Would you consider being a throuple?
-
A throuple is 3 person relationship, for those who don't know what it is! Would you ever take part in it?
-
I would like to give it a try
-
Not me. I didn't even know that term existed. New terms and phrases everyday… I can't keep up :cheesy2:
-
I wouldn't just consider, I'd love it! It's actually something I really want to do.
-
A year ago, I would have said no. Relationships are hard enough between two people. With three, you've basically got three relationships to manage (four if you count the trio). Plus working out the logistics, jealousy issues, etc.. There may be some benefits, but also a LOT of potential complications.
Then I spent some time with my ex and his new boyfriend, and started maybe having feelings for him, as well. I'm still not saying I'd necessarily want to be in a "throuple," but I can at least understand why some people might want to give it a shot, and I can't say I never would.
-
I know guys who have tried this. You really have to find two other people that you are totally into on an equal basis. The minute the equality goes on pretty much any basis, I would say that this idea starts heading towards splitsville. Nobody likes being left out, and if any of the three start to feel that way about anything, it is hard to recover from that. Think about it. What if two people become much more attracted to one another than the third? What if two earn significantly more money and could do many more things financially than the other? What if two are out and one is still in the closet?
I would try one if I felt the right mix of people were involved, but to me, being successful at it is as likely as catching lightning in a bottle.
-
Sure. Nothing wrong with it. Now I have to do the dishes once every three days instead of alternate days. 2 more guys to give me a blowjob. What could be wrong with that.
-
Absolutely, I'd love to try it with the right two. It's been a recurring daydream of mine to have a husband and wife both. I've even gotten crushes on couples together (as an item, together … if that's not too strange to admit).
I do have to agree that I think equality would be all important -- everyone is in love with everyone, you all have fulfilling sex and affection with each other, and "privacy" now exists between three people rather than two (no shutting anyone out of any bedrooms, EVER). If you could somehow strike on that magical balance, it could work.
-
Honesty, open communication, and equality are crucial in any relationship, no matter how many people are involved in it; I think the concept of a relationship being just between two people is silly. Not because I don't think it works – plenty of people are fine with one-on-one relationships -- but because it's been used to define the whole concept, when in reality that's not how many or even most people work. There's a lot of very unhealthy jealousy promoted by the misconception of relationships, as well as the objectification of partners, as if they're possessions instead of people.
That said, of course I'd participate in a relationship not limited to two people, as long as the requirements for a healthy relationship are met.
I've never heard the term 'throuple' though, and I think it sounds asinine.
-
I've done it with my partner twice… first time lasted for only about a year.. the second was off and on for three. It was pretty amazing when everyone was communicating and on the same page...
-
You really have to find two other people that you are totally into on an equal basis. The minute the equality goes on pretty much any basis, I would say that this idea starts heading towards splitsville.
Love is given equitably, not equally. If equal is every child having a pair of shoes, then equitable is every child having a pair of shoes that fits. You can see how there is a difference between the two words, and a throuple where the love was equally doled out would not only be impossibly difficult to maintain it would also be quite unfair to all involved.
Equitable love is not only fair it's also something almost everyone already does. When a person loves two parents or two siblings equitably then there's not much reason to believe they couldn't also love two boyfriends equitably.
-
You really have to find two other people that you are totally into on an equal basis. The minute the equality goes on pretty much any basis, I would say that this idea starts heading towards splitsville.
Love is given equitably, not equally. If equal is every child having a pair of shoes, then equitable is every child having a pair of shoes that fits. You can see how there is a difference between the two words, and a throuple where the love was equally doled out would not only be impossibly difficult to maintain it would also be quite unfair to all involved.
I would argue that we strive for equality in most things in life, but that equitability or equitableness is what we usually use to define what we ultimately achieve. Ask any member of a three child family. The parents always strive to raise each child equally, while learning from their mistakes. But, the actual result of that is that the children are raised "equitably". The majority of the time, the oldest child will say that he was spoiled until the second child arrived. The middle child is likely to say that he felt "forgotten", as the oldest and youngest children probably received the most attention. The third child is likely to say his parents were the least involved and/or hands on with him. The two older children likely took on more of the parenting responsibility for the youngest. That's an equitable result. But, is that what anyone actually aimed for in the beginning?
Equitable love is not only fair it's also something almost everyone already does. When a person loves two parents or two siblings equitably then there's not much reason to believe they couldn't also love two boyfriends equitably.
