Support NeoGAF

[ConradCervantes]

I stupidly went after my ex a few times after we broke up while she was taken. She'd lead me on by saying how unhappy she was in her current predicament and regretting that we ended. I'd think we had hope, but then she'd cave to the guilt and want to work things out with her beau.

I eventually finally grew up and realized that I was wasting my time and letting perfectly fine girls slip on by because I was focused on reliving the past. There are so many good women out there, there's really no need to go after someone else's.

 

[mt1200]

I eventually finally grew up and realized that I was wasting my time and letting perfectly fine girls slip on by because I was focused on reliving the past. There are so many good women out there, there's really no need to go after someone else's.

The problem is that there are a lot of good looking women, but they already have a boyfriend.

It's quite hard, I see that about 97% of women in my dating-age range already are with another man

 

[Robot Pants]

What is this? middle school?

 

[Devolution]

If she's with someone and leaves him for you it just means she'll do it again down the road.

Not true. I'd say if they're a cheater sure but if someone moves on from a relationship they realize has been stale or not working for quite some time that's not the same. Realizing you or your SO (or both) have been treating each other more like siblings than lovers can be quite the wake up call.

 

[Ghost_Protocol]

There is no right or wrong answer here. It's completely subjective. All's fair in love and war as far as I'm concerned. If you've seriously fallen in love with someone, and they feel similarly, who the fuck has the right to condemn the two of you? Make the decision and live with the consequences of your actions.

 

[Trike]

I stupidly went after my ex a few times after we broke up while she was taken. She'd lead me on by saying how unhappy she was in her current predicament and regretting that we ended. I'd think we had hope, but then she'd cave to the guilt and want to work things out with her beau.

I eventually finally grew up and realized that I was wasting my time and letting perfectly fine girls slip on by because I was focused on reliving the past. There are so many good women out there, there's really no need to go after someone else's.

Now that you neatly wrapped up your own thread in the first post, can you tell why you felt the need to abbreviate "significant other"?

 

[Nemo]

If your girl matters that much to you, do what you gotta do. Better than forever regret. You should try to be straightforward though. One of my close friends has had a 15-year-long relationship(married for 10 or something) with his wife, and they seem as close and happy as ever. They met when he cheated on his girlfriend with her.

Long story short, people and romance are complicated, and if a relationship with this person is what you want most, do your best to make it happen.

I'm going to agree with this

And people and romance are really complicated, to the point where it's sometimes better not to think rationally of it

 

[Devolution]

There is no right or wrong answer here. It's completely subjective. All's fair in love and war as far as I'm concerned. If you've seriously fallen in love with someone, and they feel similarly, who the fuck has the right to condemn the two of you? Make the decision and live with the consequences of your actions.

I'd say the best you can do is (if you're the one in pursuit) to encourage the other party to break it off. And if you're the girl/guy with the SO to figure out what the fuck you want asap to mitigate the damage when you do break it off.

 

[Ghost_Protocol]

The problem is that there are a lot of good looking women, but they already have a boyfriend.

It's quite hard, I see that about 97% of women in my dating-age range already are with another man

It's gotten so bad for me that I don't even bother asking if they're single anymore. I don't care. You're either interested in me or you aren't.

I'd say the best you can do is (if you're the one in pursuit) to encourage the other party to break it off. And if you're the girl/guy with the SO to figure out what the fuck you want asap to mitigate the damage when you do break it off.

This kind of thing happens all the time anyway. Most relationships end for financial reasons or because someone found someone else while they were already involved.

 

[jim-jam bongs]

ooh now here's a thread I feel right at home in. for some reason I attract women in relationships who like to toy with me for their own self-esteem. not sure why that is, I'm easy enough on the eyes I guess but it seems to happen too often for that to be the only explanation.

here's the deal: if someone is in a relationship there's only one signal that means anything, and that's them ending the relationship. anything else is just window-shopping or attention seeking.

if you don't believe me, consider that I had someone confess that they were in love with me when drunk, upon which she threw herself at me with her boyfriend in the next room. when she sobered up she decided to stay with her douche of a boyfriend, leaving me feeling extremely disoriented to put it mildly.

 

[Raitosaito]

If your SO leaves you for someone else your relationship was never meant to be. If she thought you were meant for her it wouldn't matter who came her way.

