View Full Version : Triad parents. Which makes more sense?
And now for something completely different...
It's become very tough for two parents to raise a child. Especially when both need to work/get an education. The state ends up raising the kids.
One solution may be to have two parents working, another staying home to raise and school the children. "Triad parents".
Which set up would be the most practical in general? Two women and one man, or two men and one woman?
Asking for a friend...nah, the idea came up while chatting with a family member and it came down to this point. So I said I'd collect more opinions/ideas about which arrangement is probably better.
I think it would be better to have two men and one woman. Men don't live as long, tend to make more money, and have fewer health problems before they get older. They also need less emotional support than women and find it easier to be away should they need to travel. (generally)
Men tend to stray more of course, but if one does the remaining couple could "dump" him and still have each other to take care of the kids.
Anyway, thoughts?
Whiskey_Bravo
03-19-18, 22:42
I came here thinking this was going to be a thread about members of the Triad gang. What I got instead was a thread about polygamy or something.
^This. Have you met people? I've met people, and they all hate each other.
Im just joking, kind of...take all the normal problems and add jealousy to them. It doesn't gets any better.
WTF? It is totally possible for two people to raise multiple children in this day and age if they give themselves totally to the responsibility of parenthood. It requires making good decisions and commitment. If you can't accomplish this then don't have kids. I am sick and tired of the attempts to justify the destruction of the traditional family.
LMT Shooter
03-19-18, 23:22
This thread will probably get crazy.
Three parents is a bad idea, in any combo. The complications that would arise when relations between one of the trio & one or both of the others almost certainly would make most divorces between couples seem highly cordial.
I know many people that have this or similar setups. It is fairly common for people who practice Polyamory. You get either triads or quads. Just like any other thing in life it works for some people but not for others. The biggest problem the ones I know face isn't jealousy within the relationship but the social stigma if/when people find out. In fact I generally see less Jealousy, cheating, etc in these relationships than I do in most traditional relationships.
Most I know of are two women and a man but I do know one triad that is two men and a woman. In that case one of the men (the Husband) stays home with the kids and the other two work, although in fairness he just has a job that lets him work from home so he works as well. All contribute equally to the household, etc. Gets really interesting when you are talking about things like Mortgage papers and deeds.
My initial reaction: No. Just F no. Along with destroying what is left of traditional families, as others have pointed out being a responsible parent requires good decisions and commitment. It also involves putting others before yourself. Three people in an adult relationship nearly always ends badly. So no. Just...no.
My second reaction: What does this have to do with organized crime?
Diamondback
03-20-18, 00:00
ISTR a number of Group Psych studies that indicated groups of three were the least stable and made the worst decisions of all the various configurations studied, between "ganging up," "shifting alliances" and other things. Michael Crichton once mentioned some as part of the research he did before writing Sphere.
MountainRaven
03-20-18, 01:17
I thought this had been used in one form or another for generations. The third "parent" was simply called something else: Governess, nanny, au pair, &c.
I thought this had been used in one form or another for generations. The third "parent" was simply called something else: Governess, nanny, au pair, &c.
or grandma...
WTF? It is totally possible for two people to raise multiple children in this day and age if they give themselves totally to the responsibility of parenthood. It requires making good decisions and commitment. If you can't accomplish this then don't have kids. I am sick and tired of the attempts to justify the destruction of the traditional family.
This^^
WTF? It is totally possible for two people to raise multiple children in this day and age if they give themselves totally to the responsibility of parenthood. It requires making good decisions and commitment. If you can't accomplish this then don't have kids. I am sick and tired of the attempts to justify the destruction of the traditional family.
Agree 100%.
I keep telling my wife that her hot school friend should become her sister-wife but for some reason she doesn't seem enthused. Maybe it's because we don't plan on having kids?
WTF? It is totally possible for two people to raise multiple children in this day and age if they give themselves totally to the responsibility of parenthood. It requires making good decisions and commitment. If you can't accomplish this then don't have kids. I am sick and tired of the attempts to justify the destruction of the traditional family.
