Well, now I know the alternative to getting married!

Well, now I know the alternative to getting married!

Yep, and the Indian girl in the movie is a Canadian. :)

I'll have to see how the movie turns out, before I post my "Gay men wanted" ad.

It does look VERY interesting, though. Can't wait to see it.

2 white dues = 1 brown man. makes sense.

2 white dues = 1 brown man. makes sense.

Confusion, confusion! Care to clarify, Razib saahib?

This is so Hectic!

You really have to be open minded to have a life like that. I can't wait to watch the movie.

It opens up so many topics, for instance does not the one partner feel jealous if the other is getting too much affection and so on so forth?

How many people would be intrested in something like this?

Lest we forget, thousands of years ago in little old conservative India, Draupadi had five husbands.

I don't recall any of the Pandavas being gay though...

We saw it the week it opened - and it was definitely conversation-provoking. Made me think about whether we are naturally manogamous people or whether that's a societal convention, etc. Their relationship worked for many years - and in a perfect world, would probably have worked much longer - but as someone said, we don't live in a perfect world.

Anyways, highly recommended. You guys must go check it out.

I'm curious about what her family said...no strict brothers to deal with a la Narinder Kaur???

How many people would be intrested in something like this?

Google around for "polyamory" and you'll see exactly how many people are interested in that. ;) Living in the Bay Area for 4 years, I met LOADS of people who were in various "unusual" relationships. I was always surprised how, even at boring Berkeley bbqs that my aspiring rock-star boyfriend would drag me to, I'd overhear things like "yeah, so after our daughter went to college, we decided to have an open relationship and it's been great!" My old roommate went off to live in a "quad" household (2 men, 2 women, all involved with each other) and one of my best friend's lovers is a butch dyke who will only have hetero sex with him.

This concept/lifestyle, which became very normal to me, produces nothing but shock and spitting disgust when I mention it in the UK, though. Maybe it's a California thing. ;)

so are these two guys gay or bi-sexual? and is there anything such as true/pure gayness??

Maybe it's a California thing. ;)

Yes ;)

Although there are apparently Eyes-Wide-Shut-type "exclusive" swingers parties in various luxury apartments and mansions here in the UK too (reports in the news, I hasten to add -- I don't have any first-hand experience of this !).

I also suspect some of the more "deliberately unconventional and scandalous" 2nd-Generation desis here in the UK get involved in those kinds of shenanigans too, although most desis here tend to be fairly conservative about the nature of their relationships -- compared to this kind of thing, anyway. Although I can only comment on people I know or have met, so others may have had different experiences.

This is a freak show - I am sure drugs are involved. The woman involved must also have some sort of deep psychological scar. I could totally see a woman having relationships with multiple men at a time, happens all the time. But with two gay/bi guys?

Lest we forget, thousands of years ago in little old conservative India, Draupadi had five husbands.

But as far as I recall the Pandavas were not each others power-bottoms and also, they had some ground rules - when Draupadi was with one of the brothers, the others would leave them alone etc.

2 white dues = 1 brown man. makes sense.

If you put it this way.

It is more like two white freaks equal one normal brown man.

I didn't realize this was a documentary until I watched the trailer... All things considered, this is pretty strange and this is the first time that I have ever heard of anything like this. I can't even imagine how complicated the realtionships must be inorder for something like this to work. How do you effectively split your attention between two people? Furthermore, how are you going to explain this to your kid? I can't even imagine trying to explain this to a kid... "So mommy has two husbands who are homosexual?"

There are no rules in any relationship, period, except for those set between a couple (barring illegal activity, ofcourse). The few implicit societal rules we do get are based on a precedent. The only difference I see in this particular threesome relationship, is that it has no precedent, so it's like starting from scratch with no protoype whatsoever, and that it is less societally accepted. Regardless, even relationships of 2 are difficult and take a lot of work, work-around, introspection, communication, patience and time. Any relationship is hardly ever ideal.

I can't even imagine trying to explain this to a kid... "So mommy has two husbands who are homosexual?"

This is a freak show - I am sure drugs are involved. The woman involved must also have some sort of deep psychological scar.

This "freak show" (as you call it) created two adorable little new yorkers named Siena and Sumit. I'd really hate for their grandparents to have to read more of the same crap they've probably already heard from judgmental fellow desis.

I don't think drugs were involved, unless you consider a consummately fearless, uninhibited curiousity a "drug". Who knows? I've experienced that feeling of unbelievable "fuck it all" bravery on a few very rare occasions and it IS narcotic. Semantics.

I really hate how people will see an unusual situation that involves a woman and then it's automatically armchair-analysis time:

-she's fucked up
-she was fucked over by a guy
-she fucks everyone b/c of what's above

...ad nauseum.

Look. I'll tell you who is psychologically scarred-- the girl I went to school with, who got pressured into a threesome by her otherwise "good on paper" desi bf. THAT girl had issues, with boundaries, with confidence, with self-worth. THIS woman entered this arrangement on her own terms, and was treated better than most "conventional" wives, in a union which lasted longer than several of the marriages of my 2nd gen desi friends.

When we all have our shit together, THEN let's knock people down, shall we? Until then, if someone wants to have a rational, mature, courteous, judgment-free conversation about this very specific and unique family, sexuality, societal norms and how humans can/should/could love...I'm down.

Eh, it's not just a west coast thing. I actually have come across a few people either really into or exploring polyamory.

Here's a brief explanation from a polyamory website:

Polyamory is the nonpossessive, honest, responsible and ethical philosophy and practice of loving multiple people simultanously. Polyamory emphasizes consciously choosing how many partners one wishes to be involved with rather than accepting social norms which dictate loving only one person at a time. Polyamory is an umbrella term which integrates traditional mutipartner relationship terms with more evolved egalitarian terms. Polyamory embraces sexual equality and all sexual orientations towards an expanded circle of spousal intimacy and love. Polyamory is from the root words Poly meaning many and Amour meaning love hence "many loves" or Polyamory. Of course, love itself is a rather ambiguous term, but most polys seem to define it as a serious, intimate, romantic, or less stable, affectionate bond which a person has with another person or group of persons. This bond usually, though not necessarily always, involves sex. Sexual love or romance are other words which have been coined to describe this kind of love. Other terms often used as synonyms for polyamory are responsible, ethical or intentional non-monogamy.

Not everyone who is into is some sort of "freak". There's no specific type of person that this lifestyle appeals to. I find it disheartening that some people who come off as extremely openminded here are automatically dismissing an alternative sexual lifestyle without knowing anything about it. No one's trying to convert you to anything - and no one said you had to. Maybe you can't understand how someone could have romantic affection for multiple people at the same time. I'm not saying that I understand, or that I don't - but to each his own. Hey, it's all love.

this relationship might be healthy, but its a bit much to be dogging second gen desi relationships as a way to defend this situation. everytime someone (desi) does something unorthodox and someone (desi) gets all judgemental about it, people start dogging desis in general?

