Gigan indicated that certain men will have multiple female partners while other men will have none. This implies that they believe that those female partners will be tied to that one man and won’t have the ability to take on any other male partners should they choose to. Such a situation is not polyamory as it is not equitable to all parties.
Should two women choose to be partnered with each other and a man, and should all parties exercise their free will (i.e. not out of pressure) in deciding to be polyfidelitous, then that could be considered polyamory. But it doesn’t necessitate that those “Chads” horde all of the women leaving some straight men with no potential partners. It’s a ridiculous implication.
Yeah under polyamory the only reason some men might lose out on a girlfriend they may have in monogamy is if they’re merely better than nothing. And the guys with multiple poly girlfriends aren’t “chads” they’re the kind of guy who can have a good time hanging out with their wife’s partners.
No, you don’t. Polyamory ≠ Triad (three people all in a relationship together). Triads are certainly a form polyamory can take, but a very small percentage of polyamorous people are in one. They just happen to be way over represented in media which causes people to assume that that’s what polyamory is. I know a whole lot of polyamorous people; none of them are in a triad, and most of the men and some of the women are straight.
Lmao. It’s going to be another dude. You know it. I know it. He knows it. 😉
Actually you’ll just be alone and some chad will have 2-3 girlfriends.
Well if it’s too expensive to be single, suicide it is I guess 🤷♂️
It doesn’t work. You just end up here again
Boo! I want a refund, this game is broken pay 2 play bullshit!
Just moneyball the problem and get two or three boyfriends instead
That’s…not polyamory. That’s a harem.
It’s poly if the girls have two girlfriends and a boyfriend
Gigan indicated that certain men will have multiple female partners while other men will have none. This implies that they believe that those female partners will be tied to that one man and won’t have the ability to take on any other male partners should they choose to. Such a situation is not polyamory as it is not equitable to all parties.
Should two women choose to be partnered with each other and a man, and should all parties exercise their free will (i.e. not out of pressure) in deciding to be polyfidelitous, then that could be considered polyamory. But it doesn’t necessitate that those “Chads” horde all of the women leaving some straight men with no potential partners. It’s a ridiculous implication.
Yeah under polyamory the only reason some men might lose out on a girlfriend they may have in monogamy is if they’re merely better than nothing. And the guys with multiple poly girlfriends aren’t “chads” they’re the kind of guy who can have a good time hanging out with their wife’s partners.
ugh I wish I was a bi bro then I’d be in heaven either way 😩
You don’t have to be bi to be poly though.
It helps
Generally speaking, you do. But since one is sexual and the other is amorous, you don’t.
No, you don’t. Polyamory ≠ Triad (three people all in a relationship together). Triads are certainly a form polyamory can take, but a very small percentage of polyamorous people are in one. They just happen to be way over represented in media which causes people to assume that that’s what polyamory is. I know a whole lot of polyamorous people; none of them are in a triad, and most of the men and some of the women are straight.