9 ms·

Why Happy People Cheat

52 points by pmcpinto 9y ago

crsm345 9y ago
I wish social experimentation and progress happened at even 5% of the speed of technological progress.. why don't we just get rid of the idea that you 'own' your partner's body? It seems arcane and based in insecurity. If you can't handle even the slightest of erotic competition, how solid can the basis of your relationship be? (Sorry for the overly controvesial wording if my post, I realize that filing more open relationships under 'social progress' is not obviously right, and would love to hear alternative perspectives, especially from people in stable happy long-term relationships)
- aaron-lebo 9y ago
  It's a personal thing. Some people don't like sharing one of the most intimate actions with their partner with other people. If you can't handle even the slightest of erotic competition, how solid can the basis of your relationship be? This is not helpful because some of the happiest relationships I know are very conservative (perhaps selfish in your view) relationships. Some people are monogamous, some aren't, no reason to judge either side.
  - crsm345 9y ago
    It's certainly a personal decision, and I agree that there is no reason to make negative value judgments about two consenting adults deciding to uphold a (happy) monogamous remationship model. But the overwhelming dominance of this particular model is what seems suspect to me. Do all these people really prefer monogamy? Or rather, why do they? It seems very likely that it is due to societal pressure / 'conditioning' rather then 'authentic' personal preference. But this is of course nearly impossible to test. I do not think it's 'selfish' to follow a monogamous relationship style. To make a somewhat contentious analogy, I wouldn't condemn people for being gay either (or for being straight for that matter). However it seems important that these various types of relationships are genuinely possible without stigma etc. In the case of hetero/homo/... -sexuality it's obvious that there is a biological mechanism behind the dominance of heterosexuality. In the case of 'open' relationships (especially in the case of a 'monogamous love, polygamous sex' -type relationship this is a lot less clear. If it turns out that this is not simply due to 'practicality' (or innate biology) it seems overly restrictive as a social norm. One might even say 'opressive' (in the sense that Prohibition arguably was, not trying to equate this with racism/..)
- jrcii 9y ago
  Apparently morality is "arcane."
- KGIII 9y ago
  In most cases, it is a violation of trust. There's a difference between an open relationship and someone violating your trust. Monogamy isn't based on ownership, it's based on trust. Open relationships are fine, but you should have willing partners.
  - enraged_camel 9y ago
    Aside from that, there are some very legitimate practical concerns with poly relationships. STDs, for example.
    - toomuchtodo 9y ago
      That's easily solved with a blood test before you engage in a sexual relationship with additional partners.
      - hndamien 9y ago
        That is solved, but not so easily, with a blood test.
      - Insanity 9y ago
        Small bugfix: Regular blood tests* As any of your partners could be adding additional partners, and probably so could theirs. And if they're very open - they might casually have sex with someone else every weekend. Maintenance nightmare if you ask me. :P
        toomuchtodo 9y ago
        The foundation of all relationships is trust. You can't hack around dishonesty. Don't be in a relationship with someone you can't trust if your health depends on it.
        Insanity 9y ago
        But, it's not dishonest in that case. If people are free to add partners as they like - then you can not _ensure_ that one of their partners (or their partner's partners, or partner's partner's partners, you get the point) respects that. It increases the odds of getting an STD I believe. But I don't have numbers to back that up nor do I feel like looking for them now (sorry)
- simonsarris 9y ago
  When I look at polygamous/polygynous societies today and in history, I'm not sure I see "social progress." In fact, for whatever its pitfalls may be, it appears that monogamy solves a large number of social ills that are perhaps larger than polygyny's own. Like large bands of males cast out with no prospects, so they resort to not-so-progressive behavior. Like the vikings: 'Polygyny created a pool of unmarried men motivated to engage in risky behavior to increase wealth/status/prob of entering marriage market' http://www.ehbonline.org/article/S1090-5138(16)30307-5/pdf http://www.ehbonline.org/article/S1090-5138(16)30307-5/pdf Or the Lost Boys: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_boys_(Mormon_fundamentalism) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_boys_(Mormon_fundamentali... Or certain other religions and tribal areas that may promote such behavior today as a side ffect, which may promote other lost boys to, I don't know, join ISIS in hope of getting some of those dear wives of their own too, one way or the other. Perhaps you file this under "not my problem." Maybe its not your problem, but it definitely presents a social problem, and you're suggesting that poly-* may be social progress. I don't think that plays out in history.
  - colanderman 9y ago
    > it appears that monogamy solves a large number of social ills that are perhaps larger. Like large bands of males cast out with no prospects, so they resort to not-so-progressive behavior. So the acceptable "solution" to this imbalance is to socially force (through normalization of monogamy and marriage) women into relationships with less-desirable men? Why shouldn't men be expected to be more attractive mates? Why not blame the patriarchy for creating a power imbalance that favors polygyny over polyandry? EDIT: For those doubting that patriarchy plays a role, consider that both the Mormon [1] and Arabic [2] worlds have historically been strongly patriarchal. I don't know about the Vikings. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormonism_and_women https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormonism_and_women [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Arab_societies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Arab_societies
    - Nursie 9y ago
      >> So the acceptable "solution" to this imbalance is to socially force (through normalization of monogamy and marriage) women into relationships If you read into polygamous societies, it's often that (particularly very young) women are forced into relationships with socially powerful men. Not much to do with attraction.
- jrs95 9y ago
  Traditionally the primary function of relationships is raising children, and monogamy is good at that. I don't see how shifting the focus from what is basically the foundation of our society towards doing what is fun and rewarding in the short term is a sign of social progress.
- Nursie 9y ago
  >> why don't we just get rid of the idea that you 'own' your partner's body? I don't own my partner's body, however I expect emotional exclusivity, and that's also what I want to give. Sex, closeness, trust and emotional bonds are all tied up together. It's not "erotic competition" and to me the use of that phrase just belies a lack of maturity - it's never "just sex" for me, and I wouldn't want to be with someone for whom it was. If something else works for you, great, but please don't frame it as progress or freedom from ownership. Progress is allowing everyone to choose the sorts of relationships they find fulfilling, with no persecution or shaming. Not calling what works for others insecure or arcane.
  - crsm345 9y ago
