EPTAnd that was one of the issues actually, you need arguments and let out the subconscious emotion out without rational control sometimes in a long relationship, I wouldn't call that a bad thing really. It's not ideal but it's better than no communication and letting the issues fester underneath until you rather stop giving in the effort and cheat/break it off instead as being open starts seeing too daunting.
Dating: How's your luck? - Page 1017
| Forum Index > General Forum |
We are extremely close to shutting down this thread for the same reasons the PUA thread was shut down. While some of the time this thread contains actual discussion with people asking help and people giving nice advice, it often gets derailed by rubbish that should not be here. The moderation team will be trying to steer this thread in a different direction from now on. Posts of the following nature are banned: 1) ANYTHING regarding PUA. If your post contains the words 'alpha' or 'beta' or anything of that sort please don't hit post. 2) Stupid brags. You can tell us about your nice success stories with someone, but posts such as 'lol 50 Tinder matches' are a no-no. 3) Any misogynistic bullshit, including discussion about rape culture. 4) One night stands and random sex. These are basically brags that invariably devolve into gender role discussions and misogynistic comments. Last chance, guys. This thread is for dating advice and sharing dating stories. While gender roles, sociocultural norms, and our biological imperative to reproduce are all tangentially related, these subjects are not the main purpose of the thread. Please AVOID these discussions. If you want to discuss them at length, go to PMs or start a blog. If you disagree with someone's ideologies, state that you disagree with them and why they won't work from a dating standpoint and move on. We will not tolerate any lengthy derailments that aren't directly about dating. | ||
|
LemOn
United Kingdom8629 Posts
And that was one of the issues actually, you need arguments and let out the subconscious emotion out without rational control sometimes in a long relationship, I wouldn't call that a bad thing really. It's not ideal but it's better than no communication and letting the issues fester underneath until you rather stop giving in the effort and cheat/break it off instead as being open starts seeing too daunting. | ||
|
L_Master
United States8017 Posts
On October 13 2018 04:36 bo1b wrote: Tells me pretty much all I need to know on how you view such things, and I honestly think it's deeply immature. I can't think of a deep relationship which doesn't have some form of stress. I can think of several which aren't sexless and aren't "full of tension and arguments". I have to address this first. I think you misinterpreted, slightly, in a strawman sense what I said. My experiences/observations can't be immature, because those aren't people. I'm telling you what I have seen. The part where I think there is misunderstanding here is: "I can't think of a deep relationship which doesn't have some form of stress. I can think of several which aren't sexless and aren't "full of tension and arguments". Reading this makes me think that you're reading my argument as "any amount of stress or negativity means the relationship is no good". Absolutely NOT. I agree 100% that any relationship is going to have some level of stress, occasional drama/tension, etc. The key line at the end was "but not to the extent of outweighing the downsides. ". I've yet to see a long term relationship, i.e. decade+, where there isn't a high level of these things. Ultimately, in my opinion, one enters a relationship for one reason and one reason only; because they believe they will have a better, happier life with that person in their life and alone. Actually, I lied. Some people get married/LTR to have and raise children. Outside of those two reasons, or very rare bizarre practicality arrangements, I can't think of a reason why someone would get into a LTR. It's because you want to be happier, and spending time with this other person makes you happy and fulfilled. If I'm missing something, please correct me. Which leads me to the key point, all the relationships I know that are deeply long-term seem to have lower baseline levels of happiness than they would separate. They make significant sacrifices for each other that really hurt their personal happiness, and there is consistent drama, stress, and tension. Yes, there are also good moments and deep love there, but not to the extent of overall making their lives happier, which as we established above is the point of a relationship. Nowhere is this more evident, and perhaps this clouds my view a little, than in my parents own relationship. It's still together after 30+ years, but my dad makes huge sacrifices because he doesn't want to impose himself and hurt my mom. He lives in a place with a climate this is utterly miserable to him, he basically doesn't engage in several of his passions on all but the rarest occurrences because he knows my mom wouldn't like it, etc. He is honestly, pretty miserable 90% off the time. He's not happy about his life situation, but there is little he can do because in that regard he doesn't want to hurt her. That's one example of probably eight or nine, at best, that I know (it's pretty hard to know how happy a relationship is unless you reallly get to spend a lot of time with those people and know the ins and outs). On October 13 2018 04:36 bo1b wrote: Sure, most couples have imbalances of power for many reasons, be it who earns more money, who's friends do they mainly hangout with etc. This is always going to