Why Happy People Cheat(theatlantic.com)
theatlantic.com
Why Happy People Cheat
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/10/why-happy-people-cheat/537882/?single_page=true
137 comments
It's simple.
Some people value an exciting encounter over their current relationship, people can have an addiction to the rush or have felt numb for too long.
Over simplifying - there's nothing wrong with their current phone but some people will rush and buy the latest to get the buzz of a new gadget.
They weigh the chance of getting caught and damage it will cause as lower than the excitement and fulfilment of a new fling.
We've all been there, seeing someone attractive from the opposite sex and having thoughts of an encounter. Whether you chose to act on it or not depends on your integrity and empathy. Some people have more than others.
Some people value an exciting encounter over their current relationship, people can have an addiction to the rush or have felt numb for too long.
Over simplifying - there's nothing wrong with their current phone but some people will rush and buy the latest to get the buzz of a new gadget.
They weigh the chance of getting caught and damage it will cause as lower than the excitement and fulfilment of a new fling.
We've all been there, seeing someone attractive from the opposite sex and having thoughts of an encounter. Whether you chose to act on it or not depends on your integrity and empathy. Some people have more than others.
[deleted]
Yeah, the trick is to recognize you are a person that likes that and then try and have that risk/excitement sustained in your own relationship/s. A tip I've heard for those that need it: Always be dating your spouse. I'll leave it to the reader to google the ways to do that ;)
Yeah, it might be able self discovery, but it might be about enacting a narcissistic fantasy. The author is right, you reconstruct yourself in the other's gaze, you slake your thirst with the other's mouth. But what kind of self are you constructing here? And what power will your own fantasies have over the person with whom you conduct the affair?
Yeah, I don't think the normalization of this obviously selfish and destructive behavior is a positive thing at all.
The selfishness and destructiveness of the behaviour is very closely related to the norms it violates. Homosexuality was (and is) destructive to families in communities where it considered abhorent. Premarital sex too. In fact, the ban on premarital sex and the ban aon adultery are closely related.
People have a hard time suppressing their sexual urges. But, many sexual urges we once considered immoral & destructive are now seen differently.
People have a hard time suppressing their sexual urges. But, many sexual urges we once considered immoral & destructive are now seen differently.
[deleted]
An interesting subplot in the culture of sexual fidelity is (IMO) the cultural promotion of multiple sequential relationships.
The most culturally acceptable middle class sex life today involves a series of monogomous relationships. We're encouraged to start young with practice relationships (ideally stopping short of "real sex") for teenagers, which are expected to end. Then, a variety of relationships ranging from one nighters to multi-year relationships anyone from the past would have called marriage. Variety is generally valued. Then Marriage(s).
My GreatGrandmother would have raised eyebrows at all this.
Even though sexual norms have radically shifted during this time, our view of fidelity remained kind of static. Promiscuity good, infidelity bad.
The culture surrounding sex is among the most complex in the human repertoire, but such a shift on promiscuity without a shift on infidelity seems like an oddity of our culture, probably a short term one.
The most culturally acceptable middle class sex life today involves a series of monogomous relationships. We're encouraged to start young with practice relationships (ideally stopping short of "real sex") for teenagers, which are expected to end. Then, a variety of relationships ranging from one nighters to multi-year relationships anyone from the past would have called marriage. Variety is generally valued. Then Marriage(s).
My GreatGrandmother would have raised eyebrows at all this.
Even though sexual norms have radically shifted during this time, our view of fidelity remained kind of static. Promiscuity good, infidelity bad.
The culture surrounding sex is among the most complex in the human repertoire, but such a shift on promiscuity without a shift on infidelity seems like an oddity of our culture, probably a short term one.
Who's "normalizing" anything?
By that argument we shouldn't try to understand why anyone does anything we deem negative, and I would hope we can all agree that's incredibly silly.
Understanding "why" helps us understand how to prevent it from happening to people.
This article, in particular, is a great piece for people in healthy relationships to read, because it teaches an important lesson: you are not immune.
By that argument we shouldn't try to understand why anyone does anything we deem negative, and I would hope we can all agree that's incredibly silly.
Understanding "why" helps us understand how to prevent it from happening to people.
This article, in particular, is a great piece for people in healthy relationships to read, because it teaches an important lesson: you are not immune.
The reason it's ostensibly confusing is that the standard narrative of human sexuality—one sexual partner for life after getting married—is, forgive me, completely batshit insane. That's not to say that people haven't done it. People do, of course. And that's not to say that that's wrong or something, either. But the expectation of total 'fidelity' for life is unreasonable.
For more on this subject I recommend the book "Sex at Dawn."
For more on this subject I recommend the book "Sex at Dawn."
I think it's a waste of breath to promote or condemn one mode of relationship over another. All that matters is what you and your partner(s) agree on for the terms of your relationship.
Of course. But the problem is the expectation at large in the macroculture (I'm speaking largely of American macroculture, where I live) of monosexuality by participants of all sexes. In other words, it's a sociocultural problem. Are there people who have figured out how to escape it? Yes, but still a minute fraction. Furthermore, the judgement those people (myself included) face by family and sometimes friends is another part of the problem.
Agreed about the real problem being societal. My point was that claiming that humans are "meant" to be monogamous or polygamous or whatever is an empty debate when we have free will and can decide for ourselves what sort of relationship we want.
It can matter for legal reasons. Like what legal rights come with recognition of the relationship.
[deleted]
Having only read the 'reception' part of the wiki article, especially about 'Sex at Dawn' 's allegedly sloppy methodology.. do you happen to know of any book(s) with similarly 'non-standard' views of human sexuality, but which are considered (more widely) to be argued for using a strongly rigorous methodology?
I don't, though I imagine they must be out there—I'd love to find them.
Well if you think so you have to admit it is dishonest to promise otherwise.
Yes, that is the problem—people not admitting it to themselves or their partners—and (I believe) it is the standard narrative of monosexuality that forces people to not make that admission.
Well I don't see anything so unnatural about a practice that has arisen in most human societies throughout history, so on a more basic level I'm unsympathetic to the argument. But it seems especially hard to justify using that defense after already committing to something else.
All the people I've known that "couldn't do it" were usually selfish, had their priorities terribly wrong, and tended to leave empty & sad lives. I don't think that ought to be the new norm.
> there is always a suspicion … that one is living a lie or a mistake; that something crucially important has been overlooked, missed, neglected, left untried and unexplored; that a vital obligation to one’s own authentic self has not been met, or that some chances of unknown happiness completely different from any happiness experienced before have not been taken up in time and are bound to be lost forever.
In my opinion this quote sums up not only the thesis of the article but also one of the primary diseases afflicting our society.
In my opinion this quote sums up not only the thesis of the article but also one of the primary diseases afflicting our society.
I tend to agree, but I think it's pretty deeply rooted, and it's not a new thing by any stretch. I reject the idea that this is somehow a particularly modern dysfunction.
As children and young adults people are taught to "pursue their dreams" and "find their passion" and many other aspirational platitudes.
Then, adult life comes along and most of us become decidedly average because, well, that's statistics for you.
But many are then left with this feeling that they've somehow failed. That if they'd taken that other road that diverged in that wood a ways back, maybe they'd be living that fantasy life that they were sold.
What we're not taught is how to be happy in the present. Aspiring to change is vital to improve ourselves and the world around us. But equally valuing and appreciating what we already have is every bit as important.
As children and young adults people are taught to "pursue their dreams" and "find their passion" and many other aspirational platitudes.
Then, adult life comes along and most of us become decidedly average because, well, that's statistics for you.
But many are then left with this feeling that they've somehow failed. That if they'd taken that other road that diverged in that wood a ways back, maybe they'd be living that fantasy life that they were sold.
What we're not taught is how to be happy in the present. Aspiring to change is vital to improve ourselves and the world around us. But equally valuing and appreciating what we already have is every bit as important.
Hm, well, I think it is fair to say the cult of the individual has a pedigree a few centuries long, but it seems to me like the collapse of groups and institutions (everything from religion to social activities like bowling leagues, really) and generally more atomized relationships have removed the fetters preventing it from reaching its most extreme expression. I guess this claim risks veering into "things were better in the good old days" which isn't really what I mean.
Yeah, I dunno about that.
Groups and institutions are great for creating additional social pressures that discourage people from violating morays. But unless you couple that with a fundamentally different set of values, I don't see how they are a solution. If anything, they create additional strictures that encourage the kind of rule-breaking behaviour the article talks about.
Groups and institutions are great for creating additional social pressures that discourage people from violating morays. But unless you couple that with a fundamentally different set of values, I don't see how they are a solution. If anything, they create additional strictures that encourage the kind of rule-breaking behaviour the article talks about.
