Languish.org

Some time ago we have had a poll whether sex is important for you in the relationship. Here we are talking about sex with other people. Of course, assume that for the sake of argument we are talking about what you would allow your partner to do, and assume the partner allowed you to do the same.

For the record, I chose the door number 3.

I wouldn't say no...I would say hell no.

I chose number #1.

Truthfully, our current model of faithfulness is totally outdated and makes people of both gender unhappier.

And I don't say that because I want to cheat freely. I genuinely believe love and attraction aren't a sum-zero game, or a limited quantity of goo that decreases each time one loves another partner.

I don't say it wouldn't be hard. I just say that, in the 21th century we shouldn't be applying standards determined in a time when women were mere cattle and locked up in a dungeon-like room, like in Athens. Our scientific knowledge of human reproduction behaviors has long killed the myth that humans were as much monogamic as gorillas. We aren't.

Quote from: Drakken on January 20, 2010, 12:53:04 PM
Truthfully, our current model of faithfulness is totally outdated and makes people unhappier.

Drama and shit out of my life in exchange for a steady partner?  How is that not full of win?  Putting up with the crap of getting new partners may make you happier but it made me miserable.

Quote from: Valmy on January 20, 2010, 12:55:21 PM

Quote from: Drakken on January 20, 2010, 12:53:04 PM
Truthfully, our current model of faithfulness is totally outdated and makes people unhappier.

Drama and shit out of my life in exchange for a steady partner?  How is that not full of win?  Putting up with the crap of getting new partners may make you happier but it made me miserable.

Polyamory is having different partners without all the drama coming from cheating behind one's partner's back. By definition, everyone knows about it and gets along.

Only really fat people are allowed to be poly. I no longer qualify. :p

Seriously though, It all seems like way too much work, I wouldn't mind an old fashioned orgy once in a while, but nothing beyond that. poly amorous is just another way of staying single and "dating" for this age we are in.

Quote from: Drakken on January 20, 2010, 12:56:59 PM
Polyamory is having different partners without all the drama coming from cheating behind one's partner's back. By definition, everyone knows about it and gets along.

Yeah that doesn't sound like a train wreck at all.

Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on January 20, 2010, 12:58:53 PM
Only really fat people are allowed to be poly. I no longer qualify. :p

Seriously though, It all seems like way too much work, I wouldn't mind an old fashioned orgy once in a while, but nothing beyond that. poly amorous is just another way of staying single and "dating" for this age we are in.

Would an "open" marriage qualify as polyamory? In that case it isn't that much work, except when children are involved.

Ten years ago, I was the third wheel in such a relationship. The husband was a nice fellow, a Polish non-Martinus guy who was kind of a history buff himself, a little older than me, and we got along fine as we would discuss about history while his wife was away or busy. Even though he knew perfectly well I was banging his hot wife, in their bed, while he was gone fooling around on his own. Even when she was calling me her concubine, and that she loved me as she loved her husband. And I never hid it from him.

Once I asked him if it bothered him, and he told me he prefered that it was me because at least he got to know me and I was honest enough not to do it behind his back, and that he knew his wife was safe with me.

Wasn't very complicated at all, really. I only had to respect whatever deal those two had and treat the husband with respect. And as he wasn't a jerk, I had no problem to. No fuss, no train wreck, no jealousy crisis.

Quote from: Valmy on January 20, 2010, 01:05:57 PM

Quote from: Drakken on January 20, 2010, 12:56:59 PM
Polyamory is having different partners without all the drama coming from cheating behind one's partner's back. By definition, everyone knows about it and gets along.

Yeah that doesn't sound like a train wreck at all.

Usually, polyamorious relationship tend to attract people who, well, won't turn it into a train wreck in the first place.

Quote from: Drakken on January 20, 2010, 01:07:09 PM

Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on January 20, 2010, 12:58:53 PM
Only really fat people are allowed to be poly. I no longer qualify. :p

Seriously though, It all seems like way too much work, I wouldn't mind an old fashioned orgy once in a while, but nothing beyond that. poly amorous is just another way of staying single and "dating" for this age we are in.

Would an "open" marriage qualify as polyamory? In that case it isn't that much work, except when children are involved.

Ten years ago, I was the third wheel in such a relationship. The husband was a nice fellow, a Polish non-Martinus guy who was kind of a history buff himself, a little older than me, and we got along fine as we would discuss about history while his wife was away or busy. Even though he knew perfectly well I was banging his hot wife, in their beds, while he was gone fooling around on his own. Even when she was calling me her concubine.

Once I asked him if it bothered him, and he told me he prefered that it was me because at least he got to know me and I was honest enough not to do it behind his back, and that he knew his wife was safe with me.

Wasn't very complicated at all, really. I only had to respect whatever deal those two had and treat the husband with respect. And as he wasn't a total jerk, I had no problem to.

To my mind it would. polyamory it seems is about having the freedom to have any kind of non traditional numbering of spouses. I know a few Poly groups or relationships, that seem to be on the surface at least very smooth running. There are kids. The kids are good kids, well socialized.

I am with Brother Valmy on this question.

While I have no doubt that amongst six billion human beings all manner of sexual combinations have been tried, and at some point even worked for some duration of time, our modern experience has shown that open relationships, polyamory, or whatever have all tended to spectacular failure.

Quote from: Barrister on January 20, 2010, 01:26:30 PM
I am with Brother Valmy on this question.

While I have no doubt that amongst six billion human beings all manner of sexual combinations have been tried, and at some point even worked for some duration of time, our modern experience has shown that open relationships, polyamory, or whatever have all tended to spectacular failure.

Our modern experience also show that believing that people can remain love together with a single partner for a life time is a pipedream to sell Twilight books and bad, cheezy Hollywood flicks.

Yeah, at some point it worked due to social pressure, but with this now gone couples cracking up is only a matter of time except in a very, very, very tiny minority of people. Nowadays a couple staying up to ten years together is considered a steady couple. Hell, even Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins broke up. :cry:

So, is Helen Fisher right? Are we creatures whose reproductive behavior can be akind to serial monogamy, a middle way between the monogamy of gorillas and the aggressive polygamy of chimpanzees?

Quote from: Barrister on January 20, 2010, 01:26:30 PM
I am with Brother Valmy on this question.

While I have no doubt that amongst six billion human beings all manner of sexual combinations have been tried, and at some point even worked for some duration of time, our modern experience has shown that open relationships, polyamory, or whatever have all tended to spectacular failure.

Not necessarily.
The groups I know are all very long term.In one group, they have a 16 year old kid who has had 3-5 "parents" his whole life.

I think the current era is the only point in history where polyamory doesn't mean harem. Obviously not for everyone. I think likely you will be seeing more and more of these sorts of arrangements as people let go of tired binary coupling cliches.

Duality is for the weak. :p

Quote from: Drakken on January 20, 2010, 01:33:08 PM
Our modern experience also show that believing that people can remain love together with a single partner for a life time is a pipedream to sell Twilight books and bad, cheezy Hollywood flicks.

The thing is, it isn't.

You often hear the fact that 50% of all marriages end in divorce.

But flip it around.  50% of marriages last until death.  That's a lot of successful marriages.

The instinct to not get cuckolded seems too strong for most people to be cool with other men balling their wife.  Being single is preferable to that situation.

Quote from: Barrister on January 20, 2010, 01:38:05 PM

The thing is, it isn't.

You often hear the fact that 50% of all marriages end in divorce.

But flip it around.  50% of marriages last until death.  That's a lot of successful marriages.

Not to mention that there's a long tail of people who have been married and divorced multiple times, driving down the marriage rate further.

Quote from: Barrister on January 20, 2010, 01:38:05 PM
But flip it around.  50% of marriages last until death.  That's a lot of successful marriages.

Just because something happends hundreds of millions of times does not mean it is not a pipedream invented by Hollywood.

Quote from: Barrister on January 20, 2010, 01:38:05 PM

Quote from: Drakken on January 20, 2010, 01:33:08 PM
Our modern experience also show that believing that people can remain love together with a single partner for a life time is a pipedream to sell Twilight books and bad, cheezy Hollywood flicks.

The thing is, it isn't.

You often hear the fact that 50% of all marriages end in divorce.

But flip it around.  50% of marriages last until death.  That's a lot of successful marriages.

Nice try.

Since when have we started compilating the data on marriage success and divorce? The seventies. Barely a generation ago. The data might be tampered by the fact that divorce became readily accessible (to women I must add) only 40 years ago for us, so it is too soon to infer whether, with no-fault divorces now more easily accessible, 50% of married couples still remain together until one of the partners die of.

It is not that 50% of marriages last until death, but 50% of marriages haven't still end up in divorce by the end of the year studied. But I suspect that, after a century passes off, the % of marriages which have lasted beyond 10 years will be much, much lower than 50%.

Quote from: frunk on January 20, 2010, 01:50:28 PM
Not to mention that there's a long tail of people who have been married and divorced multiple times, driving down the marriage rate further.

