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.
Precisely.
Hello, argus. You appear to be in fine form today.
Contrary to what you might expect, I’m all for the right to judge.
“Judge away!!” I say, for then you won’t mind if I judge you right back, you repressed, sanctimonious, bedwetting freak…right?
(not that I’m addressing anyone in particular, of course)
Dude, are you the sole straight holdout in the Castro or something? Where are you getting any of this? a)No. What pedestal? Since when did defending someone actually mean lionizing? b)No. Not according to any of the reviews and you don’t seem to have insider info so how would you know? c)WOW. just, wow. There’s an epidemic of pressure to accept deviant behaviour? It’s now shameful to admit being ‘normal’? Your pants are just crawling with hyperbolic little ants today, eh? d)See c, above. e)”should”? I haven’t seen anyone say that. Why are you so afraid of you primate forbears, argus? What did they ever do to you? (besides evolve, that is)….ohh wait! Are you anti-evolution? ABHI!!! We have an ID-er in the house!!
Anyway, with my apologies to anyone who likes to think of me as a liberal-agenda-pusher, I’m of the opinion that most adventurous arrangements seem really difficult to pull off. It tough enough for two to tango, must be hell for three. As also noted in the frikking Village Voice
Ms Cicatrix,
No. I believe in science, analysis and rational choices.
I will refrain from addressing the rest of your post since you seem to have your knickers in a bunch and unable to make coherent logical arguments.
Thanks Cicatrix, for saying what I have been feeling all day, with this post. And, yet, I keep coming back for more. I’m so ready to see the objectional film in the “deviant” Castro with my super gay friends, who accept and love straight people- in fact they even go to the stores that straight people own.
HAHA
Before the left decided to normalize perversion there was no need for a national registry of child molestors, children went trick or treating until midnight without the presence of parents, etc The little courtesies that made life pleasant have vanished. Life has become more nasty and brutal.
So your friends shop at Old Navy too? Wow.
I’m not even going to start addressing this. Right…. There were no perverts before the “left”. ha ha.
Some people believe the “little courtesies that make life more pleasant” are no brown people on their street!
Ah! Is the the women are emotional and irrational argument?
How exciting! You’ve got your straw man arguements all lined up in a nice row today!!
Is this the women are emotional and irrational argument.
Is what I meant to say. I know how important my typing skills are to your ability to take me seriously.
I’m a sexist man who’s afraid of the fact that a brown woman is dating 2 bi-white males. It makes me erroneously feel that she prefers 2 GAY men to someone like me. Am I not handsome? Mummy says I am! She always told me so. I only say her behavior is deviant because I’m jealous and controlling, especially when it comes to brown women. When other brown women speak up or have something to say I resort to calling them irrational, misguided and brainwashed, and sometimes loose and immoral or even whores. When brown men also jump in, I get really confused and call them lefty perverts. This is really because I don’t have a solid argument to make. My thought process is somewhat jumbled by my insecurites. I get frustrated easily. Don’t blame me.
Well, in order to better shed light on this debate, I am totally willing to volunteer myself as “temporary husband” for two nubile young lasses in order to better understand the other side of the gender divide…let’s say this weekend. Surprisingly, I’ve got no plans. I’ll even bring the video camera so we can make it a “documentary.”
Sorry, Salil, I think we already decided that that being pressured into threesomes for a guy’s porno fantasy is definitely a low-self-esteem thing. You’ll have to find such lasses elsewhere.
I really thought this discussion would go more in the direction of the positives and negatives of such a complex relationship, and not into a debate about morality and judgement. I wonder if it is too late. I’m exhausted.
I have to confess, I have very little time today and am reading a lot of these posts pretty fast.
But let me say one more thing, and I do stress I am not addressing anyone in particular.
I appreciated Rupa’s comment likening this discussion to explaining why racism is wrong. I think just about all of us here would agree that racism is wrong with no argument, right? So what is the difference between that and me trying to tell you that homophobia is wrong?