What I'd say is that such institutions help temper the view that the self and short-term utility for the self are the ultimate good.
Again, that presupposes a different set of values.
Consider common American Evangelical beliefs that focus on praying for specific material or personal gain (such as good health). This is nothing more than religion blended with "the cult of the individual". As such, I have little reason to believe those institutions would create better outcomes.
Consider common American Evangelical beliefs that focus on praying for specific material or personal gain (such as good health). This is nothing more than religion blended with "the cult of the individual". As such, I have little reason to believe those institutions would create better outcomes.
I think in all but the most extreme cases, even then, there will be an interest in the health and well-being of the whole community, prayer lists for parishioners who are ailing, and so on. Perhaps not for the TV guys who preach out of converted sports arenas but I think it's a little questionable if that really represents a community.
This quote sounds childish imho. I know this feeling, I believe every teen feels this way, but I don't lose sleep over my decisions or "what if.." scenarios anymore. The most important truth and lesson learned during my life was "always be in truth with oneself and others": if you are not happy about something - change it or find the root cause and fix it, take responsibilities seriously and avoid lies whenever possible (it is a burden that keeps growing as a snowball and finally crushes you); if you are not happy with your current partner and you see no way to fix it -- have "balls" to say so and move in separate ways.
Well, yes, I agree, but it's thinking that is a festering sore in our Zeitgeist.
This is an interesting documentary regarding different relationship structures from the independents themselves.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4716560/
Maybe because the idea you can romantically love only one person is idiotic?
You can love more than one sibling, more than one parent, more than one sports team, more than one... you get the idea. Yet, when it comes to romantic love, nope, just the one.
You can love more than one sibling, more than one parent, more than one sports team, more than one... you get the idea. Yet, when it comes to romantic love, nope, just the one.
Because shitty people can still be happy people.
This is interesting, a old friend once said: "If a woman wants to cheat on you. She will cheat on you while holding your hand"
Now that the chauvinist statement is out of the way. Men cheat too. :)
I don't think anyone can say that monogamy has anything to do with raising children. I do not see why the barbarous requirement for having sex with one person needs to even be there in the first place. I don't have the same car for the rest of my life, don't drink the same thing or eat the same thing every day for the rest of my life either. Why not be able to taste other flowers in the garden as well. That does not mean i don't love or care about the mother of my child. As long as i take care of my responsibilities regarding my children. I see no reason why this requirement is imposed by society. Other than pure culturalism and brainwashing, which one could argue is indirectly the same thing.
Maybe it has something to do with possession. Maybe insecurity that my wife will like John's dick more than mine or love his Porsche more than my Buick. Don't you want to find that stuff out early about your partner vs later... Isn't your partners ability and her/his care for your children more important than who he/she wants to screw every once in a while. I definitely agree that if your partner is a nympho, well maybe you should not have stuck your dick in crazy to begin with or pretend to embody the white knight syndrome to it's full extent.
I think this "monogamy" business matters way more when the people in the relationship are unequal to begin with. If they are equal , financially for example, which i feel matters a lot when you are co-raising your children. You do not feel as betrayed because, as far as your hard earned resources are concerned, she/he is not taking any, only the children are. So who cares who your partners wants to screw in their off time. Which leads me to think of the next possibility, possession. My oh my, this person is mine and mine only. Lol It's 2017, we do not hit women over the head with cave man bats and drag them to our layers. But in some countries i guess we still do and we expect them to shut up when we tell them to and bring our beers over to the couch or else they won't get the credit card the next time they go to the mall. Wait, i just realized i just described some people i know. :) There are only a few feedback loops you can take advantage of. Lol
Parents can parent without marriage or monogamy. Why can't they?
This is leftover idealism imposed by the church and land-rights interest groups from ages ago. It just so happens it was enforced and people attempt to adhere to it. But obviously the statistics are against their success. The more women become equal and educated. The more divorce there is and the less babies get born. If those things are happening, i don't see any reason why changes in the family structure should not happen as well.
Usually a systems homeostasis usually communicates something about the nature of it's processes. The divorce rates should tell us something. Now that the gloves are off regarding divorce being taboo or being shunned by your social circle, this is if you are living in a country which does not look down on you if you don't want to put up with your partners bs anymore and leave. If you do, well clearly you are living someone else's life.
Now that the chauvinist statement is out of the way. Men cheat too. :)
I don't think anyone can say that monogamy has anything to do with raising children. I do not see why the barbarous requirement for having sex with one person needs to even be there in the first place. I don't have the same car for the rest of my life, don't drink the same thing or eat the same thing every day for the rest of my life either. Why not be able to taste other flowers in the garden as well. That does not mean i don't love or care about the mother of my child. As long as i take care of my responsibilities regarding my children. I see no reason why this requirement is imposed by society. Other than pure culturalism and brainwashing, which one could argue is indirectly the same thing.
Maybe it has something to do with possession. Maybe insecurity that my wife will like John's dick more than mine or love his Porsche more than my Buick. Don't you want to find that stuff out early about your partner vs later... Isn't your partners ability and her/his care for your children more important than who he/she wants to screw every once in a while. I definitely agree that if your partner is a nympho, well maybe you should not have stuck your dick in crazy to begin with or pretend to embody the white knight syndrome to it's full extent.
I think this "monogamy" business matters way more when the people in the relationship are unequal to begin with. If they are equal , financially for example, which i feel matters a lot when you are co-raising your children. You do not feel as betrayed because, as far as your hard earned resources are concerned, she/he is not taking any, only the children are. So who cares who your partners wants to screw in their off time. Which leads me to think of the next possibility, possession. My oh my, this person is mine and mine only. Lol It's 2017, we do not hit women over the head with cave man bats and drag them to our layers. But in some countries i guess we still do and we expect them to shut up when we tell them to and bring our beers over to the couch or else they won't get the credit card the next time they go to the mall. Wait, i just realized i just described some people i know. :) There are only a few feedback loops you can take advantage of. Lol
Parents can parent without marriage or monogamy. Why can't they?
This is leftover idealism imposed by the church and land-rights interest groups from ages ago. It just so happens it was enforced and people attempt to adhere to it. But obviously the statistics are against their success. The more women become equal and educated. The more divorce there is and the less babies get born. If those things are happening, i don't see any reason why changes in the family structure should not happen as well.
Usually a systems homeostasis usually communicates something about the nature of it's processes. The divorce rates should tell us something. Now that the gloves are off regarding divorce being taboo or being shunned by your social circle, this is if you are living in a country which does not look down on you if you don't want to put up with your partners bs anymore and leave. If you do, well clearly you are living someone else's life.
I sought professional help to deal with life influencing jealousy and doubts.
What helped me deal with this, is to find out that I undervalued myself and overtly dedicated myself to my partner.
Once you don't view your life as the relationship, but you and your relationship, u will be on a good track.
Most people will notice that if they meet a cute someone and don't see them for a few days, they don't occupy themselves with all these doubt too much.
It's when you sacrifice or throw a big part of yourself onto pleasing the other within an ensuing relationship, is when you lose yourself and become insecure and doubtfull.
What helped me deal with this, is to find out that I undervalued myself and overtly dedicated myself to my partner.
Once you don't view your life as the relationship, but you and your relationship, u will be on a good track.
Most people will notice that if they meet a cute someone and don't see them for a few days, they don't occupy themselves with all these doubt too much.
It's when you sacrifice or throw a big part of yourself onto pleasing the other within an ensuing relationship, is when you lose yourself and become insecure and doubtfull.
One is enough for gods sake
Oh so people get bored with just one partner for their entire lives? Shocker.
This was a long essay that could have just been summarized as "Priya's bored".
I'm surprised by the moralistic comments and downvotes...
EDIT: I removed the rest of the comment as it apparently offended many people.
EDIT: I removed the rest of the comment as it apparently offended many people.
Well, it's not "cheating" if you're with someone who doesn't mind. So you should make sure to be with someone who doesn't mind. If you don't, then you're really just being shitty and careless, so what is there to be surprised about?
"And I would be fine if my partner saw someone else too."
So why cheat then and not talk to your partner openly and come to an agreement? I know plenty of couples that let each other to have other partner(s), and that's totally normal. Playing with another human being feelings, on the other hand, is not imho.
So why cheat then and not talk to your partner openly and come to an agreement? I know plenty of couples that let each other to have other partner(s), and that's totally normal. Playing with another human being feelings, on the other hand, is not imho.
I wish social experimentation and progress happened at even 5% of the speed of technological progress.. why don't we just get rid of the idea that you 'own' your partner's body? It seems arcane and based in insecurity. If you can't handle even the slightest of erotic competition, how solid can the basis of your relationship be?
