As America becomes more stratified, are we seeing more "throuple" relationships? Should we?

[Sweetdreams71]

Society has shifted, in today's world we put an extremely high emphasis on visual appearance. From clothing, surgery, Botox, fake hair, fake nails, incredible makeup, filters, almost every model or porn star looks almost identical. Watch homemade or amateur and it's totally different. I think we have lost "it's what is inside is what matters" attitude
Also women are now told we don't have to settle for less than perfect, except there is no perfect out there.
Expectations from both sides is very high, albeit slightly different views.
Relationships are work, every single day.....

I don't see throuples working in long term, I do see sex now more as entertainment. Instead of movies have a sex party will be more mainstream and acceptable.

I have seen on here that humans should not be monogamous, that maybe for some but not all. And it is compared to animals...
In the wild many many species mate for life and have a hand in raising their young, the ones that don't are usually herd animals. The testosterone of these males is used for muscle, survival and fighting for the opportunity to breed in a limited window. The high majority of males do not have the opportunity to breed as only the smartest and strongest get that privilege.

 

[MissMaidenMinx]

I have seen on here that humans should not be monogamous, that maybe for some but not all. And it is compared to animals...
In the wild many many species mate for life and have a hand in raising their young, the ones that don't are usually herd animals. The testosterone of these males is used for muscle, survival and fighting for the opportunity to breed in a limited window. The high majority of males do not have the opportunity to breed as only the smartest and strongest get that privilege.

I think generally we as humans forget that we still are essentially animals. Because of the development of independent thought and intelligence (ha!) generally humans forget that there are still primal directions at play. Both sexes have a lot to choose from for breeding, and throw in all the new gender identities and the opportunities for sex are expanded upon exponentially.
I think we shouldn't be looking at throuples but communities. They say it takes a village to raise a child, and this is so true,but so many people are isolated from their families and their neighbours. If the goal is breeding, any parent needs support when raising children. And that support needs to come from people that share similar values on what a child needs to be taught or exposed to.
So fuck the throuples, being back tribes, with a dash of non-monogany.
(My 0630 sunrise ramble)

 

[Yarglenurp]

I think generally we as humans forget that we still are essentially animals. Because of the development of independent thought and intelligence (ha!) generally humans forget that there are still primal directions at play. Both sexes have a lot to choose from for breeding, and throw in all the new gender identities and the opportunities for sex are expanded upon exponentially.
I think we shouldn't be looking at throuples but communities. They say it takes a village to raise a child, and this is so true,but so many people are isolated from their families and their neighbours. If the goal is breeding, any parent needs support when raising children. And that support needs to come from people that share similar values on what a child needs to be taught or exposed to.
So fuck the throuples, being back tribes, with a dash of non-monogany.
(My 0630 sunrise ramble)

It’s a fun thought, but I don’t see it happening. Might even be good.

They do have tribes in some cultures… problem with them is the whole “super-insular and prone to internecine warfare” thing that the tribe lifestyle creates. If you make a very close “in” group, human nature will naturally group everyone else in the “out” group. Not great for noncomformists or people who are trying to move in on tribe-claimed territory.

 

[MissMaidenMinx]

It’s a fun thought, but I don’t see it happening. Might even be good.

They do have tribes in some cultures… problem with them is the whole “super-insular and prone to internecine warfare” thing that the tribe lifestyle creates. If you make a very close “in” group, human nature will naturally group everyone else in the “out” group. Not great for noncomformists or people who are trying to move in on tribe-claimed territory.

Completely agree. It's by no means a great solution, but the level of loneliness in the world is crazy. It's like the fact that we can connect with people everywhere online distances us from the people physically near us. But that's a different subject.

Maybe the non-confomists could non-conform together

 

[TrailerHitch]

I think the biggest issue in relationships today is people spend far too much time on appearance and not enough time discovering personality, shared lifestyles, shared goals, shared things they like to do.

I'm no 10 by any stretch, but it never stopped me from approaching beautiful women. But I can be as equally initially attracted to a more "plain" looking woman with a beautiful smile, an enchanting laugh, an interesting personality, a great sense of humor, and a sense of adventure. Looks can, and often do, fade. A well cared for and loved partner will retain their personality and what initially attracts men in the first place.

