mouthporn.net
#housing typologies – @myurbandream on Tumblr
Avatar

An urbanist in the suburbs.

@myurbandream / myurbandream.tumblr.com

Tag / @ / PM if you want me to see something; notifications are off. Professional land planner. Geek. Mom. Gray-ace feminist. (About 40% Star Wars reblogs, 30% politics, and 30% random. Occasionally NSFW.)
Avatar
Avatar
ultrafacts

Source If you want more facts, follow Ultrafacts

I’m buying a castle.

Update: The castle as of April 2015 is actually only around $1,300,000 USD now due to the currency exchange rates! :D

this goes even further, some European countries will give you a castle for free if you submit a plan stating how you intend to restore or preserve it. Italy alone for example has somewhere between 100 and 300 castles they intend to give away to anyone with intent to be a caretaker, they literally cant keep track of how many discount castles are up for grabs it doesn’t even have to be an ambitious plan, even if it says you just intend to keep it from becoming more shitty and will occasionally add a few bricks when you can afford it. given that most of them come with land you could convert the grounds to actually produce enough income to pay for the repairs- like setting up apple trees and brewing cider you sell with your castle name on the bottle, or raising some goats for cheese, a hobby farm could turn this into an actual income opportunity. hell, throwing parties at the castle could make it an income opportunity they will literally -GIVE- you a castle to make sure someone is taking care of it rather then let them all sit empty

Avatar

Capitalism is getting very much more dystopian very quickly

It’s a matter of time before companies start their own Pod-communities and ‘strongly encourage’ workers to live there and set up rules like no alcohol and no defamation of the company in the Pods. 

As nightmarish as this is (and it is), this is only new for documented white people. From seasonal archiculture workers to construction workers to sweatshops, ‘sleep where you work and live your whole life controlled by your boss and coworkers pressured to spy on you’, has been very much a thing for a looooooooong time. 

This is one of many things capitalism has always done to workers and now they’re going “hhmmmm.. if I can do this to some workers, why not all of them? if I present it as a hip new way of urban living people for the ‘freelancers’ that I exploit, I might even be able to do it without the armed guards that run my sweatshops and plantations.”

I don’t really get the issue with the “sex is banned” part tho

I don’t want to hyperfocus on that part because ‘live without privacy, convert your bed into a desk by day and just work work work’ is distopian enough as it is and I don’t really want to distract from a conversation about the new fuedalism to just talk about sex. 

But can you not understand how that monotomous soulless life defined by work becomes even more soulless when you are not permitted to engage in (what is for most allosexuals) one of the most intimate moments of recreational joy and interpersonal connection? & how much it says about our lack of power when we live in places that control our sexual and reproductive lives? 

well yeah, but it’s communal living. I mean you’re spot on with the rest but idk, a ban on sex when you share your living quarters with like two dozen other people? it doesn’t seem that deep tbh. 

You know, I’ve spend time in socialist and anarchist self-organized communal living spaces where lots of people shared bedrooms because they liked it and all these spaces had a place for sex. They all acknowledged that that was a thing many humans loved and valued and so they organized to make that good thing possible. Some had a spare room with a lock on the inside that couples could use, others had dorms where sex was okay and dorms where it was not so people could choose where to sleep. It is not difficult to have communal living for those that like sharing bedrooms and also organize a place for sex. 

This, however, is not communal living. This is crammed, dehumanized corporate living. This is squeezing as many people as possible into a space defined by work. The inhabitants own nothing in this space and have no control over their environment, they can’t even paint the walls let along organize the space to meet their needs. In such a space, sex is made impossible on purpose:

“We built the pods facing each other so the community polices itself”

The people that made this could have organized privacy and opportunities for sex. They deliberately did not do this, they dilerabetely designed the space for minimum privacy. The purposeful banning of sex from this space is just one part, but one very obvious part, of the way these spaces are not build for humans, they are build for employees whose whole identity should be limited to their productivity. 

In the 19th and early 20th centuries, mining communities and factory towns encouraged workers to join their ranks by offering company housing and company stores, where workers and their families wouldn’t have to worry about money, because their rent and whatever they wanted from the store would simply be deducted from their paychecks.

Didn’t take long for workers to realize they were spending over 100% of their paychecks, and would have to work the rest of their lives in soul-crushing poverty to pay the company back.

“Workation” is not a word. You’re either working, or you aren’t. You cannot vacation and work simultaneously. You must be doing one or the other.

