly not Hindu, but to say that the Mahabharata only has relevance to Hindus is like saying Dante’s Divine Comedy only has relevance to Catholics, or that none of us should bother doing anything with the Iliad or Odyssey because we do not worship the Greek gods. The Mahabharata has great religious significance for Hindus. But the Mahabharata is ALSO one of the (and is acclaimed by many as THE) greatest works in Indian literature, and is the source of multiple cultural values and literary forms and aesthetics that are not just Hindu in the sense you appear to use the term. The Draupadi example would resonate with virtually all Indian Muslims that I know– one might or might not think Draupadi’s marriage to the Pandavas worth emulating (in my experience no Hindu that I know of advocates such emulation either; as I read the epic the FUNCTION of the fact that Draupadi is married to the Pandavas is NOT didactic).
I wondered the same thing, several comments back. How many of you would really give a shit if it were 3 white people, or 3 non-desis, involved in this? Granted, it wouldn’t have been posted… but seriously, would you even have blinked? Or would you have shrugged, mumbled “freaks” and remained smug in pious brownness?
The only people who sound pissed off on this board are those who refuse to believe that others have a right to be judgemental.
M. Nam
No, I do not have to express my opinion on each and every issue. If an issue is raised on a discussion forum I visit and I see other people posting remarks that are at odds with my beliefs and I have the time, I will post my comments, regardless of the ethnicity of the people involved.
You are trying to discredit the “pissed” people for something they allegedly would have done, hence you are drawing your own conclusions.
Besides, there are different moral flavors involved here. For instance Mr Nam advocates economic boycott. I would not. If freaks were selling doughnuts for the cheapest price, I would probably even buy from them. Of course I would make sure they are hygienically prepared.
My moral objections are as follows: a) These people do not need to be put on a pedestal b) The woman involved was actually conned into this situation and this fact is being ignored c) The pressure on normal people to accept deviant behavior has assumed such epidemic proportions today that people like Ms A N N A’s poor friend are being taken advantage of. People are ashamed to admit they are normal. d) If you do not watch gay films, you are abnormal. e) Since monkeys are polyamorous, it directly follows that human beings should be so.
No. I’m saying I doubt anybody would really have this much to say if the documentary didn’t include a desi. I’ll be the first to be one-track-auntie and allege that everything comes from Desi-stan (GGM fans?), but the inclusion of 1 brown doesn’t make it more or less scandalous…
as for your putting words in my mouth– thanks, but I’ve already had lunch.
That is your conclusion, how do you know? Besides, even if it were true, it would not necessarily invalidate the moral arguments presented.
UM:>>The pressure on normal people to accept deviant behavior has assumed such epidemic proportions today …
That’s because people do not recognise the difference between tolerate and accept.
There are five stages to any social change:
The 3some is in the fourth stage – they are free to do so. Anna/Rupa etc are in the third stage – again, their perogative. I am in the second stage – my right to remain there. Pat Robertson or some Mullah are in the first stage – they would hang these people if given half-a-chance.
What I don’t understand is the obsession of those in the third stage to drag us second-stagers up into the third stage when clearly we are no threat to anyone.
Live, third-stagers, and let us second-stagers live.
M. Nam
wow.
Very Kubler-Rossesque 🙂
I have to agree with MoorNam (comment #. 85) and argus_nj – this is a rare event when we have similar thoughts.
live and let live has to be all-encompassing, though, it includes moornam, argus_nj and ofcourse, Samantha.
MoorNam
Nice list. Are the parts meant to be hermetically sealed? If the gruesome 3-some wanted to screen the movie for educational purposes at a university, would you protest? If they were pushing for legislation to validate threesomes as a form of marriage, would you protest? It seems that in your model tolerance and acceptance are both premised on the maximum level of inertness.
You write this as if the 2nd stage is eons away from the 1st. It is threatening to see the 2nds teetering so close to the 1st and the 1st is ignorant no matter how you look at it. 2nd stage is like 1st stage with better manners. What would you have the 3rd stagers do, pat you on the back for not being intolerant?
Great model, Mr Nam. However, I am not so sure the stages are so black and white. For instance I like to think of myself between tolerance and intolerance, forced tolerance if you like. Ms A N N A etc. may be between acceptance and participation.
The question to ask is, do we really need to endorse every deviant behavior as a precursor to a social change?
First of all, everyone calm down. “Pissed” is probably too strong a term to use here; “disapproving”/”dismayed” is more accurate.
“Semantics”, I hear Razib growl. He’s probably correct 😉
Secondly, and more seriously, I think people should refrain from using the derogatory term “freaks” to describe the three individuals in the lead story, especially the woman (unless she’s suffering from some kind of Queen Bee mentality, but even then using the word “freak” is possibly going too far). “Misguided” is more accurate. Stronger words — for the men, anyway — are of course applicable if the woman is indeed being exploited by the 2 guys, as several people on this thread have alluded to.
Regarding the judgementalism/non-judgementalism issue: As we all know, there are a lot of desis — both back in India and, especially amongst the 1st-Generation out here in the West — who will stubbornly, arrogantly have knee-jerk conservative reactions/attitudes to a large number of issues, and these mindsets/ideas are often both misguided and inappropriate. Yet they will still insist on sticking to these viewpoints, refusing to admit that they are wrong, just for the sake of it and for the sake of being conservative.