 

[Devolution]

This kind of thing happens all the time anyway. Most relationships end for financial reasons or because someone found someone else while they were already involved.

It happens but people can do well not to torture their SO by being up front and honest.

 

[Esch]

what if the girl in said relationship hits you up? texting late at night under the influence, inviting you to come hand out and smoke, hitting you up on facebook chat? What if you see serious relationship potential between you and this girl, and really enjoy her company (not just wanting to fuck)?

are you still an asshole?

 

[jim-jam bongs]

what if the girl in said relationship hits you up? texting late at night under the influence, inviting you to come hand out and smoke, hitting you up on facebook chat? What if you see serious relationship potential between you and this girl, and really enjoy her company (not just wanting to fuck)?

are you still an asshole?

no you're just a dumbass.

 

[shanshan310]

what if the girl in said relationship hits you up? texting late at night under the influence, inviting you to come hand out and smoke, hitting you up on facebook chat? What if you see serious relationship potential between you and this girl, and really enjoy her company (not just wanting to fuck)?

Then you tell her to break it off with her partner and start a relationship with her that doesn't fuck anyone else over. Do it the right way.

 

[Devolution]

what if the girl in said relationship hits you up? texting late at night under the influence, inviting you to come hand out and smoke, hitting you up on facebook chat? What if you see serious relationship potential between you and this girl, and really enjoy her company (not just wanting to fuck)?

are you still an asshole?

No. You'll probably forever be an asshole to the SO that ends up being cheated on or dumped though. Personally I think you're an asshole if you don't encourage the person to dump their bf/gf and keep on cheating though.

 

[Dog Problems]

It depends on what's motivating you, in my opinion. If you're just after sex then I think that's wrong. But if you have genuine feelings for the person then I don't see the harm in at least trying to win the person over.

 

[blame space]

i don't think you're supposed to covet your neighbor's wife.

 

[Devolution]

i don't think you're supposed to covet your neighbor's wife.

What if you covet your neighbor's husband.

 

[Hartt951]

Well, my girlfriend of a little over a year had a SO when I first started to like her. I didn't want to be "that guy" so I just decided to hide my feelings and just remain friends.

Their relationship ran its course, I was still there for her and then about 7 months after she broke up with the other guy we started dating. The whole process was a long fucking time, but was well worth the wait.

Just wait, bro!

 

[Esch]

No. You'll probably forever be an asshole to the SO that ends up being cheated on or dumped though. Personally I think you're an asshole if you don't encourage the person to dump their bf/gf and keep on cheating though.

no cheating, im trying not to encourage this shit and let her end her shit. Im gonna too busy for it anyway right now.

 

[blame space]

What if you covet your neighbor's husband.

i don't think there are any rules about that. we've found the loophole.

 

[Odrion]

it's not like this thread will talk down someone's dick from doing anything stupid

edit: if you think that whatever is going on with you and some chick "is the exception", it's double the unexception.

double edit: if you're young and dumb go ahead! I'm sure more people here have done it in college than they want to admit.

 

[akira28]

What if you covet your neighbor's husband.

I think as long as the wife holds you down, and no one enjoys anything, the Bible allows for it.

 

[YoungHav]

Absolutely nothing wrong with it. Relationships and lifelong monogamy are a fiction created by insecure men threatened by women's sexuality.

Men will hit on your woman, charge it to the game and get over it.

 

[blame space]

I charge everything to the game, personally.

 

[shanshan310]

Absolutely nothing wrong with it. Relationships and lifelong monogamy are a fiction created by insecure men threatened by women's sexuality.

Men will hit on your woman, charge it to the game and get over it.

That's your view of relationships.

 

[DY_nasty]

You can express interest with committing the highest of treason aka infidelity. Its rare as fuck to find a couple that's been together for 50 years...

I definitely wouldn't make a habit of it. And I'd also say back the hell off when its clear you're not wanted.

I charge everything to the game, personally.

.

 

[Nakazato]

As someone who had an ex leave because of shit like this.... Its Grimey as fuck.

 

[blame space]

 

[ShockingAlberto]

Wait it out.

At worst, state your feelings but don't do a single fucking thing beyond that until their relationship is over, if it ever is.

