Collie's Bestiary - Stormtiger

Three in Love:

Ménages à Trois From Ancient To Modern Times

by Barbara Foster, Michael Foster, and Letha Hadady

15 September 2005 book review
by Collie Collier

This is a book written by an existing ménage à trois, exploring that particular relationship form through the ages via media research. It's written in a light, breezy, sort of artsy style, and includes thoughts and comments by the three authors as well as their quick reviews of the lives of the various participants in the historical ménages. Their bibliography is huge, diverse, and fascinating; it's going to take me a while to get through all the interesting media they reference.

I'm not surprised the authors affected such a light-hearted style of writing -- the stories are almost all rather tragic. Society frowns on folks who live on the fringe and visibly do not match its established standards of normality. The more divergent from cultural ideals, the more likely society will punish them -- sometimes brutally so, as a few related suicides demonstrate. Couple that issue with the general disdain women were ordinarily held in (see the sections on Amherst, Victor Hugo, or de Sade for some painful examples), and you have the makings of some terrible tragedies indeed.

The authorial handling of the term "ménage à trois" is rather interesting, considering they first define it through the ages in a chapter titled "From Plato to sleaze." They include the Oxford English Dictionary's many explanations, then come up with their own rather broad definition to use within the book.

They also spend some time discussing the essentially triune nature of love and creativity, the religious and magical significance of the number three, mythical ménages, and how impossible monogamy seems to be for some even in the face of imminent death. The cultural rituals of hidden bisexuality and androgyny, adultery, social discretion, discovery of betrayal, and revenge are (very) lightly touched on as well. I suspect another book could have been written on this rather interesting chapter.

In the book, the discussed ménages are grouped chronologically, in a sort of thematic style. The chapter titles are: "The Aristocracy of Threes" for a time period spanning the 1500's to the Napoleonic wars, "The Mother and the Whore" which covers the nineteenth century, "The Americans" from the Wild West to the early 1900's, "The Bohemians" describing artists and actors, "The Sex of Politics" for politicians and political refugees of the 18th and 19th centuries, and finally "A Celebration of Threes" to cover a collection of authors and fictional triages.

All the early ménages are not precisely what I'd define as a relationship, since most of them consist of a man, his financially dependent mistresses (men were apparently astonishingly fickle!), and his socially accepted wife being forced to accept the situation or lose her children and become economically destitute. Yes, there's an economic relationship of dependence or slavery there, true, but I'm a bit of an idealist -- I feel enduring relationships of any sort should be built through mutual agreement, not economic blackmail.

Also, the authors define "ménage à trois" rather loosely, including icons, fetishistic obsessions, and absent or deceased individuals which are emotionally required for a couple to remain passionate. For example, two of the described ménages are the serpent, Eve, and Adam -- and Clark Kent, Lois Lane, and Superman.

I thought those two choices demonstrated a rather interesting interpretation of ménages. Personally I've always found the serpent more interesting than Adam, and it seems to me a great deal of the more provocative tension in the Superman story is based on the Kent/Superman duality.

Defining ménages so broadly does make for a larger number of interesting people to write about, although I confess after a while I found the breezy writing style a bit off-putting. It seemed almost disrespectfully unkind to appear so flippant in the face of so many stories of such unremitting anguish and pain. I realize the authors indubitably did not mean to come across so, and also that the pain was mostly many, many years ago and with all participants now deceased, but still...

I did not find it an easy book to read, especially the chapters covering earlier centuries, where women were more often considered property than nowadays. The cumulative effect for me, after reading the book, was a creeped-out revulsion at the institutionalized potential cruelties of marriage, and a great overall sadness. All those lives ruined; all those damaged or stifled personalities, due to the social strictures and rigid institutions of the times. Worse, I look around me today and wonder -- have we learned nothing of tolerance or kindness in all these centuries?

