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

[MissMaidenMinx]

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.

Woah! Hang on. Poverty = neglect and cruelty? Fuck me. What a ridiculous conclusion to come to. Neglect suggests that the parents don't do as much for the kids as they can, and cruelty suggests abuse. I was never neglected. Could I get all of the things the other kids got, no not really. But I always had a roof over my head, food in my stomach and clothes on my back. I had a bike and friends and I was generally happy.
Ever heard the saying "harden up Buttercup"? That comes from generations that didn't have everything and learnt to be happy with what they have. Too many people who grew up in an extremely comfortable home, with all of their wants and needs met don't know how to cope if they lose some of their privileged lifestyle. Take a rich kid and stick them in a poverty situation and they would not cope at all.

 

[Yarglenurp]

Woah! Hang on. Poverty = neglect and cruelty? Fuck me. What a ridiculous conclusion to come to. Neglect suggests that the parents don't do as much for the kids as they can, and cruelty suggests abuse. I was never neglected. Could I get all of the things the other kids got, no not really. But I always had a roof over my head, food in my stomach and clothes on my back. I had a bike and friends and I was generally happy.
Ever heard the saying "harden up Buttercup"? That comes from generations that didn't have everything and learnt to be happy with what they have. Too many people who grew up in an extremely comfortable home, with all of their wants and needs met don't know how to cope if they lose some of their privileged lifestyle. Take a rich kid and stick them in a poverty situation and they would not cope at all.

I didn’t say that. I said a kid that grew up in poverty wouldn’t be as shocked by acts of extreme cruelty or neglect. They’re more “resilient” to trauma because their brains are more adapted to survival. But they’re also less likely to grow up to achieve material wealth and longer lifespans than their peers growing up in an upper-middle-class or upper-class environment. Their childhood prepares them for a lifetime of survival mode thinking. But those same adaptations make them far less suited to make use of long-term opportunities that will make them more than modern beasts of burden. there’s a reason a tremendous percentage of poor people go bankrupt when they win the lottery.

End of the day, I think it’s not really meaningful to attack parents for how they want to raise their kids. You might disagree with their choices but they could just as easily call your suggested approach self-serving. If a parent wants to send their kid to dance recitals, archery camps, or robotics class… so what? Is there anything morally bad about giving kids a chance to do more and see more than what the classroom or computer screen can provide?

 

[LMWM321]

@MissMaidenMinx and @Yarglenurp

I "liked" both of your above posts b/c I think you're both making good points that don't necessarily conflict with each other.

Yes, kids who come from less show amazing resilience and those who don't maybe less so. But the reasons aren't clear. To me, a big part of the mental health crisis among upper middle class kids is their endless use of web-enabled smart phones which connect them into social media which destroys their self-esteem; algorithm driven news feeds which exacerbate their fears about the world; porn which warps their views of sex and their own desirability AND parents who have no idea what to do about any of it. ..Taking away phones seems like a great idea but is much easier said than done. To do that could make your kid an oddball at a time in their life when they most want to just blend.

The pain these younger kids express is real and should be taken seriously - they're not just having temper tantrums to get their way. Suicide rates are remarkably high in countries where kids seemingly "have it all."

As to how this fits into the Throuple question? ...I'm not sure if it really relates at all. I don't think Throuples work b/c people don't have the emotional headspace for it. Having one person's back is hard enough, trying to have two peoples' backs without short-changing one seems impossible to me. ..But that doesn't mean it should be denigrated. ..But I am skeptical.

 

[forgotmyantidepressants]

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.

Maybe they want to be alone. My sister is a 30ish professional and she has no desire for marriage or children and she's perfectly happy.

 

[MissMaidenMinx]

I didn’t say that. I said a kid that grew up in poverty wouldn’t be as shocked by acts of extreme cruelty or neglect. They’re more “resilient” to trauma because their brains are more adapted to survival. But they’re also less likely to grow up to achieve material wealth and longer lifespans than their peers growing up in an upper-middle-class or upper-class environment. Their childhood prepares them for a lifetime of survival mode thinking. But those same adaptations make them far less suited to make use of long-term opportunities that will make them more than modern beasts of burden. there’s a reason a tremendous percentage of poor people go bankrupt when they win the lottery.

End of the day, I think it’s not really meaningful to attack parents for how they want to raise their kids. You might disagree with their choices but they could just as easily call your suggested approach self-serving. If a parent wants to send their kid to dance recitals, archery camps, or robotics class… so what? Is there anything morally bad about giving kids a chance to do more and see more than what the classroom or computer screen can provide?