Similarly — and conversely — there are also a a lot of 2nd-Generation desis out here (just speaking generally, I’m not referring to anyone specific on SM or indeed on this thread) who will reflexively be liberal — regardless of the specific situation or the context — and “anything goes” about pretty much everything, without taking into consideration either common sense or any moral angle, even if they are totally wrong and misguided, just for the sake of being “unconventional”.
One needs to beware of falling into the psychological traps related to both of these extreme mindsets. One shouldn’t be stubbornly conservative about certain matters, but simultaneously one shouldn’t insist on being inappropriately, excessively laissez-fair about certain issues either. It’s not a matter of being blindly orthodox or blindly unorthodox; some situations require a more liberal approach, others do not. It’s a matter of being objective, using one’s good judgement and discretion, and — as I keep saying — applying common sense. Kind of like how one shouldn’t blindly, stubbornly follow either Western culture in its entirety or Indian culture in its entirety — you have to use your own head.
BongBreaker, Kush, Umair,
Thanks for your responses, guys; I think you’ve taken my brief comment to Bongsie and extrapolated it somewhat 😉 My point — and I have no intention of starting a flaming war with any lurking saffronists on SM — was that the example of Draupadi would not necessarily be regarded as a positive moral example by everyone, both from an individual and a religious perspective. Apart from the question mark over the historical accuracy of whether she really did have 5 husbands, my point was that although the Mahabharata may describe certain actions and situations and present a certain moral opinion on/conclusion to them, some of us may not necessarily agree with said moral angle, either as individuals (using our own judgement) or indeed from the perspective of our own religious tenets. Sikh scriptures certainly do comment on various aspects of Hindu ‘mythology’ — at least in the context of events and people which Sikhism regards as actual historical figures — and the conclusions reached are not always the same as those espoused by either conventional Hinduism or (referring to Draupadi and her peers, along with certain other people and events) the Mahabharata itself. Therefore, although Draupadi’s marital situation may have been approved of — albeit as a regrettable but unavoidable situation (we all know the story leading up to what happened, so I don’t need to go into lengthy detail here) — there are other theological and moral perspectives which do not approve of it as an acceptable situation under any circumstances.
To sum it up, the Sikh view is that, for the sake of the optimal emotional, psychological, and spiritual well-being of the people concerned, marriage (regardless of the individuals’ religious affiliaton) should be between one man and one woman only — in fact, the poetic and quite romantic ideal of marriage is “one light in two bodies”, ie. a man and a woman who are soulmates. Which, I think the romantically-inclined amongst you would agree, is a nice concept — but of course it means that both polygamy and polyandry are no-nos.
That’s all I was trying to say.
MN, not to get into another needling argument, but this is EXACTLY my point. I understand your “live and let live” philosophy, but I personally feel that until people can ACCEPT others who are different, you are only enabling those who would not simply “live and let live.”
Tolerance means, fine. You are allowed to exist on the same planet as I do and breathe the same air I do and I won’t have a problem with you but to actually accept would be to recognize and respect that these different folks are EQUAL HUMAN BEINGS with thoughts and feelings and deserve the same consideration and rights as any other Americans. Do you think that “tolerance” for minority races is enough? Is it OK for me to exist here as long as I don’t get in your way, or do I deserve to be accepted too?
To “accept” that these people live this way is IN NO WAY condoning the lifestyle, or agreeing with the lifestyle, or implicating yourself as a follower of the lifestyle, or even thinking that the lifestyle is OK (hell, you can be accepting even if YOUR OWN PERSONAL OPINION is that they’re totally fucked up weirdos) it only means that you can get past the fact that they live differently than you do and you can still treat them like human beings and equals. (Standard Disclaimer: see Jai Singh’s post re: moral equivalence.)
scrappy,
Until a better alternative presents itself…
Depends. Will students be forced to watch this (at risk for credits etc)? Is this done at a government university with taxpayer funds? If so, I will protest. If not, I have no issues.
I don’t think the government has any business recognising or de-recognising any form of marriage. Marriage is a social institution – not a legal institution. The government has no business in interfering whether one woman has two husbands, or one man has three husbands and two wives.
M. Nam
Really argus_nj, the fact that you think you’re espousing some form of moral harbingers is really quite dull. I don’t disagree with your right, and indeed courage to have a moral stand (given the quality of the company on this site), but you really need to take a walk outside, or read a Raymond Chandler novel. The world has changed, by all indications for the worse, but it has changed.
Just FYI:
Polyandry in Sri Lanka is not unheard of. And? The one woman would marry brothers.
Ms Cicatrix,
How are you?
Polygamy is rampant in the middle-east and islamic societies. Incest/rape is common in the animal world.
So, your point is?
Jai Singh – Well Said.
“I don’t think the government has any business recognising or de-recognising any form of marriage. Marriage is a social institution – not a legal institution. The government has no business in interfering whether one woman has two husbands, or one man has three husbands and two wives.”
Marriage is both a social and legal institution. A good case can be made that a lot of the violence in the arab muslim world is due to polygamy. The wealthy men have access to four women while the unsuccessful men have access to no women.
Geez. This is like that time when my friend tried to explain to her grandfather why racism wasn’t okay. She said she kinda wanted to punch him, but more than that wanted to punch herself too for even opening the discussion.