The concept of "equitableness"/"equitability" is probably only "fair" in a legal environment, as there is usually a precedent or set of guidelines that a judge renders their decision using. In any other situation outside of the legal arena, equitability / equitableness is just one way we choose to term or define our reality or end result. There is no rhyme or reason to it (Fairness may or may not be applicable, and many times fairness is only present in the mind of the person trying to justify the outcome, not everyone that is involved in the outcome.) I would also argue that most are pre-dispositioned to define their end result as equitable (whether it is or not), because most simply do not want to define their attempt as a failure, especially if you find yourself on the "losing" side verses the "winning" side.
Who actually attempts to do anything relationship oriented at less than 100%? It's impossible to give more than 100%. Who wants to accept less than 100% of a person's love? No one only wants to be cared for on the good days of a relationship and not the bad ones. We start out wanting equality. But on the eve of a divorce court date, we realize that despite our best efforts, we failed, and the best we can hope for is an equitable outcome.
The US is a nation that strives for equality in a lot of things, but the reality is that we have come up far short in a lot of areas. We choose to justify the shortcoming of those results with this "equitable" concept. Equitability is what we arrive at, not what we aim for.
Traditional major was once the law of the land in every US state. Only recently did things like domestic partnerships and civil unions come along as suitable, some might say "equitable" alternatives. But those were NOT our initial goals, otherwise, the movement would have ended there. We went into that fight always wanting total equality under the law, and all that comes with it, and now we have it.
-
I would argue that we strive for equality in most things in life, but that equitability or equitableness is what we usually use to define what we ultimately achieve.
I think you may have it the other way around. Equal is what people strive for, but that concept of equal as I described it in the shoe parable is an unfair, hardly-acheivable state of affairs. Equitable is what people should strive for, and what they should hope to end up with, in all fairness.
Only recently did things like domestic partnerships and civil unions come along as suitable, some might say "equitable" alternatives.
I don't know of anyone who would define domestic partnerships as being an equitable solution to the issue of gay marriage. In fact, the argument posited by those supporting domestic partnerships was that they were "equal enough" to marriage, and in many ways they were equal. But they weren't an equitable (fair) solution.
The concept of "equitableness"/"equitability" is probably only "fair" in a legal environment, as there is usually a precedent or set of guidelines that a judge renders their decision using.
You imply a distinction where none exists. As we in the industrialized world live by a system of laws, that legal system and its ramifications are, in effect, indistinguishable from everyday life.
To use your example of gay marriage, people aimed for equality (everyone having a pair of shoes) but what they got was inequity (everyone having a pair of shoes that didn't fit). It was only after five judges used the two concepts you mentioned that fairness was achieved: precedence (United States v. Windsor, Hollingsworth v. Perry) and a set of guidelines (the US Constitution).
-
I would argue that we strive for equality in most things in life, but that equitability or equitableness is what we usually use to define what we ultimately achieve.
Re-reading your post gave me a better understanding of what you meant by your feeling that equitable was something we end up with, and in that sense we agree. But I don't see equitable as something "settled upon" as if it were somehow less in value than the state of being equal. I believe that equal is a term best used with measurements like "the amount of water in that pool is equal to the amount in that pool." People are much more complex than that.
A bank teller who allots 2 minutes of their time for every customer might feel justified in rejecting the customer with more complex business requiring 5 minutes, believing their service of 2 minutes to everyone to be fair since they all get the same amount of time. But that teller would be wrong. The only fair, equitable thing to do is to ensure each customer gets slightly different amounts of time, just as much as each customer needs, to complete their business. The teller's time distribution to each customer is unequal, but it's a most equitable way of servicing them all.
-
quote author=Spintendo link=topic=34285.msg166418#msg166418 date=1436929266]
I think you may have it the other way around. Equal is what people strive for, but that concept of equal as I described it in the shoe parable is an unfair, hardly-acheivable state of affairs. Equitable is what people should strive for, and what they should hope to end up with, in all fairness.I think it depends on the kind of person you are. I am a "the glass is half full type of person." I will always maximize my goal, to make sure I arrive at what is most acceptable to me in the end. On a test, I am aiming for 100%, not 90%. If I were a world class sprinter, I would look to break a record every time, so that if I don't achieve that, I have equaling the record as a viable fallback goal, in addition to simply winning or placing wherever I place as a possible outcome. I don't sell myself short mentally by setting a lower goal than the best possible positive outcome. The other side has already won part of the battle if I am not striving for my equal share. Spotting even that 0.00001% in goal setting is already mathematically assuring a negative, unequal outcome.
