When you don't expect the other person to always be there for you, and as part of the arrangement you yourself are encouraged to go out and find another, how committed will you tend to feel? How peaceful are your emotions about the other partner? Obviously some people can pull it off, and more power to em, but I suspect they are of an atypical personality type.
When I've seen it done successfully, it was like a hobby. You play Halo on Tuesday nights, she goes on a date. If child is sick or something else comes up, you cancel.
I think more people could pull it off than you do (though I too think it's not nearly universal*), but then I also think more people could have non-shitty monogamous relationships if they stopped and thought for a minute or two.
Open relationships seem like a rather knee-jerk answer to issues with monogamy. Instead of being down on monogamy, how about thinking of monogamy less as a life-long commitment and be more okay with the idea of relationships ending? We moan over our 50% divorce rate...but does divorce even need to be a bad thing?
Counter to what some have said that most people aren't cut out for monogamy, I feel most aren't cut out for open relationships. But that's just my perception.
Relationships come in many different shapes, sizes, flavors, lengths, and have many different boundaries, needs, and permissions. Instead of just accepting that relationships end how about we accept that relationships are what you want them to be. If someone wants a relationship that lasts until the end of their time on earth, fine. If someone wants relationships that he or she knows is going to end, that's great, too. And if someone wants relationships where they can do some other things with other people at the same time that's also fine!
The thing is we have a very rigid view on romantic relationships, and we really shouldn't. Too many see it as a quest for just that ultimate thing that lasts until the end of their days, and every other stepping stone to that was worthless. I see so many people trash their exes and that sort of stuff bothers me, too. Every relationship has its ups and its downs. It's all different, and we should embrace that. Embrace all of it.
No one really thinks about it much, but it's kind of like with friends. You can have many, you can have one, you can have friendships end for many different reasons or they could go on loosely or tightly. You can have a best friend for your whole life, and you could have other friends along with that.
In the end fulfill your needs and help others fulfill theirs and fuck anyone that thinks poorly about what you're doing as long as you're not hurting someone else.
Serial monogamy would probably work out just fine for most people.
We've kinda already caught on to that winning formula here in the west, but the problem arises whenever children are involved as continuing splitting up every 5-7 years might have a harmful effect (each child would in essence have seen 2-3 sets of parents by the time they become adults).
Maybe that wouldn't be a problem, as divorces are generally only harmful because it takes so long to process them, and there's a lot of latent hate between the parents for a long time before a divorce becomes a problem. If the parents just instantly broke up the moment the spark was gone, without starting to feel resentment towards their partner, then the kids might just be fine with it and seeing new parents every now and then.
It seems that most of the issues that come up in most monogamous relationships would come up in open ones too. Especially lack of communication, and anyone I've ever heard talking about their successful open relationship stress communication as a top priority.
People need to be more open about what they want, what they're comfortable with, and realizing that being with someone who isn't on the same page isn't going to be a good foundation for any type of relationship.
I think open relationships can be fraught with jealousy issues and can be a rather weak foundation for a comitted relationship, depending in the individuals involved. When you don't expect the other person to always be there for you, and as part of the arrangement you yourself are encouraged to go out and find another, how committed will you tend to feel? How peaceful are your emotions about the other partner? Obviously some people can pull it off, and more power to em, but I suspect they are of an atypical personality type. So many people couldn't handle that stress. I wouldn't advocate open relationships for the masses.... Only the few.
And I rather like your acceptance that relationships end. I think serial monogamy is a more realistic habit of humanity, rather than lifelong commitment, or a kind of free love idealism that would tend to frazzle the nerves of so many people.
And I think a large portion of "life-long" monogamous relationships can be fraught with jealousy and dishonesty and can be a rather weak foundation for a committed relationship, depending on the individuals involved. Seriously, look around. There are a lot of relationships that are not good. People hide things from their spouses because of jealousy issues. They try and keep up the charade that, "nope, no one else ever could ever turn me on." It's dishonest to me. Open relationships, to me, tend to be the most honest.