There you go....as a parent you put some of your wishes and dreams on hold to raise your kids, sacrificing a bit of yourself for them.
As for the triad parents, what would make more sense is the extended family concept that some cultures embrace.
SomeOtherGuy
03-20-18, 08:35
In reality, two big things:
1) It's totally possible for both people in a couple to have advanced degrees and started careers before starting a family. I had my J.D. at 25, my wife had her Master's in Accounting at 23, we didn't start the family til after that. Raising kids + career is hard, which is why my wife is now stay-home, but it can be done if you really want to, and I know a number of successful couples doing so. Having your parents (the children's grandparents) nearby and helpful makes a HUUUUGE difference in this. If you choose to live in NYC or LA and are hundreds of miles away from any grandparents, this would be more difficult.
2) You don't need both adults working if one has a good job/career and you make reasonable lifestyle choices. In my situation we could have 50-80% more income if my wife worked, but all or most of that would be right back out the door for daycare, commuting, professional expenses (business clothes, etc.) and the like. It's not worth it.
A better question might be, why did we allow politicians to destroy the economy in such a way that most blue-collar and basic white-collar people think that two incomes are essential? Corollary, do you think that having most women work full-time improves their own happiness, much less the overall societal happiness?
As for "triad" arrangements, I don't think the balance matters so much as the individuals involved and the social setting. Social pressures make a big difference on the stability of any relationship arrangement: traditional marriage, poly, whatever. Our society is already hostile to traditional marriage in various ways, frankly encouraging divorce in many cases either for commercial benefit of those who profit from it or for SJW kicks ("third wave feminists" and the 27 genders types). There is a microscopically thin veneer of support for things like what you ask about, but scratch the surface and 99% of the social pressure is against, which will contribute to most attempts failing.
Moose-Knuckle
03-20-18, 09:10
It will be an interesting study to see the long term affects on the children in these relationships.
Law firms that specialize in family law and even in estates will have a booming enterprise.
WTF? It is totally possible for two people to raise multiple children in this day and age if they give themselves totally to the responsibility of parenthood. It requires making good decisions and commitment. If you can't accomplish this then don't have kids. I am sick and tired of the attempts to justify the destruction of the traditional family.
or grandma...
I thought this had been used in one form or another for generations. The third "parent" was simply called something else: Governess, nanny, au pair, &c.
There you go....as a parent you put some of your wishes and dreams on hold to raise your kids, sacrificing a bit of yourself for them.
As for the triad parents, what would make more sense is the extended family concept that some cultures embrace.
Yep, you all covered the solutions perfectly!
Lots of great points and things I hadn't considered, thanks.
Nanny's aren't free. A grandparent is probably the best solution if they are alive, young enough, and want the job.
I laughed about Triads being confused with the gang but I should have known given the boards members! Two people in a relationship are called a couple. Three are sometimes called a triple or triad.
A nanny would be free if they were not just a nanny but a real member of the family. A member of the couple often ends up in an affair with the nanny anyway, right? Might be better if the couple would just accept the nanny as an intimate partner in the family. That might increase the odds of the kids always having loving parents/guardians.
2guys and one woman sounds like cuckery.
2 girls and 1 guy sounds like typical polygamy.
As mentioned, if romance is removed, its a nanny or extended family.
I would prefer my wife and I to raise our children, if we have any. Money isnt an issue unless you insist on spending more than you make. Keeping up with the Jones is the reason people cant afford to raise kids on thier own(2 parents). My friends an i were all raises by people making less than $20/hr and they never took handouts.
2guys and one woman sounds like cuckery.
2 girls and 1 guy sounds like typical polygamy.
As mentioned, if romance is removed, its a nanny or extended family.
I would prefer my wife and I to raise our children, if we have any. Money isnt an issue unless you insist on spending more than you make. Keeping up with the Jones is the reason people cant afford to raise kids on thier own(2 parents). My friends an i were all raises by people making less than $20/hr and they never took handouts.
From what I see two parents with modest incomes can live in a poorer community with its problems, near less desirable government schools, have little to no time to themselves, little to no retirement savings, and only get to spend time with their kid on weekends while keeping up with the house.