I would also point out that these communal living conditions are already mandatory in China’s FoxxConn, which manufactures iPhones, among other things. They have a very serious problem with worker suicides. Some dickhead being allowed to bring their acoustic guitar and their own ironic bedsheets is not going to change that underlying assault on the human psyche.

And anyone who thinks sex won’t be happening just because you’ve banned it (even for couples??? for some reason???) and eliminated privacy (so, where tf do people change clothes and shower?) is a damned fool. Humans are going to fuck. It’s instinct, and it can’t just be turned off. If you want a sex-free workforce, you’re going to have to hire a staff that’s 100% made up of asexuals. And I hope they still tell you to go fuck yourself.

Banning sex will also NOT prevent sexual assault. It’s far more likely to encourage it, because you’re taking away people’s access to have sex consentually and safely. And I’m sure these pod/employee dorm living set-ups will be most common among dudebro-dominated fields. You can bet that if someone’s raped, BOTH will be fired for “having sex” against the rules. Or just the victim, for “tempting” the rapist who would otherwise have still been a gosh darn exemplary employee. And the victim’s then out of their job AND their housing, and probably blackballed from their field because of the “doesn’t follow company rules” mark on their employment record.

Plus, you know damn well that the CEOs who think this is a great idea just want that extra money for themselves so more women might fuck them. It wasn’t enough that they keep all of the money, now they want sex to be exclusive to one-percenters, too, while everyone else is forbidden from ever having a waking moment that’s not dedicated to the boss’ profits, ever again.

Avatar

A Pictorial History of Suburbia

Hello friends! Sorry for all the delays this week- exams were brutal and so was the stomach flu. Now that I am feeling better, I want to present the last Sunday post of the year - the remaining weeks will be devoted to the McMansionHell 2016 cluster-you-know-what retrospective, which should be very exciting. By the New Year, McMansion Hell will have a new logo, and a fresh dossier of topics, so stay tuned! 

On to business!

Introduction

We are all familiar with exurbia - the sleeper cities in which our beloved McMansions loom over the non-existent sidewalks. However, this way of living is very recent in the grand scheme of history, even in America whose history is very short. 

Dallas, TX and Suburbs by Andreas Praefcke (CC-BY-SA 3.0)

The suburb is as old as the English language itself - the word dates back to Chaucer - but the exurb, and other contemporary ways of ordering our lives is very recent, its origins begin around 1945. By 1970, the exurb had reached its final from: the SLUG (Spread-out, Low-density, Unguided Growth.)

But to know the present, we must first, of course, understand the past.

A Visual History of Neighborhood Shapes (1750-1940)

Before there were suburban areas, there were, of course, urban areas. Until around the 1850s, most people in America either lived in the urban cores of cities or in rural towns. The rural towns remained pretty much unchanged until around 1940 when many of them were absorbed into the sprawling cities. 

The Early Urban Core (1750-1850)

From around 1750-1850, the urban core was pretty simple. A city would usually form around some sort of natural resource, usually a body of water, and was usually planned in a grid formation. The houses were narrow, almost always attached or semi-detached, and had no front yard. (1)

Chicago in 1836. (Open in new tab for full res)

The Urban Expansion (c.1830-1900)

In the 1850s, the cities began to expand, thanks to help of inventions like the horse-drawn streetcar, ferries, and cable cars. These expansions adopted the attached house format of the inner city, but detached housing also existed, especially in the Midwest. (2)

Allentown, PA in 1855

The Railroad Suburbs (1850-1930)

In the 1860s, the first true suburbs were born, thanks to the steam railroad. These neighborhoods were a bit more sprawled out: detached houses became the norm, along with small front yards and detached garages. Houses tended to congregate around rail stops, with the fanciest houses being the closest to the railroad. 

Louisville, KY in 1873. Note railway suburbs in the top left corner. 

The Streetcar Suburbs (1890-1930)

The invention of the electric streetcar in 1887 furthered a linear sprawl outside of the city. The houses remained more detached, with paved sidewalks. The goal again was to be closest to the streetcar lines.(3) Many of these neighborhoods featured mail order houses from Sears Roebuck, Aladdin, or Montgomery Wards. Streetcar suburbs would remain popular until the 1930s. 

Philadelphia, PA in 1898. 

