Are polyamorous relationships more stable?
September 14, 2015 6:15 PM Subscribe
I've seen a lot of couples go through serious relationship issues when both members of the couple are under significant stress simultaneously - does it help to have a third (or fourth) "partner" to stabilize the relationship when two of the members of the relationship are losing their minds?
I've seen several of my friends who are in couples have a lot of trouble with their relationships when both members of the couple are under stress simultaneously. For example when a new baby is brought into the house, or both people in the relationship find themselves unemployed at the same time, or suffering from depression at the same time - rather than one person being the rock while the other struggles, they both kind of lose it.
I was talking to a friend about this and we were wondering if bringing in more people into the relationship - for example through polyamory - might bring more stability. Person #3, for example, could be the rock while person #1 and person #2 were freaking out due to sleep deprivation from new baby, or depression, or unemployment.
I would love to hear anecdotes, but research findings would be welcome too!
I've seen several of my friends who are in couples have a lot of trouble with their relationships when both members of the couple are under stress simultaneously. For example when a new baby is brought into the house, or both people in the relationship find themselves unemployed at the same time, or suffering from depression at the same time - rather than one person being the rock while the other struggles, they both kind of lose it.
I was talking to a friend about this and we were wondering if bringing in more people into the relationship - for example through polyamory - might bring more stability. Person #3, for example, could be the rock while person #1 and person #2 were freaking out due to sleep deprivation from new baby, or depression, or unemployment.
I would love to hear anecdotes, but research findings would be welcome too!
Person #3 would hardly be immune to the things stressing #1 and #2 out. Even if they didn't all cohabitate.
posted by tomboko at 6:39 PM on September 14, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by tomboko at 6:39 PM on September 14, 2015 [5 favorites]
I think even if this might work for some people, moments of extreme stress aren't the right time to experiment like that. But I'm reminded of a story posted on the Blue about a couple where the wife had terminal cancer and a close friend of theirs moved in with them to provide physical and emotional support. But it was also really hard on that guy, who was giving everything to 2 people who had nothing to give back. At least in a couple you're only responsible for 1 other person. I think if/when this does work out there has to be a lot of deeply formed bonds and emotional awareness so that 1 person isn't doing all the work.
posted by bleep at 6:51 PM on September 14, 2015 [7 favorites]
posted by bleep at 6:51 PM on September 14, 2015 [7 favorites]
If polyamory worked better, you'd see more of it. You don't see it in most societies, so...
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 6:53 PM on September 14, 2015 [10 favorites]
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 6:53 PM on September 14, 2015 [10 favorites]
Not all poly relationships are alike in the same way not all two-person relationships are alike. Some may have the added benefit of balancing out instability, others have an additional person there to freak out during rough times.
Poly is not a thing. It is many unique things that can arguably share the same category.
posted by munchingzombie at 7:03 PM on September 14, 2015 [27 favorites]
Poly is not a thing. It is many unique things that can arguably share the same category.
posted by munchingzombie at 7:03 PM on September 14, 2015 [27 favorites]
I think it's true that expecting two people in a monogamous couple to handle all of life's ups and downs together is a recipe for a lot of stress and craziness. But that doesn't mean the answer is necessarily polyamory: It could also just be being careful to have a broader community of support: close friends, extended family, etc, to help out when the going is tough, so not all the strain has to be born by the paired couple and/or nuclear family.
(I hope this isn't a non-answer.)
posted by ManInSuit at 7:17 PM on September 14, 2015 [40 favorites]
(I hope this isn't a non-answer.)
posted by ManInSuit at 7:17 PM on September 14, 2015 [40 favorites]
Nope. Mo' people, mo' problems, pretty much.
posted by jenfullmoon at 7:32 PM on September 14, 2015 [13 favorites]
posted by jenfullmoon at 7:32 PM on September 14, 2015 [13 favorites]
Stress tends to worsen insecurity, and insecurity in turn worsens stress. So no, I wouldn't expect adding more potential insecurity triggers to improve stress-related relationship issues in the general case.
Twenty years ago it certainly didn't improve mine.
posted by flabdablet at 7:33 PM on September 14, 2015 [3 favorites]
Twenty years ago it certainly didn't improve mine.
posted by flabdablet at 7:33 PM on September 14, 2015 [3 favorites]
I can see your logic but I don't think it would work in practice. In your examples of a three person family, if two were unemployed/depressed, that would put the burden of support completely on the third. It's hard enough when one of a two person family is unemployed/depressed.