 

[Yarglenurp]

I think the biggest issue in relationships today is people spend far too much time on appearance and not enough time discovering personality, shared lifestyles, shared goals, shared things they like to do.

I'm no 10 by any stretch, but it never stopped me from approaching beautiful women. But I can be as equally initially attracted to a more "plain" looking woman with a beautiful smile, an enchanting laugh, an interesting personality, a great sense of humor, and a sense of adventure. Looks can, and often do, fade. A well cared for and loved partner will retain their personality and what initially attracts men in the first place.

Maybe, but I don’t think that’s the case, tbh. Humans haven’t really changed genetically in the course of two generations. End of the day, physical attractions aren’t nearly as much of. draw in the long term, I don’t think, but money is and always will be a deciding factor. People can get used to a face, but no one can get used to being impoverished… it tends to be a fatal condition.

 

[LMWM321]

Maybe, but I don’t think that’s the case, tbh. Humans haven’t really changed genetically in the course of two generations. End of the day, physical attractions aren’t nearly as much of. draw in the long term, I don’t think, but money is and always will be a deciding factor. People can get used to a face, but no one can get used to being impoverished… it tends to be a fatal condition.

That may have been true before women began to close the income gap. These days I know plenty of women who are married to men who earn less than they do, including nearly a dozen female doctors. Indeed, a few of them are stay at home dads.

Plus, by your logic no one in lower income communities would ever marry someone from their community. ..Yet they generally do.

 

[MissMaidenMinx]

Maybe, but I don’t think that’s the case, tbh. Humans haven’t really changed genetically in the course of two generations. End of the day, physical attractions aren’t nearly as much of. draw in the long term, I don’t think, but money is and always will be a deciding factor. People can get used to a face, but no one can get used to being impoverished… it tends to be a fatal condition.

That depends on so much, and the individual.
As a kid, I spent a lot of time living in poverty. My first long time boyfriend had fuck all to his name and even though he was an arsehole I was content with the lack of the money. My ex husband was comfortable middle class when I met him, but we suffered financial adversity often over 20 years. If he chose me over alcohol we would still be together, struggling but doing it together.
Neither of the aforementioned guys were the best looking guys either. But we thoroughly enjoyed each other's company for the most part.

Now I am separated and paying nearly 70% of my income on rent. The man I am seeing is on a disability support pension. I do not care, because we enjoy each other's company.

I have also found that money often breeds arrogance.

Point being, money isn't always attractive to women

 

[Yarglenurp]

That may have been true before women began to close the income gap. These days I know plenty of women who are married to men who earn less than they do, including nearly a dozen female doctors. Indeed, a few of them are stay at home dads.

Plus, by your logic no one in lower income communities would ever marry someone from their community. ..Yet they generally do.

Well… my logic isn’t really a hard and fast rule, more like a trend. It’s kind of like saying “people prefer jobs that make more money.” There are tons of exceptions, guys who choose the low stress job, women who prefer to be SAHMs, etc… but it’s there as a general trend.

Simple fact of life is that humans are humans, and humans prefer material security over insecurity. I know a lot of women where they’re the breadwinners and the guys aren’t… but they don’t exist in large enough to change the trend.

 

[DpropertyofR]

Not all women just have their pick of the guys either. Sometimes, it’s hard for me to get one man to want to date me, let alone multiple. I think a lot of it comes down to people’s obsession with appearance. I am a bigger gal, and I am over 40. A lot of men my age want someone younger and thinner. The younger guys just want someone thinner.

 

[TrailerHitch]

Maybe, but I don’t think that’s the case, tbh. Humans haven’t really changed genetically in the course of two generations. End of the day, physical attractions aren’t nearly as much of. draw in the long term, I don’t think, but money is and always will be a deciding factor. People can get used to a face, but no one can get used to being impoverished… it tends to be a fatal condition.

Honestly I can't ever remember asking any woman I have been involved with how much money they made. We may have discussed jobs but never money. I'm not so shallow as to have it matter to me if someone I am interested in makes less or more money than me. Further, no where in my first comment did I mention money, income or financial situation.