My Mother-in-law married and divorced four times...so statistically there are four happily married couples out there just for her.

Quote from: DisturbedPervert on January 20, 2010, 01:38:25 PM
The instinct to not get cuckolded seems too strong for most people to be cool with other men balling their wife.  Being single is preferable to that situation.

Because they can be entraped with someone else's child if she becomes pregnant.

However, "our" reptilian male instinct is to have sex with as many women as possible, and even better if we don't have to deal with the child-rearing afterwards. It is a little paradoxal that, while we would instinctively abhor being a cuckold, the same instinct would make us readily available to have intercourse with as many women as possible, taken or not, which leads to impregnating other men's partners without them knowing.

Quote from: Drakken on January 20, 2010, 01:53:25 PM
Since when have we started compilating the data on marriage success and divorce? The seventies. Barely a generation ago. The data might be tampered by the fact that divorce became readily accessible (to women I must add) only 40 years ago for us, so it is too soon to infer whether, with no-fault divorces now more easily accessible, 50% of married couples still remain together until one of the partners die of.

It is not that 50% of marriages last until death, but 50% of marriages haven't still end up in divorce by the end of the year studied. But I suspect that, after a century passes off, the % of marriages which have lasted beyond 10 years will be much, much lower than 50%.

Um...no the statistics indicate that annually there are twice as many marriages per capita than divorces going back 30+ years.  Not that half of everybody married is divorced by the end of the year.

Quote from: Drakken on January 20, 2010, 02:00:04 PM
However, "our" reptilian male instinct is to have sex with as many women as possible, and even better if we don't have to deal with the child-rearing afterwards.

My instincts must be rather weak because I have no more desire to do that than jam a very dull spoon into my eyesocket and scoop out my brain.

Quote from: Drakken on January 20, 2010, 01:53:25 PM
Since when have we started compilating the data on marriage success and divorce? The seventies. Barely a generation ago. The data might be tampered by the fact that divorce became readily accessible (to women I must add) only 40 years ago for us, so it is too soon to infer whether, with no-fault divorces now more easily accessible, 50% of married couples still remain together until one of the partners die of.

It is not that 50% of marriages last until death, but 50% of marriages haven't still end up in divorce by the end of the year studied. But I suspect that, after a century passes off, the % of marriages which have lasted beyond 10 years will be much, much lower than 50%.

Not true.  Since marriages happen in churches, and divorce is a legal process, we actually have excellent statistics on divorce going back a century or more.  And while yes it isn't all that helpful to look at pre-1960s statistics, we certainly have them.

And we definitely have statistics of marriages lasting 10 years.  Most of them do.

Quote from: Valmy on January 20, 2010, 02:01:01 PM

Quote from: Drakken on January 20, 2010, 01:53:25 PM
Since when have we started compilating the data on marriage success and divorce? The seventies. Barely a generation ago. The data might be tampered by the fact that divorce became readily accessible (to women I must add) only 40 years ago for us, so it is too soon to infer whether, with no-fault divorces now more easily accessible, 50% of married couples still remain together until one of the partners die of.

It is not that 50% of marriages last until death, but 50% of marriages haven't still end up in divorce by the end of the year studied. But I suspect that, after a century passes off, the % of marriages which have lasted beyond 10 years will be much, much lower than 50%.

Um...no the statistics indicate that annually there are twice as many marriages per capita than divorces going back 30+ years.  Not that half of everybody married is divorced by the end of the year.

Point taken. But how many of these marriages have lasted more than 5 years? More than 10 years? And so on.

The point is, it must be studied longitudinally.

2 or that's what I'd like to believe.

Quote from: Barrister on January 20, 2010, 02:04:06 PM

Quote from: Drakken on January 20, 2010, 01:53:25 PM
Since when have we started compilating the data on marriage success and divorce? The seventies. Barely a generation ago. The data might be tampered by the fact that divorce became readily accessible (to women I must add) only 40 years ago for us, so it is too soon to infer whether, with no-fault divorces now more easily accessible, 50% of married couples still remain together until one of the partners die of.

It is not that 50% of marriages last until death, but 50% of marriages haven't still end up in divorce by the end of the year studied. But I suspect that, after a century passes off, the % of marriages which have lasted beyond 10 years will be much, much lower than 50%.

Not true.  Since marriages happen in churches, and divorce is a legal process, we actually have excellent statistics on divorce going back a century or more.  And while yes it isn't all that helpful to look at pre-1960s statistics, we certainly have them.

And we definitely have statistics of marriages lasting 10 years.  Most of them do.

I'll have to have a check on StatCan, then. I accept that I can be wrong.

But perhaps religious marriages tend to last longer than civic unions, common-law marriage, and plain girlfriend-boyfriend relationships, because of the costs entailed for breaking it off, or because of ulterior motivations? After all, most couples don't tend to want to divorce after 3 months...

Quote from: Drakken on January 20, 2010, 02:08:35 PM
But perhaps religious marriages tend to last longer than civic unions, common-law marriage, and plain girlfriend-boyfriend relationships, because of the costs entailed for breaking it off, or because of ulterior motivations? After all, most couples don't tend to want to divorce after 3 months...

I don't know of any stats that distinguish between religious and civil marriages.

But yes, married couples have a much better rate of 'staying together' than do people who are merely cohabitating.

Quote from: Drakken on January 20, 2010, 12:53:04 PM
. Our scientific knowledge of human reproduction behaviors has long killed the myth that humans were as much monogamic as gorillas. 

Quote"our" reptilian male instinct is to have sex with as many women as possible

Suggestion - your argument would be stronger if you didn't try to wrap it up in unconvinving pseudo-scientific appeals to "nature".  Eg. the "myth" that men don't act as "monogamic as gorillas" because of their "repitilian instincts"

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 20, 2010, 02:27:02 PM

Quote from: Drakken on January 20, 2010, 12:53:04 PM
. Our scientific knowledge of human reproduction behaviors has long killed the myth that humans were as much monogamic as gorillas. 

Quote"our" reptilian male instinct is to have sex with as many women as possible

Suggestion - your argument would be stronger if you didn't try to wrap it up in unconvinving pseudo-scientific appeals to "nature".  Eg. the "myth" that men don't act as "monogamic as gorillas" because of their "repitilian instincts"

:huh:

That ad hominem was rather uncalled for. Yeah, it is an argument from nature, because human reproductive behavior is part of nature AND we have instincts as much as other animals, especially hominids (which we are a part of). And I mind my audience. I am not in front of the Royal Society of Sciences, but arguing with people who are as likely as I am to use silliness and hyperbole to present their points in good heart and fun. We won't change sociobiology today by this discussion.

I don't claim monogamy or polygamy is better or worse or put it in normative manner because it is natural and other behaviors are artificial, which is why an "appeal to nature" really is. Both forms are present in nature in many species and subspecies, and both sides may - and do - argue where we humans lay on the spectrum. I may lay in the "poly" side of the spectrum, but both Valmy and BB can argue from the "mono" side with equally good arguments.

If you disagree about the claim, or the way I have presented the claim, your argument would be stronger if you countered it factually and argued where I am wrong, in other words keep it on the claim (which is that humans, despite socialization and normative issues, are instictively wired to go for more than one partner, either in serial or in parallel, and that our current definition of monogamy and faithfulness isn't adapted to that reality) instead ot attacking the form, whatever the way you may qualify it.

Drakken, what TMM was getting at is why do Gorillas not act on their "reptilian instincts"?  Are they less "reptilian" than humans or just better at suppressing such instincts?

Valmy and Frunk- the 50% statistic refers to first marriages. The divorce rate for all marriages is higher.

I like how BB thinks death of one of the partners the preferred outcome.

I've fed my primate instinct, reptilian instinct, bovine instinct... it's all good.

Quote from: The Brain on January 20, 2010, 02:38:00 PM
I like how BB thinks death of one of the partners the preferred outcome.

:lol:

Gorillas aren't monogamous anyway.  Males use physical force to gain exclusive breeding rights over a harem of females.  Different than bonobos which fuck everything and rely more on sperm competition. :x

We've ahd this discussion before.

It seems pretty clear that humans fall soemwhere in the middle of primate sexual exclusivity. If anything, history has shown us that there is no one certain answer, even if current Western social mores insist that there is one, all the while humans rampantly defy that supposed "norm".

Monogamy can work, and work very well. So can other arrangements. Shrug.

For me, I am a product of my society, I think, and the idea of an "open" marriage is only interesting in the most theoretical of senses.

Quote from: Drakken on January 20, 2010, 02:32:48 PM
Yeah, it is an argument from nature, because human reproductive behavior is part of nature AND we have instincts as much as other animals, especially hominids (which we are a part of).

An argument from "nature" is highly questionable to begin with because it is impossible to disentangle "nature" from social context, which is one reasons why views as to what is "natural" and one not tend to change over time and place. 

It is also questionable because even if coherent and true, it begs the question of why human beings should simply yield to their primative "natural" instincts.

