It deals with "polyamorous" relationships, and yes, that's a 'made up' word, that hardly seems to treat the conflicts that these folks go through with sufficient gravity. In many ways the film seems to me, a kind of 'time warp', for although it's happening in 2001, so much of the dialogue (and folks' personnae in general) appears straight from the sixties.

It's (modern) cinema verite with characters constantly trying to explain to the "private" camera, that which they didn't feel they communicated in the "group dialogue" scenes. At times it's heartbreaking to watch people who are feeling devastated, attempting to explain the tears with terms like "primary (and secondary, and multiple supportive, etc.) relationships. Sometimes trying to find the right objective "modern therapy" term to describe the feeling when you're flat out jealous, or pissed off, can look comic to the camera.

These folks are constantly taking planes back and forth across North America to visit their "new" lovers, with current 'primary partners' in tow. Upon meeting, they (usually four people..two to tango, and two to be supportive) hug like mad, laugh, joke and cook up lots of vegetarian food, but they never seem to have worked out that night's sleeping arrangements....and so the awkwardness starts, and from the voyeur's eye (movie watcher) it's chilling if not downright scary.

Emotionally, virtually everyone in this film seems absolutely pushed to their limits (and beyond...as there is a suicide) and the moments of joy (hugging and more hugging) seem pretty few and far between. The two most prominent men seem so weak and vulnerable, that they are incabable of 'wanting' anything, other than perhaps a good night's sleep, without turmoil.

The filmaker(s) DO visit a couple of "Stable" multiple relationship families along the way, but these seem to have that "Mountain Man and his wives" sensibilities about them. The (sensitive) Patriarch of one family has of course started his own religion. Once the filmaker is back home, it's back to the internet to start exploring 'options' again.

For a very short time ('bout 20 years ago) I lived in a multiple relationship, and the main memory I have of it was how "polite" we all acted most of the time. It ended (mercifully) when the one woman of the triangle announced that she was "tired of doing two men's laundry"!!! Yah, there were lots of 'funny' aspects to it.

Whether you think the subject of the film is either fascinating, fraught with possibilities, or downright unworkable, it's a riveting watch. It'll probably be on a PBS station (in the States) or "Art film" house, and is probably easily rentable.

Cheers

Rick

click

Yeah, the sixties were an awkward age. The Vietnam War had driven a wedge between the generations, and caused us to question EVERYTHING our parents tried to teach us. Our general feeling was, if they care so little about us they would send us off to die in this godforsaken place, then they must not have our interests at heart, and everything they say is suspect. So we thought we could rewrite the book on marriage, religion, health, politics -- you name it. Someone even did write a book called "Open Marriage," and although I didn't read it, in those days, you felt you didn't NEED to read it because everyone was talking about it. And a lot of us thought, "Hey, I could go for something like that."

For my then-wife, it meant promiscuity and something like sexual addiction (though that term wasn't invented until sometime later). For me, it meant going outside the marriage to obtain emotional intimacy and support. Oddly enough, I got that from a lesbian friend! (I'll call her "B.") This relationship was never physically consummated (B wouldn't hear of it.) but she was affectionate in various non-sexual ways, and verbally she gave me the kind of unconditional love I craved and had never gotten anywhere else.

And, oddly enough, this made my wife jealous, although she couldn't see anything wrong with the sexual acting-out she was doing. We got divorced. But I ended up in a good second marriage (the courtship was gently encouraged by B) which is not, never has been, and never will be "open" in the sexual sense. My wife and I have continued to be friends with B and her partner. They live in another state now, and I don't see them so often, but I'm sure I will be a loyal friend "as long as we both shall live." So I guess the story has a happy ending, although it hasn't ended yet.

Looking back on the open marriage era, all I can think is, how can we have been so stupid?

DougR

What if our offspring had a gene that made them want to kill and eat us, once they reached an age where they could survive on their own? It might work for THEM, but…

Anyway, a lot of those genes arose when living conditions were a lot different from what they are now.

Personally, though, I don't want to share. It's fine for them that does - but it sounds to me that unless everyone is in agreement about everything, it's a good way for people to get hurt. It's true what Peg said about being honest and responsible - a good basis for ANY kind of relationship.