 

[TrailerHitch]

Not all women just have their pick of the guys either. Sometimes, it’s hard for me to get one man to want to date me, let alone multiple. I think a lot of it comes down to people’s obsession with appearance. I am a bigger gal, and I am over 40. A lot of men my age want someone younger and thinner. The younger guys just want someone thinner.

I'm an older guy, 65 to be exact, and I talk to a lot of women that I feel get passed by because they aren't an 8-10, or who may have some extra padding, or have past relationships that didn't end well. Give me someone that can honestly converse, has a good sense of humor, cares about people, is adventurous, open and honest, with a twinkle in their eye and a beautiful smile and that can draw me right in. Perfection in people simply does not exist. We all carry baggage of one sort or another.

 

[LMWM321]

Maybe, but I don’t think that’s the case, tbh. Humans haven’t really changed genetically in the course of two generations. End of the day, physical attractions aren’t nearly as much of. draw in the long term, I don’t think, but money is and always will be a deciding factor. People can get used to a face, but no one can get used to being impoverished… it tends to be a fatal condition.

Not to beat a dead horse but I disagree - I believe it is a long term trend. I'm in my late 50's. Growing up there wasn't a single home in our suburban neighborhood where the woman was the primary bread winner; the vast majority were either stay at home mom's or had a low-wage part-time job. These days almost 1/2 of the women in our suburban neighborhood make more than their husbands - like mine! ..My wife makes WAYYY more than I do. And I know several men, whose wive's are doctors or corporate execs, who stay at home with their kids. ..They bring home $0.

And this trend will continue as there are more girls heading to college these days than boys. And you're suggesting a false choice b/w wealth and poverty. Yes, very few women would chose poverty, especially if they hope to have a family. But choosing a financially modest life with a reasonably handsome, kind, empathetic, loyal man w/ a good sense of humor rather than a less appealing man who provides a McMansion and shore house? ..Yep, that choice was made by many women I know, including my wife.

 

[Mike302]

That may have been true before women began to close the income gap. These days I know plenty of women who are married to men who earn less than they do, including nearly a dozen female doctors. Indeed, a few of them are stay at home dads.

Plus, by your logic no one in lower income communities would ever marry someone from their community. ..Yet they generally do.

I recently watched a female family member get her 4 yr degree. I knew the numbers but it's striking to see in person.

About 80% of the grads were female. Mostly young. Where were the guys? Working? Asleep? At mom's & online gaming? Didn't get accepted for real reasons or anti-male bias? Probably all of the above.

The girls seemed to have numbers that matched the population. Mostly white, but just barely. Lots of latinas, blacks, asians, islanders, and mixed.

These girls are in competition with each other for the few top guys. Of those guys, only a few were white, a few of those were older, and many of the remaining young white ones were overweight and / or unmasculine. Far more young, non-white guys and latinos. Again, probably several reasons for that, including anti-white bias on the part of the University.

I digress. The point is most of these girls are going to be alone unless they lower their standards. Sure, many can catch a top guy long enough to get pregnant. And many will be alright with that because the State acts as the father. Very few will get the top guys and keep them long term to have a nuclear family. Or as I call a mother, father, married, with children, under the same roof; "An alternative lifestyle".

Speaking of my relative, she's pretty enough, not overweight at all, great personality, has worked some and communicates with strangers very well. She's sharp and witty. Still a virgin as far as I know. The guys just aren't good enough. She's not even demanding a wealthy or tall guy, either. (she's very short) Very few quality guys to choose from.

She would absolutely not be interested in a "throuple". Would rather stay with her parents forever. I don't even think they'd mind much.

 

[LMWM321]

Sorry Mike302, I hear you brother, but I'm a non "Top Guy" who just doesn't share your point of view.