Just addressing the bit about extracurricular activities because we could go back and forth on the rest forever. We have different points of view and that is what it is.

When I mention extracurricular activities, I'm referring to the poor kids that have something on everyday. Their wind down time is none existent. Yes that sets them up in one way or another and expands on interests or gives essential skills, but that lack of wind down time sets them up to be constantly on the go.

As a mother of 2 who has recently gone from reasonably comfort to basically struggling, I can confidently say that no parent has it 100% right and most parents think that they are screwing their kids up 1 way or another.

 

[MissMaidenMinx]

@MissMaidenMinx and @Yarglenurp

I "liked" both of your above posts b/c I think you're both making good points that don't necessarily conflict with each other.

Yes, kids who come from less show amazing resilience and those who don't maybe less so. But the reasons aren't clear. To me, a big part of the mental health crisis among upper middle class kids is their endless use of web-enabled smart phones which connect them into social media which destroys their self-esteem; algorithm driven news feeds which exacerbate their fears about the world; porn which warps their views of sex and their own desirability AND parents who have no idea what to do about any of it. ..Taking away phones seems like a great idea but is much easier said than done. To do that could make your kid an oddball at a time in their life when they most want to just blend.

The pain these younger kids express is real and should be taken seriously - they're not just having temper tantrums to get their way. Suicide rates are remarkably high in countries where kids seemingly "have it all."

As to how this fits into the Throuple question? ...I'm not sure if it really relates at all. I don't think Throuples work b/c people don't have the emotional headspace for it. Having one person's back is hard enough, trying to have two peoples' backs without short-changing one seems impossible to me. ..But that doesn't mean it should be denigrated. ..But I am skeptical.

Suicide rates in general are at an all time high. The world is a mess. Anxiety is the most common mental health issue.

Polyamorous relationships are difficult to maintain, but so are monogamous relationships. More and more older couples are divorcing. Couples are acknowledging that they can't possibly spend their whole retired life with the person they met in their younger years.

Not 100% sure what my point is. It's 0614 and I haven't had my coffee yet.

 

[Yarglenurp]

Suicide rates in general are at an all time high. The world is a mess. Anxiety is the most common mental health issue.

Polyamorous relationships are difficult to maintain, but so are monogamous relationships. More and more older couples are divorcing. Couples are acknowledging that they can't possibly spend their whole retired life with the person they met in their younger years.

Not 100% sure what my point is. It's 0614 and I haven't had my coffee yet.

I agree, it’s not really fair to expect throuples or other polyamorous arrangements to be perfect, since mono arrangements fail often enough. I just think polyamory is worse for children because so much of the adult’s life and mental energy is spent on managing romantic relationships instead of on child needs.

As an aside, I see the divorce rate of older couples as a positive thing. A lot of people from that era got married really early in their life and probably married the wrong people. In many cases, the only reason they stuck together was because of kids or religious/cultural pressure. The alternative to divorce in their case is to be miserably stuck together and end up living with a person whose presence makes you physically ill. Divorce is the good ending in those situations.

 

[policywank]

I think that historically gender dynamics were sort of forced onto women. One of the narratives I have often discussed is the faulty premise that women are naturally more inclined towards monogamy than men. The argument propagated by men was that we wanted to be in a monogamous relationship because we wanted a man to provide for and protect us. But it was men that created the environment in which we were unable to provide for ourselves and any woman who wasn't married and pure was banished to the fringes of society. It was that environment - created by men for men - that made monogamy the only viable path for women.

Those parameters have changed a great deal in a relatively short period of time. And I think that society in the west has yet to adjust.

Some men feel that they have been left behind. Relative to the way things used to be they're not wrong. There used to be a compelled one-to-one male/female relationship which optimized their chance of finding a mate. But they were never entitled to that constraint. Lamenting the end of those dynamics is like being angry that your neighbour changed the password on his wifi so you can't use it anymore - it is true that you are worse off now but you were never entitled to that in the first place. Metaphorically speaking many men in society are still upset about the changing of the password and have not yet moved on to the new reality.

Meanwhile, women have not yet realized what we might have hoped would be the results of our sexual emancipation. Men haven't really embraced us as equals. Some have. Maybe even many have. But there are enough that haven't that we still need to be on the lookout for misogyny. Meanwhile, we haven't really fully embraced equality. We like the parts that favour us, but not so much the parts that don't. When it comes to sexual and romantic relationships we want all the best of what men provided in the past, but we want it a la carte - pick and choose what we like, discard what we don't like and expect men to accept lesser status and diminished outcomes. All the while continue to blame men for things that don't work out the way we wanted them to.