Thirdly, even assuming the argument was coherent and did not beg the question, it is not particularly persuasive, because as frunk points out, it iis not mmediately obvious as a matter of evolutionary biology that our behavior would be more closely patterned after reptiles than our far closer simian forebears.

At the end of the day, the appeal to nature adds nothing because one can always cull the animal kingdom for whatever precedential behavior one is shilling for at any given time.

QuoteIf you disagree about the claim, or the way I have presented the claim, your argument would be stronger if you countered it factually and argued where I am wrong

I didn't make an argument, I merely critiqued the manner in which you advanced yours.
If I were to make an argument on this issue, it would involve pointing to the ability of humans to use their wills and imaginative capacities to develop any number of forms of social organization, subject of course to practical concerns of convenience, efficiency, and effectiveness.

Quote from: DisturbedPervert on January 20, 2010, 02:49:55 PM
Gorillas aren't monogamous anyway.  Males use physical force to gain exclusive breeding rights over a harem of females.  Different than bonobos which fuck everything and rely more on sperm competition. :x

From my research, females tend to mate with only one partner if both have left their respective native group because they are heavily dependent on male protection and interaction.

However, if they remain in the groups the silverbacks maintain a strong control over copulation with the females inside the group, as you describe.

Minsky, nothing in your argument negates that the Homo Sapiens have instincts. We still have the same urges than animals to eat, drink, sleep, protect ourselves, and fuck, and our mating behaviors aren't that different from those in animals, despite our developped socialization and abstract thinking.

To claim that is hardly an "argument from nature" as you define it, it is simply positivism. Objective reality.

And by "reptilian", I refered to the reptilian brain complex, not to reptiles. I know that our current understanding of the brain shows that it is mammalian and not from reptiles, though. So if the idea of the R-complex itself is outdated, though, feel free to mention it.

I'm not going to live on a goddamn commune in the woods.

Now, multiple wives....alright. ONE PENIS PER HOUSEHOLD.

Hell no. Especially not when there are children in the family.

Option #4.  :cool:

Quote from: Drakken on January 20, 2010, 01:33:08 PM
Our modern experience also show that believing that people can remain love together with a single partner for a life time is a pipedream to sell Twilight books and bad, cheezy Hollywood flicks.

I'm not sure who's making up this 'we'.  I'm more worried about the impact Hollywood flicks have had on attitudes to sex than to love.

QuoteHowever, "our" reptilian male instinct is to have sex with as many women as possible, and even better if we don't have to deal with the child-rearing afterwards.

This isn't true, especially the last bit.  From an evolutionary perspective men and women were in something of an arms race not so that we can sleep with as many people as possible but so that they could, if a better mate appeared, successfully have it off with them.

It would be even more accurate to say that evolutionary psych is still a young field in the state of flux, and even the state of play now with respect to analysis to sexual behavior is considerably more complex and layered than can be easily summarized in the format of this board.

In any event, though, I don't really see the relevance.  If the question is a prescriptive one of how as reasoning human beings we ought to behave as individuals  and structure our societies, then pointing to descriptive answers of how evolutionary developments have impacted behavior in the past is kind of besides the point.  We are not mindless prisoners of our own evolutionary biology.  If hypothetically, evolutionary developments in the past gave rise to a tendency towards certain kinds of violent group behavior, that would be something we should not only seek to control, but something we arguably need to control to survive in the context of a social and technical context that is radically changed from that of our evolutionary past.

Quote from: Valmy on January 20, 2010, 01:52:05 PM

Quote from: Barrister on January 20, 2010, 01:38:05 PM
But flip it around.  50% of marriages last until death.  That's a lot of successful marriages.

Just because something happends hundreds of millions of times does not mean it is not a pipedream invented by Hollywood.

Are the movies from the 12th century available on torrent?

Quote from: Drakken on January 20, 2010, 01:33:08 PM

Quote from: Barrister on January 20, 2010, 01:26:30 PM
I am with Brother Valmy on this question.

While I have no doubt that amongst six billion human beings all manner of sexual combinations have been tried, and at some point even worked for some duration of time, our modern experience has shown that open relationships, polyamory, or whatever have all tended to spectacular failure.

Our modern experience also show that believing that people can remain love together with a single partner for a life time is a pipedream to sell Twilight books and bad, cheezy Hollywood flicks.

Yeah, at some point it worked due to social pressure, but with this now gone couples cracking up is only a matter of time except in a very, very, very tiny minority of people. Nowadays a couple staying up to ten years together is considered a steady couple. Hell, even Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins broke up. :cry:

So, is Helen Fisher right? Are we creatures whose reproductive behavior can be akind to serial monogamy, a middle way between the monogamy of gorillas and the aggressive polygamy of chimpanzees?

I dunno. One can accept that many folks are in practice "serially monogamous" without thereby jumping to the conclusion that they would be happier or better off in polyamourous relationships.

The latter only work, from what I've seen, for a minority of folks. In most actual cases I've seen, it has been more of one partner driving the "open' relationship and the other ending up feeling hard done by. In short, not truly "poly" relationships, which I suspect are rather rare. 

Historically, in those societies in which multiples have been allowed or encouraged, they took the form of a harem. A harem (of either sex) works because there is no equality; a monogamous relationship works because jealousy is kept under control. a relationship both equal in access to sex from multiples and free of jealousy drama seems ideal but highly unrealistic in practice, except for a small minority of people.   

Quote from: Drakken on January 20, 2010, 02:32:48 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 20, 2010, 02:27:02 PM

Quote from: Drakken on January 20, 2010, 12:53:04 PM
. Our scientific knowledge of human reproduction behaviors has long killed the myth that humans were as much monogamic as gorillas. 

Quote"our" reptilian male instinct is to have sex with as many women as possible

Suggestion - your argument would be stronger if you didn't try to wrap it up in unconvinving pseudo-scientific appeals to "nature".  Eg. the "myth" that men don't act as "monogamic as gorillas" because of their "repitilian instincts"

:huh:

That ad hominem was rather uncalled for. Yeah, it is an argument from nature, because human reproductive behavior is part of nature AND we have instincts as much as other animals, especially hominids (which we are a part of). And I mind my audience. I am not in front of the Royal Society of Sciences, but arguing with people who are as likely as I am to use silliness and hyperbole to present their points in good heart and fun. We won't change sociobiology today by this discussion.

I don't claim monogamy or polygamy is better or worse or put it in normative manner because it is natural and other behaviors are artificial, which is why an "appeal to nature" really is. Both forms are present in nature in many species and subspecies, and both sides may - and do - argue where we humans lay on the spectrum. I may lay in the "poly" side of the spectrum, but both Valmy and BB can argue from the "mono" side with equally good arguments.

If you disagree about the claim, or the way I have presented the claim, your argument would be stronger if you countered it factually and argued where I am wrong, in other words keep it on the claim (which is that humans, despite socialization and normative issues, are instictively wired to go for more than one partner, either in serial or in parallel, and that our current definition of monogamy and faithfulness isn't adapted to that reality) instead ot attacking the form, whatever the way you may qualify it.

How is saying "your argument sucks ass" an ad hominem?

You suck ass. Ad hominem.

Your argumentation is akin to that of a pre schooler. Not ad hominem.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 20, 2010, 06:09:53 PM
It would be even more accurate to say that evolutionary psych is still a young field in the state of flux, and even the state of play now with respect to analysis to sexual behavior is considerably more complex and layered than can be easily summarized in the format of this board.

I have strong doubts about the value of evolutionary psych as a science. It is very difficult to falsify many theories proposed under this head. In many cases where I've seen it discussed, it seems to take the form of "just so" accounts to describe what might be a plausible reason for an observed behavior ... and then, might not be. Often, the theories rest on assumptions about what may be evolutionarily adaptive that are dubious, as well as assuming human behaviour is much more uniform than anthropolgists do - I remember reading one study that attempted to explain the evolutionary value of the phobia of spiders, which appeared to assume that the phobia was a human universal (it isn't, across cultures) and that spiders were a major source of injury or mortality for hunter-gatherers (they aren't, for modern ones at least).

The assumption appears to have been that, if a behaviour exists, it must have an evolutionary basis. This is problematic for humans because so much of their behaviour is clearly cultural, and varies so much from culture to culture. Certainly basic drives have an evolutionary basis, like the sex drive; proposing that particular human expressions of that drive have such a basis is problematic to say the least. 

Quote from: Valmy on January 20, 2010, 01:05:57 PM

Quote from: Drakken on January 20, 2010, 12:56:59 PM
Polyamory is having different partners without all the drama coming from cheating behind one's partner's back. By definition, everyone knows about it and gets along.

Yeah that doesn't sound like a train wreck at all.

Yeah, because in real life this sort of thing always ends up badly.

Quote from: Drakken on January 20, 2010, 03:14:31 PM
Minsky, nothing in your argument negates that the Homo Sapiens have instincts. We still have the same urges than animals to eat, drink, sleep, protect ourselves, and fuck, and our mating behaviors aren't that different from those in animals, despite our developped socialization and abstract thinking.