Also bringing an additional person into a relationship for the purpose of stabilizing/helping with stress/unemployment would be pretty insulting to the new person. Bringing a new person in should be done because the original partners want a relationship with that person, not because they need someone to do a job of some kind. And IME, to do poly successfully, the original relationship needs to be rock solid before opening it up.
posted by Beti at 7:34 PM on September 14, 2015 [5 favorites]
Also bringing an additional person into a relationship for the purpose of stabilizing/helping with stress/unemployment would be pretty insulting to the new person. Bringing a new person in should be done because the original partners want a relationship with that person, not because they need someone to do a job of some kind. And IME, to do poly successfully, the original relationship needs to be rock solid before opening it up.
posted by Beti at 7:34 PM on September 14, 2015 [5 favorites]
In my experience: 100% the opposite. Also, people who tend to think like this (ignoring entirely untheoretical realities for totally hypothetical upsides), if they're not just really naive and young, tend to be narcissists, takers and shitty partners. It's always from the point of view of "look at how much more support I'll have!" and not "look at how many more people I'll need to support!". It's a lot like how people idealize child-rearing, actually, and a lot of that particular kind of poly people are shitty partners in the same way a lot of people who expect their children to fix their problems are shitty parents.
posted by The Master and Margarita Mix at 7:35 PM on September 14, 2015 [22 favorites]
posted by The Master and Margarita Mix at 7:35 PM on September 14, 2015 [22 favorites]
No. Relationships are hard with two people. Adding a third brings jealousy, alliances (2v1) and someone else eating all the leftovers you were planning to have.
There are plenty of people on the green and blue who disagree with this (we had quite the party discussing this not all that long ago). I wished my wife and her partner of five years happy anniversary without a hint of jealousy just yesterday (they are SO CUTE, omg, I love them). Sure, it's hard with two people, it's hard with three people (well, 4), but so what? It's also epically awesome sometimes. A dear friend of mine and his !wife have an amazing family and their partners are part of the family. It's really great to see.
However, Beti nails it with And IME, to do poly successfully, the original relationship needs to be rock solid before opening it up. The reason we 4 work is because Partner and Spouse were doing great before Wife came along, and Wife and Partner were doing well before I came along. Together, we've weathered some real crap together, better than any of us could have on our own, but only because things were pretty good to begin with. And now, they're even better. But don't bring someone in just to try to improve things; that way lies traps and sadness in my experience.
posted by joycehealy at 7:41 PM on September 14, 2015 [18 favorites]
There are plenty of people on the green and blue who disagree with this (we had quite the party discussing this not all that long ago). I wished my wife and her partner of five years happy anniversary without a hint of jealousy just yesterday (they are SO CUTE, omg, I love them). Sure, it's hard with two people, it's hard with three people (well, 4), but so what? It's also epically awesome sometimes. A dear friend of mine and his !wife have an amazing family and their partners are part of the family. It's really great to see.
However, Beti nails it with And IME, to do poly successfully, the original relationship needs to be rock solid before opening it up. The reason we 4 work is because Partner and Spouse were doing great before Wife came along, and Wife and Partner were doing well before I came along. Together, we've weathered some real crap together, better than any of us could have on our own, but only because things were pretty good to begin with. And now, they're even better. But don't bring someone in just to try to improve things; that way lies traps and sadness in my experience.
posted by joycehealy at 7:41 PM on September 14, 2015 [18 favorites]
Does it ever happen? Sure. Everything happens occasionally. But adjusted for people who are poly at least in part because of the reduced emotional (and maybe physical) labor demands, not really.
I've seen situations that could pull off an unusual distribution of income and labor because it was more than two people, but things fell apart when one of the three wanted a change.
posted by Lyn Never at 7:42 PM on September 14, 2015
I've seen situations that could pull off an unusual distribution of income and labor because it was more than two people, but things fell apart when one of the three wanted a change.
posted by Lyn Never at 7:42 PM on September 14, 2015
I just looked at your post title and started laughing hysterically. I find that adding new relationships is a net stress, because everyone in the relationship is busy adjusting to each other and figuring out what the new normal is and figuring out how things are going to work now. If an existing relationship is already stressed, then adding new ones is just going to destabilize things further--see here why "babies to save the marriage!" is a bad idea. The usual name for this particular (very common) error is "relationship broken? add more people!", and by searching that phrase you can find a lot of poly people discussing why and how it tends to make things worse much faster.
