Crying at bake off

Because marriage law in the west is set up for one person marrying one person, historically one man marrying one woman, for entirely patriarchal reasons — that that the man can be sure (or surer, in theory) that his wife is giving birth to his children, not another man’s, especially from the perspective of inheritance. It’s been expanded to cover same-sex marriage, but parenthood on that case is covered by separate legislation.

In other parts of the world polygamy is legal, though usually in the form of one man with several wives, so throuples abound, and are culturally absolutely normal.

I'm not disputing that society was patriarchal at the time marriage was conceived, but the idea of marriage between one man and one woman isn’t "entirely patriarchal." It also follows plenty of logical, common‑sense lines.

The basic premise was that one man and one woman join together to found a family — which of course, back in the day, could only be done between men and women.

The commitment to one partner, to the exclusion of all others, was to protect the interests of that family unit - so yes ensuring that children were unquestionably born to them and only them, as you say, but also making sure that resources were directed into that single household rather than scattered across multiple partners or sets of offspring - ensuring survival and prosperity, etc.

It also had practical implications for health in that it avoids incest and inbreeding - when people know who is related to whom, there is less risk of accidentally marrying/reproducing with a sibling or other family member.

There's also evidence that two-person relationships (i.e. dyadic attachments) make for happier, more secure partnerships, because of the emotional feedback loop. They have less stress and handle conflict better. This is obviously better for public mental health, the stability of the workforce, etc.

There are good reasons why two-person marriage makes sense, and they're not all patriarchal.

I agree. I can’t wait to see more Tom and Mo.
“I dunno, a ginger one?” 😂😂

I’m not actually disagreeing with much or any of that. I’m happily married myself!

My post was intended as a response to the ‘If throuples are normal now, why can’t they marry?’ post by @Shatteredremnants. My point is that marriage has historically been one man and one woman for inheritance/legitimacy reasons, that it was pretty straightforward to expand that to same-sex marriage, in a society that regards marriage as monogamous, but that more than two people being legally married is perfectly normal in other cultures with legal polygamy.

Though I imagine that in polygamy in the most usual sense globally, one man married to two or more women, the women are only married to him and not one another. A throuple marrying would presumably involve each of the three people marrying each of the others, which sounds like a potential legislative nightmare? Can one member divorce one other throuple member but stay married to the other, or is the divorce global for all three?

I mean, I don’t think that anti-throuple marital discrimination is going to be top of anyone’s to do list anytime soon, even if there’s one on the margins of GBBO.😃

Understood, I just read your comment as being derogatory - i.e. that you were saying the reasons for marriage being between two people are entirely patriarchal and that's a bad thing, and those reasons can or should be dismissed nowadays. Sorry if I misinterpreted. But I'm saying that the reasons are good ones and should still apply today.

I agree re. the legislative nightmare! Around inheritance, divorce, custody, child maintenance, debt, next of kin/power of attorney... all sorts of problems! More good societal reasons for two-person marriage, imo.

Yes it is

ChatGPT defines a fetish as a strong sexual attraction to a body part, object or situation. I asked for clarity on the situation reference and the examples it gave were about voyeurism and a power dynamic in a relationship. So I would say that a throuple very much fits that idea. Hope that helps.

Interesting. I asked Google and it said it was a committed, romantic relationship involving three people.
I asked further and found:
'Ultimately, a throuple itself is not a fetish; it is a relationship structure. However, if the motivation behind forming the throuple is solely to fulfill a specific sexual fantasy or to exert control over a third person without treating them as a human being with full autonomy, the relationship has been reduced to a fetish.'

So, if Gabe or one of the other people involved is exploiting one of the partners, then arguably he's representing fetish behaviour. But we obviously don't know; and if we were to speculate/assume about it, I guess it'd be comparable to looking at, say, Linda who lives with her husband Alan (made-up; I can't remember anyone's partners' names from this season) and wondering whether their personal/sex life involves fulfilling a specific sexual fantasy or exerting control over one of them without treating them as a human being with full autonomy.

If anyone on the thread is more interested in the show and the bakes (than the shocking throuple hanky fanning argument) then do come on board on the Bake Off thread on the Telly Addicts board

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/telly_addicts/5570752-the-bake-is-back-the-countdown-to-great-british-bake-off-2026-starts-here here is the link. See you over there 🍰

Well Im not 5, so Im not being 'silly'.

Why wouldnt you say that to a child who asked about it if theres nothing wrong with it?

I’ve just seen a TikTok she’s done where she’s explaining that she gets a helper for each challenge!!!! That’s entirely changed my view on it I’m afraid, that’s so unfair.

Surely that’s just a reasonable adjustment? They aren’t doing the baking for her they’re probably just handing her equipment and helping her keep things steady. It’s call levelling the playing field.

I don’t agree.

Everyone else in the tent is doing it solo. She is doing it as a duo. Having a second person there to help means you’re not baking solo. The actual baking is the easy part. It’s everything else (time management, decorating alone, etc), that takes these from basic bakes to the levels we see.

She’ll still be managing her time? Telling someone what implement she needs next, or when to take something out of the freezer, etc, doesn’t mean she’s not the one carrying the mental load.
They’re just doing the grunt work.

Yes which means she’s physically there able to spend more time baking than the other contestants.

You’re talking about seconds, surely?

No. I’m an avid baker, and all the minutes of getting things ready, getting things from the cupboard and fridge add up.

Ah, come on. The ingredients and implements are arranged on the worktop for all the contestants, they’re not all skipping up and down to the larder / fridge every few minutes?

My opinion is my opinion. It’s totally unfair. If her bake is sloppy she has a second pair of hands to help her make it look better. She has someone getting everything in and out of the oven (perhaps a good thing seeing as she can’t even do that!), she is basically there solely to bake while everyone else has to do everything themselves. Thankfully she’s not a very good baker so she’ll be home within a couple of weeks.

You’re being ridiculous and very discriminatory. The assistance person there is to make sure she isn’t at a disadvantage not to make her AT an advantage. And she’s not the best so it’s not like they are allowing her to win is it?

Back to Nigella ! I’m watching the repeat just now as I missed some of the middle. I’ve noticed they’re using a spoon to eat cake, plus Nigella takes a huge spoonful and shoves it in her mouth in that ooh aren’t I naughty way she does. It’s really beginning to annoy me already!

It's not "ooh aren't I naughty" it's just bad manners and fucking disgusting to watch.

Have to admit I laughed. 😉

The second person won't be there to help her food look better etc. the second person is there to physically reach things she can't..eg...lift the ice-cream into the freezer that is 3 ft above her head, standing and putting the basket in the deep fat fryer for her, switching on the electric mixer that has a switch at the back that she physically can't reach because she's in a wheelchair that means her arms don't reach the 5ft of wheelchair and counter, instead of the 3ft of the counter... that kind of thing, surely?

Not whisk the eggs, whilst she creams some butter and everyone else having to do both tasks one after the other. Or do half the biscuit icing for her

I'm an avid baker too, and I disagree. There will be very strict limits on what the extra person can do - they won't do anything for her that she can do herself. So no two pairs of hands prettying up a dodgy bake, because that will be her job. They will literally do the bits she can't do.

In fact, trying to manage someone else that you don't normally bake with would add to the stress of baking in an unfamiliar environment.

Seems a bit mean spirited to resent perfectly reasonable adaptations that have enabled the first wheelchair user to enter the tent.

I think some people have referred to MasterChef - there have been so many more MC contestants, have some of them been wheelchair users? I wonder how they made adaptations?