Overall women have always held the balance of power in gender relations. In the absence of the ability to oppress women, men will have to come to grips with that reality. Meanwhile, women need to grow into the ability to wield that power responsibly.

Certainly, to the extent that we do engage in throuples I think that two men and one woman is the more logical route. But the men in that relationship need to take a more modern view of how to handle it. Women no longer have to endure a man child, so they certainly won't want two of them.

I also think that if we can truly break down the barriers of sexual assumptions that things will go a lot smoother. Guys, women really do like sex. What we don't like is all of the baggage that you bring to it. Guys who want sex need to drop the antiquated notions of female purity, not try to control women, accept our sexual prerogative and be able to respect us as human beings at the same time. Consider the stud friend of yours who gets lots of women, but is also a respected individual. Now apply the same to a woman. Until a critical proportion of men can do that we will have a situation in which women will have significant and legitimate reasons to withhold sex. As long as fucking a guy means he wants to lay claim to us or regard us as whores, women will continue to opt out altogether.

I see wildly unrealistic expectations from both genders. Young women aren't all going to find a handsome rich stud. And young men aren't all going to find pretty virgins who are somehow only able to find sexual pleasure with that one man. Some people might go the throuple route. Some will stay single. And a whole bunch will have to re-align ourselves to a new paradigm.

As a dude if you are short, overweight with no prospects you are less likely to find a mate than you might have been 75 years ago. But that is because 75 years ago there was a greater chance that some unlucky woman would be compelled to settle, whereas now she might prefer to remain single. That is rightly her prerogative. She might still fuck you though.....as long as you aren't a dick about it.

 

[LMWM321]

A great post PW, as always.... There's a lot to mull over. I've read it once and will read it again soon and likely chime in. Thanks for all the thought you put into your posts and care you give to your writing!

Makes me wish there was a Forum here on Lit that is meant ONLY for serious discussions about human sexuality. ..There's something about seeing your thoughtful post set between "Cocksuckers!" and "Just big natural Titties" in the General Board that seems downright unfair.

 

[Britva415]

I know a fourple with four kids. The eight of them seem stable and happy.

 

[KatieDoes]

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.

Hot tip:

Women aren’t avoiding you because you’re too short or don’t make enough money.
Lots of short poor dudes have wives and families.

They’re avoiding you because you’re acting like some Great Value Andrew Tate, and your attitude towards women is utterly repulsive, repugnant, and pathetic.

I hope this helps!

 

[slightlysubhub]

My wife is bisexual and I had a vasectomy so maybe the lack of getting her pregnant as well as a new lover(which we’d choose a female) would be a good setup for the throuple. We joke about it simply for the financial assistance of having another source of income in the home. Obviously there are more intricacies to a poly type of relationship but I know jealousy isn’t an issue with us at the least.

 

[LMWM321]

But it was men that created the environment in which we were unable to provide for ourselves and any woman who wasn't married and pure was banished to the fringes of society. It was that environment - created by men for men - that made monogamy the only viable path for women.

There's little to disagree with in your post, PW.. ..But for the sake of argument I'll take issue with the above.

I don't deny that men were largely assholes since the beginning of time, but our basic biological differences also played a huge roll in creating the power imbalance. Specifically, the fact that women bore children meant their physical strength and mobility - our basic tools for survival - were considerably diminished from the time they entered their last trimester of pregnancy to the time they stop breast feeding. As such, men were needed for food and protection. And their closer bond with their children compelled them to keep a reliable (even if undesirable) man in their corner well past childbirth to help keep her kids from being harmed. Of course, let's not gloss over the fact that many of those pregnancies were likely the consequence of a rape.

But that was then, and this is now. Today, better laws, better social mores prevail. Thankfully, women are not shackled by pregnancy and child-bearing in the way they were just 50 years ago.. And today women are closing the income and career gap. Breast pumps and formula allow men to do much more of the child feeding and birth control allows both sexes to have sex w/out it creating a new life that needs 21 years of nurturing.

Anyway, guys who lament the change in the balance of power need to STFU and remind themselves of how long they had it so much easier than women (I'm being glib of course, but it's mostly true)

 

[LMWM321]

As for throuples.. Whenever I see throuples on TV it's nearly always of a younger, childless trio. An age where life is generally easier. I'd love to see how such a relationship would work much later in their relationship.