posted by sciatrix at 7:45 PM on September 14, 2015 [10 favorites]
posted by sciatrix at 7:45 PM on September 14, 2015 [10 favorites]
Growing up poor with three parents
And baby makes four
I suspect it's like anything: a healthy relationship (however many partners) is more support than it is stress; an unhealthy relationship (or a well-intentioned shaky relationship with poor communication) is more stress than it is support. But opening up a relationship expressly to offset practical stressors would be pretty poorly considered.
posted by you're a kitty! at 9:01 PM on September 14, 2015 [4 favorites]
And baby makes four
I suspect it's like anything: a healthy relationship (however many partners) is more support than it is stress; an unhealthy relationship (or a well-intentioned shaky relationship with poor communication) is more stress than it is support. But opening up a relationship expressly to offset practical stressors would be pretty poorly considered.
posted by you're a kitty! at 9:01 PM on September 14, 2015 [4 favorites]
Response by poster: These are really great and interesting answers - thank you so much for adding your thoughts. It sounds like some people thought I was asking whether adding a new person after stressful event starts or during stressful event would help, and certainly I could see why everyone is saying 'heck no.' But really I was wondering if the person or persons were added before trouble and it was a solid relationship with more than two people, if having an added person would be beneficial when the stressful event happened later down the road. It sounds like people are pretty split on this one, but I just wanted to clarify.
And thanks for your thoughts - this is really interesting to read!
posted by Toddles at 9:15 PM on September 14, 2015
And thanks for your thoughts - this is really interesting to read!
posted by Toddles at 9:15 PM on September 14, 2015
In "Outcomes of Sexually Open Marriages" by Arline M. Rubin and James R. Adams in The Journal of Sex Research Vol. 22, No. 3 (Aug., 1986), pp. 311-319, the authors find no statistical difference in stability between sexually open and sexually exclusive couples based on their sample of around 70 couples.
posted by demiurge at 11:50 PM on September 14, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by demiurge at 11:50 PM on September 14, 2015 [6 favorites]
This has been a historical argument for polygyny, though that's generally fairly different in how it's practiced than modern, Western polyamory. (Might be worth thinking about whether you're asking for a culturally specific answer, and how culturally specific — my hunch is that there's a lot of variation even within the Western contemporary poly community, enough that this question might not be meaningful without significant further qualification.)
posted by klangklangston at 1:12 AM on September 15, 2015
posted by klangklangston at 1:12 AM on September 15, 2015
I've seen a lot of polyamorous relationships, some happy and some disastrous. Those that are successful seem to have been those when the first couple were happy and secure at the point when the secondary relationship(s) started and where the decision to introduce more people was because they are simply polyamorous by nature and able to feel romantic love for two people at once. When the secondary relationship was introduced to fix something in the first, or to get something from Person B that Person A couldn't give, it ended up a hotbed of jealousy and logistics and no fun for anyone.
I could never have a polyamorous relationship, I find one relationship is hard enough work!
posted by intensitymultiply at 1:55 AM on September 15, 2015
I could never have a polyamorous relationship, I find one relationship is hard enough work!
posted by intensitymultiply at 1:55 AM on September 15, 2015
In "Outcomes of Sexually Open Marriages" by Arline M. Rubin and James R. Adams in The Journal of Sex Research Vol. 22, No. 3 (Aug., 1986), pp. 311-319, the authors find no statistical difference in stability between sexually open and sexually exclusive couples based on their sample of around 70 couples.
I think this is a valuable comment. The truth is that there's not enough data. A lot of people are answering with their personal experiences, but relationships vary massively even within one model of relationships. For instance, some marriages are "open", where either partner is free to have affairs, some are secretly open (in that the partners essentially don't think about their partners having affairs). I don't think there is a magic formula for this stuff. Some people are toxic, some relationships are toxic. I suspect you would need a certain mindset for any particular relationship dynamic to be successful.
I can certainly tell you that a poly relationship would probably be a miserable failure for me, and certainly for my partner.
posted by Cannon Fodder at 2:58 AM on September 15, 2015
I think this is a valuable comment. The truth is that there's not enough data. A lot of people are answering with their personal experiences, but relationships vary massively even within one model of relationships. For instance, some marriages are "open", where either partner is free to have affairs, some are secretly open (in that the partners essentially don't think about their partners having affairs). I don't think there is a magic formula for this stuff. Some people are toxic, some relationships are toxic. I suspect you would need a certain mindset for any particular relationship dynamic to be successful.
