Seriously, if you need some ideology to keep a marriage happy you're doing it wrong. Relationships come before your parcipation in "isms", not after.
If this is his best option, then cool, and if he needs to believe it's feminism to feel okay, respect. But that still sucks more than if, say, your wife only wanted to sleep with you.
Heh, I didn't actually expect to be arguing against you, cause I didn't consider us as very different with respect to our sociosexuality or our views on this matter. I'm no Republican Senator, but if I did seem like it, then it could perhaps be that reality has a slightly more conservative bias than you're comfortable with?
Far from basing my writings on my own experiences, I'm actually trying to represent actual research as far as I have understood it. However, I don't feel like writing a thesis here, so I'm always in danger of missing some nuances or using words like 'normal' to denote usual and common, instead of promoting a normative standard.
Please read my posts in the best light possible, and I'll try to throw in actual links for references.
I'll ignore what I think is a veiled attempt at insulting me, and present you at least one link as a reference to the fact that women emotionally attach to their sexual partners:
None of this would surprise John Townsend, an evolutionary anthropologist whose extensive research has led him to believe that many women go through an experimental stage when they try casual sex, but that they almost always end up rejecting it. For women, intercourse produces feelings of "vulnerability" and of being used when they cannot get the desired emotional investment from their partners. In Townsend's studies, that occurs even among the most sexually liberated women. Despite their freethinking attitudes, their emotions make it impossible for them to enjoy casual sex.
Statistics from the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy suggest that 15% of wives report having had sex outside of their marriage. When emotional affairs or sexual intimacies without intercourse (such as kissing) are included, the number jumps to 35%.”
A National Marriage Project study of 25- to 60-year-olds found that highly educated people are less likely to be unfaithful than their less educated peers. In the 2000s, 13% of college educated respondents reported sex outside their marriage, compared with 19% of those who were moderately educated and 21% of those with the least education (high school dropouts).
15% sexual infidelity in total isn't a whole lot, and higher socioeconomic level correlates with even less infidelity.
Furthermore, after age 30, between 40 and 50 percent of Americans are in their first marriage. That doesn't say anything about whether they are good or bad marriages, but it does indicate that people are willing to stick together.
Spoiler:
Nothing of this completely refutes the idea that there might be a drop in attraction (physical or emotional) for some women towards their partners as time goes on, but the research strongly indicates that the overwhelming majority does not "lose attraction & stray".
Now, if you could refer me to some of the research you have read on the matter, I'd be quite interested in seeing it.
And we also have the capacity to stuff our faces. Primitive urges & reactions are worthy to be considered but jealousy like gluttony can be tamed (ideally, I'm still working on both, lol)
Most people do not handle jealousy well, and some not at all, however. It's deeply ingrained in us, and it will continue to be with us for quite a while longer, if not forever.
University of Texas psychologist David Buss argues in The Dangerous Passion: Why Jealousy Is as Necessary as Love and Sex, that men and women experience jealousy differently, and that it’s the threat of sexual infidelity that most stirs jealousy in men. “The burden of manhood is uncertainty of paternity; jealousy serves to keep a mate from straying, upping a man’s confidence that he is the genetic father of his partner’s children. Jealousy arose to keep him from the reproductive dead-end of investing his finite resources in raising some other man’s children. Women respond most to the possible loss of love to a rival female, a way of protecting a partner’s needed commitment to home and kids. And perhaps in the small bands in which humans lived for most of evolutionary history, jealousy was effective in keeping a mate from straying.”
I've only slept with two virigns. I can't speak for all people but I'm appreciate of my partners having had lovers before me, teaching how to give head is somewhat of a bother.
The text you're quoting literally says has, not has had!
Clearly, believing that I'm a Republican Senator makes you unwilling to properly read what I'm writing, but I hope you can at least agree to what I actually wrote?
The question of former sexual partners is a huge, but different, question, and how many previous partners an individual man or woman is willing to tolerate can vary quite a bit. But that is not what I pointed out!
Spare me the stupid, fake drama. You're better than that.
The point is that monogamy oriented are interested in finding another monogamy oriented person to have a relationship with. Wasting time with short-term oriented promiscuous people is both a waste of time and bad for their emotional health.