Who says you're not expected to always be there for the person you're in an open relationship with? Just because you may have some other people you have sex with or even love on the side doesn't mean you're not always there for your primary partner when they need to. Or for any partner. Again I bring up friends. Because you have two friends does that mean you're not always there for either one of them? Logistics aside if something bad happens to both at once, you know damn well you're there for all your good friends.
The thing is that many people can't handle the stress of monogamy either, and I think more people should accept that and be truthful to themselves and their partner.
And I think a large portion of "life-long" monogamous relationships can be fraught with jealousy and dishonesty and can be a rather weak foundation for a committed relationship, depending on the individuals involved. Seriously, look around. There are a lot of relationships that are not good. People hide things from their spouses because of jealousy issues. They try and keep up the charade that, "nope, no one else ever could ever turn me on." It's dishonest to me. Open relationships, to me, tend to be the most honest.
Who says you're not expected to always be there for the person you're in an open relationship with? Just because you may have some other people you have sex with or even love on the side doesn't mean you're not always there for your primary partner when they need to. Or for any partner. Again I bring up friends. Because you have two friends does that mean you're not always there for either one of them? Logistics aside if something bad happens to both at once, you know damn well you're there for all your good friends.
The thing is that many people can't handle the stress of monogamy either, and I think more people should accept that and be truthful to themselves and their partner.
Precisely.
If either life-long monogamy or open relationships is something that works for a particular individual, then good for them!
But for the vast majority, based on behavioral science and evolutionary psychology, will probably be better off with serial-monogamy - so if possible, that's the relationship we should push for.
Precisely.
If either life-long monogamy or open relationships is something that works for a particular individual, then good for them!
But for the vast majority, based on behavioral science and evolutionary psychology, will probably be better off with serial-monogamy - so if possible, that's the relationship we should push for.
Or at least.. Accept. I wouldn't want people going into relationships with their eye on the exit door,... Perhaps they would find themselves compatable enough to stay together forever?
But if it ends... C'est la vie. It's quite a normal part of being human. We shouldn't act like its the same as a ship sinking or declaring bankruptcy it's not a human disaster.
I happen to think a lot of the emotions tested by open relationships are caused by the push from society to be in life-long monogamous relationships. Society judges you on how closely you mirror that template, and that's why a large amount of people aren't comfortable with it.
I'm not saying there wouldn't be some inherent discomfort there, especially for some people, if we were to get rid of the push life-long monogamous ideal. But I do think it would be significantly less.
I personally think the model that fits best is a sort of serial monogamy that tests out your commitment to a significant other for a short period of time. Then when you've found someone you trust and are honest with, you've found a primary partner. Then you can open things up with less jealousy or lack of comfort.
So you'd go casual dating -> shorter monogamy to test a relationship -> Primary Partner and opened relationship to others
Precisely.
If either life-long monogamy or open relationships is something that works for a particular individual, then good for them!
But for the vast majority, based on behavioral science and evolutionary psychology, will probably be better off with serial-monogamy - so if possible, that's the relationship we should push for.
The problem with pushing for serial monogamy is the fact that children take 18 years to grow old enough to move out. Not saying your model doesn't work with that, it's just that does throw a wrench into things, whereas with my model you have a longer term primary partner. That's who you have your children with. You're free to see other people during that time, too. So kids stay in a stable place for the most part. Not that it isn't fine to also accept that divorce happens, even during these times. Again, all models should really be accepted as perfectly fine as long as all parties are cool with it.
Yeah, kids are really the main problem here, and probably the main reason people stop with serial monogamy (which up until that point seems to be the standard in the west).
Mused on it above, but there's no one answer or solution obviously.
I don't think open relationships will work with most humans though, because are by nature more adapted to secretive multiple relationships - that jelousy is too strong for most people I reckon.
Technically, if my wife really really really loves me and really really really wants to get impregnated by a more awesome dude, wouldn't that make me the father of potentially more awesome kid ? Spinned in the right movement, the situation don't end up that bad.
I am too lazy to make love anyway, so why not. Go ahead Lady, make my proud
Why ? I am personally driven by the smile of the ones I love. I really do. But that is not an easy life, sadly. I wish I got more recognition for being the nicest person possible to the others but I guess the lack of recognition is an intrinsic part of such life.