I can certainly tell you that a poly relationship would probably be a miserable failure for me, and certainly for my partner.
posted by Cannon Fodder at 2:58 AM on September 15, 2015
Having been in poly for most of the last decade, and in two triads, I would say...
No.
Hahahaha, no?
Poly has other advantages, but more stable is not generally one of them. More relationships exponentially multiplies the relationship dynamics. I am sure there are some specific relationships that are more stable, but 9 out of 10? No.
Gee golly no.
It works if you are dealing with people who are ALREADY far more stable than usual, but balancing 3 or more people's needs is not generally easier than balancing two people's needs.
If it means you have a wider support network, that is great, but in practice, more support network people who you aren't in a relationship with can be just as valuable. And, it is often harder to find outside support for relationship issues if most of your close network ARE in your relationship, dating your relationship partners, or close friends with any of the above people.
posted by Elysum at 4:31 AM on September 15, 2015 [7 favorites]
No.
Hahahaha, no?
Poly has other advantages, but more stable is not generally one of them. More relationships exponentially multiplies the relationship dynamics. I am sure there are some specific relationships that are more stable, but 9 out of 10? No.
Gee golly no.
It works if you are dealing with people who are ALREADY far more stable than usual, but balancing 3 or more people's needs is not generally easier than balancing two people's needs.
If it means you have a wider support network, that is great, but in practice, more support network people who you aren't in a relationship with can be just as valuable. And, it is often harder to find outside support for relationship issues if most of your close network ARE in your relationship, dating your relationship partners, or close friends with any of the above people.
posted by Elysum at 4:31 AM on September 15, 2015 [7 favorites]
Healthy relationships with strong community/family support whether these things well. Unhealthy ones don't.
In my experience it doesn't matter how many sexual partners are involved.
If you're between 26-40 you are about to start switching from weddings to divorces. All the poly-awesome in the world will not save these folks.
posted by French Fry at 6:21 AM on September 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
In my experience it doesn't matter how many sexual partners are involved.
If you're between 26-40 you are about to start switching from weddings to divorces. All the poly-awesome in the world will not save these folks.
posted by French Fry at 6:21 AM on September 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
I can't cite a study and my readings were not about polyamory per se, but one thing that is true is that sometimes an affair stabilizes a troubled marriage and makes it possible for the couple to stay together, sometimes for many years. This is not always true, but it can be true. It is probably true in a minority of cases. Most marriages are seriously undermined by an affair.
Years ago, one of the earliest research-based books on the topic of open relationships found that the majority of the time, it was a good way to make sure the relationship had no long term future. Only one of the couples in the study stayed together long term. Both had been previously married and were extremely skeptical about the value of monogamy where it was basically upheld by force -- by social pressure -- rather than a real choice. They eventually stopped sleeping around casually because there are only so many hours in the day, they both had careers and kids and wanted time for each other. So, at some point, they ultimately chose to be monogamous.
I will suggest that more non-sexual relationships can also serve this function of providing stability. Historically, friends and family provided extra support for stressful events like new babies where there just isn't enough time in the day for two people to do it all. There is perhaps something wrong with modern life that this seems to possibly no longer be the norm. You shouldn't have to be sexually involved with someone to expect that they care about you as a human being and will be there for you in a time of need.
posted by Michele in California at 10:23 AM on September 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
Years ago, one of the earliest research-based books on the topic of open relationships found that the majority of the time, it was a good way to make sure the relationship had no long term future. Only one of the couples in the study stayed together long term. Both had been previously married and were extremely skeptical about the value of monogamy where it was basically upheld by force -- by social pressure -- rather than a real choice. They eventually stopped sleeping around casually because there are only so many hours in the day, they both had careers and kids and wanted time for each other. So, at some point, they ultimately chose to be monogamous.
I will suggest that more non-sexual relationships can also serve this function of providing stability. Historically, friends and family provided extra support for stressful events like new babies where there just isn't enough time in the day for two people to do it all. There is perhaps something wrong with modern life that this seems to possibly no longer be the norm. You shouldn't have to be sexually involved with someone to expect that they care about you as a human being and will be there for you in a time of need.
posted by Michele in California at 10:23 AM on September 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
I would note that a lot of folks seem to be mentioning open marriages or focusing on sexual relationships - but for most poly people in my experience, there is a huge gulf between an open marriage and poly relationships, which is what you asked about. There is a huge difference, relationship wise, between 'casually sleeping around' and actual emotional or romantic relationships with other people. Both have their place (I can sleep around if I want - but with a more than full time job and a full time relationship and the full time job that is my mom, who has time for that? Especially when I spend my time screwing around on mefi) but that permissiveness is different than the familial bond I share with my wife's partner and their spouse (if something happens to the kid, for example, I am booking subs for my classes and getting on a plane).