Look, I really don’t have any desire to watch this movie. It doesn’t interest me. But I sincerely believe that Indians have a great deal of prejudice – which is widely accepted.
We’re a racist people and don’t really do anything to change that, we even revel in our anti-black/yellow or anti-another religion sentiments and sit around bitching about THEM.
We’re sexist and only women really do anything to change that. Although, perhaps the same could be said of the West. However if I was a single woman, I know I’d rather live in the West than in India.
We’re also anti-gay. And this is perhaps the most endemic as it’s the most recent prejudice to be recognised out of the 3. I didn’t realise homosexuality is still illegal in India and many of these backward views have been transported to the West. I have many Indian friends who really hate gays, but then I went to an all-boys school and just about everyone there used to bully them. What I find interesting is the brazen nature of the prejudice – in the OLDER generation. I’ve caught many friends’ parents/aunts/uncles chee-cheeing gay people as though they were solely responsible for AIDS. And crime. And global warming. And India losing to Pakistan. I’m sure white friends’ parents are rather homophobic too, but they sure as hell don’t say it out loud.
It could be the British stiff upper lip, but I think it’s simply because the white aunties KNOW it’s wrong to be homophobic, but the Indian aunties don’t.
Straw Man, you are DA MAN!
The fact is, regardless of how much of a ruckus you may raise, this country is heading for a split: conservative “we fear anything to do with our groinal areas” on one side (preferrably in Texas) and the more…adventurous…on the other.
Count me in on the adventurous side. I’m still pissed that I missed the 60’s. Free love, baby! Woooo!
This whole argument smacks of the “gay civil unions dilute the meaning of heterosexual marriage” idiocy. If you think that way, or condemn anything other than the erectile /lubricative urges you feel, then please…
…move to Texas.
I eagerly await the day I look out my window and see the wenches waving their shirts around their heads like a helicopter (screw grammar, too). On that day, Argus will be happy, too…for about five minutes.
Bong Breaker makes good points. I hope that those moving to the west and being discriminated against themselves because of skin color will see how irrational it is. Chee-chee! You can’t complain about racism, and then continue to hold racist beliefs about OTHERS or judge people with alternative lifestyles.
Ang, no pressure. Just asking for volunteers. 🙂
Wow, Argus, Baba et al, go ahead and judge, but there is no need to be so vitriolic in your comments! This fixated fear of any expressions of sexuality, other than the ones you consider acceptable, and more particularly any form of female sexuality, (because a lot of anger expressed here has been against this desi woman) is really tiring. And please, refrain on commenting on the state of any of our “chuddies”!
Bong Breaker: and the irony (would be delicious if it weren’t so pathetic) is that the British were the first to criminalize homosexuality in a big way (certainly both the Manusmriti and Islamic law prescribe pretty stern punishments for homosexuality, but the former has hardly ever been codified as legislation by a state– I’m unclear if the Guptas included the provisions against homosexuality in their implementation– and the latter definitionally does not apply to non-Muslims, even leaving aside the fact that a uniform Shariah law applicable to all Muslim communities everywhere was not the way dynasties like the Mughals did things). The Raj in 1860 criminalized homosexuality, and applied it to all people, everywhere, under any condition. I’d also like to add that the law does not mention same-sex relations at all, but only applies to “sodomy”– which was interpreted to apply to all homosexual acts.
The case against this law is an obvious one. I would like to put it in perspective by noting that very few people are actually prosecuted under this law in India (I suspect the bigger fear is assault by the police, ostracism by one’s communities etc.) Over the last few years there have been a few legal challenges against the law, I am not sure what the status is but they haven’t gone anywhere. I expect the frequency and quality of such challenges to increase in coming years. Finally, over the last few years there has been an increase in the size and number of gay pride parades in India (they used to be unheard of as recently as a 15-25 years ago), and the largest is held in Calcutta.
Ms Cicatrix,
It is one thing to believe in evolution, quite another to regress into monkey like behavior.