quote author=Spintendo link=topic=34285.msg166418#msg166418 date=1436929266]
I don't know of anyone who would define domestic partnerships as being an equitable solution to the issue of gay marriage. In fact, the argument posited by those supporting domestic partnerships was that they were "equal enough" to marriage, and in many ways they were equal. But they weren't an equitable (fair) solution.I never thought of domestic partnerships as being equal. I would venture that many politicians who supported domestic partnerships knew in their heart that they were not fair or equitable, but those partnerships were the best result that they felt that they could get through their legislatures at the given time. Those legislators aimed for a realistic/politically achievable goal, not a goal of equality. "We can't get you gays marriage, but we might be able to get you domestic partnerships, how about that?" When they did achieve that, they essentially got no credit for doing so, because it wasn't what we, as a collective, wanted. To my knowledge, no judge ever struck down "domestic partnerships" on the basis of inequality, and so by default, from a legislative and judicial view, they were fair and equitable in those states that had them. Don't forget, many states had nothing for gays, so these "domestic partnership" states were a step up. Even the states that did have "gay marriage" failed to achieve true equality because that "gay marriage" wasn't recognized from state to state like "traditional marriage". Now, had legislators set true equality as their main goal, we may have had the outcome that we recently achieved much sooner, which is why I don't believe goals should be set for anything less than the maximum possible positive outcome, which in this case, was national marriage equality, and nothing less.
quote author=Spintendo link=topic=34285.msg166418#msg166418 date=1436929266]
You imply a distinction where none exists. As we in the industrialized world live by a system of laws, that legal system and its ramifications are, in effect, indistinguishable from everyday life.I beg to differ. There is the legal system and then there is what is societally acceptable. If you ask all these supporters of the Confederate flag their feelings, I don't believe that you would hear from them that it is fair or just that the Confederate flag is now being relegated to history books and museums. (Amazon and Walmart have also joined in –no more Confederate paraphernalia for you!-- and so has TV Land ending even the broadcasting of "The Dukes of Hazzard" television show. They certainly wouldn't say that the effect is indistinguishable from everyday life given all these visible changes. One trip to their state capital grounds or even city hall reminds them visibly that that flag that was displayed proudly in their mind just a week or so ago is no longer allowed to be displayed on those grounds. I was in Charleston, SC about two months ago. The sight of all those Confederate flags all over the city is the one thing I remember most about the city. They were everywhere. I have a return trip in two weeks. I would imagine that everyday life now is much different than two months ago. I'd also wager that the city population as well as the entire state is pretty divided on whether the decision (Which was not a referendum for the citizens to vote on, mind you) to forbid display of the flag on state grounds is fair. Only time will make this new norm of "no flag" become a truly fair and accepted norm. But we're not there yet (very much in the beginning stages), despite what the governor, the legislature, and or judges might say and think. Gay Marriage (now simply, "Marriage") is in the same boat in terms of becoming a societal norm vs. simply being a "fair" and "equitable" judicial decree.
Dred Scott v. Sandford was a Supreme Court decision. Thankfully, society and humanity trumped that "fair" and "equitable" decree.
I like the discussion, and would love to continue it, but I recognize that we're off topic, and I will end my thoughts here in order to let this get back on topic.
Throuples anyone?
-
I just saw your reply before my post so THIS is my last one, lol.
Re-reading your post gave me a better understanding of what you meant by your feeling that equitable was something we end up with, and in that sense we agree. But I don't see equitable as something "settled upon" as if it were somehow less in value than the state of being equal. I believe that equal is a term best used with measurements like "the amount of water in that pool is equal to the amount in that pool." People are much more complex than that.
When a court renders a verdict, there is a winner and a loser. The winner is fine, as they both likely came in expecting or hoping to win. The loser either accepts that decision, thereby settling on their goal of winning (since they lost), or they challenge it via an appeal. For a variety of reasons, appeals aren't successful the overwhelming majority of the time, so eventually that "loser" has to face the fact that he is not going to get what he ultimately wanted. He has to settle / reconcile his goals with himself and accept the less than ideal outcome in order to move on. No loser who goes in expecting to win fully embraces an outcome contrary to what they expected (You thought you were right, no? Why waste the time and money to fight if you didn't believe you were right?) If one chooses not to challenge the decision, there's only one way forward. No matter how one justifies it to himself, and performs it, he does have to say "I embrace this opposing decision (my losing)" in order to move on. It does not mean you agree with it, but you do have to accept it. Once you have accepted it, you've settled.