...ad nauseum indeed. I wonder what the Black Frank White would have to say about all of this:
"Money and blood don't mix like two dicks and no bitch
Find yourself in serious shit"

Somehow I don't think he had this scenario in mind. argus-nj, you too funny man...

this relationship might be healthy, but its a bit much to be dogging second gen desi relationships as a way to defend this situation. everytime someone (desi) does something unorthodox and someone (desi) gets all judgemental about it, people start dogging desis in general?

I hope you don't think that's what I was doing-- I just caught a whiff of the "Ugh, how not good and desi" and I gagged.

I related what I did b/c I was struck by the fact that I have several friends who got married a few years ago and are already divorced. Under five years. Some of them, under three. All over the spectrum btw, before you ask: arranged, love, interracial...blah blah blah.

My overarching point with regards to that was that it's a bit rich to judge these three people who loved each other for quite a long time when we, normal, conventional, hetero desis poo smelly things, too.

No one's perfect. There's no need to allege "drugs" or psychological issues at a bunch of "freaks", thanks.

F. Dulce said:

Maybe you can't understand how someone could have romantic affection for multiple people at the same time.

Romantic affection for multiple people simultaneously is quite plausible. But actually living through it openly, and on top of it raising a child in it is quite complicated.

Honestly, I think the women in this relationship has it easy. Its the two guys who have to live with not knowing, and the insecurities. And I have no idea what the psychological impact on the child would be, if at all any.

I find it disheartening that some people who come off as extremely openminded here are automatically dismissing an alternative sexual lifestyle without knowing anything about it.

I only counted about 3 commenters who were sort-of dismissing it, but still open for discussion, and only 1 with scathing crticism. So, don't be disheartened; the majority are open-minded to any new information.

With that being said, continue!!

I related what I did b/c I was struck by the fact that I have several friends who got married a few years ago and are already divorced. Under five years. Some of them, under three. All over the spectrum btw, before you ask: arranged, love, interracial...blah blah blah.

No offense Anna, but I really I'm beginning to dislike the increasingly banal, not to mention specious reasoning of monogamy results in high divorce rates, 2/3 gay triangles and a baby-mule must work...

Kids need love, communication, guidance, and good role models/stability from their parents. With those things in place, they can be resilient against anything.

I'm not sure where all the impressions of closed-mindedness are coming from, so just in case, I want to clarify what my above quote means: No matter what the family scenario, whether it be 2 gay parents, 3 parents, 1 parent, etc, etc, so long as they are great parents and the chid has the above (quoted) factors, they will turn out great!

No offense Anna, but I really I'm beginning to dislike the increasingly banal, not to mention specious reasoning of monogamy results in high divorce rates, 2/3 gay triangles and a baby-mule must work...

That cause-effect argument was not presented. As I've said before, relationships of 2 are hardly perfect. That's also what Anna said.

I urge you all to stop passing jugement like provincial uncles and aunties and learn that relationships have many forms, many of which may be considered unconventional. After seeing this movie, I found it difficult to challenge the notion that love is indeed the foundation of this relationship. Sam and Samantha are loving parents who are deeply invested in their children. So what if mommy married two men?

thrill bill: and no offense to you , but that's not what i said. perhaps it's only christians who think of that "people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw judgmental bricks" concept. my bad. or not.

when "normal" heterosexual people aren't perfect, they shouldn't look down on alternative lifestyles which involved loving, willing, committed people. hell, when ANYONE who isn't perfect judges someone else, it's lame.

and i love how everyone's willing to talk out of their ass about this-- i considered posting this before Abhi did, and i spent a few hours studying the situation.

the men weren't GAY. the documentary footage shows both men saying they had been with women before and had enjoyed it.

Early in their romance, it had occurred to Sam that it would be great to bring a woman into the relationship: although the two men were committed to each other, at the time, they did not view themselves as gay. Steven eventually agreed, and they set out to find a woman with whom they could both fall in love, and, more importantly, who would agree to participate in their part experimental, part traditional, “trio” relationship.

samantha singh wasn't a BABY MULE. the three partners were committed to each other for almost a decade before they even thought about having a baby. you don't keep a uterus around for nine years, let it sleep between you and your "GAY" lovah in bed and otherwise dote on it, b/c eventually one day you might kinda wanna have a kid, and it would be useful.

i can't believe i'm wasting my precious apple battery on this. ;) this is so "satanic verses"-smacktalkin'. i.e. no one read it, everyone bitched about it.

I urge you all to stop passing jugement like provincial uncles and aunties...

and i urge YOU to note that not ALL of us are judging...some of us descendants of polyandrous civilizations (w00t Kerala!) are vigorously standing up for the right of others to love as they choose.

:+:

wow, i really AM back home in SF, aren't i? ;) i'm here, you're queer, castro on monday? :D

and i urge YOU to note that not ALL of us are judging...some of us descendants of polyandrous civilizations (w00t Kerala!) are vigorously standing up for the right of others to love as they choose.

Hell yeah. The comments of 1 or 2, shouldn't make us all a bunch of archaic tight-asses. There's some good comments and questions above. (I was confused for a bit about the counter-attacks). Can we continue with the discussion, now, and less with the smoking aunty-ji-uncle-ji's out of their holes?

and i urge YOU to note that not ALL of us are judging...some of us descendants of polyandrous civilizations (w00t Kerala!) are vigorously standing up for the right of others to love as they choose.

Hating the game, not the players...My ancestors were polyandrous denizens of Travancore State.

Theen of Dils is still playing at the IFC theater in the Vest Willage.

Can we continue with the discussion, now, and less with the smoking aunty-ji-uncle-ji's out of their holes?

Cool, cool. Would you or the other one ever become entrenched in a relationship permutation such as the aforementioned?
I'm pulling a David Blaine, having written what I already know your answer is going to be, folded it up, and thrown it away in the garbage (the last part is my additon).
Peace

Cool, cool. Would you or the other one ever become entrenched in a relationship permutation such as the aforementioned? I'm pulling a David Blaine, having written what I already know your answer is going to be, folded it up, and thrown it away in the garbage (the last part is my additon). Peace

I'm going to ignore your pre-judgement and answer the question, honestly. I probably couldn't do it because I don't think I am as secure as Samantha. What she did requires a high degree of self-esteem. I'm not saying I don't have good self-esteem, but in my case,it would be definitely be tested, and I suspect I might break. My self-esteem is high enough to NOT be pressured into a guy's cheezy porno fantasy threesome, but PROBABLY not good enough to sustain a loving relationship with 2 other people silmutaneously, where real feelings surface. I hate being the 3rd wheel, even with my girlfriends. That's where I'm at right now, anyways.

Ms A N N A,

How are you? Been a long time since we talked.

I'll tell you who is psychologically scarred-- the girl I went to school with, who got pressured into a threesome by her otherwise "good on paper" desi bf.

I plead you to ask yourself why this girl allowed herself to be pressured. The anti-anti-normal behavior lobby is so vocal today that perfectly normal people are being forced into a guilt trip. The day is not far when the anti-anti-gay lobby mandates a try and buy program for kids, i.e. forced homo-sexual experience. The kids who refuse to participate, will be branded anti-gay.

THIS woman entered this arrangement on her own terms,

This "freak show" (as you call it) created two adorable little new yorkers named Siena and Sumit.