Copy of a page from a 1912 Sears Roebuck Mail-order house catalog

Early Automobile Suburbs (1915-1940)

Los Angeles, CA in 1917

The 1910 Ford Model T brought motoring, previously a pastime of the wealthy, into the homes of the average Americans. By 1929, four out of five families owned a car, and by 1920 new developments were designed to accommodate these new motorists. 

These developments, which no longer relied on walkability, were sprawled out with often curvilinear streets. Sidewalks were beginning to be omitted, and access to public transit was a non-issue.(4)

Early Auto Suburb, via Library of Congress. 

By this point, houses were detached with wide lots spanning 40 feet+ across, front yard setbacks, and a front driveway. These suburbs were not transit-hostile, but they often joined up with main city streets causing enormous amounts of traffic, leading to issues further on. However, the Great Depression put a hold on this type of development, and the housing market in general was crippled until the start of WWII. 

True Suburbia, 1940-1980

The Post-WWII suburbs began in 1934 Federal Housing Administration, which implemented strict subdivision and planning rules. However, the effects of these rules didn’t really materialize until the 1940s, since the 1930s housing market was so incredibly sluggish - something not helped by the fact that nonessential construction was prohibited during the war to conserve resources. 

Over these years a massive demand for housing was being built up, and the demand for new homes was insatiable. The new FHA guidelines mandated that new housing developments be free of direct through-traffic, which completely changed the way neighborhoods were designed. 

Levittown, PA

Most of these neighborhoods were built beyond the edge of the city, where many towns were planning on building a federally-subsidized highway, with a system of attached arterials (high volume streets). The system of streets were designed so none could be used as a shortcut to other areas as a web of curvy loops and cul-de-sacs. 

Ohio Turnpike, 1950s. National Archives. 

The houses in these developments were placed on wide lots spanning 100 feet or more, with long blocks (often omitting sidewalks), front driveways, and attached garages. Mass building techniques from the war period (such as prefabrication) made the rapid construction of nearly-identical homes easy and extremely cheap. 

1950 Gunnison Homes Catalog by Jennifer Sale (CC-BY-NC-2.0)

This pattern of development was the norm until the era of exurbia, around the 1980s, the era of the SLUG. 

What Was Before: Rural Towns Before Exurbia

I’m going to take a minute here to focus on the rural developments that were a mainstay of American life until the adoption of the car.

McKinney, TX in 1876. 

These places often centered around a singular industry, most often agriculture and related processes. These developments were often passed through by trains by the middle of the 19th century, however they rarely ever developed past this point and were late to adopt the car.

Rural towns often have one or two Main Streets, with a mixture of different house and lot types, sizes, and uses - something that was permissible before zoning laws were in place.

Lynn, MA in 1820. 

These areas are walkable out of necessity, with shops located in the center of town. The idyllic American ideal of low-density living, walking to the store and knowing all of your neighbors is an inherently rural phenomenon. The adoption of zoning regulations has made these types of developments almost impossible to replicate, despite their beloved, (if often bucolic) reputation.

Many of these small towns disappeared during the outward expansion of the 1950s-80s, or were abandoned as agricultural work became scarce during the Great Depression. Some, however, are still thriving, particularly those in the Midwestern US where farming is still a common career path.

Exurbia - Neighborhoods of Wasted Space

Exurbia is a low-density community built on previous farmland that requires a car trip to complete the most basic tasks, such as grocery shopping. It is a bedroom community - the working population commutes (by car) to work, and the young population goes to school. 

These communities arose from the same desire to prevent through traffic, and the desire for gated communities and luxury amenities such as golf courses. The FHA’s desire to prevent adjacent non-conforming uses (aka commercial spaces or other walkable amenities) eliminated local commerce and relegated every little interaction to big box stores and the car.(5)

A Cincinnati Suburb. Public Domain.

The Federal Highway Act of 1956 that enacted the interstate system only made these types of developments more and more frequent, furthered by more and more highway spending over the years. 

As for the types of homes in these subdivisions? Well…

…it’s McMansion Hell. 

I hope you enjoyed this tour of suburban history, supplemented by drawings by me (based on observations from the books in the works cited section below.) Stay tuned for a Thursday DOUBLE FEATURE, and next Sunday’s McMansion Hell Retrospective!

If you like this post and want to see more like it as well as get access to behind-the-scenes content, consider supporting me on Patreon

Also, be sure to check out the Certified Dank McMansionHell Store! 30% of proceeds go to architectural preservation/environmental charities. 