Some animals are monogamous.  Like homo sapiens, for example.

Moreover, the social advantages of monogamy are so enormous that it is worth maintaining.

So Drakkan is into polyamory and he's a member of the pick-up "community"?

Seems a bit contradictory as modern polyamory, allegedly, is all about openness, trust, communication and honesty and being a pick-up "artist" is all about manipulation and exploiting peoples' insecurities.

Well, I'm number three on "full" polyamory.  That's in theory, though.  In practice, I've realized how small a minority we are and that none of my significant others, including the current one, have been really okay with it.

Quote from: Jacob on January 20, 2010, 09:18:54 PM
So Drakkan is into polyamory and he's a member of the pick-up "community"?

Seems a bit contradictory as modern polyamory, allegedly, is all about openness, trust, communication and honesty and being a pick-up "artist" is all about manipulation and exploiting peoples' insecurities.

They're both predicated on immaturity.

Quote from: Valmy on January 20, 2010, 12:23:53 PM
I wouldn't say no...I would say hell no.

Yes.

Quote from: Valmy on January 20, 2010, 01:53:58 PM

Quote from: frunk on January 20, 2010, 01:50:28 PM
Not to mention that there's a long tail of people who have been married and divorced multiple times, driving down the marriage rate further.

My Mother-in-law married and divorced four times...so statistically there are four happily married couples out there just for her.

The assumption that any marriage that does not end up in divorce is a happy one or one where people are faithful to each other completely is the biggest crock of bullshit in this thread so far.

In any case, there is one thing to not be into polyamory, and another to be as judgmental about it as you or BB are. It really makes it hard not to make a personal jab about it.

Quote from: Martinus on January 21, 2010, 02:21:40 AM

Quote from: Valmy on January 20, 2010, 01:53:58 PM

Quote from: frunk on January 20, 2010, 01:50:28 PM
Not to mention that there's a long tail of people who have been married and divorced multiple times, driving down the marriage rate further.

My Mother-in-law married and divorced four times...so statistically there are four happily married couples out there just for her.

The assumption that any marriage that does not end up in divorce is a happy one or one where people are faithful to each other completely is the biggest crock of bullshit in this thread so far.

In any case, there is one thing to not be into polyamory, and another to be as judgmental about it as you or BB are. It really makes it hard not to make a personal jab about it.

In what way have I been judgmental?

Please show me a quote of me being judgmental?

All I have done is demonstrate my strong personal support for the traditional family, and pounce on Drakken's semi-ridiculous claims that the traditional family is failing.

If some alternate situation works for you Martinus, then great. :hug:  But for most people traditional families seems to be what works.

I'm too insecure to have Max with someone else, and I've no desire to be with someone else myself. So, I voted no. :)

That being said, I know several polyamorous groups, and only one seems to work well. It requires a certain level of trust to be capable of that kind of relationship that most people just can't achieve.

I suspect it is somewhat easier for same-sex couples as you can have threesomes and various group arrangements without anyone feeling left out. :P

Quote from: Barrister on January 21, 2010, 02:26:53 AM

Quote from: Martinus on January 21, 2010, 02:21:40 AM

Quote from: Valmy on January 20, 2010, 01:53:58 PM

Quote from: frunk on January 20, 2010, 01:50:28 PM
Not to mention that there's a long tail of people who have been married and divorced multiple times, driving down the marriage rate further.

My Mother-in-law married and divorced four times...so statistically there are four happily married couples out there just for her.

The assumption that any marriage that does not end up in divorce is a happy one or one where people are faithful to each other completely is the biggest crock of bullshit in this thread so far.

In any case, there is one thing to not be into polyamory, and another to be as judgmental about it as you or BB are. It really makes it hard not to make a personal jab about it.

In what way have I been judgmental?

Please show me a quote of me being judgmental?

All I have done is demonstrate my strong personal support for the traditional family, and pounce on Drakken's semi-ridiculous claims that the traditional family is failing.

If some alternate situation works for you Martinus, then great. :hug:  But for most people traditional families seems to be what works.

I think only polyamory (option no. 1 in my poll) is really incompatible with the "traditional family". The rest is just a matter of having an extra arrangement. Even historically, there has been little prejudice in our culture against marital unfaithfulness as perpetrated by men. The problem is that the gender equality movement has led to an extension of the previously-female-only standard of faithfulness to men, and not vice-versa.

Quote from: Martinus on January 21, 2010, 02:58:52 AM
Even historically, there has been little prejudice in our culture against marital unfaithfulness as perpetrated by men.

While there has been some degree of double standard, I simply must disagree that there has been no historic prejudice against male infidelity.

One woman is almost one too many. I prefer a low-drama lifestyle.  :P

Female infidelity will never be tolerated by males to the same extent it is the other direction.  The drive to ensure exclusive vagina access and not raise other men's children if imputing resources in to her is too strong.

In my country, there is a saying: "The perfect wife is the one who has no ears"... and is thus unable to hear about her husbands' infidelities.

Which is how we dealt with the whole issue over the centuries. Males could get as many mistresses as they wanted to (though poor people usually stayed just with the wife) and the rest did whatever they wanted.

The wife itself represented a commitment to her family, and the kids from that marriage were those who inherited.

Today, things changed with the ideas of "gender equality". Women are much less willing to accept male traditional behaviour - wich spiked the divorce rate - and the bastards now got inheritance rights, too (which created some nasty surprises in my family, with some adult guys suddenly appearing at the door and saying "hello, brother/sister"*).

EDIT: Needless to say, if I marry I want exclusive rights. And I'm always the one who calls the shots in my relationships.

*: For 35 years I thought I only had one cousin in front of me for the main bulk of the inheritance, and I had already worn his health down quite dramatically. Suddenly I had three guys ahead. And one is as devious as me** :mad:

**: He found out last year he has diabetes. Is there a way to get rid of someone like that without suspicion?

Quote from: Martim Silva on January 21, 2010, 07:46:20 AM
**: He found out last year he has diabetes. Is there a way to get rid of someone like that without suspicion?

"You should try this delicacy from the American South I just learned about called 'sweet tea', cousin Larry!"
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.classictvhits.com%2Fshows%2Fperfectstrangers%2Fpics%2Fps10.jpg&hash=72d6776ad3d6bff8f2cba424f2662b31237e683c)

Quote from: Caliga on January 21, 2010, 08:02:25 AM

"You should try this delicacy from the American South I just learned about called 'sweet tea', cousin Larry!"
[/quote]

I'll look into that.  :)

Quote from: Martinus on January 21, 2010, 02:21:40 AM

Quote from: Valmy on January 20, 2010, 01:53:58 PM

Quote from: frunk on January 20, 2010, 01:50:28 PM
Not to mention that there's a long tail of people who have been married and divorced multiple times, driving down the marriage rate further.

My Mother-in-law married and divorced four times...so statistically there are four happily married couples out there just for her.

The assumption that any marriage that does not end up in divorce is a happy one or one where people are faithful to each other completely is the biggest crock of bullshit in this thread so far.

In any case, there is one thing to not be into polyamory, and another to be as judgmental about it as you or BB are. It really makes it hard not to make a personal jab about it.

The reverse assumption appears to be that a marriage that *did* end in divorce was of necessity entirely a "failure". I don't believe that, either.

The real issue is whether folks are, or are likely to be, happier with some sort of exclusive arrangement (whether this is actually permanent or merely intended to be). I suspect that, where there is an assumption of equality, the answer is gonna be "yes" for most. Multiples have historically worked best where there was no intention that the parties be equal, as in either some sort of harem or in an arrangement where a patriarchal man (usually) has acknowledged mistresses and the wife is expected not to mind.

The insistance on truthfulness, openness, non-jealousy and equality which is the basis of modern poly theory sounds great - utopian in fact. The problem appears to be that very few are really capable of sufficient detachment to be fully truthful, fully open, free from jealosy and totally equal. 

Indeed, such detachment appears to me only possible if one views sex as being essentially unimportant to a relationship, the equivalent of mutually enjoying a good meal or a nice movie, stripped free of romantic pretensions and ego-affirmation. I'm not sure I'd want that. The reward of variety doesn't seem to be worth the loss of meaning.

Quote from: Slargos on January 20, 2010, 06:15:05 PM

Quote from: Drakken on January 20, 2010, 02:32:48 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 20, 2010, 02:27:02 PM

Quote from: Drakken on January 20, 2010, 12:53:04 PM
. Our scientific knowledge of human reproduction behaviors has long killed the myth that humans were as much monogamic as gorillas. 

Quote"our" reptilian male instinct is to have sex with as many women as possible

Suggestion - your argument would be stronger if you didn't try to wrap it up in unconvinving pseudo-scientific appeals to "nature".  Eg. the "myth" that men don't act as "monogamic as gorillas" because of their "repitilian instincts"

:huh:

That ad hominem was rather uncalled for. Yeah, it is an argument from nature, because human reproductive behavior is part of nature AND we have instincts as much as other animals, especially hominids (which we are a part of). And I mind my audience. I am not in front of the Royal Society of Sciences, but arguing with people who are as likely as I am to use silliness and hyperbole to present their points in good heart and fun. We won't change sociobiology today by this discussion.

