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

[KatieDoes]

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.

I’m pretty sure that behind 80%+ of the lit dudes who proclaim themselves to be in a super edgy, kinky, FLR… there is an absolutely exhausted women who can’t believe that she has to tell a manbaby, yet again, that when the trash bin is full to just empty it.

 

[KatieDoes]

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

I can’t speak for him, but I’ll go ahead and offer up any post that talks about ‘getting to breed’

 

[Yarglenurp]

I can’t speak for him, but I’ll go ahead and offer up any post that talks about ‘getting to breed’

I thought that kink was equally shared between men and women.

 

[KatieDoes]

I thought that kink was equally shared between men and women.

There aren’t posts within this thread that speak on it as a kink.

 

[Yarglenurp]

There aren’t posts within this thread that speak on it as a kink.

Oh, I misunderstood. I didn’t actually notice any that mentioned breeding, but there’s a good chance I read it and then forgot it.

 

[KatieDoes]

Oh, I misunderstood. I didn’t actually notice any that mentioned breeding, but there’s a good chance I read it and then forgot it.

It’s literally the original post, the one that set the topic you’ve been discussing.

This thread has been about how to enforce less desirable men access to women’s bodies so they get to breed.

 

[policywank]

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.

I am not so sure. Virtually all of our relationships outside of marriage (friendships, broader family) involve more than two parties yet we find ways to manage competing priorities and needs.

If our monogamous partner must attend to the needs of a seriously ill family member do we not try to be supportive and put aside our own needs while that is their priority? If our monogamous partner has an ill child from previous relationship are we not able to also love that child and support our partner simply because that child is not biologically related to us? The challenges of discrepancy in sexual desire might be magnified with multiple partners.....or it might be diminished, depending who has the lesser desire. A woman can easily satisfy the sexual needs of more than one man if she is so inclined and that often has more to do with how the matter is approached than a simple quantum of desire.

That is not to say that I don't see potential issues with multiple partners. It surely does have the potential to complicate matters. But how that plays out depends a lot on the partners themselves. And I think that the primary difference between marriage and our other relationships is intimacy and the exclusivity thereof. If one views not having exclusivity of intimacy as a sacrifice that must be compensated for somehow than one probably is not suited to non-monogamy. Otherwise one would be reasonably well equipped to handle the lack of exclusivity in the same way we do in our other close relationships.

I'd be tempted to say that marriage is also unique from other relationships in its inter-dependency. But while that may be the case in relation to friendships, it isn't in relation to family. Most families have more than two dependent or inter-dependent members and naturally adapt a "we are all in this together attitude" that may supersede their own needs or desires at times.

We can be jealous of our siblings in a similar way to how we are jealous of our partner's other lovers. The difference lies in how we have been taught to deal with those jealousies. We are taught that we cannot put ourselves or expect our other families to put ourselves above our siblings, so we must find resolution to those feelings. Meanwhile we are taught that intimate partners must be exclusive so that jealousy is ok.

 

[policywank]

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?

Agreed. There are people who approach relationships based upon what is in it for them. As a result, they are not great at dealing with challenges. Given that a non-monogamous relationship presents challenges simply by being non-conventional it obviously makes sense to steer clear of those people in that instance. But I'd say it also makes sense to steer clear of them in any case. Someone who is that way might be less likely to let you down in a monogamous marriage, but only because there are less likely to be challenges, not because they are better people than would have otherwise been the case.

 

[Yarglenurp]

Agreed. There are people who approach relationships based upon what is in it for them. As a result, they are not great at dealing with challenges. Given that a non-monogamous relationship presents challenges simply by being non-conventional it obviously makes sense to steer clear of those people in that instance. But I'd say it also makes sense to steer clear of them in any case. Someone who is that way might be less likely to let you down in a monogamous marriage, but only because there are less likely to be challenges, not because they are better people than would have otherwise been the case.

Yeah, I think the hard part is that people don’t know if someone is a good relationship partner in tough times until the tough times come.

As for the tough times, I think they’ll come regardless of relationship status. Illness and financial troubles will come for everyone.

