You must log in or register to comment.
yknow whats better than a polycule of 3 living in a house? a polycule of 24 living in a cool badass gay fortress
With gaybuchets
The mix of bodily fluids in that murder hole.
Did David DeCoteau make this post?
the billionairs want us all to become poly
oligarchs accidentally killing the nuclear family by making housing and childcare unaffordable
New nuclear family will be:
Daddy
Cougar momma
Sugar baby
Twink boy
That’s way too many people to deal with on a constant basis. Ill go and live in a shack in the middle of deep forest.
More twink for me
Fair, all yours.
Me too, what are they gonna do? Call the IRS?
Perfect, as the twink boy and sugar baby grow they eventually become the daddy and cougar momma. The they add a new twink boy and sugar baby. A completely self sustaining family unit. A poly dynasty
why does a twink have to grow into a daddy?
Home is where the twink is?
I’ve been of the opinion that it hasn’t been accidental for a while now. No hate against poly, and I’m not entirely sure for what purpose.
Maybe they want less introspective and intelligent people having kids (because they realize they can’t afford them instead of just having them on accident), so the next generation is more easily led?
I dunno.
I think they just want line to go up and can’t hold themselves back from trying to take everything they can. The current generation are wealth addicts with no self control who are incapable of enacting long term plans. They are so out of touch and lack so much perspective that they can’t even comprehend their own ineptitude.
Capitalists want high fertility rates so the price of labor is kept low, but they don’t want to fundamentally change things to make it happen. They invest heavily in conservatism and anti-intellectualism because it’s easy, but not only are the results lackluster, the costs are too high. Countries that haven’t gutted public education and social services have a distinct advantage over those that let private interests make every decision, as oligarchs make poor public planners.
In the long run, the rich will not only cause the downfall of wealthy empires like the US, but cause a surge in nationalism and an end to free trade. Even if they move as much wealth as possible to their next target country, they are creating a world where they are no longer as dominant because nationalistic governments will once again taken center stage. They will never have a better deal than neoliberalism, and as that very ideology destabilizes the liberal world order, they’ll lose many privileges they take for granted.
The plan is making money and gaining power, everything else is just a side effect. Despite how concentrated wealth is, it’s still too decentralized to have unified plans. The closest you’ll see is the rich and powerful mostly independently coming up with the same ideas, usually just whatever leads to more wealth and power.
At the end of the day they’re, like us, also driven by the systems we find ourselves in, just in a better position than us.
Come off it they’d make it illegal.
Polygamy sounds amazing to everyone until they actually try it and deal with the drama like one person in the polycule only being there for another person and actively attempting to rip them out of the situation, with all the drama that comes with that.
Polyamory has been relatively drama free for me for 6 years. Not any more drama than I’d have in a monogamous relationship.
I think it’s highly dependent on individual situations. Both monogamy and polyamory can be peaceful and delightful, or awful drama filled trainwrecks. I would argue that it is easier to have bad drama with polyamory simply because there are more variables and people involved, but it’s not inherently more dramatic.
I find it freeing to not have to worry about my partners “cheating” or getting involved with other people. They found someone new? Good. They’re probably a cutie who I’ll get along with, even if we never get close with each other. Whether or not my partners love me or if we’re as close as I want is a whole separate matter from how much they love other people. There is still plenty that can go wrong in the relationship, but other people won’t be the issue.
this person gets it
the only downside is that once you figure that out most romcoms stop making any sense
Exactly. The expectation of exclusive love creates like half of the drama and jealousy
You lost me on the first sentence. I mean, I understand what you are saying but (as a married person) I can’t relate at all. Even at the beginning of our relationship, if my partner decided to leave me it would suck but I never really thought or worried about it. If there was a problem, we talked about it and tried to solve it in a way that worked for both of us.
Cheating et al, how often does it happen? Was it something you worried about before you were poly (if there was a before and if you don’t mind me asking, I don’t want to be rude)?
It’s not cheating if you were never coerced into making some bargain of ownership like a traditional religious marriage does.
I think cheating is wrong because it’s a betrayal of your partner’s trust. What I have no problem with is my partners being with other people. That distinction is why I put “cheating” in quotations, as it isn’t really cheating when I’m fine with it. I worry about romantic partners betraying my trust in numerous ways, both before and after I realized I was poly. However, that’s a perfectly common fear that basically everyone has, not just about their partners, but about people in general.
What really made polyamory click for me was the realization that my partners being with others didn’t bother me, only them not communicating about it did. I can definitely get obsessive and possessive of other people; I definitely fear that people might abandon me. At the same time, that can happen regardless of if there is a third person involved, and if anything, being ok with a third person meant one less fear that would keep me up at night. So long as we’re both clear about our love for each other (something we’d need to do anyways), I would be happy.
This is all without even mentioning how awesome it is to be poly. Flirting with cuties guilt free? Bringing people home to each other? Having different itches scratched by different partners? Getting intimate with multiple people at once? Being poly is the best!
That’s why we have kitchen table poly. If everyone’s partners can’t sit at a kitchen table together, they won’t be a partner.
Plenty of people involved in monogamy too, you’re just not fucking all of them. Or you are fucking all of them.
Polyamory ≠ unicorn hunting. It’s always bothered me that people think of polyamory in such a heteronormative framing.
Unicorn hunting is cool though. Especially when you can harvest their previous blood.
I never said it was unicorn hunting though?
It always bothers me that people seem to think that poly has zero boundaries, that it fixes absolutely everything in a relationship, that you no longer have to make any effort.
I’ve never done poly, so I’m an outsider, but I wonder if those would work better when all people involved ‘stop’ their default relationships a bit beforehand, to reset it so to say, and agree all beforehand to start and treat each other then on equal terms.