Also, focusing on sexual relationships ignores the existence of poly asexual but not aromantic people (they're real! I know them! :) )
So, there's more food for thought too.
posted by joycehealy at 10:39 AM on September 15, 2015 [2 favorites]
Also, focusing on sexual relationships ignores the existence of poly asexual but not aromantic people (they're real! I know them! :) )
So, there's more food for thought too.
posted by joycehealy at 10:39 AM on September 15, 2015 [2 favorites]
You might be interested in reading up on the painter Andrew Wyeth and his model Helga. He painted more than 200 pieces with her as the subject. Many of them were nudes. She was his neighbor and neither of their spouses knew he was painting her until he was done with the series. When the paintings were finally exhibited, the paparazzi were looking for juicy scandal. They shoved microphones in front of Wyeth's wife and asked her opinion, what did she see in the paintings. She said "Love."
I don't think either Wyeth or Helga ever admitted to a sexual relationship. Many people assume it was an affair. I don't think Wyeth ever confirmed or denied it. Helga was a lot younger than him. In his old age, she reportedly took care of him. Apparently, both Helga and Wyeth's wife were fine with whatever was going on there. None of these three people ever satisfied the public's desire to turn this into a scandal.
Polyamory as love presumably does provide more genuine care. Not everyone calling their situation polyamory really deeply loves all parties involved. In some cases, it is a polite euphemism for fucking around. So, if you presume that we are talking real and abiding love, then the answer to your question is an unequivocal Yes! However, that is a really hard standard to meet. With a divorce rate around 50%, most people can't seem to pull that off even with just two people involved. Adding more people to the mix seems to multiply the complexity exponentially.
posted by Michele in California at 10:59 AM on September 15, 2015 [6 favorites]
I don't think either Wyeth or Helga ever admitted to a sexual relationship. Many people assume it was an affair. I don't think Wyeth ever confirmed or denied it. Helga was a lot younger than him. In his old age, she reportedly took care of him. Apparently, both Helga and Wyeth's wife were fine with whatever was going on there. None of these three people ever satisfied the public's desire to turn this into a scandal.
Polyamory as love presumably does provide more genuine care. Not everyone calling their situation polyamory really deeply loves all parties involved. In some cases, it is a polite euphemism for fucking around. So, if you presume that we are talking real and abiding love, then the answer to your question is an unequivocal Yes! However, that is a really hard standard to meet. With a divorce rate around 50%, most people can't seem to pull that off even with just two people involved. Adding more people to the mix seems to multiply the complexity exponentially.
posted by Michele in California at 10:59 AM on September 15, 2015 [6 favorites]
But really I was wondering if the person or persons were added before trouble and it was a solid relationship with more than two people, if having an added person would be beneficial when the stressful event happened later down the road. It sounds like people are pretty split on this one, but I just wanted to clarify.
It can be, from what I've seen locally. Provided there's plenty of communication and a solid understanding of needs (or renegotiation of same when appropriate), difficult life events can be better survived by a poly relationship web/triad/etc. On the other hand - again, from what I've seen play out - people in monogamous relationships with very strong familial or social ties can weather them similarly well.
Take the instance of a friend of mine, who has a kid. Transitioning to motherhood was rough on her, but made a LOT easier by the fact that so many of us stepped forward to help her with childrearing - not just on a temporary basis, but throughout her child's life. She's in a monogamous partnership, and her partner's family is offering similar support. Whenever my friend needs time to recharge or re-calibrate, childcare is immediately taken care of by parents, grandparents, friends, friends' parents, even, for multiple days if needed. 'That super-smart little ball of adorable will have support the size of a small village w/r/t getting rides to/from school, tutoring, trips to the doctor, getting clothes and school supplies, etc.
Or take the instance of a friend of my partner, whose father fell critically ill last year. At the time, the other two members of her triad coordinated hospital visits, tapped into their individual social networks to help her learn about and gain power of attorney, fended off her problematic relatives, and basically took care of everything (meals, laundry, paying bills, etc.) so that she could focus on her father's care and herself. They also apparently practiced "comfort in, dumping out," so that they too could offload the stress. The triad broke up for wayyy different reasons much later, but in that period I watched them remain a really solid and inspirational team.
