Support NeoGAF

[zoukka]

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.

And jealosy is something you can work to get rid of!

 

[akachan ningen]

Of course they do. Most men are happy to be able to get any girl, so they hold on like their life depends on it. But girls will always go to the guy who has more value. When that cool guy comes along that makes their current dude look like a chump, they are almost powerless to resist.

You can say "but they should be loyal! cheating is wrong!" all day but like Cyndi Lauper taught us, girls just wanna have fun.

 

[BocoDragon]

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 dads 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.

Good points.

It could be the case, though, that countries where the marriage rates remain high (and divorce low) is in societies which are very strict culturally, and everyone cajoles one another in staying together through social pressure. They simply don't have an option.

And in Western societies which have a high emphasis on freedom and individualism, we are seeing divorce rates skyrocket.

So while you may be right that western societies are highly unusual and have "mutated" into being committment-phobic through sexualization in media, etc, it could also be the case that these are some of the first societies in history which have reduced the pressure of the prying eyes of the family and the community.... leaving our true natures to do what they actually desire (which tends to be stay together for about 7 years, and then get divorced).

 

[HalfBakedProphet]

Of course they do. Most men are happy to be able to get any girl, so they hold on like their life depends on it. But girls will always go to the guy who has more value. When that cool guy comes along that makes their current dude look like a chump, they are almost powerless to resist.

You can say "but they should be loyal! cheating is wrong!" all day but like Cyndi Lauper taught us, girls just wanna have fun.

it sounds like some woman took your heart, stomped on it with a pair of stilettos and left you to bleed out and die. I'm sorry, man.

 

[Anticitizen One]

i hope open relationships become more common and respectable in society's eyes.

Wouldn't that just spread STD's and contagions like crazy?

 

[Capital_Five]

And jealosy is something you can work to get rid of!

Yeah, I don't really think it works like that for me. Like I said to each their own, but I don't understand what you get from your "main partner" in these situations that you don't get from friends. I don't really do emotions in romantic relationships so I don't see a point in having that but I feel like having consistent, frequent and exclusive sex can be special and interesting in its own way.

 

[Ashes]

@Boco: True. It could be a great number of things. We could be dealing with a great number of things. One could say that this also the first society with the birth control pill, and on a different note, the first to experience mass advertising on the scale it is today. It could be the first society that has to deal with photoshoping, and the back-lash to it.

I'm merely saying studying trends, and coming up with theories that explain contradictory positions, highlights how poor an explanation it is, where ep is concerned.

Not to mention that the numbers used sometimes are misleading, such as divorce rates. They go up, they go down. Sometimes due to war; sometimes due to economic hardship, sometimes divorce is just too expensive, sometimes men just up and leave. One can suggest correlations, but coming up with a suitable 'generalised' theory fails to explain all the external influences. So any decent and honest solution, will have to comprehend that we are not of fixed plastic types.

 

[zoukka]

Yeah, I don't really think it works like that for me. Like I said to each their own, but I don't understand what you get from your "main partner" in these situations that you don't get from friends. I don't really do emotions in romantic relationships so I don't see a point in having that but I feel like having consistent, frequent and exclusive sex can be special and interesting in its own way.

Sure, I'm not in an open relationship, but slowly working towards not feeling jealous will improve the overall quality of your life and the life of those around you.

 

[cdyhybrid]

Wouldn't that just spread STD's and contagions like crazy?

Increased education and awareness with regards to safe sex would go a long way in minimizing that.

 

[BocoDragon]

@Boco: True. It could be a great number of things. we could be dealing with a great number of things. One could say that this also the first society with the birth pill, and mass advertising. It could be the first society that has to deal with photoshoping, and the back-lash to it.

I'm merely saying studying trends, and coming up with theories that explain contradictory positions, highlights how poor an explanation it is.

Not to mention that the numbers used sometimes are misleading, such as divorce rates. They go up, they go down. Sometimes due to war; sometimes due to economic hardship, sometimes divorce is just too expensive, sometimes men just up and leave. One can suggest correlations, but coming up with a suitable 'generalised' theory fails to explain all the external influences. So any decent and honest solution, will have to comprehend that we are not of fixed plastic types.

Very true. It's very hard to tell what is "natural". Or if there is a "natural".

 

[Bay Maximus]

Wouldn't that just spread STD's and contagions like crazy?

Who gives a fuck man?

 

[soul creator]

Wouldn't that just spread STD's and contagions like crazy?

depends. Dishonest, rampant promiscuity with a lack of testing and protection would surely spread STDs like crazy, but people do that anyway even within the "standard" of monogamy.

