Hard times ahead may wind up meaning...hard times ahead.

Well, things are looking pretty grim people. We have a generation of kids who are apparently unable to push a broom, large portions of our country (USA) are falling apart, infrastructure is failing, inflation is growing, moral is down, etc etc etc.

On the upside, as things become more difficult to survive in, we may find that society is suddenly quite a bit more understanding about people who stick together in new ways as they try to adapt to the situation. I think that more than ever before you will find the possibility of m-w-m relationships or m-m-m or w-w-w or w-m-w will find a new place in societal acceptance. Hard times necessitate people adapting to the new situation and depending on how difficult those times may become, it seems actually quite likely that because of disease, financial expenditure of everyday life coupled with lower income and devalued money that people will begin to form triples in place of couples. Strange how things come to pass, but from what I can see, it's really not that unlikely.

What do yall think?

Is there a couple that you'd want to become a third with? Can you see how having three working breadwinners (or two and a homemaker) could make life substantially easier on all three?
Might be a sacrifice on personal liberty, but might also mean bisexuality and exciting lifestyle changes may gain a whole new popularity.

Just a thought.

FF

"Strange how things come to pass, but from what I can see, it's really not that unlikely."

In the 1970's there was a sitcom television show which pushed the envelope of what society accepts. The show quite possibly helped to form some of the views I adhere to. Not sure if it got global broadcast but I figure lots of Americans will recognize the next line right away.

"Come and knock on our door ..."


The name of the show, of course, was Three's Company. An interesting premise really if ever there was one worth the writing. A guy passes out at a party after having a drunken binge. He passes out in the bathtub.

Come to find out, he's out of his house due to eviction or something. The two girls sharing the apartment, where the party was held, are out a third roommate. The landlord wants three girls in the room, thinks a guy and two gals would just be real trouble.

Right away the girls assure the landlord that this guy will be fine. "How so?"

"Well he's gay."

Imagine all the wonderful irony, satire, and general comedy to be found in that. Better still why not look the series up on Netflix/ or another online DVD video rental service. It's worth seeing, even as reruns.

And I think it's about time the world at large began to 'wake up and smell the coffee'. This may sound dreadfully selfish, and in fact it may well be, at any given I need a man and woman in my life. That's called balance. Some of us got wired that way at birth. Be it a gift or curse from Providence, or a mere scientific bafflement, we are what we are.

We ought to be as free to be triples as others are free to be couples. And I say this from having experienced single, triple, couple. What time I spent in a triple felt damn good, felt right, felt healthy ... I could continue to list positive intoned adjectives and such all day and night, but won't.

Presently, I want to meet with the guy who has recently become known as my boyfriend. I hesitate to say how that may work out. Hope it goes well for all involved. :) A goal exists for my wife, myself and a fellow in this noggin.

"... what's hers is his and his ..."

That's what I aspire to attain, eventually. If it comes along with the present boyfriend, great! I hope so, kind of really really really love him, bunches, lots bunches even more than infinite bunches. :) But if it doesn't, that will be great also.

Please understand my point of view in this. No expectations exist because love doesn't need them. If it is to be, so mote it. If not, so mote it. It would make me ecstatically content if it were to be. But if not I can be okay.

And yes, I think Three's Company is an excellent source of ideal creation material, along with a supplier of role models. Someone did a bang on job with it.

Well, I better get to bed. Wife has already suggested we ship the fall weather back. Love you elian, and thank you honey. Night night.

I'll be awake long to tuck us all three in. After that if you two decide I shouldn't sleep, well guess one or both of you ought to nudge me out of bed. <grin>

We remember Three's Company and used to watch it all the time.

You could also refer to the Robert Hienlien book, "Time Enough for Love". It has another view of society in the future which is not all that far from where we are headed, now. But with better technology.

It is true that we are headed away from the puritanical, Judao-Christian philosophy of the "family" and extending that definition beyond blood and marriage ties. It should be and can be greater than it has become, I think.

We, as a species, are very adaptable (some more than others). We have survived a major ice age as well as a few smaller ones, wars, pestilence, famines, religious persecutions, totalitarian regimes and orientation discrimination. As long as we can all learn from it, we can continue to survive.

A side note to what the first post asked. While sharing the burden would be a plus for everyone, how do you share what i assume would be the assets from the same arrangement? Banks lend to someone, and as long as they get paid don't care if it was payed by the individual or a collective. But what happens when the building or vehicles that have been paid for using the incomes of several (hey, what can I say? Heh.) have to be split up fairly and equitably?
This situation probably already exists for a lot of people, rent is a form of it where someone owns the property, and others pay for the use of it. Just wonder if anyone here is in a situation like that. I know that when I worked in a city away from my home, I rented a room in a boarding house type situation. And far from being what many would imagine that to be like, it was an upper end group, as there was a pharmacy company there and a lot of engineers and scientists lived far enough away that it was beneficial for them to live there Monday through Thursday and go home for the weekends. The rules were restrictive, but I couldn't help but wonder what it would have been like if the criteria were a little more "neighbor help your neighbor." And after all, what are friends and/or neighbors for?

Great responses. Thanks.