    Fair points. Perhaps my phrasing was needlessly agressive. I didn't mean to label individual personal choices as 'arcane'. Rather, it's the social/cultural norm that I find suboptimal. (Also, the economic connotations involved are perhaps in bad taste) I'm not sure whether this is correct in English (not my first language) but 'erotic' was meant to include not just sex but other forms of closeness as well. What I don't understand is why the bond of trust, emotional closeness, and so forth necessarily needs to have exclusivity built-in, so to speak. It's also not like other (non-sexual) forms of closeness are considered cheating. If I am in a monogamous relationship and develop a non-sexual, strong emotional bond with someone else I've only made a new friend, not cheated. However if I have 'just' sex (with little emotional involvement) it is considered cheating. Now if it were commonly accepted that it is only 'cheating' if you have some strong emotional bond in addition to sexual relations, it would make more sense. Even then, however, it seems unclear why the fact thaat you also have a strong bond with somebody else somehow invalidates the bond you have with your partner. Obviously, for 'practical' reasons the number of deep relationships one can have is limited. But 1 seems like an artificially low limit. In regards to what we could consider progress: I completely agree with what you wrote. However, what is considered a 'normal' relationship, what is ezpected if no further discussion or arrangements are made, what most everyone defaults to, is a partly social norm with important consequences, and one which should be subject to criticism and optimization. It seems unlikely to me that nearly everyone prefers exclusive monogamy vs a more relaxed relationship model. It seems more likely that the dominance of that particular arrangement is due to societal pressure. Of course maybe it seems that way because I am somehow emotionally immature. Unfortunately, it seems difficult to design rigorous studies to research this question.
- LordKano 9y ago
  >>why don't we just get rid of the idea that you 'own' your partner's body? For the most part, people don't believe that they do. People think that they're owed honesty. There's an enormous difference. I'm in a committed, long term relationship. If she decided that she didn't want to be with me anymore, I would be hurt but the honesty would prevent the hurt from being the anger that comes from betrayal.
- crpatino 9y ago
  I know you are talking of "evolution of sexual mores" when you say the phrase "experimentation and progress"... but let's entertain the notion that you got your wish granted by an evil genie. If that was the case, at age 16 your older (18) sibling's behavior would be as outdated that she might as well be 80. Your parent's behaviour would be so alien and bizarra that they might as well be 16th century artisans; your grandparents would be somewhere between Ancient Egypt priests and Cro-Magnoon shamans. Earlier ancestors would be so far away that they would have to be modelled as non human inteligences. What kind of society would you expect to develop around a bunch of people that cannot understand the motivations of even their closest kindred?
virgil_disgr4ce 9y ago
The reason it's ostensibly confusing is that the standard narrative of human sexuality—one sexual partner for life after getting married—is, forgive me, completely batshit insane. That's not to say that people haven't done it. People do, of course. And that's not to say that that's wrong or something, either. But the expectation of total 'fidelity' for life is unreasonable. For more on this subject I recommend the book "Sex at Dawn."
- nkrisc 9y ago
  I think it's a waste of breath to promote or condemn one mode of relationship over another. All that matters is what you and your partner(s) agree on for the terms of your relationship.
  - jamesrcole 9y ago
    It can matter for legal reasons. Like what legal rights come with recognition of the relationship.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
  - virgil_disgr4ce 9y ago
    Of course. But the problem is the expectation at large in the macroculture (I'm speaking largely of American macroculture, where I live) of monosexuality by participants of all sexes. In other words, it's a sociocultural problem. Are there people who have figured out how to escape it? Yes, but still a minute fraction. Furthermore, the judgement those people (myself included) face by family and sometimes friends is another part of the problem.
    - nkrisc 9y ago
      Agreed about the real problem being societal. My point was that claiming that humans are "meant" to be monogamous or polygamous or whatever is an empty debate when we have free will and can decide for ourselves what sort of relationship we want.
staticelf 9y ago
TLDR; It is possible to like more than one individual. I for one doesn't understand why anyone would marry except for economical benefits/security. Personally, I would much rather have 2 or more girlfriends/partners who enjoy me and eachother than a marriage with one. Since I believe that the male sex drive is bigger than that of women, I don't understand why I should be limited to just enjoy one other woman. However, this is hard to do because many women like the idea of marriage and have this impossible romantic view of the world. Love is not static, sometimes you love someone more and sometimes less. This changes over time just like everything else. But in our upbringing we learn from movies and our culture that love should be this static, non-changing thing and of course it will not work in a world that changes all the time. A lot of marriages fail, probably because people change over time and we don't always like that. Let's just be more open and enjoy ourselves when we have such a short time alive. EDIT: I understand that my opinions can be controversial, but you don't really have do downvote just because you do not agree with them.
- tonyedgecombe 9y ago
  I would much rather have 2 girlfriends/partners There always seems to be at least one partner in these relationships singing their praise through gritted teeth.
  - staticelf 9y ago
    I have no experience of such relationships so I cannot really say anything about it except that I want one :)
- gumby 9y ago
  > Since I believe that the male sex drive is bigger than that of women... Your belief is not borne out by data. And for a long period in the West the opposite was the common belief. In some countries like contemporary Iran, sex education includes the pleasure, needs and in-the-bed sexual equality of both partners (in Iran’s case to try to preserve conservative marriage and increase procreation — obviously there is not equality OUTSIDE the bed)
jrs95 9y ago
Because shitty people can still be happy people.
ohdrat 9y ago
One is enough for gods sake
TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
Infidelity is as natural as taking a shit. I think we're culturally indoctrinated to get worked up over infidelity, less so for defecating.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- crpatino 9y ago
  Violence, including lethal violence, is at least as natural as infidelity. Probably more so, given that you cannot have the concept of "infidelity" if you had not put "fidelity" on top "sex" to begin with. That does not make me want to live in a society that condones beating the crap out of anyone you can get away with.
samirillian 9y ago
Yeah, it might be able self discovery, but it might be about enacting a narcissistic fantasy. The author is right, you reconstruct yourself in the other's gaze, you slake your thirst with the other's mouth. But what kind of self are you constructing here? And what power will your own fantasies have over the person with whom you conduct the affair?
- jrs95 9y ago
  Yeah, I don't think the normalization of this obviously selfish and destructive behavior is a positive thing at all.
  - dalbasal 9y ago
    The selfishness and destructiveness of the behaviour is very closely related to the norms it violates. Homosexuality was (and is) destructive to families in communities where it considered abhorent. Premarital sex too. In fact, the ban on premarital sex and the ban aon adultery are closely related. People have a hard time suppressing their sexual urges. But, many sexual urges we once considered immoral & destructive are now seen differently.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
