Husband and wife + one

Nakatomi2010

So, everyone I'm sure agrees that the economy right now is a bitch, most couples are being forced to work themselves into the ground to get anywhere in life, sometimes even being forced to ignore, or spend very little time with their own kids, thus causing a slightly disfunctional family. Not to mention that the stress levels tend to drive the divorce rates up...

Why not change the common family structure? Add a third component.

I know, I know, "Add a third person? Hell, we can't even get gay/lesbian marriages straight", but there has to be sound reasoning behind this no?

• We'd be able to eliminate some of the "over crowding" issue since we'd be able to bunk at least one additional person per home.
• Some Women would be happier with two men, while some men would be happier with two women. Hell some men would be happier with two men and some women happier with two women.
• Household would have three sources of income vs. just two, or given a proper amount of income divided by the current two, a fantastic live in nanny/maid to keep things tidy and home life comfortable
• (Optional) Bedroom antics could be far more interesting, thus keeping men/women happier depending on their tastes and such

Granted, yeah the list is a bit screwy, but it's my view that the way that the times are many of us wish someone has at home cooking and cleaning, but we also know that we just can't afford someone to do it, so just incorporate a third adult into regular life, give them room & board.

Society as a whole is far more accepting of the fact that some folks are bisexual, some folks would rather be stay at home mothers/fathers/ while others would rather just have more time to do less chore work at home. Seems to me that be upping the number of adults in a family life would just become a little easier, whether it be by increasing the overall income, or just having thigns being taken care of at home...


Not saying full blown polygamy, as much as a sort of three member co-habitation. I know some folks tend to rent out a room in a house in exchange for money, but why not rent it out in exchange for services? Or just let the person live there while every shares funds.

It complicates things yes, but if everyone gets along, then why not? Just seems like today this type of arrangement would make the lives of many people easier...

I'm curious as to the opinions of others?

Daedalus

Zacharde

Nakatomi2010 wrote: »

Why not change the common family structure? Add a third component.

Are you married? Maintaining a healthy relationship with 1 person is complex enough. See divorce statistics for proof.

Gotta go with no.

Aldo

Are you married or living together? How do you feel about your wife fucking and having children with other men?

Robos A Go Go

Some Women would be happier with two men, while some men would be happier with two women. Hell some men would be happier with two men and some women happier with two women.

The number of men and women who'd be happier with two members of the opposite sex greatly outnumbers the number of men and women who'd be happier with one person of the opposite sex and one person of the same sex.

The Cat

wait, 'gays as domestics'?

Drez

After reading all these recent D&D threads, I don't think I want to live with even one person anymore.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

deowolf

Thumbs down, would only lead to us marrying our pets.

Serpent

It used to be pretty common for multiple generations to live in the same home.

seems to me like this accomplishes the same thing with less drama.

japan

The one thing that people in poly relationships all agree on is that relationship dynamics get exponentially more complex the more people you add. This is particularly true when living together.

Having said that, people do form these kind of family units.

Aldo

japan wrote: »

The one thing that people in poly relationships all agree on is that relationship dynamics get exponentially more complex the more people you add. This is particularly true when living together.

Having said that, people do form these kind of family units.

And quite often a child protection agency gets involved somewhere down the line. If the 60s have taught us anything it must be that these kind of family units are just a literal clusterfuck.

japan

Aldo wrote: »

japan wrote: »

The one thing that people in poly relationships all agree on is that relationship dynamics get exponentially more complex the more people you add. This is particularly true when living together.

Having said that, people do form these kind of family units.

And quite often a child protection agency gets involved somewhere down the line. If the 60s have taught us anything it must be that these kind of family units are just a literal clusterfuck.

I think people that form these kind of relationships when kids are involved are a relatively small subset of what is already a relatively small subset of human relationships. I'm not convinced there's a large enough sample size to draw meaningful conclusions about their viability.

I can't really find any decent figures that aren't examining religious whackjobs.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Nakatomi2010

Aldo wrote: »

Are you married or living together? How do you feel about your wife fucking and having children with other men?

To address the "How would you feel...." question, the idea here is not "Oh hey, let's get another man", I brought this issue up in the original post, some men prefer men (I don't) and some women prefer women... So in some relationships a man who marries a wife may very well enjoy having another man to play with.

Remember that Dollhouse episode where they had that guy talking about "Hey, if I want to play around with a guy and see how it's like without judgement then why can't I" while his wife/girlfriend slowly turns her head towards him while he's talking about basically wanting to try being bisexual, prime example of some guys liking other guys, which would make the situation plausible...

Do have to agree though, the dynamics would be tricky.... Though there would most likely be more time to handle the dynamics...

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Aldo

Nakatomi2010 wrote: »

Aldo wrote: »

Are you married or living together? How do you feel about your wife fucking and having children with other men?