Technically, if my wife really really really loves me and really really really wants to get impregnated by a more awesome dude, wouldn't that make me the father of potentially more awesome kid ? Spinned in the right movement, the situation don't end up that bad.
I am too lazy to make love anyway, so why not. Go ahead Lady, make my proud
I happen to think a lot of the emotions tested by open relationships are caused by the push from society to be in life-long monogamous relationships. Society judges you on how closely you mirror that template, and that's why a large amount of people aren't comfortable with it.
I'm not saying there wouldn't be some inherent discomfort there, especially for some people, if we were to get rid of the push life-long monogamous ideal. But I do think it would be significantly less.
Frankly, I don't agree. I do think many people are innately wired up to seek emotional comfort from a stable relationship (at least in the short term). The emotional drives to seek commited partnerships are powerfully strong for many people, even amongst people who have zero fetish for the mainstream ideal of commitment.
Not everyone is this way, of course.. But I tend to think people who find easy comfort in open relationships are so because of just as much a roll of the dice. It's not just that they were socialized differently or have an open mind... People emote differently and have all kinds of different mating strategies.
Frankly, I don't agree. I do think many people are innately wired up to seek emotional comfort from a stable relationship (at least in the short term). The emotional drives to seek commited partnerships are powerfully strong for many people, even amongst people who have zero fetish for the mainstream ideal of commitment.
Not everyone is this way, of course.. But I tend to think people who find easy comfort in open relationships are so because of just as much a role of the dice. It's not just that they were socialized differently or have an open mind... People emote differently and have all kinds of different mating strategies.
And why is an open relationship not a stable one? I do agree that people seek comfort in stable relationships, but I don't see that as necessarily being congruent to something like life-long monogamy, or even monogamy at all. I've met many people in open relationships and marriages far more stable than some of the people I've met in monogamous ones. I've met many people in open relationships that are just as committed as those in monogamous ones, too.
And I don't see how you can disagree that a large amount of the discomfort is likely driven by society's push for its current life long monogamy ideal. Again, not saying all, but a large portion is there. If you find yourself in an open relationship then you have to struggle with things. Who do you tell? Your parents, your colleagues, your other friends? You're judged as not hitting that ideal. You're judged as not having a real relationship. Your wife is out there being degraded by someone else! You're fucking around on her! There's something wrong with you! The amount of people that would be ok with it would significantly increase if the first question anyone had when you told them your SO was out with someone else is "Is everything ok? Is she cheating on you? What if she cheats on you!?" (hell, even if they're just out doing something casual with a regular friend this comes up. Do these same sorts of questions come up if one of your friends is out with another friend? Does the same sort of jealousy happen when your best friend goes out and sees a movie with someone else, because you're busy or are doing something else that night? No? Well ok then.
I just think we as humans have far more capability with relationships than we allow ourselves.
And why is an open relationship not a stable one? I do agree that people seek comfort in stable relationships, but I don't see that as necessarily being congruent to something like life-long monogamy, or even monogamy at all. I've met many people in open relationships and marriages far more stable than some of the people I've met in monogamous ones. I've met many people in open relationships that are just as committed as those in monogamous ones, too.
And I don't see how you can disagree that a large amount of the discomfort is likely driven by society's push for its current life long monogamy ideal. Again, not saying all, but a large portion is there. If you find yourself in an open relationship then you have to struggle with things. Who do you tell? Your parents, your colleagues, your other friends? You're judged as not hitting that ideal. You're judged as not having a real relationship. Your wife is out there being degraded by someone else! You're fucking around on her! There's something wrong with you! The amount of people that would be ok with it would significantly increase if the first question anyone had when you told them your SO was out with someone else is "Is everything ok? Is she cheating on you? What if she cheats on you!?" (hell, even if they're just out doing something casual with a regular friend this comes up. Do these same sorts of questions come up if one of your friends is out with another friend? Does the same sort of jealousy happen when your best friend goes out and sees a movie with someone else, because you're busy or are doing something else that night? No? Well ok then.
I understand that. But personally I am a proponent of serial monogamy which is just as frowned upon, so I understand.