  - dalbasal 9y ago
    An interesting subplot in the culture of sexual fidelity is (IMO) the cultural promotion of multiple sequential relationships. The most culturally acceptable middle class sex life today involves a series of monogomous relationships. We're encouraged to start young with practice relationships (ideally stopping short of "real sex") for teenagers, which are expected to end. Then, a variety of relationships ranging from one nighters to multi-year relationships anyone from the past would have called marriage. Variety is generally valued. Then Marriage(s). My GreatGrandmother would have raised eyebrows at all this. Even though sexual norms have radically shifted during this time, our view of fidelity remained kind of static. Promiscuity good, infidelity bad. The culture surrounding sex is among the most complex in the human repertoire, but such a shift on promiscuity without a shift on infidelity seems like an oddity of our culture, probably a short term one.
dalbasal 9y ago
Priya’s affair is neither a symptom nor a pathology; it’s a crisis of identity, an internal rearrangement of her personality. In our sessions, we talk about duty and desire, about age and youth. and... "“You think you had a relationship with Truck Man,” I tell her. “Actually, you had an intimate encounter with yourself, mediated by him." This article (and others like it) make me kind of think that (A) much of psychology should not be treated as an objective science (2) Objective science is not the only useful contribution. Therapists don't have to be scientific. People get a lot of relief from being able to narrate their life and their feelings. They find beauty or comfort in exploring motivations (from a subjective POV). It can be liberating (and effective) to act within a narrative, to have names for things. A lot of our best art is dedicated to this sort of thing, especially romantic literature. For abstract truth, I don't think most of this article describes it. In the abstract, I think the answer to the question is simple: (1) People (on average) are semi-monogomous, like a lot of animals. (2) It's hard to use cultural conventions to restrict people's sexuality. see exhibit I "The Gays." That doesn't mean that a therapist should just tell this lady "you were just horny."
stared 9y ago
Just be polyamorous (see e.g. https://polyfidelity.org.au/about/polyamory/education/121-the-diversity-of-love-relationship-concepts https://polyfidelity.org.au/about/polyamory/education/121-th..., http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/04/06/polyamory-is-boring/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/04/06/polyamory-is-boring/). If there is a need to have multiple partners instead of going the "traditional way" (one official partner + cheating or some shady don't ask don't tell arrangement) it seems much healthier to openly discuss needs and boundaries. We shouldn't just accept "system defaults" if they are not optimal for us. In my local poly community (Warsaw) there is a lot of nerds. I tend to view it as a hacker's approach to relationship.
- Nursie 9y ago
  Yup, if you don't want to do things the mono way, and everyone's on-board, why not! The problems come when people promise one thing and do another...
- Red_Tarsius 9y ago
  Your poly community has a lot of nerds because they don't have enough leverage to ask their s.o. to stop fucking other people.
  - bob2001 9y ago
    So how are most of these nerds in this community distributed, like 1 partner dating multiple nerds, or 1 nerd per "group" of partners like the parent comment implies?
  - colanderman 9y ago
    Or they're enlightened enough to realize that only diseased, transactional relationships are based on "leverage"?
- jaimex2 9y ago
  What do you do when someone gets pregnant?
  - 9y ago
Giorgi 9y ago
Oh so people get bored with just one partner for their entire lives? Shocker.
- dmuch 9y ago
  This was a long essay that could have just been summarized as "Priya's bored".
- justherefortart 9y ago
  Eddie Murphy summed it up flawlessly. Same old crackers.
monochromatic 9y ago
Priya cheats because Priya is not a good person. She cares more about having sex with some random truck driver than she does about the father of her children.
- tyingq 9y ago
  Most people I know well enough that they would tell me...have all done bad things for reasons they don't understand themselves. I think it is probably more complicated than "not a good person".
  - monochromatic 9y ago
    Everything human is more complicated than any verbal/written description of that thing. We’re complicated animals in a complicated universe. That doesn’t make simplifying descriptions useless.
lsd5you 9y ago
So affairs are 'wrong', but who would want to live in a world where there are no affairs? We excessively police and punish our partners, our friends' partners and our parents, but often hypocritically, when it comes to ourselves and our friends cheating will generally be forgiven. I am not even advocating abolishing the hypocricy. Without it affairs probably wouldn't be exciting and equally, faithful relationships wouldn't be as meaningful. What is more, having broken up a long term relationship with children (with objectively plenty of cause), and having not had an affair what I can say is that for a woman this can be even worse, as it leaves them without something to be mad and and just feeling unvalued. (It probably goes both ways for both genders, but in my view it is something that is clearly not symmetrical in Male-Female relationships). However what I do think is wrong are ill feelings to the point of death threats and hatred (which I experienced) even if there is infidelity. In this situation can someone really claim to have loved someone in the first place if they value their life outside of the relationship so little. When this is the basis of someones feelings then the relationship/marriage is a kind of tyranny in my opinion.
- sambe 9y ago
  Quite a lot of people, I'd think? The mature thing to do is leave, or discuss your needs honestly. If the enjoyment comes from the risk then you're getting your kicks at someone else's expense. That's really selfish.
  - lsd5you 9y ago
    If so, it is a form of moral extremism that I think would result in everyone being less happy (and with general confusion as to why people are unhappy). Possibility, even unacted on, is an important thing.
- Nursie 9y ago
  >>what I can say is that for a woman this can be even worse, as it leaves them without something to be mad and and just feeling unvalued. This appears to be sexist tripe.
  - 9y ago
jaimex2 9y ago
It's simple. Some people value an exciting encounter over their current relationship, people can have an addiction to the rush or have felt numb for too long. Over simplifying - there's nothing wrong with their current phone but some people will rush and buy the latest to get the buzz of a new gadget. They weigh the chance of getting caught and damage it will cause as lower than the excitement and fulfilment of a new fling. We've all been there, seeing someone attractive from the opposite sex and having thoughts of an encounter. Whether you chose to act on it or not depends on your integrity and empathy. Some people have more than others.
- testestx 9y ago
  I just want to give a name to this for whoever want to Google more: novelty seeking.
  - nojvek 9y ago
    I think it's part of how we're wired. Some people more than others. To seek that dopamine hit again.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- Balgair 9y ago
  Yeah, the trick is to recognize you are a person that likes that and then try and have that risk/excitement sustained in your own relationship/s. A tip I've heard for those that need it: Always be dating your spouse. I'll leave it to the reader to google the ways to do that ;)
yodsanklai 9y ago
I'm surprised by the moralistic comments and downvotes... EDIT: I removed the rest of the comment as it apparently offended many people.