If he or she doesn't choose you, then tough luck.

 

[Knox]

As long as they aren't married, I don't see a problem with flirting/talking. I wouldn't go any further though without her breaking off the current relationship, letting yourself get too involved is asking for disappointment. I'm sure it would suck to lose a girl like that, but honestly it's probably better in the long run because you'll be freed up for someone that actually wants to be with you.

 

[Devolution]

no cheating, im trying not to encourage this shit and let her end her shit. Im gonna too busy for it anyway right now.

Then I don't see the big deal. Carry on sir.

 

[highrider]

If your a piece of shit, then yes it is ok.

.

 

[YoungHav]

That's your view of relationships.

I am going by what nature tells me. We aren't attracted to only 1 person our whole lives. Western society has done everyone a disservice by pounding the idea of monogamy as being the only viable option when it comes to relationships. That fairy tale shit is for the birds, shit happens.

And what wrong is a person that pursues a taken person doing exactly? At the end of the day the taken person is responsible for how they handle the pursuer. I'm not waiting anything out, I'm not eternal mothafluppa.

 

[kittens]

Tell them you have a crush on them, see if they and their partner are into open relationships, and if so, go nuts. If not, respect their boundaries and back off.

Boom.

 

[kswiston]

Biology is a weak argument for stuff like this. From a biology standpoint, humans are typically socially monogamous. It is ridiculous to argue otherwise since almost every civilization on earth practices social monogamy regardless of how isolated they were historically. Polygamy (especially polyandry) is rarely the dominant social structure of a culture/society, although some minority of individuals within a monogamous culture may practice it, especially if they have greater wealth. Opportunistic cheating has always been fairly common, and is probably a biological urge. However (judging from hunter gatherer societies and other primates) so are opportunistic murder and rape.

I don't think we should reject societal norms because they are counter to our primal urges. Plenty of these norms are useful in maintaining social bonds. Also, people choose to enter monogamous relationships. No one is forcing them to (most of the time anyhow in modern western society). If you want to be free to sleep with whomever you want, go right ahead. If you want to enter a more laxed relationship where you and your partner are not sexually exclusive, that is fine too (as long as both people truly agree to it). However, if you are entering an exclusive relationship under the pretense of monogamy, than there is no excuse for cheating. Especially serial cheating. We are not animals, and can control our base desires.

 

[Devolution]

Biology is a weak argument for stuff like this. From a biology standpoint, humans are typically socially monogamous. It is ridiculous to argue otherwise since almost every civilization on earth practices social monogamy regardless of how isolated they were historically. Polygamy (especially polyandry) is rarely the dominant social structure of a culture/society, although some minority of individuals within a monogamous culture may practice it, especially if they have greater wealth. Opportunistic cheating has always been fairly common, and is probably a biological urge. However (judging from hunter gatherer societies and other primates) so are opportunistic murder and rape.

I don't think we should reject societal norms because they are counter to our primal urges. Plenty of these norms are useful in maintaining social bonds. Also, people choose to enter monogamous relationships. No one is forcing them to (most of the time anyhow in modern western society). If you want to be free to sleep with whomever you want, go right ahead. If you want to enter a more laxed relationship where you and your partner are not sexually exclusive, that is fine too (as long as both people truly agree to it). However, if you are entering an exclusive relationship under the pretense of monogamy, than there is no excuse for cheating. Especially serial cheating. We are not animals, and can control our base desires.

Eh according to Sex at Dawn pre-agricultural peoples were more than likely polyamorous and men would compete on a sperm level. Which actually biologically explains why men are pretty much done after cumming and women can keep going. In other words everyone was fucking everyone. Testosterone levels were kept high since serial monogamy actually dwindles a man's testosterone over time and sex was used as recreation not just procreation. It also explains other things like external testies (like bonobos and chimps) and the fact that people are sexually attracted to those outside of our monogamous relationship. They have even proved in studies that the penis is shaped/designed (along with thrusting) to displace other sperm. If monogamy was enough biologically why would all of these things which are apparent contradictions, exist?

Now I'm not saying people have to be polyamorous in order to be more in tune with their nature but there is a lot of evidence that we weren't primarily monogamous before the advent of "property" and agriculture.