To address the "How would you feel...." question, the idea here is not "Oh hey, let's get another man", I brought this issue up in the original post, some men prefer men (I don't) and some women prefer women... So in some relationships a man who marries a wife may very well enjoy having another man to play with.

Remember that Dollhouse episode where they had that guy talking about "Hey, if I want to play around with a guy and see how it's like without judgement then why can't I" while his wife/girlfriend slowly turns her head towards him while he's talking about basically wanting to try being bisexual, prime example of some guys liking other guys, which would make the situation plausible...

Do have to agree though, the dynamics would be tricky.... Though there would most likely be more time to handle the dynamics...

So you would like to fuck another girl, while your wife would like to fuck another guy. You don't want your wife to fuck another guy and your wife doesn't want you to fuck another girl. Do you understand why no one else is agreeing with you?

I disagree with your economic argument: another adult in a household does not mean you all of a sudden get an extra disposable income to enjoy. It costs money to live and the economies of scale don't really work when you all want the same level of luxury.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Aldo

electricitylikesme wrote: »

If you all like the same TV then a flat screen does become that much cheaper though.

Certainly, there's a few things that get cheaper, but the OP's idea is that if 2 people can't make a living they need to invite someone else, pool their resources and then PROFIT.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Duffel

Daedalus wrote: »

I wish I could lime a comic.

Also, I'd say the number of people who even have the desire to do this sort of thing, let alone the number of people who could actually make it work, is statistically insignificant.

Robos A Go Go

How about cohabitation between monogamous couples? Four people live in the same home, pool their resources, and effectively delegate responsibilities, but without the polygamy. Childcare and upkeep of the home would be a lot easier, and there would be the aforementioned economic benefits as well.

Duffel

Robos A Go Go wrote: »

How about cohabitation between monogamous couples? Four people live in the same home, pool their resources, and effectively delegate responsibilities, but without the polygamy. Childcare and upkeep of the home would be a lot easier, and there would be the aforementioned economic benefits as well.

You'd need a bigass house. Also, lots of people already do this anyway. I see it all the time in collegiate settings. But it's not the sort of thing most people are going to want to do long-term because eventually you're going to want some privacy.

Robos A Go Go

Duffel wrote: »

Robos A Go Go wrote: »

How about cohabitation between monogamous couples? Four people live in the same home, pool their resources, and effectively delegate responsibilities, but without the polygamy. Childcare and upkeep of the home would be a lot easier, and there would be the aforementioned economic benefits as well.

You'd need a bigass house. Also, lots of people already do this anyway. I see it all the time in collegiate settings. But it's not the sort of thing most people are going to want to do long-term because eventually you're going to want some privacy.

All you really need is a house with two master-sized bedrooms, right? Or perhaps one couple could live in the basement? Either way, I think a house capable of accommodating two couples would be a great deal cheaper than two normal-sized houses.

As for privacy, I think some compromises in that area might be worth the gains.

Jenosavel

Even if this could potentially work, which I don't think it could for the majority, if it became common then competition would just land us right back where we are now. I mean, if having two workers instead of one made us so much better off financially, I want to see the proof.

Alternatively, if I could find that ted talk about the two income trap I'd link it, but I'm failing at the moment.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Robos A Go Go

electricitylikesme wrote: »

One person doing housework is a liability in every circumstance anyway I would think. The person at home can't appreciate the stresses of a work environment, the person at work can't appreciate the demands of the home.

And in living arrangements with more than two people, wouldn't it be easier to share housework and therefore free everyone up to pursue work or interests outside the home?

Or you could just divide the cost of a housecleaning service between multiple people, making it more affordable.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Duffel

Robos A Go Go wrote: »

Duffel wrote: »

Robos A Go Go wrote: »

How about cohabitation between monogamous couples? Four people live in the same home, pool their resources, and effectively delegate responsibilities, but without the polygamy. Childcare and upkeep of the home would be a lot easier, and there would be the aforementioned economic benefits as well.

You'd need a bigass house. Also, lots of people already do this anyway. I see it all the time in collegiate settings. But it's not the sort of thing most people are going to want to do long-term because eventually you're going to want some privacy.

All you really need is a house with two master-sized bedrooms, right? Or perhaps one couple could live in the basement? Either way, I think a house capable of accommodating two couples would be a great deal cheaper than two normal-sized houses.

As for privacy, I think some compromises in that area might be worth the gains.

There's nothing stopping people from doing this right now, though. The OP is assuming some sort of more binding arrangement exists (I think, anyway), and I don't see that as feasible.

Robos A Go Go

Duffel wrote: »

There's nothing stopping people from doing this right now, though. The OP is assuming some sort of more binding arrangement exists (I think, anyway), and I don't see that as feasible.

There's nothing legally stopping people from doing this, but I think there are social forces that prohibit this sort of behavior. I myself have never heard of two married couples collectively purchasing a home or raising their kids together.