In other words everything can get done, but poorly and at high risk.
The best way if there are two parents and no grandparents is for one of them to make over 6 figures while the other stays home. As usual bringing in lots of money makes life easier and better if managed properly.
ramairthree
03-20-18, 11:12
Movement patterns have really thrown a wrench in the works.
In general, people used to live in close proximity to a network of grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, etc. that is not so much the case anymore.
Plus the selfless grandparents of yesteryear are not as numerous a cohort as they were.
The odds of boomer grandparents being selfish, self centered narcissists too busy doing their own thing until required much more help they feel entitled to than they ever gave is pretty high.
I am not against polygamy. You can leech off a bunch of baby mommas on section 8 and welfare with no job no supporting any of them and be good to go legally. Or you can break the law and marry a few women and support your kids. Although frankly, polygamy was probable only a viable, tolerable option in the eras where a little physical force to keep women in line was expected. And you frequently were gone with your buddies for hunting and war.
Moose-Knuckle
03-20-18, 11:34
I am not against polygamy. You can leech off a bunch of baby mommas on section 8 and welfare with no job no supporting any of them and be good to go legally. Or you can break the law and marry a few women and support your kids. Although frankly, polygamy was probable only a viable, tolerable option in the eras where a little physical force to keep women in line was expected. And you frequently were gone with your buddies for hunting and war.
The modern twist however is allowing another rooster in the hen house....
There is a reason the sultans of old utilized eunuchs to keep watch of their harems. :cool:
I don't think number(s) or gender matter so much as personalities and fair division of assets and liabilities, to include time and efforts. Due to increased complexity, the more people you add, the more difficult it becomes to establish equilibrium.
That might increase the odds of the kids always having loving parents/guardians.
I would emphasize might in that phrase. Other than in a fairly closed society with peer pressure from other triads I would sooner bet it most often ends up in a fracture.
A member of the couple often ends up in an affair with the nanny anyway, right? So are you talking Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous or regular people?
I would be willing to bet in most of those situations where an ongoing affair with a nanny (or any other person) is tolerated, the odd person out stays in the relationship for other reasons than love and acceptance, and making childcare less expensive. That in turn impacts the kids. I say that because one of my friend's father was pretty wealthy and a philanderer, as well. Mom stayed because of the security offered by the wealth. My friend had many issues relating to the family relationship. The family relationship was cold. She was in turn tormented be her dad's actions which created the dynamic, and despised her mother for tolerating the situation.
I don't think that is an unusual outcome, and I don't see that as something to desire for the children.
I would emphasize might in that phrase. Other than in a fairly closed society with peer pressure from other triads I would sooner bet it most often ends up in a fracture.
A member of the couple often ends up in an affair with the nanny anyway, right? So are you talking Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous or regular people?
I would be willing to bet in most of those situations where an ongoing affair with a nanny (or any other person) is tolerated, the odd person out stays in the relationship for other reasons than love and acceptance, and making childcare less expensive. That in turn impacts the kids. I say that because one of my friend's father was pretty wealthy and a philanderer, as well. Mom stayed because of the security offered by the wealth. My friend had many issues relating to the family relationship. The family relationship was cold. She was in turn tormented be her dad's actions which created the dynamic, and despised her mother for tolerating the situation.
I don't think that is an unusual outcome, and I don't see that as something to desire for the children.
Good points.
I think the best arrangements would be: (In every arrangement, two work/school full time, one raises kids full-time)
-Two hetero men, one hetero woman (Probably would be the most common arrangement)
*Here, both guys get to breed and go to work while the mother stays home to raise the kids. The woman gets two men and two incomes (plenty of woman do this but of course behind the men's backs) While staying at home raising the kids. If one of the men isn't much into intimacy/nurturing a woman that's fine. Only one of them need to be. The colder guy (if there is one) gets a woman, a nice home, and kids with a stay-home mom. If anything happens to one of the men, there is another. If something happens to the mom, it probably wouldn't be too hard to find another woman (perhaps with her own kids) to slide in the vacancy.