happen, and I don't think it's bad thing unless it's in a toxic manner. Usually balance goes to one person for certain things and to another person for other things. Yes, overall usually tips one way or another, but that's usually the happy medium point where most people are happy. If this is a problem, no reason it can't be better balanced with work and communication, monogamous or non monogamous. On October 13 2018 04:36 bo1b wrote: I do think it's telling that no one knows a single long term polygamous relationship at all. People have been going against the grain of society since it could be called such a thing, to this day successful polygamous relationships remain so rare as to be a fantasy. But in all honesty this line here: No one? I disagree. I've heard plenty of stories of long term, successful ones. I know a few that seem okay that have been going for close to a decade. I don't know any 20+ year ones...but then again I also don't have many friends in their 40s or older, and that's rare enough among our generation, let alone older ones as to make it quite unlikely you would actually know someone in such a relationship. Remember, most relationships, monogamous or not, do not last. Even marriages have a terrible track record, but probably 90% or more of relationships prior to marriage end. | ||
|
bo1b
Australia12814 Posts
Which leads me to the key point, all the relationships I know that are deeply long-term seem to have lower baseline levels of happiness than they would separate. They make significant sacrifices for each other that really hurt their personal happiness, and there is consistent drama, stress, and tension. Yes, there are also good moments and deep love there, but not to the extent of overall making their lives happier, which as we established above is the point of a relationship. Nowhere is this more evident, and perhaps this clouds my view a little, than in my parents own relationship. It's still together after 30+ years, but my dad makes huge sacrifices because he doesn't want to impose himself and hurt my mom. He lives in a place with a climate this is utterly miserable to him, he basically doesn't engage in several of his passions on all but the rarest occurrences because he knows my mom wouldn't like it, etc. He is honestly, pretty miserable 90% off the time. He's not happy about his life situation, but there is little he can do because in that regard he doesn't want to hurt her. There's an irony there, in that my parents are partners in the truest sense of the word, whether it be in business or otherwise. As of this moment they are travelling around the world enjoying the fruits of many decades of labor. Perhaps your jaundiced eye towards monogamy comes from a similar place to my jaundiced eye towards polygamy? I've been for the most part surrounded by people who at the very least appear very happy together, yes I've seen dismal failure, but way more the other way. 75% of marriages last for what it's worth. The key line at the end was "but not to the extent of outweighing the downsides. ". I've yet to see a long term relationship, i.e. decade+, where there isn't a high level of these things. Ultimately, in my opinion, one enters a relationship for one reason and one reason only; because they believe they will have a better, happier life with that person in their life and alone. Actually, I lied. Some people get married/LTR to have and raise children. I just can't help but feel you're conflating a relationship with being very close friends who happen to fuck. Maybe I'm wrong instead, but I definitely feel there's an unbridgeable gap in our expectations for a relationship. | ||
|
L_Master
United States8017 Posts
On October 13 2018 04:36 bo1b wrote: Out of interest, could you layout a rough overview of your current relations? Like how does it work, is it a loose network of people that you're sleeping with, or a group of people you take out on dates that all have their own groups they take out on dates? How committed are you? Do you plan on having children with them in the future (you might already, I doubt it though)? I'm curious as to the logistics of it, frankly I'm imagining something closer to very close friends that you happen to fuck, and they come in and out of your life over time. I will. But realize I'm not the best example. I'm newer to this as well. I had a two year relationship a while back, basically took some time off, came back and was really ONS hunting hard for a bit, quickly realized I didn't like that at all, and moved to looking for something a little more serious. I've also said a few times that I'm not currently planning on a serious, committed relationship. I'm at a point right now where improving my work ethic, discipline, and core areas of importance are too demanding, especially combined with my EE course-load to allow the kind of time I would need for that. I just don't have 10-15, realistically even 5 hours per week, to devote to such a thing for the next two years. It IS my long term goal though. I want to have kids and believe the best, and this only, acceptable way to do so is from a strong two person nuclear family. I also desire close companionship on a deep emotional level with a women. Anyway...enough about the background. It's definitely not a group of people. It's individuals in the same way you would imagine meeting regular dates. The way I look at it is the first step is meeting her on a date and I make on of three decisions based on that:
If I know the women from social circle, activities, or elsewhere, then of course I already know where I would see her. From their, I then do things dependent on where I saw her.