 

[Otis_Ravelli]

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

Primarily the opening post and anything that treats said post as a subject worthy of discussion. It isn't, it's nonsense peddled by people who feel the need to come to with an explanation for being single that puts none of the blame on them. It can't possibly be their fault, it must be due to some socialiatal construct that needs to be altered.

And yes, if I overheard someone espousing this in public I would have no issue telling them they are being a horse's ass. Women put up with these ridiculous attitudes in a daily basis and more men need to stand by them and call it out for what it is.

 

[Yarglenurp]

Primarily the opening post and anything that treats said post as a subject worthy of discussion. It isn't, it's nonsense peddled by people who feel the need to come to with an explanation for being single that puts none of the blame on them. It can't possibly be their fault, it must be due to some socialiatal construct that needs to be altered.

And yes, if I overheard someone espousing this in public I would have no issue telling them they are being a horse's ass. Women put up with these ridiculous attitudes in a daily basis and more men need to stand by them and call it out for what it is.

I interpreted the original post as part fetish fuel, part fantasy. I don’t think most people, author included, thought of it as a serious post.

If I heard someone espousing this in public, I’d assume that this is a guy who either wants to fuck someone else’s wife or wants his wife to fuck someone else.

 

[KatieDoes]

I interpreted the original post as part fetish fuel, part fantasy. I don’t think most people, author included, thought of it as a serious post.

If I heard someone espousing this in public, I’d assume that this is a guy who either wants to fuck someone else’s wife or wants his wife to fuck someone else.

You don’t think incel/ redpill culture is real?

 

[Yarglenurp]

You don’t think incel culture is real?

Oh, no it’s quite real. I just don’t think OP is part of that audience.

 

[LMWM321]

I'd be tempted to say that marriage is also unique from other relationships in its inter-dependency. But while that may be the case in relation to friendships, it isn't in relation to family. Most families have more than two dependent or inter-dependent members and naturally adapt a "we are all in this together attitude" that may supersede their own needs or desires at times.

While the idea of multiple partner full-fledged sexual relationships sounds beautiful, it still strikes me as wildly unrealistic. ..I've not read much (any) on the subject but I do know there were communes in the 60's where everyone shared in everything, including sex and the raising of others children (I'm reminded of the one scene in Easy Rider) but they more or less all failed. Maybe we'll evolve in that direction, but it will take more years than I have left..

I think a more near term solution to the problem of failed marriages - more than 1/2 end in divorce with many of the remaining marriages not exactly happy - is allowing partners to have occasional sexual relations outside of the marriage. I could see that form of non-monogamy working before polyamory. And even that would require a great deal of change in how we view sex - ie., is it love or just lust?

 

[Mike302]

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.

Real life has trends. Of course there are outliers and individuals.

I'm looking at this from a macro point of view.

We know not "all" Labrador Retrievers love water.

I'm curious about solutions for American's superfluous, disregarded young men. I know young men with these issues. I might create a topic just about that. (fyi, I'm not one of them, I'm not young and have been married a long time)

 

[Mike302]

I’m pretty sure that behind 80%+ of the lit dudes who proclaim themselves to be in a super edgy, kinky, FLR… there is an absolutely exhausted women who can’t believe that she has to tell a manbaby, yet again, that when the trash bin is full to just empty it.

Can't disagree with that. Thankfully I'm not one of them.

But hey, some of them are just learning. Shouldn't put down an eager student for not having graduated to the next grade, yet.

 

[Mike302]

It’s literally the original post, the one that set the topic you’ve been discussing.

This thread has been about how to enforce less desirable men access to women’s bodies so they get to breed.

Yes, but also for companionship and to pool resources. All of the usual benefits of intimate relationships.

I did mention that men should improve themselves so a high-value woman will choose to be with them. But our society is a matriarchy (Not the top 1%) and young men are not supported. They are a lower caste. Not all of them are going to make it.

You kind of lend to my point that nobody cares about their needs and desires. That's one reason why so many get into drugs, crime, and directly or indirectly, suicide.

Perhaps they'd be better off having never been born?

 

[policywank]

While the idea of multiple partner full-fledged sexual relationships sounds beautiful, it still strikes me as wildly unrealistic. ..I've not read much (any) on the subject but I do know there were communes in the 60's where everyone shared in everything, including sex and the raising of others children (I'm reminded of the one scene in Easy Rider) but they more or less all failed. Maybe we'll evolve in that direction, but it will take more years than I have left..