TL;DR: It really depends on the couple and the relationships that they cultivate with other people, romantic or otherwise.
posted by Ashen at 11:01 AM on September 15, 2015 [6 favorites]
It can be, from what I've seen locally. Provided there's plenty of communication and a solid understanding of needs (or renegotiation of same when appropriate), difficult life events can be better survived by a poly relationship web/triad/etc. On the other hand - again, from what I've seen play out - people in monogamous relationships with very strong familial or social ties can weather them similarly well.
Take the instance of a friend of mine, who has a kid. Transitioning to motherhood was rough on her, but made a LOT easier by the fact that so many of us stepped forward to help her with childrearing - not just on a temporary basis, but throughout her child's life. She's in a monogamous partnership, and her partner's family is offering similar support. Whenever my friend needs time to recharge or re-calibrate, childcare is immediately taken care of by parents, grandparents, friends, friends' parents, even, for multiple days if needed. 'That super-smart little ball of adorable will have support the size of a small village w/r/t getting rides to/from school, tutoring, trips to the doctor, getting clothes and school supplies, etc.
Or take the instance of a friend of my partner, whose father fell critically ill last year. At the time, the other two members of her triad coordinated hospital visits, tapped into their individual social networks to help her learn about and gain power of attorney, fended off her problematic relatives, and basically took care of everything (meals, laundry, paying bills, etc.) so that she could focus on her father's care and herself. They also apparently practiced "comfort in, dumping out," so that they too could offload the stress. The triad broke up for wayyy different reasons much later, but in that period I watched them remain a really solid and inspirational team.
TL;DR: It really depends on the couple and the relationships that they cultivate with other people, romantic or otherwise.
posted by Ashen at 11:01 AM on September 15, 2015 [6 favorites]
There may be a statistical answer to this, but anecdotally I have seen it go both ways. Depends too much on individuals and on the nature of their relationships.
posted by ead at 3:56 PM on September 15, 2015
posted by ead at 3:56 PM on September 15, 2015
Also terms like "the original relationship" imply a very specific path of relationship development which is not universal by any means. Some people start all their relationships in a poly state because (suspenseful drumroll) they're ... poly.
posted by ead at 4:00 PM on September 15, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by ead at 4:00 PM on September 15, 2015 [2 favorites]
Why would person C want to be "the rock" for TWO unemployed, sleep deprived, stressed out people? What could possibly be in it for person C?
Also, this seems to presume that person C will not be on the same "life path" as person A and B. For instance, with the baby example- are you presuming it is A and B's baby? With whom and at what time is C going to get to have their own baby?
If two people can be unemployed at once, three people can be unemployed at once. If it is worse with two, presumably it is even worse with three. One person who is employed can more easily support one person who is unemployed. One person who is employed can far less easily support two people who are unemployed.
Being the "third" for two depressed people sounds like absolute hell.
Essentially, I am envisioning this ideal where King A and Queen B are the important primary "parental" or "alpha" couple, and poor grunt C is expected to be this Manic Pixie Dream cheerful, employed, beautiful, sexy, perpetually childless, distracting (probably female, probably young) unpaid therapist and sex worker.
If that is at all like what you are imagining, that is not a "relationship" at all, but rather a form of servitude. And yes, sure, life is easier with servants and/or employees to do grunt work and to take out your stress on. Of course.
posted by quincunx at 10:23 PM on September 15, 2015 [2 favorites]
Also, this seems to presume that person C will not be on the same "life path" as person A and B. For instance, with the baby example- are you presuming it is A and B's baby? With whom and at what time is C going to get to have their own baby?
If two people can be unemployed at once, three people can be unemployed at once. If it is worse with two, presumably it is even worse with three. One person who is employed can more easily support one person who is unemployed. One person who is employed can far less easily support two people who are unemployed.
Being the "third" for two depressed people sounds like absolute hell.
Essentially, I am envisioning this ideal where King A and Queen B are the important primary "parental" or "alpha" couple, and poor grunt C is expected to be this Manic Pixie Dream cheerful, employed, beautiful, sexy, perpetually childless, distracting (probably female, probably young) unpaid therapist and sex worker.
If that is at all like what you are imagining, that is not a "relationship" at all, but rather a form of servitude. And yes, sure, life is easier with servants and/or employees to do grunt work and to take out your stress on. Of course.
posted by quincunx at 10:23 PM on September 15, 2015 [2 favorites]
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:34 PM on September 14, 2015 [54 favorites]