• Atlas_@lemmy.world
      26·
      2 years 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.

        • novibe@lemmy.mlEnglish
          5·
          2 years 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.

            • novibe@lemmy.mlEnglish
              1·
              2 years 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·
      2 years 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·
        2 years 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
      9·
      2 years 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
    42·
    2 years 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·
        2 years 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·
          2 years 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.

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    40·
    2 years 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.”

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      431·
      2 years ago

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

      • Gigan@lemmy.world
        181·
        2 years ago

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

            • radicalautonomy@lemmy.world
              3·
              2 years 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·
                2 years 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·
              2 years 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.