(Sorry for the overly controvesial wording if my post, I realize that filing more open relationships under 'social progress' is not obviously right, and would love to hear alternative perspectives, especially from people in stable happy long-term relationships)
(Sorry for the overly controvesial wording if my post, I realize that filing more open relationships under 'social progress' is not obviously right, and would love to hear alternative perspectives, especially from people in stable happy long-term relationships)
It's a personal thing. Some people don't like sharing one of the most intimate actions with their partner with other people.
If you can't handle even the slightest of erotic competition, how solid can the basis of your relationship be?
This is not helpful because some of the happiest relationships I know are very conservative (perhaps selfish in your view) relationships. Some people are monogamous, some aren't, no reason to judge either side.
If you can't handle even the slightest of erotic competition, how solid can the basis of your relationship be?
This is not helpful because some of the happiest relationships I know are very conservative (perhaps selfish in your view) relationships. Some people are monogamous, some aren't, no reason to judge either side.
It's certainly a personal decision, and I agree that there is no reason to make negative value judgments about two consenting adults deciding to uphold a (happy) monogamous remationship model. But the overwhelming dominance of this particular model is what seems suspect to me. Do all these people really prefer monogamy? Or rather, why do they? It seems very likely that it is due to societal pressure / 'conditioning' rather then 'authentic' personal preference. But this is of course nearly impossible to test.
I do not think it's 'selfish' to follow a monogamous relationship style. To make a somewhat contentious analogy, I wouldn't condemn people for being gay either (or for being straight for that matter). However it seems important that these various types of relationships are genuinely possible without stigma etc. In the case of hetero/homo/... -sexuality it's obvious that there is a biological mechanism behind the dominance of heterosexuality. In the case of 'open' relationships (especially in the case of a 'monogamous love, polygamous sex' -type relationship this is a lot less clear. If it turns out that this is not simply due to 'practicality' (or innate biology) it seems overly restrictive as a social norm. One might even say 'opressive' (in the sense that Prohibition arguably was, not trying to equate this with racism/..)
I do not think it's 'selfish' to follow a monogamous relationship style. To make a somewhat contentious analogy, I wouldn't condemn people for being gay either (or for being straight for that matter). However it seems important that these various types of relationships are genuinely possible without stigma etc. In the case of hetero/homo/... -sexuality it's obvious that there is a biological mechanism behind the dominance of heterosexuality. In the case of 'open' relationships (especially in the case of a 'monogamous love, polygamous sex' -type relationship this is a lot less clear. If it turns out that this is not simply due to 'practicality' (or innate biology) it seems overly restrictive as a social norm. One might even say 'opressive' (in the sense that Prohibition arguably was, not trying to equate this with racism/..)
In most cases, it is a violation of trust. There's a difference between an open relationship and someone violating your trust. Monogamy isn't based on ownership, it's based on trust. Open relationships are fine, but you should have willing partners.
Aside from that, there are some very legitimate practical concerns with poly relationships. STDs, for example.
That's easily solved with a blood test before you engage in a sexual relationship with additional partners.
Small bugfix: Regular blood tests*
As any of your partners could be adding additional partners, and probably so could theirs. And if they're very open - they might casually have sex with someone else every weekend.
Maintenance nightmare if you ask me. :P
The foundation of all relationships is trust. You can't hack around dishonesty. Don't be in a relationship with someone you can't trust if your health depends on it.
But, it's not dishonest in that case. If people are free to add partners as they like - then you can not _ensure_ that one of their partners (or their partner's partners, or partner's partner's partners, you get the point) respects that.
It increases the odds of getting an STD I believe. But I don't have numbers to back that up nor do I feel like looking for them now (sorry)
It increases the odds of getting an STD I believe. But I don't have numbers to back that up nor do I feel like looking for them now (sorry)
[deleted]
That is solved, but not so easily, with a blood test.
That seems both impractical and likely to ruin any mood.
Instead of, "Hold on, I have to get a condom." It is now, "Let's take you down to the clinic and get you tested!"
Then, as they likely have multiple partners as well, you end up needing a constant stream of blood tests. In short, it's risky behavior.
You can do it, it's not up to me to judge. But, it seems like a lot more work than just committing to one person and remaining faithful to that one person.
Instead of, "Hold on, I have to get a condom." It is now, "Let's take you down to the clinic and get you tested!"
Then, as they likely have multiple partners as well, you end up needing a constant stream of blood tests. In short, it's risky behavior.
You can do it, it's not up to me to judge. But, it seems like a lot more work than just committing to one person and remaining faithful to that one person.
> That seems both impractical and likely to ruin any mood.
Of partners my partner and I have dated together, all appreciated the sentiment and none of them turned down getting tested before festivities. No one has said no, nor thought it was an awkward request. Your mileage may vary.
> You can do it, it's not up to me to judge. But, it seems like a lot more work than just committing to one person and remaining faithful to that one person.
I prefer my life richer over easier. Life is brief and once, better to not waste it.
Of partners my partner and I have dated together, all appreciated the sentiment and none of them turned down getting tested before festivities. No one has said no, nor thought it was an awkward request. Your mileage may vary.
> You can do it, it's not up to me to judge. But, it seems like a lot more work than just committing to one person and remaining faithful to that one person.
I prefer my life richer over easier. Life is brief and once, better to not waste it.
Hmm... One of us has their wires crossed.
If you're just with a couple other people, I don't see that as cheating - so long as they're all okay with it. I see cheating as being with a different partner.
Unless I got confused, cheating was the subject?
That and, it's okay to have sex with multiple consenting people. You don't need my permission, of course. However, I've nary a problem with it. I've been in similar situations, where we shared and shared alike. It's all good, so long as everyone consents.
If you're just with a couple other people, I don't see that as cheating - so long as they're all okay with it. I see cheating as being with a different partner.
Unless I got confused, cheating was the subject?
That and, it's okay to have sex with multiple consenting people. You don't need my permission, of course. However, I've nary a problem with it. I've been in similar situations, where we shared and shared alike. It's all good, so long as everyone consents.
We might have been talking passed each other. Apologies for the misunderstanding.
What? First, condoms prevent or reduce the risk of contracting most STDs (including HIV) [1]. Second, you're confusing polyamory (a few committed relationships) with promiscuity (many non-committed sexual partners).
[1] https://www.cdc.gov/condomeffectiveness/brief.html#HIV
[1] https://www.cdc.gov/condomeffectiveness/brief.html#HIV
[deleted]
When I look at polygamous/polygynous societies today and in history, I'm not sure I see "social progress."
In fact, for whatever its pitfalls may be, it appears that monogamy solves a large number of social ills that are perhaps larger than polygyny's own. Like large bands of males cast out with no prospects, so they resort to not-so-progressive behavior.
Like the vikings: 'Polygyny created a pool of unmarried men motivated to engage in risky behavior to increase wealth/status/prob of entering marriage market'
http://www.ehbonline.org/article/S1090-5138(16)30307-5/pdf
Or the Lost Boys: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_boys_(Mormon_fundamentali...
Or certain other religions and tribal areas that may promote such behavior today as a side ffect, which may promote other lost boys to, I don't know, join ISIS in hope of getting some of those dear wives of their own too, one way or the other.
Perhaps you file this under "not my problem." Maybe its not your problem, but it definitely presents a social problem, and you're suggesting that poly-* may be social progress. I don't think that plays out in history.
In fact, for whatever its pitfalls may be, it appears that monogamy solves a large number of social ills that are perhaps larger than polygyny's own. Like large bands of males cast out with no prospects, so they resort to not-so-progressive behavior.
Like the vikings: 'Polygyny created a pool of unmarried men motivated to engage in risky behavior to increase wealth/status/prob of entering marriage market'
http://www.ehbonline.org/article/S1090-5138(16)30307-5/pdf
Or the Lost Boys: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_boys_(Mormon_fundamentali...
Or certain other religions and tribal areas that may promote such behavior today as a side ffect, which may promote other lost boys to, I don't know, join ISIS in hope of getting some of those dear wives of their own too, one way or the other.
Perhaps you file this under "not my problem." Maybe its not your problem, but it definitely presents a social problem, and you're suggesting that poly-* may be social progress. I don't think that plays out in history.
That is an interesting way to look at it. Thank you for the reading suggestions!