Also, on a personal note, I don't believe I desire a faithful relationship because of societal imagery.. I've always disdained society's tradtional patterns and feel no pressure to conform. Nonetheless, it feels like my innate nature, my biology - or at least the way my emotions work - to desire the feeling of peace in an exclusive relationship. Open relationships feel contrary to what I even desire.... but I don't think that's true for everyone. (again.. one size does not fit all).
Yeah I agree. So I'm not arguing that open relationships don't work. I'm saying they are not for everyone. They are not what everyone secretly desires (and can make work), they are what some people desire (and can make work).
If you see sex as a way to empty your balls - Go for open relationships
If you see sex as a profound expression of love - Monogamy is the way
Unfortunately, most of us tend to think both of these things. As I get older and more deeply into my current relationship I'm moving from the former to the latter. I couldn't possible share that expression with someone else and if she did, I'd feel terrible.
Rule #1: Never rely on Slate. They are a bunch of moron contrarians.
Rule #2: Never rely on science journalism if you can help it. They often have an axe to grind, don't understand the actual science, and are overly reliant on the PR department of the universities where the scientists reside.
Rule #3: Especially never rely on Slate when their sole source is another science journalist. That's like a game of moron telephone.
In accordance with those rules, I went through the extreme effort
30 seconds to google "Janet Hyde Jennifer L. Petersen" and "Dietrich Klusmann survey" first result each time
The variation of sexual motivation with duration of partnership is analyzed in data from
a survey of German students. The sample of N=1865 includes only students aged 19-32
who reported to be heterosexual and to live in a steady partnership. Main results are: (1)
sexual activity and sexual satisfaction decline in women and men as the duration of
partnership increases; (2) sexual desire only declines in women; (3) desire for tender-
ness declines in men and rises in women. Since these results are based on cross-
sectional data, a longitudinal explanation is precarious. Individual differences in mating
strategy associated with the probability of having a partnership of shorter or longer du-
ration at the time of the survey may account for some part of the findings. This possi-
bility set aside, post hoc explanations for the results as reflecting a modal time course of
partnership are evaluated with regard to habituation, routine, gender role prescriptions,
and polarization of roles. In addition, an explanation from evolutionary psychology is
offered, entailing the following ideas: The psychological mechanisms of attachment in
an adult pair bond have evolved from the parent-child bond. Due to this non-sexual ori-
gin, a stable pair bond does not require high levels of sexual desire, after an initial phase
of infatuation has passed. Nevertheless, male sexual desire should stay at a high level
because it was selected for in evolutionary history as a precaution against the risk of
sperm competition. The course of female sexual desire is assumed to reflect an adaptive
function: to boost attachment in order to establish the bond.
First off, the journalists ignored the potential serious confounding factor that was bad enough to get a a mention in the abstract. This was a one time survey of what relationships were like at a specific time, they didn't follow any relationships through time. But we all know that relationships vary in how long they last. So if women who have a higher sex drive also tend to have shorter relationships, this effect would emerge even if their sex drive stayed the same throughout the relationship. Now this is somewhat of a subtle point, and it would be too much to expect a science journalists to go into the nuances of potential biases. That would require an actual desire to educate the public, rather than a desire to generate hits.
Secondly, note that the author is an evolutionary psychologist, and attempts an explanation from that descipline. So the idea that this contradicts the standard ev-psych models (which are more complex that the journalists' summary) did not appear to the author. This is even more clear in his conclusion:
Sex as instrumental for the promotion of attachment
Sperm competition fits in quite logically as a hypothesis to explain a constant level of
male sexual desire (Figure I), but it does not account for the course of female sexual de-
sire. Most readers probably perceive the curve for females in figure I as depicting a drop
and try to figure out why the numbers go down. But it could also be interesting to re-
verse the question: Why is female sexual desire so high in short (mostly beginning)
partnerships? Why doesn ́t it keep to the same level all over the time scale? There might
be a factor exerting strong influence in the formative phase of a partnership and subsid-
ing in later stages. Donald Symons (1979, p. 253-286) has assembled a multitude of
findings suggesting the conclusion that women more than men use sex instrumentally
for the achievement of other goals. Although women generally do not seem to experi-
ence less pleasure than men in sexual intercourse, in most cultures men, not women, are
expected to offer gifts in exchange and to invest materially in courtship. In women more
than in men, sexual motivation seems to be related to the desire to form an intimate re-
lationship and to secure support. This instrumental nexus presumably builds upon a
gender-specific psychological preparedness for having specific emotions in specific
situations, which works spontaneously without the intervention of cognitive delibera-
tion. In this view, female sexual motivation is seen as an adaptation to the way male
motivation is designed. It helps to generate heat to establish the newly emerging pair
bond, and it recedes when it is no longer needed at such a high level. This does not im-
ply that there is a point in asking which gender is adapting more to the other, since the
motivational systems of males and females co-evolved from conflicting demands (Buss, 1999).