I'm currently at a point where I have one girl that is a moderate level relationship, I will do some texting back and forth with her, but not daily, and usually see her once or twice a week. We go on dates, and look like the typical couple that is casually dating, which we basically are. I also have three FWBs that I'm currently sleeping with. The woman I'm in a relationship with is aware of this. I had one girl who I liked quite a bit as well, but she recently broke it off with me because she wants more commitment than I was willing to give, and possibly the enticement of monogamy. I've had 5 FWBs do the same to me over the past year, so far two are still in relationships, the other three all came right back as soon as their relationship ended. ------- Best I can describe it is that my model is a "cream of the crop " model. I date many people, and let the ones that I like the best rise to the top, until eventually I find a woman that I truly think I'm compatible with and willing to date seriously. For that commitment, I would cut all contact (or return to FWB status) anyone else I was dating and move to a "one serious emotionally invested relationships, and a few others for sexual needs, variety, and non-neediness". I'm a BIG advocate of this style of dating regardless of whether your end goal is a monogamous relationship or a non monogamous one. I believe this is how people should date. The way I say most people date is to go out, start meeting girls, hit it off with one, and immediately boyfriend her up and get serious. When you have an abundance of woman in your life your never in that "I need a relationship now" mode. You don't settle, you're having fun, and you're really taking time and objectively looking for a quality partner from a non-needy place. I think a HUGE portion of incompatible relationships is having a few good dates or a good month or two with someone in the wonderful "new relationship phase" and immediately wanting to "lock that down". This approach completely eliminates that. | ||
|
LemOn
United Kingdom8629 Posts
So I bought Tinder gold NO MATCHES even after swiping for a long time Changing a country even Dammit So I took my tripod Went to this awesome hill/park/woods Took around 200 pictures Spent 4 hours Picked 2 Craftfully edited them ... And got like 7 matches on tinder 3 star rating on Badoo and 2 matches And asked one girl out :D EDIT FUCK AND I HAVE A DATE I REPEAT, I HAVE A DATE IN TWO DAYS First first date in over 3 years. Dammit I need to clean my room, I need to shave downstairs So many things to do! We're going to Signal Festival - basically a bunch of light installation, 3D mapping on buildings and venues all over the city Motion creates emotion as they say, and I was going there solo anyways but seems like the perfect 1st date thing with so many exit and escalation opportunities, and entertainment in dull moments EDIT: fucking relief, I still know how it's done Was getting kinda flustered after a friend cancelled on me And I got 0 matches even after buying the premium app, and old person tax xD | ||
|
L_Master
United States8017 Posts
On October 13 2018 05:43 bo1b wrote: Perhaps your jaundiced eye towards monogamy comes from a similar place to my jaundiced eye towards polygamy? I've been for the most part surrounded by people who at the very least appear very happy together, yes I've seen dismal failure, but way more the other way. 75% of marriages last for what it's worth. It could be, but I also feel it's heavily backed with statistical data and anecdotal data to me. Again, I don't doubt that monogamy can work, but I believe it takes a unique set of two people to make it work. It may be you know better relationships than I happen to know, but I will say the vast majority of relationships I know look happy. It's only when you really get to spend time inside them do you realize where the struggles and downsides are, as well as there extent. The key line at the end was "but not to the extent of outweighing the downsides. ". I've yet to see a long term relationship, i.e. decade+, where there isn't a high level of these things. Ultimately, in my opinion, one enters a relationship for one reason and one reason only; because they believe they will have a better, happier life with that person in their life and alone. Actually, I lied. Some people get married/LTR to have and raise children. I just can't help but feel you're conflating a relationship with being very close friends who happen to fuck. Maybe I'm wrong instead, but I definitely feel there's an unbridgeable gap in our expectations for a relationship.[/QUOTE] I dunno, pair-bonding is a little deeper than just great friends with sex. There is something in that connection that doesn't exist outside of pair-bonding, but I do stand by that statement. It's still the idea that all of that together makes you a happier, more satisfied person than the downsides. I'm not sure we have gap in expectations, but I can give you mine off the top of my head:
I'm probably missing some, but that jumps to my mind. If those things are met, I imagine I would be quite happy in that relationship. They usually aren't though. Maybe I'm unrealistic for expecting those things. I don't think so though, because they are things I'm willing to work for and meet on my end. | ||
|
L_Master
United States8017 Posts