Personally, I thought that a poly that arises from an originally mono relationship, is bound to have one of the three feel like a third wheel, rather than a true relationship triangle (where everyone loves all involved). And then it’ll dissolve.
as @TotallynotJessica@lemmy.blahaj.zone said below, a strength is that those involved could feel freed from the worry of “do they cheat on me or not”. i think it might be similar to an open relationship in that regard.
So many people make the mistake of opening up a relationship to save it, and a poly relationship started that way is usually a bad idea. In that case, there are usually deeper problems in the relationship and it was already doomed to fail. Ideally there is the expectation of being poly or the expectation that relationship could be poly from the beginning.
All that said, it isn’t necessary for every person in the relationship to be equally close. Some might be better off serving emotional needs for each other, while others might be mainly sexual. So long as everyone is on board with the depth of their relationships, it isn’t a problem. Like with any relationship, it’s all about open and honest communication.
Polyamory*
Polygamy is something completely different.
You know you can just have flatmates, right?
Where’s the fun in that?
there is no sexual obligation, it isn’t ruled out either
Relationships fo also come wothout sexual obligations by the way, you’re not required to have sex with your partner.
“Relationships fo also come wothout sexual obligations by the way, you’re not required to have sex with your partner.”
That I never got. Isn’t a relationship without any sexual activity just a friendship? Love can’t be the deciding factor, as plenty of people love their friends. There are different kinds of love, but the kinds that distinguish relationships from friendships are sexual in nature.
In my mind, a relationship without a sexual component is just a roommate or very close friend. What exactly is the difference between a close best friend and a relationship with no sexual component? To me those seem to have the exact same definition.
Without obligation does not mean that there is no sexual component, just that nobody can be forced to do it. Also just because you have very strong sexual desire does not mean that everybody does, and two people that don’t might still want an intimate relationship with each other with the mutual understanding of not seeing other people. And I think that’s what makes the difference between a roommate and a relationship (unless it’s a poly relationship)
Well, you don’t want to deny asexual people romantic relationships.
But yeah it’s simply more of a gradient, and different folks put their goal posts on different parts of that gradient.
Could even comment about the inflationary usage of the word “love” in American English, where people “love” the taste of a juice, the efficiency of a corporate business process, or the smell of napalm in the morning. Ancient Greeks were on the other end of THAT scale, with different words for different loves, even for e.g. the love for your home country.
But, as far as I know, it’s still the assumed default nature with intimate relationships. Do we want to change that?
Obligation:
A social, legal, or moral requirement, such as a duty, contract, or promise, that compels one to follow or avoid a particular course of action.
Of course couples can have sex, but nobody can be forced to do it by pointing to their obligation due to the relationship
I think you misunderstood me. There is no obligation. I’m saying there’s a standard default expectation of an intimate relationship of sex.
So, when, by default, you think of two people entering a relationship, by default, the VAST majority of people will assume those two people are gonna eventually have sex. That’s all I’m saying.
But also, that fully asexual people exist, and polyam people exist, and all kinds of others, and relationships are simply what you make of them or want them to be and come in all shapes, sizes, tastes, sounds, and colors.
There’s never an obligation for anything, and expectations are fluid af. Even parental relationships, there’s no obligation to trust or care for your parents.
Sorry, then I might have misunderstood your point. I agree with what you’re saying.
Do people love each other because they have sex or do they have sex because they love each other? I would say (hope?) that most people are the second, so rather than an expectation, I would say that it is a consequence.
lol
nothing like a healthy dose of sex to smoothen the discussion of who’s turn it is to order pizza
Gas, grass or ass. No one stays for free.
I’m paying rent, Dave.
Where do you find a flatmate who’s willing to be third wheel?
Craigslist, inpatient psych, most riots.
flat sounds great
We’re too broke to entertain ourselves in other ways.
Right.who you bang and share your life with.
Something something late stage capitalism undermining its own social reproduction by making monogamous patriarchy financially unsustainable.
My ex-husband and I got into a poly relationship. He left me and we separated. He kept dating our third for a few months. They broke up and my ex tried blaming the breakup on the third instead of taking responsibility for his actions. We were kinda toxic with the third and the whole situation icked me out. I know I didn’t use a lot of pronouns but we were gay and the third was a bi man. He actually ended up dating a girl after our drama. I’m finally recovering financially from the divorce and I’m starting to date again. I’m moving out of my sister’s house tmr.
Hey congrats on the move! Sounds like a lot to work through and I’m glad to hear you’re looking forward, that can be hard.
More of forced situation. After one year of regaining ground on my finical situation she’s kicking me out hell or high water. I told her my airbnb host declined my rsvp but I found someone for tmr night. I work all week btw I have a good job I only smoke weed but my sister is pushing me out 2 weeks before I fan secure a real (hood) apartment. Donations are welcome but I’m solid enough to take the airbnb price. I work at a gay bar and Pride month is great.
Better to invite another couple to live with them, then they’ll have four incomes, instead of a third wheel & possible homewrecker.
foresomes 🤤
That’s the spirit!
The term “homewrecker” needs to be retired, like, yesterday.
Yeah, total trad puritan BS mindset. Don’t know who downvoted you. Sexual liberation has yet to come to a lot of people, it seems.
“Homewrecked” would have more sense if every couple could afford their own home.
Unicorn hunting just got a level up ._.
No such thing as unicorns on Grindr. Everybody is looking to fuck
I thought a unicorn was a woman and a man looking for a bisexual woman to join them? 🤔
They would be the unicorn hunters and she would be the unicorn
The unicorn is the bisexual women who finds both of the other people attractive