All photos in this post are Public Domain unless otherwise noted. 

Works Cited: 
Main Source: 
McAlester, Virginia Savage. A Field Guide to American Houses: The Definitive Guide to Identifying and Understanding America’s Domestic Architecture. Random House Inc, 2015. 
Specific citations: 
(1) Ibid. p.62 (2) Ibid. p. 63 (3) Ibid. p. 67 (4) Ibid. p. 68 (5) Duany et. al. p. 96
Ancillary Sources: 
Duany, Andres, Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk, and Jeff Speck. Suburban nation: the rise of sprawl and the decline of the American Dream. New York: North Point Press, 2010.
Jackson, Kenneth T. Crabgrass frontier: the suburbanization of the United States. New York: Oxford University Press, 1985.
Avatar
reblogged

it seems so strange to me that the only people it is socially acceptable to live with (once you reach a certain stage in life) are sexual partners? like why can’t i live with my best friend? why can’t i raise a child with them? why do i need to have sex with someone in order to live with them? why do we put certain relationships on a pedestal? why don’t we value non-sexual relationships enough? why do life partners always have to be sexual partners?

Avatar
greenjudy

My grandmother and grandfather more or less adopted my grandmother’s best friend back in the 50s. After my grandfather died (before I was born, back in 1968 or so) they continued to keep house together, platonic best friends, and they hung together until they died, a few months apart, in 2007.

It’s quite recently, as far as I can tell, that living arrangements like that have stopped being regarded as normal.

Avatar
deathcomes4u

It’s absolutely a new thing to find this stuff weird, and it has a lot to do with media pretending that the nuclear family and marriage are the only reasons to live with other people.

I’ve lived in a 3 adult household my whole life. My parents and their best friend. This was never weird to me, even though everyone my age thought it was because the media never portrayed these kinds of housing arrangements. As far as i was concerned, I just had an extra non-blood parent.

According to my parents, it was very common in the 70′s-80′s to buy houses with your friends, because it was financially smart to do so (so long as you were certain they were close friends who wouldn’t fall out with you and fuck everything up). Houses and house payments are much more manageable when you split the bills 3-4 ways instead of just two.

Millenials aren’t the first to think it’s a great idea to just shack up with friends. That’s housemating without the hastle of living with strangers. It’s still a good idea to shack up with people you’ve known a long time so you know how you’ll get on living together, but still. In the current economy, it’s pretty much now our only option for affording anything.

I think, and I’m not researched on this, but I think conservatives probably tried to suppress images of non-nuclear families because they likely thought it would encourage ideas of polygamy, polyamory, open sexual relationships with or without marriage, as well as other relationship types they thought of as un-christian or unsavoury. I could be wrong, but that shit wouldn’t surprise me.

(And i want to make a note that there’s also a disturbing amount of asexual denial around that makes people go ‘if they’re living together they HAVE to be banging because why wouldn’t they?’ and that shit both creeps me out and annoys me no end. People can be in relationships without sex. People can live together without sex. Sex is not the be-all and end-all and people being taught to think it is really need to stop).

Don’t let the media fool you into believing you can only live with a sexual partner or blood family. Someone somewhere has an agenda for making these seem abnormal, when really it’s just practical.

Avatar
myurbandream

All of the above, with bells on.

Reblogging because I have been thinking about this all my adult life morning and I have more to say:

A lot of the insistence on only living with your sexual/life partner goes hand in hand with where you live - only a married, sex-and-kids-having couple are meant to buy a house together. Anyone else who buys a house together is considered weird and deviant, which is absolutely bullshit, but it also leads to another problem: all those other “deviant” living arrangements are relegated to apartments, which are somehow considered to be less worthy homes. This is even more bullshit.

We need to end the stigma against living in apartments. A lot of the Cities and Townships I work with are incredibly biased toward apartments - won’t allow them to be built, zone them out, impose cost-prohibitive standards on any proposed multi-family projects, etc - and I’m just sick of it, ok?

The City staff and council members and commissioners all say they don’t want “those people” living in their city… I’m sorry, which people are you referring to? College students? Young adult professionals? Young couples just starting out? Single adults? Best friends? Nuclear families who have just moved into town and don’t have a single-family home lined up to move in to right away? Nuclear families who can’t afford to own a single-family home? Siblings, or parent + adult-children families? Please tell me which of these people you find objectionable so that we can more easily profile and discriminate against them. Assholes.