On October 13 2018 05:59 LemOn wrote: Fucking hell boys So I bought Tinder gold NO MATCHES even after swiping for a long time Changing a country even Dammit So I took my tripod Went to this awesome hill/park/woods Took around 200 pictures Spent 4 hours Picked 2 Craftfully edited them ... And got like 7 matches on tinder 3 star rating on Badoo and 2 matches And asked one girl out :D EDIT FUCK AND I HAVE A DATE I REPEAT, I HAVE A DATE IN TWO DAYS First first date in over 3 years. Dammit I need to clean my room, I need to shave downstairs So many things to do! We're going to Signal Festival - basically a bunch of light installation, 3D mapping on buildings and venues all over the city Motion creates emotion as they say, and I was going there solo anyways but seems like the perfect 1st date thing with so many exit and escalation opportunities, and entertainment in dull moments EDIT: fucking relief, I still know how it's done Was getting kinda flustered after a friend cancelled on me And I got 0 matches even after buying the premium app, and old person tax xD Well, at least I feel vindicated. I do say over and over pictures are, AT LEAST, 75% of the equation. Excited for you though! Sounds like you did pictures the right way to, take hundreds, look at them for hours, pick the best two of three. Win. Have fun on the date! Be curious to see how your flake rate is. I think I get about 30%-40% flake rate on first date. Of those, probably 1/3 disappear, the other 2/3 usually reschedule and make it a point to show for round two. You probably know this, but for anyone else, if a date flakes, do NOT get mad. Do NOT be upset. Just say, "okay, I understand. How about next DayX at 7pm". Non needy, relaxed, confident behavior. Women will flake, it's what they do. Accept it, don't be mad about it. Calm, polite rescheduling gets you places. Chewing a girl out does not. On October 13 2018 05:18 LemOn wrote: Yeah me and my ex GF would almost never argued, sex was great the whole time, almost every time we saw each other And that was one of the issues actually, you need arguments and let out the subconscious emotion out without rational control sometimes in a long relationship, I wouldn't call that a bad thing really. It's not ideal but it's better than no communication and letting the issues fester underneath until you rather stop giving in the effort and cheat/break it off instead as being open starts seeing too daunting. Honestly...sounds like a pretty good relationship. The only part I disagree is on the arguments are neccessary. I'm a firm believer that arguments serve no purpose. They are drama, emotional, and accomplish little other than vetting. Calm, adult discussions or conveyance of preferences is wonderful. Arguments are not. If emotions need to be vented, I'm a strong believer you should do those on the people that are NOT the most important to you "e.g. extremely close friends, husband/wife/, family members). Call up one of your lesser friends and vent hardcore to them if that shit needs to come out. Treat the people that matter the most in your life the best, not use them as emotional punching bags like most of us (I struggle with this too) do. It's such shitty conditioning that most all of us do. | ||
|
bo1b
Australia12814 Posts
I'm not sure we have gap in expectations, but I can give you mine off the top of my head: Minimal Drama - Arguments, anger, nagging, etc. should be very, very rare occurrences. Differences in preferences, expectations, behavior, etc. will occur frequently, but it should NOT result in drama. It should be handled, partner to partner in a compassionate, adult like manner with kindness and reason. Not anger, yelling, bitching, commanding, nagging, or any other of the usual shit. I fully acknowledge people are sometimes going to have shit days and sometimes it's going to happen because we are only human, but it should be an exception, not the rule Physical Side - Sex life has to remain passionate, and we both have to take care of ourselves. Being unhealthy, sedentary, or gaining more than 20-30lbs aren't really acceptable to me. So many couples let themselves go. It's obviously terrible for attraction and sex life, but it's also bad for the relationship, moods, and energy in general. Bland, or especially forced sex shouldn't really be an option, and frequency should be at a minimum 2-3x per week barring unusual life circumstances. Again, I expect occasional things to disrupt this, but it should be rare. Continued Kindness/Warmth - I see this pattern in many couples, where it starts off with tons of warmth, kindness, and good feelings. The husband/BF gradually becomes more closed and apathetic, while the woman becomes colder, less romantic, and more bitchy. Not acceptable, I don't want to live with someone like that. Similar philosophies on how to raise kids (if we decide we want to) No Major Demands - Put simply, I wouldn't want to be with a woman who would be very annoyed if I wanted to go ride my bike for 3-4 with friends on a regular basis on the weekend, or one that would insist I make any major life or behavior changes. I love my life, and I've spent a long time building it into what it is. I want someone that appreciates that, and isn't going to limit who I am as a person. Obviously, little things are reasonable and expected: eg. making an effort to clean up around the sink more, or perhaps communicate better or in a different way, etc. Those kind of demands are fine. Demands to change the core of who I am as a person and what I like are not. I make none of a woman, and expect none in return. I'm probably missing some, but that jumps to my mind. If those things are met, I imagine I would be quite happy in that relationship. They usually aren't though. Maybe I'm unrealistic for expecting those things. I don't think so though, because they are things I'm willing to work for and meet on my end. I don't think that's unrealistic at all. In fact I think you'd be a fool to enter a serious committed relationship without those traits. Honestly I think the reason some couples seem to thrive and others just collapse is that successful couples have a certain drive for their relationship to work. | ||
|
L_Master
United States8017 Posts