I live with 4 other people. 3 of them have no understanding on why one doesn't put a spoon with viscous fluid on it directly on a kitchen bench, or a newspaper on a kitchen bench, as opposed to in the bowl they were just using or into the dishwasher just a meter away.

I don't understand your point. Of course the arrangement wouldn't work if some of the participants were lazy or deadbeats. That's true of any arrangement.

Lintilla

Why does the third have to be part of the married couple's relationship? Why can't grandma, who lives by herself come be close to the family and help provide childcare and light housework instead of sitting around her expensive retirement home? Why can't Uncle Joey move into the basement and make peanut butter and banana sammiches for everyone and walk the dog? Maybe it's not as sexy, but it's much more plausible.

cherv1

Some of these ideas sound like what happened in poverty-stricken times, when two or more families would live in the same house, basement, ground floor and upstairs, but it was always in slum-like conditions without adequate facilities or space by today's standards.

Robos A Go Go

Lintilla wrote: »

Why does the third have to be part of the married couple's relationship? Why can't grandma, who lives by herself come be close to the family and help provide childcare and light housework instead of sitting around her expensive retirement home? Why can't Uncle Joey move into the basement and make peanut butter and banana sammiches for everyone and walk the dog? Maybe it's not as sexy, but it's much more plausible.

I think the idea is that the extra person should be an equal, not an infirm relative or someone who moves in because he can't make it on his own. Generally, one or more healthy and financially stable people will be far more of an asset to a family than grandma or Uncle Joey.

Organichu

I don't think the OP presents a very good idea but I do think it could help some (not all... some married couples cling to privacy) married couples to just host another person or two in their home, in a totally platonic fashion. I think it'd have to be another couple, though, because if it was just one person the power dynamic could be screwed up. I think that'd lead to the odd guy out feeling outnumbered.

Duffel

Organichu wrote: »

I don't think the OP presents a very good idea but I do think it could help some (not all... some married couples cling to privacy) married couples to just host another person or two in their home, in a totally platonic fashion. I think it'd have to be another couple, though, because if it was just one person the power dynamic could be screwed up. I think that'd lead to the odd guy out feeling outnumbered.

Even without the relationship drama I could foresee a lot of problems, the most common being when one family no longer needs the financial assistance and can afford a home on their own, while the other family is still dire enough straights that they can't afford it.

EDIT: Also, to whoever mentioned it - it's not at all uncommon in some countries for entire extended families to live together in one big house or group of houses. It could definitely work but it would require a dramatic shift in the way America views the role of the extended vs. the nuclear family and basically the whole way we structure our society. Even the way we built our houses and organized our neighborhoods would have to change. It could work, but such cultural change would come very slowly.

Organichu

It would certainly be a challenging arrangement for most people, yes.

Robos A Go Go

Duffel wrote: »

Organichu wrote: »

I don't think the OP presents a very good idea but I do think it could help some (not all... some married couples cling to privacy) married couples to just host another person or two in their home, in a totally platonic fashion. I think it'd have to be another couple, though, because if it was just one person the power dynamic could be screwed up. I think that'd lead to the odd guy out feeling outnumbered.

Even without the relationship drama I could foresee a lot of problems, the most common being when one family no longer needs the financial assistance and can afford a home on their own, while the other family is still dire enough straights that they can't afford it.

That's only a problem because people are under the impression that the only reason to enter into this kind of arrangement is financial necessity and that, without that reason, the best arrangement is the run of the mill living situation of one couple to a home. If two couples decide to live together not because they feel they have to to survive, but simply because they've concluded that it's the best way for them to live no matter how much money they make, then the problem goes away.

japan

Duffel wrote: »

EDIT: Also, to whoever mentioned it - it's not at all uncommon in some countries for entire extended families to live together in one big house or group of houses.

I was going to mention this. It's not that uncommon among Asian communities in the UK. A guy I worked with lived in the same house as his parents, his two brothers, and their respective wives and children.

kildy

The OP seems to be focused on the "let's redefine family" thing, and at least IMO heavily invested in the "another person to have sex with!"

Beyond that, the situation is doable currently (have room? want to rent out said room to someone? Go Nuts.), without the social construct altered to make it acceptable to sleep with that person while married to the other. So all the financial structures are there (barring filing jointly with three people for taxes), it's pretty much just a question of redefining family to allow for multiple sexual partners, unless I'm reading it entirely wrong.

Rhesus Positive

electricitylikesme wrote: »

One person doing housework is a liability in every circumstance anyway I would think. The person at home can't appreciate the stresses of a work environment, the person at work can't appreciate the demands of the home.

If sitcoms have taught us anything, the solution to this problem is for the two parties to swap jobs for a day. Greater understanding and hilarity will then ensue.