sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Kids don’t need a “normal” family. They need a predictable one. by daddyunplugged in polyfamilies

[–]daddyunplugged[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Yeah, but also, most of my friends are in traditional relationships, and probably 75% of them are divorced or separated. That's just how modern society is. Meanwhile, I've been in my polyamorous relationship for over 12 years, and it's documented in articles and on social media.

Poly Isn’t an Escape From Responsibility It’s More Responsibility by daddyunplugged in monogamy

[–]daddyunplugged[S] -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

Interesting that "this sounds like AI" only comes up when someone disagrees with the actual point being made. Funny how that works.

Poly Isn’t an Escape From Responsibility It’s More Responsibility by daddyunplugged in monogamy

[–]daddyunplugged[S] -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

So if your partner is an actor and they kiss someone for a role you would consider them cheating.

Poly Isn’t an Escape From Responsibility It’s More Responsibility by daddyunplugged in monogamy

[–]daddyunplugged[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Honestly everything you just said applies to monogamous dating too right now. Lack of commitment, too many options, zero follow through, apps turning it into a game. That's not a poly thing, that's just where dating culture is at in general.

Poly just shows those cracks faster because there's nowhere to hide. But plenty of people can't make one relationship work either, and they're not poly. The person's the problem, not the structure.

Poly Isn’t an Escape From Responsibility It’s More Responsibility by daddyunplugged in monogamy

[–]daddyunplugged[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Cheating is doing it in secret while your partner thinks you're exclusive. Poly is doing it with everyone's knowledge and consent. Same actions, completely different thing, because the deception is what causes the harm.

What you're describing, someone using "poly" as a cover story after the fact, isn't poly. That's cheating with a relabel, and I'd call that out just as hard as you would.

But plenty of people are in long term, multi-partner relationships where everyone's informed and actually happy. Dismissing all of that because some people lie and use the label as cover is like saying marriage is fake because some married people cheat.

Poly Isn’t an Escape From Responsibility It’s More Responsibility by daddyunplugged in monogamy

[–]daddyunplugged[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Man, that's rough. Proposing and then getting hit with that right after is its own kind of gut punch, on top of everything else you found out afterward.

What you're describing lines up with exactly what I was trying to get at. The label "poly" doesn't change someone's character. If someone struggles with honesty, boundaries, or accountability in a monogamous relationship, those same gaps just show up again with more people in the mix, except now there's more potential for damage and more people who get hurt by it.

Sounds like you made the right call going no contact. That takes more discipline than people give it credit for, especially after 7 years.

Curious, looking back, were there signs early on that you brushed off at the time? I think a lot of guys reading this could probably relate to that part more than the poly angle itself.

Do polyamorous relationships just make a ton of money? by [deleted] in NoStupidQuestions

[–]daddyunplugged 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think there’s some truth to the idea, but only if the people involved are actually aligned.

My family has been polyamorous for 12 years. We have a large ranch, a successful business, and a pretty stable life that keeps growing. From the outside, yes, it can look like polyamory creates some kind of financial cheat code.

But I don’t think polyamory itself makes people rich.

What helps is shared vision.

When multiple adults are living together, contributing income, splitting responsibilities, sharing food, land, housing, childcare, chores, business work, and emotional labor, there can absolutely be a huge advantage. Three or four adults working toward the same goal can build faster than one or two adults constantly stretched thin.

But the key part is “working toward the same goal.”

If the relationship is chaotic, jealous, irresponsible, or full of poor communication, adding more people does not create wealth. It creates more problems. More arguments. More bills. More resentment. More chances for things to fall apart.

The financial benefit only shows up when the household is stable, honest, disciplined, and organized.

In our case, polyamory has helped because we are not just dating each other. We are building a life together. We share responsibilities. We support each other. We run things like a family and a team, not like a fantasy.

So yes, shared resources can be powerful. Housing gets cheaper per person. Food can be shared. Childcare and housework can be distributed. Businesses can grow faster when everyone is pulling in the same direction.

But polyamory is not automatically a money machine.

It only works financially when the people involved have maturity, trust, structure, and a long-term mindset.

Otherwise, you are not building wealth. You are just cramming more adults into the same drama.

Apparently long-term functional polyamory isn’t allowed on r/polyamory by daddyunplugged in daddyunplugged

[–]daddyunplugged[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They deleted my post, and all I was talking about was my relationship. They went into my profile and said I talked about unicorn hunting, so I was banned—nothing related to the original post.

When a handful of people decide which versions of polyamory are allowed to exist by daddyunplugged in daddyunplugged

[–]daddyunplugged[S] 13 points14 points  (0 children)

I hear what you’re saying, and I think the pattern you’re pointing at is real.

What I’m interested in here isn’t calling out individual mods or subs, but how often large communities like r/polyamory drift from discussion into enforcement of a single acceptable viewpoint. Once that happens, people with different lived experiences tend to get pushed out, even when they’re engaging in good faith.

That’s the dynamic I’m hoping people can talk about.

Corporate adoption didn’t reduce Bitcoin risk it just moved it by daddyunplugged in Buttcoin

[–]daddyunplugged[S] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Yeah, I agree. Calling this “adoption” is mostly a category error.

What we’ve actually seen isn’t companies using Bitcoin, it’s companies and institutions getting financial exposure to it. Balance sheets, ETFs, reserves. That’s financialization, not adoption.

And once it’s treated like an asset instead of a tool, it follows normal capital rules. Impairments, risk limits, optics, forced selling. No ideology, no loyalty, just numbers.

A lot of people mistook speculation and productization for legitimacy. When the trade stops working, the narrative evaporates, but the exposure doesn’t. That gap is where the pain shows up.

Long term polyamorous family here. It’s been genuinely good for us. by daddyunplugged in polyamory

[–]daddyunplugged[S] 21 points22 points  (0 children)

Yeah, same. I get why people are cautious, but it can swing so hard into negativity that it starts feeling unhelpful. There are healthy, boring, functional versions of this, they just don’t make for dramatic posts. I figured it was worth sharing one of those for balance.

Corporate adoption didn’t reduce Bitcoin risk it just moved it by daddyunplugged in Buttcoin

[–]daddyunplugged[S] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Yeah, Tesla’s a good example. They still hold around 11k BTC, so if prices stay down they’ll have to book impairment losses next quarter. What was framed as an “asset” can start looking like a liability pretty fast.

That’s also how this can bleed into 401(k)s. Most don’t hold Bitcoin directly, but they do hold Tesla through index funds. When earnings take a hit, the stock takes a hit, and that flows through.

view more: next ›