The reported results would make sense with these views from evolutionary psychology.
Nevertheless, at the end of this discussion the question of how to account for the gen-
der-specific relation between sexual desire and duration of partnership seems still open
to me. If the evolutionary legacy of sperm competition were an explanation, this would
be hard to prove. But cultural accounts have their difficulties as well. The causal nexus
between mechanisms of gender role socialisation and the way sexual desire was related
to the duration of partnership in this study may be conceived more convincingly, but at
this point it looks tenuous. The gender-specific effect might have been the result of the
unknown relation between sexual strategy or temperament and the probability of having
entered the study with a specific duration of partnership. Still the effect seems to be
strong enough to warrant further investigation in a longitudinal study.
In 1993 Oliver and Hyde conducted a meta-analysis on gender differences in sexuality. The current study
updated that analysis with current research and methods. Evolutionary psychology, cognitive social
learning theory, social structural theory, and the gender similarities hypothesis provided predictions about
gender differences in sexuality. We analyzed gender differences in 30 reported sexual behaviors and
attitudes for 834 individual samples uncovered in literature searches and 7 large national data sets. In
support of evolutionary psychology, results from both the individual studies and the large data sets
indicated that men reported slightly more sexual experience and more permissive attitudes than women
for most of the variables. However, as predicted by the gender similarities hypothesis, most gender
differences in sexual attitudes and behaviors were small. Exceptions were masturbation incidence,
pornography use, casual sex, and attitudes toward casual sex, which all yielded medium effect sizes in
which male participants reported more sexual behavior or permissive attitudes than female participants.
Most effect sizes reported in the current study were comparable to those reported in Oliver and HydeÂ’s
study. In support of cognitive social learning theory, year of publication moderated the magnitude of
effect sizes, with gender differences for some aspects of sexuality increasing over time and others
decreasing. As predicted by social structural theory, nations and ethnic groups with greater gender equity
had smaller gender differences for some reported sexual behaviors than nations and ethnic groups with
less gender equity. Gender differences decreased with age of the sample for some sexual behaviors and
attitudes.
To sum up the author's points: There is a moderate difference between males and females in how much they masturbate and have casual sex. That difference remains in different age groups and cultures. The authors go on to say that difference in culture make these differences larger and smaller. Note that this does not contradict ev-psych. The authors even say so:
page 24 said:
In general, the theories presented here are not mutually exclu-
sive or competing. Evolutionary psychology, cognitive social
learning theory, social structural theory, and even the gender
similarities hypothesis all agree that gender differences are evident
for some measures of sexuality and that men typically are more
sexually active and more sexually permissive than women. Both
cognitive social learning theory and social structural theory pro-
pose that these differences may be moderated by additional vari-
ables such as secular trends (as indexed by year of publication),
cultural attitudes toward gender empowerment, and ethnocultural
differences in sex roles (which should vary with ethnicity). It is
likely that mechanisms from multiple theories contribute to a
multifaceted explanation of gender differences in sexuality and
that gender similarities will be found for some variables.