- Retra 9y ago
  Well, it's not "cheating" if you're with someone who doesn't mind. So you should make sure to be with someone who doesn't mind. If you don't, then you're really just being shitty and careless, so what is there to be surprised about?
- kbart 9y ago
  "And I would be fine if my partner saw someone else too." So why cheat then and not talk to your partner openly and come to an agreement? I know plenty of couples that let each other to have other partner(s), and that's totally normal. Playing with another human being feelings, on the other hand, is not imho.
howeyc 9y ago
Maybe because the idea you can romantically love only one person is idiotic? You can love more than one sibling, more than one parent, more than one sports team, more than one... you get the idea. Yet, when it comes to romantic love, nope, just the one.
emodendroket 9y ago
> there is always a suspicion … that one is living a lie or a mistake; that something crucially important has been overlooked, missed, neglected, left untried and unexplored; that a vital obligation to one’s own authentic self has not been met, or that some chances of unknown happiness completely different from any happiness experienced before have not been taken up in time and are bound to be lost forever. In my opinion this quote sums up not only the thesis of the article but also one of the primary diseases afflicting our society.
- kbart 9y ago
  This quote sounds childish imho. I know this feeling, I believe every teen feels this way, but I don't lose sleep over my decisions or "what if.." scenarios anymore. The most important truth and lesson learned during my life was "always be in truth with oneself and others": if you are not happy about something - change it or find the root cause and fix it, take responsibilities seriously and avoid lies whenever possible (it is a burden that keeps growing as a snowball and finally crushes you); if you are not happy with your current partner and you see no way to fix it -- have "balls" to say so and move in separate ways.
  - emodendroket 9y ago
    Well, yes, I agree, but it's thinking that is a festering sore in our Zeitgeist.
- zzalpha 9y ago
  I tend to agree, but I think it's pretty deeply rooted, and it's not a new thing by any stretch. I reject the idea that this is somehow a particularly modern dysfunction. As children and young adults people are taught to "pursue their dreams" and "find their passion" and many other aspirational platitudes. Then, adult life comes along and most of us become decidedly average because, well, that's statistics for you. But many are then left with this feeling that they've somehow failed. That if they'd taken that other road that diverged in that wood a ways back, maybe they'd be living that fantasy life that they were sold. What we're not taught is how to be happy in the present. Aspiring to change is vital to improve ourselves and the world around us. But equally valuing and appreciating what we already have is every bit as important.
creatrixcordis 9y ago
This is interesting, a old friend once said: "If a woman wants to cheat on you. She will cheat on you while holding your hand" Now that the chauvinist statement is out of the way. Men cheat too. :) I don't think anyone can say that monogamy has anything to do with raising children. I do not see why the barbarous requirement for having sex with one person needs to even be there in the first place. I don't have the same car for the rest of my life, don't drink the same thing or eat the same thing every day for the rest of my life either. Why not be able to taste other flowers in the garden as well. That does not mean i don't love or care about the mother of my child. As long as i take care of my responsibilities regarding my children. I see no reason why this requirement is imposed by society. Other than pure culturalism and brainwashing, which one could argue is indirectly the same thing. Maybe it has something to do with possession. Maybe insecurity that my wife will like John's dick more than mine or love his Porsche more than my Buick. Don't you want to find that stuff out early about your partner vs later... Isn't your partners ability and her/his care for your children more important than who he/she wants to screw every once in a while. I definitely agree that if your partner is a nympho, well maybe you should not have stuck your dick in crazy to begin with or pretend to embody the white knight syndrome to it's full extent. I think this "monogamy" business matters way more when the people in the relationship are unequal to begin with. If they are equal , financially for example, which i feel matters a lot when you are co-raising your children. You do not feel as betrayed because, as far as your hard earned resources are concerned, she/he is not taking any, only the children are. So who cares who your partners wants to screw in their off time. Which leads me to think of the next possibility, possession. My oh my, this person is mine and mine only. Lol It's 2017, we do not hit women over the head with cave man bats and drag them to our layers. But in some countries i guess we still do and we expect them to shut up when we tell them to and bring our beers over to the couch or else they won't get the credit card the next time they go to the mall. Wait, i just realized i just described some people i know. :) There are only a few feedback loops you can take advantage of. Lol Parents can parent without marriage or monogamy. Why can't they? This is leftover idealism imposed by the church and land-rights interest groups from ages ago. It just so happens it was enforced and people attempt to adhere to it. But obviously the statistics are against their success. The more women become equal and educated. The more divorce there is and the less babies get born. If those things are happening, i don't see any reason why changes in the family structure should not happen as well. Usually a systems homeostasis usually communicates something about the nature of it's processes. The divorce rates should tell us something. Now that the gloves are off regarding divorce being taboo or being shunned by your social circle, this is if you are living in a country which does not look down on you if you don't want to put up with your partners bs anymore and leave. If you do, well clearly you are living someone else's life.
creatrixcordis 9y ago
This is an interesting documentary regarding different relationship structures from the independents themselves. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4716560/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4716560/
fictionfuture 9y ago
Feminism. Feminism causes this. Let me explain... simply, Evolutionary biology suggests women are hard wired to seek certain behaviors And characteristics in a man. Behaviors that suggest the man has many high quality female options; and characteristics that are Fundamentally manly, (like dominating in bed) feminists have changed culture to suggest that these characteristics are a bad thing. And most men are blindly following the feminist narrative. Hence you get women choosing the "safe" option but dreaming about the guy that will tell them "no". Read "The Rational Male" . Great book.
- sctb 9y ago
  This does not meet the bar for substantiveness on a controversial topic on Hacker News. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
xxxdarrenxxx 9y ago
I sought professional help to deal with life influencing jealousy and doubts. What helped me deal with this, is to find out that I undervalued myself and overtly dedicated myself to my partner. Once you don't view your life as the relationship, but you and your relationship, u will be on a good track. Most people will notice that if they meet a cute someone and don't see them for a few days, they don't occupy themselves with all these doubt too much. It's when you sacrifice or throw a big part of yourself onto pleasing the other within an ensuing relationship, is when you lose yourself and become insecure and doubtfull.

