"But whoops, Zoe replies, she already broke that rule by sleeping with a man. Later, Ollie is dating and sleeping with a woman. We don’t see them discussing their rules, why they exist, why they might change, how they talk about the ones they’ve broken. Ollie’s narration adds no clarity.... While Ollie and Zoe are just kind of irritating—we’re treated to long sequences of them frolicking naked in fields; Ollie waxes poetic about how he loves Zoe for being such an 'adult,' because she soaks her oats overnight—what’s hardest to watch is how they’re hurting each other because they don’t communicate with specificity or empathy, or even agree why they’re doing this in the first place.... Zoe, Tom, and the other non-Ollie characters are played by actors, and the film is a re-creation of Ollie’s experience with the real Zoe.... Ollie and Real Zoe did try an open relationship and were documenting it, and Real Zoe really did end their relationship to be with another man, but what we see on screen here is not a documentary of an experiment in real time so much as Ollie’s on-screen memoir, starring himself...."
I'm almost tempted to watch this just to see how terrible it is. It might be funny.... oh, no.... I just looked at the trailer, here. I was thinking of embedding it. But watching it, I had to force myself, and by 0:34, I had to turn it off. The visuals are very unappealing.
পোস্টগুলি
৯৬টি মন্তব্য:
Why would any rational person watch something glorifying such self-indulgent, self-destructive, societal-destructive propaganda?
I wonder what percentage of people in polyamorous relationships feel it is their duty to tell us about it?
Nein.
Remember when the social conservatives predicted that gay marriage would lead to attacks on monogamy? Pepperidge Farm remembers.
The worst part (among many) is the arrogance of these kind of people, the “hey look at us trying these new things that all you old-fashioned squares were too stupid and backward to ever even think of!”
Right. Nobody ever thought of it before. You are just SO special.
The worst part (among many) is the arrogance of these kind of people, the “hey look at us trying these new things that all you old-fashioned squares were too stupid and backward to ever even think of!”
It's childish and stupid.
It looks like the show/movie is not supportive of these arrangements, so at least there's that.
Pssst! Nobody cares about you and your relationships. Pass it on!
We are truly in the end times
On the bright side, it reminds me of all of the money I am saving by not getting HBO
They're all wasted!
Right. Nobody ever thought of it before. You are just SO special.
Sixties and Seventies suburbanites had their wife-swapping and key parties, but they didn't make a rule that the hook-ups had to be same sex ...
Or maybe they did and just didn't tell anyone ...
25 seconds for me.
My wife and I have been trying to watch new stuff on Netflix like the one about castles or the one about fixing things. There was one about Asian street food. There were others. They all suck.
I was trying to figure out what's going on. Is it me? I mean, I'm very interested in the subject matter. I used to love shows that provide some education. How could I find all these new shows so disagreeable? Is there some new way of editing or some new kind of lens or lighting or something I simply can't handle? Is there some new theory of background music foreign to me?
And then it dawned on me. It's not me, it's them. They think I care more about the people (and their personalities and their feeling stuff at me) than about the subject matter. It's not about learning stuff. It's about sociality. It's television providing something that feels like friendship so people watching don't feel so lonely.
And then I went straight back to: Nope, must be something wrong with me.
Jeff Brokaw said it best. These people truly think they are the ones discovering new layers of relationships. Alternate this and next level that. Throughout the millennia humans have been experimenting, discovering, figuring out what works. Do ya think you're the first ones to try this? The knowledge of the entirety of human existence has tried it all and then some, and has arrived at the fact that the happiest ways are proven, and are shown in the majority of the human species. Monogamy. A many and a woman, or two men, or two women, pairing off and staying devoted to each other. (though...the reality is that to keep the species alive, there has to be a man and a woman. Not a societal more, but a reality of biology.)
The Left thinks this about everything they do. They think they're the first, or the better version of something that has been proven time and time again to not work. They think their collectivism (Woke identities) is a more refined collectivism than has been tried before. That socialism this time around will work better than the previous wastelands it's produced.
While the rest of humanity knows the answer based on generations of collected wisdom, history. And we know we'll have to once again clean up the mess left behind by the Left.
Assistant Village Idiot said...
I wonder what percentage of people in polyamorous relationships feel it is their duty to tell us about it?
100% if you aren't BRAGGING about it; Then you're just slutty little sleazebags
I wonder what percentage of people in polyamorous relationships feel it is their duty to tell us about it?