Yeah, all babies look cutesy, when they grow up into complete sociopaths, only then people stand back and watch in horror.

I would say the guys tricked her, by befriending her and then gradually pushing her into what would not be otherwise accetable to her.

Dude, you are even further off the deep end than usual. Do you think this is part of a worldwide bisexual conspiracy? On second thought let's make that a rhetorical question so that you don't actually answer it.

The day is not far when the anti-anti-gay lobby mandates a try and buy program for kids, i.e. forced homo-sexual experience. The kids who refuse to participate, will be branded anti-gay.

That's far-fetched and illogical, i.e. Will not happen.

You seem to buy the idea that this girl made a conscious choice. I do not agree. Even in her interviews she expresses serious reservations

I will watch the movie and see for myself.

Conspiracy theory? I would say argus-nj has just postulated an alternative that you're just uncomfortable with.

Ang, thanks for you honest answer.

You seem to buy the idea that this girl made a conscious choice.

It actually was a conscious decision albeit one she made in her early 20s, when she was more impressionable (in her words)

MSNBC has an article on whether monogamy is dead ...

Human-style monogamy is rare in mammals. Our closest relatives, other primates, have more partners than Hugh Hefner has had women in his grotto. Genetic evidence suggests we ourselves weren’t so devoted either, until somewhat recently in our evolution. So whether or not it’s even “natural” for us to be monogamous, or it’s culturally imposed, is still a debate.

Is monogamy dead?

>>when "normal" heterosexual people aren't perfect, they shouldn't look down on alternative lifestyles which involved loving, willing, committed people. hell, when ANYONE who isn't perfect judges someone else, it's lame.

Is it only me who sees the self-contradiction in this post?

Carrying this concept to its logical conclusion, wouldn't it be fair to ask those who believe in this to not judge those who judge others?

Hey - it's a free country. People can Draupadise themselves all they want. And all others can judge the Pandavas till the cows come home.

Judging others is an alternate lifestyle.

M. Nam

I have to agree with Ang here

There are no rules in any relationship, period, except for those set between a couple (barring illegal activity, ofcourse). The few implicit societal rules we do get are based on a precedent. The only difference I see in this particular threesome relationship, is that it has no precedent, so it's like starting from scratch with no protoype whatsoever, and that it is less societally accepted. Regardless, even relationships of 2 are difficult and take a lot of work, work-around, introspection, communication, patience and time. Any relationship is hardly ever ideal.

We as humans are trained to think in a specific way. It comes from our education and practise of thinking inside the box. A red is for stop or danger and green is for all clear, try flashing a new color in there, you will see a few brains explode.

It takes a long time for us to grasp, analyze and accept anything new. Interracial couples, I am sure were not cool back in the day. Society tends to move a lot like the Indian courts, slow, but steady.

The biggest problem here is for the "regular" human mind to accept such out of the box ideas.

Who are we to judge their family unit? If it works, more power to them. I would venture to guess that the majority of posters were here were blessed enough to have a two-parent home growing up, so it might be easy to sort of shun any other lifestyle as "deviant" because it's unfamiliar and strange. Their arrangement is unusual but it seems to be working for them (all comparisons to traditional family units aside), they have been together for years, have a successful business, and are raising their children. How is that different from what most of us want out of life? I can't wait to see this movie.

[On a completely unrelated note, I kind of want my parents to see this movie so they'll stop complaining about me. On the other hand it may backfire and they might assume this is my way of telling them that I wish to have two male bisexual partners simultaneously. (Like that time I got my mom the book Arranged Marriage.)]

I think we are mixing up issues here. First of all I find the idea of studying monkeys to dictate human behavior atrocious. Yes, some people may feel the need to experience multiple partners. If a woman says she needs to switch partners for the thrill, I say, go for it.

But see what happens in this case:
- befriended by a white dude: at this point she is not even aware that this dude is gay or of the other dude
- white dude asks her, what she thought of a polygamous relationship: she responds "what are you crazy?"
- white dude introduces her to the other white dude
- she has relationship with the other white dude: I assume it was one on one at first and she perhaps even wanted to be with other dudes at this point
- the white dudes announce they are gay and moreover been partners of each other
- she is shocked but accepts it
- white dudes come out with full details of their plan of sexual music chair (three holes, only two ...)

You see, she is gradually forced into this situation. She was young and by her own admission impressionable enough to be conned into what is clearly an exploitative relationship by two much older, slimy white freaks.

argus_nj, just watch the movie. Since you have *no* basis for your analysis, no one here is going to pay much attention to your comments. (Not that they will after you watch the movie either. However, then at least you will have something to refer to...)

On the other hand it may backfire and they might assume this is my way of telling them that I wish to have two male bisexual partners simultaneously.

That's hilarious! Don't bother trying to have a discussion with your parents, cuz they'll automatically suspect you of havingg a direct affiliation with the discussion. If it's a gay discussion, "Are you gay?"; if you comment about how cool a person is b/c they're unmarried and happy with children, then you must want to be an unmarried parent forever; if you mention that so and so left their job and started up a great business, then "are you thinking of such crazy schmazy business?" LOL.

Since you have *no* basis for your analysis

Please peruse the website of the movie. From the interviews and other snippets it is pretty much clear how it transpired. I made a couple of assumptions and mentioned them as appropriate.

Rupa writes:
>>Who are we to judge their family unit?

There is no "we" here. It would be accurate to say: Who am I to judge their family unit? To each his/her own. Please don't speak for me. I would like the freedom to judge others' ass off.

>>perhaps it's only christians who think of that "people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw judgmental bricks" concept.

Wrong inference. The public were not just judging the prostitute - they were going to stone her when Jesus intervened and said: "Those who have not sinned...". This is the episode which translates into the modern, secular version: "People living in glass houses...".

I can judge this threesome, but in a manner that does not violate their rights. I won't stop them from carrying out their relationship, and if someone tries to, I will opppose them. But at the same time, I would not give this threesome the time of the day if their life depended on it. That's my perogative as a free citizen. Don't mess with it.

M. Nam

I won't stop them from carrying out their relationship

Are you sure about this? Wouldn't you try to dissuade a friend who was being forced into some sort of situation under the garb of acceptability and openness?

Look what happened to Ms A N N A's friend. She did not receive the support from her friends. She felt something was not right, but her friends browbeat her: "What, you don't like threesomes? Who are you to judge other people? Don't you know our forefothers the monkeys were polygamous?" etc. Eventually this poor woman basically got violated and permanently scarred for life.

No Mr Nam, I am not so sure I would not stop my friends from indulging dangerous cons, crooks and freaks. I will hug them, and assure them that it is perfectly ok to be normal.

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.

>> Wouldn't you try to dissuade a friend

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:

There is no "we" here. It would be accurate to say: Who am I to judge their family unit? To each his/her own. Please don't speak for me. I would like the freedom to judge others' ass off.

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?"

I can judge this threesome, but in a manner that does not violate their rights. I won't stop them from carrying out their relationship, and if someone tries to, I will opppose them. But at the same time, I would not give this threesome the time of the day if their life depended on it. That's my perogative as a free citizen. Don't mess with it.