For psychological well-being in relation to sociosexuality and casual sex, one could for instance check Z. Vrangalova's reserach:
Abstract
Casual sex has become a normative experience among young people, raising concerns regarding its well-being consequences. Prior findings on main effects of casual sex on well-being are mixed, suggesting possible moderating factors. Using longitudinal and weekly diary methodologies, this study examined the moderating influence of sociosexuality, a stable personality orientation toward casual sex, on psychological well-being (self-esteem, life satisfaction, depression, and anxiety) following penetrative (oral, vaginal, or anal) casual sex among single undergraduates. As predicted, sociosexuality moderated the effect of casual sex on well-being on a weekly basis across 12 consecutive weeks, over one semester, and over one academic year. Sociosexually unrestricted students typically reported higher well-being after having casual sex compared to not having casual sex; there were no such differences among restricted individuals. Few gender differences were found. Findings are discussed in terms of authenticity in one’s sexual behaviors.
At the end of the sentence is a good time to pause, take a breathe & realize you're making a bias, unscienctific statement based on... who knows what. That may be your experience but universilizing it & making everyone else bad/wrong/diseased is... well kind of the cause of at least 90% of all human strive/suffering.
Cheetah, I don't know you very well or much about your personal life but tell me, deep down, do you really feel it is your natural inclination to want to have sexual intercourse with one, and only one, woman for the rest of your days. Not just when she's 20 & hot but when she's 50, 60, 77 years old? If you are married & this is your commitment, I respect it tremendously but even if you are you really telling me that if your wife deep down said "Honey, go bang some 20 year olds & let me watch, it turns me on" you wouldn't be tempted?
If monogamy were "normal" almost everyone would do it but almost noone does it. How many people age 70 have only slept with 1 other human being? I'd wager less than 10%. Thats what monogamy really means, not just sleeping with someone "special" for a couples years until you're tired of them & then sleeping with someone else & telling yourself the same story. Serial-monogamy is not real monogamy.
Ugh. So much normal it makes my head spin. Who gets to decide normal? You sound like a republican senator's blogpost being written as he gets a handie from someone of unknown age & gender sitting behind him in a truck-stop restroom.
Just FYI: I'm rather offended by your characterizations of my statements as "[biased], unscientific statement based on... who knows what." and that I make "everyone else bad/wrong/diseased". I should of course take some of the blame for it, since I didn't provide any references for my statements the first time around, but it becomes exceptionally galling when you right away turn around and throw out numbers and guesses of your own concoction!
Monogamy among humans is generally understood to be about sticking with one long-term sexual partner at a time. Of course people change and life happens, and sometimes old relationships break and new form. That is still a huge difference from having multiple sexual partners a year, tons of one-night stands or having multiple partners at once.
I used 'normal' as a term for common or usual, and that was of course a mistake, when it can also be understood as a 'normative' term. However, we are talking about aggregated populations here. It is perfectly possible to find individuals within specific groups which go completely against the expected behaviour for that group, but that doesn't in any way invalidate the characteristics of the broader group.
Furthermore, to be on the sociosexually unrestricted end of the spectrum is not in itself immoral, bad or wrong. It is in fact usually characterized by much greater swings in moods between happiness and sadness. Sociosexually unrestricted Individuals can be good or bad depending on their actions, just like individuals on the restricted end of the spectrum - or in any other group - can be good or bad. There are, however, unrestricted people who will hide the fact of their sociosexuality to get sex from more restricted people who are in fact looking for a long-term relationship. In addition, it is a fact that narcissism and psychopathy are correlated with sociosexual unrestrictedness. That doesn't mean that all unrestricted people are narcissistic psychopaths, but the prevalence is larger there, and sociosexually restricted people should nevertheless be avoiding them, as a general rule.
Now, I already showed you data that about half of Americans are still in their first marriage when they turn sixty! And I gave you real data about infidelity, which is as low as 13% for college educated people. I can augment those with data by Pedersen et al. (2002), which shows the preferred number of partners for the next 30 years among college students:
Notice how one partner is already enough for over 65% of women and 50% of men, and how already by three partners it is enough for 60% of men and 80% of women!
Administered a sociosexual orientation inventory and the California Q-Set to 195 undergraduates to identify the personality features associated with individual differences in sociosexuality (the extent to which people are willing to engage in uncommitted sexual relationships). Ss were also evaluated for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-IV (DSM-IV) Cluster B personality disorders (i.e., narcissism, psychopathy, histrionic, and borderline). Findings indicated that both unrestricted women and men described themselves as attractive and not ethically consistent. Additionally, unrestricted women described themselves as not being moralistic and as varying their roles, depending on the situation. Unrestricted men described themselves as irresponsible, unproductive, not warm, not anxious, and assertive. Relationships were demonstrated between unrestricted sociosexuality for men and narcissism and psychopathy. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
And restricted sociosexual people (those who prefer monogamy) are in fact avoiding the other group:
Spoiler:
Empirical investigations have revealed that as the number of prior sexual partners increases, an individual’s desirability as a mate correspondingly decreases.
