4 ms·

I'm not talking about a platonic relationship. I'm talking about a family with 3 equal intimate partners. It's clearly not for everyone, but there is a massive

I'm not talking about a platonic relationship. I'm talking about a family with 3 equal intimate partners. It's clearly not for everyone, but there is a massive financial advantage for those who could live like that.

crooked-v 9y ago
Relationships are already hard enough to maintain with two people.
- test6554 9y ago
  I'm not saying people should rush to do this even if they aren't comfortable with it. I'm saying that whoever is comfortable with it will have a huge financial advantage over a struggling two adult family.
  - mooreds 9y ago
    This reminds me of the 'line marriage' from The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moon_Is_a_Harsh_Mistress https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moon_Is_a_Harsh_Mistress Have wondered if there is an economically and romantically viable successor to modern marriage. I can tell you as a participant in a two person marriage that I'm not sure it would work for me, but can imagine the benefits.
moate 9y ago
So polygamy? People have thought about it. It's uncommon because it involves deeply involved and complex relationships with 2 people, when many people can barely handle that with one (see: the divorce rates around the world).
- freeflight 9y ago
  > see: the divorce rates around the world That could just as well be evidence for formal marriage not being easily sustainable. A formal marriage comes with its own pros and cons compared to other relationship types, as such I don't think you can use divorce numbers as evidence for intimate relationships being difficult in general. The rise in divorce rates and the decrease in marriages could just as well be interpreted as formal marriage being perceived as too difficult of a relationship type to sustain, so people are increasingly opting for alternative types instead.
  - moate 9y ago
    I think as evidence to the idea that sustaining a romantic relationship is difficult, divorce rates provide some backing. They're not the Alpha and Omega on the matter, but it clearly shows that A- The people were attempting to create and sustain a long term romantic relationship and B- They were unable to do so for some reasons. It could be a correlation and not causation thing as well though. I think it's difficult to provide anything truly concrete showing that intimate relationships are difficult to maintain using statistics. Much like the original article, there's just far too many moving parts (cultural expectations, communication skills differences, personal traumas, trust building, etc) that play into the equation.
  - emodendroket 9y ago
    I can't see how adding an additional person would solve the big stressors on failed marriages -- money, child-rearing, different values/desires. If anything those issues would be worse. Maybe it would reduce infidelity, or trouble accepting the same.
    - freeflight 9y ago
      Imho you add an additional problem by formalizing the relationship through marriage. With that comes a ton of expectations and pressure, internally inside the relationship, and externally from society. These are not present to the same degree with less formal relationships because the stakes are generally considered not as high because there's no formal divorce to go through if it shouldn't work out. Thus married couples might be more likely to suffer from "performance anxiety" in their relationship compared to less formal relationships. Different values/desires will always be an issue, but if two people can agree on those, why shouldn't three people be able to? The only reason some are so opposed to this idea is due to old religious stigma enforcing the idea that we have to be monogamous no matter what.
      - emodendroket 9y ago
        By the time you're making decisions like buying a house or having children you cannot treat the relationship that informally anyway. As for the last question: because the more people you add the more mutually incompatible desires are in the picture. If there's nothing but religious stigma at work, why aren't the Mormons still polygamists? (there are exceptions but I think we can round them off for the purposes of this discussion)
emodendroket 9y ago
You're surprised people don't want to become bigamists so that they can save money on rent?
- test6554 9y ago
  I'd be surprised if people don't want to [insert anything here] so that they can save money on rent. For every crazy thought that has ever passed through my head, there's a headline about someone from Florida doing that exact thing, except taking it to another level.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

crooked-v 9y ago

Relationships are already hard enough to maintain with two people.

test6554 9y ago
I'm not saying people should rush to do this even if they aren't comfortable with it. I'm saying that whoever is comfortable with it will have a huge financial advantage over a struggling two adult family.
- mooreds 9y ago
  This reminds me of the 'line marriage' from The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moon_Is_a_Harsh_Mistress https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moon_Is_a_Harsh_Mistress Have wondered if there is an economically and romantically viable successor to modern marriage. I can tell you as a participant in a two person marriage that I'm not sure it would work for me, but can imagine the benefits.

moate 9y ago

So polygamy? People have thought about it. It's uncommon because it involves deeply involved and complex relationships with 2 people, when many people can barely handle that with one (see: the divorce rates around the world).

freeflight 9y ago
> see: the divorce rates around the world That could just as well be evidence for formal marriage not being easily sustainable. A formal marriage comes with its own pros and cons compared to other relationship types, as such I don't think you can use divorce numbers as evidence for intimate relationships being difficult in general. The rise in divorce rates and the decrease in marriages could just as well be interpreted as formal marriage being perceived as too difficult of a relationship type to sustain, so people are increasingly opting for alternative types instead.
- moate 9y ago
  I think as evidence to the idea that sustaining a romantic relationship is difficult, divorce rates provide some backing. They're not the Alpha and Omega on the matter, but it clearly shows that A- The people were attempting to create and sustain a long term romantic relationship and B- They were unable to do so for some reasons. It could be a correlation and not causation thing as well though. I think it's difficult to provide anything truly concrete showing that intimate relationships are difficult to maintain using statistics. Much like the original article, there's just far too many moving parts (cultural expectations, communication skills differences, personal traumas, trust building, etc) that play into the equation.
- emodendroket 9y ago
  I can't see how adding an additional person would solve the big stressors on failed marriages -- money, child-rearing, different values/desires. If anything those issues would be worse. Maybe it would reduce infidelity, or trouble accepting the same.
  - freeflight 9y ago
    Imho you add an additional problem by formalizing the relationship through marriage. With that comes a ton of expectations and pressure, internally inside the relationship, and externally from society. These are not present to the same degree with less formal relationships because the stakes are generally considered not as high because there's no formal divorce to go through if it shouldn't work out. Thus married couples might be more likely to suffer from "performance anxiety" in their relationship compared to less formal relationships. Different values/desires will always be an issue, but if two people can agree on those, why shouldn't three people be able to? The only reason some are so opposed to this idea is due to old religious stigma enforcing the idea that we have to be monogamous no matter what.
    - emodendroket 9y ago
      By the time you're making decisions like buying a house or having children you cannot treat the relationship that informally anyway. As for the last question: because the more people you add the more mutually incompatible desires are in the picture. If there's nothing but religious stigma at work, why aren't the Mormons still polygamists? (there are exceptions but I think we can round them off for the purposes of this discussion)

emodendroket 9y ago

You're surprised people don't want to become bigamists so that they can save money on rent?

test6554 9y ago
I'd be surprised if people don't want to [insert anything here] so that they can save money on rent. For every crazy thought that has ever passed through my head, there's a headline about someone from Florida doing that exact thing, except taking it to another level.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]