Whatever you think about pair bonding, I have a hard time believing we were designed for one life partner.

this thread could go in a dozen different directions; I have only observed that little petri dish of dysfunctionality; the ones that worked did NOT talk about it.

DougR

Some people can't imagine a polyamorous arrangement...others can't imagine monogomy...and some live lives of 'serial monogamy'.... What society needs is ways of sorting this out and recognizing the differences without moral judgement, so that most people find their level of comfort and commitment.

If honesty and responsibility were held up as "THE" virtues (and taught), rather than conflicting codes, we'd have far fewer broken marriages and confused kids.

You want to know how it will be
Me and him and you and me
You both stand there your long hair flowing
Your eyes alive your mind still growing
Saying to me--"What can we do now that we both love you",
I love you too-- I don't really see
Why can't we go on as three

You are afraid--embarrassed too
No one has ever said such a thing to you
Your mother's ghost stands at your shoulder
Face like ice--a little bit colder
Saying to you--"you can not do that, it breaks All the rules you learned in school"
I don't really see
Why can't we go on as three

We love each other--it's plain to see
There's just one answer comes to me
--Sister--lovers--water brothers
And in time--maybe others
So you see--what we can do--is to try something new--
If you're crazy too--
I don't really see
Why can't we go on as three.

Significant that Crosby was talking about a relationship he had with two women. I wonder if he would have felt the same if he had been one of two guys in a "triad" with one woman? Pretty tune, though.

I've seen several examples of this NEW style recently (the travails of a British family trying to live a Victorian lifestyle.....and of course the "Lofters" shows and spin-offs) and the added ingredient is the extra "PRIVATE" camera, where the people really let down their hair about what they're feeling at THAT moment. It often doesn't jive with the group dynamic of a few minutes before.

I think (and this may be what separates the folks from their sixties counterparts) that all the participants DO accept that the vast majority of folks ARE couple oriented. They seem to feel that they are somehow different, and really want to explore it. For me, the sadness was that every brief moment of relaxation and comfort, seemed to be followed by HUGE emotional upheaval....and no matter how they tried, the people could only talk in a kind of "New age" style about how hurt, or jealous they were. It almost seemed that to admit being affected by the emotions of "the mainstream" was considered 'failure'. Hope you get a chance to see it. It's fascinating. Much better than others of it's ilk I've seen.

Rick

Spaw

Rick

DougR

I know there are a lot of us experimenting with our sexually and emotionally intimate relationships (and they aren't necessarily with the same person at any given point in our lives). I feel I've been pretty successful at it too, but I'd never agree to be part of documentary about it.

To me, the issue people get hung up on isn't multiple partners, because man married people have extra-marital sexual relationships. The issue is the concept of "sexual fidelity" that is the problem. The idea that people should "own" the sexual mate is rooted in patriarchy of the most repressive sort (arranged marriages, and all that). Also, too many people have no historic or cross-cultural references for family structures beyond the way it is for them, right now. They don't understand that over time and in other cultures, the Western monogamous heterosexual couple at the head of a nuclear family is not the norm. In fact, to have the hetero couple at the head of the family is quite recent, and hasn't been very successful, if the divorce rate is an accurate measure.

Not having seen this particular program, I can't comment on it. But my opinion is I've never seen a balanced, objective, informative piece of documentary work done on this subject.

There's nowt wrong with dropping in and out of relationships - shit happens. If you've married someone and find you can't hack life with them, then better to divorce than waste your life. And sexual polygamy needn't be an issue, depending on the attitudes of the ppl involved, so long as _their_ core relationship stays intact.

But to have kids _before_ you're both confident that the relationship is going to last for the duration of their childhoods - that's damn irresponsible. I agree with Kendall, children need more than one parent. Don't matter whether you're married or not, but if you're not going to stick around then don't bloody do it! It's not like contraception isn't easy enough these days...

Graham.

"Peter, Peter, pumpkin eater,
Had a wife and couldn't keep her.
He put her in a pumpkin shell,
And there he kept her very well."

now two wives 'might' require a watermelon annex.