Both men and women prefer low levels of sexual experience in potential dating and marriage partners.
(Jacoby & Williams, 1985; Oliver & Sedikides, 1992; Sprecher et al., 1997)
Individuals with a large number of previous sex partners are evaluated negatively by both sexes.
(Hendrick & Hendrick, 1987; Sprecher, 1989)
Those with more unrestrained sexual histories are judged by both sexes as having negative personality characteristics.
(O’Sullivan, 1995)
Finally, since you have presented yourself as a subject to this discussion, and since you have inquired about my personal stance in this:
I'm afraid I am more sociosexually unrestricted than I would have ideally liked, but I'm also not unrestricted enough to avoid all the trappings of sociosexually restricted people. I most definitely would be very happy if I ended up with a woman whom was accepting - possibly even encouraging - of me having extramarital sexual relations. Finding someone like that, which will be able to love me and whom I will also be able to love, is rather difficult. The difficulty is increased even more by the fact that a unilateral version of a real, open marriage is far more unlikely than a bilateral open marriage, and I highly doubt I would be okay with the latter. All in all, I'm somewhat confused and worried about where I want to end up and where I will end up.
But as with so many other things, I expect I'll find out in the future.
For the aggregate however, we have some pretty good ideas about what reality is, and it is not what you claimed it to be in your post.
Did you notice that you - all by yourself - connected an argument about divorce and successful marriages to other arguments about sociosexuality? A connection I had not argued, and which I have never intended to promote.
Most Americans support marriage, most Americans want to get married, and most Americans do get married. Why then is the institution atrophying among those with least education and lowest incomes?
A lack of “marriageable” men is a common explanation. It is clear that the labor market prospects of poorly-educated men are dire. But the language itself betrays inherent conservatism. “Marriageability” here means, principally, breadwinning potential. Nobody ever apparently worries about the “marriageability” of a woman: Presumably she just has to be fertile.
If a man can’t earn—and that’s apparently his only authentic contribution—he becomes just another mouth to feed, another child. But men with children are something more than just potential earners: They are fathers. And what many children in our poorest neighborhoods need most of all is more parenting.
The proportion of children being raised by a single parent has more than doubled in the last four decades. Most black children are now being raised by a single mother. Mass incarceration plays a role here: More than half of black men without a high school degree do some jail time before they turn 30. In short, the nation faces a fathering deficit. By continuing to see the male role in such constricting terms—as breadwinner or nothing—we are inadvertently contributing to the slow death of marriage in our most disadvantaged communities.
In short, it seems that poorer and lesser educated people have more traditional views on what marriage should be - views which do not suit them well in their current society, and that a large proportion of poor black men spend time in jail (and we all know what terribly heinous crimes they committed to end up there...).
-----------------------------
I ended up spending far too long looking up all the references for this post. I did it mainly because I generally respect and like you Narz. I hope you found the references interesting and that the effort was worth it.
I'll ignore what I think is a veiled attempt at insulting me, and present you at least one link as a reference to the fact that women emotionally attach to their sexual partners:
I apologize if it seemed like I was insulting you. I wasn't insulting you personally, I just think men in general try to brainwash themselves into thinking women stay attracted forever when its not generally the case. Women lose arousal & attraction possibly even quicker than men do.
I can't be bothered to argue with supposed stats on infidelity. The whole point of infidelity is that you aren't going to admit it. If you think that only the people who report infidelity actually commit infidelity I might suggest you look up a word starting with gul in the dictionary & look for your photo.
As for 50% of people still being married by 60 that's not particularly encouraging.
I didn't mean to get personal with you, I just find it a bit daft to think there are two sexual styles that are "normal", one is total promiscuity & the other is "mate for life & never look back". I think almost noone deep down fits into either catagory.
There was a show interviewing elderly people about the sex lives over the years, I think it was on NPR, I only caught the tail of it (during a brief period where I was actually driving, with no car I never listen to the radio). The conclusion of all the interviews was that very few people are "normal". Once you get old and your spouse is dead there is no longer any reason to hide the truth.
Most people settle because they're lonely. If you're a middle aged fat lady with a half-decent husband who helps support you there is very little incentive to cheat or if you do cheat you better not get caught.