52 points by pmcpinto 9y ago

I wish social experimentation and progress happened at even 5% of the speed of technological progress.. why don't we just get rid of the idea that you 'own' your partner's body? It seems arcane and based in insecurity. If you can't handle even the slightest of erotic competition, how solid can the basis of your relationship be? (Sorry for the overly controvesial wording if my post, I realize that filing more open relationships under 'social progress' is not obviously right, and would love to hear alternative perspectives, especially from people in stable happy long-term relationships)

aaron-lebo 9y ago
It's a personal thing. Some people don't like sharing one of the most intimate actions with their partner with other people. If you can't handle even the slightest of erotic competition, how solid can the basis of your relationship be? This is not helpful because some of the happiest relationships I know are very conservative (perhaps selfish in your view) relationships. Some people are monogamous, some aren't, no reason to judge either side.
- crsm345 9y ago
  It's certainly a personal decision, and I agree that there is no reason to make negative value judgments about two consenting adults deciding to uphold a (happy) monogamous remationship model. But the overwhelming dominance of this particular model is what seems suspect to me. Do all these people really prefer monogamy? Or rather, why do they? It seems very likely that it is due to societal pressure / 'conditioning' rather then 'authentic' personal preference. But this is of course nearly impossible to test. I do not think it's 'selfish' to follow a monogamous relationship style. To make a somewhat contentious analogy, I wouldn't condemn people for being gay either (or for being straight for that matter). However it seems important that these various types of relationships are genuinely possible without stigma etc. In the case of hetero/homo/... -sexuality it's obvious that there is a biological mechanism behind the dominance of heterosexuality. In the case of 'open' relationships (especially in the case of a 'monogamous love, polygamous sex' -type relationship this is a lot less clear. If it turns out that this is not simply due to 'practicality' (or innate biology) it seems overly restrictive as a social norm. One might even say 'opressive' (in the sense that Prohibition arguably was, not trying to equate this with racism/..)
jrcii 9y ago
Apparently morality is "arcane."
KGIII 9y ago
In most cases, it is a violation of trust. There's a difference between an open relationship and someone violating your trust. Monogamy isn't based on ownership, it's based on trust. Open relationships are fine, but you should have willing partners.
- enraged_camel 9y ago
  Aside from that, there are some very legitimate practical concerns with poly relationships. STDs, for example.
  - toomuchtodo 9y ago
    That's easily solved with a blood test before you engage in a sexual relationship with additional partners.
    - hndamien 9y ago
      That is solved, but not so easily, with a blood test.
    - Insanity 9y ago
      Small bugfix: Regular blood tests* As any of your partners could be adding additional partners, and probably so could theirs. And if they're very open - they might casually have sex with someone else every weekend. Maintenance nightmare if you ask me. :P
      - toomuchtodo 9y ago
        The foundation of all relationships is trust. You can't hack around dishonesty. Don't be in a relationship with someone you can't trust if your health depends on it.
        Insanity 9y ago
        But, it's not dishonest in that case. If people are free to add partners as they like - then you can not _ensure_ that one of their partners (or their partner's partners, or partner's partner's partners, you get the point) respects that. It increases the odds of getting an STD I believe. But I don't have numbers to back that up nor do I feel like looking for them now (sorry)
simonsarris 9y ago
When I look at polygamous/polygynous societies today and in history, I'm not sure I see "social progress." In fact, for whatever its pitfalls may be, it appears that monogamy solves a large number of social ills that are perhaps larger than polygyny's own. Like large bands of males cast out with no prospects, so they resort to not-so-progressive behavior. Like the vikings: 'Polygyny created a pool of unmarried men motivated to engage in risky behavior to increase wealth/status/prob of entering marriage market' http://www.ehbonline.org/article/S1090-5138(16)30307-5/pdf http://www.ehbonline.org/article/S1090-5138(16)30307-5/pdf Or the Lost Boys: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_boys_(Mormon_fundamentalism) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_boys_(Mormon_fundamentali... Or certain other religions and tribal areas that may promote such behavior today as a side ffect, which may promote other lost boys to, I don't know, join ISIS in hope of getting some of those dear wives of their own too, one way or the other. Perhaps you file this under "not my problem." Maybe its not your problem, but it definitely presents a social problem, and you're suggesting that poly-* may be social progress. I don't think that plays out in history.
- colanderman 9y ago