A bank teller who allots 2 minutes of their time for every customer might feel justified in rejecting the customer with more complex business requiring 5 minutes, believing their service of 2 minutes to everyone to be fair since they all get the same amount of time. But that teller would be wrong. The only fair, equitable thing to do is to ensure each customer gets slightly different amounts of time, just as much as each customer needs, to complete their business. The teller's time distribution to each customer is unequal, but it's a most equitable way of servicing them all.
In your example, inequality and unfairness is introduced into the equation by the teller making a personal choice to discriminate on how his time is allocated. If he simply services everyone who walks in until the lobby service hours close (true equality), regardless of the amount of time per person, we have an equal outcome. The equality of outcome is assured when everyone with a legitimate claim for service for the day receives said service. (Issue may not be resolved, but you've seen someone, they have heard your issue, and they are working on getting it resolved.) That person who shows up 2 minutes before closing has no reasonable expectation of getting service, assuming they can even get in. Almost all places perform queue management and disallow entry if the office/business/service is not going to be able to service you before closing. And, yes, that means the teller might have to stay late some days if too many people are let in!
Nobody cares about the time allocation of the bank teller other than the bank teller, and perhaps the boss, if the teller sees only 2 customers all day.
I pretty much only concern myself with goals of equality, and an equal of outcome - as the outcome is the final say in most cases. If other aspects are unequal in order to get there, so be it. Everything involving humans is imperfect, but when push comes to shove, and a court decision or law is made, I want the decision to be viewed as equal for/by everyone.
This is not always the case, unfortunately. Things like divorce, child custody, spousal support, etc. are going to be highly judgmental/biased/subjective. One gets what their lawyer can get them, so make sure you have a good one!
-
I recognize that we're off topic
Our exchanges on equality as a context to feelings of fairness are the core to any discussion on throuples. We are completely on-topic.
My issue was with your use of the word equal here:
You really have to find two other people that you are totally into on an equal basis.
To be fair, love should be based on equity, not equality. Unless you're dating a man and his genetic clone, love based on equality is unfair—as no two people are identically "the same" enough to merit an exact, equal amount of love.
A throuple where the love is based on equity takes note of this lack of "sameness" and offers a love tailored to each individual boyfriend which is fair and pragmatic for them both.
-
My issue was with your use of the word equal here:
You really have to find two other people that you are totally into on an equal basis.
To be fair, love should be based on equity, not equality. Unless you're dating a man and his genetic clone, love based on equality is unfair—as no two people are identically "the same" enough to merit an exact, equal amount of love.
A throuple where the love is based on equity takes note of this lack of "sameness" and offers a love tailored to each individual boyfriend which is fair and pragmatic for them both.
As much as your graphic illustrates what you are trying to prove, it also showcases what I have said. Equitableness/equitability allows for situations in which someone can be left out completely. The tall child may NOT need height, but in a relationship, especially a throuple, he will most definitely need love in some capacity. If he is not going to give and receive love, why is he in the relationship? The minute everyone else decides that he doesn't need love and allocate nothing to him is the minute that he starts wondering why he's with those two.
The illustration is a visual representation of your bank teller analogy. "I'll give this customer 4 minutes, this customer 3 minutes and this customer gets referred to the ATM." I thought we established that that was a nonstarter, no?
I will concede that achieving equality is near impossible. But to me, aiming for equality and striving to achieve it (loving each partner equally), is a much better way to go into a relationship and trying to make it work, than working from what one has and trying to ration something out based on whatever you think or feel (I'm capable of 100% love. I think Tim only needs 30%, while Bob gets 70%)
I'd argue that it is easier to readjust and move forward successfully from a 50/50 (equality) allocation than 30/70 one.
-
I knew briefly, guys in a three way relationship. Though when I met them, one of them was sleeping alone, and the other two together. There were complicated things going on. The two were into hard sex, leather related. The third wasn't, though sexually it seemed they were attracted to each other. The two drifted away from the third who was hurt. He left. The other two are still together after many years. They never talk about the third. It was an experiment that for them failed. There are all sorts of things that can go wrong in any relationship or marriage over time. Attractions, ideals, life conditions, can and do change. I'd say that in a three-way relationship, more things are likely to change. It makes living together very complicated.
To those who can make it happen - well done.
Not for me. I have one guy I adore and he adores me, even after 20 years.
-
In theory, I think I would prefer a menage a trois relationship. {I'm not fond of making up new terms for something that has been around forever.) Having to rely on one person to handle all the pressure of a relationship wouldn't be fair to either of us.
I've known a number of long-term stable group marriages - mainly with bisexual people.
