Is three a crowd or can a relationship between three people work?
-
Like Ballard, I'd be interested to know how things went for the boys….
I'm a bit embarrassed to admit that it completely escaped me that this film was 15 years old - thinking back on it I guess the complete absence of mobile phones should have been a give away......
I do remember being surprised that Howard was still using a '2&1/4inch square' camera though.
(And I guess you have to be 50 years old to know what that even means…..)Isn't it weird that (as of 8th July) this doco has been snatched 425 times yet only a couple of us have commented about it?
I personally know of a relationship between three people that worked well for a year or so. When it ended the 3 of them all went their separate ways. When they broke up I remember wondering whether inviting a 3rd person in was a symptom of things starting to go wrong with the initial twosome or whether I was simply buying into the established view that a relationship only ever involved two people.
Of all the long term gay couples I know - including my own relationship - one (if not both) parties occasionally 'stray' - but it seems rare occurrence for a third person to get invited into a threesome. And even more rare for it to become a regular thing. Why is that, I wonder?
-
i think it's because it is almost impossible for a threesome to have perfectly equal desire for each other. generally there will be a strong bond and two weak ones. so a lopsided relationship won't work, right?
-
Hi there, I too caught this Docu. back in '96 and fell in love with it. Owned the VHS to it, but now no longer can view since I no longer have a VHR.
Now 15yrs later, I too am curious to know how the three guys are and what's up with them. Would be nice if the film maker would have done or still could do a follow-up to this!
Thanks for the post.
-
Owned the VHS to it, but now no longer can view since I no longer have a VHR.
If you still have the VHS, I can arrange to digitize it into either a down loadable video format for you or into a DVD. I see that you are in the USA, so the shipping involved shouldn't be all that horrid, especially if you use a USPS flat rate box.
-
It can work - provided that all 3 men are emotionally secure, confident and loving. The power of a triad is amazing while you are part of it. Suddenly the entire dynamic shifts; and when you are all together and out in public, it's almost like you are in a pack. Financially, it is a great situation as well; three incomes coming into one home; normally bodes very well for having everything you desire (toys, nice home, travel, etc.). As for the arrangement: one normally is primary top; the other two are either versatile or bottom. If a triad forms, it is after an initial couple have established a good/strong bond with each other and/or are in a relationship already. They'll meet someone; there is chemistry, desire, and what not - and the triad forms. Normally it will form not because of intent, but rather haphazardly without intent; and as a result many triads will not last more than a few years as the right dynamics were not in place for all three men to be emotionally secure, confident, and loving. Those remaining few which are, will last as long as a normal relationship (meaning years). I speak with authority on the subject. haha. :cheers:
-
I don't mean to sound condescending in any way at all, but there is another side to a 3-way relationship that one must take into account. While what in2unow123 mentions is technically correct in that regard, this does not mean that it is the only possible outcome of a 3-way relationship. One thing you must be very careful about is that the feelings between all 3 parties are mutual on all accounts. The biggest reason I say this is because I was involved in such a thing a few years back, and it ended horribly….
The short version of the story is that I started to develop a closer bond with one of the two others, but not the other, and slowly as time went by, a distance began to form between the two. Inevitably, this created an interesting situation where the other 2 in the 3-way relationship started to grow separate of each other, resulting in a nasty mess to clean up.
I'm not saying that this is how it will be in all cases, as I do believe that it is in fact possible to have a successful 3-way relationship. I am only putting this out there for informational purposes so that it is known that such things have potential to go really well, and also very sour at the same time. Think of it more as a note of caution and something to be very careful to watch for in such a situation. Getting burned (metaphorically) is never an easy thing to deal with, especially not when it comes followed up with a whole series of complicated frustrating events. Just keep that in mind and go into things with an open mind and see where the possibilities may lead.... After all, what is right for one person (or in this case 3), may not necessarily be right for someone else.
Always leave your doors open for exploring new possibilities, and if you feel that a 3-way is truly an avenue that you want to explore, my best advice is to do so in a slow and progressive manner, as to avoid the potential for things to go horribly wrong and blow up in your face. Naturally, if things go well and continue to go well, by all means don't let one person's (my) sour experience stop you from engaging yourself in something that makes you happy in the end.
-
I don't mean to sound condescending in any way at all, but there is another side to a 3-way relationship that one must take into account. While what in2unow123 mentions is technically correct in that regard, this does not mean that it is the only possible outcome of a 3-way relationship. One thing you must be very careful about is that the feelings between all 3 parties are mutual on all accounts. The biggest reason I say this is because I was involved in such a thing a few years back, and it ended horribly….
The short version of the story is that I started to develop a closer bond with one of the two others, but not the other, and slowly as time went by, a distance began to form between the two. Inevitably, this created an interesting situation where the other 2 in the 3-way relationship started to grow separate of each other, resulting in a nasty mess to clean up.
