• Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    40·
    6 months ago

    My dad once joked about getting a second wife like in Biblical times.

    My mother replied, “good, I’ll finally have someone help with the chores around here.”

  • ameancow@lemmy.world
    382·
    6 months ago

    If you can make it work with one other person and have a fulfilling, understanding and well-communicated relationship that gives you both a feeling of reward and healthy challenge to achieving goals for both of you, you have accomplished one of the most challenging aspects of life. It’s very hard to share and open your life with another person, that person also has to be on-board with the same goals and plans. It can take a lifetime to really fine-tune a good monogamous relationship to the point that you’re both functioning smoothly with each other.

    And if you can do this with TWO other people, and those people ALSO can do this, that’s not just an accomplishment, that’s a sign you should probably buy some lottery tickets, or you’re actually the protagonist in a generic anime or manga and you don’t need to worry about the girls because some kind of space monster is probably going to try to kill you.

    • Atlas_@lemmy.world
      20·
      6 months ago

      Yes, but also some of polyamory is that not every relationship has to be “we cohabit and have kids and can deal with every single little quietly annoying thing the other does”. Some relationships are focused on sex. Some are focused on breaking into aquariums together. Some are with people across the country and even though you are close it doesn’t make sense to get together more than once a year. Although polyamorous relationships can look like monogamy*2, part of the point is that more focused, smaller relationships can also be romantic.

      • ameancow@lemmy.world
        61·
        6 months ago

        I would say most people look at the prospect of poly relationships in terms of monogamous relationships, and yeah I would expect there to be a wildly different dynamic in play for making it work with more than one partner, particularly under the same roof.

        Most people look at relationships in terms of some very rigid ideals that were set millenia ago, and even though our society is changing at a breakneck speed, we’re all still pining for the romance taught to us in movies and stories written centuries ago.

        I think there is still a real place for traditional relationships, they are wonderful actually, but I think if we’re to learn anything from people exploring multiple partner relationships, it would be that your relationship can look like a lot of different things, and no one pattern is perfect for everyone. What matters is you’re with someone or people who make you happy and not longing for something else.

        • novibe@lemmy.mlEnglish
          5·
          6 months ago

          Just a small correction: most people look at relationships in terms of some very rigid ideals that were set a couple centuries ago at most.

          • ameancow@lemmy.world
            1·
            6 months ago

            I thought about that for a bit as I typed that out, and even though the social details of modern relationship standards were for the most part similar in male/female dynamic a couple centuries ago, the roots of how and why we preserve a lot of the gendered dichotomy originated in the much further past, and I tend to side with the theory that our feminine/masculine binary started somewhere around agriculture when there were actual tasks that needed to be divided, and the systems that resulted from those survival needs.

            Since we don’t need people managing the crops and defending the babies from cave bears while other groups go out to hunt or do war, a lot of the ideas we have about who “should” do what in relationships isn’t a survival imperative anymore, but we still cling to a lot of the values that developed during those millenia.

            • novibe@lemmy.mlEnglish
              1·
              6 months ago

              That does make intuitive sense, but archeology shows otherwise. There was a much bigger diversity of gender roles and relationship structures/child rearing systems, including in agricultural societies.

              The modern almost universal ideal of romantic monogamous nuclear relationships was born from romantic (as in the movement) puritan petit bourgeois ideals in the 19th century.

              Working class women during the medieval age for example, worked and lived outside the home, had affairs etc. This changed around the 18th century with the hegemony of the bourgeoisie and working class mirroring of their ideals.

              Basically while it’s true that patriarchal strictly dichotomous societies existed for as long as we can tell, And that they have prevailed and “won out”. But doesn’t mean they are the norm for humanity. Their universality is extremely recent.

    • Klnsfw 🏳️‍🌈@lemmynsfw.com
      14·
      6 months ago

      The trick is that non-monogamous relationships are not a collection of monogamous relationships where everyone has to fulfill each other’s needs and desires.

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        8·
        6 months ago

        Also relationships don’t have to last forever. You can grow together and grow apart over time without fear of being “forever alone” when you’re in a plural relationship.

    • interrobang@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
      4·
      6 months ago

      I am currently in this actual situation!

      It has been wild getting here, but i am married, and dating my wife’s girlfriend. We’re all grown, functional adults in our 30’s, too!

      It is delightful, and does make me feel like im a character in some really good smut, no lie. I am lucky. And happy.

  • grrgyle@slrpnk.net
    34·
    6 months ago

    There’s got to be a more inclusive way for 3+ people to hug. Maybe it’s my monogamous brain, but this just looks like a third wheel

      • bitwaba@lemmy.world
        12·
        6 months ago

        That’s fine. Garlic burns really easy. You shouldn’t add it until 30 seconds before you add your tomatoes, or stock, or whatever your main watery components are going to be.

        • grrgyle@slrpnk.net
          1·
          6 months ago

          Yeah more or less. Sometimes I sweat them in a covered pot for longer. Maybe with a spoonful of aquafaba, or stock as you say.

          Burnt garlic is not a mistake you make on purpose more than once haha.

  • Lad@reddthat.com
    29·
    6 months ago

    Sleeping with 2 girls AND both of them paying part of the rent? Count me the fuck in

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      341·
      6 months ago

      Lmao. It’s going to be another dude. You know it. I know it. He knows it. 😉

      • Gigan@lemmy.world
        181·
        6 months ago

        Actually you’ll just be alone and some chad will have 2-3 girlfriends.

            • radicalautonomy@lemmy.world
              3·
              6 months ago

              Gigan indicated that certain men will have multiple female partners while other men will have none. This implies that they believe that those female partners will be tied to that one man and won’t have the ability to take on any other male partners should they choose to. Such a situation is not polyamory as it is not equitable to all parties.

              Should two women choose to be partnered with each other and a man, and should all parties exercise their free will (i.e. not out of pressure) in deciding to be polyfidelitous, then that could be considered polyamory. But it doesn’t necessitate that those “Chads” horde all of the women leaving some straight men with no potential partners. It’s a ridiculous implication.

              • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
                1·
                6 months ago

                Yeah under polyamory the only reason some men might lose out on a girlfriend they may have in monogamy is if they’re merely better than nothing. And the guys with multiple poly girlfriends aren’t “chads” they’re the kind of guy who can have a good time hanging out with their wife’s partners.

            • radicalautonomy@lemmy.world
              7·
              6 months ago

              No, you don’t. Polyamory ≠ Triad (three people all in a relationship together). Triads are certainly a form polyamory can take, but a very small percentage of polyamorous people are in one. They just happen to be way over represented in media which causes people to assume that that’s what polyamory is. I know a whole lot of polyamorous people; none of them are in a triad, and most of the men and some of the women are straight.