  > it appears that monogamy solves a large number of social ills that are perhaps larger. Like large bands of males cast out with no prospects, so they resort to not-so-progressive behavior. So the acceptable "solution" to this imbalance is to socially force (through normalization of monogamy and marriage) women into relationships with less-desirable men? Why shouldn't men be expected to be more attractive mates? Why not blame the patriarchy for creating a power imbalance that favors polygyny over polyandry? EDIT: For those doubting that patriarchy plays a role, consider that both the Mormon [1] and Arabic [2] worlds have historically been strongly patriarchal. I don't know about the Vikings. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormonism_and_women https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormonism_and_women [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Arab_societies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Arab_societies
  - Nursie 9y ago
    >> So the acceptable "solution" to this imbalance is to socially force (through normalization of monogamy and marriage) women into relationships If you read into polygamous societies, it's often that (particularly very young) women are forced into relationships with socially powerful men. Not much to do with attraction.
jrs95 9y ago
Traditionally the primary function of relationships is raising children, and monogamy is good at that. I don't see how shifting the focus from what is basically the foundation of our society towards doing what is fun and rewarding in the short term is a sign of social progress.
Nursie 9y ago
>> why don't we just get rid of the idea that you 'own' your partner's body? I don't own my partner's body, however I expect emotional exclusivity, and that's also what I want to give. Sex, closeness, trust and emotional bonds are all tied up together. It's not "erotic competition" and to me the use of that phrase just belies a lack of maturity - it's never "just sex" for me, and I wouldn't want to be with someone for whom it was. If something else works for you, great, but please don't frame it as progress or freedom from ownership. Progress is allowing everyone to choose the sorts of relationships they find fulfilling, with no persecution or shaming. Not calling what works for others insecure or arcane.
- crsm345 9y ago
  Fair points. Perhaps my phrasing was needlessly agressive. I didn't mean to label individual personal choices as 'arcane'. Rather, it's the social/cultural norm that I find suboptimal. (Also, the economic connotations involved are perhaps in bad taste) I'm not sure whether this is correct in English (not my first language) but 'erotic' was meant to include not just sex but other forms of closeness as well. What I don't understand is why the bond of trust, emotional closeness, and so forth necessarily needs to have exclusivity built-in, so to speak. It's also not like other (non-sexual) forms of closeness are considered cheating. If I am in a monogamous relationship and develop a non-sexual, strong emotional bond with someone else I've only made a new friend, not cheated. However if I have 'just' sex (with little emotional involvement) it is considered cheating. Now if it were commonly accepted that it is only 'cheating' if you have some strong emotional bond in addition to sexual relations, it would make more sense. Even then, however, it seems unclear why the fact thaat you also have a strong bond with somebody else somehow invalidates the bond you have with your partner. Obviously, for 'practical' reasons the number of deep relationships one can have is limited. But 1 seems like an artificially low limit. In regards to what we could consider progress: I completely agree with what you wrote. However, what is considered a 'normal' relationship, what is ezpected if no further discussion or arrangements are made, what most everyone defaults to, is a partly social norm with important consequences, and one which should be subject to criticism and optimization. It seems unlikely to me that nearly everyone prefers exclusive monogamy vs a more relaxed relationship model. It seems more likely that the dominance of that particular arrangement is due to societal pressure. Of course maybe it seems that way because I am somehow emotionally immature. Unfortunately, it seems difficult to design rigorous studies to research this question.
LordKano 9y ago
>>why don't we just get rid of the idea that you 'own' your partner's body? For the most part, people don't believe that they do. People think that they're owed honesty. There's an enormous difference. I'm in a committed, long term relationship. If she decided that she didn't want to be with me anymore, I would be hurt but the honesty would prevent the hurt from being the anger that comes from betrayal.
crpatino 9y ago
I know you are talking of "evolution of sexual mores" when you say the phrase "experimentation and progress"... but let's entertain the notion that you got your wish granted by an evil genie. If that was the case, at age 16 your older (18) sibling's behavior would be as outdated that she might as well be 80. Your parent's behaviour would be so alien and bizarra that they might as well be 16th century artisans; your grandparents would be somewhere between Ancient Egypt priests and Cro-Magnoon shamans. Earlier ancestors would be so far away that they would have to be modelled as non human inteligences. What kind of society would you expect to develop around a bunch of people that cannot understand the motivations of even their closest kindred?