Results from the current study supported evolutionary psychology,
cognitive social learning, social structural theory, and the gender
similarities hypothesis. In support of evolutionary psychology, men
consistently reported engaging in more sexual behaviors and reported
having more permissive sexual attitudes than women. Cognitive so-
cial learning theory predicted that gender differences for some sexual
behaviors and attitudes would decrease across time due to increased
sexualized media to which both men and women are exposed. Al-
though some gender differences decreased from the early 1990s to the
present, other gender differences increased during this time, and
limited evidence suggested that male sexual behaviors might trend
toward being more conservative. Social structural theory was sup-
ported by evidence that some effect sizes were smaller in egalitarian
nations and ethnic groups than nations and ethnic groups with gender
inequality. Finally, gender differences for the majority of sexual
behaviors and attitudes were small, providing evidence for the gender
similarities hypothesis. As noted in the introduction, the theories and
hypotheses presented here are not contradictory but, in fact, work
together to provide a multifaceted explanation for gender differences
and similarities in sexuality.
tl;dr: Two studies, both of which support ev-psych and are interpreted by their authors to support ev-psych, end up being summarized by science journalist as contradicting ev-psych.
I don't know. I think the reason why it has been assumed men struggle more with monogamy is because of a view that men have a greater sex drive. The truth is, women cheat on their husbands too. I'm not sure you can take from it that one is more inclined to do it than the other. The possible reasons for doing so for men might be an overactive sex drive. A possible reason for women might be an underactive sex drive. If the evidence presented holds weight of course.
I am of the impression that with a number of women there needs to be more than just the act itself to get them in the mood. It's not necessarily that they're more in need of sex with other partners than it is the romance in the relationship is lost. That is possible after a period of time. It also doesn't mean it can't be found again.
It seems that most of the issues that come up in most monogamous relationships would come up in open ones too. Especially lack of communication, and anyone I've ever heard talking about their successful open relationship stress communication as a top priority.
People need to be more open about what they want, what they're comfortable with, and realizing that being with someone who isn't on the same page isn't going to be a good foundation for any type of relationship.
I wonder if society was more accepting of open relationships and actively encouraged it, would there be people saying, "I wish relationships were more monogamous"? lol
The funny thing is, I have seen a programme where a similar thing was said. One of my favourite documentary series ever is Tribe (I've stated this before). On one episode he went to Bhutan to visit the Layap people. The Layap is one of the few societies in the world that practice polyandry (women have more than one husband). Towards the end of the documentary he asked one of the women how she felt about it; if this ever caused jealousy and whether she would prefer it if she only had one partner. Her answer was what some might expect, There were times when it did cause jealousy and she did feel that having just one partner might make things easier.
I think that both forms of relationship may come with its own set of problems. I don't think there is one perfect relationship type. A problem with monogamy is losing interest sexually with your partner. Having an open relationship for some people may solve this. However, there is nothing stopping someone becoming emotional attached to someone else and it turning into a form of serial monogamy. Or jealousy arising because more attention is given to one person more than the other.
My own view on this is that I don't think one is more natural than the other. The truth is, humans are so complex that we go beyond instinctive impulses.
Why then do we bond with loved ones though? Why do we fall in love. There are biological triggers that cause love. It's easy to understand why polyamory can arise, we're sexual beings, but why is it so hard to believe that the opposite can't arise quite naturally also?
You have to blatantly ignore the fact that humans create emotional bonds with others to claim that isn't the case.
Why then do we bond with loved ones though? Why do we fall in love. There are biological triggers that cause love. It's easy to understand why polyamory can arise, we're sexual beings, but why is it so hard to believe that the opposite can't arise quite naturally also?
You have to blatantly ignore the fact that humans create emotional bonds with others to claim that isn't the case.
I'm not sure what that has to do with emotional attachment with another.
Edit: actually I think you're saying that love arises because you need to stay together long enough for a woman to be pregnant. Could be the case yeah. I think it could be so that you stick around long enough to raise the children as well. Something I have stated before.
I'm not sure what that has to do with emotional attachment with another.
Edit: actually I think you're saying that love arises because you need to stay together long enough for a woman to be pregnant. Could be the case yeah. I think it could be so that you stick around long enough to raise the children as well. Something I have stated before.
Child rearing and fucking enough to even get pregnant yes. Emotional attachment would facilitate both. But the tribe can also help with child rearing and in most cases, do.
Child rearing and fucking enough to even get pregnant yes. Emotional attachment would facilitate both. But the tribe can also help with child rearing and in most cases, do.