Very few people are going to admit in an interview "I'm no longer particularly attracted to my spouse but its convenient to stay & I'm no spring chicken myself", even fewer are going to admit cheating.
Depends if the guy really thinks its ok or is just trying to rationize. I suspect the later since he's talking nonsense about feminism & whatnot rather than his actual desires.
Some men actually enjoy seeing their woman with another man. Probably drastically increases sperm count I'd imagine. Most sperms are not fertilization but attack sperms. That scientific fact kind of shatters the whole "Women are weak & innocent & mine only wants me" gobbledeegook that some men actually believe.
The shape of the human penis is designed to scoop out the semen of other men. Why would this have evolved if women were chaste little angels who feel in love for life the instant they were first penetrated?
Heh. Thanks for clearing up the seemingly insulting part (though notice that you're basically accusing me of being gullible this time).
I think I'll leave this topic with just a few points:
1.
While I constantly referred to two types of people, sociosexually restricted and sociosexually unrestricted, they are the outer points of a continuum. Most people are somewhere on the continuum. I should have repeated this more often, but it's so easy to generalise over populations.
2.
50% being in their first marriage at sixty is still wildly more encouraging than the assumption you started with in this thread. I think it's reasonable to assume that if we also include everyone who's married in their second marriage, the stats are probably tens of percentage-points higher.
Doesn't say much about fidelity or happiness of course, but it's still something.
3.
Since you brought up the evolution bit: Our specie probably used to be organised more like Gorillas, with a few males monopolizing the females, and other males left with what they could either fight or sneak their way to. As such, one would have an evolutionary advantage of being physically strong and intimidating, but also of being able to fight off other men's sperms. This polygamous past can be seen today with our relatively large penises (but not testicles, interestingly enough).
About 1.5 million years ago however, the females started to be choosy about who they wanted to mate with. This can be seen by noting that the size difference between men and women became much smaller than it used to be. This was most likely a response to our increased intelligence, which meant that our brains were larger, so we had to be born before it was fully developed (or else risk not fitting through our mothers' pelvic bone), were thus much more helpless for longer after we were born, and therefore needed our fathers to actually be involved in the upbringing. Females which chose males which were willing to stick around (and vice versa) thus increased the likelihood of their offspring surviving, and so there was an evolutionary selection for pair-bonding, if not strictly monogamy as known from other species.
4.
Finally, I'd just like to point out that statisticians and researchers are fully aware that people lie on questionnaires, and that good studies do take that into consideration and try to control for it. And as more and more stats pile up, there are some pretty clear pictures about what is "normal" and what is reality when it comes to sociosexuality and relationships.
So while I'd hate to put you in a bad light, I would like to note that you've discounted the references and data I've presented for no apparent reason other than "people lie, therefore we can't trust statistics", and that in return, you've been unwilling to provide any data or references for your own arguments, but instead continue to put forth what can only be assumed to be your own personal opinions and biases - the very thing you accused me of doing initially!
It's rare to find people who legit don't care, but I have seen a few couples where it could...some people are into it and are not just okay with multiple partners but will solicit people to join both of them.
Not my cup of tea, but I suspect there is a minority out there that would actually be happier with an open setup than a traditional one.
By the way, is this now the official* feminist stance on relationships and marriage? Or is this just one man's really weird interpretation of feminism?
Would you change your mind given the context of the guy sleeping around equally or more? I'm remembering a specific couple from my college days. Those two did not seem bound by what you normally associate with relationships. Quite a few people I knew...of both genders...were propositioned, and those two stayed together at least the four years I was there. Admittedly I never did ask what their functional boundaries were, but that seemed pretty open without someone rationalizing it from afar.
They had an unusual vibe in general, but were pretty cool overall. It's the only instance I've observed where it at least apparently worked.
Now, if it did, how would one identify which traits allow it though? It usually doesn't to say the least.
Would you change your mind given the context of the guy sleeping around equally or more? I'm remembering a specific couple from my college days. Those two did not seem bound by what you normally associate with relationships. Quite a few people I knew...of both genders...were propositioned, and those two stayed together at least the four years I was there. Admittedly I never did ask what their functional boundaries were, but that seemed pretty open without someone rationalizing it from afar.
They had an unusual vibe in general, but were pretty cool overall. It's the only instance I've observed where it at least apparently worked.
Now, if it did, how would one identify which traits allow it though? It usually doesn't to say the least.