I also think this set-up would attract more "average" people. (not pretty/handsome, not rich)
Now one of the men might want to stay home while the other man and the woman go to work, but I doubt that would be the bulk of these arrangements.
-Two bi men, one hetero woman
*Options and benefits all around here. Basically unicorns finding eachother.
-Two bi women, one hetero man (Probably the second most common)
* Here, the women are already in love, want to breed, and are bisexual at least somewhat. One or both are willing to work. So they find a man. He gets to breed with two women, stays home and raises his kids. Or he gets to breed two women and goes to work. One woman gets two incomes while staying home with kids. The other woman works. Both women get to enjoy a man and woman.
I don't think having two 100% hetero woman would work out well nor having any 100% gay people in the mix. Too many female-hen personalities and I'd think they'd clash. Two hetero or bi men are more likely to accept/want the arrangement. Especially if one or both work and/or spend a lot of time away.
Plus the selfless grandparents of yesteryear are not as numerous a cohort as they were.
The odds of boomer grandparents being selfish, self centered narcissists too busy doing their own thing until required much more help they feel entitled to than they ever gave is pretty high.
This is the only part of your post that I take issue with. As one born smack-dab in the middle of the boomer generation, I kind of disagree.
Their are a lot of boomer grandparents raising their grandchildren, I have a few friends and acquaintances in the boat these articles describe:
http://theconversation.com/why-more-grandparents-are-raising-their-grandchildren-83543
http://www.prb.org/Publications/Articles/2012/US-children-grandparents.aspx
As for my personal experience, I have one son who is a single parent. He works a rotating schedule and we have always taken care of our three grandchildren when he is on midnights and evenings.
The self-centered narcissist line is how I think of several of the posters on M4C based on MY reading of their posts. I imagine not all are boomers.
RetroRevolver77
03-20-18, 14:27
I thought this had been used in one form or another for generations. The third "parent" was simply called something else: Governess, nanny, au pair, &c.
Grandma and Grandpa. People used to have three generations living in a home.
This is the only part of your post that I take issue with. As one born smack-dab in the middle of the boomer generation, I kind of disagree.
Their are a lot of boomer grandparents raising their grandchildren, I have a few friends and acquaintances in the boat these articles describe:
http://theconversation.com/why-more-grandparents-are-raising-their-grandchildren-83543
http://www.prb.org/Publications/Articles/2012/US-children-grandparents.aspx
As for my personal experience, I have one son who is a single parent. He works a rotating schedule and we have always taken care of our three grandchildren when he is on midnights and evenings.
The self-centered narcissist line is how I think of several of the posters on M4C based on MY reading of their posts. I imagine not all are boomers.
My baby boomer parents and in-laws stayed close to us in retirement until all my kids were in school. They had zero issues "sacrificing" for 10 years to help my wife and I out with our three kids. As a result, we have three generations of people that get along well and take care of each other. I have excellent relationships with my parents and my now adult children.
Throwing a third person into that mix just seems alien to me. I cannot even begin to imagine trying to do what I have done in the last 25 years if I had a third adult involved in the process. My wife and I are partners, we have been really successful at it, and we continue to cooperate on other business ventures. I cannot help but think, with the fact that 50% of marriages fail, that adding another adult to the mix would exponentially increase the odds of failure.
I have no clue where you are coming from Ron3, we obviously have very different upbringings. The twisted idea of two straight dudes sharing one wife is so demeaning to the wife that I cannot wrap my head around it. It's also demeaning to the men (if you could call them that) as well. I value my relationship with my wife so highly that I cannot fathom sharing her with anyone. While I certainly am not educated in psychology, my layman's guess is that kids in that kind of relationship wouldn't have much success either.
My baby boomer parents and in-laws stayed close to us in retirement until all my kids were in school. They had zero issues "sacrificing" for 10 years to help my wife and I out with our three kids. As a result, we have three generations of people that get along well and take care of each other. I have excellent relationships with my parents and my now adult children.