Back in the old days, it was common to have lots and lots of people in the house, sharing rooms, no privacy, and all that. It was necessary for families to stay close to one another, not just to help out with kids and chores, etc., but also for safety reasons. As civilization grew, people spread farther apart, because they could. And now we are all spread out.

I've heard it said that the "breakdown of the family," often blamed on Mom going to work outside the home, really started when Dad had to go work outside the home. Families used to be self-supporting but industrialization changed a lot of that.

Anyway.... I am a pair person. It's just too doggone hard to keep up with more than one man at a time. ;-)

That reminds me... I saw a teaser on PBS for a movie about a woman who married about several different men in order to get all the qualities she wanted in a partner. One had money, one had looks, one had smarts... you get it. I don't remember what it was called, but it looked interesting.

The Harrad Experiment had one of the best bibliographies I have ever seen on life and relationships.

The film sounds interesting.

"I don't believe monogamy is a natural state"

...fascinating, isn't it?...Like many other issues, it just comes down to 'belief'; which usually means "what I am comfortable with".

....and this is why I said " What society needs is ways of sorting this out and recognizing the differences without moral judgement"!

It makes no difference to me how YOU live, as long as you don't impose it on ME...and it should make no difference to YOU how I live. But one way we differentiate between conservatives & liberals is by the degree to which they feel they should define the rules for others in matters of disagreement.

Being human sure is hard..........

Just basing this on my own personal observations, of course.

Fortunately Big Mick was here last week and fixed it!*

*..but he had to go to the hardware store for a special tool....so maybe I'm not THAT stupid.

On the other hand....perhaps having two (or more) wives looking on with unbridled admiration, while I customized a capo, set up a perfect guitar-action, and worked out the chords to "How High The Moon" would be interesting. but leaky faucets? I'm outta my depth.

Rick

I don't believe monogamy is natural, but monogamy is about sex. The partnerships/marriages I've seen that worked really well have been based on love and trust and an intimacy that I would think is very hard in a group. The couples I've known who seem "lifebonded" are each others best friends. They know each other's secrets, they know each others dreams and failures, and they are each other's "home."

It's true people can't always find one person who will be all those things. In fact, it might be quite rare. I think, ultimately, that's what most of us hope for. In any case, it's the love that matters. And who the heck can understand anyone else's relationships anyway?

Lifetime monogamy is relatively rare, I think, but is natural to a few people, even outside of social conditioning.

Having multiple wives (or husbands) has worked quite well in societies where it was taken to be "normal" behaviour, but it isn't taken that way in mainstream western civilization.

So, the question is...how much of this behaviour stems from actual human nature and how much from cultural programming? I'd give cultural programming the edge, with human nature fighting always to break through the armour of social and religious conditioning.

Oh, yeah, and I think Desmond Morris is a twit with a good instinct for publicity. He's the Erik Von Daniken of his field.

- LH

And why is it the men presume that a polyamorous relationship for them would mean "two wives"? It could just as easily mean that they would share a wife/partner with another man. I'm beginning to wonder how much some of you who claim to know about this subject, actually know? I suggest folks read here, for starters:

http://www.lovemore.com/

It really doesn't take much more effort than that. To me, being in a monogamous partnership with the father of my child was much more draining and demanding of my energy. The emotional drain/demands are so much less now, because the emotional burdens are being shared with others, which I find much healthier. My daughter, who was absolutely certain people would think her a freak when she started high school because of her parent's strange relationship, has found numerous friends who's parents are either divorced or single and not monogamous, have been in multiple partnerships that haven't worked, so the kids have seen revolving door "other parents" and most seem to accept it pretty well (though not all). So my daughter feels very normal by comparison, because after a time of her parents being separated, they are now back together, making her seem pretty normal to her friends.

BTW, all the parties currently involved in our open relationships (what we prefer to call our arrangement), are very discreet and mindful of relatives, especially kids and the parents of partners. We don't push it in anyone's face, as some people choose to do. We don't wish to fight battles, but rather choose to live by example.

Jed-- you are certainly correct that there are examples of liberal 'meddlers' and conservatives who do not meddle...which is why I said that was one way we classify. Generalizations have their place, which is to describe 'tendencies' and trends.

