You must log in or # to comment.
the billionairs want us all to become poly
oligarchs accidentally killing the nuclear family by making housing and childcare unaffordable
I’ve been of the opinion that it hasn’t been accidental for a while now. No hate against poly, and I’m not entirely sure for what purpose.
Maybe they want less introspective and intelligent people having kids (because they realize they can’t afford them instead of just having them on accident), so the next generation is more easily led?
I dunno.
I think they just want line to go up and can’t hold themselves back from trying to take everything they can. The current generation are wealth addicts with no self control who are incapable of enacting long term plans. They are so out of touch and lack so much perspective that they can’t even comprehend their own ineptitude.
Capitalists want high fertility rates so the price of labor is kept low, but they don’t want to fundamentally change things to make it happen. They invest heavily in conservatism and anti-intellectualism because it’s easy, but not only are the results lackluster, the costs are too high. Countries that haven’t gutted public education and social services have a distinct advantage over those that let private interests make every decision, as oligarchs make poor public planners.
In the long run, the rich will not only cause the downfall of wealthy empires like the US, but cause a surge in nationalism and an end to free trade. Even if they move as much wealth as possible to their next target country, they are creating a world where they are no longer as dominant because nationalistic governments will once again taken center stage. They will never have a better deal than neoliberalism, and as that very ideology destabilizes the liberal world order, they’ll lose many privileges they take for granted.
The plan is making money and gaining power, everything else is just a side effect. Despite how concentrated wealth is, it’s still too decentralized to have unified plans. The closest you’ll see is the rich and powerful mostly independently coming up with the same ideas, usually just whatever leads to more wealth and power.
At the end of the day they’re, like us, also driven by the systems we find ourselves in, just in a better position than us.
Come off it they’d make it illegal.
You know you can just have flatmates, right?
Where’s the fun in that?
there is no sexual obligation, it isn’t ruled out either
Relationships fo also come wothout sexual obligations by the way, you’re not required to have sex with your partner.
“Relationships fo also come wothout sexual obligations by the way, you’re not required to have sex with your partner.”
That I never got. Isn’t a relationship without any sexual activity just a friendship? Love can’t be the deciding factor, as plenty of people love their friends. There are different kinds of love, but the kinds that distinguish relationships from friendships are sexual in nature.
In my mind, a relationship without a sexual component is just a roommate or very close friend. What exactly is the difference between a close best friend and a relationship with no sexual component? To me those seem to have the exact same definition.
Well, you don’t want to deny asexual people romantic relationships.
But yeah it’s simply more of a gradient, and different folks put their goal posts on different parts of that gradient.
Could even comment about the inflationary usage of the word “love” in American English, where people “love” the taste of a juice, the efficiency of a corporate business process, or the smell of napalm in the morning. Ancient Greeks were on the other end of THAT scale, with different words for different loves, even for e.g. the love for your home country.
Without obligation does not mean that there is no sexual component, just that nobody can be forced to do it. Also just because you have very strong sexual desire does not mean that everybody does, and two people that don’t might still want an intimate relationship with each other with the mutual understanding of not seeing other people. And I think that’s what makes the difference between a roommate and a relationship (unless it’s a poly relationship)
But, as far as I know, it’s still the assumed default nature with intimate relationships. Do we want to change that?
Obligation:
A social, legal, or moral requirement, such as a duty, contract, or promise, that compels one to follow or avoid a particular course of action.
Of course couples can have sex, but nobody can be forced to do it by pointing to their obligation due to the relationship
I think you misunderstood me. There is no obligation. I’m saying there’s a standard default expectation of an intimate relationship of sex.
So, when, by default, you think of two people entering a relationship, by default, the VAST majority of people will assume those two people are gonna eventually have sex. That’s all I’m saying.
But also, that fully asexual people exist, and polyam people exist, and all kinds of others, and relationships are simply what you make of them or want them to be and come in all shapes, sizes, tastes, sounds, and colors.
There’s never an obligation for anything, and expectations are fluid af. Even parental relationships, there’s no obligation to trust or care for your parents.
Sorry, then I might have misunderstood your point. I agree with what you’re saying.
lol
nothing like a healthy dose of sex to smoothen the discussion of who’s turn it is to order pizza
Where do you find a flatmate who’s willing to be third wheel?
Craigslist, inpatient psych, most riots.
flat sounds great
We’re too broke to entertain ourselves in other ways.
Right.who you bang and share your life with.
Better to invite another couple to live with them, then they’ll have four incomes, instead of a third wheel & possible homewrecker.
foresomes 🤤
That’s the spirit!
The term “homewrecker” needs to be retired, like, yesterday.
Yeah, total trad puritan BS mindset. Don’t know who downvoted you. Sexual liberation has yet to come to a lot of people, it seems.
“Homewrecked” would have more sense if every couple could afford their own home.
Unicorn hunting just got a level up ._.
No such thing as unicorns on Grindr. Everybody is looking to fuck
I thought a unicorn was a woman and a man looking for a bisexual woman to join them? 🤔
The unicorn is the bisexual women who finds both of the other people attractive
Polygamy sounds amazing to everyone until they actually try it and deal with the drama like one person in the polycule only being there for another person and actively attempting to rip them out of the situation, with all the drama that comes with that.
Polyamory has been relatively drama free for me for 6 years. Not any more drama than I’d have in a monogamous relationship.
Polyamory ≠ unicorn hunting. It’s always bothered me that people think of polyamory in such a heteronormative framing.
Unicorn hunting is cool though. Especially when you can harvest their previous blood.
I never said it was unicorn hunting though?
It always bothers me that people seem to think that poly has zero boundaries, that it fixes absolutely everything in a relationship, that you no longer have to make any effort.
I’ve never done poly, so I’m an outsider, but I wonder if those would work better when all people involved ‘stop’ their default relationships a bit beforehand, to reset it so to say, and agree all beforehand to start and treat each other then on equal terms.
Personally, I thought that a poly that arises from an originally mono relationship, is bound to have one of the three feel like a third wheel, rather than a true relationship triangle (where everyone loves all involved). And then it’ll dissolve.
as @TotallynotJessica@lemmy.blahaj.zone said below, a strength is that those involved could feel freed from the worry of “do they cheat on me or not”. i think it might be similar to an open relationship in that regard.
So many people make the mistake of opening up a relationship to save it, and a poly relationship started that way is usually a bad idea. In that case, there are usually deeper problems in the relationship and it was already doomed to fail. Ideally there is the expectation of being poly or the expectation that relationship could be poly from the beginning.
All that said, it isn’t necessary for every person in the relationship to be equally close. Some might be better off serving emotional needs for each other, while others might be mainly sexual. So long as everyone is on board with the depth of their relationships, it isn’t a problem. Like with any relationship, it’s all about open and honest communication.
yknow whats better than a polycule of 3 living in a house? a polycule of 24 living in a cool badass gay fortress
The mix of bodily fluids in that murder hole.
Did David DeCoteau make this post?
Something something late stage capitalism undermining its own social reproduction by making monogamous patriarchy financially unsustainable.