That can be the case. I think there can be a benefit though of having a man exclusively caring for one family in certain situations. The environment dictates to a degree what methods would be more beneficial.
Rule #1: Never rely on Slate. They are a bunch of moron contrarians.
Rule #2: Never rely on science journalism if you can help it. They often have an axe to grind, don't understand the actual science, and are overly reliant on the PR department of the universities where the scientists reside.
Rule #3: Especially never rely on Slate when their sole source is another science journalist. That's like a game of moron telephone.
In accordance with those rules, I went through the extreme effort
30 seconds to google "Janet Hyde Jennifer L. Petersen" and "Dietrich Klusmann survey" first result each time
First off, the journalists ignored the potential serious confounding factor that was bad enough to get a a mention in the abstract. This was a one time survey of what relationships were like at a specific time, they didn't follow any relationships through time. But we all know that relationships vary in how long they last. So if women who have a higher sex drive also tend to have shorter relationships, this effect would emerge even if their sex drive stayed the same throughout the relationship. Now this is somewhat of a subtle point, and it would be too much to expect a science journalists to go into the nuances of potential biases. That would require an actual desire to educate the public, rather than a desire to generate hits.
Secondly, note that the author is an evolutionary psychologist, and attempts an explanation from that descipline. So the idea that this contradicts the standard ev-psych models (which are more complex that the journalists' summary) did not appear to the author. This is even more clear in his conclusion:
So the author does not agree that this study contradicts ev-psych.
To sum up the author's points: There is a moderate difference between males and females in how much they masturbate and have casual sex. That difference remains in different age groups and cultures. The authors go on to say that difference in culture make these differences larger and smaller. Note that this does not contradict ev-psych. The authors even say so:
tl;dr: Two studies, both of which support ev-psych and are interpreted by their authors to support ev-psych, end up being summarized by science journalist as contradicting ev-psych.
I would like to applaud this post.
The only regular contribute from Slate that I trust is Matt Yglesias.
Sadly, I don't think science reporting is going to get any better. Too much speculation not enough background in the sciences to do so with authority. Plus, controversial titles sell dem clicks.
I regret not completing my degree in biological anthropology. Ah, well.
Should be pretty common knowledge. Well, I'm not sure about having "more" trouble with it, but certainly just as much trouble. Without a doubt. Generalizations etc, but it's a fight against the current in most cases.
Why ? I am personally driven by the smile of the ones I love. I really do. But that is not an easy life, sadly. I wish I got more recognition for being the nicest person possible to the others but I guess the lack of recognition is an intrinsic part of such life.
Why then do we bond with loved ones though? Why do we fall in love. There are biological triggers that cause love. It's easy to understand why polyamory can arise, we're sexual beings, but why is it so hard to believe that the opposite can't arise quite naturally also?
You have to blatantly ignore the fact that humans create emotional bonds with others to claim that isn't the case.
Emotional bonds often erode, but the desire to screw around remains. The truth of the matter is that people change. And when those people change the partner gets bored. They may change due to having children, due to aging, or maybe changes on some hormonal level. People get married with this silly notion "I'm going to be happy with you forever", but that is fictional more times than a reality. If your high school sweetheart evolves into a frigid, domineering cow then more times than not your emotional bond will have the composition of a marshmallow.
If you see sex as a way to empty your balls - Go for open relationships
If you see sex as a profound expression of love - Monogamy is the way
Unfortunately, most of us tend to think both of these things. As I get older and more deeply into my current relationship I'm moving from the former to the latter. I couldn't possible share that expression with someone else and if she did, I'd feel terrible.
Note: there are also people in open relationships who sometimes see sex as a profound expression of love. There are also monogamous people who sometimes see sex as a way to empty their balls
Emotional bonds often erode, but the desire to screw around remains. The truth of the matter is that people change. And when those people change the partner gets bored. They may change due to having children, due to aging, or maybe changes on some hormonal level. People get married with this silly notion "I'm going to be happy with you forever", but that is fictional more times than a reality. If your high school sweetheart evolves into a frigid, domineering cow then more times than not your emotional bond will have the composition of a marshmallow.