On October 13 2018 06:16 bo1b wrote: I don't think that's unrealistic at all. In fact I think you'd be a fool to enter a serious committed relationship without those traits. Honestly I think the reason some couples seem to thrive and others just collapse is that successful couples have a certain drive for their relationship to work. Seems we are on the same page there then. I honesty think those traits are rare though. I don't think most have the commitment for that, and I literally know of almost no relationships in which one or more of these aren't met. Just knowing weight itself, the average American puts on over 50lbs in a lifetime. Most relationships also tend to violate one or more of those other three as well. It takes work not to, and the right tempermant. I think many men have dominant, bossy behavior modeled for them, and many women have drama, bitchiness, and other characteristics modeled for them, such that it becomes the exception. It seems the only area we differ is monogamy. Even with the above, I still see no reason to constrict sex life to just one individual. You can have all of that and deep pair bonding even if you have sex with other people. It eliminates a variety of other problems as well. I'm still looking for a good argument for monogamy. What is gained by being monogamous that is lost in a non-monogamous relationship. I've heard a few, but they haven't been intrinsic, it's more been assumptions based of the general "type" of person that prefers non monogamy, i.e. the guy who wants to fuck a lot but not commit. | ||
|
LemOn
United Kingdom8629 Posts
On October 13 2018 06:13 L_Master wrote: Well, at least I feel vindicated. I do say over and over pictures are, AT LEAST, 75% of the equation. Excited for you though! Sounds like you did pictures the right way to, take hundreds, look at them for hours, pick the best two of three. Win. Have fun on the date! Be curious to see how your flake rate is. I think I get about 30%-40% flake rate on first date. Of those, probably 1/3 disappear, the other 2/3 usually reschedule and make it a point to show for round two. You probably know this, but for anyone else, if a date flakes, do NOT get mad. Do NOT be upset. Just say, "okay, I understand. How about next DayX at 7pm". Non needy, relaxed, confident behavior. Women will flake, it's what they do. Accept it, don't be mad about it. Calm, polite rescheduling gets you places. Chewing a girl out does not. Honestly...sounds like a pretty good relationship. The only part I disagree is on the arguments are neccessary. I'm a firm believer that arguments serve no purpose. They are drama, emotional, and accomplish little other than vetting. Calm, adult discussions or conveyance of preferences is wonderful. Arguments are not. If emotions need to be vented, I'm a strong believer you should do those on the people that are NOT the most important to you "e.g. extremely close friends, husband/wife/, family members). Call up one of your lesser friends and vent hardcore to them if that shit needs to come out. Treat the people that matter the most in your life the best, not use them as emotional punching bags like most of us (I struggle with this too) do. It's such shitty conditioning that most all of us do. Well yeah that's a good point No matter who you are there will be times where you get squeezed and under heavy pressure and your willpower gets limited you will need to let your sub-conscious vent or it will not get the release and fester underneath. And couples that live together, start being isloated and have noone else to vent to. And things like Journaling and meditation work splendidly but sometimes you just don't have the willpower left even for those. In other times that can be helped...especially if you're the masculine one in the relationship I 100% agree that you just have to vent to a journal or to other people (won't get into masculine energy here as it'd just stir controversy) and be the calming steady presence that listens well and steers towards open calm communication. That was another huge mistake of mine, I didn't when I was ill/injured and let my crap mood and ills spew on my girlfriend, didn't treat her like a lover like I always had before. We didn't live together, and this is exactly the complacency I'm talking about that happens to me...lesson learned really. In the month she's gone I'm already building a network of friends, acquaintances and people I just see that's just so important in a relationship. The thing is the motivation to retain them put in the effort to keep up support networks that do not rely on your partner just naturally dissipate the longer you are in the relationship, because it's so easy - your SO is always there why put the energy in being self-sufficient emotionally and otherwise... And that's what happens to most couples, not the problem of not being able to stick a dick into another hole a few times per month imo pardon my french | ||
|
LemOn
United Kingdom8629 Posts
On October 13 2018 06:13 L_Master wrote: Have fun on the date! Be curious to see how your flake rate is. I think I get about 30%-40% flake rate on first date. Of those, probably 1/3 disappear, the other 2/3 usually reschedule and make it a point to show for round two. You probably know this, but for anyone else, if a date flakes, do NOT get mad. Do NOT be upset. Just say, "okay, I understand. How about next DayX at 7pm". Non needy, relaxed, confident behavior. Women will flake, it's what they do. Accept it, don't be mad about it. Calm, polite rescheduling gets you places. Chewing a girl out does not. . 40%? Oh shit :D mine has been lower back in the day I think The key for me is I either make her meet me in my area, where I know a few cool places, first coffee house for screening that works as an exit point or a way to escalate when we move to other places and well, if she doesn't show up it's 15 mins to get home or 1 minute to shopping mall to buy some shit Or I schedule cool stuff to do I'd go to myself, like the case is this Sunday. And she doesn't show up I just do it haha, I love going to places solo, taking then editing pictures and just getting new experiences This one I was going to anyways, just nice to have company if it ends up in the indoor olympics even better! EDIT: Wayy easier for us europeans living in mid sized cities where not only you don;t need a car, but the public transport's faster because of parking I know EDIT2: Also holy crap I'm so glad I've done this whole learning studying + finding myself all those years back It's like unconscious competence I didn't even know how and I naturally had her number and time and place we meet in 5 messages within 10 minutes, She even flaked after I asked and I just within 1 minute asked the same thing completely differently and got the number, even somehow made it so that we're meeting to judge whether she's boring or not :D (She's definitely not based on what I've seen so far) | ||