No one is saying gays are bad or they do not have a right to carry on their relationship. In fact, my objections are not even because of the fact that they are gay. But, I do believe any two men are freaks (yes, they deserve to be called that) when they specifically make a pact to advertise and find a woman to have a troika. This has nothing to do with gayness, this is downright deviant behavior.
The second point is the downright exploitative nature. If you care to read the site and watch the clips, it is clear that Ms Samantha, prior to being introduced to these freaks, never considered such a relationships (“what are you crazy?”) she says. As the plot is explained, and as I mentioned in my previous post, she was first befriended by one of the dudes and unaware of the details. She was gradually coaxed into a situation she would have found reprehensible under normal circumstances. If you do not call this heinous con, what else would you call it? Let me repeat, if any woman says she needs to have sex with two men, I say go ahead. If she says she needs to have sex with two men at the same time, I say go ahead (although I find it a little distasteful). If a woman says I need to find two gay/bi men and then indulge in a menage troi with them, I would say, Okay! But, if a woman says she never had such fantasies and was befriended by a bald older white guy and was gradually coaxed into a situation like that, I believe something is wrong.
As Ms A N N A pointed out, under the garb of being liberal and being more open, a lot of women, like that friend of hers, are being exploited.
I recommend you talk to your girlfriends and find out if anyone of them is being pushed into a situation they find distasteful, before it is too late.
Oh, I should add, don’t comment on my undies as a way to dismiss my arguements. I have no other problems with such comments.
And Ang, yeah, I was also hoping this post would evolve to a discussion on the pros and cons of a multiple partner relationship and whether jealousy or possessiveness are major factors and how arguements play out etc…guess I’ll just have to catch the movie when it comes to Brussels.
Care to reveal your true handle? Why do you experience such glee when two heinous cons exploit a brown woman? Does it make you feel that by association you will receive better acceptance in white society? How would you like to switch your place with one of the poor kids borne in that relationship? Perhaps you will do backflips on a tree and chatter with joy at the thoughts.
It is hopeless to talk to people who cant distinguish between physical attributes and behavior.
Just as equally hopeless to talk to people who can not differentiate between choice and coercion.
“Why do you experience such glee when two heinous cons exploit a brown woman”
Do you find it so utterly unbelievable that a woman might like to be in such a relationship? Why is exploitation your DEFAULT assumption? i.e. it’s one thing to say you disapprove of the arrangement, but why does it necessarily follow that the woman in question is also a victim? There are lots of people, men and women, who desire sexual arrangements different from those of their neighbors, parents, whatever. Whether or not exploitation is occurring depends on the facts and circumstances of the particular situation– what in the post led you to that view?
Please peruse the website, there is plenty of evidence.
I am beginning to think I am the only cheerleader of fairness and freedom. Come on people, not by a stretch of imagination would a woman like that get into a situation like that. Experimenting with sex with multiple partners in ones youth is one thing, quite another when one decides to get coaxed into an absurd situation like that because of social pressures of acceptance. Of course she was conned.
As the flames die down a tad…Ovaltine and others:
In monkey/animal world, rape is quite acceptable…I actually have never thought about this, but is there consentual sex in the animal world?
Homo sapiens sapiens is a semi-rational animal. This thread only provides further evidence of how semi-rational humanity is, regardless of your stance on this topic. Whether something occurs naturally or not should not come into discussions of human morality unless the term “unnatural” raises its ridiculously overworked-and-well-nigh-meaningless head. We don’t have all (or most, or even some) of our “animal” urges worked out. More to the point, I’m not sure that I’d ever want to. Being a human animal is great!
Being any other sort of animal is just being an animal. You don’t really get to contemplate it much. You do, however, get to mount or sniff or eat anything you feel like. So there are pros and cons both ways.
Baba – children got molested far more frequently when there was no register or “Code Amber” alerting, etc. They were just rescued less often. It has nothing to do with Halloween, which is pretty much exactly as safe as it ever was. People are simply far more fearful now than they were in the past.