It's sort of a reverse analysis---when you look at the most publicized 'conservatives'...Senators from Utah, members of the NRA, certain TV politico/evangelists, and fringe groups who bomb abortion clinics, you see the pattern---they identify themselves as conservative, and send a message that they intend, if at all possible, to make sure EVERYONE obeys the same moral code that they do...Of course not everyone who call himself a conservative goes to those extremes!...But many DO vote for candidates who "send a strong message about the sanctity of the family" etc...

Even many tax laws are written to penalize those who do not conform to the 'right' standards.

Lordy, it's so hard to condense this argument into a few paragraphs...maybe the way I ought to say it, is that "not every conservative tries to meddle in what I do, but most of those who do try to meddle call themselves conservative".

My experience (described above) was that non-exclusive sexual relationships were just too destructive and painful for me and my then-wife. But I can accept that that may not be true for everyone.

From those who say "open" relationships work for them, I'd like to know: How do you account for this? How are you different from other people? What kind of example did your parents set for you? What did they teach you about sexual morality? Were they hypocrites, or did they practice what they preached?

Jed, I noted Bill's remark about conservatives too, but decided, what the hey. I'm glad you mentioned it though, and Bill sort of clarified what he meant. I for one am not willing to assign more guilt to one group than the other. They both have their extremes.

I suppose that fact that I would not be willing to share my wife (if I had one) with any other guy, would disqualify me from membership in the club.

DougR

Personally I just think of myself as a mature adult who knows what she wants.

If there are people who are not monogamous by nature and they can find others like themselves with whom they can be happy, I say more power to them. But as someone who is monogamous by nature, I'm glad there are members of the opposite sex like me out there as well. And I know I'm monogamous by nature because I've tried some of the alternatives and didn't like them at all. Although because of the way my life has unfolded, to the extent that I have been monogamous, it has been serial monogamy. That was more by accident than design, however.

but, Carol is exactly right. As a "... mature adult who knows what she wants." she makes a choice based partly on experience, partly on 'feeling' that it is right for her.

I have known people who felt otherwise: some were successful, some not...for a WIDE variety of reasons.

Part of it is just mathematics....the more personalities involved, the more complex the equation becomes for adapting and tolerating. Add to that the 'time' factor in which the more 'partners', the less time it is possible to spend with each, and the trickier it is to maintain a bond. Not impossible, just harder.....It's not surprising that so many who think of poly as an 'adventure' discover that it is also WORK...and delicate work at that.

Possessiveness is one of the main problems I have with conventional monogamous relationships. Not commitment, and not a fear of working on the relationship--just a deep mistrust of possessiveness in relationships. I've seen it lead to a lot of domestic violence, intimidation, threatening and abusive behavior, etc. Other people's mileage varies, of course.

So since we've got it down, why do you suppose so many folks are having a hellacious time figuring it out?

One True Love and/or Only One Soul Mate For Me Syndrome? :-) That is meant as a joke, people!

Curiously enough, there are more than a few animal species which mate for life, while there are numerious others which are quite indiscriminate in their mating behaviour. There are also some species in which homosexual behaviour is rather common (giraffes, for example).

People demonstrate far more variety in this respect than most animal species, suggesting to me that while we are closely related to animals, we have developed into something a good deal more sophisticated in its behaviour than any animal. The possibilities in life are tremendous for human beings, and so are the risks.

- LH

DougR

I think it is foolish to say that we are now a more enlightened society and we can laugh at the conventions and moral codes of the past ... we risk throwing away many years of conventional wisdom that has developed and we risk throwing the baby out with the bath water. Likewise simply accepting a 'canned morality' without analysis and consideration is short sighted. I worked carefully on developing a moral framework, based upon a few guiding principles ... I viewed conventional wisdoms and tried to understand their values, I continue to this day to review my values - but I do not have a canned or even a hard 'decision tree' - I am capable of reviewing each decision as it faces me and I am careful to follow my conscience.

I'll repeat my comments from earlier; I find that monogamy is worthy goal and an art I have worked to master, for most of my life. My relationship with my wife is most valuable to me - in deed if I were facing its end I would trade the rest of my life for one more day. A monogamous relationship may be significant effort - but it most certainly can be its own reward.