Throwing a third person into that mix just seems alien to me. I cannot even begin to imagine trying to do what I have done in the last 25 years if I had a third adult involved in the process. My wife and I are partners, we have been really successful at it, and we continue to cooperate on other business ventures. I cannot help but think, with the fact that 50% of marriages fail, that adding another adult to the mix would exponentially increase the odds of failure.
I have no clue where you are coming from Ron3, we obviously have very different upbringings. The twisted idea of two straight dudes sharing one wife is so demeaning to the wife that I cannot wrap my head around it. It's also demeaning to the men (if you could call them that) as well. I value my relationship with my wife so highly that I cannot fathom sharing her with anyone. While I certainly am not educated in psychology, my layman's guess is that kids in that kind of relationship wouldn't have much success either.
Well said.
RetroRevolver77
03-20-18, 14:35
Good points.
I think the best arrangements would be: (In every arrangement, two work/school full time, one raises kids full-time)
-Two hetero men, one hetero woman (Probably would be the most common arrangement)
*Here, both guys get to breed and go to work while the mother stays home to raise the kids. The woman gets two men and two incomes (plenty of woman do this but of course behind the men's backs) While staying at home raising the kids. If one of the men isn't much into intimacy/nurturing a woman that's fine. Only one of them need to be. The colder guy (if there is one) gets a woman, a nice home, and kids with a stay-home mom. If anything happens to one of the men, there is another. If something happens to the mom, it probably wouldn't be too hard to find another woman (perhaps with her own kids) to slide in the vacancy.
I also think this set-up would attract more "average" people. (not pretty/handsome, not rich)
Now one of the men might want to stay home while the other man and the woman go to work, but I doubt that would be the bulk of these arrangements.
-Two bi men, one hetero woman
*Options and benefits all around here. Basically unicorns finding eachother.
-Two bi women, one hetero man (Probably the second most common)
* Here, the women are already in love, want to breed, and are bisexual at least somewhat. One or both are willing to work. So they find a man. He gets to breed with two women, stays home and raises his kids. Or he gets to breed two women and goes to work. One woman gets two incomes while staying home with kids. The other woman works. Both women get to enjoy a man and woman.
I don't think having two 100% hetero woman would work out well nor having any 100% gay people in the mix. Too many female-hen personalities and I'd think they'd clash. Two hetero or bi men are more likely to accept/want the arrangement. Especially if one or both work and/or spend a lot of time away.
Wow. WTF.
Averageman
03-20-18, 14:35
I had an Uncle that was a polygamist. He had three wives, on e of which he was legally married to and the other two he had a non .gov sanctioned marriage with.
Three houses on the ranch and he rotated between wives and houses every day or so.
Eighteen or more cousins all worked on the ranch until they grew up and moved on. Fairly normal folks except for the living arrangements.
My Uncle Slim was a pretty colorful guy. WWII Paratrooper, Bodyguard for a few Celebrities, Local Politician, Business Owner, Rancher and Cowboy.
He mentioned to me that everyone had their responsibilities and it worked out well for the most part. He did mention that the Wives would occasionally gang up on him to get something done.
Quite a Character that's for sure.
MountainRaven
03-20-18, 15:16
This is the only part of your post that I take issue with. As one born smack-dab in the middle of the boomer generation, I kind of disagree.
Their are a lot of boomer grandparents raising their grandchildren, I have a few friends and acquaintances in the boat these articles describe:
http://theconversation.com/why-more-grandparents-are-raising-their-grandchildren-83543
http://www.prb.org/Publications/Articles/2012/US-children-grandparents.aspx
As for my personal experience, I have one son who is a single parent. He works a rotating schedule and we have always taken care of our three grandchildren when he is on midnights and evenings.
The self-centered narcissist line is how I think of several of the posters on M4C based on MY reading of their posts. I imagine not all are boomers.
I have an aunt and uncle who are boomers who raised their Gen X daughter's kids for a while (she got pregnant in high school, dropped out, gave birth, got her GED, went to college, got pregnant again). I had a boss who was a boomer who had to raise his grandkids for a while because his Gen X son and DIL were found to be unfit parents by the courts.