Would you change your mind given the context of the guy sleeping around equally or more? I'm remembering a specific couple from my college days. Those two did not seem bound by what you normally associate with relationships. Quite a few people I knew...of both genders...were propositioned, and those two stayed together at least the four years I was there. Admittedly I never did ask what their functional boundaries were, but that seemed pretty open without someone rationalizing it from afar.
They had an unusual vibe in general, but were pretty cool overall. It's the only instance I've observed where it at least apparently worked.
Now, if it did, how would one identify which traits allow it though? It usually doesn't to say the least.
Alpha particles are sometimes emitted in that sort of case. Despite what they tell you, they actually don't penetrate anywhere near as far as betas.
I have heard of cases where polyamorous relationships (with or without marriage) can work. It seems to be quite rare, and I guess the main thing to look for would be a near-total absence of jealousy on the part of both partners. There are some people who really don't get jealous enough to affect the relationship, and might even be happy for the other person. My default assumption when I hear about an open marriage is that it's likely not to be very stable, but there are certainly exceptions.
1.
While I constantly referred to two types of people, sociosexually restricted and sociosexually unrestricted, they are the outer points of a continuum. Most people are somewhere on the continuum. I should have repeated this more often, but it's so easy to generalise over populations.
2.
50% being in their first marriage at sixty is still wildly more encouraging than the assumption you started with in this thread. I think it's reasonable to assume that if we also include everyone who's married in their second marriage, the stats are probably tens of percentage-points higher.
Doesn't say much about fidelity or happiness of course, but it's still something.
I guess its something. Supposedly the most important commitment of one's life, pronounced in front of all their closest family & friends @ the expense of a year's salary or more & half of people find it so intolerable they break their word & dissolve their bond also at great expense.
3.
Since you brought up the evolution bit:
....
About 1.5 million years ago however, the females started to be choosy about who they wanted to mate with.
Females which chose males which were willing to stick around (and vice versa) thus increased the likelihood of their offspring surviving, and so there was an evolutionary selection for pair-bonding, if not strictly monogamy as known from other species.
Its unknown how recently humans discovered the link between sex & reproduction, probably less than 20,000 years ago. Some cultures as recently as 50 years ago still denied the fact. In a tribal setting knowing for sure who the father is is less important than convincing a man he is the father.
4.
Finally, I'd just like to point out that statisticians and researchers are fully aware that people lie on questionnaires, and that good studies do take that into consideration and try to control for it. And as more and more stats pile up, there are some pretty clear pictures about what is "normal" and what is reality when it comes to sociosexuality and relationships.
So while I'd hate to put you in a bad light, I would like to note that you've discounted the references and data I've presented for no apparent reason other than "people lie, therefore we can't trust statistics", and that in return, you've been unwilling to provide any data or references for your own arguments, but instead continue to put forth what can only be assumed to be your own personal opinions and biases - the very thing you accused me of doing initially!
How does a survey control for people lying? By tweaking the percentages slightly in one way or another?
Also, these types of studies can elicit wildly different answers depending on the tone or phrasing of the question, whether written or oral, whether the participants trust that their information will truly be kept anonymous.
For instance, across the board in almost all surveys of sexually men report an average of double or more the amount of partners as women do. That alone is enough to make such surveys suspect.
True but it should be really transparent to an impartial observer who has familiarity with feminism and open relationships/marriages.
The couple I'm closest with who has an open marriage do so because they met one another when they were really young and fell in love and became best friends, something that I'm sure any of us who have felt love can relate to. But in their case they were like "well we don't want to break up but we both want to experience dating and meeting new people and seeing what we like and don't like about them". They enjoy going on dates and sampling around but not necessarily building long term relationships or having a triad or whatever. In that context I don't think what they're doing is so weird or bizarre but they are kinda insufferable with it defining them as people sometimes.
Tobias: You know, Lindsay, as a therapist, I have advised a number of couples to explore an open relationship where the couple remains emotionally committed, but free to explore extra-marital encounters.
Lindsay: Well, did it work for those people?
Tobias: No, it never does. I mean, these people somehow delude themselves into thinking it might, but ... But it might work for us.
OP, that's a gross scenario. A marriage (forget whatever gov't decides it is) is a covenant between a man and a woman and God as the witness to not be broken 'til death. Any deviation from this isn't good and mostly punishes the children who will grow up with much more variance, chaos, etc in their lives.
The fact that the father is ok with his wife adultering says it all... and I mostly feel bad for the kids.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