The strongest visual image I'm left with is still the filmaker's male partner....who seems at times, bemused, confused, and at all times, willing to go along with anything to hang onto his relationship. He definitely doesn't WANT what she wants (multiple partners). I'd be anxious to know if their relationship survives.

Rick

I've been married almost 18 years now, and we had this discussion early on...I might have been tempted to stray, but it was explained to me that my partner had a non-negotiable position on this issue. I could be monogamous with her, or I could go sleep with anyone I wanted, but not her (and find another place to live).

OK, she declared her conditions on continuing the relationship. But if the door is still open to leave, it's not the same as owning the other person.

All in all, it's worked out pretty well for us. You learn to live with tradeoffs.

W-O

- LH

--Jed

I think that's one of the most beautiful things I've ever read anywhere.

I've just finished reading a book called "The Floating Brothel" about a shipful of female convicts transported to Australia. The one thing illustrated very clearly in there was that sex meant very little back then. Women chose husbands much more on the basis of whether they would be good providers than whether they loved the man; men were more likely to chose a wife based on her dowry than her looks, and thought nothing of having casual sex with prostitutes or (for the rich) maintaining mistresses.

The thing is, until this century, the lack of medical knowledge made life expectancy low - women often died in childbirth, and men sent off to fight wars often didn't come back. With the advent of the modern professional army, most men don't need to get shot at; women almost never die during childbirth; and modern medicine has doubled life expectancies (all these in the developed world only). And finally, women have sufficient autonomy to be able to survive independent from a husband. So it's only this century that we're really finding out the implications of lifetime monogamy, bcos it's only this century that "a lifetime" has really meant something and that the woman has had a choice in the matter.

Graham.

I personally feel that few of the people I know-- even the ones who chose monogamy-- are naturally monogamous. I also happen to feel that most people are bisexual, whether they act on it or not-- and I mean by that that we are all capable of loving-- which does not always mean lusting after-- people of our own gender as well as the opposite. (and also the reverse--I have many gay and lesbian friends, some of whom have learned they are capable of relationships with the opposite gender).

I think honesty is really important. Thoughout our marriage my partner and I have been able to joke about our attractions to others-- and our perception of the other person's attraction to others. I love him VERY much-- but that pheromone thing-- sometimes another man can be very physically attractive to me. And it's not about looks, it's generally about chemistry, which for me includes a sense of kinship on the soul level, on the emotional level. Perhaps that person has a high degree of empathy and gentleness, or has the same deep love for a particular kind of music, or some other quality that sets them apart--or more importantly, enables a special kind of bond. Because I am a very physical person I like being close with people I feel connected to. I hug my freinds and family alot. That's how I express my feelings. So where does one draw the line, particularly if sex should be something that comes from the heart? Physical intimacy is about a lot of things, and getting off is surely not the most important thing about it for me.

By the same token my choice to be monogamous was because I didn't feel strong enough to deal with the pain I was sure would be created by an open relationship. That was based on some very painful early experiences, and a deep lack of trust in my partner and our love/relationship. 21 years down the road I feel that it was a good choice for a long time. It allowed us to build trust and a solid foundation. And it required compromises. (Some compromises are healthy and promote the good of the relationship, and others are about power dynamics and aren't. And yes we all make choices... but sometimes not from a healthy place.)

We are both rethinking where we are with this, and I don't know yet how it will pan out. But I do know that there are many ways to do relationship and I agree with the statements already made that the choices that most people make are influenced mostly by the culture they grow up in. Few of us will mke choices that are radically different from those our families condone. (Even when we are self-styled black sheep, as I was.) For a look at how other cultures do relationships, get the videos of the Millenium series, a PBS documentary featuring David Maybury-Lewis, an anthropologist, as moderator. One of the episodes is specifically about relationships, and several others refer to them in other contexts. It will give you lots of food for thought.

Thanks everyone for the opportunity to share...

The point you make, that opinions & relationships DO change and need to constantly re-assessed is an important one.

It is a very difficult thing to stand off to one side and look at yourself and know what combinations of emotion, reasoning and peer pressures make you what you are.....and when TWO people need to do it and compare notes, it gets really tricky!

always good to hear one more bit of input, though....