I think a more near term solution to the problem of failed marriages - more than 1/2 end in divorce with many of the remaining marriages not exactly happy - is allowing partners to have occasional sexual relations outside of the marriage. I could see that form of non-monogamy working before polyamory. And even that would require a great deal of change in how we view sex - ie., is it love or just lust?

I'm not sure if polyamory or the occasional hall pass have much chance of gaining widespread acceptance any time soon. The primacy of monogamy as a relationship model is just too ingrained in our society and individual psyches. As with the hippie communes of the 60's, I don't think we can just decide to switch off deeply held emotions and beliefs because of an intellectual argument against them. We can try, but it will usually fail.

However, we may see small incremental changes over time that lead to new paradigms. For instance, as I have often argued male views of female sexuality and attitudes towards sex have been at least partially formed in the context of an environment wherein women were compelled to conform to a male-centric view of these things. The mere easing of those constraints will lead to more women living their lives according to their actual view and preferences which will make it harder for men to ignore reality.

The trend we are seeing now that women are less compelled to embrace monogamy is that women are naturally more inclined to be selective. Some of that comes across as bitchy women wanting men to all be rich, handsome, hung and at the top of the social ladder. But that is just the shallow stuff that gets magnified by the internet. A lot more are just looking for reasonable things like don't be abusive and don't vilify us for being sexual beings. That last one has always been hard for men to accept, but hey they don't expect us to virgins at the time of marriage anymore so maybe a bit of progress has been made.

Likewise if women are unhappy with their sex lives more will be inclined to cheat or move on to new relationships. That may be a rough road at times, but it may also be how guys will clue in to the premise that we are sexual beings. I don't know where that leads but no longer living in denial might be a good start. Today's man may not be able to substantially enlighten his views of female sexuality, but even if he evolves just a bit maybe future generations will have different relationship models.

I see polyamory and the hall pass very differently. The hall pass is just sex as opposed to sharing all aspects of life with multiple partners. The latter has more complexity for sure, but sex is the thing that leads to jealousy and insecurity. It may be that that jealousy and insecurity can be mitigated better in a committed loving relationship, which would make polyamory more practical. Or it may be that sharing all those other aspects of life is more complex than managing jealousy and insecurity. Or maybe it is person unique.

 

[policywank]

Yes, but also for companionship and to pool resources. All of the usual benefits of intimate relationships.

I did mention that men should improve themselves so a high-value woman will choose to be with them. But our society is a matriarchy (Not the top 1%) and young men are not supported. They are a lower caste. Not all of them are going to make it.

You kind of lend to my point that nobody cares about their needs and desires. That's one reason why so many get into drugs, crime, and directly or indirectly, suicide.

Perhaps they'd be better off having never been born?

I think that there is a case to be made that young men are being left behind because of their own behaviour and attitudes. Not that they have changed so much as women don't have to put up with it anymore. It isn't just about improving themselves. It is just as much or more about evolving their attitudes towards women.

 

[Yarglenurp]

Yes, but also for companionship and to pool resources. All of the usual benefits of intimate relationships.

I did mention that men should improve themselves so a high-value woman will choose to be with them. But our society is a matriarchy (Not the top 1%) and young men are not supported. They are a lower caste. Not all of them are going to make it.

You kind of lend to my point that nobody cares about their needs and desires. That's one reason why so many get into drugs, crime, and directly or indirectly, suicide.

Perhaps they'd be better off having never been born?

Well… that’s kind of an extreme leap. Our society is most definitely not a matriarchy. I don’t actually see how you could possibly come to that conclusion when you look at the gender makeup of corporate boardrooms and the investor class. The fact that women make up 50%+ student class does not translate into them being 50% of the massive-wealth class. My coworkers are a mixture of all demographics, but the people calling the shots on resource allocation are pretty much all rich men.