I also have no doubt that if my brother or I had kids, our parents (and aunt and uncle - all boomers, all local) would absolutely love to help raise them.
I have no clue where you are coming from Ron3, we obviously have very different upbringings. The twisted idea of two straight dudes sharing one wife is so demeaning to the wife that I cannot wrap my head around it. It's also demeaning to the men (if you could call them that) as well. I value my relationship with my wife so highly that I cannot fathom sharing her with anyone. While I certainly am not educated in psychology, my layman's guess is that kids in that kind of relationship wouldn't have much success either.
Not demeaning at all. It's all by choice. How many women would like to stay home with the kids while the money just comes in? Plenty, if not most. And that's exactly what many of them do. (only the money is given by men no longer in their lives otherwise as commanded by the state)
Additionally, it's only one way to do it. The woman may want to go to work while one of the men stays home. Whatever works for them, and people can switch off as careers ebb and flow of course.
For people willing to do it I think it's a better solution than what we have going on now. Kids raised by a lone mom and the man is the socialist state.
Another great thing about it is freedom. You can still have your traditional marriage while other people go another way. Great, right?
The only way if could effect you is it would lead to fewer people on public (That's you, taxpayer) assistance.
I hope it becomes more popular.
ramairthree
03-20-18, 16:01
This is the only part of your post that I take issue with. As one born smack-dab in the middle of the boomer generation, I kind of disagree.
Their are a lot of boomer grandparents raising their grandchildren, I have a few friends and acquaintances in the boat these articles describe:
http://theconversation.com/why-more-grandparents-are-raising-their-grandchildren-83543
http://www.prb.org/Publications/Articles/2012/US-children-grandparents.aspx
As for my personal experience, I have one son who is a single parent. He works a rotating schedule and we have always taken care of our three grandchildren when he is on midnights and evenings.
The self-centered narcissist line is how I think of several of the posters on M4C based on MY reading of their posts. I imagine not all are boomers.
Cool, you’re a good dad and grand Dad.
I am talking average characteristics of a large cohort of people.
Not every boomer.
Like when I say a shit ton of boomers were draft dodgers.
Many were ass kicking steely eyed killers.
Taking issue with saying a group of people known as the “me generation” has a bunch of self centered people seems a little odd.
It’s like taking issue with saying Muslims hate Jews because there are exceptions.
I spent an extra decade in the military because there was a war on, to a tune of a few million dollars in less income over that period, working far more hours, and deployed a lot instead of at home. When your are on target in your 40s in the middle of the night with a bunch of guys mostly half your age making a few hundred thousand of dollars less a year than your civilian buddies are making, reflecting on all the boomers you have heard bragging about the ways they got out of Vietnam, I think disdain is reasonable.
As a whole, they got out of their war, got their abortions, birth control, STDs, crack cities, easy button divorces, credit cards to keep up with the Joneses, double income for stuff, latchkey kids, nanny full retard safety state, participation trophy offspring, progressive uptopia that can’t be fixed and is getting worse.
The boomer SF, LRRP, and Ranger Company VN vets that “brought me up” when I joined in the 80s were awesome Americans. They verbally shared their disdain for much of their generation.
I was not a flannel wearing, slacker, McJob half ass working, Amercian spirit smoking, failed out of college that mommy and daddy paid for, Gen X cliche, but I get the stereotype and understand it. I am not going to take issue with it.
Averageman
03-20-18, 16:10
If you have kids it's a life long commitment.
There are a lot of Single Parents out there doing a great job at it. It isn't ideal of course, but it has to be less drama than trying to make a couple from a threesome.
I thought this had been used in one form or another for generations. The third "parent" was simply called something else: Governess, nanny, au pair, &c.
Pretty much.
Magic_Salad0892
03-20-18, 16:32
Pretty much.
Or oldest child takes care of the younger ones.
Or oldest child takes care of the younger ones.
Holy crap dude, been awhile! Good to see you again.
Magic_Salad0892
03-20-18, 20:19
Holy crap dude, been awhile! Good to see you again.
