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.
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.