What if, in a MFM Throuple, the following happens....

• A seriously ill child. ..Is their equal engagement from each in the Throuple even though ONE of them is not the biological parent?
• Aging parents. Just one parent going through end-of-life struggles like dementia is a huge challenge for a 2-person marriage. How would this be navigated with 6 possible parents?
• Their own serious health issues like Cancer? If one of the men is diagnosed with stage-2 cancer and is facing months of radiation and chemo, does the other guy tolerate the significantly diminished amount of attention he will receive from the Woman who, hopefully, is giving her full attention to the sick Husband #1?
• Sexual Desire Discrepancy. This is a big issue in most relationships. ..It's rare for both in a couple to have the very same amount of sexual desire, but what about adding a third person? Especially if all in the throuple are heterosexual (ie., the men have sex only with the women and not w/ each other.)

These are just a few examples... I could go on and on. please add more if you'd like.

 

[Mike302]

Hot tip:

Women aren’t avoiding you because you’re too short or don’t make enough money.
Lots of short poor dudes have wives and families.

They’re avoiding you because you’re acting like some Great Value Andrew Tate, and your attitude towards women is utterly repulsive, repugnant, and pathetic.

I hope this helps!

Huh? I'm not talking about myself, but men in general.

Woman don't avoid me. I'm well-liked by many that would be happy to have me. But I've been married to a good woman for a long time, in a FLR, in fact.

So, I don't know how you came to the conclusion you did.

 

[policywank]

There's little to disagree with in your post, PW.. ..But for the sake of argument I'll take issue with the above.

I don't deny that men were largely assholes since the beginning of time, but our basic biological differences also played a huge roll in creating the power imbalance. Specifically, the fact that women bore children meant their physical strength and mobility - our basic tools for survival - were considerably diminished from the time they entered their last trimester of pregnancy to the time they stop breast feeding. As such, men were needed for food and protection. And their closer bond with their children compelled them to keep a reliable (even if undesirable) man in their corner well past childbirth to help keep her kids from being harmed. Of course, let's not gloss over the fact that many of those pregnancies were likely the consequence of a rape.

But that was then, and this is now. Today, better laws, better social mores prevail. Thankfully, women are not shackled by pregnancy and child-bearing in the way they were just 50 years ago.. And today women are closing the income and career gap. Breast pumps and formula allow men to do much more of the child feeding and birth control allows both sexes to have sex w/out it creating a new life that needs 21 years of nurturing.

Anyway, guys who lament the change in the balance of power need to STFU and remind themselves of how long they had it so much easier than women (I'm being glib of course, but it's mostly true)

There is no question that women need support when it comes to baring and caring for children. However, there are many ways that can be provided. There are lots of examples of societies where that was provided by the community, other women and men that were not necessarily monogamous and possessive.

I was reading something online today about "cavemen". The main point of the commentary was that we never really lived in caves, although maybe used them for shelter at times. But it also made the point that the whole idea that men did the hunting and women did the gathering and stayed at "home" is fiction. It was much more of a communal society where everyone was involved in everything including taking care of the children. Now this person may have been talking out of their ass as I don't know how much actual evidence we have. But the point was that the whole idea of traditional gender roles having largely been the same since the beginning of time is largely fiction. Right from the first time we see the Flintstones we are told that this is the way it has always been everywhere and always, which is just not true.

So my point isn't that women don't need that support in particular in relation to having children. The point is that men created the environment wherein the only way to get that support was to enter into monogamous possessive relationships with men, including making things difficult to impossible for any woman who sought an alternative path. Consider the history of women who had a child out of wedlock. She faced enough challenges, why would society shame her, potentially seize her children, force her into a home for unwed mothers and deny her any reasonable chance to provide for her child when it could have chosen to be supportive? The reasons are obviously more complex than what I am portraying, but I do think that promoting the imperative of monogamy and one-to-one pairing in a way that favours men is part of it. So, per my original point yes women did want to have a monogamous man to provide and protect, but that is at least in part because men made all the other legitimate possibilities untenable.

 

[policywank]

Hot tip:

Women aren’t avoiding you because you’re too short or don’t make enough money.
Lots of short poor dudes have wives and families.

They’re avoiding you because you’re acting like some Great Value Andrew Tate, and your attitude towards women is utterly repulsive, repugnant, and pathetic.

I hope this helps!

I think that even among men who are not misogynistic, the fact remains that they are confused as to the difference between "women don't want me" and "women don't want me on my terms".