/rant, this is a complicated issue, interwoven with a lot of other complicated issues, and I have a lot of Strong Feelings about them.

Avatar

it seems so strange to me that the only people it is socially acceptable to live with (once you reach a certain stage in life) are sexual partners? like why can’t i live with my best friend? why can’t i raise a child with them? why do i need to have sex with someone in order to live with them? why do we put certain relationships on a pedestal? why don’t we value non-sexual relationships enough? why do life partners always have to be sexual partners?

Avatar
greenjudy

My grandmother and grandfather more or less adopted my grandmother’s best friend back in the 50s. After my grandfather died (before I was born, back in 1968 or so) they continued to keep house together, platonic best friends, and they hung together until they died, a few months apart, in 2007.

It’s quite recently, as far as I can tell, that living arrangements like that have stopped being regarded as normal.

Avatar
deathcomes4u

It’s absolutely a new thing to find this stuff weird, and it has a lot to do with media pretending that the nuclear family and marriage are the only reasons to live with other people.

I’ve lived in a 3 adult household my whole life. My parents and their best friend. This was never weird to me, even though everyone my age thought it was because the media never portrayed these kinds of housing arrangements. As far as i was concerned, I just had an extra non-blood parent.

According to my parents, it was very common in the 70′s-80′s to buy houses with your friends, because it was financially smart to do so (so long as you were certain they were close friends who wouldn’t fall out with you and fuck everything up). Houses and house payments are much more manageable when you split the bills 3-4 ways instead of just two.

Millenials aren’t the first to think it’s a great idea to just shack up with friends. That’s housemating without the hastle of living with strangers. It’s still a good idea to shack up with people you’ve known a long time so you know how you’ll get on living together, but still. In the current economy, it’s pretty much now our only option for affording anything.

I think, and I’m not researched on this, but I think conservatives probably tried to suppress images of non-nuclear families because they likely thought it would encourage ideas of polygamy, polyamory, open sexual relationships with or without marriage, as well as other relationship types they thought of as un-christian or unsavoury. I could be wrong, but that shit wouldn’t surprise me.

(And i want to make a note that there’s also a disturbing amount of asexual denial around that makes people go ‘if they’re living together they HAVE to be banging because why wouldn’t they?’ and that shit both creeps me out and annoys me no end. People can be in relationships without sex. People can live together without sex. Sex is not the be-all and end-all and people being taught to think it is really need to stop).

Don’t let the media fool you into believing you can only live with a sexual partner or blood family. Someone somewhere has an agenda for making these seem abnormal, when really it’s just practical.

Avatar
myurbandream

All of the above, with bells on.

Avatar
reblogged
Avatar
myurbandream

Can I hear your rant about the impacts and implications of single family housing? I am actually quite interested.

Avatar

@jasperskywalker, you have unleashed a monster.  My epic rant about single-family housing is …..too long for ease of use on tumblr, so I’m linking to my LJ.  It is really epic.  Like, about 5 pages long.  I have Strong Feelings and a lot to say about them.  Sorry?

The one-paragraph summary:  ….what we’re left with is gentrifying urban centers where poorer people can’t even afford to rent, and sprawled out suburban edges where it takes two hours on the bus to get anywhere, and people everywhere are grinding themselves into the ground because they are so isolated by their lifestyle that they have no support and no options.  Obviously the neighborhoods that already exist are difficult to fix, but if new development could break away from this pattern of binary housing typologies, we could create better options going forward.  We need to heave ourselves out of the rut of building only single-family homes and apartments, and allow people to either build other concepts as new construction, or retrofit older buildings for new configurations.  And if we could just grow out of this insistence on each nuclear family living alone, a lot of our socioeconomic struggles would be improved, but instead our society is clinging so tightly to the American Dream of Suburban Home Ownership that no other options are being pursued.

@faerieprincessfuriosa, relevant to your post earlier today.  I miss you, let’s hang out soon!

Avatar

Still mad that I can't add tags to answers on my phone.

Avatar
reblogged
Avatar
toshio

but why do we have to get married and have children

why can’t we just get a group of friends and live happily ever after in an apartment and share the profits

i’d be much happier that way

this is the most millennial thing ive ever read 

Nothing wrong with this, you can have roof parties and grill food. Better yet just save up together and buy a small house split the bills and mortgage.