I don't claim monogamy or polygamy is better or worse or put it in normative manner because it is natural and other behaviors are artificial, which is why an "appeal to nature" really is. Both forms are present in nature in many species and subspecies, and both sides may - and do - argue where we humans lay on the spectrum. I may lay in the "poly" side of the spectrum, but both Valmy and BB can argue from the "mono" side with equally good arguments.

If you disagree about the claim, or the way I have presented the claim, your argument would be stronger if you countered it factually and argued where I am wrong, in other words keep it on the claim (which is that humans, despite socialization and normative issues, are instictively wired to go for more than one partner, either in serial or in parallel, and that our current definition of monogamy and faithfulness isn't adapted to that reality) instead ot attacking the form, whatever the way you may qualify it.

How is saying "your argument sucks ass" an ad hominem?

You suck ass. Ad hominem.

Your argumentation is akin to that of a pre schooler. Not ad hominem.

Ad hominems are not necessarily personal attacks, but also include attacking the form used by the arguer and use it as an argument against the claim. By attacking the arguer's choice of rhetoric in normative terms (as in this or that word is "pseudo-scientific", used here gratuitously loaded as a normative judgement without any argument as to why it is pseudo-scientific), rather than the claim being presented, it makes it an ad hominem.

I am still waiting for his argument why it is "pseudo-scientific", i.e. when and how it was debunked. Demonstrating the pseudo-scientificity of my claim wouldn't be complicated. I just need how, why, and by whom it was debunked.

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument toward the person" or "argument against the person") is an argument which links the validity of a premise to an irrelevant characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise. In other words, it is an argument which attacks the individual rather than the argument that individual is presenting.[1]

And your "you suck ass, ad hominem" is not ad hominem. If you had said "you argument is false because you suck ass", now it would be ad hominem.

Now return to your water painting course at the kindergarten, kiddie. Leave it to the grown-ups.  :hug:

Quote from: Jacob on January 20, 2010, 09:18:54 PM
So Drakkan is into polyamory and he's a member of the pick-up "community"?

Seems a bit contradictory as modern polyamory, allegedly, is all about openness, trust, communication and honesty and being a pick-up "artist" is all about manipulation and exploiting peoples' insecurities.

:bash:

How can you be open and honest and communicate with a woman to get eventually in a polyamory relationship, if you can't get in her pants first? :contract:

But of course, to Mr Jacob nice guys never finish last, and developing confidence and pushing women's buttons to get her interest level go up are all con tricks to get girls in bed against their will, which is pure nonsense. I wonder then why so few chumps have success with the ladies even to get into even into the simplest and most basic monogamous relationship, if Jacob is so right.

And anyway, it's a nice strawman you've built for us, Jacob. I am not discussing the so-called seduction community here, I did not even evoke it once, but the viabilty - or absence of viability - of polyamory relationships.

Quote from: Drakken on January 21, 2010, 10:22:28 AM
:bash:

How can you be open and honest and communicate with a woman to get eventually in a polyamory relationship, if you can't get in her pants first? :contract:

But of course, to Mr Jacob nice guys never finish last, and developing confidence pushing women's buttons are con tricks to get girls in bed against their will, which is pure nonsense. I wonder then why so few chumps have success with the ladies even to get into even into the simplest and most basic monogamous relationship.

And anyway, it's a strawman. I am not discussing the so-called seduction community here, I did not even evoke it once, but the viabilty - or absence of viability - of polyamory relationships.

I suspect the difference is one of attitude - seeing a woman more as a lock to be picked and less as a relationship to be developed.

I can see how that sort of detachment would work well with poly-ness; indeed, it may be required to an extent. Of course, the woman has to see you in the same light.

Quote from: Malthus on January 21, 2010, 10:40:17 AM

Quote from: Drakken on January 21, 2010, 10:22:28 AM
:bash:

How can you be open and honest and communicate with a woman to get eventually in a polyamory relationship, if you can't get in her pants first? :contract:

But of course, to Mr Jacob nice guys never finish last, and developing confidence pushing women's buttons are con tricks to get girls in bed against their will, which is pure nonsense. I wonder then why so few chumps have success with the ladies even to get into even into the simplest and most basic monogamous relationship.

And anyway, it's a strawman. I am not discussing the so-called seduction community here, I did not even evoke it once, but the viabilty - or absence of viability - of polyamory relationships.

I suspect the difference is one of attitude - seeing a woman more as a lock to be picked and less as a relationship to be developed.

I can see how that sort of detachment would work well with poly-ness; indeed, it may be required to an extent. Of course, the woman has to see you in the same light.

Then if to me women are locks to be picked up, then why am I in a relationship for the last two years with my gf? I should be outside lockpicking if I am such a cad.

Are there PUAs whose only interest is to get laid as much as possible with no regards with the girls' well-being? Assuredly. I won't deny it, cads, pricks, and players are there. But these are usually the beginners and the immature gits. "Power" does corrupt, if I can say so.

After a while, though, many of more mature out there get tired pretty quickly of scoring in serial without developping any meaningful experience or relationship, and so they settle into a relationship of their choice - either mono or poly.

But this time, they are the ones who have the leisure to pick which girl is the more suited to their personality and their lifestyle, instead of taking the first woman who gets to say yes to them. I do see that as a long-term benefit for the couple as, as you state, detachment leads to cooler heads and to a more healthy development of intimacy because it remains a choice in the end. If you are detached enough to leave when you feel the relationship is failing, then you tend to stay for the right reasons - because it is fulfilling - and not because you are afraid you will be all alone if you leave.

Quote from: Drakken on January 21, 2010, 10:45:27 AM
Then if to me women are locks to be picked up, then why am I in a relationship for the last two years with my gf? I should be outside lockpicking if I am such a cad.

Are there PUAs whose only interest is to get laid as much as possible with no regards with the girls' well-being? Assuredly. I won't deny it, cads, pricks, and players are there. But these are usually the beginners and the immature gits. "Power" does corrupt, if I can say so.

After a while, though, many of more mature out there get tired pretty quickly of scoring in serial without developping any meaningful experience or relationship, and so they settle into a relationship of their choice - either mono or poly.

But this time, they are the ones who have the leisure to pick which girl is the more suited to their personality and their lifestyle, instead of taking the first woman who gets to say yes to them. I do see that as a long-term benefit for the couple as, as you state, detachment leads to cooler heads and to a more healthy development of intimacy because it remains a choice in the end. If you are detached enough to leave when you feel the relationship is failing, then you tend to stay for the right reasons - because it is fulfilling - and not because you are afraid you will be all alone if you leave.

I'm not saying you are a user or a cad.

My point is merely this: the detatchment we are talking about may have material benefits, but it is a state most folks are neither capable of achieving nor wish to achieve.

Certainly, it would be of material benefit to cooly choose a mate (whether a casual encounter or better, long-term) according to the dictates of reason alone - "reason" meaning what is best for me (and, presumably, best for her) - a "pareto-optimal" relationship, as it were; and to parting just as easily without rancor when a more "pareto-optimal" partner or relationship becomes available, as you say. 

However, it is difficult to imagine such a relationship having any great depth of committment or feeling. There are, as the saying goes, always more fish in the sea; there is always going to be 'something better' one *could* get. A relationship without any depth to it and no great emotional commitment is not what most people find fulfilling. Nor is it any great basis for doing long-term projects together, such as making major decisions as to where to live, buying a house, or having children - the sort of quotidian things that most people find significant in their lives.

I suspect that, more than fearing being alone, many people fear that they aren't particularly special or important; that they can very easily be replaced, and that if they die, no-one will notice or care. The terms for this are various: "alienation", "atomization", "commodification" (often used in various flavours of Marxism) spring to mind. A society in which one's intimate relations are selected on the basis of rational pareto-optimality and discarded just as easily would be, for most, people, extremely alienating.   

Quote from: Malthus on January 21, 2010, 09:59:26 AM
The reverse assumption appears to be that a marriage that *did* end in divorce was of necessity entirely a "failure". I don't believe that, either.

The real issue is whether folks are, or are likely to be, happier with some sort of exclusive arrangement (whether this is actually permanent or merely intended to be). I suspect that, where there is an assumption of equality, the answer is gonna be "yes" for most. Multiples have historically worked best where there was no intention that the parties be equal, as in either some sort of harem or in an arrangement where a patriarchal man (usually) has acknowledged mistresses and the wife is expected not to mind.

The insistance on truthfulness, openness, non-jealousy and equality which is the basis of modern poly theory sounds great - utopian in fact. The problem appears to be that very few are really capable of sufficient detachment to be fully truthful, fully open, free from jealosy and totally equal. 