I imagine that it will require a whole lot of thought to reorganize our ideas of property rights etc if we want to make it a viable condition where official statements are concerned, whether they are financial, insurance, civil union etc. But the main thing I was after was just the solution to raising children for the next generation. More and more people are becoming isolated because of the model that we have now for independence. As the cost of living becomes nearly a strangling factor, more and more people are becoming less and less social simply because of financial constraints. If that weren't bad enough, we are all subject to illness with std's which remain in incubation for up to 10 years prior to the onset of any observable symptoms. Between those two aspects alone it makes sense to reconsider what our "family unit" might should be.

But there is more. Irony of the conditions of living right now are arguably the result of years worth of conservative rule. Now, given the circumstance that COL <cost of living> is so high, for many the option of having children is beyond their financial means. Opting for a Triple seems the obvious solution.
As a model I was thinking about the w-m-w combination. Each woman could then have one child by the same male. The three adults then would each have had the opportunity to HAVE children, with two other adults in support.
Daycare would no longer be such an issue. In fact, all of the household chores of keeping a home which we have all had stack up on us because of the demands of modern life, would be much easier to deal with.

The snag I see is that this would only work if people could really REALLY....learn to share. Jealousy could rip the union apart. As for resource controls, I would imagine a Triple bank account with each doing DD into it at a fixed amount along with previously agreed upon resource distribution would be the only way to go about it. Obviously each of the three would also retain their independent funds as well.

It's nice to dream about such an arrangement, but the hell of it is always in the details. "why do *I* have to stay home with the kids again?" It would only work if there was a dedicated deliberate sharing of the good and the bad all the way round. It would also be extremely important for all three parties to really LOVE the other two.

But it sure seems to me to be where we are headed if we intend to evolve as far as the human race is concerned.


{Oh! I nearly forgot! The other thing about this is that if this type of family unit becomes recognized as viable and productive for society, at that point the whole bisexual/homosexual stuff becomes moot. Once there are Triples who are family units producing children, society would be MUCH more accepting of Triples who had no children at all, or were Triples that were all the same sex}

FF

"But the main thing I was after was just the solution to raising children for the next generation."


Some of us have been told by doctors we are not able be natural fathers. Part of the genetic coding which lets me remain so mellowed out, not too bothered by testosterone rages, also leans toward creating a biologically sterile guy. And that's alright, too.

I would love to be a daddy. But I am not sure adoption would suit. If you've seen Mad Max Beyond the Thunder Dome, you will have seen how I would raise children. The scene where the little boy faces down a train; "This is a stick up! Move and you're dead meat! ... Oh no you moved! I'm dead meat! Dad!!!"

I would have children unafraid to explore, to conquer. From the crib forward they would be read the unabridged and uncensored Brother's Grimm, in original form. Let them get a head start on seeing how nasty and vicious the world can be, and teach them compassion, courage, determination can tame that world.

Adoption incurs financial issues as well as legal ones. You can't adopt a kid and put it into a wolves den for the first six months of its life. The authorities sort of frown upon that. And one look at my furry ass and pointed ears, extended muzzle and they'd all yell; "Not by the hair on my chinny chin chin!"

One thing I would like to point out. Wolves roam in packs. The only time a wolf is alone is if and / or when she is pregnant. Even then a few males haunt nearby, just out of her sensing range but close enough to be sentries.

So, I know how children would be under the influence of this daddy. It is likely those children would be taken from me. "You're insane and unfit to raise children."

"Um, look at all these kittens I've brought up right, not to mention the dog out back. Unfit hell! More likely I am merely uncivilized. Well, if yours is any notion how to be civil, keep it and move on."

For some odd reason I am reminded these past few days of expression coined in the video game Shadow Madness. "This bodes not well. There shall be death." Perhaps it is the impending season. Oh yeah we're electing a new Bozo soon. Ah, explains it all. Everyone is so worked up which ahem nigger *cough* gets to be in charge. Who truly cares? They both are bought and paid for.

"We the people ..." truly have no say beyond our home's threshold. If we did then creating these dreams in waking life would not be deemed such ardor. But recall my definition of impossible.

Impossible; adj, - Describes a task with a high degree of difficulty to master. I. E. Someone else has already done it and found it extremely difficult. Repeat to emphasize, someone else has done it. It can be done.

So part of me knows that raising children would be a blast. Even if everyone else deemed it impossible. :)

Unfortunately, I think things tend to go the other way in hard times. When people are hungry and looking for work they often jump at anything "different" to use as a scapegoat for their problems. That's why you have so much racism and homophobia in chronically depressed areas like the Appalachians.

Poverty rarely brings out the best in people so I wouldn't look too strongly for acceptance should things go south.

"That's why you have so much racism and homophobia in chronically depressed areas like the Appalachians."

And yes, big sprawling mid-western concrete jungles insulate one from ever becoming a bigot, don't they?

I used the word in a non-racial inflection. See part three of the definition in Webster's. nigger Wordsmyth also lists it as such. And finally to attain the hat trick, The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000 also cites it, as I inferred when writing.

Us poor folks in Appalachia tend to be keen on knowing our words, if naught else. Apologies, thought I was writing a bit informally on a site that champions diversity. I consider politicians to be a defective and disadvantaged group of people. Being an informal discussion, I used a bit of slang. Anyone can use scapegoats. Thank Jewish Rabbi's for bringing that practice to common usage. Look up the practice under the word Baphomet, which in Judeo-Christian circles may be heard as the N word, a slur.

Poverty indeed can make people real bad. It can also make them real good. No point arguing the opinion with you, when both may be true.