I feel like there's a joke about an atheist polyamorous vegan CrossFitter in there somewhere...
If her boyfriend is hooking up with other guys, Zoe better be very careful. Double or triple wrap him up and get herself tested regularly.
Temujin filled in the other half implied by my “you are SO special” post, and did it well.
Societies figured these things out already and further experimenting is willful ignorance and regression.
I watched the entire trailer. I know it was edited for maximum emotional impact. It shows people in pain and awkwardness of letting strangers into their intimate selves.
What Temujin said.
I will add the following. I have this theory, the more the left in all of it's forms demonstrates to the masses how they do what they do the more it demonstrates exactly why traditional values exist and why they should be defended and propigated.
It is the Scott Adams "one movie, two stories" or whatever that saying is. I watched the entire first season of Girls, and at the end of it I was convinced that Judd Apatow and Lena Durham (and the rest of the cast) probably thought that they had a homage to the liberal ideal of young women, and I thought to myself "if someone tried to make a show that supported traditional values more it would not be impossible."
Maybe I’m misinterpreting who is whom, but how do you even begin to sort between the actors playing the people and the people playing themselves directing the actors to play them playing around with each other? Are they all in the film together? I really don’t care, but it feels like documentaries are getting as much short stick as sticking it to your significant others.
I’ll read or watch any crap but I couldn’t sit through the preview of this. However, I’m still eagerly anticipating more of Crack’s story about NEXVUM in the nineties. I simply can’t get over the idea of having a cult in Albany during the Pataki era.
It was my one real quibble with (post "social credit) Heinlein: he posited all these group marriage things, with no good approach to how to handle, oh, things like status (besides "seniority") and jealousy that have been a part of every human society for all time. It didn't seem to occur to him that these strong emotions must be managed by making one sex unalterably dominant over the other - and even then, you get feuds and favoritism. His solution was always, "Don't be jealous."
Oh, ok! Like when I got the useful golf advice, "What you need to do is brush the grass." Dude, if I could do that at will, I wouldn't be either hitting 6" behind the ball or topping it on every shot!
It is the Scott Adams "one movie, two stories" or whatever that saying is. I watched the entire first season of Girls, and at the end of it I was convinced that Judd Apatow and Lena Durham (and the rest of the cast) probably thought that they had a homage to the liberal ideal of young women, and I thought to myself "if someone tried to make a show that supported traditional values more it would not be impossible."
I'm still not entirely convinced Girls wasn't an elaborate conservative joke that got out of hand.
Shameless is another show that fits your model: the characters are all responsible for their problems due to the bad decisions which they make. Once they stop taking drugs, sleeping around, and committing petty crimes because it's easier, their lives start to improve.
My understanding is that we already have an example of a society where monogamy is no longer the norm and a large portion of the population receives a government income. It's called, "the inner city."
The next question becomes, why is the media (and now corporate America) so deeply invested in unwinding valuable social structures in every possible way?
Not just dabbling in it, they are committed. It’s important to ask why. I know what I and lots of other conservatives think about this — it seems blindingly obvious to me — but the number of people in this country who dutifully accept every idea forced upon them by pop culture just blows me away. The phrase “useful idiots” comes to mind.
Why limit yourselves. If you are having sex with others, just do it. It shouldn't matter what they are...unless you are a homophobe, right???
This is merely a reflection of the extreme self-centeredness that pervades our society. In this view, sex is about self-gratification, and marriage is about finding someone who will make you happy and fulfilled. To the contrary, marriage is about commitment and obligation. Self-transcendence over self-indulgence. Thinking in terms of "We" and not "I".
Or maybe it is heterophobe?? This is why we laugh at them.
The next question becomes, why is the media (and now corporate America) so deeply invested in unwinding valuable social structures in every possible way?
Not just dabbling in it, they are committed. It’s important to ask why. I know what I and lots of other conservatives think about this — it seems blindingly obvious to me — but the number of people in this country who dutifully accept every idea forced upon them by pop culture just blows me away. The phrase “useful idiots” comes to mind.
Human beings are tribal creatures, and the left managed to establish themselves as the "cool" tribe, which gives them the ability to shame anyone who questions what they're pushing. Combined with the "it doesn't affect you" argument it's caused a lot of people to shut up for fear of being ostricized.
We need laws to protect conservatives from corrupt leftwing bullies.