Also, there are a lot of guys who don’t ascribe to this binary distinction between top-1% men and everyone else and instead do work for their own. And they do end up finding some of the things they aim to achieve, even if it isn’t all of it. Chances are, along the way, they also find someone who makes them happy. We seeing the overall employment rate of 20- and 30-something’s in the US, I’m inclined to call these men that actual majority. Be it white collar, blue collar, public sector, or private, these men tend to not say much in the public because they have actual shit to do. As a member of the “I work” group, I can safely say I don’t see women as a whole owning more than rich dudes who went to the best schools and are now sending their kids to the best schools, while the rest of us fight for their good graces.

As for the small fraction of men who do fall into drugs and un/underemployment and blame women or other demographic groups, I think they are generally just deluded. They generally have more in common with the women of similar financial backgrounds and should be willing to support their sisters for mutual benefit, but their egos and incompetence prevents them from doing so. They don’t give a shit about having a better life in the objective sense, they just want to be better than someone else. Maybe their childhood was fucked and that’s not their fault, but as adults they choose to direct their energy towards destroying themselves or tearing down the people around them.

A lot of these guys are OK with being treated like disposable garbage by the powerful so long as they have someone they can feel superior to. From personal experience, I know these people really would rather help their bosses and boss’ bosses stick it to their coworkers and colleagues for an “attaboy” and a pat on the head. They’re literally ok with being part of a giant shit pyramid so long as they’re not the ones at the very bottom.

 

[Otis_Ravelli]

Yes, but also for companionship and to pool resources. All of the usual benefits of intimate relationships.

I did mention that men should improve themselves so a high-value woman will choose to be with them. But our society is a matriarchy (Not the top 1%) and young men are not supported. They are a lower caste. Not all of them are going to make it.

You kind of lend to my point that nobody cares about their needs and desires. That's one reason why so many get into drugs, crime, and directly or indirectly, suicide.

Perhaps they'd be better off having never been born?

You're casting around for a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. You keep saying our society is a matriarchy like it's a fact which is about as demonstrably as false a statement as I've ever encountered.

All this talk of "High Value" women is pure incel, patriarchal rhetoric. Who is making this value assessment of women? Men. You seem to arguing that women have a duty to accept lower standards in a partner with a smile as if they don't they will descend into addiction and suicide. Placing the blame for men's poor behaviour and actions on women is about as patriarchal as it gets.

 

[LMWM321]

I think that there is a case to be made that young men are being left behind because of their own behaviour and attitudes. Not that they have changed so much as women don't have to put up with it anymore. It isn't just about improving themselves. It is just as much or more about evolving their attitudes towards women.

The young women I know (my daughter, nieces, co-workers, etc..) STILL want to marry, still want a family but ALSO want to have careers where they make the same as men. And that is obviously to be lauded. No woman wants to be a financial captive in their relationship or marriage. ..They've seen that w/ prior generations and want no part of it.

But they don't want to date a young man who lives in their parents basement spending an inordinate amount of time gaming, smoking pot and eating junk food - and I know a LOT of parents whose sons are doing just that. The young women aren't being overly picky for passing these young men over, they're just showing good discretion.

And they probably don't want to date a young man who only wants to hook up and whose notions of sex are what he sees on Pornhub. Blech.

 

[Mike302]

Well… that’s kind of an extreme leap. Our society is most definitely not a matriarchy. I don’t actually see how you could possibly come to that conclusion when you look at the gender makeup of corporate boardrooms and the investor class. The fact that women make up 50%+ student class does not translate into them being 50% of the massive-wealth class. My coworkers are a mixture of all demographics, but the people calling the shots on resource allocation are pretty much all rich men.

Also, there are a lot of guys who don’t ascribe to this binary distinction between top-1% men and everyone else and instead do work for their own. And they do end up finding some of the things they aim to achieve, even if it isn’t all of it. Chances are, along the way, they also find someone who makes them happy. We seeing the overall employment rate of 20- and 30-something’s in the US, I’m inclined to call these men that actual majority. Be it white collar, blue collar, public sector, or private, these men tend to not say much in the public because they have actual shit to do. As a member of the “I work” group, I can safely say I don’t see women as a whole owning more than rich dudes who went to the best schools and are now sending their kids to the best schools, while the rest of us fight for their good graces.