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.

>>perhaps it's only christians who think of that "people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw judgmental bricks" concept.

These are someone else's words, not mine.

I would advise him/her against this behaviour

Thank you, that's what I thought.

>>What I should have said was, "Who are YOU to be so judgemental?"

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 what’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 won’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.

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 ?

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)?

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.

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:

I can judge this threesome, but in a manner that does not violate their rights. I won't stop them from carrying out their relationship, and if someone tries to, I will opppose them. But at the same time, I would not give this threesome the time of the day if their life depended on it.

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.

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 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' :)

1 cycle of brown lovin' = 2 cycles of white lovin' :)

Hear Hear!

Rupa,

>>Is it possible to not personally agree with their choices, yet be respectful and accepting and treat them equally all the same?

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

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.

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. How’s that for zeitgeist.

The question is, do you think them being in a 3-some is evidence that they are morally reprehensible people?

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?

In monkey/animal world, rape is quite acceptable

hahahahahahah

You must have seen a horny bull trying to mount a horrfied fleeing cow

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.

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.)

b) In monkey/animal world, rape is quite acceptable. You must have seen a horny bull trying to mount a horrfied fleeing cow

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......

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

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:

>>Homosexuals were far more acceptable in ancient Greece and ancient India than they are now.

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 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.

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?

>>I think most of you that are pissed off

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

Granted, it wouldn't have been posted... but seriously, would you even have blinked?

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.

You are trying to discredit the "pissed" people for something they allegedly would have done, hence you are drawing your own conclusions.

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.

I'm saying I doubt anybody would really have this much to say if the documentary didn't include a desi.

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:

1. Intolerance
2. Tolerance
3. Acceptance
4. Participation
5. Adaptation

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.

There are five stages to any social change:

1. Intolerance
2. Tolerance
3. Acceptance
4. Participation
5. Adaptation

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.

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.

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?

There are five stages to any social change:

1. Intolerance
2. Tolerance
3. Acceptance
4. Participation
5. Adaptation

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

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,

>>Are the parts meant to be hermetically sealed?

Until a better alternative presents itself...

>>If the gruesome 3-some wanted to screen the movie for educational purposes at a university, would you protest?

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.

>>If they were pushing for legislation to validate threesomes as a form of marriage, would you protest?

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

endorse every deviant behavior as a precursor to a social change?

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?

Polyandry in Sri Lanka is not unheard of.

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.

The world has changed, by all indications for the worse, but it has changed.

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)

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.

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

the first half of Hearts hails the ideal committed state—three incomes, two people buying birthday presents, always somebody to snap that vacation photo. But years pass; kids are born; giddy jokes about indeterminate paternity grow sardonic; business gets stressful; latent issues require therapy. Beyond the buzz of iconoclasm, our explorers find a regular troubled marriage, only with three sides to every problem.

Ms Cicatrix,

Are you anti-evolution?

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.

"Judge away!!" I say, for then you won't mind if I judge you right back, you repressed, sanctimonious, bedwetting freak...right?

...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.

-- in fact they even go to the stores that straight people own.

So your friends shop at Old Navy too? Wow.

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.

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!

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.

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."

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...

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.

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!!

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.

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.

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.

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?

Why is exploitation your DEFAULT assumption?

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.

Oh, I should add, don't comment on my undies as a way to dismiss my arguements.

I did not and I won't, but your arguments mainly consisted of personalities.

I have no other problems with such comments.

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

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.

appears directly contradictory to this:

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!

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:

Samantha: I am with two guys, this is not what my picture was supposed to be, this is not a relationship I expected to have. Sam and I had become friends and he is just so nonchalant about it he asked what do you think about a relationship with two guys and I went, no way, are you crazy?

From a clip:

Samantha: I don't want Siena to be ashamed of who she is or who her family is or I don't know if at a point in her life she will be..

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!)

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.

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!

and I can't see what the hell you're talking about.

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.

Did you think all women nurture childhood dreams of walking down an aisle to (circling a fire with, whatever you want) their two husbands?

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.

Let's take a trip in the time machine, shall we?

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.

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.

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.

Sure, I can totally see where its going. Very soon every kid will be forced into multiple gay orgies.

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 with more than one man is "natural," but orgies are "deviant."

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.

Like every kid is "forced" into having inter-racial sex now?

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.

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.

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:

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.

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

Here, read this.

A few excerpts:
"Nine years ago, they fell in love with each other,' reads an intertitle - but in fact it was a little more premeditated than that. Turns out, the two men had already been together for seven years, having met in their first week at college, before they decided to try inviting a woman into their relationship. Sam and Steven 'auditioned' a number of potential candidates,.."

"Finally Sam met Samantha at the restaurant they both worked in, the pair became friends"

"The lesson? Be careful what you wish for."

Moral of the Story: Enjoy movies, have a good laugh, talk about it at the starbucks but never take up as a cause because it is there without really evaluating it objectively.

Thank God Kush is around to articulate matters so concisely and eloquently. I support everything he has said in his last couple of posts, 100%.

By the way -- I've noticed that a number of people on this thread, both men and women (including some of the "regulars"), are falling into the typical desi mentality of resorting to hurling insults and sarcasm at the other party as a way of attempting to undermine their arguments and enforce their own point of view. This is unacceptable and has to stop. Being sarcastic, insulting, aggressive, or speaking as loudly as possible, does not make one's statements correct or appropriate if what one is fundamentally saying is wrong. No amount of verbal bullying or personal insults can change this basic fact. Browbeating and undermining the other party into "submitting" or giving up, does not necessarily mean that one's viewpoints and assertions are actually correct, even if one superficially "wins the argument".

The analogy of inter-racial relationships, although understandable, is also inappropriate in my opinion. Beyond a certain point, the very concept of "race" is artificial, false, and man-made (this also happens to be heavily emphasised by a number of religions, including my own --which neither has the concept of "caste" nor "kafir/believer", remember). The basic idea of "inter-racial" is as false as "inter-caste". Gender, however, is very much a real biological fact, and although (despite the beliefs of some of the more orthodox and patriarchal members of the human race) men and women actually have far more in common with each other than things that differentiate them (both biologically and psychologically), there are actually two separate genders in humanity which no amount of well-meaning-but-misguided political correctness or trendy thinking can change. This is an utterly inalienable scientific fact. So I don't think you can automatically use the same arguments for relationships involving various gender dynamics that you would otherwise use in the (completely legitimate) argument against prejudice & ignorance regarding so-called "inter-racial" dating/marriage.

DesiDancer made a valid point earlier on about how many participants may be irate about Samantha's scenario because she happens to be Indian/South Asian. However, a number of other commentators -- myself included -- may not have concerns for this reason, but because of the fact that children are involved. I'm all for a live-and-let-live attitude towards the way that people conduct their personal lives, especially their relationships -- people can do whatever the hell they want to, as long as they're sure that they're taking a particular course of action for the right reasons and take responsibility for the outcomes/consequences of their behaviour, for better or for worse (unless someone is being either grossly self-destructive in their thinking and behaviour, or if someone is being manipulated, bullied, tricked, or exploited).