If all the check boxes can be protected - why not the political opposites of corrupt leftists?
Take my word for it, you were smart to stop at 0:34.
"But being consensually nonmonogamous isn’t always about what you get—for some people, it just works. It feels like their default setting, just as monogamy is for others."
LOL Yeah, other people are monogamous because it's their default setting.
Hogamus higamus, men are polygamous; higamus hogamus, women monogamous.
I wonder how many "polyamorous" women are in fact playing the "cool girl" role a la Gone Girl and The League.
I had to inform my husband that that show was an extended male fantasy. He didn't believe me until the hot fantasy football league commissioner wife, talking with the six-year-old daughter who wants to be a princess for Halloween and have her mom be a frog, says to the child, "Honey, can't Mommy be a slutty handmaid instead?" Suddenly my husband got it.
I gotta tell ya, the chick's name - Zoe - was a pretty good indicator to me of what was coming. Just going on experience there.
Ok- I think in my day this was called immorality
The 60s did things better
And I was born in 67
Jamie said...
I had to inform my husband that that show was an extended male fantasy.
Most "open relationships" start out as exactly that.
If the girl is hot enough and gets naked often enough, there's a possibility that the series will be successful. I watched one Netflix show in its entirety just because the girl was so appealing and she didn't even get naked once....There's zero possibility that any relationship with such ground rules will be successful, but such ground rules pique one's interest and might increase the chances for the series' success. Lots of people have successful relationships, but having a successful tv series is extremely rare......Non-traditional relationships can work if the less dominant partner doesn't mind getting screwed over on a consistent basis. I think a certain amount of masochism is part of a woman's Darwinian inheritance. If men had to endure the pain and indignities associated with childbirth, the human race would have died out long ago.
J. Farmer said... ... marriage is about finding someone who will make you happy and fulfilled. To the contrary, marriage is about commitment and obligation..
As an expert on marriage (current = #3) I think it is about making a commitment and fulfilling your marital obligations so that you can feel happy and fulfilled.
Thanks for the head's up! That sounds exceptionally awful.
I've known exactly one each of persons named Ollie and Zoe. Ollie was an amoral narcissist, Zoe was a delusional pathological liar. Names might just have an influence on those who bear them.
They probably think they're cutting edge, part of a brave new vanguard, but it all seems so tired - like a pair of acid-washed jeans.
I made it further in, but realized this is just soft core porn dressed up to seem like a documentary. Why pay HBO Max prices for that nonsense when you get all the porn you want for free on the internet with or without the wrappings of a bad and superfluous plot line.
I'm so old I remember when movie sexual swingers had names like Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice.
Shorter version: flaunting badges of dishonor.
My avoidance of HBO is supported by this.
Leland- remember that fake ad? “It’s not porn, it’s HBO”
As for polyamory, I think if you sleep (or whatever) with guys your most likely gay. Again, I have not constructed a large scale study, but my sense of things is that guys generally find male homosexuality disgusting, even guys who are more tolerant than I am, which doesn’t take much. My further sense is that women are more flexible.
And what % of requests for open relationships come from guys? The vast majority, I’d guess.
I’ve been in an open relationship that worked—we were together for a couple years, did not fight over “infidelity,” and broke up for reasons unrelated to sleeping around. We just both happened to be in a stage of life where that’s what we wanted. We even told each other about the other people we were seeing (and the other people knew about us).
But a real committed relationship—marriage and children—absolutely not. There’s no way a relationship can survive the real struggles of life together if they aren’t monogamous. Every open relationship, as fun as it may be for a time, has an expiration date.
Let me tell what almost surely happened in reality.
Ollie came up with this idea, but had no intention of having sex with men, but with women on the down low. He expected Zoe to keep her end of the bargain. Zoe figured this out pretty quickly, and found a better, more trustworthy guy. End of story.
How do I know this? Because I am a guy who knows how guys think!
Blogger Ganderson said...And what % of requests for open relationships come from guys? The vast majority, I’d guess.
If they’re doing it for selfish reasons and if their girlfriend is at all attractive, they’ll come to regret it as she gets a lot more action then they do.
It only seems that bisexuality is more common in women because there’s more openness to female experimentation. Most people are some degree of bisexual, but even today, even in the gay community, there is a lot of pressure to “pick a team.” A man has to be probably 75% gay to give it a go—which leads to the mistaken assumption that there’s no such thing as bisexual, just gays who haven’t come out yet. Most 50-50 or less bisexual men live straight lives.