 

[blame space]

dudes want to cum on everything

 

[Orayn]

Tell them you have a crush on them, see if they and their partner are into open relationships, and if so, go nuts. If not, respect their boundaries and back off.

Boom.

In before someone responds with nonsense about THE GAME and how being destructive toward other peoples' relationships is part of their manly essence.

 

[kehs]

YOLO

I'm serious too, nobody should go without the thrill of being the third party in an affair.

It's exhilarating.

/been on both sides and I'd still do it again if I had to relive it.

 

[Devolution]

dudes want to cum on everything

Given the subtext of what was written/studied, women win the who wants more sex game when not inhibited via culture purely by biology alone.

 

[Ezalc]

Did this a little while ago, I don't care at all about going after a girl with an SO. She should be loyal enough to stay with the guy and if she isn't then it's likely that they would break up sooner or later. I find it hilarious that people call a person pursuing it a piece of shit, I'd only say that if it was about your friend's SO, then you're an asshole. If you don't know the other person then I wouldn't give a fuck, when people are in a relationship they're always going to be tempted to cheat, it's up to them if they do it or not, so if they do that just shows that they are not satisfied with their current SO.

 

[RiverBed]

This is my reaction when I chat up somebody only to find out they are already in a relationship: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dgwxLbZXhk

(in my mind of course. Then I end the conversation and never think about it again)

 

[esquire]

I have a friend who is trying to do this with our mutual friend's GF. It's a little fucked up to be honest. Not really sure if I should tell him...

 

[kswiston]

Eh according to Sex at Dawn pre-agricultural peoples were more than likely polyamorous and men would compete on a sperm level. Which actually biologically explains why men are pretty much done after cumming and women can keep going. In other words everyone was fucking everyone. Testosterone levels were kept high since serial monogamy actually dwindles a man's testosterone over time and sex was used as recreation not just procreation. It also explains other things like external testies (like bonobos and chimps) and the fact that people are sexually attracted to those outside of our monogamous relationship. They have even proved in studies that the penis is shaped/designed (along with thrusting) to displace other sperm. If monogamy was enough biologically why would all of these things which are apparent contradictions, exist?

Now I'm not saying people have to be polyamorous in order to be more in tune with their nature but there is a lot of evidence that we weren't primarily monogamous before the advent of "property" and agriculture.

I don't think I agree. Monkeys that are polyandrous, or live in harem mating styles, are truly build for sperm competition. Sexual bouts last 5-10 seconds. And they have small penises. Humans have concealed ovulation which is not the case with most primates. Concealed ovulation is only useful in the context of monogamy, where males would have regular access to their sexual partner. Also, polyandrous animals almost never see significant paternal investment from males. Sex at Dawn has been accused by scientists in this field of study of cherry picking data to paint its narrative and offering a distorted portrayal of scientific evidence/theory for general audiences.

Also, birds are typically socially monogamous (especially song birds) yet they still have extra-pair matings. Social monogamy does not completely equal sexual monogamy.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

And what wrong is a person that pursues a taken person doing exactly? At the end of the day the taken person is responsible for how they handle the pursuer. I'm not waiting anything out, I'm not eternal mothafluppa.

Yeah, that's also true. It tends to be quite selfish to just pour your heart out knowing that they other person is entirely on a different wave. The thing is knowing whether that person has interest or not (and some may delude themselves into thinking that they have).

Other than that, nothing wrong with pursuing someone who has shown romantic interest in you.

 

[Devolution]

I don't think I agree. Monkeys that are polyandrous, or live in harem mating styles, are truly build for sperm competition. Sexual bouts last 5-10 seconds. And they have small penises. Humans have concealed ovulation which is not the case with most primates. Concealed ovulation is only useful in the context of monogamy, where males would have regular access to their sexual partner. Also, polyandrous animals almost never see significant paternal investment from males. Sex at Dawn has been accused by scientists in this field of study of cherry picking data to paint its narrative and offering a distorted portrayal of scientific evidence/theory for general audiences.

Also, birds are typically socially monogamous (especially song birds) yet they still have extra-pair matings. Social monogamy does not completely equal sexual monogamy.