However, when children become part of the equation, it's an entirely different ballgame -- because one's ideas and actions will have consequences for vulnerable people (ie. your kids) who are in a subordinate position to you and for whom you are responsible.

And so Jai Singh and all, watch the movie. Your 'concerns' about the children are addressed in a very thought-provoking way.

I think its time to bring back the Anti Miscegenation laws.

I have one point to make.

Noone, I repeat noone, who has NOT had a child can with complete determinism say what will work and not work.

Its best to begin with "ideals" "hopes" and "thoughtful action," with the recognition time brings its own anaswers.

hence, when one deviates from accepted norms of parenting and family structure, while at one level it may be a great potential for social change, on the other hand it also means exposing children to strifes and challenges they may not have faced under a more regular and socially acceptable situtation.

The rest is merely rhetoric....of people who dont know what they are talking about.....
Its not without reason rasing children has involved a two gender identity...Now if this means two ends of the gay spectrum, then they must acknowledge it...while looking for acceptance for the relationship at a larger level. Two of the same kind is not a good model for any kind of balanced team building(as any marriage is)

So I feel, for aacceptance of a gay model, gays would do better to emphasize the dissmilarity of the sexual roles within the gay relationship, rather than focus on similarity.

The question of social acceptance for kids will always remain, whether one likes it or not. As long as its an informed choice, its fine.

Sumita

Also,

This whole model of seduction to get someone to do what they would not want to do undernormal circumstances is , in my opinion, merely another name for manipulation

Anyone who respects another human being as a rational conscious thinking entity, would not think of doing this.
To take advantage of someone who is not thoughfully aware of the consequences of their behaviour, is morally reprehensible.

It boils down to " Should I, just because I can?"

Is it in the true interest of mutual welfare?

This may be complex situation, but most sexual situations involve this manipulation, unless both parties are at an equal level of exposure, awareness and consciousness and mutually agree to go ahead. For the term "consenting adults" to be used, the level of awareness is key.

This is a huge mix-up.

In most situations, someone who is emotionally stronger, more aware/experienced, expoits the other person for personal gains, to the other person's detriment. Many sexual open relationships fall into this category, obiously not all. Its important to make that distinction.

The litmus test is the question: Is an encounter mutually benefical for both people?

Unfortunately most people do not ask this question.

It is at heart a basic ethical human issue. To confuse it with gay, race, gender etc very loaded and value drives words is to confuse the issue.

Sumita

I kind of wonder if "we" are more interested in this because of the desi angle?

i kind of think thats not a very good thing in that everytime someone desi does something do "we" have to analyze "our" feelings about it?

desi does ganja.....how do i feel about it? what does it mean for second gen desi culture?

desi does not put the toilet seat down? what does this mean about patriarchy in the second gen desi community?

desi is involved in a threesome relationship....has nothing to do with me on its face other than i probably am like three people removed from her/him

i'm not saying no one else should talk about it, just pointing out that the world is a bit easier to handle if i don't analyze my life and life priorities whenver i get news about a desi doing something

if this was not a desi person my reaction would be different that if it was. i like my reaction if this was not a desi person much better.

this might actually be obvious to some people here

For those who mentioned the 60s and free love, here is an interesting first hand experience and how views change and why over time...

http://www.city-journal.org/html/11_2_urbanities-becoming.html

(Roger Scruton is a conservative thinker today. He was not always conservative.)

Sumita

Kush and Jai, Your comments 145, 147, 149 and 152 were really good. I too am an open-minded liiberal, but I get annoyed with "I am more open-minded than thou" sanctimonious reactions that one sees so often.
Kush mentioned Sartre's open relationship in comment 147. I strongly encourage you to read the article on Sartre and Beauvoir in the New Yorker recently
http://www.newyorker.com/critics/books/articles/050926crbo_books

Here is an excerpt: "..Still, it was possible to stick to the no-fault view: these were consenting adults. Their erotic lives were no one’s concern but their own.

That view soon lost tenability...With the publication of “Letters to Sartre,” it was clear that, privately, he and Beauvoir held most of the people in their lives in varying degrees of contempt. They enjoyed, especially, recounting to each other the lies they were telling."

If you read the article you see that essentially they seem to have exploited a lot of vulnerable women

Two of the same kind is not a good model for any kind of balanced team building(as any marriage is)

You can make the same argument about single parenting that it isn't as good as having both parents. But, the single parents are hailed as heroes, while gay parents are subjected to vicious attacks. In my view, the people fall into different life styles based on their natural inclinations as well as their experiences. While we all could do argue on end about what the perfect story should be, the fact of the matter is that the deviations from the norm do exist, and such deviations like this have no bigger implications outside the realm of the lives of the parties involved in. So, what's the big deal?

If you read the article you see that essentially they seem to have exploited a lot of vulnerable women

Read the article, and these bored losers exploited a lot of vulnerable GIRLS. I would not consider 16, 17 year olds to be women at all. Their minds and ideas are still developing. Yes, these two conned these little girls, no doubt.

On the topic of conning, since the definition seems to have expanded from lack of consent and legality to bad intentions being sufficient, you can then add numerous other relationships to the "conned" list. Think of how many times you've seen a guy date a beautiful women just because she's hawtt even though they have nothing in common, or a woman date a guy just because he makes good income, or both silmutaneously. Then, according to your definition, that's a con, too: these people don't really love or like each other, their (fully aware) intentions behind the relationship are bad. Must be a con. I have no problem with your definition: I hate fake relationships, period, but don't forget to include all other relationships that fall under said definition to your conned list.

As for Samantha, I will have to see the movie before I come to ANY kind of conclusion. I am not going to rely on previews which are often sensationalized to get people to watch.

such deviations like this have no bigger implications outside the realm of the lives of the parties involved in.

How do you arrive at this conlusion, am curious

Sumita

Ang, I don't wish to go off topic, but perhaps you should read the article a little more carefully..."..In 1952, when she was forty-four, Beauvoir began her affair with Lanzmann, who was twenty-seven. In 1953, Sartre began an affair with Lanzmann’s sister, Evelyne. She was twenty-three."
And the article is by no means an exhuastive list of the people they bedded...
Furthermore, you seem to have missed my original point, which was that such alternative relationships that get the PC crowd excited can in reality be terribly ugly. (And I would like to repeat for the record that I count myself as a liberal and do not encourage hate against "alternative lifestyles").

"which was that such alternative relationships that get the PC crowd excited can in reality be terribly ugly. (And I would like to repeat for the record that I count myself as a liberal and do not encourage hate against "alternative lifestyles"). "

Exactly, my thoughts. Well said. I have been reading the New Yorker article too.

Any situation (conventional or non-conventional), look carefully, if anyone is getting royally f**d - they are many ways of it - someone of them not so "overt". Again, they are degrees of them and all of them are not even in the same league - therefore, this list thing is a useless exercise.

The worst thing you can be - is to be a trooper.

Furthermore, you seem to have missed my original point, which was that such alternative relationships that get the PC crowd excited can in reality be terribly ugly. (And I would like to repeat for the record that I count myself as a liberal and do not encourage hate against "alternative lifestyles").