CosmicSpiral
United States15275 Posts
On October 13 2018 06:26 L_Master wrote: I'm still looking for a good argument for monogamy. What is gained by being monogamous that is lost in a non-monogamous relationship. I've heard a few, but they haven't been intrinsic, it's more been assumptions based of the general "type" of person that prefers non monogamy, i.e. the guy who wants to fuck a lot but not commit. To briefly veer into sociohistorical theory, monogamy is the only functioning mating arrangement that has ever sustained a population on every level of class strata and satisfied the material conditions for "progress". On an individual level you can argue about whether emotional and sexual fidelity is optimal on a case-by-case basis. On a macroscopic scale, monogamy is the only choice...until you want to live in pre-Bronze Age stupor. Besides the lost of social cohesion and lack of long-term investment in the future, monogamy is a pragmatic system for most men:
| ||
|
bo1b
Australia12814 Posts
On October 13 2018 06:26 L_Master wrote: Seems we are on the same page there then. I honesty think those traits are rare though. I don't think most have the commitment for that, and I literally know of almost no relationships in which one or more of these aren't met. Just knowing weight itself, the average American puts on over 50lbs in a lifetime. Most relationships also tend to violate one or more of those other three as well. It takes work not to, and the right tempermant. I think many men have dominant, bossy behavior modeled for them, and many women have drama, bitchiness, and other characteristics modeled for them, such that it becomes the exception. It seems the only area we differ is monogamy. Even with the above, I still see no reason to constrict sex life to just one individual. You can have all of that and deep pair bonding even if you have sex with other people. It eliminates a variety of other problems as well. I'm still looking for a good argument for monogamy. What is gained by being monogamous that is lost in a non-monogamous relationship. I've heard a few, but they haven't been intrinsic, it's more been assumptions based of the general "type" of person that prefers non monogamy, i.e. the guy who wants to fuck a lot but not commit. Realistically I don't think it's possible to find a partnership of a high enough quality which includes you seeing other girls on the side. Even if I was attracted to polygamy, if the trade off is between a high quality relationship which includes all the things you've outlined above plus a few, and a handful of lesser relationships in which you are not as close, emotionally or otherwise, the high quality partnership is vastly more appealing to me. As to the intrinsic benefits of monogamy over polygamy, I'm not sure there necessarily are any. I do think there are negatives to polygamy that aren't there with monogamy though. Purely from a time perspective I don't think it's necessarily possible to maintain a really high quality relationship with one person, do things with your close friends, and see a few fwb on the side. On October 13 2018 06:55 CosmicSpiral wrote: To briefly veer into sociohistorical theory, monogamy is the only functioning mating arrangement that has ever sustained a population on every level of class strata and satisfied the material conditions for "progress". On an individual level you can argue about whether emotional and sexual fidelity is optimal on a case-by-case basis. On a macroscopic scale, monogamy is the only choice...until you want to live in pre-Bronze Age stupor. I think there are a lot of pretty obvious reasons for this. | ||
|
Slydie
1913 Posts
FWB - She becomes a FWB relationship. I hang out, at most once a week and don't really have any texting back and forth aside from setting up meetings. No dates. She comes to my place, I go to hers, we talk a bit, hang out, and have sex. I never spend the night and don't really cuddle. I could picture this feeling very "transactional", but it isn't. These people ARE friends. I have good conversations with them. There just isn't traditional dating affection or dating behavior. I realize in guy-guy friendships dudes do more than just talk, and will often do activities together. I don't do this with FWBs because I find that it starts setting up a "boyfriend" scenario, and that leads to injured feelings. I make it clear both in words, and in actions, that the relationship is strictly FWBs. Rarely do FWB care, or even ask, if I am seeing other women. Women aren't stupid, they understand the nature of the relationship. I know a few women who tend to get to en up in this category, and it is often very frustrating for them! They would very often want a true relationship, and would often be very reluctant to say so, fearing it could destroy what they have got. I think guys can have the same problem. It is very rare that this kind of neither-nor dating outcome ends up in a long term real friendship. | ||
|
L_Master
United States8017 Posts
On October 13 2018 06:55 CosmicSpiral wrote: To briefly veer into sociohistorical theory, monogamy is the only functioning mating arrangement that has ever sustained a population on every level of class strata and satisfied the material conditions for "progress". On an individual level you can argue about whether emotional and sexual fidelity is optimal on a case-by-case basis. On a macroscopic scale, monogamy is the only choice...until you want to live in pre-Bronze Age stupor. Besides the lost of social cohesion and lack of long-term investment in the future, monogamy is a pragmatic system for most men:
These are some very interesting points. Thank you.
