I wouldn't compare familial love to romantic love. To me they're two very, very different emotions.
If I had to define what romantic love is for me, it'd be "the person who comes before everyone else". I don't think it's possible to have multiple people like that. At some point you have to prioritize someone over someone else. Affection requires attention, and you can't give your attention to multiple people at the same time.
As I said, different people experience love and affection in different ways. the comparison to family is not so much literal but in terms of perspective (in regards to sharing romantic affection)
I don't discredit or poo-poo anyone who is monogamous, as it has its own set of challenges and positives. it's perfectly fine to not understand how people can do it since it requires such a radically different mindset to only wanting to be with one person.
i could go all day about the subject, but you can really condense it down to "everybody has a different way of doing stuff"
I want to know how this works
Maybe you have a finite amount of love in your heart but you ain't everybody.
Communication is key to a healthy relationship doesn't matter if its mono or poly, not all divorces are chaotic, some were brought on by mutual agreement between people that their relationship isn't working.
Another factor that plays into it are societal gender roles that can cause alot of friction in relationships.
For example, my dad falls all too often into the traditional bread-winner mentality of toxic masculinity (It compounded in the last decade due to various jobs he was laid off from). It always pains me to see him like this because it eventually boils over and he argues with my mom who just takes it (and works two jobs to keep them afloat while my dad searches for work). Thankfully my parents have an overall solid, mutually loving relationship even after all this.
As a society, I firmly believe that if communication is encouraged, a balanced give/take dynamic set and gender roles were less toxic, we'd have less chaotic divorces (we'd still have some amicable divorces) and generally more stable relationships.
I feel like this chase to decided what's causing the breakdown in relationships has taken a very strange turn.
We've now decided that perfection is the only route forward, not 'good enough' which is dangerous because often times the good enough is as close as you'll get to perfection. On top of that we have numerous social issues going on with women now making up at least half the work force and having to choose between families and work and being successful in life to lofty goals that society by an large, has created.
Just in general, we've had at least two generations that have been massive failures to launch and the current one is most likely drowning down that same hole because we're just not happy. And that's translating into relationships falling apart, suicide rates skyrocketing and more. We're stuck in a cynical age where we can't look to the future with any actual certainty or happiness that things will get better, because they've been generally getting worse for the past 3 decades.
On top of that, the current duelatiy of relationships between men and women is fucked to put it nicely. Men haven't had a single roadmap given to them on how to navigate a world where they aren't the breadwinners, where they can be something outside of your Buff Standard McDefault male. There's multiple reasons for this and we could spend hours debating them but the consequences of this are apparant. Drop out rates, disconnecting with society, suicides. Men are by an' large, abandoning society and its not healthy for anyone.
Its not healthy for women because when they marry or form a romantic relationship with men, women then have to take on the duel role of best friend and lover. At the same time, with no best friends, men are so isolate that they're far more open to suggestion hence the rise of far right movements.
I can't entirely speak to the issues facing women as that was never my focus when I was in Uni studying before I became a drop out statistic.
i think a more realistic answer to "why don't marriages last" is that love doesn't last forever, not that humans are fundamentally not monogamous
I will disagree with people in a relationship not being each other's best friends. I feel that one's romantic partner should be their best friend - the same degree of open communications should be present. There are degrees of love, but I wouldn't say that romantic love is somehow specifically the higher one - that has been the staple of philosophy for the longest time. However, I feel that one's feeling on the barometer of love could include one's love for someone as both a friend, romantic lover, and sexual lover.
I was in a gay poly relationship for a year and it was probably the hardest thing I've ever gone through in my life tbh. Balancing your emotions for two other people is so, so difficult and it's hard to not feel bad/guilty when one treats the other even slightly differently. Ultimately I had to step away because of the strain it was placing on me and I didn't want to ruin their relationship as well (they were a long term couple at 6 years at the time and opened up their relationship for me)
Major props to the people who can make it work as it is pretty difficult and takes a different kind of fortitude haha (relationships are already tough to begin with, imagine adding more people to the mix!)
I don't see what's so controversial about my statement. It's well known that most of the measurable effects of love only last 1-3 years, on average.
If you don't like the word love substitute it with infatuation. The point remains. I think it's much more plausible that marriages fail not because people are naturally polygamous, but because a lot of relationships are built on that temporary feeling of attraction. And when it fades, there's nothing left to keep the couple together.
Unless you're in certain places in the USA.
I honestly hope that most people realize the difference between actually loving and caring for someone and being infatuated.
I think they've been always competing concepts. They both have evolutionary and social advantages and disadvantages, and while it's difficult to speculate what relationships in history have actually been, it makes sense to me that some societies and some individuals, depending on environmental factors are more and some are less monogamistic.
It just seems hard to believe that most of human society just suddenly decided to become monogamous if it is so harshly opposed to human nature. But also it's obvious that many don't even want to keep monogamous and have no problem with that.
From what I've learned in university, human sexuality and relationships vary, but young Americans generally tend to be serial monogamists - they pair with one mate for a period of time, then move on to another. Culture, religion, environment and other factors affect this, but in general humans tend to have one mate at a time, then move on to the next (break-ups, divorce, death, etc.) The cultural separation of sex from reproduction allows humans to engage in sex without commitment, leading to hook-up culture, etc. which was not previously possible when relationships were viewed as a contract that shall not be broken. Is Monogamy Unnatural? | Institute for Family Studies
In psychology the model animal used to study relationships is the prairie vole, because they are naturally monogamous. They pair with the first female they mate with, and work together raising their children. However, they are not always sexually monogamous - some males will mate with others given the chance, but will return to their original mate - this is a risk some males take that can be advantageous as they can spread their genes, but risks their mate and offspring's survival by being too far away to defend. The prairie vole's monogamy is evolutionarily advantageous as it leads to a higher survival rate for offspring and the female as the male will stay and defend both. This is in contrast to the montane vole, which males will mate wildly with other females and show little to no care for offspring. The chemicals and structure of prarie vole brains has given us a lot of insight into human sexuality and relationships.