You decide: awareness brings fear to the masses. Is fear better, or worse, than ignorance? I personally think being fearful is a crock of shit. I’ll take my chances with life. Some of that “risky” stuff is really fun to do: jumping out of airplanes, riding motorcycles, drinking too much, unprotected sex with multiple partners, climbing up cliffs, shootouts with the police, etc.
Which is really the heart of this whole discussion. “When Fear Attacks: Next on FOX!” If ever there was a more classic example of “we fear what we don’t understand” cliche, this is it.
For the “I wouldn’t watch this movie” category of people, you kind of understand it all. You just fear understanding it any more, because you fear changing your own comfy little mind. Don’t worry, you’ll get over it…when your own nefarious kid(s) decide they want to group-marry two Puerto Rican men and a black Jewish woman. Yeah, that’s going to suck. Best prepare now.
For the “I can’t even think of it” category–you fear plenty already. You life is paralyzing, boring, and ultimately futile, even if you become a senator and successfully craft legislation against this kind of “aberrant” film-making (or behavior). You really should contemplate moving to Texas.
I did not and I won’t, but your arguments mainly consisted of personalities.
You shouldn’t, especially when you believe in doling out insults without being provoked yourself.
“As the plot is explained, and as I mentioned in my previous post, she was first befriended by one of the dudes and unaware of the details. She was gradually coaxed into a situation she would have found reprehensible under normal circumstances. If you do not call this heinous con, what else would you call it?”
Um, persuasion (albeit not Jane Austen-ishtyle, certainly) ? Where’s the con? She was free to turn them down; she might never have thought about it, but the idea clearly intrigued her enough that she went ahead with it.
I would have considered it exploitative if the arrangement had been the price for some benefit: e.g. if some Hollywood or Bollywood-type were holding this out as the condition for career advancement etc. That just isn’t this case.
Mr. argus_nj,
Thank you ever so much for elucidating your objections. However, your logic remains impenetrable since
appears directly contradictory to this:
To recap: if a woman wants two gay/bi men for a troika, you would be am enthusiastic supporter of her choice. If two men want a woman for the same, they’re freaks.
Now, in this particular case, you find that the woman has been “coaxed” “conned” and otherwise “exploited” by the two men. I am unable to watch the clips, but a careful reading of the site still leaves me confused as to how you came to such a conclusion. She doesn’t appear to have been coerced or forced to do anything against her will.
While I appreciate your concern for my female friends, I assure you that they are too strong-willed to do anything they would prefer not to.
2 dudes + 1 chick is now a staple of a lot of euro-porn.
Props argus. You’re the official button pusher. you might be a few decades too late to play Cassandra for 3-somes, but reading you fend off the righteous certainly entertains me. boo, hiss, Straw Man, for that paltry fare you pass off as commentary.
5 dudes + 1 chick is always a staple at the Mutiny.
please don’t ban me! please don’t ban me! please don’t band me! I can’t help my Tourette’s!!
For those who simply would not care to take of their dark blue glasses and read the site:
From the trailer:
From a clip:
ah ‘lil scrappy…ain’t no one righteous up in herre, dawg. You gotta be easily entertained if you be givin’ mad props to MC argus, yo!
He’s a button-pusher, fo sho. Cuz it’s the only button he got!!
BROOKLYN!!
(ayy..it’s been a long day. sorry for the silliness. peace out!)
Ms Cicatrix/Anjali,
If two gay/bi men wanted to have a troika with a female I would not call them freaks, merely deviant. However, if one of them befriends a woman (without revealing their ulterior motive and without revealing details), I would be seriously concerned.
argus.
I’ve taken off my indigo glasses, removed the azure glare-reducing-screen, switched the cobalt lightbulbs in my room for generic incandescent…
and I can’t see what the hell you’re talking about.
Of course she’s going to think it was nuts at first. Did you think all women nurture childhood dreams of walking down an aisle to (circling a fire with, whatever you want) their two husbands?
do you think it’s so strange for a mother to consider the fact that her children will hate the choices she’s made?