Indeed, such detachment appears to me only possible if one views sex as being essentially unimportant to a relationship, the equivalent of mutually enjoying a good meal or a nice movie, stripped free of romantic pretensions and ego-affirmation. I'm not sure I'd want that. The reward of variety doesn't seem to be worth the loss of meaning.

To be honest, I also think that there are some difficulties I have not envisaged earlier when you have a heterosexual couples, that do not exist when you have, say, gay men.

Quote from: Drakken on January 21, 2010, 10:22:28 AM:bash:

How can you be open and honest and communicate with a woman to get eventually in a polyamory relationship, if you can't get in her pants first? :contract:

Seriously?  For real?  The prerequisite to open honest communication is fucking?  And the objective of open honest communication is to get into a polyamorous relationship?  I hope that's not what you think, but it's what you're saying and it's pretty shit.

QuoteBut of course, to Mr Jacob nice guys never finish last, and developing confidence and pushing women's buttons to get her interest level go up are all con tricks to get girls in bed against their will, which is pure nonsense. I wonder then why so few chumps have success with the ladies even to get into even into the simplest and most basic monogamous relationship, if Jacob is so right.

If you're a chump, adding a few "PUA techniques" to your repertoire does not make you a not-chump, even if you get laid.  There's nothing wrong with wanting and trying to get laid and if you want to be a man-slut, go to town.  If you need to use pseudo-psychology and poorly formulated evolutionary behaviour theory as a crutch to get laid, then alright, but once you start thinking that that crutch represents some sort of brilliant truth or profound insight you're a fucking chump.

QuoteAnd anyway, it's a nice strawman you've built for us, Jacob. I am not discussing the so-called seduction community here, I did not even evoke it once, but the viabilty - or absence of viability - of polyamory relationships.

It's a strawman to remember your previous posts on a related topic and relate them to the current topic of discussion?  I don't think so.  And it's directly relevant because you're using the same reasoning and "theoretical framework" (ramshackle as it may be) to approach both topics.

In summary:

Poly?  Sure, if it's your thing and you can make it work.  Good luck.

Man-slut?  Sure, if you think that's what you want and you're not a dick about it.  Have your fun.

Thinking that understanding a smattering of manipulative self-help techniques gives you some sort of profound insight into human nature?  Bunch of shit.

Jacob wins the thread. :thumbsup:

Quote from: Jacob on January 21, 2010, 01:40:30 PM
Seriously?  For real?  The prerequisite to open honest communication is fucking?  And the objective of open honest communication is to get into a polyamorous relationship?  I hope that's not what you think, but it's what you're saying and it's pretty shit.

If you're a chump, adding a few "PUA techniques" to your repertoire does not make you a not-chump, even if you get laid.  There's nothing wrong with wanting and trying to get laid and if you want to be a man-slut, go to town.  If you need to use pseudo-psychology and poorly formulated evolutionary behaviour theory as a crutch to get laid, then alright, but once you start thinking that that crutch represents some sort of brilliant truth or profound insight you're a fucking chump.

It's a strawman to remember your previous posts on a related topic and relate them to the current topic of discussion?  I don't think so.  And it's directly relevant because you're using the same reasoning and "theoretical framework" (ramshackle as it may be) to approach both topics.

In summary:

Poly?  Sure, if it's your thing and you can make it work.  Good luck.

Man-slut?  Sure, if you think that's what you want and you're not a dick about it.  Have your fun.

Thinking that understanding a smattering of manipulative self-help techniques gives you some sort of profound insight into human nature?  Bunch of shit.

My prerequisite for a open and honest relationship is that I want to have a meaningful relationship with that person. I have a open and honest relationship with my girlfriend, my friends, and my family, because they are meaningful to me.

That said, if available I'll use whatever I feel like if I don't want something meaningful, as long as it is legal and not hazardous for anyone's health and well-being. May be cynical, but then I can be a cynical cad when I want. I see for myself what works and what doesn't, I don't need professor Jacob to teach my about the meaning of life or whether chumps remain chumps.

You're the only one here screeching like an hysteric with your moralizing tone. I wasn't here in this thread to discuss self-help or seduction or chumps, but polyamory in general coming from a differant approach. I said what I thought, I stated my postulates and my claims, and I argued them square.  You are the one coming here using that as an anvilicious device to get around the point, because yours points do not even touch the subject - you just use something you do not like about me, extrapolate about to categorize me as some sort of dangerous sociopath, and use to rail me. That's pretty cowardly an act, so I shove you off.

You can disagree with me whether it works or not, or whether it is moral or not, or whether it is self-help crap of bullshit or not. I do not hold as an immanent truth or as a science, but from my petty anectodal evidence it has worked with me. There, period. I see no need to go all Martinus about it.

When you have real points touching the subject, I'll answer them fairly. If not, then I won't. I won't lose my sleep over it.

Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on January 21, 2010, 01:49:34 PM
Jacob wins the thread. :thumbsup:

Not. Because he doesn't even touch the subject of this thread. He only shrills because he doesn't like me.

Quote from: Malthus on January 21, 2010, 11:26:54 AM
However, it is difficult to imagine such a relationship having any great depth of committment or feeling. There are, as the saying goes, always more fish in the sea; there is always going to be 'something better' one *could* get. A relationship without any depth to it and no great emotional commitment is not what most people find fulfilling. Nor is it any great basis for doing long-term projects together, such as making major decisions as to where to live, buying a house, or having children - the sort of quotidian things that most people find significant in their lives.

I suspect that, more than fearing being alone, many people fear that they aren't particularly special or important; that they can very easily be replaced, and that if they die, no-one will notice or care. The terms for this are various: "alienation", "atomization", "commodification" (often used in various flavours of Marxism) spring to mind. A society in which one's intimate relations are selected on the basis of rational pareto-optimality and discarded just as easily would be, for most, people, extremely alienating.

I agree that we cannot be all detached when involved in a relationship. I am not in disagreement with any of your first points, if only that there is a wide spectrum of detachment that doesn't necessarily entain a lack of empathy. :)

Detachment as I presented it is not evaluating the relationship in a rational, cost-benefit mindframe, only examining the emotional implications and benefits of the relationship with a little distance. I.E. Am I happy in the current relationship? Am I treated right? Am I feeling satisfied and fulfilled? Are my partner's flaws decreasing my well-being?

Yes, the temptation to leave a relationship at the slightest hurdle because there are "plenty of fishes in the sea", as you say, is definitely present. So is the commodification of human relationships. But as much as very few people can evaluate the situation with complete detachment, very few people are totally devoid of empathy toward their partners either. There's a fair middle ground, I think.

Quote from: Malthus on January 20, 2010, 06:25:32 PM
I have strong doubts about the value of evolutionary psych as a science.

The stuff I know about isn't from that I don't think, but from research into sexual selection and behaviour which often seems to work against what would make sense within an evolutionary perspective.

Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on January 21, 2010, 01:49:34 PM
Jacob wins the thread. :thumbsup:

His new nickname is "the HAMMER".  That's right, Cookie the HAMMER.

Quote from: Martinus on January 21, 2010, 02:21:40 AM
The assumption that any marriage that does not end up in divorce is a happy one or one where people are faithful to each other completely is the biggest crock of bullshit in this thread so far.

In any case, there is one thing to not be into polyamory, and another to be as judgmental about it as you or BB are. It really makes it hard not to make a personal jab about it.

Judgemental?  I was asked if I was into it and said no it did not appeal to me at all.  That makes me judgemental about it?  Because I am not personally into it?  Are you a fucking idiot?  I never once said anything about it being bad for others to be into whatever the fuck they want to be into just that is wasn't for me.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 21, 2010, 03:23:16 AM
One woman is almost one too many. I prefer a low-drama lifestyle.  :P

[marty]OH MY GOD YOU ARE SO JUDGEMENTAL!!!  Now I shall make a personal jab about it.[/marty]

Quote from: Drakken on January 21, 2010, 02:07:10 PM

Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on January 21, 2010, 01:49:34 PM
Jacob wins the thread. :thumbsup:

Not. Because he doesn't even touch the subject of this thread. He only shrills because he doesn't like me.

Or because you're a dumb fuck.

A case of "little bit of A, little bit of B"?

Or mostly B.

In theory, having a myriad of sexual partners plus one principle "wife" sounds great.  But as I would never be interested in letting other men screw my wife, and no women worth their salt would tolerate one-sided polyamory, in practice I'm thoroughly monogamous.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 21, 2010, 03:23:16 AM
One woman is almost one too many. I prefer a low-drama lifestyle.  :P

Words of wisdom MIM, words of wisdom  :cool:

Quote from: Malthus on January 21, 2010, 09:59:26 AMThe reverse assumption appears to be that a marriage that *did* end in divorce was of necessity entirely a "failure". I don't believe that, either.

Err... how is it not? The marriage is an exclusive union of two people "until the death do us part". A divorce is by definition a failure of an arrangement thus defined.

Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on January 22, 2010, 03:43:04 AM
In theory, having a myriad of sexual partners plus one principle "wife" sounds great.  But as I would never be interested in letting other men screw my wife, and no women worth their salt would tolerate one-sided polyamory, in practice I'm thoroughly monogamous.

That's another problem for you, heteros - every time someone asks you about having sexual partners, you automatically assume there has to be screwing involved. Which makes any polyamory/open marriage arrangements automatically an all-or-nothing things.

Quote from: Martinus on January 22, 2010, 07:41:43 AM
That's another problem for you, heteros - every time someone asks you about having sexual partners, you automatically assume there has to be screwing involved. Which makes any polyamory/open marriage arrangements automatically an all-or-nothing things.

I'm completely uninterested if it doesn't involve screwing

Quote from: Martinus on January 22, 2010, 07:36:24 AM

Quote from: Malthus on January 21, 2010, 09:59:26 AMThe reverse assumption appears to be that a marriage that *did* end in divorce was of necessity entirely a "failure". I don't believe that, either.

Err... how is it not? The marriage is an exclusive union of two people "until the death do us part". A divorce is by definition a failure of an arrangement thus defined.

The point of the relationship is not that it end in death, it is that it was worthwhile while you were alive. Marriages may end in divorce because the partners have drifted apart, but the may have been very good while they lasted.

Same with friendships. I've lost touch with many friends over the years; there are however very few people I actively regret having been friends with.

I would not count a marriage that ends because the partners have drifted apart after many good years as a "failure". 

Quote from: Malthus on January 22, 2010, 09:59:16 AM
I would not count a marriage that ends because the partners have drifted apart after many good years as a "failure". 

You may not, but I think Marty has you on a technicality. 

Quote from: derspiess on January 22, 2010, 10:05:25 AM

Quote from: Malthus on January 22, 2010, 09:59:16 AM
I would not count a marriage that ends because the partners have drifted apart after many good years as a "failure". 

You may not, but I think Marty has you on a technicality.

I disagree. It isn't how something ends that matters, it is how one lives before it ends.

The two points are exactly symmetric: a marriage that doesn't end in divorce is not necessarily a "success", and for exactly the same reason: it may have been a miserable sham, in which the parties dulty tormented each other for years and only stayed married out of some sense of obligation. That's not a "successful" marriage, not in my mind at least.

Similarly, a marriage in which the parties were basically happy for years before drifting apart is not a "failure".

Quote from: Malthus on January 22, 2010, 09:59:16 AM

Quote from: Martinus on January 22, 2010, 07:36:24 AM

Quote from: Malthus on January 21, 2010, 09:59:26 AMThe reverse assumption appears to be that a marriage that *did* end in divorce was of necessity entirely a "failure". I don't believe that, either.

Err... how is it not? The marriage is an exclusive union of two people "until the death do us part". A divorce is by definition a failure of an arrangement thus defined.

The point of the relationship is not that it end in death, it is that it was worthwhile while you were alive. Marriages may end in divorce because the partners have drifted apart, but the may have been very good while they lasted.

Same with friendships. I've lost touch with many friends over the years; there are however very few people I actively regret having been friends with.

I would not count a marriage that ends because the partners have drifted apart after many good years as a "failure".

Wrong.

Marriage vows ARE until death - that's what people who get married vow unto each other (unless they are some hippies who write their own vows and shit, but we can discount this as an anomaly). While your approach is sensible and realistic, that of marriage (at least in theory) is not, and it is an utopia as much as a polyamorous relationship is (in your own words).

Quote from: Malthus on January 22, 2010, 10:17:55 AM
Similarly, a marriage in which the parties were basically happy for years before drifting apart is not a "failure".

It is a failure as a marriage. It may not be a failure as a relationship, but as a marriage it is.

For the record, my point is that a marriage is a set up as unrealistic and prone to failure when confronted with reality as a polymorous relationship, yet that does not stop people from trying to make it happen or considering it somehow "natural".

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg718.imageshack.us%2Fimg718%2F2610%2Fswingersnotcheatingshar.jpg&hash=f24868dca3c847c1d29abbe64117035950f2b9ec)

Quote from: Martinus on January 22, 2010, 11:22:59 AM
For the record, my point is that a marriage is a set up as unrealistic and prone to failure when confronted with reality as a polymorous relationship, yet that does not stop people from trying to make it happen or considering it somehow "natural".

Cool, so you'll be dropping the 'gay marriage' nonsense, then?  :P

Quote from: Martinus on January 22, 2010, 11:22:59 AM
For the record, my point is that a marriage is a set up as unrealistic and prone to failure when confronted with reality as a polymorous relationship, yet that does not stop people from trying to make it happen or considering it somehow "natural".

That is all well and good you think that.  I still want it though and have no interest in a polyamorous relationship.  I try to make it happen BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT I WANT TO HAVE.  Logical no?  I thought the question was 'what was acceptable to me' not 'what is natural'.  It is Drakken who was trying to argue polyamory was 'natural' for me and I should want that as my gender.

Quote from: derspiess on January 22, 2010, 11:51:09 AM
Cool, so you'll be dropping the 'gay marriage' nonsense, then?  :P

Gays who want to get married want something unnatural and unrealistic.  Marty has something in common with conservative Christians finally.  All that time in Catholic Poland pays off.

Quote from: Martinus on January 22, 2010, 11:22:59 AM
For the record, my point is that a marriage is a set up as unrealistic and prone to failure when confronted with reality as a polymorous relationship, yet that does not stop people from trying to make it happen or considering it somehow "natural".

You keep saying it, but you really haven't proven it.

LIke I mentioned a few pages back - even by your use of the term 'successful', half of all marriages are successful.  That doesn't sound like "unrealistic and prone to failure" to me.

Quote from: Martinus on January 22, 2010, 11:20:24 AM
Wrong.

Marriage vows ARE until death - that's what people who get married vow unto each other (unless they are some hippies who write their own vows and shit, but we can discount this as an anomaly). While your approach is sensible and realistic, that of marriage (at least in theory) is not, and it is an utopia as much as a polyamorous relationship is (in your own words).

Seems to me you can't have it both ways. If you want to define the matter that way (and I don't for myself see why one would), then clearly a marriage that does *not* end in divorce is a "success" no matter how drunken, brutal, uncaring, or basically nasty the partners are towards each other.

To my mind, the marriage vows are expressions of intention. The intent is for the relationship to be permanent. However, circumstances change. Our marriage institutions quite clearly recognize this, making divorce possible and providing mechanisms for it.

Again, I'm being consistant here: I would judge the "success" of poly relationships in exactly the same way. In my experience those capable of making a "success" of them in this respect - i.e., to be happy and fulfilled in their relationships and lives - are few, since such a success requires a quite unrealistic combination of attributes. Many more are capable of making a 'success" of traditional marriage, since it does not demand the same level of detachment and lack of jealousy. 

Quote from: DisturbedPervert on January 21, 2010, 03:33:51 AM
Female infidelity will never be tolerated by males to the same extent it is the other direction.  The drive to ensure exclusive vagina access and not raise other men's children if imputing resources in to her is too strong.

Females tolerate male infidelity?

Quote from: Valmy on January 22, 2010, 12:17:26 PM

Quote from: DisturbedPervert on January 21, 2010, 03:33:51 AM
Female infidelity will never be tolerated by males to the same extent it is the other direction.  The drive to ensure exclusive vagina access and not raise other men's children if imputing resources in to her is too strong.

Females tolerate male infidelity?

Basically, no-one tolerates the other person's infidelity except:

1. Where there is an agreement in place for complete freedom and equality (in which case it is hardly "infidelity" at all); or

2. They are forced to, either because society rules that they must, or because circumstances put them so much under the thumb of the other partner that they have no choice.

From what I've seen, genuine situations like #1 are pretty rare; I've known more that are really #2 all decked out like #1 (mainly, folks who have an "open relationship" that basically allows the much more dominant partner to do what they like and the subordinate one goes along with it).

Quote from: Valmy on January 22, 2010, 12:17:26 PMFemales tolerate male infidelity?

When there are great economic disparity and an unequal power balance, they sometimes do - in other words, when the woman stands to lose significant social standing or material comfort if she does not tolerate infidelity, she sometimes will.  I think that DP takes his experiences in Thailand and assumes they represent a more universal truth.

Quote from: Valmy on January 22, 2010, 12:17:26 PM
Females tolerate male infidelity?

Some, yes.  A one night stand doesn't really affect them that much, I've never met a man who would put up with it, but have known plenty of females in college who didn't break up after finding out their boyfriend boned some slut.  A relationship is a different story. 

Quote from: DisturbedPervert on January 22, 2010, 12:43:23 PM

Quote from: Valmy on January 22, 2010, 12:17:26 PM
Females tolerate male infidelity?

Some, yes.  A one night stand doesn't really affect them that much, I've never met a man who would put up with it, but have known plenty of females in college who didn't break up after finding out their boyfriend boned some slut.  A relationship is a different story.

That's a fairly low threshold of 'tolerates'.  They didn't break up immediately.