Thank you. I haven't been very active on the internet in the last few years. I've moved, and had some health issues, but all seems to be cooling down now.
But I've been lurking here. I don't think I'll ever be as active here as I was a few years ago, but I'm still here.
Not demeaning at all. It's all by choice. How many women would like to stay home with the kids while the money just comes in? Plenty, if not most. And that's exactly what many of them do. (only the money is given by men no longer in their lives otherwise as commanded by the state)
Additionally, it's only one way to do it. The woman may want to go to work while one of the men stays home. Whatever works for them, and people can switch off as careers ebb and flow of course.
For people willing to do it I think it's a better solution than what we have going on now. Kids raised by a lone mom and the man is the socialist state.
Another great thing about it is freedom. You can still have your traditional marriage while other people go another way. Great, right?
The only way if could effect you is it would lead to fewer people on public (That's you, taxpayer) assistance.
I hope it becomes more popular.
I'm pretty libertarian, so I'm not going to actively stand in the way. But I can honestly say that I do not know anyone who'd think it was a good idea. I'm pretty selective in my friends and I can't think of one woman that feels she would share her man, nor a man that would share his woman.
Just the dynamics of competition between real men would doom it to failure in my opinion. The one dude who doesn't perform as well in bed will naturally be pushed aside by the woman, the one dude that has annoying personality traits will be pushed aside by the woman. In social circles, the uglier or fatter guy will be pushed aside by the woman. It just cannot see how it can work on the two dudes, one woman model
The one woman, one man marriage is world wide other than a few isolated areas. Why not work towards fixing what is wrong in America? Why not promote responsibility in procreation? Why not promote responsible lifestyles that don't saddle you with debt? Why not promote selflessness in people when it comes to taking care of their families.
On a world scale, marriages are in decline. I cannot see how something socially more complicated like your Triad deal is going to flourish. But rock on if you want to enjoy sloppy seconds.
Cool, you’re a good dad and grand Dad.
I am talking average characteristics of a large cohort of people.
Not every boomer.
Like when I say a shit ton of boomers were draft dodgers.
Many were ass kicking steely eyed killers.
Taking issue with saying a group of people known as the “me generation” has a bunch of self centered people seems a little odd.
Nah, not odd, as a member of the group I don't like being pigeon-holed and lumped in with that stereo-type. I don't even believe the majority of baby-boomers possess the attributes you described.
You are a smart guy, smart enough to understand what I was getting at. Did you not notice my statement that I agreed with the rest of your post?
ramairthree
03-21-18, 12:43
I get it. I don’t like being lumped in with the disaffected, flannel wearing underachievers.
Except for I understand their dismay with, among other things, the less income, less benefits, more expensive education world the boomers made for them.
There are lots of things that mean everyone is not pigeon holed the same. There are Xers born to older greatest generation, born to boomers,
Millennial born both to Xers and older boomers, etc.
Again,
Not every boomer.
I get it. I don’t like being lumped in with the disaffected, flannel wearing underachievers.
Except for I understand their dismay with, among other things, the less income, less benefits, more expensive education world the boomers made for them.
There are lots of things that mean everyone is not pigeon holed the same. There are Xers born to older greatest generation, born to boomers,
Millennial born both to Xers and older boomers, etc.
Again,
Not every boomer.
Perhaps I should not mention that I often wear an unbuttoned flannel shirt over a tee. ;)
Sat on this overnight. Sounds like a typical plight of our society. As we move toward entropy by displacing virtue, we create more “solutions” to our problems which create more problems. We are losing an actual reference point for human life. And this lack of virtue applies to a broad number of issues and policies, not just family. It will only continue. Sterilization for those that can’t do kids will be on the horizon. Or selective parenting like in The Giver where all are sterilized but the birthers and the govt grants you permission to adopt from a birther if you qualify.
Remember, the gay marriage issue wasn’t about marriage (gay marriage was already legal) but having the govt recognize a new kind of coupling for benefits—benefits everyone should have anyway. It was the system and it’s unending prejudice (often financial) that created the “gay marriage issue.”
Btw, I thought the subject title was about barrels.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.