Honest, open relationships can be much safer than just blindly following monogamy, and thinking that automatically protects you (I'm thinking of those people who never get tested, but say "hey, we're exclusive now, so we can stop using protection!", and suddenly find themselves with an STD). Of course, a truly monogamous couple that has been tested for all STDs (you'd be surprised at how many people only get tested for HIV, and not anything else), and consistently uses protection is the safest, but it's pretty obvious based on current trends that just saying "everyone be monogamous" doesn't actually solve anything (just like saying "everyone be abstinent until marriage" doesn't actually solve anything)

Seems better to just acknowledge that some people like monogamy, some people like polyamory, and some people enjoy all sorts of variance in between, and put the focus on testing, protection, and open communication (regardless of relationship type) as opposed to trying to encourage one sexual relationship type over all others.

 

[Ashes]

Very true. It's very hard to tell what is "natural". Or if there is a "natural".

I know what you mean, but all of it is..

And of course EP, isn't the only school of thought on relationships, love, intimacy, attachment etc.

 

[soul creator]

One interesting thing about the discussion of humans and monogamy is that people tend to not realize the difference between serial monogamy and "biological" monogamy. Since most people obviously date/have sex with more than one partner in their lifetimes (and most people don't marry and stay exclusive with their first sexual partner), the vast majority of people have obviously accepted the fact that it's possible to love, care for, and be sexually attracted to more than one person.

So I'd argue that most people aren't that far off from being polyamorous anyway. They're just not as good at multitasking

Spoiler

half joking

 

[VASPER]

I sat here and read that shit, and that shit is crazy and totally off base from the real world and that's because they are promoting a drug to help women lover their husband more... WTF

 

[Masterphoenix]

Read the title as "Women Struggle With Mahogany More Than Men."

Mahogany is not only one of my favorite words but also my favorite type of wood. That's what I'm going to frame my diploma in. mmm mahogany

 

[The Librarian]

No relationship status
No monogamy
No gender
No drama

Well, that would suck.

 

[leadbelly]

One interesting thing about the discussion of humans and monogamy is that people tend to not realize the difference between serial monogamy and "biological" monogamy. Since most people obviously date/have sex with more than one partner in their lifetimes (and most people don't marry and stay exclusive with their first sexual partner), the vast majority of people have obviously accepted the fact that it's possible to love, care for, and be sexually attracted to more than one person.

So I'd argue that most people aren't that far off from being polyamorous anyway. They're just not as good at multitasking

Spoiler

half joking

What if serial monogamy was biological?

Serial monogamy = Having one partner at a time.
Polyamorous = Having multiple partners at a time.

There is a distinct difference. You're making the argument for why most people aren't far off being polyamorous without taking into account the difference.

My personal view is that humans are potentially capable of both.

Individuals can survive regardless of what partner they're with.

You're referring specifically to this part of my post right?

Both can be beneficial to survival from an evolutionary perspective depending on environmental factors

Clearly I'm not saying that from the perspective of modern society.

 

[zoukka]

Well, that would suck.

I think he meant the current strict gender labels.

 

[Shake Appeal]

There's evidence to suggest gay women struggle more with monogamy than gay men, too.

 

[RDreamer]

Yeah, I don't really think it works like that for me. Like I said to each their own, but I don't understand what you get from your "main partner" in these situations that you don't get from friends. I don't really do emotions in romantic relationships so I don't see a point in having that but I feel like having consistent, frequent and exclusive sex can be special and interesting in its own way.

You don't do emotions in romantic relationships? I think you're probably a bit alone on that sort of assessment. I suppose if you have zero emotional connection and your absolute only reason to be with a main partner is for sex, then you might see them only as friends if exclusive sex was off the table. I think this isn't really the case for a lot of people, though.

Your significant other can be so much more for you, though, that I know for a lot of people sex is really the last on the list. It's a bonus. Obviously it's still important for them, but still.

 

[dinazimmerman]

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.

Science journalism is sooooooooooo shitty.

High-five! I had also made a post pointing out how the NYT article misinterprets the Klusmann study.

 

[Maninthemirror]

Not surprising, women are always more emotional when it comes to romance while men are the arrogant ones. So when women would encounter someone even more socially and sexually attractive to them especially if
Their current relationship is going bland, they will think more of doing something with the other person due to their emotional connection they lose with their husbands and the emotional connect they establish with the other guy.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

Not surprising, women are always more emotional when it comes to romance while men are the arrogant ones. So when women would encounter someone even more socially and sexually attractive to them especially if
Their current relationship is going bland, they will think more of doing something with the other person due to their emotional connection they lose with their husbands and the emotional connect they establish with the other guy.

The gender stereotypes being thrown around like science in this thread are fucking hilarious.

 

[soul creator]

god, women are so emotional

...but if my woman even looks at another man, I'll go into an uncontrollable jealous rage!