And I would like to repeat myself that I choose to watch the movie before coming to any conclusion.

Furthermore, it would be naive to assume that ALL of Sartre's conquests were conned. Some probably were, and some probably weren't (there very may well have been some that didn't give a damn one way or the other and wanted to have a good time). I did read the article, and alot of their conquests, were, horridly, young teenage girls that Beauvier or Bouvoir brought home - gross. It's undeniable that the chances that the ones that weren't conned increases with age and experience, and that's why we have laws about age of consent, etc. That doesn't mean a 50 year old can't be conned; it's just that life experiences usually make you wiser - not an exhaustive rule, just a probabilistic one.

I ain't PC man,I just like to look at the probability of certain occurrences, all the evidence, and then go from there. I haven't come to any conclusion, so it's interesting that you accuse me of being PC and going along with some liberal rhetoric agenda. Even if I do, later, AFTER watching the film, smell foul play, what I think won't matter much.

Also, I have to agree with Raju's assessment of the reasoning behind all the interest generated here. Since, I'm not too worried about "being conned" myself, that's what really scares me.

I kind of wonder if "we" are more interested in this because of the desi angle?

I am seeing a lot of reasoning in these lines. An extension of this would be like saying, why do you need a separate messageboard for South Asians anyway?

As I explained in a previous post, this is a fallacious line of reasoning to discredit others who have a different opinion than you.

I saw this post on friday, but only now got a chance to read through all the comments

MoorNam wrote

Rupa,

>>Is it possible to not personally agree with their choices, yet be respectful and accepting and treat them equally all the same?

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).

I can’t believe no one challenged you on this yet, but I will even though it happened 100 posts ago, because several people have mentioned the fact that they are OK with people’s actions “but what about the children?”

Well first of all second hand smoke is horrendously detrimental to the health and well being of those forced to inhale it. In addition to the harm of second hand smoke, children of smokers are way more likely to be smokers themselves, and the same can be said of alcoholics, people who are overweight etc. So your smokers argument doesn’t hold much water when it comes to children.

Children deal far better with these things than most people will lead you to believe. They are not so fragile as to be unable to function if they are teased or unaccepted by society. Should we then terminate all foetesus with downs syndrome, or make sure our kids have average grades lest their peer group ostracize them? And don't you think that with the numbers of divorces and remarriages, kids today have knowledge and understanding of families with two mommies/two daddies (and combinations thereof). Kids need love understanding and support.

Several people have also said things to the effect of: well polygamous situations in the middle east aren’t so great etc. Violence in these situations are usually a result of the low status of women, NOT the polygamy per se. I’ve seen wonderfully functional polygamous families, and just because it is not a social norm here does not make it “freaky” or “deviant.” And as recently as my great-grandfather, my family practiced polygamy in Gujrat. What seems to upset people here is the fact that the situation is flipped, that we are talking about polyandry, and that a desi woman is involved.

Argus you keep mentioning “evidence” that there was coercion involved, but the “facts” you mention—

Samantha: I am with two guys, this is not what my picture was supposed to be, this is not a relationship I expected to have. Sam and I had become friends and he is just so nonchalant about it he asked what do you think about a relationship with two guys and I went, no way, are you crazy?

Well just because you think one thing one day, does it mean that you don’t have the RIGHT to change your mind willingly. And if cajoling is coercion, then by God, what bunch of nit-wits we all are when we buy any product for which we have seen a commercial. I have never heard of a dating situation where both parties have revealed all on the first date, as for the premeditated part of the men involved, they simply knew what they wanted and went looking for it. A bit like any of the brown dating sites, no-one puts all their cards on the table, but everyone is out looking for specifics.

god, this thread is getting really boring with all the lifestyle pimp-like pitches for "last tango in paris" being on the forefront, bending out of shape............all dating sites are very specific - single men for single women, bisexual relations, etc. and so forth (and also with warnings, dos and don'ts)....go into anyone reputed.

gotta go, i need to call my pal hugh hefner for thanksgiving plans. on any day, we'd rather practise and have fun than evangelize. love when lifestyle is reduced to deterrgent advert analogies and children are raised with just sanctamonious slogans.

will put pictures of my chicago tryst with the hefner bunnies on my blog, see ya. all those hefner bunnies when everything is over - are at least millionaires and they know what they are getting into upfront.

i'm outto of here. have fun.....sorry for disturbing. i am not into sublimal marketting - it irks me, be it chewing or anything.

........you (whoever) may please continue cajoling. i do not want to be close, or you do not want me close (i would not act decent).........cajoling is euphemism for many things.......

definitely shows weakness of character. hefner said to you all - send me pictures if you want to part of the empire.

is this intellectual depth of sepia mutiny?

tata

people complaining about the way this thread is going should simply ask the admin to close this thread.

Kenyandesi,

As to the kind of emotional problems children of "alternate lifestyle" households go through, is a different discussion. I have enough evidence (statistical and otherwise) to have my opinion about this. That's not the central point of my objection.

My objection was that some folks on this thread started questioning others' opinion and their right and the propriety to judge the situation. This is what riled me. I cannot stand thought-police, neither from the extreme right nor from the extreme left.

M. Nam

Ms KenyanDesi,

Good to see you. How was your weekend?

What seems to upset people here is the fact that the situation is flipped, that we are talking about polyandry, and that a desi woman is involved.

Does not apply to me. Let me repeat, I do not belong to the camp that believes girls should not have fun. If you follow the Dr Reddy/prophylactic thread, you will see all my arguments are based on science, analysis and rationality.

First, let us take the issue of rationality. As I mentioned in the Dr Reddy case, my view of rationality is long term. Let us analyse Ms Samantha's choices here - go for a normal relationship leading to marriage, stay single and experiment, experiment leading to novelty living arrangement. If she chose the first two, I would have nothing to say. In fact, if she chose the third option, which she has, I would not be so concerned (but probably judge her severely). The alarming thing is young and bright women like you are championing her cause as if it is an achievement, a goal worth pursuing.

Think about this for a moment, where does this leave her? Evidence from the website shows the relationship did not last. What were the odds that it would? Was it really a rational choice? After the collapse of this relationship, what are the chances that she finds another man? Agreed, marriage is not the goal of a woman, but to be put into a situation which pretty much decimates your market equity is not a rational choice. Let's talk about the children. Some otherwise intelligent posters believe the relationship was justified by the creation of two "adorable New Yorkers". Phooeeey! In the end, when the two freaks take off after their sinister experiment, there is a great danger of this helpless woman left alone to fend with two kids. How is that rational?

The question of con/coercion can not be evaluated in isolation with the question of rationality. Let me give an example: in Japan, there is a widespread practice of pre-teen/teenage girls dating older men. Most of these girls are nonchalant about it and some people believe it prepares them for life. But in western/civilized society (our baseline context), this is nothing but underage prostitution. Another example, closer to home. Many women willingly gave up their lives after the Sati tradition, probably some still do. Would you endorse these cultural phenomenons?

Wide-spread polygamy in Gujarat does not justify cheerleading deviant relationships these days. There is a reason we moved away from it and I hope you will agree, vastly for the better of society in general and women in particular.