Let’s take a trip in the time machine, shall we? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Look! An inter-racial couple! How EVah will the children turn out? White? Black? SPOTTED??!?! How could they be so selfish as to not think of the children!! No one will accept them! They’ll be outcastes! Maybe he raped her! She couldn’t possibly have consented! blah! yammer! fearandloathing!! chickenlittleing! more yammer!! skyisfalling! someonegivebirthtobilloreilly!! nervousnellying!! i’dsayyaddaydaddabutthat’stoojewishforthiscrowd!!don’tforgethechildren!
Your vision is still obscured by a cloud of idealism. You just love the concept of free for all love. It is a good concept, just like communism once was.
I do not. Does not mean that every woman should be forced into a situation like that to decide if she liked it or not. The key point is: she did not have a natural impulse for orgies, deviant sexual behavior etc. Yes, she might have wanted to be with more than one man, a very natural desire.
Sure, I can totally see where its going. Very soon every kid will be forced into multiple gay orgies. If they refuse, they would be branded anti-gay, anti-social, close minded sociopaths.
Argus?
You. make. no. sense.
To be with more than one man is “natural,” but orgies are “deviant.” (???)
You wouldn’t call people “freaks, merely deviant” (freaks=deviant. Synonyms, see?)
There is zero proof that she was forced into anything, as you keep insisting. over and over and over and over and tediously over again.
Like every kid is “forced” into having inter-racial sex now? Is that where I was going? Please, tell me of these cross-breeding boot-camps! My deviant friends and I are dying to go!
Your dire predictions of moral chaos are ludicrous in the extreme. Clearly you don’t bother to read my comments (specifically last bit of #102) for if you did, you wouldn’t have made a stupid assumption such as – You just love the concept of free for all love.
Cicatrix?
Pay me no heed. You see, when I was a young child I was open and observant to the world. The things I observed changed me so. I would see my uncle jei’s arguing loudly about the affairs of the world (of which they had no direct experience and many unfounded biases) amongst one another whilst drinking the shirab. The last person to talk was always the clear winner of any debate. As you can see, I was very impressionable and that is where I learned to have strength and vigor in my arguments: All I learned was stamina of debate, not logic of debate…. oh well. At least my Aunty jei’s always made them fresh chai to fuel the fire and cleared the tables promptly should they get over zealous in their ramblings-ons. I will be damn sure to be the last to talk so that I can go to sleep in victorious stupor. These days you can’t find such aunty jei’s… so sad. I wish it were the old days.
To be more than one man, one at a time. There is a clear difference. Yes, I would characterise orgies as deviant. A very small percentage of people experience orgies in their lives. A vry large percentage of them do so under the influence of drugs and regret it later.
This line of logic is self-defeating. By equating inter-racial relationships with orgies/deviant sexual behavior, you make the most racist statement imaginable.
I read your post #102 and reread it just now. All it contained was name calling.
I understand your pain, you rebelled against your parents all your childhood, you could not break through. All that is evil in the world is associated with the images of your parents, who you allude to as the metaphorical uncleji and auntyji. Grow up. At least Ms Samantha had the courage to push her rebellion all the way, albeit in a self-destructive manner. All you can do is hide behind her skirts for the courage you never had. You are neither here nor there, a sad spectacle of a failed experiment that would find solace only in a complete regression into monkeyhood, who does not ask questions, just does double backflips on branches.
argus you’ve missed the point behind cica’s inter-racial marriage reference.
She said:
1905 – Oh my God, those people are fucked up yo, they is marrying people that ain’t the same colour.
2005 – Oh my God, those people are fucked up yo, they is marrying people that are the same sex.
But you countered by saying:
So cica asked is every kid forced into an inter-racial marriage? Are they branded anti-mixing, anti-social, closed minded sociopaths if they don’t do it?
Cicatrix has not made any racist statements, accusing her of that was a lame attempt at point-scoring on your part.
This thread is very irritating.