As for the small fraction of men who do fall into drugs and un/underemployment and blame women or other demographic groups, I think they are generally just deluded. They generally have more in common with the women of similar financial backgrounds and should be willing to support their sisters for mutual benefit, but their egos and incompetence prevents them from doing so. They don’t give a shit about having a better life in the objective sense, they just want to be better than someone else. Maybe their childhood was fucked and that’s not their fault, but as adults they choose to direct their energy towards destroying themselves or tearing down the people around them.

A lot of these guys are OK with being treated like disposable garbage by the powerful so long as they have someone they can feel superior to. From personal experience, I know these people really would rather help their bosses and boss’ bosses stick it to their coworkers and colleagues for an “attaboy” and a pat on the head. They’re literally ok with being part of a giant shit pyramid so long as they’re not the ones at the very bottom.

I was very clear about the matriarchy NOT including the top 1% wealth class. That's almost all men up there.

It's not a "small fraction of men" falling into drugs / underemployment / prison. There are about 1.1M men in US prisons. Men die from overdose 2 to 3 times as much as women. About 107k in 2022. About 17K men die by homicide a year. As for underemployment, the less educated / capable men have fewer low-skilled jobs available with increased mechanization / automation. Less people in general are needed to fill these positions.

Men do not have the support system that women have. The governments and corporations are all over doing everything they can to help women with education, medical assistance, tax breaks, priority in hiring, health outreach / awareness, they get preferential treatment in the court system, and the list goes on. The support system is so big it's how mothers can survive with no man at all, they'll just have fewer niceties. Once the egg is fertilized the man isn't really needed anymore and society celebrates that.

That is certainly part of the reason young men are doing so poorly (the bottom 80% of men) compared to the women. But I agree male culture is part of the problem. It could be they simply expect too much and like the women, may need to lower their standards and expectations. They need to learn they may not be the "head of the household" (my point about accepting a FLR), their mate probably won't be a "10", or even a "6" when it comes to physical attractiveness. She may not be always monogamous, and that may not justify ending the relationship.

I've got to wrap this one up but where I'm at is the lower 80% of young men who want relationships with women need to:

1. Accept their status as lower caste beneath women and the upper 20% (or whatever) of other men

2. Be raised / taught to have lower expectations in their relationships with women

3. Be more feminine or gay to better fit in this culture

 

[Mike302]

You're casting around for a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. You keep saying our society is a matriarchy like it's a fact which is about as demonstrably as false a statement as I've ever encountered.

All this talk of "High Value" women is pure incel, patriarchal rhetoric. Who is making this value assessment of women? Men. You seem to arguing that women have a duty to accept lower standards in a partner with a smile as if they don't they will descend into addiction and suicide. Placing the blame for men's poor behaviour and actions on women is about as patriarchal as it gets.

Oh, there is a problem. Several. The population is crashing. People aren't having enough kids to pay for the older generation and keep the nation going. Many of the single women have support from society and will be okay. The younger men do not have this support and are not okay.

Women run the lower 99% of society in the US. I've never said that it's a good or a bad thing, it just is.

There are "High-value" men and women. They will judge each other. That's nature.

I've never said women had to accept anything. You must have read that from someone else. I've probably said some will need to lower their expectations somewhat if they want a relationship / family. So do some of the men. That's completely fair. Don't project things you've read elsewhere onto me.

 

[LMWM321]

Men do not have the support system that women have. The governments and corporations are all over doing everything they can to help women with education, medical assistance, tax breaks, priority in hiring, health outreach / awareness, they get preferential treatment in the court system, and the list goes on. The support system is so big it's how mothers can survive with no man at all, they'll just have fewer niceties. Once the egg is fertilized the man isn't really needed anymore and society celebrates that.

I don't accept this premise at all. There is still an income gap b/w men and women and we still far fewer female COO's than male. And while a woman's job is held while on maternity leave, they have a much harder task making up for the time they where gone and not ascending the corporate ladder. In my career many people I work with had NO idea I had three kids...meaning it had ZERO impact on my career. Try doing that as a woman. Women continue to pay a higher price for bringing children into the world - something everyone agrees is a societal necessity.

And what tax breaks do women get? Do you mean to begin a business?

And no woman I've ever met regarded a man's role as merely to fertilize an egg than to get lost. ..I'm not sure if you're being serious or just trying to be provacative.