Concealed ovulation makes sense in a situation where you have a large group of males and you want kin protected. And yes people could still be socially monogamous but physically? It doesn't make sense to say that serial monogamy is the only answer nor does it even assist in the problems we have today to keep touting the idea that you're only supposed to see and be with one person. People should decide for themselves their comfort level but there is no reason to tout the idea that monogamy is the only possibly way it was or could have been, especially when there are tribes and places around today that dispel the idea of one man, one woman.

Not to mention you're touting monogamy as natural after centuries of women being treated as commodities? That's not biology, that's culture.

 

[leadbelly]

Eh according to Sex at Dawn pre-agricultural peoples were more than likely polyamorous and men would compete on a sperm level. Which actually biologically explains why men are pretty much done after cumming and women can keep going. In other words everyone was fucking everyone. Testosterone levels were kept high since serial monogamy actually dwindles a man's testosterone over time and sex was used as recreation not just procreation. It also explains other things like external testies (like bonobos and chimps) and the fact that people are sexually attracted to those outside of our monogamous relationship. They have even proved in studies that the penis is shaped/designed (along with thrusting) to displace other sperm. If monogamy was enough biologically why would all of these things which are apparent contradictions, exist?

Now I'm not saying people have to be polyamorous in order to be more in tune with their nature but there is a lot of evidence that we weren't primarily monogamous before the advent of "property" and agriculture.

I don't think it is as clear cut as that. Still a fiercely debated subject. You have to take into account first the higher thought process of humans. It is so much more complex than that of other primates. It also doesn't really explain the emotional attachment one has for another. If our natural state is simply to just go around fucking each other, then why is there a deep emotional bond? That dynamic affects us in quite powerful ways. The sense that you would do anything for that person. You can't get them out of you mind. We form very complex relationships with each other. Of course if their attention is with someone else, that may cause jealousy and conflict. You compete for the affections of that person. You get hurt. Why does it feel like you have been stabbed in the heart when you're rejected by someone you love?

Women take longer to come. You seem to be suggesting that women are more naturally inclined to have multiple sex partners at the same time. It's odd that women tend to be more fussy when it comes to partners though. This would indicate they don't really give a fuck. More the better. Women aren't fussed at all just get your penis out. Sort of flies in the face of women being more selective when it comes to sexual partners. I'm not sure that is something we observe. Of course you could say that women were raped a lot more in a much earlier period of human history. Women tend to get scarred quite deeply by rape though.

Rape in itself is a good argument for why women may seek a partner. It is someone to protect her. Of course family, a strong community, etc, tend to protect women from such problems.

One theory for why women take longer to reach orgasm is that it is an indicator for whether the male is likely to be a long-term mate. For a woman to reach orgasm she needs someone with sexual experience. You get experience in a committed relationship. In that sense it is beneficial for a woman to have a committed partner. There is also evidence to suggest that women may find it easier to achieve fertilisation when orgasming. A committed partner of course is more likely to stick around and help raise the children.

The external testes view I'm not sure is proof either. More strictly polygynous primates, like gorillas, tend to have small testes where as more promiscuous primates like chimps have large testes. Humans have moderately sized testes. humans would have testes 4 times bigger if they had the same testes to body ratio as chimps.

Studies of primates, including humans, support the relationship between testis size and mating system.[13][14][15] Chimpanzees, which have a promiscuous mating system, have large testes compared to other primates. Gorillas, which have a polygynous mating system, have smaller testes than other primates. Humans, which have a socially monogamous mating system, accompanied by moderate amounts of sexual non-monogamy (see incidence of monogamy), have moderately sized testes. The moderate amounts of sexual non-monogamy in humans may result in a low to moderate amount of sperm competition. Also, notably, in the case of an avowedly sexually monogamous society, the occurrence of sexual nonmonogamy is typically culturally stigmatized, and therefore detecting its prevalence is inherently difficult, if indeed it is at all possible. At best, such statistics can be viewed as general approximations with a wide margin of error.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monogamous_pairing_in_animals


In terms of why we as humans are contradictory in our nature: I think possibly both are advantageous for survival depending on certain environmental factors.

I think personally that both happen because both are in our nature.

 

[masud]

If I can steal your gf then im doing you a favor. She wasn't that into you in the first place. As long as you don't know the guy I dont see the problem.