However it seems to me that this is only a problem for 'exclusive' polygamy, of which, one might say, traditional monogamy is just a subtype (the advantage of monogamy being that aproximately 50% of people are male/female, amd mostly hetero)
But wouldn't a 'relaxed'/open approach be at least as good? Among obvious advantages like (presumably) less frustrated expectations, breaking of trust etc, you also wouldn't have to rely on 1:1 matching. People that might otherwise be sexually frustrated may have a chance at least at sexual relations, if perhaps not erotic (in the etymological sense) elationships. (One reason being that one may be less 'selective' when looking for a mate doesn't involve life long commitment)
Also, there could be less conflict and risky behavior (designed to impress) stemming from competition over mates.
> it appears that monogamy solves a large number of social ills that are perhaps larger. Like large bands of males cast out with no prospects, so they resort to not-so-progressive behavior.
So the acceptable "solution" to this imbalance is to socially force (through normalization of monogamy and marriage) women into relationships with less-desirable men? Why shouldn't men be expected to be more attractive mates? Why not blame the patriarchy for creating a power imbalance that favors polygyny over polyandry?
EDIT: For those doubting that patriarchy plays a role, consider that both the Mormon [1] and Arabic [2] worlds have historically been strongly patriarchal. I don't know about the Vikings.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormonism_and_women
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Arab_societies
So the acceptable "solution" to this imbalance is to socially force (through normalization of monogamy and marriage) women into relationships with less-desirable men? Why shouldn't men be expected to be more attractive mates? Why not blame the patriarchy for creating a power imbalance that favors polygyny over polyandry?
EDIT: For those doubting that patriarchy plays a role, consider that both the Mormon [1] and Arabic [2] worlds have historically been strongly patriarchal. I don't know about the Vikings.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormonism_and_women
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Arab_societies
Wow, seems I touched a nerve by mentioning the patriarchy! The GP claims that we ought to restrict women's choice in marriage to ensure each man a wife… amazing that this position seems to be considered unassailable here. Some reading for thought:
https://www.journal-fuer-psychologie.de/index.php/jfp/articl...
http://msmagazine.com/blog/2013/08/06/should-feminists-be-cr...
https://www.journal-fuer-psychologie.de/index.php/jfp/articl...
http://msmagazine.com/blog/2013/08/06/should-feminists-be-cr...
>> So the acceptable "solution" to this imbalance is to socially force (through normalization of monogamy and marriage) women into relationships
If you read into polygamous societies, it's often that (particularly very young) women are forced into relationships with socially powerful men. Not much to do with attraction.
If you read into polygamous societies, it's often that (particularly very young) women are forced into relationships with socially powerful men. Not much to do with attraction.
To me, that sounds like a problem caused by patriarchy or other power imbalances: in many societies, men have great power (earning potential), women have little, and hence are forced to marry (preferably the richest man) to gain power.
Of course you can address the symptom (women choosing the wealthier/more powerful men, leaving the men who are less-so without a mate), but the underlying disease remains: womens' choice whom to marry is hampered by lack of societal standing.
Better to address the disease (patriarchy). Women are no longer forced to marry "up" (addressing the power issues polygyny belies); men no longer are forced to focus on being earners, so those who would be low-status under patriarchy (due to lack of earning potential) can instead focus on developing other traits (e.g. homemaking) which would make them attractive to female earners.
Of course you can address the symptom (women choosing the wealthier/more powerful men, leaving the men who are less-so without a mate), but the underlying disease remains: womens' choice whom to marry is hampered by lack of societal standing.
Better to address the disease (patriarchy). Women are no longer forced to marry "up" (addressing the power issues polygyny belies); men no longer are forced to focus on being earners, so those who would be low-status under patriarchy (due to lack of earning potential) can instead focus on developing other traits (e.g. homemaking) which would make them attractive to female earners.
I don't think you've quite understood my last comment.
It's not really about men being high earners or having some sort indefinable social capital that makes women "marry up" in most examples of polygynous cultures AFAICT, it's literal force. It's not women choosing to marry the man with the most power or wealth, it's cultural and religious forced marriage, on threat of ostracism, familial disgrace or much worse.
Yes, it is a problem caused by patriarchy, they tend to be highly patriarchal societies, the ones where men routinely have more than one wife.
It's not really about men being high earners or having some sort indefinable social capital that makes women "marry up" in most examples of polygynous cultures AFAICT, it's literal force. It's not women choosing to marry the man with the most power or wealth, it's cultural and religious forced marriage, on threat of ostracism, familial disgrace or much worse.
Yes, it is a problem caused by patriarchy, they tend to be highly patriarchal societies, the ones where men routinely have more than one wife.
> It's not women choosing to marry the man with the most power or wealth, it's cultural and religious forced marriage, on threat of ostracism, familial disgrace or much worse.
No, I get that – my point is, there's not much difference between social pressure to marry someone wealthy because you were not raised to be a breadwinner and thus would starve if you didn't marry up, and social pressure to marry someone in high social standing because you'd be ostracized otherwise. Social pressures that prevent women from gaining power and thus being forced to marry to get it, are not that different from social pressures that explicitly force women to marry powerful men.
> Yes, it is a problem caused by patriarchy, they tend to be highly patriarchal societies, the ones where men routinely have more than one wife.
Which is exactly my thesis: patriarchy is the cause, polygyny is the symptom. Applying a band-aid of normalized monogamous marriages to ensure mates for low-status men (as the GP insinuated) addresses the symptom, and ignores the cause.
(You see the same thing with prostitution BTW – prostitution is "bad" because it places desperate women in a position where they are taken advantage of by clients. But banning prostitution doesn't fix anything – you still have women who see no other earning potential than selling sex. The real problem is patriarchy that creates such a large class of women with no independent earning potential in the first place. Fix that, and the problem of prostitution-from-desperation diminishes greatly.)
No, I get that – my point is, there's not much difference between social pressure to marry someone wealthy because you were not raised to be a breadwinner and thus would starve if you didn't marry up, and social pressure to marry someone in high social standing because you'd be ostracized otherwise. Social pressures that prevent women from gaining power and thus being forced to marry to get it, are not that different from social pressures that explicitly force women to marry powerful men.
> Yes, it is a problem caused by patriarchy, they tend to be highly patriarchal societies, the ones where men routinely have more than one wife.
Which is exactly my thesis: patriarchy is the cause, polygyny is the symptom. Applying a band-aid of normalized monogamous marriages to ensure mates for low-status men (as the GP insinuated) addresses the symptom, and ignores the cause.
(You see the same thing with prostitution BTW – prostitution is "bad" because it places desperate women in a position where they are taken advantage of by clients. But banning prostitution doesn't fix anything – you still have women who see no other earning potential than selling sex. The real problem is patriarchy that creates such a large class of women with no independent earning potential in the first place. Fix that, and the problem of prostitution-from-desperation diminishes greatly.)
>> No, I get that – my point is, there's not much difference between social pressure to marry someone wealthy because you were not raised to be a breadwinner and thus would starve if you didn't marry up, and social pressure to marry someone in high social standing because you'd be ostracized otherwise.
Sorry there's a f*ck of a lot of difference between choosing a partner that's a breadwinner, and being put through a forced marriage.
>> Social pressures that prevent women from gaining power and thus being forced to marry to get it, are not that different from social pressures that explicitly force women to marry powerful men.
They are significantly different in consequence, IMHO, even if the cause is different only in matter of degree.
>> Applying a band-aid of normalized monogamous marriages to ensure mates for low-status men (as the GP insinuated) addresses the symptom, and ignores the cause.
I don't consider that a band-aid particularly, it seems something a lot of people want out of life, and the question of "status" somewhat orthogonal. I also don't think the parent post advocates any sort of enforcement of this, but just looks at outcomes.
Sorry there's a f*ck of a lot of difference between choosing a partner that's a breadwinner, and being put through a forced marriage.
>> Social pressures that prevent women from gaining power and thus being forced to marry to get it, are not that different from social pressures that explicitly force women to marry powerful men.
They are significantly different in consequence, IMHO, even if the cause is different only in matter of degree.
>> Applying a band-aid of normalized monogamous marriages to ensure mates for low-status men (as the GP insinuated) addresses the symptom, and ignores the cause.
I don't consider that a band-aid particularly, it seems something a lot of people want out of life, and the question of "status" somewhat orthogonal. I also don't think the parent post advocates any sort of enforcement of this, but just looks at outcomes.
So you really believe that physical coercion to marry high-status males is caused by (i.e., is an "outcome" of) the practice of polygamy? Forced polygyny does not just happen, someone has to have the power to force it. That someone exactly he who benefits from the practice: high-status men –
by definition, the patriarchy.