More than ever, today's young women are more interested in pursuing careers than they are to simply marry a bread-winner. I get that and totally respect it. Indeed, it's what I'd want for my daughters and nieces. I wouldn't want them to be financially captive in their marriage. And I don't think there's anything surprising or wrong about having standards. ..Sadly, too many of todays young men live in their parents basement, obsess over video games, smoke/vape pot on a daily basis and AND are more interested in hookups than relationships. AND they expect their hookup sex to be what they see on PornHub. I wouldn't want that kind of a guy for my daughter or nieces.

Also, I don't think many women are eager to get pregnant by a "Top Guy", then ditch him and rely on the "State" to step in to act as a father. Any smart young woman would know that would be incompatible with a career AND incompatible with raising a healthy, happy child.

 

[Yarglenurp]

I recently watched a female family member get her 4 yr degree. I knew the numbers but it's striking to see in person.

About 80% of the grads were female. Mostly young. Where were the guys? Working? Asleep? At mom's & online gaming? Didn't get accepted for real reasons or anti-male bias? Probably all of the above.

The girls seemed to have numbers that matched the population. Mostly white, but just barely. Lots of latinas, blacks, asians, islanders, and mixed.

These girls are in competition with each other for the few top guys. Of those guys, only a few were white, a few of those were older, and many of the remaining young white ones were overweight and / or unmasculine. Far more young, non-white guys and latinos. Again, probably several reasons for that, including anti-white bias on the part of the University.

I digress. The point is most of these girls are going to be alone unless they lower their standards. Sure, many can catch a top guy long enough to get pregnant. And many will be alright with that because the State acts as the father. Very few will get the top guys and keep them long term to have a nuclear family. Or as I call a mother, father, married, with children, under the same roof; "An alternative lifestyle".

Speaking of my relative, she's pretty enough, not overweight at all, great personality, has worked some and communicates with strangers very well. She's sharp and witty. Still a virgin as far as I know. The guys just aren't good enough. She's not even demanding a wealthy or tall guy, either. (she's very short) Very few quality guys to choose from.

She would absolutely not be interested in a "throuple". Would rather stay with her parents forever. I don't even think they'd mind much.

Yeah, most of the observation about graduation tracks, though I don’t think there’s any reason to make this a race thing. There are fewer white boys because there are fewer white kids in the US. This is what happens when a population gets richer and more educated.

As for your relative… come on, the stories on here are filled with “I was a good girl to the world but a total slut in secret.” I doubt your female relative is going to be dressing seductively or announcing any kinky adventures to grandpa at the family reunion.

 

[Mike302]

Sorry Mike302, I hear you brother, but I'm a non "Top Guy" who just doesn't share your point of view.

More than ever, today's young women are more interested in pursuing careers than they are to simply marry a bread-winner. I get that and totally respect it. Indeed, it's what I'd want for my daughters and nieces. I wouldn't want them to be financially captive in their marriage. And I don't think there's anything surprising or wrong about having standards. ..Sadly, too many of todays young men live in their parents basement, obsess over video games, smoke/vape pot on a daily basis and AND are more interested in hookups than relationships. AND they expect their hookup sex to be what they see on PornHub. I wouldn't want that kind of a guy for my daughter or nieces.

Also, I don't think many women are eager to get pregnant by a "Top Guy", then ditch him and rely on the "State" to step in to act as a father. Any smart young woman would know that would be incompatible with a career AND incompatible with raising a healthy child.

It sounds like you're assuming I meant the man will make the money while the woman spends time raising the kids. I don't mean the women want a "top guy" to be the "bread winner" while they don't work. I mean they want a guy roughly of the same education or income as themselves. Or more, of course. And they will both work.

As for the second part, I agree most aren't looking to have the kids then ditch the guy, but that's often just what happens. You are correct that isn't best for the child.

 

[Mike302]

Yeah, most of the observation about graduation tracks, though I don’t think there’s any reason to make this a race thing. There are fewer white boys because there are fewer white kids in the US. This is what happens when a population gets richer and more educated.

As for your relative… come on, the stories on here are filled with “I was a good girl to the world but a total slut in secret.” I doubt your female relative is going to be dressing seductively or announcing any kinky adventures to grandpa at the family reunion.