In virtually every other aspect of life, if people "aren't buying what we are selling" so to speak we stop to look at why the package isn't appealing. Sure things like looks, and how much money you make might be considerations. But notwithstanding what the internet says not all women expect the world. The bigger issue is how men approach us and relationships with us. If a guy effectively presents a woman with two options - be his monogamous possession or be regarded as slut not worthy of respect - most women will just say no thanks. That is over simplified but it is that nonsense binary decision that makes the package unappealing.

 

[Yarglenurp]

I think that even among men who are not misogynistic, the fact remains that they are confused as to the difference between "women don't want me" and "women don't want me on my terms".

In virtually every other aspect of life, if people "aren't buying what we are selling" so to speak we stop to look at why the package isn't appealing. Sure things like looks, and how much money you make might be considerations. But notwithstanding what the internet says not all women expect the world. The bigger issue is how men approach us and relationships with us. If a guy effectively presents a woman with two options - be his monogamous possession or be regarded as slut not worthy of respect - most women will just say no thanks. That is over simplified but it is that nonsense binary decision that makes the package unappealing.

I agree with your overall thesis, though I think the market analogy is not helpful in this regard, because the women in this setting are then also products to be bought and sold, just like the men. I think this commodification of human traits is ultimately destructive to forming meaningful relationships… the best buyers and sellers in a market are almost always sociopathic or effectively sociopathic.

I think people need to remember that a lot of guys and girls in their teens and 20s are still “cooking.” Real partnerships take two mature people to sacrifice for each other to reach a mutually beneficial outcome over years and decades. This is not something most teenagers and people in the early or even mid-20s have a grasp on. By normalizing relationships as the norm so early on, media has basically interrupted the process of growth. Then a lot of them will veer hard into the opposite direction, and think of relationships like a game they cannot win.

Of course, the story about a guy or girl who just does their own thing and eventually finds a partner in a non-dramatic way isn’t very compelling or profit-generating, so that very-real scenario is ignored and underemphasized in public discourse. And the humans at the very top could give fuck-all about the happiness of ordinary people, they just want more serfs to lord over.

 

[policywank]

I agree with your overall thesis, though I think the market analogy is not helpful in this regard, because the women in this setting are then also products to be bought and sold, just like the men. I think this commodification of human traits is ultimately destructive to forming meaningful relationships… the best buyers and sellers in a market are almost always sociopathic or effectively sociopathic.

I think people need to remember that a lot of guys and girls in their teens and 20s are still “cooking.” Real partnerships take two mature people to sacrifice for each other to reach a mutually beneficial outcome over years and decades. This is not something most teenagers and people in the early or even mid-20s have a grasp on. By normalizing relationships as the norm so early on, media has basically interrupted the process of growth. Then a lot of them will veer hard into the opposite direction, and think of relationships like a game they cannot win.

Of course, the story about a guy or girl who just does their own thing and eventually finds a partner in a non-dramatic way isn’t very compelling or profit-generating, so that very-real scenario is ignored and underemphasized in public discourse. And the humans at the very top could give fuck-all about the happiness of ordinary people, they just want more serfs to lord over.

I take your point, although the analogy wasn't intended to be taken literally. The underlying point being that men tend to look at what they offer in terms of looks, money, job, sense of humour, etc. which is focussed on their characteristics as opposed to the terms of engagement.

If we had the latitude to approach things in a mutually respectful way without imposing constraints, expectations or judgment on one another I think women would be a lot more willing to give guys a chance.

To the extent that women pre-judge men based upon criteria that are unrealistic or superficial it is because the terms of engagement that is imposed upon us have very real consequences in terms of social status, mental health and even physical safety simply for giving a guy a chance or being willing to explore things more deeply. That raises the stakes of each dating decision in a way that men don't face to the same degree so we are forced to seek some way of pre-qualifying men.

Speaking of young people I am reminded of the sexual dynamics of my youth. In those days we were inundated with pop culture references to the idea of an earnest young man winning the affection of his sweetheart as well as the premise that sexually experienced or adventurous women were intrinsically dirty and ineligible for positive long-term relationships. The last thing a young woman wants is to be ostracized or stalked by some over eager young man who watched to many teen movies. That is the somewhat over magnified version of what women face at all ages.

Every woman I know has know lots of guys that they would have given a chance if not for those very real risks. When I hear the men saying "What am I not good enough for you?" the real answer is "No, that isn't it at all. The issue is that you seek to dictate the terms of engagement. It is you who is raising the stakes. I am just trying to make sure I don't suffer the consequences."