Is being physically coerced to marry someone worse than being economically incentivized to? Of course, I'm not arguing that. Is being formally ostracized for refusing to marry someone of high status worse than being informally ostracized for refusing to marry someone of low status? Yes, but by degrees. Yes, you can replace formal ostracism with informal ostracism by normalizing monogamy, but it's still going to happen so long as a patriarchal power imbalance remains in place.
(Doubt that informal ostracism happens? Women who choose not to marry have historically been excluded from mainstream society in western society. Hence the trope of the isolated spinster/widow, and the prevalence of prostitution as a means of earning for women who choose to stay single.)
Is being physically coerced to marry someone worse than being economically incentivized to? Of course, I'm not arguing that. Is being formally ostracized for refusing to marry someone of high status worse than being informally ostracized for refusing to marry someone of low status? Yes, but by degrees. Yes, you can replace formal ostracism with informal ostracism by normalizing monogamy, but it's still going to happen so long as a patriarchal power imbalance remains in place.
(Doubt that informal ostracism happens? Women who choose not to marry have historically been excluded from mainstream society in western society. Hence the trope of the isolated spinster/widow, and the prevalence of prostitution as a means of earning for women who choose to stay single.)
>> So you really believe that physical coercion to marry high-status males is caused by (i.e., is an "outcome" of) the practice of polygamy?
No, I believe that when we look at historical or contemporary examples of societies or sub-cultures in which polygamy is practised, we tend to see forced marriages. I'm not saying either is the cause of the other, but that they are associated, and I agree very much that they both take place in highly patriarchal societies.
I'm also not sure why you keep talking about status and what your issue is with people choosing monogamy. You don't have to if you don't want to, and it's no longer the case that a woman can't support herself adequately.
No, I believe that when we look at historical or contemporary examples of societies or sub-cultures in which polygamy is practised, we tend to see forced marriages. I'm not saying either is the cause of the other, but that they are associated, and I agree very much that they both take place in highly patriarchal societies.
I'm also not sure why you keep talking about status and what your issue is with people choosing monogamy. You don't have to if you don't want to, and it's no longer the case that a woman can't support herself adequately.
> I agree very much that they both take place in highly patriarchal societies.
Then why are we arguing?
> what your issue is with people choosing monogamy
I have no such issue? You are putting words in my mouth. Perhaps this is why we are arguing.
All I take issue with is the GP's assertion that polygamy is the cause of the "lost boys" problem. I claim it's not, patriarchy promulgated by high-status males is. Remove polygamy and all you've done is democratize power among males, without addressing the problem of patriarchy. Remove patriarchy and polygamy is no longer problematic.
> it's no longer the case that a woman can't support herself adequately.
Western society has made strides in that direction, yes. And beside the decrease in social ostracism of single females, it is argued that the rise of feminism has driven the rise in consensual polyamory [1], supporting my above point.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyamory#Philosophical_aspect...
Then why are we arguing?
> what your issue is with people choosing monogamy
I have no such issue? You are putting words in my mouth. Perhaps this is why we are arguing.
All I take issue with is the GP's assertion that polygamy is the cause of the "lost boys" problem. I claim it's not, patriarchy promulgated by high-status males is. Remove polygamy and all you've done is democratize power among males, without addressing the problem of patriarchy. Remove patriarchy and polygamy is no longer problematic.
> it's no longer the case that a woman can't support herself adequately.
Western society has made strides in that direction, yes. And beside the decrease in social ostracism of single females, it is argued that the rise of feminism has driven the rise in consensual polyamory [1], supporting my above point.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyamory#Philosophical_aspect...
>> Then why are we arguing?
I'm not really sure.
>> All I take issue with is the GP's assertion that polygamy is the cause of the "lost boys" problem. I claim it's not, patriarchy promulgated by high-status males is.
I'd say it's an intermediate cause, or even an immediate cause and the patriarchy is at the root of it in all examples that we have to look at. If, somehow, consensual polygyny became the norm then we could end up with some of the same societal problems re: pools of unmarried/unattached men.
>> Remove patriarchy and polygamy is no longer problematic.
Well sure, no longer problematic in as much as no longer forcing people to marry others, but it may still cause societal problems. I'm not advocating it be outlawed for those reasons, FYI, just looking at possibilities. I do think it's fairly unlikely that widespread polygamy would happen outside of the patriarchal constraints, and certainly I'm not sure I know of any examples of polygamous societies having existed without such.
Polyamory is a different beast entirely of course.
I'm not really sure.
>> All I take issue with is the GP's assertion that polygamy is the cause of the "lost boys" problem. I claim it's not, patriarchy promulgated by high-status males is.
I'd say it's an intermediate cause, or even an immediate cause and the patriarchy is at the root of it in all examples that we have to look at. If, somehow, consensual polygyny became the norm then we could end up with some of the same societal problems re: pools of unmarried/unattached men.
>> Remove patriarchy and polygamy is no longer problematic.
Well sure, no longer problematic in as much as no longer forcing people to marry others, but it may still cause societal problems. I'm not advocating it be outlawed for those reasons, FYI, just looking at possibilities. I do think it's fairly unlikely that widespread polygamy would happen outside of the patriarchal constraints, and certainly I'm not sure I know of any examples of polygamous societies having existed without such.
Polyamory is a different beast entirely of course.
There is no statistic difference between low earning and high earning women in the behavior of "marry up". There is also no difference between countries that have high income difference and those with smaller income difference. Marrying up is a global cultural pattern, identical to the pattern of men marrying a younger woman.
Traditionally the primary function of relationships is raising children, and monogamy is good at that. I don't see how shifting the focus from what is basically the foundation of our society towards doing what is fun and rewarding in the short term is a sign of social progress.
>> why don't we just get rid of the idea that you 'own' your partner's body?
I don't own my partner's body, however I expect emotional exclusivity, and that's also what I want to give. Sex, closeness, trust and emotional bonds are all tied up together.
It's not "erotic competition" and to me the use of that phrase just belies a lack of maturity - it's never "just sex" for me, and I wouldn't want to be with someone for whom it was.
If something else works for you, great, but please don't frame it as progress or freedom from ownership. Progress is allowing everyone to choose the sorts of relationships they find fulfilling, with no persecution or shaming. Not calling what works for others insecure or arcane.
I don't own my partner's body, however I expect emotional exclusivity, and that's also what I want to give. Sex, closeness, trust and emotional bonds are all tied up together.
It's not "erotic competition" and to me the use of that phrase just belies a lack of maturity - it's never "just sex" for me, and I wouldn't want to be with someone for whom it was.
If something else works for you, great, but please don't frame it as progress or freedom from ownership. Progress is allowing everyone to choose the sorts of relationships they find fulfilling, with no persecution or shaming. Not calling what works for others insecure or arcane.
Fair points. Perhaps my phrasing was needlessly agressive. I didn't mean to label individual personal choices as 'arcane'. Rather, it's the social/cultural norm that I find suboptimal. (Also, the economic connotations involved are perhaps in bad taste)
I'm not sure whether this is correct in English (not my first language) but 'erotic' was meant to include not just sex but other forms of closeness as well. What I don't understand is why the bond of trust, emotional closeness, and so forth necessarily needs to have exclusivity built-in, so to speak.
It's also not like other (non-sexual) forms of closeness are considered cheating. If I am in a monogamous relationship and develop a non-sexual, strong emotional bond with someone else I've only made a new friend, not cheated. However if I have 'just' sex (with little emotional involvement) it is considered cheating.
Now if it were commonly accepted that it is only 'cheating' if you have some strong emotional bond in addition to sexual relations, it would make more sense.
Even then, however, it seems unclear why the fact thaat you also have a strong bond with somebody else somehow invalidates the bond you have with your partner.
Obviously, for 'practical' reasons the number of deep relationships one can have is limited. But 1 seems like an artificially low limit.
In regards to what we could consider progress: I completely agree with what you wrote. However, what is considered a 'normal' relationship, what is ezpected if no further discussion or arrangements are made, what most everyone defaults to, is a partly social norm with important consequences, and one which should be subject to criticism and optimization.
It seems unlikely to me that nearly everyone prefers exclusive monogamy vs a more relaxed relationship model. It seems more likely that the dominance of that particular arrangement is due to societal pressure. Of course maybe it seems that way because I am somehow emotionally immature. Unfortunately, it seems difficult to design rigorous studies to research this question.
I'm not sure whether this is correct in English (not my first language) but 'erotic' was meant to include not just sex but other forms of closeness as well. What I don't understand is why the bond of trust, emotional closeness, and so forth necessarily needs to have exclusivity built-in, so to speak.
It's also not like other (non-sexual) forms of closeness are considered cheating. If I am in a monogamous relationship and develop a non-sexual, strong emotional bond with someone else I've only made a new friend, not cheated. However if I have 'just' sex (with little emotional involvement) it is considered cheating.
Now if it were commonly accepted that it is only 'cheating' if you have some strong emotional bond in addition to sexual relations, it would make more sense.
Even then, however, it seems unclear why the fact thaat you also have a strong bond with somebody else somehow invalidates the bond you have with your partner.
Obviously, for 'practical' reasons the number of deep relationships one can have is limited. But 1 seems like an artificially low limit.
In regards to what we could consider progress: I completely agree with what you wrote. However, what is considered a 'normal' relationship, what is ezpected if no further discussion or arrangements are made, what most everyone defaults to, is a partly social norm with important consequences, and one which should be subject to criticism and optimization.
It seems unlikely to me that nearly everyone prefers exclusive monogamy vs a more relaxed relationship model. It seems more likely that the dominance of that particular arrangement is due to societal pressure. Of course maybe it seems that way because I am somehow emotionally immature. Unfortunately, it seems difficult to design rigorous studies to research this question.
>> What I don't understand is why the bond of trust, emotional closeness, and so forth necessarily needs to have exclusivity built-in, so to speak.
Because I want to make that bond something I build my life around, and want to know that the other person is reciprocating. If the other person is having other, similar relationships then I'm not really able to do that. It also implies a sort of time-share basis to the relationship. I'm demanding, I want most of my partner's time, and I want to give her most of mine. I want to face the world by her side and with her at mine.
>> However if I have 'just' sex (with little emotional involvement) it is considered cheating.
Like I said, for a lot of people, there's no such thing as "just sex", and it always involves emotions, even if you didn't think it would beforehand. This is something I learned about myself over the last couple of decades.
As to what people might really prefer, absent any sort of pressure, it is indeed very hard to tell. If you look at society it seems the mainstream is to prefer serial monogamy, with occasional total breakdown. As the pressure to marry (and to do so young, and to stay with someone you might hate) wanes, perhaps we'll see more, different models emerging.
It won't be for me though. And it's always going to be a good idea to have a conversation about who you are and what you want from a relationship very early on.
Because I want to make that bond something I build my life around, and want to know that the other person is reciprocating. If the other person is having other, similar relationships then I'm not really able to do that. It also implies a sort of time-share basis to the relationship. I'm demanding, I want most of my partner's time, and I want to give her most of mine. I want to face the world by her side and with her at mine.
>> However if I have 'just' sex (with little emotional involvement) it is considered cheating.
Like I said, for a lot of people, there's no such thing as "just sex", and it always involves emotions, even if you didn't think it would beforehand. This is something I learned about myself over the last couple of decades.
As to what people might really prefer, absent any sort of pressure, it is indeed very hard to tell. If you look at society it seems the mainstream is to prefer serial monogamy, with occasional total breakdown. As the pressure to marry (and to do so young, and to stay with someone you might hate) wanes, perhaps we'll see more, different models emerging.
It won't be for me though. And it's always going to be a good idea to have a conversation about who you are and what you want from a relationship very early on.
>>why don't we just get rid of the idea that you 'own' your partner's body?
For the most part, people don't believe that they do. People think that they're owed honesty. There's an enormous difference.
I'm in a committed, long term relationship. If she decided that she didn't want to be with me anymore, I would be hurt but the honesty would prevent the hurt from being the anger that comes from betrayal.
For the most part, people don't believe that they do. People think that they're owed honesty. There's an enormous difference.
I'm in a committed, long term relationship. If she decided that she didn't want to be with me anymore, I would be hurt but the honesty would prevent the hurt from being the anger that comes from betrayal.
So affairs are 'wrong', but who would want to live in a world where there are no affairs?
We excessively police and punish our partners, our friends' partners and our parents, but often hypocritically, when it comes to ourselves and our friends cheating will generally be forgiven.
I am not even advocating abolishing the hypocricy. Without it affairs probably wouldn't be exciting and equally, faithful relationships wouldn't be as meaningful.
What is more, having broken up a long term relationship with children (with objectively plenty of cause), and having not had an affair what I can say is that for a woman this can be even worse, as it leaves them without something to be mad and and just feeling unvalued. (It probably goes both ways for both genders, but in my view it is something that is clearly not symmetrical in Male-Female relationships).
However what I do think is wrong are ill feelings to the point of death threats and hatred (which I experienced) even if there is infidelity. In this situation can someone really claim to have loved someone in the first place if they value their life outside of the relationship so little. When this is the basis of someones feelings then the relationship/marriage is a kind of tyranny in my opinion.
We excessively police and punish our partners, our friends' partners and our parents, but often hypocritically, when it comes to ourselves and our friends cheating will generally be forgiven.
I am not even advocating abolishing the hypocricy. Without it affairs probably wouldn't be exciting and equally, faithful relationships wouldn't be as meaningful.
What is more, having broken up a long term relationship with children (with objectively plenty of cause), and having not had an affair what I can say is that for a woman this can be even worse, as it leaves them without something to be mad and and just feeling unvalued. (It probably goes both ways for both genders, but in my view it is something that is clearly not symmetrical in Male-Female relationships).
However what I do think is wrong are ill feelings to the point of death threats and hatred (which I experienced) even if there is infidelity. In this situation can someone really claim to have loved someone in the first place if they value their life outside of the relationship so little. When this is the basis of someones feelings then the relationship/marriage is a kind of tyranny in my opinion.
Quite a lot of people, I'd think?
The mature thing to do is leave, or discuss your needs honestly. If the enjoyment comes from the risk then you're getting your kicks at someone else's expense. That's really selfish.
The mature thing to do is leave, or discuss your needs honestly. If the enjoyment comes from the risk then you're getting your kicks at someone else's expense. That's really selfish.
If so, it is a form of moral extremism that I think would result in everyone being less happy (and with general confusion as to why people are unhappy). Possibility, even unacted on, is an important thing.
>>what I can say is that for a woman this can be even worse, as it leaves them without something to be mad and and just feeling unvalued.
This appears to be sexist tripe.
This appears to be sexist tripe.
I'm sorry, it is conditionally worded and is grounded in my personal experiences. You can have your view, but don't sling ignorant insults. Perhaps try to show me why it is wrong? Or perhaps open your mind as to why someone might think it is the case.
You've just said that marriage breakup for women is worse than for men, because it leaves them without something to be mad at!
And somehow you think that's not sexist....
And somehow you think that's not sexist....
It 'can be worse' if there is no cheating. My position to the extent that it is sexist is that it may even be worse for them on average. You just seem to be deliberately misconstruing my position because you would rather shut it down then argue the nuance and accept you don't know everything about the world.
Am I sexist? By your definition probably yes. Men and women, especially when it comes to relationships are rather different (on average). Now if I believe that, then what is wrong with that? It all seems pretty plausible to me.
Am I sexist? By your definition probably yes. Men and women, especially when it comes to relationships are rather different (on average). Now if I believe that, then what is wrong with that? It all seems pretty plausible to me.
I'm not deliberately misconstruing your comment, but on re-reading I can see what you're trying to say a little better - your wording leaves something to be desired, and I still don't think it's necessary to bring gender into it at all.
You seem to think that a massive betrayal of trust would be better for someone you're breaking up with, than telling them that you're leaving them for other reasons, because it gives them something to hate afterwards.
I'd say that's arse-backwards, personally.
You seem to think that a massive betrayal of trust would be better for someone you're breaking up with, than telling them that you're leaving them for other reasons, because it gives them something to hate afterwards.
I'd say that's arse-backwards, personally.
Yes, that is what I am saying (conditionally). I realise this is a contrarian thing to say.
Again the level of trust is going to vary between relationships, and what has happened in the relationship and the character of the individuals involved. Marriage obviously has explicit promises, but there is a general social contract.
This whole don't mention gender thing is very tedious and borderline thought police. It is simply not that offensive what I am writing. If it doesn't apply to you and yours then good for you. In any case it was grounding it in personal experience.
Again the level of trust is going to vary between relationships, and what has happened in the relationship and the character of the individuals involved. Marriage obviously has explicit promises, but there is a general social contract.
This whole don't mention gender thing is very tedious and borderline thought police. It is simply not that offensive what I am writing. If it doesn't apply to you and yours then good for you. In any case it was grounding it in personal experience.
Death threats are never ok but hatred is completely understandable.
To feel hatred for someone who betrayed you, who lied to you, who acted like you were a crazy person for feeling the disconnect between the two of you, who accepted your fidelity while not returning it and made you doubt your worth as a human being is perfectly understandable.
To feel hatred for someone who betrayed you, who lied to you, who acted like you were a crazy person for feeling the disconnect between the two of you, who accepted your fidelity while not returning it and made you doubt your worth as a human being is perfectly understandable.
You see I dispute this. If you just break up with someone and tell them it's just no good (or even all those things you did are too much to take) then that can leave them feeling even worse. Again we are all talking in massive generalities and no two situations are exactly the same - which is why we shouldn't have a totalitarian view on this issue.
Yeah, that's crap.
Let's translate that philosophy to other "wrong" activities, shall we?
"Spending money is more exciting when it's stolen. Saving is much more meaningful if there is the possibility that someone can steal it."
"Life is more meaningful when someone is actively trying to kill you. Murder is much less exciting because it's wrong."
You see the problem? The notion that actively doing something awful to someone else makes what they have meaningful, and what you are doing exciting is just selfishness and justification.
You don't like monogamy? No one is forcing you into it. Unhappy with your [life | partner | marriage | whatever] and you think the answer is outside your agreed upon monogamous relationship? End it. Divorce is legal. Breaking up without marriage is even easier. There is no tyranny is a relationship you enter into of your own volition.
You have children? Don't be an asshole and hurt their other parent because you have issues. End the relationship before starting another one. Be the person your children can respect.
The other person in the relationship? Don't be that. Because you are being a party to deceit. No, you aren't the one cheating, and that justification only goes so far, but it still shows a base selfishness that informs your character. You ought to expect to be hated, because that weakness and selfishness that makes up your character is the instrument that harms someone else. In the pain that is being caused, you are the weapon that is being used by the person cheating to hurt their partner.
Let's translate that philosophy to other "wrong" activities, shall we?
"Spending money is more exciting when it's stolen. Saving is much more meaningful if there is the possibility that someone can steal it."
"Life is more meaningful when someone is actively trying to kill you. Murder is much less exciting because it's wrong."
You see the problem? The notion that actively doing something awful to someone else makes what they have meaningful, and what you are doing exciting is just selfishness and justification.
You don't like monogamy? No one is forcing you into it. Unhappy with your [life | partner | marriage | whatever] and you think the answer is outside your agreed upon monogamous relationship? End it. Divorce is legal. Breaking up without marriage is even easier. There is no tyranny is a relationship you enter into of your own volition.
You have children? Don't be an asshole and hurt their other parent because you have issues. End the relationship before starting another one. Be the person your children can respect.
The other person in the relationship? Don't be that. Because you are being a party to deceit. No, you aren't the one cheating, and that justification only goes so far, but it still shows a base selfishness that informs your character. You ought to expect to be hated, because that weakness and selfishness that makes up your character is the instrument that harms someone else. In the pain that is being caused, you are the weapon that is being used by the person cheating to hurt their partner.
Yes, but I am speaking as someone who did just break up with someone. Amazing how noone can actually read that part and just jumps to long ranty insults. Confirmation bias is going to be especially common if you delete words when as you read. (I assume you are addressing me when you say 'you' this and 'you' that).
The reality of my case is (well it's a complicated story) that it may well have gone better for them psychologically if there was a clear betrayal on my part. Maybe mine is an extreme case, and in anycase knowing what I know wouldn't have made me cheat - I would rather be in the right - but then again it's easy to say that ...
Everyone seems to be taking such an absolute position. Which is ridiculous really since it really is culturally relative e.g. in france they are much more permissive of affairs - with certain thrown in social conditions about being discreet - and again it is not to say they are saying it is right - neither am I, just that it is not such a huge bad to deserve all the vitriol - like I'm getting for even discussing the matter.
What is clear is I would never make promises to people with such puritanical attitudes like yours. Clearly it would be a one sided contract since I would be much more forgiving and less entitled and on top of that given the way of hypocricy quite possibly less likely to cheat. Again, if I may argue by analogy, like the anti-gay politicians who are gay, I wonder wether the people who are so anti-affair are infact liable to do so or have done so themselves.
Of course there can be tyranny in a voluntary relationship, because you cannot predict the future and you can be bound (by e.g. caring more about the children, or social pressure) to suffer.
Some people are fools when it comes to relationships. They may know there partner cheated in the past, they may know they have generally sexually permissive attitude and are unreliable with their promises. Yet the outrage is still there nonetheless. You cannot make something into something it is not. I may as well get outraged if my partner doesn't become a millionairre or doesn't look like a supermodel after a certain age.
And just because you can make analogies, doesn't make it right. Somethings are better (for some people) with some danger of a bad outcome. e.g. Extreme sports. Yes, I just don't think you can equate murder or theft to having an affair. Both are actions against a stranger. Now if one partner misspends a large sum of shared money then that is an ambiguous situation which is worth comparing.
The reality of my case is (well it's a complicated story) that it may well have gone better for them psychologically if there was a clear betrayal on my part. Maybe mine is an extreme case, and in anycase knowing what I know wouldn't have made me cheat - I would rather be in the right - but then again it's easy to say that ...
Everyone seems to be taking such an absolute position. Which is ridiculous really since it really is culturally relative e.g. in france they are much more permissive of affairs - with certain thrown in social conditions about being discreet - and again it is not to say they are saying it is right - neither am I, just that it is not such a huge bad to deserve all the vitriol - like I'm getting for even discussing the matter.
What is clear is I would never make promises to people with such puritanical attitudes like yours. Clearly it would be a one sided contract since I would be much more forgiving and less entitled and on top of that given the way of hypocricy quite possibly less likely to cheat. Again, if I may argue by analogy, like the anti-gay politicians who are gay, I wonder wether the people who are so anti-affair are infact liable to do so or have done so themselves.
Of course there can be tyranny in a voluntary relationship, because you cannot predict the future and you can be bound (by e.g. caring more about the children, or social pressure) to suffer.
Some people are fools when it comes to relationships. They may know there partner cheated in the past, they may know they have generally sexually permissive attitude and are unreliable with their promises. Yet the outrage is still there nonetheless. You cannot make something into something it is not. I may as well get outraged if my partner doesn't become a millionairre or doesn't look like a supermodel after a certain age.
And just because you can make analogies, doesn't make it right. Somethings are better (for some people) with some danger of a bad outcome. e.g. Extreme sports. Yes, I just don't think you can equate murder or theft to having an affair. Both are actions against a stranger. Now if one partner misspends a large sum of shared money then that is an ambiguous situation which is worth comparing.
Just be polyamorous (see e.g. https://polyfidelity.org.au/about/polyamory/education/121-th..., http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/04/06/polyamory-is-boring/).
If there is a need to have multiple partners instead of going the "traditional way" (one official partner + cheating or some shady don't ask don't tell arrangement) it seems much healthier to openly discuss needs and boundaries. We shouldn't just accept "system defaults" if they are not optimal for us.
In my local poly community (Warsaw) there is a lot of nerds. I tend to view it as a hacker's approach to relationship.
If there is a need to have multiple partners instead of going the "traditional way" (one official partner + cheating or some shady don't ask don't tell arrangement) it seems much healthier to openly discuss needs and boundaries. We shouldn't just accept "system defaults" if they are not optimal for us.
In my local poly community (Warsaw) there is a lot of nerds. I tend to view it as a hacker's approach to relationship.
You... didn't read the article, did you?
It goes on at length about why affairs aren't just about wanting another partner.
It even mentions (briefly) affairs in the context of open marriages.
It goes on at length about why affairs aren't just about wanting another partner.
It even mentions (briefly) affairs in the context of open marriages.
[deleted]
Yup, if you don't want to do things the mono way, and everyone's on-board, why not!
The problems come when people promise one thing and do another...
The problems come when people promise one thing and do another...
Your poly community has a lot of nerds because they don't have enough leverage to ask their s.o. to stop fucking other people.
Or they're enlightened enough to realize that only diseased, transactional relationships are based on "leverage"?
So how are most of these nerds in this community distributed, like 1 partner dating multiple nerds, or 1 nerd per "group" of partners like the parent comment implies?
What do you do when someone gets pregnant?
From the poly relationships I have observed - you talk about it with all involved, have a discussion about how the kid's going to get raised etc etc. It can get complicated depending on who is living where and such stuff. But then AFAICT everything in poly relationships takes quite a lot of thought and planning.
I think contraception and planning when you're going to have a kid and who with becomes even more critical.
Too much effort for me!
I think contraception and planning when you're going to have a kid and who with becomes even more critical.
Too much effort for me!
Peace and love, man.
Infidelity is as natural as taking a shit. I think we're culturally indoctrinated to get worked up over infidelity, less so for defecating.
[deleted]
TLDR; It is possible to like more than one individual.
I for one doesn't understand why anyone would marry except for economical benefits/security.