The situation has not flipped Ms KenyanDesi, freaks like those two losers (one the son of a leading Mafia hit man too!) still find suckers like Ms Samantha and people like you to cheer from the sidelines.

cajoling (coercion) is.........

the infamous (or famous) "butter" scene in "Last Tango in Paris"

when a 10 year old girl in the Calcutta district is told by her mother that being street walker is her most attractive option.

a pimp tells a 18 year old girl in Cambodia his real motives after he has made her fall in love for last six months.

when a 45 year old women is told by her husband in middle east that he is going to marry an 19 year old and she should accept her and play second fiddle, obviously willingly.

What I am going to do?
My mother is a PhD and where I work, they are dozens of very accomplished, intelligent women (ocasionally with alternate lifestyle), essentially world leaders what they do - I tell them about the movie and ask whether such a situation was doomed from day 1. I bet every will have a very negative view. Even Anais Nin, an incredibly accomplished woman with a very famous alternate lifestlye never left her rich banker husband or put herself in an untenable position.

If anyone of them (my survey group) gives a thums up on a situation where a struggling actress walked in into a relationship that ended in a "train wreck" - I will let you guysnon sepia mutiny know.

what surprises me that no seemingly intelligent women on sepia mutiny called spade a spade for fear of not looking PC- the story above is essentially an explotative situation which a struggling actress went through by two conviving guys (and of them son of a mafia hit man). You can spin it so much.

my pal, hefner at least makes them very rich and never cajoles.

MoorNam, I do not object to your right to judge, just to your right to name-call, make people uncomfortable, or make bad comparisons with inaccurate information. There is a difference betwwen thinking something is wrong, and calling the wrong-doer a freak. Judge the sin not the sinner.

The alarming thing is young and bright women like you are championing her cause as if it is an achievement, a goal worth pursuing.

I do no such thing. I simply am saying that there more sides to this that are not so black and white. YOU (and I) don't know what exactly transpired between those three. Perceptions change over time too. Something that was said 9 years ago can be interpreted very differently by all three of them in the present. Also I don't really want to focus so much on this situation as much as the fact that words like "freaks" is being used to describe "people like them." That's really dangerous language/sentiment.

After the collapse of this relationship, what are the chances that she finds another man?

That's what they used to say to keep women from divorcing their abusive husbands.

Let me give an example: in Japan, there is a widespread practice of pre-teen/teenage girls dating older men. Most of these girls are nonchalant about it and some people believe it prepares them for life. But in western/civilized society (our baseline context)

First of all the woman in this situation was NOT a teen. She was an adult. Second, it is only VERY recently that teenagers were considered children. My great-grandfather left India at 15 came to another continent, and made a life for himself. What a horrible man his father must have been to throw a child like that into the world. The thing is he was not considered a child.

Third, who ever said western = civilized, AND that it was the baseline context we must ALL adhere to? isn't my handle enough to tell you that I don't always subscribe to whitewashed veshtern ideas.

Another example, closer to home. Many women willingly gave up their lives after the Sati tradition, probably some still do. Would you endorse these cultural phenomenons?

widows kill themselves because they are badly treated in indian society, and it's not so close to "my home" as it is to yours. I mean people in India still get upset if a widow remarries. I think what you are talking about is the systematic cultural oppresion of women, but you wanting to dictate this womans expression of her sexuality is just as vile (note, you're not vile, your judgement is). No one has the right to dictate who you should love and not love, who your family consists of and who it doesn't include.

Wide-spread polygamy in Gujarat does not justify cheerleading deviant relationships these days.

it is not deviant from where I stand. Kenyand still live polygamous lives, some quite happily.

There is a reason we moved away from it and I hope you will agree, vastly for the better of society in general and women in particular.

i think that it doesn't work in today's society. i don't think that it never worked. and I'd like to point out that we are not moving BACKWARD to what things USED to be. Infact an argument could be made that we are moving forward, affording women the same choices that our fore-FATHERS had. And honestly, Indians (and Chinese people) better get used to this kind of situation because at the rate their're killing off girls in that part of the world, men are going to HAVE to share.

The situation has not flipped Ms KenyanDesi, freaks like those two losers (one the son of a leading Mafia hit man too!) still find suckers like Ms Samantha and people like you to cheer from the sidelines.

I'm cheering her right to choose (because i'd hate it if that was taken away from me), not her choices (because i don't know enough of the situation to put myself out there, except in the hypothetical)

Ms KenyanDesi,

How was trick or treatin'?

I see that you came up with some clever arguments, craftily avoiding my comments about the getting stuck with the kids part and the fact that the relationship did not really survive. You also managed to twist one of my points to make me sound like a chauvinist.

One way to look at it would be to ignore all the facts and claim that Ms Samantha actually exercised a true polyandry and hence was able to enact retroactive revenge on the practice of polygamy.

This, alas, is not true.

a) In polygamy situations, men got to choose the women. In this case, she was courted and possibly conned (as myself and Mr Kush strongly believe).

b) In polygamy cases, men acquired women of equal stature, often attractive and much younger to them. In this case, she basically got two gay/bi men, none rich, one considerably unattractive compared to her and from a questionable background (son of a mafia hitman) etc.

I'm cheering her right to choose, not her choices

At least we are getting someplace. But this is merely wordplay. Her "right to choose" is not her creation, it is the creation of the society we live in. So, the fact that she enjoys this right does not at all elevate her, it elevates the society she lives in.

What we are really concerned with here is her choices.

Personally, the way you are extolling the virtues of polygamy, I am seriously concerned. Are you a muslima by any chance?

no seemingly intelligent women on sepia mutiny called spade a spade for fear of not looking PC- the story above is essentially an explotative situation which a struggling actress went through by two conviving guys (and of them son of a mafia hit man). You can spin it so much.

Kush

Am quite fine with not being intelligent(its highly overrated anyways), but I take exception to the fact "no woman" called a spade a spade.That identity I cannot give up as easily.

You probably did not read my posts #156, 157.

Sumita

Kush

Sorry, its post # 155, 156

Sumita

Argus_nj,
trick or treating was fun. I love kids and it was doubly fun because I had my lights and rangoli still up from a sat night diwali party so I got some interesting comments from the kids and their parents

I wasn't ignoring the points you made about her being left alone with the kids. But like I said I can't speak of this situation definitively because I don't know enough of it to make a judgement one way or another. If she was taken advantage of then it's a bad situation, but no different than ANY situation where anyone is taken advantage of. I've been taken advantage of in a non-polygamous situations, can you honestly say that you would find this less reprehensive if she had been taken advantage of by one man? Then she should be left alone?

Again when inter-racial couples got divorced and the woman was left with the kids, it was said, "see we told you it wouldn't work, we told you that s/he would leave you, it's unnatural for the races to mix" blah blah.

Hetero-sexual men (and women) in monogamous relationships abuse, manipulate, lie, cheat etc. It makes it no less horrible. I'm just saying, don't use the fact that she's now a single mom to say her relationship was wrong because it was with two men instead of one. And besides, even when things end horrendously, sometimes it's enough to have had the few good moments to look back on too...she mentions that she was treated better by either men than she had been before in any other relationship, and that was then multiplied by two.