It's true that monogamy got us to where we are now, but I'm not sure that it necessarily holds that monogamy got us here -> without monogamy we go back holds true. The world is a very different place now to how it was just 30 years ago, which is radically different from the world 100 years ago. Many of the reasons before why monogamy was so necessary and valuable are becoming less so in today's society. | ||
|
L_Master
United States8017 Posts
On October 13 2018 06:59 bo1b wrote: Realistically I don't think it's possible to find a partnership of a high enough quality which includes you seeing other girls on the side. Even if I was attracted to polygamy, if the trade off is between a high quality relationship which includes all the things you've outlined above plus a few, and a handful of lesser relationships in which you are not as close, emotionally or otherwise, the high quality partnership is vastly more appealing to me. Hmm, I'd be curious to see what you mean by high quality. One of the women I'm currently involved with is a very sharp, well educated,successful woman in her earlier thirties that runs her own business. So far, I haven't seen any signs of instability or other things to make me suspicious of her quality. She is obviously a classic more dominant/independent strong woman type, but she has a caring side and is generally grounded, fairly rationale, and generally pleasant. 7 months and while she wasn't initially thrilled with the arrangement, she elected to try it, and has recently told me how surprised she was at how well she likes this style of dating. Another is in her mid 20s and a vet student doing quite well. Again no major flags. Seems to have a general amount of the traits I would like. Very affectionate and has very, very positive outlook and disposition. Of course, I've been doing this for a little less than a year. It's too early to say whether things will come up or whether this will fail to take off. Are you basing this off your assumptions and belief that you don't think a quality woman (would be good to define so we are on same page) would engage in this relationship, or do you have some some examples or evidence of this adding to that? On October 13 2018 06:59 bo1b wrote: As to the intrinsic benefits of monogamy over polygamy, I'm not sure there necessarily are any. I do think there are negatives to polygamy that aren't there with monogamy though. Purely from a time perspective I don't think it's necessarily possible to maintain a really high quality relationship with one person, do things with your close friends, and see a few fwb on the side. Would love to hear the negatives. There are definite positives. It's 100% better for sex life. It results in better sex with your close partner because of greater experience and more importantly because it prevents staleness. It also prevents you from being needy about sex with her (which is ABSOLUTELY a problem in many relationships) and having to pressure her for sex. This helps keep her attracted, and the sex vibrant (because you're ONLY having it when she really wants to). Time wise, I consider sex of high important. It's up there with physical fitness. I think if you're not having regular sex, you're hurting your health, performance, and maybe even your ego/self-worth. The health benefits of sex are significant Studies all over the place showing this. Allocating 3 or 4 hours a week for sex, in my book, is an absolute must and an absolutely critical use of time. I do not believe in mortgaging my health and function, and sex is an engine that drives this. Seeing a FWB once a week for a couple hours, or even two FWBs each week for a couple hours depending on drive does amount to a significant time commitment. If you feel that 2-3 hours a week for sexual activity isn't a valuable use of your time, then either your a more asexual person or we just disagree about the relative important of making time for that. For me, that is not an onerous time commitment. On October 13 2018 09:52 Slydie wrote: I know a few women who tend to get to en up in this category, and it is often very frustrating for them! They would very often want a true relationship, and would often be very reluctant to say so, fearing it could destroy what they have got. I think guys can have the same problem. It is very rare that this kind of neither-nor dating outcome ends up in a long term real friendship. This is possible, but I am pretty up front with what I am, and it's clear what the status is from the start. If you're transparent, I consider that primarily the other person's choices. If they still want to be involved in that relationship, that's up to them. They choose to get involved, knowing full well I am dating other people and will never be monogamous. I think I've mentioned I've had five FWBs leave for committed relationships. Two are still in them, two have come back after their short lived relationship ended, so far, the majority have been willing to leave the FWBs relationship in favor of a committed, monogamous one with someone else. | ||
|
bo1b
Australia12814 Posts
A partnership of high quality is one that matches the bullet points you listed + a few other things; I think it's important for a successful couple to have a direction they'd like to travel as they age. In fact I think an awful lot of people could stand to see their relations in a more business oriented sense then they currently do. I wish you all the luck in the world to hang on to a woman in her 30s who runs her own business while you're seeing other people concurrently. Same thing to the vet student. The girls leaving for a monogamous relationship is a pretty dead giveaway of where their priorities lie to me, but I could be completely off base. Honestly I can't see how you don't see insecurity as a defining negative in a poly relationship. Most people just aren't equipped to know their partners off sleeping with someone else. I think you're in a bit of a honeymoon phase with all the benefits right now, imo reality will set in before long. Good luck though. | ||
|
L_Master
United States8017 Posts
On October 13 2018 06:29 LemOn wrote: The thing is the motivation to retain them put in the effort to keep up support networks that do not rely on your partner just naturally dissipate the longer you are in the relationship, because it's so easy - your SO is always there why put the energy in being self-sufficient emotionally and otherwise... And that's what happens to most couples, not the problem of not being able to stick a dick into another hole a few times per month imo pardon my french This is something, so far, that I like about my dating relationship. There is no complacency. I know I need to remain at my best, and it doesn't give a false (my opinion) sense of security that most committed monogamous relationships give. I already am aware why the effort needs to be put in and don't necessarily need incentive to do it, but I don't mind the extra incentive. No, the dick in whole thing is not the whole problem. But it's an interconnected piece, and it does cause problems. A healthy sexual relationship definitely helps a relationship overall. There is greater overall satisfaction. Bonding hormones. General affection is higher. There is also the neediness