This kind of sexual perversion is like a freak show. Maybe fun to watch but don't try it at home.
This is more of defining deviancy down.
YW:
You're right.
"Ollie’s on-screen memoir, starring himself."
The real risk in these relationships is that your promiscuous partner(s) will let it all hang out online or in "art."
Invasion of privacy and old-fashioned betrayal are worse than STDs.
My wife and I have had a very successful open relationship. She opens the mail, and I open the refrigerator to make us some dinner. And sometimes, we switch depending on who gets to the mailbox first.
- Krumhorn
There's this guy on twitter here in Omaha who advertises himself as a bisexual. He's into politics and is in a Master's program at the third-tier University of Nebraska at Omaha.
My question for him - which wasn't answered - was what happens if he's dating a woman and she finds out he's bisexual. Or he dumps a woman for a man. Why can't he make up his mind?
Krumhorn said...
My wife and I have had a very successful open relationship. She opens the mail, and I open the refrigerator to make us some dinner. And sometimes, we switch depending on who gets to the mailbox first.
*************
the real test of an open relationship is: who opens the pickle jars?
"My wife and I have had a very successful open relationship. She opens the mail, and I open the refrigerator to make us some dinner. And sometimes, we switch depending on who gets to the mailbox first."
Hmmmm.....not much of a Penthouse Forum letter I have to say.
The real test of an open relationship is: who opens the pickle jars.
She's cute! Can I get in on this free sex thing? I'll fly to MA for a weekend.
@ Mr. Wibble - you forgot pilots and people who went to Harvard
Once you put the goalposts on societal acceptance of sexual deviancy in play, don’t bitch about where they end up. Today’s young women are more open-minded. I have been involved in three throuples. All with women in their 20s and 30s. This is what I like to do and I don’t give a shit if it freaks out middle-class Americans. It makes me and the women happy. It’s NOYFB. Lawrence v Texas established that firmly. But it’s in my best interest for the rest of you to stay outraged. More opportunity for me
""But whoops, Zoe replies, she already broke that rule by sleeping with a man."
But was he a man? How does she know?
Is Zoe hot? Nice tits? If either is no, don't care.
These people truly think they are the ones discovering new layers of relationships. Alternate this and next level that.
Humans have two basic urges: (a) sex and (b) re-inventing the wheel.
I get the feeling these people would be extremely annoying regardless of their sexuality.
So I clicked and saw some snippets of the trailer.
I'll say it again, the pornification of society and the never-ending sexual revolution, if nothing else, have managed to present sex as something so incredibly and tediously boring. Leftism ruins everything. Once again.
Spoiler alert -- In the end, everyone is killed in a group jealous rage.
I don't really know that this is a documentary. "Zoe" is a character, played by an actress named Natalie Medlock.
I prefer more L and no G or B, but that's just me I suppose.
Other people are welcome to as much sex as they can stand, as far as I'm concerned, but public display of emotion is obscene.
Narr
She was the kind of gal that made you wish there were three of you
Assistant Village Idiot said...I wonder what percentage of people in polyamorous relationships feel it is their duty to tell us about it?
--
i.e. How do you know someone is in a polyamorous relationship? They won't stop telling you.
I have to work with a freelancer on a gig next week who, so far, always finds a reason to mention how beautiful his (relatively) new wife is and beams "We're poly".
(First time he brought that up I thought of various diseases with that prefix)
It's annoying on multiple levels.
I don't care.
The guy repeatedly displays idiocy.
He's morbidly overweight and it feels like he's wanting folks to consider his sexual behaviors.
It's hard to avoid wondering what's going on with the "angel" he married.
However, if he's uncharacteristically low key or fails to mention it, I might have to ask how that's going.
I miss the days when Polly Amory was just Cleveland Amory's sister -- or cat. I forget which.
It does seem like polyamorists can't stop talking about polyamory. Mikala Jamison, who wrote the article, thinks non-monogamous relationships can work if both partners are "all-in." I think she may have a lot to learn about relationships and being "all in," though.
Polyamory seems to be about "open relationships," though the term apparently also covers "group marriages" which are supposedly more stable and were once thought of as something different. It could also cover relationships or marriages which include non-sexual Platonic or romantic relationships with third parties, though I don't think people in those are getting out on the streets and marching for polyamory.