I'm not saying that this is how it will be in all cases, as I do believe that it is in fact possible to have a successful 3-way relationship. I am only putting this out there for informational purposes so that it is known that such things have potential to go really well, and also very sour at the same time. Think of it more as a note of caution and something to be very careful to watch for in such a situation. Getting burned (metaphorically) is never an easy thing to deal with, especially not when it comes followed up with a whole series of complicated frustrating events. Just keep that in mind and go into things with an open mind and see where the possibilities may lead.... After all, what is right for one person (or in this case 3), may not necessarily be right for someone else.
Always leave your doors open for exploring new possibilities, and if you feel that a 3-way is truly an avenue that you want to explore, my best advice is to do so in a slow and progressive manner, as to avoid the potential for things to go horribly wrong and blow up in your face. Naturally, if things go well and continue to go well, by all means don't let one person's (my) sour experience stop you from engaging yourself in something that makes you happy in the end.
I agree.
-
I liked the documentary, it is very intriguing to me too, however my boyfriend would never consider it, he grew up in a very traditional christian family and holds a lot of values, for one he says 3ways themselves are not "natural", he thinks it's 'inapropriate' to show public affection….I'd definitely consider it if I was single though that is befriending two guys who would be willing into building a polygamous 3way relationship.
-
I saw the movie Three and to me, it seemed like th relationship between the three guys would ebb and flow e.g. #1 would seem more into #3 and #2 would seem isolated or #2 and #3 seemed tighter etc. Also the fact that two of the three were already in a relationship for a long period of time, in my opinion, adds something that most couples who are seeking a third lack, which is a foundation on which to build a relationship that is stable to hold a third person's personality, quirks etc. If a couple has been together for a week, I would advise against a third, as well. I have friends who opened their relationship to thirds (and fourths, if the truth be told) and unfortunately one of them found something that was lacking in his partner and the relationship died quickly…but as an adult, everyone has the right to do what works for them as long as no one gets hurt and old ladies don't get pushed down the stairs in the process --- go for it kids --- at least you can say you gave it a shot
-
Many people in these types of relationships view the excessive restrictions on monogomous relationships as less than desirable, as such restrictions can be used to replace trust with a framework of ownership and control. From the standpoint of logic it can be argued that if one person can have love for two parents equally or for two siblings equally then the same should hold for two boyfriends or girlfriends equally.
From my understanding, in those relationships it is preferred to view the third partner in terms of the gain to the first and second, rather than as a threat. This compersion is similar to the joy that parents feel when their children get married, or the happiness felt by a person when one of their best friends finds someone to go out with. In that way, jealousy and possessiveness are viewed not so much as something to avoid or structure the relationship around but as responses to be explored, understood and resolved within each individual, with compersion as a goal. With that kind of detail, i've never been surprised at the level of maturity and confidence needed to pull off such a thing. If being in a relationship is like painting a picture, than these people are the Rembrandt's and DaVinci's of their trade.
:cool2::hug:
-
From the standpoint of logic it can be argued that if one person can have love for two parents equally or for two siblings equally then the same should hold for two boyfriends or girlfriends equally.
Umm, my dad was my favorite parent as we had similar interests. My older brother was my favorite for the same reason, not to mention my younger brother was a massive tattle tale.
This compersion is similar to the joy that parents feel when their children get married
Umm, you mean the evil parents that ridicule their child's partner for every and anything? I'm sure you know the stereotypes about mother in laws. If you don't, then you need to watch some movies and/or tv shows. There are countless ones to choose from.
as such restrictions can be used to replace trust with a framework of ownership and control.
You said that about monogamy, but I'd say it's the complete opposite.
Most of the couples I know that have "open" relationships, one of the partners only grudgingly agreed to it.
One partner wanted to whore, while the other wanted a monogamous relationship, but only gave in to make their slut of a partner happy while making themselves miserable.
-
You said that about monogamy, but I'd say it's the complete opposite.
Most of the couples I know that have "open" relationships, one of the partners only grudgingly agreed to it.
One partner wanted to whore, while the other wanted a monogamous relationship, but only gave in to make their slut of a partner happy while making themselves miserable.
I agree, I'd never go into an open relationship, you either love me or leave me.
-
Most of the couples I know that have "open" relationships, one of the partners only grudgingly agreed to it.
A relationship where one of the partners lies about their level of commitment to admit a third ― a choice supposedly made by the three of them together in honesty ― does not meet the definition of an "open" relationship, and should not be counted in any argument against such relationships.
Any problems encountered by that type of relationship are to be attributed to the first person's decision to mislead the other two about their level of commitment, not to any choice itself of being in a relationship of three.
-
"Open" relationships are 2 people where one or both can whore around.