Biologically, a man stands to lose everything by his mate having a one stand.  A man squirting some seed in a female he will never see again does nothing to harm his mate's reproductive success.

Quote from: Barrister on January 22, 2010, 12:46:53 PM
That's a fairly low threshold of 'tolerates'.  They didn't break up immediately.

Never said they loved it, and plenty would not tolerate it.  Just said it is more tolerated in females than in men.

Quote from: DisturbedPervert on January 22, 2010, 12:47:34 PM
Biologically, a man stands to lose everything by his mate having a one stand.  A man squirting some seed in a female he will never see again does nothing to harm his mate's reproductive success.

I think you're on very thin ice trying to make this argument about biology.

And FWIW I've known men who did in fact tolerate their female partner's infidelity.

Quote from: DisturbedPervert on January 22, 2010, 12:49:30 PMNever said they loved it, and plenty would not tolerate it.  Just said it is more tolerated in females than in men.

While we're all convinced by the anecdotes that make up our personal experience, I'd wager that your data set is not strong enough to warrant the conclusion you're drawing.

"Guys got away with fucking around more at the college I went to" does not really prove that "women are biologically more inclined than men to accept infidelity because of evolution."

Quote from: Malthus on January 22, 2010, 12:03:42 PM
Again, I'm being consistant here: I would judge the "success" of poly relationships in exactly the same way. In my experience those capable of making a "success" of them in this respect - i.e., to be happy and fulfilled in their relationships and lives - are few, since such a success requires a quite unrealistic combination of attributes. Many more are capable of making a 'success" of traditional marriage, since it does not demand the same level of detachment and lack of jealousy.

That's your assertion that's not based in any serious study or research. There just isn't enough statistics to back it up and all you can do is to rely on some anecdotal evidence (or even assumptions that are completely baseless and refer to your "understanding of human nature" - e.g. a difficulty with dealing with jealousy). We also have no substantial research showing that the problems of polyamory you mention are not simply cultural and could go away with the progress of the sexual revolution.

And speaking of anecdotal evidence, about 90% of my close friends who got married either got divorced or are in what seems like a deeply unhappy marriage, which only shows that anecdotal evidence is bullshit. In fact, the people I consider to be happily married are only the ones I do not know a lot about.

Quote from: DisturbedPervert on January 22, 2010, 12:47:34 PM
Biologically, a man stands to lose everything by his mate having a one stand.  A man squirting some seed in a female he will never see again does nothing to harm his mate's reproductive success.

Well, this argument makes sense. And it also shows why it is quite possible to have an equal open relationship between two gay men, whereas it would be much more difficult to have one in a heterosexual couple.

Another thing is that men have a much easier time, psychologically, to compartmentalize sex and love.

Quote from: derspiess on January 22, 2010, 11:51:09 AM

Quote from: Martinus on January 22, 2010, 11:22:59 AM
For the record, my point is that a marriage is a set up as unrealistic and prone to failure when confronted with reality as a polymorous relationship, yet that does not stop people from trying to make it happen or considering it somehow "natural".

Cool, so you'll be dropping the 'gay marriage' nonsense, then?  :P

No. I think it's the upteenth time I am explaining that I support gay marriage because of equality. You don't need to be a supporter of mass transport in order to oppose sending blacks to the back of the bus either.

Quote from: Valmy on January 22, 2010, 11:51:42 AM

Quote from: Martinus on January 22, 2010, 11:22:59 AM
For the record, my point is that a marriage is a set up as unrealistic and prone to failure when confronted with reality as a polymorous relationship, yet that does not stop people from trying to make it happen or considering it somehow "natural".

That is all well and good you think that.  I still want it though and have no interest in a polyamorous relationship.  I try to make it happen BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT I WANT TO HAVE.  Logical no?  I thought the question was 'what was acceptable to me' not 'what is natural'.  It is Drakken who was trying to argue polyamory was 'natural' for me and I should want that as my gender.

I wasn't responding to you. All the caps etc. imply that you are taking this extremely personally. It's quite surprising, to be honest, and it's not the first time when a topic of fidelity and cuckolding comes up and you react in an irrational and emotional way like this. Would you like to share something with us? :)

Quote from: Martinus on January 23, 2010, 05:24:54 AM
Would you like to share something with us? :)

Apparently not.

My guess is he was bitten by a cuckold as a child.

Quote from: Martinus on January 23, 2010, 05:24:54 AM
Would you like to share something with us? :)

Are you brain dead?

Quote from: Valmy on January 22, 2010, 11:53:03 AM
Gays who want to get married want something unnatural and unrealistic.  Marty has something in common with conservative Christians finally.  All that time in Catholic Poland pays off.

The unnatural and unrealistic thing that Martinus wants is acceptance for gays.  Although if he thought about it for a minute, he'd realize how selfish it is of him to expect people to accept something so antisocial.

Quote from: Martinus on January 23, 2010, 05:24:54 AM
All the caps etc. imply that you are taking this extremely personally.

Not at all I am frustrated I thought you meant this to ask me if I was interested in something.  I answer and talk about why..and you then you first accuse me of being intolerant and go into fucking attack mode.  'No what I want isn't unnatural what you want is delusional'

Whatever.  It is like talking to a brick wall.  I don't give a shit what you think is natural.  I speak only for myself and you can't get that through your fucking thick skull that is why I used the caps.  Why even ask the question?

QuoteIt's quite surprising, to be honest, and it's not the first time when a topic of fidelity and cuckolding comes up and you react in an irrational and emotional way like this. Would you like to share something with us?

Never been cheated on, never cheated.  I don't really give a shit if people are faithful or not, I just know what sort of relationship I want.

Quote from: Martinus on January 23, 2010, 05:22:17 AM
No. I think it's the upteenth time I am explaining that I support gay marriage because of equality. You don't need to be a supporter of mass transport in order to oppose sending blacks to the back of the bus either.

But you seem to think Gays shouldn't get married because it is unnatural and unrealistic and we only do it because of the inability of straight people to have equal open relationships.  Because people's hopes and wants and emotional needs are completely defined by their sexuality and nothing else.  Why should a tool of the evil closed oppressive straights be forced on the open happy gays?

Quote from: Valmy on January 23, 2010, 05:28:54 PMBut you seem to think Gays shouldn't get married because it is unnatural and unrealistic and we only do it because of the inability of straight people to have equal open relationships.  Because people's hopes and wants and emotional needs are completely defined by their sexuality and nothing else.  Why should a tool of the evil closed oppressive straights be forced on the open happy gays?

The heterofascist argument was mine :)

Quote from: Sheilbh on January 23, 2010, 05:32:56 PM
The heterofascist argument was mine :)

Oh...let me flame you to hold on :P

Quote from: Valmy on January 23, 2010, 05:35:10 PM
Oh...let me flame you to hold on :P

It was mine.  I've moderated over the years :)

Quote from: Sheilbh on January 23, 2010, 05:36:58 PM

Quote from: Valmy on January 23, 2010, 05:35:10 PM
Oh...let me flame you to hold on :P

It was mine.  I've moderated over the years :)

Oh...because I was about to say I searched the thread and you were only saying intelligent things. :blush:

Quote from: Martinus on January 22, 2010, 11:20:24 AM

Quote from: Malthus on January 22, 2010, 09:59:16 AM

Quote from: Martinus on January 22, 2010, 07:36:24 AM

Quote from: Malthus on January 21, 2010, 09:59:26 AMThe reverse assumption appears to be that a marriage that *did* end in divorce was of necessity entirely a "failure". I don't believe that, either.

Err... how is it not? The marriage is an exclusive union of two people "until the death do us part". A divorce is by definition a failure of an arrangement thus defined.

The point of the relationship is not that it end in death, it is that it was worthwhile while you were alive. Marriages may end in divorce because the partners have drifted apart, but the may have been very good while they lasted.

Same with friendships. I've lost touch with many friends over the years; there are however very few people I actively regret having been friends with.

I would not count a marriage that ends because the partners have drifted apart after many good years as a "failure".

Wrong.

Marriage vows ARE until death - that's what people who get married vow unto each other (unless they are some hippies who write their own vows and shit, but we can discount this as an anomaly). While your approach is sensible and realistic, that of marriage (at least in theory) is not, and it is an utopia as much as a polyamorous relationship is (in your own words).

Traditional marriage vows have had all sorts of crap in them besides "till death do us part"--including for the wife to obey. Is the degree of compliance with the vows really the measure of a marriage's success? I'm with Malthus on this.

Quote from: Sheilbh on January 23, 2010, 05:36:58 PM

Quote from: Valmy on January 23, 2010, 05:35:10 PM
Oh...let me flame you to hold on :P

It was mine.  I've moderated over the years :)

I think many of us go through that phase.

Quote from: alfred russel on January 23, 2010, 06:05:51 PM
Traditional marriage vows have had all sorts of crap in them besides "till death do us part"--including for the wife to obey.

My wife, while initially reluctant, vowed to obey.  Christian fundamentalism has worked to my advantage.