I'm not saying that doesn't happen. It is more the idea that monogamy is completely a learned trait. I'm not talking so much the concept of marriage where two people commit to staying together for a lifetime, but rather the potential for a relationship to be exclusive for a period of time.
And in terms of emotional bonds eroding: I'm sure many people have seen evidence of the opposite as well. I have seen old couples who have been together for most of their life countless times. I have members of my family like that. I can't really speak about what has happened during the course of their life, but what you can say is, they at least stick around. And emotional bonds don't always erode. Some people get so used to having their partner around that they become dependent on them. I have witnessed this. I have seen the effect it has had on someone when their partner died.
Open relationships for some people may work better than an exclusive one, I just don't think a monogamous relationship is necessarily destined to fail or completely unnatural. Both can be beneficial to survival from an evolutionary perspective depending on environmental factors.
I'm not saying that doesn't happen. It is more the idea that monogamy is completely a learned trait. I'm not talking so much the concept of marriage where two people commit to staying together for a lifetime, but rather the potential for a relationship to be exclusive for a period of time.
And in terms of emotional bonds eroding: I'm sure many people have seen evidence of the opposite as well. I have seen old couples who have been together for most of their life countless times. I have members of my family like that. I can't really speak about what has happened during the course of their life, but what you can say is, they at least stick around. And emotional bonds don't always erode. Some people get so used to having their partner around that they become dependent on them. I have witnessed this. I have seen the effect it has had on someone when their partner died.
Open relationships for some people may work better than an exclusive one, I just don't think a monogamous relationship is necessarily destined to fail or completely unnatural. Both can be beneficial to survival from an evolutionary perspective depending on environmental factors.
I'm a bit shocked to see so many proponents of open relationships. Are many of you here involved in one or have you been in the past? I'm interested to hear some personal examples.
I personally could never handle someone whom I consider my partner having sex with another person, even if I was as well. I want to have sex with a lot of people, don't get me wrong, and I never plan on getting married, but I'll probably do it one at a time.
you're supposed to be a civilized human being, you should suppress those jealous urges and learn to handle your jealousy like a real adult. Just because you have those feelings doesn't mean you should act on them. Why let yourself be a slave to those urges, like you're some kind of animal or something? You're supposed to have a brain to control your jealousy.
I'm being facetious, but people often make this kind of comment to people when it comes to sexual urges for more than one person, yet somehow never think to use this rationale when it comes to jealous urges
By all means, if open relationships work for people, I am all for it. I wouldn't be comfortable with it but it does make a ton of sense for those who are. As for the jealousy aspect, it's totally a personal issue for me, where as errant sexual urges are pretty ignorable for me but it seems to be reversed for some people.
Precisely.
If either life-long monogamy or open relationships is something that works for a particular individual, then good for them!
But for the vast majority, based on behavioral science and evolutionary psychology, will probably be better off with serial-monogamy - so if possible, that's the relationship we should push for.
Interesting. Life long commitments are still the norm in a significant number of cultures, societies - from the wild plains of Africa to riverside dwellers in India. I doubt there is a 'for the vast majority' answer.
Maybe not down in South London, where there are issues of a proliferation of young black single mothers raising their children on the own, and we have to have the government force absent fathers to pay their due; but go to a village in Bangladesh, where if a person's partner dies, they tend not to remarry. And if you claim the difference is due to society, or culture, then one must come up with an EP theory to explain the differences. And if one does, you have another problem, because you have just explained completely contradictory scenarios, which means, well, almost anything goes if it sounds reasonable enough. If it sort of fits.
The society I currently live in is [London, England] is one of the most highly sexualised societies of all time. Even trying to figure out what is 'normal' is difficult enough. Things seem to be changing by the decade. How are we to decipher the effect of the environment, such as the ease of access to porn, and the plethora of elite sexual 'role models' being espoused in magazines. Super thin. Super curvy. etc etc etc. I think all of that has a part to play. As does the existence of choice. This idea that 'we're not meant to be a certain way' or that we are 'meant to be a certain way' is based on evidence that doesn't look at the picture holistically. And to my mind flimsy evidence. And certainly not enough to decide what, if anything, the human condition is.