This "three" relationship is a hoax. Humanity tried it in the 1960s, as well as a variety of other times throughout history and it never worked. Humans, by nature, are jealous.
I'll tell you about one couple I knew in an open relationship. Chris and Fred decided to open their relationship, meaning they both could fuck whomever they wanted, as long as it wasn't brought home. Fred didn't want this but grudgingly accepted it to make Chris happy. On the flip side, Chris never in a million years wanted Fred to have sex with anyone else, that was a NO NO. After about a year or two, Fred decided what the hell and he started being a man slag and that lead to the downfall of their relationship.
-
Sorry but 1 + 1 always equals 2. When a 3rd, 4th etc. is introduced into a relationship it simply means somebody is not totally satisfied.
I am married(to a woman) and my gay escapades always lead to pain even though my girl understands my "urges". I love her more than I love men so I am the one who is hurting not her. When I do give in to my "primal needs" it usually means I am forced to keep a secret.
Even if it's a 3 guy thing with no girls involved I can see it being a recipe for conflict.
Just my opinion.
-
"Open" relationships are 2 people where one or both can whore around.
This definition is correct. The key word you're using is "can" meaning both have agreed, in honesty, that one or both "can" (without reservations) fool around. One of them being "forced" does not equal a "can."
This "three" relationship is a hoax.
I can see where the relationship you're describing is a hoax (one of the partners is not being honest about their level of commitment). But what about an open relationship where both partners agree wholeheartedly? What is it about this type of relationship that is a hoax?
I'll tell you about one couple I knew in an open relationship….. Fred didn't want this but grudgingly accepted it to make Chris happy.
You've chosen the straw man fallacy: In place of arguing against a position, construct a similar, more-easily assailed position (the straw man) and attack it instead. Here we have one that's very easy to condemn: a relationship that one of the individuals was coerced into entering (the straw man). What about relationships where coercion isn't an issue?
-
It's not a straw man until you prove that all three willingly entered into the "three" relationship. Just because they say they agree, doesn't mean they actually did, as my point showed. I'm god. Does that mean I am really god or believe I am? Nope, it just means I said it.
If these "three" relationships are so great, then why have they failed to take off considering throughout history they have been cropping up, with the most notable in the communes of the 1960s/70s. Historically, we know that multiple partners existed, but died out. If you were right, then "Big Love" would be the norm, not the minuscule exception to the rule.
Humans are by nature very jealous. This is a primitive biological imperative, to make sure it's our seed that is spread and not every other male's seed.
I don't know of a couple that has lasted that is "open". My monogamous relationship and those of many of our friends are still going strong.
-
It's not a straw man until you prove that all three willingly entered into the "three" relationship. Just because they say they agree, doesn't mean they actually did.
What is it about coercion-free open relationships that is wrong?
If these "three" relationships are so great, then why have they failed to take off
If the benchmark for a type of relationship's usefulness is that it continues to occur, then open-type relationships are continually useful to some segment of the population.
Historically, we know that multiple partners existed, but died out.
Multiple partner-type relationships have died out? This is news to me.
Humans are by nature very jealous. This is a primitive biological imperative, to make sure it's our seed that is spread and not every other male's seed.
I think you're confusing jealousy with avarice, which is the desire to possess. As long as avarice remains the top goal of humanity, attempts at entering into and sustaining open-type relationships will continue.
-
Just because they say they agree, doesn't mean they actually did, as my point showed. I'm god. Does that mean I am really god or believe I am? Nope, it just means I said it.
If these same people said that they didn't agree, wouldn't that also mean that pro rata the same people could have just "said" that they didn't really want it, but really did? Couldn't it also mean that they actually did agree and didn't mean it simply because "they just said it"?
-
"Just because they say they agree, doesn't mean they actually did, as my point showed. I'm god. Does that mean I am really god or believe I am? Nope, it just means I said it. "
I'm going over this last point of yours again because I feel it's a very important one that you've made – one for a suspension of belief -- and it deserves more than just a passing glance from me. Your assertion is that we should suspend our belief of people who say they weren't coerced because they may be "just saying that" and not really meaning it. Thus, (and duly noted by you above to have been shown before) anyone who says they weren't coerced should not be taken at face value - because we cannot know for sure if they're telling the truth. More importantly though, and I suggest overlooked by you, is that this line of reasoning requires us also to "not believe" people who say that they were coerced, and offer this "not-believing you" equally amongst the other people who said that they were coerced - because your line of reasoning requires us not to- and makes mandatory the suspecting of anything that anyone says because they may "just be saying it." In other words, the only knowable thing about a given is that it can never be known, a proposition of yours that I would argue is absolutely correct.
Now if i have followed you correctly (and I hope that I have) is what I've paraphrased above right? Or is it more your point (and I'm guessing that it probably is) that anyone who says that they were coerced should always be believed while anyone who says that they weren't coerced is a liar.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login