Monogamy does exist in humans, but it's something that has to be worked for. It's a long term goal that many people simply fail to obtain. Relationships require a lot of effort, and people get complacent in them and don't maintain them (sharing activities, romance, keeping up their appearance, bonding, etc.), causing partners to lose attraction to each other. This can cause rifts in the relationship if the sexual attraction and romance was the only thing keeping two people together. Losing that and being companions makes the relationship harder if the pair cannot work together well. A romantic relationship can fade into a companionship over time, and brain chemistry changes because of it. Polyamory can work with some people, but jealousy and other emotions make this extremely difficult for most. Additionally there are benefits to child rearing from monogamous pairings. Overall human sexuality and relationships are extremely complex so a simple label like monogamy or polyamory does not explain everyone.
What it comes down to is what works for you and your partner. Some people are fine being polyamorous because they can manage feelings like jealousy well. Others will pine for monogamy but jump ship when the relationship sinks. Overall I think monogamy definitely is a lot like vegetarianism like the video states - it may be healthier, it may be harder, but ultimately it's a choice you make.
From what I remember is that the initial 1 to 3 year period is basically an elongated honeymoon, after that it takes another 3 years but thats when the long term memories that help solidify a relationship begin to coalesce and that's when the foundation of a long term relationship/marriage becomes a thing.
What would you like to know?
If you can't tell the difference between "I love you" and "I love the feeling I have when I'm with you", you have no business being a in a long term relationship. (principally because you aren't actually in one)
I mean, I'd say that you should be able to discuss absolutely everything in your life with your romantic partner. So, I disagree.
Uh, is this supposed to be aimed at me? :v
It's a general statement
it just seems kinda weird
like, obviously if people knew they were making a bad decision they wouldn't make it. The whole problem is that your brain is deliberately impairing your judgement because it wants you to start making babies.
They didn't explain everything which paints a different picture in this video. For one it starts off with Jerry Springer as an example of unsatisfied monogamy when that show goes all over the place to show dysfunction is universal and monogamy doesn't matter you still are fucked up. Information omitted for one is that love for your companion is finite in that it will eventually diminish eventually and what lasts longer then marriages based on love are arranged marriages which also have to been polled to be higher in satisfaction after the couple achieved romantic feelings for each other. I'm not sure people in harems have been polled in happiness to compare to two person marriages, but I'm surprised Mormon sister wives weren't mentioned along with polyamory.
There's more but I don't know how to articulate it, just that I've seen comparisons to christian videos.
All too often media organisations like vox, sell a story then properly relay a piece of information which may not support the authors' advantage. The story being monogamy is a social construct which evolves and is responsible in our problems such as patriarchy and gender roles which is now being broken. No experts in child psychology talking about benefits on the two parent system for raising kids, got to have a village outlier for more screen time huh.
Who would it serve, with identity politics everything is a talking point for some people and if they have a flawed argument like against Jordan Peterson's enforced monogamy as long as they win an argument it's worth it. No idea if they released this episode in connection to peterson or it was just a coincidence.
About Gibbons, what about their Monogamous relationship. You would better explain their relationships then the wikipedia article I assume?
the observed pattern from people I know or knew in those relationships is that they distanced their kids in that part.
Does Cornell pratice babies count as community-oriented child rearing because that didn't well?
The gibbon thing was mostly a joke -
The best way to tell for monogamy/polygamy is to look to sexual diamorphism. That's essentially your biggest surefire sign to see if a primate/animal is monogamous or not. While it's not full proof, as such seen with Chimpanzees- If there is sexual diamorphism that is very indicating of polygamous (not marriage but sexual partners) species. If there is no sexual dimorphism, that can mean monogamous but also can mean, in the example of Chimpanzees, that they are a paternal-bonded polygamous species.
To give you the essential rundown-
Sexual dimorphism between male/female = competition for (the larger) gender in order to mate. Survival of fittest ect. No sexual dimorphism = no competition. In the case of Chimpanzees, there is no competition for mates as they take turns with females in estrus. In the case of gibbons, they are truly monogamous and do not have to fight for mates as they have one for life essentially.
The competition for mates (because they do not have 1 life partner, multiple partners they come across in their life) creates sexual diamorphism. An example of extreme dimorphism would be Gorillas.
Gorillas take on multiple mating partners. Gorillas take these female into the "territory". Spend most of their time defending territory from predators and roaming (silverback) gorillas who want said mates. This causes, due to survival of the fittest, male silverbacks to be massive. The females on the otherhand are small. Why? No competition for mates. They're in a harem. Spend most of their time and energy raising and protecting young. They stay relativly within their own territory "circles". These cirlces barely overlap with other silver back females in a silver back harem.
That is the most basic way I can explain it. Apologies if it's abit of a messy explanation it's a bit late.
Domecon babies aren't a particularly rigorous data source, both being incredibly old, and not really having any scientific controls set up to see deviation. Something that doesn't surprise me since this stuff isn't easy. The babies also didn't spend that much of their actual life there, only very early. Nor was it particularly 'groupy' since it was more a rotating queue of single parental figures.
Having a 'primary' caregiver probably has benefits, especially in the very earliest part of a babies life, but this role is basically going to fall to the biological mother, in a group situation or a monogamous one. Group rearing is mostly impactful once the children and independent enough to be about other children. I think Aldous Huxley pretty much strikes nail-on-head in Island when prescribing how the Palenese rear their children.
The group dynamic
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.