Oh, she may have a little experience, but she has no history of staying out late or partying or alcohol abuse. Never a steady boyfriend. When sex topics come up she seems uninformed, not very curious, and makes sex jokes that would be more appropriate for a 14 yr old than a 22 year old. "Too school for cool". Intends to be a virgin until marriage. Never revealing clothes, little make up.

But, that doesn't mean at college she hasn't given a HJ or sucked a dick until it shot than left the room trying not to throw up. She finds everything "gross".

 

[SPARTAN047]

I don't think throuples will quite be that common nowadays, people might just cheat on each other secretly and some will quietly accept that they have a shared boyfriend or girlfriend. They might use it to get money, resources, sex or affection which they think their main partner isn't providing.

This may not be restricted to a menàge a troís.

 

[LMWM321]

After all my posts in this thread I just now realized I haven't weighed in on the Throuple notion.

No.. I think people will always prefer having a 2-person marriage BUT but I do strongly believe that future generations WILL begin to allow those with an irrepressible desire for sexual variety - which is at the root of many of todays' failed marriages - a way to satisfy their needs while minimizing the risk of ruining their union.. Such agreements could include:

• Number of years of being strictly monogamous before allowing sex outside the marriage
• Goes BOTH ways - for both partners. In other words, What's good for the goose is good for the gander
• Only w/ prior knowledge/ approval from the spouse
• Only an agreed # of times with the same person
• NEVER with shared friends or perhaps ONLY with shared friends (some may feel this is safer).
• "X" miles from home to prevent family/ community embarrassment/ awkwardness
• No overnights; no sleeping together or post-sex cuddling
• ONLY with others who, apart from needing sexual variety, are also happy in their marriage and therefore are NOT looking to poach someone else's partner.
• The "others" partner must be FULLY aware and agreeable to the hook-up
• Only w/ a paid sex-worker to minimize risk of attachments forming
• Etc...

The list could go on and on. ..Anyway, I see such arrangements happening long before I see Throuples becoming a common thing.

 

[Chernosoth]

Kids are long term high expenses in modern urban life. For many people now struggling to pay their bills, kids are permanently unaffordable. With no hope of ever having kids, there is less incentive to maintain relationships. But I see change coming. Working for large corporations will lose numbers to self-employment and small businesses, and eventually to small farms, where kids are valued as labor instead of avoided as expenses. Throuples and similar arrangements may become common then, when finding any way to make a family work is the priority.

Loneliness of suburban life may be a factor in seeking sex outside a relationship. Extramarital partners may want more friendship they can't find in their circumstances. That will also change as we leave the suburbs. Casual conversation could be much easier with living closer together. On farms, the weekly church visit or similar practice becomes a vital social event.

 

[Yarglenurp]

I find it really funny that there is more substantive discussion here than in all of the politics forum.

Kids are long term high expenses in modern urban life. For many people now struggling to pay their bills, kids are permanently unaffordable. With no hope of ever having kids, there is less incentive to maintain relationships. But I see change coming. Working for large corporations will lose numbers to self-employment and small businesses, and eventually to small farms, where kids are valued as labor instead of avoided as expenses. Throuples and similar arrangements may become common then, when finding any way to make a family work is the priority.

Loneliness of suburban life may be a factor in seeking sex outside a relationship. Extramarital partners may want more friendship they can't find in their circumstances. That will also change as we leave the suburbs. Casual conversation could be much easier with living closer together. On farms, the weekly church visit or similar practice becomes a vital social event.

I think that, if you bring kids into it, throuplehood is going to be in for a world of hurt. There are a lot of men and women who are great to their own kids, but not so great to other kids. Cinderella might be a fairy tale, but wicked stepmothers are a well-known trope in multiple cultures for a reason.

you do raise a point worth putting out… children are very much a real-world constraint on all of these “alternative” arrangements. It really doesn’t matter how a bunch of grown adults arrange themselves or sort themselves out. But when you throw kids into the mix, how you sort yourself out becomes really important. Do you trust the dude fucking your wife to be nice to your wife? Sure. Do you trust the dude fucking your wife to treat your daughter with equal amounts of dignity and love as his own? Probably zero percent chance of that one happening. Heck, in scenario 2, there’s no guarantee he wouldn’t see your kid as a grooming prospect.