Btw, where’s Saurav these days?
cicatrix,
i think early on when i started visit sepia mutiny, i told MD on one of the comments on Hurricane Katrina – i am neither liberal nor conservative. however, i am open to different people and will never tell you anyone what to do or not to do. hey, i have put the movie on my netflix list.
i have nothing to say about anyone’s personal behavior unless it harms someone and the society.
what i am finding disturbing is three things:
a) grown ups have full right to make their choice and also, the remainder of society is under no obligation to sign them off.
b) moornam has a point that his dissenting voice is being looked down. he has every right and reason to be outraged as others have the right to defend samantha.
c) i checked the website and the trailer – over all, it looks “cho cweet”. however, you definitely can see a little sly con game in the beginning and that is not something one should glorify in the name of being a liberal. they talk of a plan of finding a woman who , and that disturbs me. Quote from the webiste “They spend the next seven years dating and looking for a woman they could both fall in love with who would agree to live in a “trio” relationship.”
also, we all have lived in states (or india or any country) long enough to know that often minorities (economically, racially) are coerced into situation because of their eagerness to fit in. let us look at a extreme case – jeffrey dahmer – his target group were poor asian boys. if the cop would have seen that, he would saved the last victim but he just saw it as lover’s spat. you have to give to argus_nj credit for raising that point that “conning someone, howsover sugar coated it might be” is not kosher.
her case was more a novelty act. also, samantha found brief happiness – more power to her, but let us not please make this is a petition to brush off by saying “of course, she will be reluctant, at first.“
this plan thing bothers me quite a bit – if it was spontaneous, i would i have not raised a finger – it does not matter whether you are a liberal or conservative.
i saw the trailer. don’t get the idea of a “con” though. seems like lots of dudes have “plans” to bag a particular chick. am i the only one who has befriended attractive individuals of the opposite sex “cuz you never know….”??? that wasn’t my only, or even primary, motivation, but no need to establish a false dichotomy between spontaneity and planning.
anyway, if i knew a woman who was considering a polyamorous relationship, depending who the woman was, i might advise against it because of what i have seen in “open” relationships in general. but i don’t know this woman, and no one else here does either, so speaking to this case specifically seems a little overreachish. and argus started out with a harsh tone, and i think that is a lot of the problem here.
seems like there are many bigger issues out there to focus on rather than a stray polyamorous couple. after all, the rate of divorce for marriages still hovers around 1 out of 2.
razib,
if it was a newspaper ad, and she would have replied with full knowledge- then it is not a con game.
this was not, she is clearly shocked in the trailer. an aspiring, minority starlet (means financially struggling) – all sounds a cheap script from sunset boulevard. again i repeat, she found brief happiness and that is all good. sure, every courtship is a con game at some level – but within acceptable limits of surprise. please note, i am not preaching against/ for open relationship. jean paul satre had one …..
kush, i watched the trailer again, i’m missing something. actually, i don’t think the open relationship works for most people. that being said, again, i’m still perplexed by argus’s righteous vitriol…aside from the fact that i’ve seen it on other threads….
razib,
let us agree to disagree. let’s not drag samantha into our discussion again – she is a real person. also, my opinions are very, very limited, as i have not seen the documentary. it is on my netflix waitlist.
my track record of diasagreeing with moornam and argus_nj is close to 99.99 %, yet i listen to what they to say – they often upset me but they sometimes have very intelligent points. probably, i agree with cicatrix’s posts/ comments 75-80 % of the time since i have started visiting sepia mutiny.
i am openly taking a stance on this board – i have nothing against/ for open relationships or any unconvntional relationships. i have seen the gentlest relationships in most unconventional settings.
but i oppose being “brow beated into agreeing” – the moment one says something not pc – they are branded narrow-minded. also, i oppose with conservatives for “one rule for everyone”.
i just to point out that lot of people are glorifying something even though it was essentially a setup. i just do not want to be rubber-stamp, overly malleable liberal as a fashion statement.
Sex+Polygamy+…=149 comments