A standard film comedy trope now is of a guy enthusiastic for a "three-way" thinking it would involve himself, his girlfriend and another woman, only to find out that his girlfriend wants to bring another man into bed.
I had originally typed "polymamory" but autotype corrected me.
" who, so far, always finds a reason to mention how beautiful his (relatively) new wife is and beams "We're poly".
At the risk he is actually sounding you out, you might consider saying, "Oh, so can I borrow her this weekend?"
I was confused by the theme. Remember watching a show with the kids called Rolie Polie Olie. Main characters were Olie and his sister Zowie. Very similar names but much different premise.
Ollie's original threesome broke down when Kukla got fed up with having Fran's hand up his ass.
In this newer version the fake hot Zoe dumps the overweight self-possessed Ollie for an actual man who does not swallow.
A boring show with terribly unlikable people - but the enema scene rocks.
And where the Hell is Laslo!
Rabel wins : )
OMG why didn't anyone ever think of this before??!!
Transgender spectrum and normalization of genderphobia.
Yancey,
Usually triggered by other crew (or client) who give him "What's new?" etc to run with, while I studiously avoid eye contact and go about any business at hand.
But yeah, I'll keep that one in mind. Or maybe a more coy "Oh? What kind of guys is she into? Have a pic of her?"
Why would any rational person watch something glorifying such self-indulgent, self-destructive, societal-destructive propaganda?
Semantic games. Conceptual corruption. Conflation of logical domains. Secular lucre. In short, social progress.
The wicked solution, the fifth choice, Pro-Choice, was normalized under the Twilight Amendment ("penumbras and emanations"), a State-established Progressive Church/Synagogue/Temple/Mosque/Office/Clinic/Chamber etc., "ethical" quasi-religion, liberal ideology, cancel culture, and indoctrination/re-education camps in schools, at work, and in popular culture. One step forward, two steps backward.
I don't really know that this is a documentary. "Zoe" is a character, played by an actress named Natalie Medlock.
But Ollie, he's for real. He's the male lead, Director, and Writer. If only Harvey had thought of this.
Sounds like walter's colleague is a Roly Poly.
Narr
Some guys can hardly give their wives away
With each passing day, I'm beginning to realize what Rome may have looked like immediately before the fall.
I think Charley Manson struck the right balance between monogamy and polygamy in a non traditional marriage. He had a mostly successful marriage.
"Take my wife, please!"
Piss off, HBO!
This fucking shit will rot your brain.
Shame on Althouse for her role in normalizing decadence. Find some morals, people.
Some Oly, Lena and Olga Norwegian jokes would spice things up. Uff da!!!
Oly came home from work early one day and Lena asked, "Oly, you're home from work early.
What happened?"
Oly replies, "Vell, I got my ting caught in da pickle slicer."
"Oh no!", says Lena, "Let me see your ting".
So Oly shows her his ting and everyting is fine.
"Oly... your ting is just fine, what happened to da pickle slicer?"
Says Oly, "Oh dey fired Olga too."
Ashli Babbitt was in a throuple.
Freeman Hunt: “ Yeah, other people are monogamous because it's their default setting”
Well.
First wife was my first partner, and monogamy was easy. I turned down a lot of offers without batting an eye.
Then divorce, dating. One develops a taste for adventure.
Second wife. Monogamy was hard. Fewer offers, turned down but with regret and longing. It was much harder.
Third wife. Monogamy was easy. Only two offers over the years, easily turned down.
So it varies.
Wait until HBO and Netflix get together to blend this with Cuties.
Once imagined it cannot be unimagined. Sorry.
Don't they re-make this video every 30 years, and the results are always the same.
Want kids? Get married, raise kids to adulthood while married. After that whatever
Don’t want kids? Do whatever you want.
Society would be better
Want kids? Get married, raise kids to adulthood while married. After that whatever
Fit for normalization.
Don’t want kids? Do whatever you want.
Within the breadth of tolerance and reason. One, two, three, four choices... choose wisely. Pro-Choice, the wicked solution, is transhumane.
Do they know if just one bisexual partner has AIDS they will all get it? Do they care?
Hedonism is destructive... and all you see here is gratuitous self-pleasure of the flesh.
Up to 95 comments as I add this one. Don't care, haven't read any of the comments, read enough of the post to decided I just don't care. Didn't read the whole post.
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন