"I want a girlfriend/boyfriend", and other such relationship advice

[muggiwhplar]

You're right, and it's terrible. But it's legitimate to wonder if it's not symptomatic of a flawed model. It's not a justification, it's an explanation.

 

I'm glad we both arrived at the same conclusion :)

[Estonian dude]

Wow, never seen that thread advance that many pages in one day. So the final conclusion is, it doesn't really matter at all?

[muggiwhplar]

Wow, never seen that thread advance that many pages in one day. So the final conclusion is, it doesn't really matter at all?

 

More or less.

 

I don't expect anyone to switch to open relationships, even though I think they're better than closed ones. But I feel like there's a stigma attached to open relationships, and my goal here was to hopefully make people more open-minded about non-monogamous relationships and consider that monogamy might not always be the best path to take.

 

Also note that most of the problems posted on this thread are something along the lines of, "I like this girl. How do I get her to like me?" or "How do I get my girlfriend to keep liking me/like me like she used to?"

 

These are questions that would no longer exist if everyone had the "abundance mentality" and carefreeness that goes hand-in-hand with open relationships.

[tripsis]

I feel like most people these days form closed relationships because they want to feel loved by another person, and they don't want that person to "love" anybody else. However, as the relationship progresses and infatuation subsides, emotions/hormones shift, and people get married-- they stay together more for logistical purposes, rather than for love. Divorces are messy-- financially, legally, emotionally-- even worse when kids are involved. That's just something I'd like to avoid at all costs lol

I don't really think it's fair to judge closed relationships based on some stupid peoples' decisions. Yes there are plenty of people who enter into a relationship because they like the idea of it or because they just want to be loved. And yes there are loads of people who get married when their relationship already has problems, or because they're gold diggers, or just because they got pregnant, or because they think it will be convenient, etc. But there are also plenty of men and women who enter into marriage or a closed relationship simply because they truly love the other person. I think the horrible divorce rates are just due to people making poor decisions or getting married for the wrong reasons. And that's the fault of the people - not the cultural idea of closed relationships. You may not like closed relationships and that's perfectly fine, but that doesn't mean that they're a bad thing culturally or that all men secretly despise them. The world is full of people who make horrible decisions every day in all aspects of life, but that doesn't mean closed relationships are bad or doomed to fail.

 

I do respect your opinion and I know we'll just have to agree to disagree.. but I just feel like the article in particular uses a lot of generalizations and overarching statements (or imply them) like "Monogamy is bad for all men," "Men are not designed to be monogamous," "Closed relationships aren't realistic" etc. It's fine for you to have that opinion but to me it has been sounding like you (and the article) have been stating them more as facts, and I don't think that's quite fair, especially when there are men in this thread saying that they prefer monogamy. We can't judge the entire human race or each gender. There are men who prefer monogamy and women who prefer open relationships. Ultimately, I don't think we can make assumptions about the entire race and say "Open relationships are better and how it was meant to be for humans." With something like this, the most important factor is going to be personality, and humans differ so greatly in this area. So I think whether monogamy or an open relationship is the right choice for a person is going to come down to their personality and values rather than how it was "meant to be" or whatever is most natural.

[muggiwhplar]

I feel like most people these days form closed relationships because they want to feel loved by another person, and they don't want that person to "love" anybody else. However, as the relationship progresses and infatuation subsides, emotions/hormones shift, and people get married-- they stay together more for logistical purposes, rather than for love. Divorces are messy-- financially, legally, emotionally-- even worse when kids are involved. That's just something I'd like to avoid at all costs lol

I don't really think it's fair to judge closed relationships based on some stupid peoples' decisions. Yes there are plenty of people who enter into a relationship because they like the idea of it or because they just want to be loved. And yes there are loads of people who get married when their relationship already has problems, or because they're gold diggers, or just because they got pregnant, or because they think it will be convenient, etc. But there are also plenty of men and women who enter into marriage or a closed relationship simply because they truly love the other person. I think the horrible divorce rates are just due to people making poor decisions or getting married for the wrong reasons. And that's the fault of the people - not the cultural idea of closed relationships. You may not like closed relationships and that's perfectly fine, but that doesn't mean that they're a bad thing culturally or that all men secretly despise them. The world is full of people who make horrible decisions every day in all aspects of life, but that doesn't mean closed relationships are bad or doomed to fail.

 

I do respect your opinion and I know we'll just have to agree to disagree.. but I just feel like the article in particular uses a lot of generalizations and overarching statements (or imply them) like "Monogamy is bad for all men," "Men are not designed to be monogamous," "Closed relationships aren't realistic" etc. It's fine for you to have that opinion but to me it has been sounding like you (and the article) have been stating them more as facts, and I don't think that's quite fair, especially when there are men in this thread saying that they prefer monogamy. We can't judge the entire human race or each gender. There are men who prefer monogamy and women who prefer open relationships. Ultimately, I don't think we can make assumptions about the entire race and say "Open relationships are better and how it was meant to be for humans." With something like this, the most important factor is going to be personality, and humans differ so greatly in this area. So I think whether monogamy or an open relationship is the right choice for a person is going to come down to their personality and values rather than how it was "meant to be" or whatever is most natural.

 

You're in a closed relationship right now, if I recall correctly? Can I ask how long you two have been together?

[tripsis]

You're in a closed relationship right now, if I recall correctly? Can I ask how long you two have been together?

Over 2 years.

[Giordano]

So the article in question was not justifying but explaining? Good, glad we got that out of the way.

 

 

 

Also note that most of the problems posted on this thread are something along the lines of, "I like this girl. How do I get her to like me?" or "How do I get my girlfriend to keep liking me/like me like she used to?"

But then we'll get questions asking how to get a girl to spend more time on me, how I control my jelousy, etc. Questions are still going to persist.

[muggiwhplar]

I don't really think it's fair to judge closed relationships based on some stupid peoples' decisions. Yes there are plenty of people who enter into a relationship because they like the idea of it or because they just want to be loved. And yes there are loads of people who get married when their relationship already has problems, or because they're gold diggers, or just because they got pregnant, or because they think it will be convenient, etc. But there are also plenty of men and women who enter into marriage or a closed relationship simply because they truly love the other person. I think the horrible divorce rates are just due to people making poor decisions or getting married for the wrong reasons. And that's the fault of the people - not the cultural idea of closed relationships. You may not like closed relationships and that's perfectly fine, but that doesn't mean that they're a bad thing culturally or that all men secretly despise them. The world is full of people who make horrible decisions every day in all aspects of life, but that doesn't mean closed relationships are bad or doomed to fail.

 

Okay. Here's where we disagree-- and this is a big point.

 

I'm not judging closed relationships based on "stupid" peoples' decisions-- I'm basing it off the way we are biologically wired. It's something beyond our control.

 

The generally accepted divorce rate in the US is 50%. Thus, many assume they have a 50-50 chance at a "successful" marriage. Wrong. This means they have a 50% chance of a marriage that doesn't end in divorce. Just because two people haven't gotten divorced, it doesn't mean that their marriage is still a success.

 

I consider a marriage/long-term monogamous relationship a failure if any of the following occur:

1) divorce/breakup

2) one person cheats

3) one person is unhappy with the arrangement (if one person has the urge to cheat, but doesn't cheat, they're probably going to fall into this category)

 

Now, based on that article, which basically says that every man needs sexual variety, there's going to be a LOT of men who fall into either category #2 or #3-- just because that's how their emotions are influencing them. It has nothing to do with their logical mind, morals, or social conditioning. It's all about their biology and emotions, whether people like it or not.

 

The problem is-- most people only consider a relationship/marriage a failure if #1 occurs. People usually disregard #2 and #3. When you factor in those two additional factors, the chance of a marriage "failing" becomes closer to about 90%. There's exceptions to every rule, and maybe you're in that lucky 10% (but you're probably not). But I would rather stick with casual relationships/open relationships that have a 0% chance of failure, than a closed relationship where the odds are against me, and even if I come out "victorious," I'm not any happier than I would have been if I remained single or in non-exclusive relationships.

 

Also keep in mind that men weren't designed to be monogamous-- but one of the main reasons they enter relationships is because they get consistent sex. But sex with the same partner gets less exciting as time goes on. Also, as women age, their sex drive decreases while the man's stays more or less the same. When the man starts missing out on sex, things start going south.

 

One of the main reasons women enter relationships is for security. Unlike men, they're actually wired to be serial monogamists... they'll be paired to one guy long enough to have a kid and raise it, but after that they'll move on to another man. In modern society, women get BORED of their man after a few years.

 

It's not anybody's fault. It's just the way it is.

 

I do respect your opinion and I know we'll just have to agree to disagree.. but I just feel like the article in particular uses a lot of generalizations and overarching statements (or imply them) like "Monogamy is bad for all men," "Men are not designed to be monogamous," "Closed relationships aren't realistic" etc. It's fine for you to have that opinion but to me it has been sounding like you (and the article) have been stating them more as facts, and I don't think that's quite fair, especially when there are men in this thread saying that they prefer monogamy. We can't judge the entire human race or each gender. There are men who prefer monogamy and women who prefer open relationships. Ultimately, I don't think we can make assumptions about the entire race and say "Open relationships are better and how it was meant to be for humans." With something like this, the most important factor is going to be personality, and humans differ so greatly in this area. So I think whether monogamy or an open relationship is the right choice for a person is going to come down to their personality and values rather than how it was "meant to be" or whatever is most natural.

 

Yes, there are men that say they prefer monogamy-- and most do, at the beginning of it. But how many of them still prefer monogamy and want to stay with their partner 10+ years later?

 

I don't think those generalizations and overarching statements are really a matter of opinion anymore. There's scientific research all over the place that supports what I'm saying. I never see any research that says that humans are designed to be monogamous forever.

[muggiwhplar]

So the article in question was not justifying but explaining? Good, glad we got that out of the way.

 

Yup, me too :D

 

But then we'll get questions asking how to get a girl to spend more time on me, how I control my jelousy, etc. Questions are still going to persist.

 

You're exactly right. And that's pretty much the only downside of open relationships :) It's all a matter of changing yourself, which really isn't that hard. It's better to have the problem stem from yourself where you can influence it and control it, rather than have the problem coming from the other person whom you cannot change or control.

 

I'll take minor occasional jealousy instead of the rules and restrictions of a closed relationship any day of the week!

[Kimberly]

We're biologically wired to do a lot of things that we don't because of social grooming. Using it as a justification to pursue open relationships seem very weak. Shouldn't there be...I dunno, a deeper drive to pursue something like that other than such a basic and one-dimensional need? We aren't simple creatures and if you simplify relationships to such a level you might as well compare our sex lives with that of animals, because the distinction between them blurs to nothingness.

[muggiwhplar]

We're biologically wired to do a lot of things that we don't because of social grooming. Using it as a justification to pursue open relationships seem very weak. Shouldn't there be...I dunno, a deeper drive to pursue something like that other than such a basic and one-dimensional need? We aren't simple creatures and if you simplify relationships to such a level you might as well compare our sex lives with that of animals, because the distinction between them blurs to nothingness.

 

We're emotional creatures capable of reasoning. Not the other way around.

 

What if our sex lives are more or less the same as animals? What's wrong with that? Why does that bother you? Because your beliefs have been shaped by society?

 

Our reasoning is what takes us to a level beyond "mere animals." But when our emotions want to kick in (whether we want them to or not), they easily override all of our rationality.

[Kimberly]

We're biologically wired to do a lot of things that we don't because of social grooming. Using it as a justification to pursue open relationships seem very weak. Shouldn't there be...I dunno, a deeper drive to pursue something like that other than such a basic and one-dimensional need? We aren't simple creatures.

 

We're emotional creatures capable of reasoning. Not the other way around.

 

Seems to be quite the opposite. We wouldn't cut a limb off just because we got ridiculously angry unless there was a logical need. Survival is logical, and our number 1 basic priority is just that. How can you say that first and foremost that we're emotional first and logical second.

 

 

Because your beliefs have been shaped by society?

 

It doesn't bother me in the least but this is the exact reason why they're not like animals and comparing the two is a gross simplification of a complex act in people.

[muggiwhplar]

Seems to be quite the opposite. We wouldn't cut a limb off just because we got ridiculously angry unless there was a logical need. Survival is logical, and our number 1 basic priority is just that. How can you say that first and foremost that we're emotional first and logical second.

 

Survival is biological. Logic is what gives us the power to predict future consequences. But sometimes we'll predict the future consequences, know what's "right" and what's "wrong" and do the wrong thing anyway simply because it'll make us feel good.

[Kimberly]

Seems to be quite the opposite. We wouldn't cut a limb off just because we got ridiculously angry unless there was a logical need. Survival is logical, and our number 1 basic priority is just that. How can you say that first and foremost that we're emotional first and logical second.

 

Survival is biological.

 

Maybe I'm just not thinking it through, but it doesn't seem like logic and biology in this case are very different.

[obfuscator]

 

I'm not judging closed relationships based on "stupid" peoples' decisions-- I'm basing it off the way we are biologically wired. It's something beyond our control.

 

If someone is biologically wired for pedophilia, would you still say it's beyond their control? Sorry, kind of a non sequitur...but I'm curious to see what you think.

 

I think humanity is best defined as being better than our base biology.

[muggiwhplar]

They're closely related, indeed. It's just that people forget that we're pretty much using the same biological hardware we used hundreds of thousands of years ago before we civilization and morality existed.

 

As a rule of thumb, primarily following your logic tends to lead to long term happiness, whereas primarily following your emotions tends to lead to short-term gratification.

[muggiwhplar]

 

I'm not judging closed relationships based on "stupid" peoples' decisions-- I'm basing it off the way we are biologically wired. It's something beyond our control.

 

If someone is biologically wired for pedophilia, would you still say it's beyond their control? Sorry, kind of a non sequitur...but I'm curious to see what you think.

 

Good question!

 

Idk if pedophilia is a nature or nurture thing (without researching it, I'd guess it's probably more on the nurture side though), if that's what you're asking, but regardless of the cause I'll give my thoughts anyway

 

I'd say their happiness and well-being that stems from such a "condition" is beyond their control. Whether or not they act on it depends on how strong the condition is influencing them, or how much logic they're using to predict the consequences of their actions.

 

Like in the cheating example, regardless of which path they choose, they're going to be suffering either way. If they choose to molest a child, they'll get short-term gratification but then probably get arrested or whatever for doing so. If they resist their urge, then they're just stuck trying to resist the urge for as long as they can manage. It's a lose-lose situation for them.

 

When it comes to "disorders" like that, I've always wondered how they're still here in our society, hundreds of thousands of years later. Calling it "bad" or "abnormal" is subjective-- for example, a cold-blooded murdering psychopath is generally a threat to modern society, but thousands of years ago, they would excel as hunters/killers/predators.

[Omar]

We're biologically wired to do a lot of things that we don't because of social grooming. Using it as a justification to pursue open relationships seem very weak. Shouldn't there be...I dunno, a deeper drive to pursue something like that other than such a basic and one-dimensional need? We aren't simple creatures and if you simplify relationships to such a level you might as well compare our sex lives with that of animals, because the distinction between them blurs to nothingness.

There's no need for a deeper drive to have sex, just like there's no need for a deeper drive to sleep, or, more accurately, to masturbate. That being said, it's different in that it can have a deeper dimension, because it involves someone else, unlike sleep or masturbation.

[decebal]

A society where people are in open relationships? I think I read a book about that...

 

Anyway, my view on this: monogamy is human nature, looking at the fact that there are quite a few species of animals that engage in monogamous, however marriage is a creation of society to keep stability and order within it. The only problem with this though is that marriage was not originally built for loving relationships; it was built as a form of financial agreement between two families. Men in many societies used to give dowries to the family of their betrothed. If the dowry is accepted, then the woman's family is a few goats richer, the woman has someone to provide for them (seeing that women, during those times, were believed to be most useful at home), and the man can now have progeny.

 

However, nowadays society has evolved in such a way that it romanticizes marriage, while the original reason why monogamous marriage existed (an exchange of goods and a form of protection) has largely been nullified because current society allows for people to live freely on their own, without running into any financial troubles.

 

This change in society's norms means that people are much more able to cheat and have affairs, because we don't rely on our spouses as much anymore, however we still live with this notion that a marriage lasts forever, and that we have a "significant other" to care for. In my opinion, this leads to a "role confusion" in society as a whole where people are expecting something out of their life (marriage), and then they realize they have no need for it, therefore they engage in extra-marital affairs. This is not "abnormal", it's just an adaptation of society.

[Sam]

Who cares? Some people like the prospect of an open relationship, some don't. Agree to disagree.

[obfuscator]

 

Good question!

 

Idk if pedophilia is a nature or nurture thing (without researching it, I'd guess it's probably more on the nurture side though), if that's what you're asking, but regardless of the cause I'll give my thoughts anyway

 

Well, there is some evidence to suggest that homosexuality is nature rather than nurture; if this is true I don't think it would be much of a stretch to say pedophilia is somewhat dependent on nature as well. But it is still up in the air...

 

I'd say their happiness and well-being that stems from such a "condition" is beyond their control. Whether or not they act on it depends on how strong the condition is influencing them, or how much logic they're using to predict the consequences of their actions.

 

Like in the cheating example, regardless of which path they choose, they're going to be suffering either way. If they choose to molest a child, they'll get short-term gratification but then probably get arrested or whatever for doing so. If they resist their urge, then they're just stuck trying to resist the urge for as long as they can manage. It's a lose-lose situation for them.

 

Doesn't that seem kind of unfair?

 

When it comes to "disorders" like that, I've always wondered how they're still here in our society, hundreds of thousands of years later. Calling it "bad" or "abnormal" is subjective-- for example, a cold-blooded murdering psychopath is generally a threat to modern society, but thousands of years ago, they would excel as hunters/killers/predators.

 

Good point. I'll say I believe it's because sexual orientation and attraction has little to do with nature at all. It's not advantageous from an evolutionary standpoint to be anything other straight and attracted to people of "breeding age".

 

I believe sexual orientation is a construct of our society, much like marriage.

[muggiwhplar]

I haven't given much thought to homosexuality. I do have several gay friends and a gay cousin-- all of which struggled to "come out."

 

In ancient Greece (or was it Rome... :huh:), grown men would have sex with younger men for whatever reason. Homosexuality wasn't really taboo or anything to be considered odd back then-- it was pretty normal. It was only taboo for a younger man lower in the hierarchy to "be the man" with higher-status man.

[Randox]

All you need to know about my personal stance is that the idea of me personally having sex with someone I do not know exceptionally well, is...well, its not going to happen. It is difficult for me to engage in intimacy even with people I do know well, and I don't think I could ever want something enough to get past that so quickly. I'd say this is a case of nature for me, since my sibling is almost the polar opposite of me in this regard. Either way, I don't think flings will ever be in the cards. I will either be monogamous, or I will some day have a full blown affair and hate myself until the day I die.

 

But the concept of what is natural intrigues me, so here are my thoughts for anyone who cares to read them, based on what I know, and my conclusions which are hopefully well grounded in logic.

 

I made a huge ass post, which no one was ever going to read, so some paraphrasing.

 

Considering how vulnerable our young are, and how long they take to stop being so helpless, I believe that it would have been to our species advantage for a male to only take on a single female and child at a time. While there would be certain benefit to having the dominants inseminate as many choice females as possible, I think this would be too much for a single hunter to support (and keep in mind, our diet used to be upwards of 90% meat). Also, since humans are a species that commits rape, and seeing that or genetic forberers who are still around on this planet show similar behavior in that regard, this has probably been a problem for a long time. It would be easier to defend only a single female at a time. And open relationship would have served no purpose, since without contraception, we would be either responsible for the offspring, or we would have abandoned them, which goes against our more basic nature (our young are so helpless that were we predisposed to abandonment, we would be extinct).

 

Accepting that the premise of the article was true in that males are naturally inclined to seeking sexual encounters with other females as the years go on, I would have to say that serial monogamy probably was the most natural form of relationship for us. This would allow us to father two or three children before we died hunting, by different mothers to get a bit of extra diversity.

 

 

If you want to look at what might be natural since we developed things like speech, you would need to find a species that is also capable of love, and communication, the more sophisticated the better. Love is pretty tricky to define in another species, but there is one species in particular that naturally has an exceptional complex communication system, as well as exhibiting the very human behavior of playing (at all ages rather than just the species' children): Dolphins. I figure they are probably one of the best matches for our intimate social lives that you are going to find in another species (chimps are probably a good shot too, with lots of human like behaviors, though their communication is more primitive)

[Omar]

We all agree that pedophilia has nothing to do with this because you can't get true consent from kids, right?

[obfuscator]

We all agree that pedophilia has nothing to do with this because you can't get true consent from kids, right?

Of course - I'm just trying to object to his claim that we should never attempt to behave other than how our biology dictates.