virgil_disgr4ce 9y ago

The reason it's ostensibly confusing is that the standard narrative of human sexuality—one sexual partner for life after getting married—is, forgive me, completely batshit insane. That's not to say that people haven't done it. People do, of course. And that's not to say that that's wrong or something, either. But the expectation of total 'fidelity' for life is unreasonable. For more on this subject I recommend the book "Sex at Dawn."

nkrisc 9y ago
I think it's a waste of breath to promote or condemn one mode of relationship over another. All that matters is what you and your partner(s) agree on for the terms of your relationship.
- jamesrcole 9y ago
  It can matter for legal reasons. Like what legal rights come with recognition of the relationship.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- virgil_disgr4ce 9y ago
  Of course. But the problem is the expectation at large in the macroculture (I'm speaking largely of American macroculture, where I live) of monosexuality by participants of all sexes. In other words, it's a sociocultural problem. Are there people who have figured out how to escape it? Yes, but still a minute fraction. Furthermore, the judgement those people (myself included) face by family and sometimes friends is another part of the problem.
  - nkrisc 9y ago
    Agreed about the real problem being societal. My point was that claiming that humans are "meant" to be monogamous or polygamous or whatever is an empty debate when we have free will and can decide for ourselves what sort of relationship we want.

staticelf 9y ago

TLDR; It is possible to like more than one individual. I for one doesn't understand why anyone would marry except for economical benefits/security. Personally, I would much rather have 2 or more girlfriends/partners who enjoy me and eachother than a marriage with one. Since I believe that the male sex drive is bigger than that of women, I don't understand why I should be limited to just enjoy one other woman. However, this is hard to do because many women like the idea of marriage and have this impossible romantic view of the world. Love is not static, sometimes you love someone more and sometimes less. This changes over time just like everything else. But in our upbringing we learn from movies and our culture that love should be this static, non-changing thing and of course it will not work in a world that changes all the time. A lot of marriages fail, probably because people change over time and we don't always like that. Let's just be more open and enjoy ourselves when we have such a short time alive. EDIT: I understand that my opinions can be controversial, but you don't really have do downvote just because you do not agree with them.

tonyedgecombe 9y ago
I would much rather have 2 girlfriends/partners There always seems to be at least one partner in these relationships singing their praise through gritted teeth.
- staticelf 9y ago
  I have no experience of such relationships so I cannot really say anything about it except that I want one :)
gumby 9y ago
> Since I believe that the male sex drive is bigger than that of women... Your belief is not borne out by data. And for a long period in the West the opposite was the common belief. In some countries like contemporary Iran, sex education includes the pleasure, needs and in-the-bed sexual equality of both partners (in Iran’s case to try to preserve conservative marriage and increase procreation — obviously there is not equality OUTSIDE the bed)

jrs95 9y ago

Because shitty people can still be happy people.

ohdrat 9y ago

One is enough for gods sake

TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago

Infidelity is as natural as taking a shit. I think we're culturally indoctrinated to get worked up over infidelity, less so for defecating.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
crpatino 9y ago
Violence, including lethal violence, is at least as natural as infidelity. Probably more so, given that you cannot have the concept of "infidelity" if you had not put "fidelity" on top "sex" to begin with. That does not make me want to live in a society that condones beating the crap out of anyone you can get away with.

samirillian 9y ago

Yeah, it might be able self discovery, but it might be about enacting a narcissistic fantasy. The author is right, you reconstruct yourself in the other's gaze, you slake your thirst with the other's mouth. But what kind of self are you constructing here? And what power will your own fantasies have over the person with whom you conduct the affair?

jrs95 9y ago
Yeah, I don't think the normalization of this obviously selfish and destructive behavior is a positive thing at all.
- dalbasal 9y ago
  The selfishness and destructiveness of the behaviour is very closely related to the norms it violates. Homosexuality was (and is) destructive to families in communities where it considered abhorent. Premarital sex too. In fact, the ban on premarital sex and the ban aon adultery are closely related. People have a hard time suppressing their sexual urges. But, many sexual urges we once considered immoral & destructive are now seen differently.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- dalbasal 9y ago
  An interesting subplot in the culture of sexual fidelity is (IMO) the cultural promotion of multiple sequential relationships. The most culturally acceptable middle class sex life today involves a series of monogomous relationships. We're encouraged to start young with practice relationships (ideally stopping short of "real sex") for teenagers, which are expected to end. Then, a variety of relationships ranging from one nighters to multi-year relationships anyone from the past would have called marriage. Variety is generally valued. Then Marriage(s). My GreatGrandmother would have raised eyebrows at all this. Even though sexual norms have radically shifted during this time, our view of fidelity remained kind of static. Promiscuity good, infidelity bad. The culture surrounding sex is among the most complex in the human repertoire, but such a shift on promiscuity without a shift on infidelity seems like an oddity of our culture, probably a short term one.