I know most folks would likely see the book more as a condemnation of clumsy manipulations of marriage into alternative relationship forms. It's true most of the ménages failed. However, I feel if you look a little deeper, you'll see more than just relationship failures. I think you'll also see deeply unhappy people being strangled by society as they desperately try to express their true selves.

Instead of being forced into a rigid and stifling culturally demanded role, they attempt to create relationships between equals, of real love and consideration -- and amazingly they frequently succeed for a while, despite society's active condemnation and refusal of support.

Furthermore, most of the ménages may have failed in the end, but how many marriages can actually be said to have succeeded through the ages? Currently we believe a "successful" marriage is one where the couple remain together, and maybe have kids. I'm not sure we can consider that a valid standard of success. Do we really want to say a man with a string of mistresses, who abuses or ignores his wife, and has unknown children raised by other people, is a success?

Only if we're willing to say yes to that question can we say historic marriages were more successful than modern marriages. Only if we're willing to believe in a double standard for the behavior of married men and women can we believe this book is, in essence, declaring the supremacy of conventional marriage over alternatives such as ménage à trois.

Quite frankly, I can't. I'm a proponent of "marriage" and "family" as being defined by its participants, not by the state. Who is the state, to determine who may call someone mommy or beloved? The state isn't there, to change diapers, build a home, or give hugs and wipe away tears. So, while I found the lives described in the book to frequently be painfully tragic, I'm pleased to see the wonderful variety of human nature finally being recognized and encouraged in marriages and families today.

Reader Comments

11.06.04: Kelly's thoughts

(and my replies)

I'm so glad you read and review books so I can put a few in the "definitely read" or "definitely avoid" columns. :D Had I seen Three in Love, I might have been mildly interested in reading it. Now... I think not.

I live to be of service. Thank you! ;)

More seriously, I had rather high hopes for the book, but was unfortunately somewhat disappointed in it. Hopefully future studies of alternative families won't be quite so painful to read, or written quite so... disturbingly flippant.

11.06.04: Jim's thoughts

(and my replies)

Only one (small) comment: "Society" has always given itself the right to criticize & judge ANY behavior outside of their society's self-defined normal. And "they" are often and/or usually wrong.

Yup. It's just really painful to watch, let alone participate in. ;-p

11.06.05: Greg's thoughts

(and my replies)

I found your commentary on this book to be more interesting, based on what you had to say about marriage, than menage a trois. ;)

Thank you! Always nice to hear I'm not boring, even when I dislike the book (or other media) I'm reviewing.

In regards to the former, though, it would seem to me they term it very loosely...I always understood the term defining three lovers in a relationship together, not two disconnected pairs. Live-in mistresses don't really count, IMHO.

I suppose a live-in mistress who was considered part of the family could be considered part of a menage a trois, but quite frankly I was highly dubious about some of what they referred to as menages as well. I feel a "true" menage must have everyone involved at least emotionally, if not sexually. Diff'rent strokes, I guess.

I think the authors were trying to be artsy, and by so doing hide or pay less attention to some of the brutal gender-related double standards and blatant unfairness in the historical system -- to make the book less grim?

The idea that Kent/Lois/Supes is a menage a trois would seem to be very metaphorical (as well as coforming to this different definition of M-A-T...but being a comic enthusiast, I would be fairly curious to hear what you have to say on the subject, at least... ;)

I think you're right, and it's a bit overly metaphorical. That being said, I can't help but wonder if Clark Kent was occasionally frustrated or annoyed by Lois' devotion to his more glamorous alter ego. ;)

On marriage, though, yes, the idea of the 'sanctity of marriage', considering its place in history as you outline it based on what you read in the book, seems laughable. It makes me glad that, for all that's bad in the world today, the culture is, by and large, not so nearly cruel as it used to be, in some of the regards you highlight.

Personally, if I ever find 'the one', I'd be tempted not to get married...if I want to make a commitment, I'll make one. But marriage means less than nothing to me in that regard. At least, as our society defines it. But then, I suppose that, just as you say, marriage is, as far as the people it matters to, what you make of it.

I concur.