 

[LMWM321]

Kids are long term high expenses in modern urban life. For many people now struggling to pay their bills, kids are permanently unaffordable. With no hope of ever having kids, there is less incentive to maintain relationships.

I don't think that's it. ..To wit: people living in the poorest and most dangerous places on earth STILL have kids. And it's easy to understand why: For many, having children is a way of carving out some meaning and happiness from an otherwise bleak existence. As to whether that's a good decision is a judgment that shouldn't be made by those who DON'T live in those circumstances.

Even in the US, people in the poor, rural areas of the south, Appalachia, and our inner cities are having children.

As it pertains to college-educated kids, they may be intent on having fewer kids than previous generations, but they're still having kids.

 

[MissMaidenMinx]

Kids are long term high expenses in modern urban life. For many people now struggling to pay their bills, kids are permanently unaffordable. With no hope of ever having kids, there is less incentive to maintain relationships. But I see change coming. Working for large corporations will lose numbers to self-employment and small businesses, and eventually to small farms, where kids are valued as labor instead of avoided as expenses. Throuples and similar arrangements may become common then, when finding any way to make a family work is the priority.

Loneliness of suburban life may be a factor in seeking sex outside a relationship. Extramarital partners may want more friendship they can't find in their circumstances. That will also change as we leave the suburbs. Casual conversation could be much easier with living closer together. On farms, the weekly church visit or similar practice becomes a vital social event.

The start of your response got me thinking of Idiocracy.

Not that it's particularly relevant, but research has shown that kids from middle class and above familiar have less emotional and mental resilience. I'd everytime is all set up and comfortable for them through their childhood and teens they become the soft adults who can't cope. Kids need adversity. They need some level of discomfort. Yes, kids are bloody expensive. It's ridiculous how much having a child costs. It's not a bad thing for them to not have all the latest whatever's, all the extracurricular activities, all the comfort. People need to stop over thinking kids.

As for farmers and their families going to church, my great gran was a devout Anglican and lived in a very small town. She never went to church. "Church is where people go to show off their new hats!" she often said. As far as her experience went, church was a social gathering and that was all. I think its worth noting here that she was born in 1896. (I loved that woman)

 

[Yarglenurp]

The start of your response got me thinking of Idiocracy.

Not that it's particularly relevant, but research has shown that kids from middle class and above familiar have less emotional and mental resilience. I'd everytime is all set up and comfortable for them through their childhood and teens they become the soft adults who can't cope. Kids need adversity. They need some level of discomfort. Yes, kids are bloody expensive. It's ridiculous how much having a child costs. It's not a bad thing for them to not have all the latest whatever's, all the extracurricular activities, all the comfort. People need to stop over thinking kids.

As for farmers and their families going to church, my great gran was a devout Anglican and lived in a very small town. She never went to church. "Church is where people go to show off their new hats!" she often said. As far as her experience went, church was a social gathering and that was all. I think its worth noting here that she was born in 1896. (I loved that woman)

I’ve read similar studies, but I question their validity. They stink too much of the age-old myth that tough times breeds tough men… If that was really true, we’d all be living in paradise right now, since our ancient ancestors lived through yearly mass casualty events we now consider intolerable. Those tough times should have bred supermen… guess that theory doesn’t pan out outside of fiction.

My IRL experience in seeing direct comparisons between “tough childhood” kids and middle and upper class kids is that the kids who didn’t grow up in poverty are just adapted to worry about shit they’re most likely to need to worry about. it’s pretty obvious that “resilience” isn’t useful for them. Yeah, the kids born into poverty aren’t gonna be shocked by extreme neglect and cruelty, but they’re gonna be way more uncomfortable by keeping up with college curriculum, planning a career trajectory, or keeping a diversified asset portfolio. A hunter’s kid might know how to skin a deer, but a wealth manager’s kid is going to know how to handle their investments.

End of the day, without parental involvement, society will groom kids for their most likely role in society. The extracurriculars and comforts you’re talking about are basically a parent’s way of fighting those trends and give their kids a shot at a higher station.