 

[KatieDoes]

I think that even among men who are not misogynistic, the fact remains that they are confused as to the difference between "women don't want me" and "women don't want me on my terms".

In virtually every other aspect of life, if people "aren't buying what we are selling" so to speak we stop to look at why the package isn't appealing. Sure things like looks, and how much money you make might be considerations. But notwithstanding what the internet says not all women expect the world. The bigger issue is how men approach us and relationships with us. If a guy effectively presents a woman with two options - be his monogamous possession or be regarded as slut not worthy of respect - most women will just say no thanks. That is over simplified but it is that nonsense binary decision that makes the package unappealing.

Exactly. They aren’t asking ‘how can I be a better partner, so a woman who no longer requires a man to exist, will choose to partner with me?’

They’re asking ‘how can I compel women into giving me what I feel entitled to?’

 

[KatieDoes]

As for throuples.. Whenever I see throuples on TV it's nearly always of a younger, childless trio. An age where life is generally easier. I'd love to see how such a relationship would work much later in their relationship.

What if, in a MFM Throuple, the following happens....

• A seriously ill child. ..Is their equal engagement from each in the Throuple even though ONE of them is not the biological parent?
• Aging parents. Just one parent going through end-of-life struggles like dementia is a huge challenge for a 2-person marriage. How would this be navigated with 6 possible parents?
• Their own serious health issues like Cancer? If one of the men is diagnosed with stage-2 cancer and is facing months of radiation and chemo, does the other guy tolerate the significantly diminished amount of attention he will receive from the Woman who, hopefully, is giving her full attention to the sick Husband #1?
• Sexual Desire Discrepancy. This is a big issue in most relationships. ..It's rare for both in a couple to have the very same amount of sexual desire, but what about adding a third person? Especially if all in the throuple are heterosexual (ie., the men have sex only with the women and not w/ each other.)

These are just a few examples... I could go on and on. please add more if you'd like.

This is absolutely bizarre to me, and the reason I need a second husband like I need a fucking hole in my head.

If several people are living together as a family, wouldn’t ALL of the adults in the family rise to the occasion and provide extra care to the family member who is ill?

I simply can’t wrap my head around being jealous that someone in my family who has cancer is getting more attention than me.
So many men leave their recently diagnosed wives, it’s taught in medical school as something to prepare female patients for.

Make it make sense?

 

[Yarglenurp]

I simply can’t wrap my head around being jealous that someone in my family who has cancer is getting more attention than me.
So many men leave their recently diagnosed wives, it’s taught in medical school as something to prepare female patients for.

Make it make sense?

Some people are actually sociopaths. If you’re not able to understand the view of a person who fundamentally lacks any empathy, these people will always not make sense to you.

 

[Otis_Ravelli]

Wow, this thread seems to be chock full of sociopathic, incel nonsense.

Lads, no gender behaves as a monolith. All this pseudo intellectual analysis and dollar store anthropology just shows that you don't view women as individuals who will act and react based on their own experiences and tastes.

There are women who like fat guys, short guys, guys you probably wouldn't consider to be "Top Shelf" guys. There isn't some magic code to break or an algorithm that can solve this. Real life isn't like a dating simulator where you can get sex if you take the right path in the decision tree.

There are people here whose posts read like they've only ever read about women in books and never actually met one. It's really weird.

 

[LMWM321]

If several people are living together as a family, wouldn’t ALL of the adults in the family rise to the occasion and provide extra care to the family member who is ill?

I simply can’t wrap my head around being jealous that someone in my family who has cancer is getting more attention than me.
So many men leave their recently diagnosed wives, it’s taught in medical school as something to prepare female patients for.

Make it make sense?

Well... I'm just pointing out the challenges of being in a "Throuple" which was an idea posed back at the start of the thread. As I said, I don't see it working.

I think most people feel that life is better with companionship - someone to raise children with, share the good times with and to lean on during the bad times. AND there WILL be bad times - especially as people age. But trying to balance the needs of TWO companions sounds untenable. That's all I'm trying to point out. Being part of a Throuples in one's 20's sounds kinda fun. But looking back on the big crisis' in my life - which came much later - more than one partner would have been very difficult.

As for a spouse leaving the other after being diagnosed with a serious illness. Ugh... Thankfully, I've never known someone who has done that - man or woman.

 

[LMWM321]

Wow, this thread seems to be chock full of sociopathic, incel nonsense.

Which posts are you referring to? Is this the way you step into a conversation at a party or a bar? ..Just blast everybody?