And I don't have the time to go through the entire post, and I'm not sure it was you who said it, but what I found most disturbing was this (paraphrased) sentiment:

I would not give this person the time of day if their LIFE depended on it

wow, just wow. that's downright hateful and mean and horrible. That if someone was dying, and you (not you Argus, you in general) were in a position to help them, you wouldn't.

And Argus, whether or not you yourself would go to that level is not the issue, it's that you give the people who would enough fuel to keep their hating fires burning.

One way to look at it would be to ignore all the facts and claim that Ms Samantha actually exercised a true polyandry and hence was able to enact retroactive revenge on the practice of polygamy.

First of all I did not couch this as revenge. Progress does NOT equal revenge. Or do you think that educating women is revenge for the illiteracy of the past? Giving women the same choices as men is NOT revenge for the past. It is progress for us ALL. Revenge is vindictive and destructive. I couched this as much more of a progree issue, not a revenge one. And notice I said that it is an argument that could be made potentially, if one was to keep insisting that this two man one woman situation was synonomous with polygamy of the past. No sir-ree, this is a whole new ballgame.

On a side note, can I ask you if you'd have the same reaction if these two men or any two women had adopted children and then the relationship had fallen apart?

This, alas, is not true.

a) In polygamy situations, men got to choose the women. In this case, she was courted and possibly conned (as myself and Mr Kush strongly believe).

actually alliances were generally chosen by families, she had the choice to say NO. She was an adult, and from what I can tell a pretty smart one, that doesn't mean she wasn't manipulated, but my saying this doesn't mean that she was.

b) In polygamy cases, men acquired women of equal stature, often attractive and much younger to them. In this case, she basically got two gay/bi men, none rich, one considerably unattractive compared to her and from a questionable background (son of a mafia hitman) etc.

1. In the past all women were married off, ugly, fat, one-legged, buck-toothed, skinny, mean, dirty. Someone married them too especially in polygamous societies.

2. who says bi men are less than straight men? or rich ones better than poor? or that she didn't find both of them HOT HOT HOT????????

3. I have some incredibly horrendous relatives (downright abusive etc) who have produced wonderful offspring, please, just because he is someone's SON does not make him his father.

I'm cheering her right to choose, not her choices

At least we are getting someplace. But this is merely wordplay. Her "right to choose" is not her creation, it is the creation of the society we live in. So, the fact that she enjoys this right does not at all elevate her, it elevates the society she lives in.

What we are really concerned with here is her choices.

I'm not, I'm talking about any woman's or man's right to choose how to express their sexuality, and to do it without being persecuted.

Personally, the way you are extolling the virtues of polygamy, I am seriously concerned. Are you a muslima by any chance?

why are you concerned when I say that I've seen it WORK? I'm not endorsing warped versions of polygamy, only when it works for the benefit of ALL involved. And what does my religion have to do with it? I know Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Atheist, Animist and Muslim polygamists.

A little OT, but since I mentioned it earlier I thought I'd throw out some stats to back it up:

50 million girls are "missing" in India. This is due to sex-selective abortions, female infanticide, girls being starved, girls being taken to doctors less often as boys etc. Ultrasound vans go around villages touting "spend 500 rupees now, save 5 lakh later" This number is not going down, it's going up.

This means there are going to be a whole lot more men looking for wives than there are women to be wives. Where do you think this is going to lead? Just as polygamy came about because there were more women back in the day compared to men....take it to it's logical conclusion, albeit a little down the road...

Supply and demand, supply and demand. I have to say though if these guys treated her as well as she said they did (even if only at the begining) I think she was being selfish by taking both of them...dammit, woman you should have shared ;)

Ms KenyanDesi,

Good to know you had a great time.

50 million girls are "missing" in India.

Just a little OT eh? Or is it part of your argument?

I think you are just repeatedly side-stepping the issue. Specifically you are making unfair assumptions and insinuations.

Let me ask you a question, would you think it so HOT HOT HOT if the men in question were Indian gay/bi men?

Also, since the proof is in the pudding, if a man takes on more than one wife and it turns out they live happily ever after, would you feel as cheerful? I am willing to bet if polygamy was permitted, many Muslim (and perhaps from other religions too) men would take on more than one wife. There would be many happy unions too. So, should polygamy be also permitted? After all what's sauce for the goose must be sauce for the gander!

dammit, woman you should have shared ;)

Really, Ms KenyanDesi? Would you really like to have one of those men?

Sumita,

"You probably did not read my posts #156, 157."

I am sorry. It was lapse on my part.....an oversight. You did speak up and am glad that you did.

Right now, I am out of this discussion, because it has reduced to "persecution, human rights, racism etc." basically a post that was on narcissim (why would make one a documentry on their sexual experiment) or hedonism (the edinburgh film critic was surprised the trio were so disconnected that he seemed odd if they shared bodily fluids) or nihilism (the sam dude called the relationship like sharing other's pudding)***.

we are not talking about a deep-rooted love story here - say cascablanca, english patient style.

i have nothing against alternate life style - but will celebrate not narcissim, manipulation - richard simmons style.

we going to hear hitler analogy soon from the some of the young intellectuals here. so, please excuse me. i need to get some work done. people are forgetting that with rights comes power and responsibility.

again, you did speak up. sorry. see on other thread. bye now. i cannot take it anymore.

kush

*** please read edinburgh film festival critic's view. i also read the nyt one - they liked the documentary but basically said that it comes out to be cautionary tale.

V. IMPORTANT NOTE: If anyone asked me a question on this thread, I am not going to reply, not because I am rude, because I am busy and do not evangelize.

Talk to Kofi Annan about it. Have fun, guys and gals. see you.

Again, Sumita's your points are very intelligent.

I saw this movie at the Toronto film fest a couple of years ago. It was truly fascinating. This discussion has sparked a lot of commentary, but I think the commentary has more to do with the sensationalism/titillation of the subject matter. For me, the more important and interesting points of the film had to do with the incredible "normalcy" of these relationships -- the highs and lows, as well as the nitty-gritty of daily family life. We started out with expectations of the story (I admit, I was shocked to see that the girl was brown) and the film challenged those expectations in a really thoughtful and surprising way.

Ok, I haven't seen this film. I was doing research for a film script and came across it, so I am not really in a position to
comment on their arrangement. I don't have any judgements to pass on them. However, I am the offspring of a polyandrus setup and
I can tell you it's complicated. I have watched my Mum for the past 20 years expend so much energy on maintaining her relationships that
she never has time for herself, which has kind of hindered her growth as an individual. Sometimes I think that people who are involved in
complicated relationships (eg. Simone de Beauvois and Satre) are more concerned with the ideology of it than the reality and the emotions.
My familys' polyandrus setup produced me, and I am a single mother. My child is happy, I am happy, the boyfriends come and go and we work
it out along the way. Not sure if I can say the same for too many of my married friends.
I say, get it how you need it!

This arjun guy seems to be such a creep- a typical indian hypocrete