- the nuclear family as an economic unit has really only existed for a few hundred years, across part but not all of the world

- the nuclear family unit is the easiest to exploit under capitalism, because parents have to work externally to provide for their children. They work to pay for child care for their children while they work. They work to earn money to feed their kids and to give them nice things to make up for all the time they spend away, at work.

- a huge amount of labour is necessary every day to keep a family fed, their house clean, etc. some families are wealthy enough to outsource this by hiring staff, most are not.

- capitalism is a pointless middleman in this. we should just live cooperatively.

- share houses and intentional communities are awesome

- people of different life stages function well together because they have complimentary needs and abilities

- kids are less of a stress and burden in a home with lots of different adults to provide support and love, as well as sharing household tasks.

- destroy capitalism through cooperativism.

And think how GREAT this would be for folks who want non-blood family, or polyamorous relationships, or like kids but don’t want to have their own, or like having housemates but don’t want to get married.

I’m telling you, as long as I could have a space that was mine (small group of houses or one very large house), I would be so happy with this setup.

This is how I currently live. There are 5 of us right now splitting rent on a house. And it’s wonderful.

Avatar
amemait

I see this post and every time think of my mum’s story of my parents and their friends who thought about doing exactly this with buying a house and she, because she has a tame lawyer, asked said lawyer and he said it’s doable financially but don’t do it I’ve seen so many friends no longer be friends from doing this.

*trying to convince more people to move into house because communes are useful and everyone feels les stressed and there are actual humans around who you don’t hate who understand when you need to go hide for a while*

….I’m gonna need a larger house.

Avatar
myurbandream

ALLLLLLL OF THIS!!!

I’m professionally fascinated by different housing typologies, and how they have changed and evolved over time due to cultural influence. As a previous poster said, the idea of the nuclear family living in isolation is very new. Unfortunately it’s also deeply engrained in modern society at a policy level. Most zoning and subdivision ordinances are very quick to define “single-family” with a very narrow view, and make it the predominant housing option allowed, with “multi-family” aka apartment complexes as the unwanted but necessary evil second option. Very few jurisdictions leave allowances for anything else. Atypical housing arrangements, like commune-style homes, have to fit themselves in with special permission if they’re LUCKY - in a lot of jurisdictions you are completely shit outta luck if you want to do even something as basic as a garage apartment. Forget a home actually designed for "multiple" overlapping “families”, friend groups, or etc.

I’ll save my rant about the impacts and implications of single-family housing on economic classes, because there’s probably only three people on the planet that care. But just so you know, I am VERY ANGRY about it.

Avatar
Avatar
toshio

but why do we have to get married and have children

why can’t we just get a group of friends and live happily ever after in an apartment and share the profits

i’d be much happier that way

this is the most millennial thing ive ever read 

Nothing wrong with this, you can have roof parties and grill food. Better yet just save up together and buy a small house split the bills and mortgage.

- the nuclear family as an economic unit has really only existed for a few hundred years, across part but not all of the world

- the nuclear family unit is the easiest to exploit under capitalism, because parents have to work externally to provide for their children. They work to pay for child care for their children while they work. They work to earn money to feed their kids and to give them nice things to make up for all the time they spend away, at work.

- a huge amount of labour is necessary every day to keep a family fed, their house clean, etc. some families are wealthy enough to outsource this by hiring staff, most are not.

- capitalism is a pointless middleman in this. we should just live cooperatively.

- share houses and intentional communities are awesome

- people of different life stages function well together because they have complimentary needs and abilities

- kids are less of a stress and burden in a home with lots of different adults to provide support and love, as well as sharing household tasks.

- destroy capitalism through cooperativism.

And think how GREAT this would be for folks who want non-blood family, or polyamorous relationships, or like kids but don’t want to have their own, or like having housemates but don’t want to get married.

I’m telling you, as long as I could have a space that was mine (small group of houses or one very large house), I would be so happy with this setup.

Avatar
elaxisfae

Actually I’d be so here for this.

Sharing is the most millennial thing? Awesome. I’m down with that.

Avatar
hockpock

My brother, his wife, their polycule and the 7 combined household cats seem to be doing pretty well.

Avatar
myurbandream

I keep seeing this base post with different threads of commentary and all of them are awesome.

You are using an unsupported browser and things might not work as intended. Please make sure you're using the latest version of Chrome, Firefox, Safari, or Edge.
mouthporn.net