Personally, I would much rather have 2 or more girlfriends/partners who enjoy me and eachother than a marriage with one. Since I believe that the male sex drive is bigger than that of women, I don't understand why I should be limited to just enjoy one other woman. However, this is hard to do because many women like the idea of marriage and have this impossible romantic view of the world. Love is not static, sometimes you love someone more and sometimes less. This changes over time just like everything else. But in our upbringing we learn from movies and our culture that love should be this static, non-changing thing and of course it will not work in a world that changes all the time.
A lot of marriages fail, probably because people change over time and we don't always like that. Let's just be more open and enjoy ourselves when we have such a short time alive.
EDIT: I understand that my opinions can be controversial, but you don't really have do downvote just because you do not agree with them.
I for one doesn't understand why anyone would marry except for economical benefits/security.
Personally, I would much rather have 2 or more girlfriends/partners who enjoy me and eachother than a marriage with one. Since I believe that the male sex drive is bigger than that of women, I don't understand why I should be limited to just enjoy one other woman. However, this is hard to do because many women like the idea of marriage and have this impossible romantic view of the world. Love is not static, sometimes you love someone more and sometimes less. This changes over time just like everything else. But in our upbringing we learn from movies and our culture that love should be this static, non-changing thing and of course it will not work in a world that changes all the time.
A lot of marriages fail, probably because people change over time and we don't always like that. Let's just be more open and enjoy ourselves when we have such a short time alive.
EDIT: I understand that my opinions can be controversial, but you don't really have do downvote just because you do not agree with them.
I would much rather have 2 girlfriends/partners
There always seems to be at least one partner in these relationships singing their praise through gritted teeth.
There always seems to be at least one partner in these relationships singing their praise through gritted teeth.
I have no experience of such relationships so I cannot really say anything about it except that I want one :)
> Since I believe that the male sex drive is bigger than that of women...
Your belief is not borne out by data. And for a long period in the West the opposite was the common belief.
In some countries like contemporary Iran, sex education includes the pleasure, needs and in-the-bed sexual equality of both partners (in Iran’s case to try to preserve conservative marriage and increase procreation — obviously there is not equality OUTSIDE the bed)
Your belief is not borne out by data. And for a long period in the West the opposite was the common belief.
In some countries like contemporary Iran, sex education includes the pleasure, needs and in-the-bed sexual equality of both partners (in Iran’s case to try to preserve conservative marriage and increase procreation — obviously there is not equality OUTSIDE the bed)
I think I read some paper about homosexual men having the most sex and homosexual women the least, if that is true I think it would be data that suggests that my belief is correct.
But otherwise my belief is based on experience mostly.
But otherwise my belief is based on experience mostly.
I saw a documentary once called "Brain Sex" and as I remember it, in the days before HIV/AIDS, it wasn't unheard of for some gay men to have 1,000 sexual partners in a lifetime.
I'm sure that this has changed dramatically over the past 30-35 years.
I'm sure that this has changed dramatically over the past 30-35 years.
I'm less sure of that to be honest. People get inured to that kind of fear after a while.
While I do agree that monogamy is a simplistic view, the view you propose is equally simplistic.
While polygamy is potentially more rewarding than monogamy, it is also much tricky to get right. Given how many people struggle with monogamy already (and most often, it should be said, not because of the exclusivity), it's not really surprised it became the standard.
While polygamy is potentially more rewarding than monogamy, it is also much tricky to get right. Given how many people struggle with monogamy already (and most often, it should be said, not because of the exclusivity), it's not really surprised it became the standard.
Yeah of course it is tricky, I haven't suggested that it would be easy. But for it to work everyone ivolved have to be very open as individuals, strong in communication and I think that may help.
>> Personally, I would much rather have 2 or more girlfriends/partners who enjoy me and eachother than a marriage with one.
And they have other men in their lives too?
You have some funny beliefs, and you'll find a thriving polyamory community out there that many women take part in. It's just that if you're not going looking for an exclusive relationship, neither are they.
And they have other men in their lives too?
You have some funny beliefs, and you'll find a thriving polyamory community out there that many women take part in. It's just that if you're not going looking for an exclusive relationship, neither are they.
> And they have other men in their lives too?
Haven't really thought about that. I guess it depends on the relationship I have with them. If we live together I rather like them to be bisexual, but I guess it would be ok for me to live like a collective and for them to enjoy other men. But then I would like to know these men and perhaps even live with them and the women.
> You have some funny beliefs, and you'll find a thriving polyamory community out there that many women take part in.
Well, I just like to enjoy life as much as possible because I am going to be dead for a long effing time.
Haven't really thought about that. I guess it depends on the relationship I have with them. If we live together I rather like them to be bisexual, but I guess it would be ok for me to live like a collective and for them to enjoy other men. But then I would like to know these men and perhaps even live with them and the women.
> You have some funny beliefs, and you'll find a thriving polyamory community out there that many women take part in.
Well, I just like to enjoy life as much as possible because I am going to be dead for a long effing time.
>I am going to be dead for a long effing time.
See... I think that thought and I continue with "what does it matter if I'm only with one person? My contribution to the world is not going to be based on how sexually satisfied I am."
I have whatever sex I need to get it off my mind so that I can work on my hobbies and interests without distraction. "I'm going to be dead" is just as much a reason to be miserable as it is a reason to be happy. (That is, they have nothing to do with each other whatsoever.)
See... I think that thought and I continue with "what does it matter if I'm only with one person? My contribution to the world is not going to be based on how sexually satisfied I am."
I have whatever sex I need to get it off my mind so that I can work on my hobbies and interests without distraction. "I'm going to be dead" is just as much a reason to be miserable as it is a reason to be happy. (That is, they have nothing to do with each other whatsoever.)
I disagree about the reason to be miserable since no one wants to be miserable. But otherwise I agree and am practially doing the same thing as you are at the moment. :)
If we agree that being happy is better than being miserable, and time is limited resource, then yeah, it is logical to favor and seek happiness over misery.
Being happy is better than being miserable, all else being equal. It's just that all else isn't equal.
There are things worth dying for. So naturally there are things worth being miserable for.
There are things worth dying for. So naturally there are things worth being miserable for.
Ha!
I was half expecting you to come back "Of course not, the very idea !!!?!"
Seriously, if that seems like something you're interested in, there are a lot of people out there who agree with you, of both/all genders, many who are bisexual as well. Look up some local poly meetups, there are lots around (though you may have more luck finding them in major cities). Best of luck.
I was half expecting you to come back "Of course not, the very idea !!!?!"
Seriously, if that seems like something you're interested in, there are a lot of people out there who agree with you, of both/all genders, many who are bisexual as well. Look up some local poly meetups, there are lots around (though you may have more luck finding them in major cities). Best of luck.
Haha, I have looked up some but most people who are into this seem a lot older than me and kind of ugly for most of the time. I understand this may of course differ completely from people to people.
I don't really want any kind of relationship right now though, since I am focusing on work and myself. But I will probably do this later, thanks.
I don't really want any kind of relationship right now though, since I am focusing on work and myself. But I will probably do this later, thanks.
Ssssshhhh, we celebrate diversity these days, nobody is supposed to point out that the poly crowd are usually a little ... odd.
> Personally, I would much rather have 2 or more girlfriends/partners
Sharing time between them would take away most of your personal time though. It'd also be kind of annoying with kids.
Sharing time between them would take away most of your personal time though. It'd also be kind of annoying with kids.
They can have time with either me or themselves. I guess kids would complicate things a lot but hopefully I can manage to avoid that part.
I don't see how I could possibly pursue a second relationship and still give my relationship with my wife the time and energy it deserves.
Well if she would have a relationship with your new partner as well, they could spend time together while you do other stuff.
I'm not sure what you have in mind; some sort of "sister wives" type arrangement? I don't think it really solves the problem.
and...
"“You think you had a relationship with Truck Man,” I tell her. “Actually, you had an intimate encounter with yourself, mediated by him."
This article (and others like it) make me kind of think that (A) much of psychology should not be treated as an objective science (2) Objective science is not the only useful contribution. Therapists don't have to be scientific.
People get a lot of relief from being able to narrate their life and their feelings. They find beauty or comfort in exploring motivations (from a subjective POV). It can be liberating (and effective) to act within a narrative, to have names for things. A lot of our best art is dedicated to this sort of thing, especially romantic literature.
For abstract truth, I don't think most of this article describes it. In the abstract, I think the answer to the question is simple: (1) People (on average) are semi-monogomous, like a lot of animals. (2) It's hard to use cultural conventions to restrict people's sexuality. see exhibit I "The Gays."
That doesn't mean that a therapist should just tell this lady "you were just horny."