problem. As a guy, if you're not getting sex, it's easy to get needy. Your naturally going to pressure your wife. This further drives down attraction (something that probably has a biological underpinning to decrease anyway) and increases resentment and feelings of wanting to use her. Not the end all be all, but there is no way your convincing me it isn't a relevant part of the picture in decline of many relationships. This is alleviated well in the non monogamous system. Sexually needs are no longer an issue. You have sex only when you're SO really wants to, so the sex is less forced, more passionate...better. There is also no neediness or pressure. This in turn spills over into the vibe of the rest of the relationship. Moreover, your getting a healthy dose of feminine energy and postivity from those other women that spills over into the rest of your life, and can provide a nice outlet if your SO is having a bad week and just isn't positive and giving that. Normally, you'd just deal with it and probably start being a little negative on your own because mirroring emotions is natural, easy, and common. Instead, you go off for a little time with a FWB, get some great energy, and come back positive and feeling good on affection and other things that you can't get from close male friends or alone time. | ||
|
Salazarz
Korea (South)2591 Posts
As for the reason so many relationships and marriages fail nowadays, it isn't because of monogamy or lack of thereof, it's thanks to the modern culture of instant gratification and the endless choir of 'you deserve better.' To have a successful long-term relationship you have to learn to deal with all kinds of issues, but more often than not people choose to break up (or worse, stuff it all inside and just live there with quiet resentment building slowly before doing so) instead of learning how to solve those issues. So folks go through life from one honeymoon infatuation period to another, without ever learning how to truly love a person. The idea that people grow complacent in long term relationships is a prime example of what I am talking about. Someone who actually understands relationships isn't going to become 'complacent' because they feel 'secure in monogamy' or some shit, rather they cherish the opportunity to continue improving their contribution to the partnership and learn to be better both as an individual and as part of a unit day in, day out. It's just that most people don't get that and never get to that stage. | ||
|
L_Master
United States8017 Posts
On October 13 2018 11:20 bo1b wrote: I wish you all the luck in the world to hang on to a woman in her 30s who runs her own business while you're seeing other people concurrently. Same thing to the vet student. The girls leaving for a monogamous relationship is a pretty dead giveaway of where their priorities lie to me, but I could be completely off base. The women that have left have both been clear friends with benefits. I understand them leaving. Most girls, no most people, don't want that as a primarily relationship. That, in modern society, usually leaves only monogamy so they next me for the time being. The vet student and gal in her 30s are not FWBs, we are dating. And in both cases, they are people I could see as good, serious candidates if we are still strong and positive well past the "new relationship" fun phase. They may leave before then, but I'm not convinced they will. I think you're basing that off assumptions you have in your head that "A 'proper' girl won't be in an open relationship" or something similar. Like I said with evilfats1sh (i think?) I'll go on record as saying I don't think either of them will break up with me over non-monogamy. If they leave, it will be because I won't be committed boyfriend/girlfriend with them for the next year and a half while I'm finishing school, and they might want commitment and a "serious" relationship faster than that. My opinion is that your letting your assumptions guide you, and women are much more open to the "open" idea than society teaches you to think. If either one of them breaks up/leaves me because I won't be exclusive (monogamous) with them, I will eat my words on this one. On October 13 2018 11:20 bo1b wrote: Why do you think I don't value sex? I think a situation with lets say 4 fwb is way more time involved than 2-3 hours a week of sex, which is fine when I'm in a relation I get more than that anyway. I think you have an exceptionally jaundiced eye towards how much sex a healthy relationship has tbh. I said that if you aren't willing to devote/make time for 2-3 hours for week then you don't value sex. Just like physical fitness, I will ALWAYS make time for that. That's what I'm trying to say. If you don't consider sex as important enough to schedule time in regardless of schedule, then we place a different value on sex/health benefits. On October 13 2018 11:20 bo1b wrote: A partnership of high quality is one that matches the bullet points you listed + a few other things; I think it's important for a successful couple to have a direction they'd like to travel as they age. In fact I think an awful lot of people could stand to see their relations in a more business oriented sense then they currently do. Excellent points. I'm in agreement with you here. Two people that want two totally different things, or even have different desires with kids of parenting styles, are likely to have trouble in a committed, context. On October 13 2018 11:20 bo1b wrote: Honestly I can't see how you don't see insecurity as a defining negative in a poly relationship. Most people just aren't equipped to know their partners off sleeping with someone else. I think you're in a bit of a honeymoon phase with all the benefits right now, imo reality will set in before long. Good luck though. It's not insecurity to me. And remember it exists often in monogamous relationships too. Many (maybe most?) guys are pretty insecure about being cheated on. Or being left for someone better. My insecurities have neither increased or decreased since dating non-monogamously. Non-monogamous just throws them in your face a little more blatantly than the monogamous version does. In any relationship, a partner can up and leave you at any time, for any reason. I don't seen non-monogamy changing that. At least not the way I'm doing it.... If I'm casually dating, I'm looking for someone that's a true SO candidate, I'm dating multiple people, or successive people at the very least, and looking for a great match.This is the same in monogamous or non-monoagous, aside from maybe trying to juggle a few FWBs or a second casual relationship. If I find someone, and get into a committed LTR, it's still the same. I'm committed to that person, and that person only on an emotional, romantic and intellectual level. I break off contact with anyone I have feelings for. I'm not more likely to leave them for someone else than I would be in a monogamous relationship, because they are the person I am committed to. I'm not developing emotional or romantic attachments to other women in EITHER case. If you tried to have multiple SOs or romantic/emotional partners...well, that sounds like a disaster to me. I can't envision it working and would never try it. | ||
| ||