dalbasal 9y ago

Priya’s affair is neither a symptom nor a pathology; it’s a crisis of identity, an internal rearrangement of her personality. In our sessions, we talk about duty and desire, about age and youth. and... "“You think you had a relationship with Truck Man,” I tell her. “Actually, you had an intimate encounter with yourself, mediated by him." This article (and others like it) make me kind of think that (A) much of psychology should not be treated as an objective science (2) Objective science is not the only useful contribution. Therapists don't have to be scientific. People get a lot of relief from being able to narrate their life and their feelings. They find beauty or comfort in exploring motivations (from a subjective POV). It can be liberating (and effective) to act within a narrative, to have names for things. A lot of our best art is dedicated to this sort of thing, especially romantic literature. For abstract truth, I don't think most of this article describes it. In the abstract, I think the answer to the question is simple: (1) People (on average) are semi-monogomous, like a lot of animals. (2) It's hard to use cultural conventions to restrict people's sexuality. see exhibit I "The Gays." That doesn't mean that a therapist should just tell this lady "you were just horny."

stared 9y ago

Just be polyamorous (see e.g. https://polyfidelity.org.au/about/polyamory/education/121-the-diversity-of-love-relationship-concepts https://polyfidelity.org.au/about/polyamory/education/121-th..., http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/04/06/polyamory-is-boring/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/04/06/polyamory-is-boring/). If there is a need to have multiple partners instead of going the "traditional way" (one official partner + cheating or some shady don't ask don't tell arrangement) it seems much healthier to openly discuss needs and boundaries. We shouldn't just accept "system defaults" if they are not optimal for us. In my local poly community (Warsaw) there is a lot of nerds. I tend to view it as a hacker's approach to relationship.

Nursie 9y ago
Yup, if you don't want to do things the mono way, and everyone's on-board, why not! The problems come when people promise one thing and do another...
Red_Tarsius 9y ago
Your poly community has a lot of nerds because they don't have enough leverage to ask their s.o. to stop fucking other people.
- bob2001 9y ago
  So how are most of these nerds in this community distributed, like 1 partner dating multiple nerds, or 1 nerd per "group" of partners like the parent comment implies?
- colanderman 9y ago
  Or they're enlightened enough to realize that only diseased, transactional relationships are based on "leverage"?
jaimex2 9y ago
What do you do when someone gets pregnant?
- 9y ago

Giorgi 9y ago

Oh so people get bored with just one partner for their entire lives? Shocker.

dmuch 9y ago
This was a long essay that could have just been summarized as "Priya's bored".
justherefortart 9y ago
Eddie Murphy summed it up flawlessly. Same old crackers.

monochromatic 9y ago

Priya cheats because Priya is not a good person. She cares more about having sex with some random truck driver than she does about the father of her children.

tyingq 9y ago
Most people I know well enough that they would tell me...have all done bad things for reasons they don't understand themselves. I think it is probably more complicated than "not a good person".
- monochromatic 9y ago
  Everything human is more complicated than any verbal/written description of that thing. We’re complicated animals in a complicated universe. That doesn’t make simplifying descriptions useless.

lsd5you 9y ago

So affairs are 'wrong', but who would want to live in a world where there are no affairs? We excessively police and punish our partners, our friends' partners and our parents, but often hypocritically, when it comes to ourselves and our friends cheating will generally be forgiven. I am not even advocating abolishing the hypocricy. Without it affairs probably wouldn't be exciting and equally, faithful relationships wouldn't be as meaningful. What is more, having broken up a long term relationship with children (with objectively plenty of cause), and having not had an affair what I can say is that for a woman this can be even worse, as it leaves them without something to be mad and and just feeling unvalued. (It probably goes both ways for both genders, but in my view it is something that is clearly not symmetrical in Male-Female relationships). However what I do think is wrong are ill feelings to the point of death threats and hatred (which I experienced) even if there is infidelity. In this situation can someone really claim to have loved someone in the first place if they value their life outside of the relationship so little. When this is the basis of someones feelings then the relationship/marriage is a kind of tyranny in my opinion.

sambe 9y ago
Quite a lot of people, I'd think? The mature thing to do is leave, or discuss your needs honestly. If the enjoyment comes from the risk then you're getting your kicks at someone else's expense. That's really selfish.
- lsd5you 9y ago
  If so, it is a form of moral extremism that I think would result in everyone being less happy (and with general confusion as to why people are unhappy). Possibility, even unacted on, is an important thing.
Nursie 9y ago
>>what I can say is that for a woman this can be even worse, as it leaves them without something to be mad and and just feeling unvalued. This appears to be sexist tripe.
- 9y ago

jaimex2 9y ago

It's simple. Some people value an exciting encounter over their current relationship, people can have an addiction to the rush or have felt numb for too long. Over simplifying - there's nothing wrong with their current phone but some people will rush and buy the latest to get the buzz of a new gadget. They weigh the chance of getting caught and damage it will cause as lower than the excitement and fulfilment of a new fling. We've all been there, seeing someone attractive from the opposite sex and having thoughts of an encounter. Whether you chose to act on it or not depends on your integrity and empathy. Some people have more than others.

testestx 9y ago
I just want to give a name to this for whoever want to Google more: novelty seeking.
- nojvek 9y ago
  I think it's part of how we're wired. Some people more than others. To seek that dopamine hit again.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
Balgair 9y ago
Yeah, the trick is to recognize you are a person that likes that and then try and have that risk/excitement sustained in your own relationship/s. A tip I've heard for those that need it: Always be dating your spouse. I'll leave it to the reader to google the ways to do that ;)

yodsanklai 9y ago

I'm surprised by the moralistic comments and downvotes... EDIT: I removed the rest of the comment as it apparently offended many people.

Retra 9y ago
Well, it's not "cheating" if you're with someone who doesn't mind. So you should make sure to be with someone who doesn't mind. If you don't, then you're really just being shitty and careless, so what is there to be surprised about?
kbart 9y ago
"And I would be fine if my partner saw someone else too." So why cheat then and not talk to your partner openly and come to an agreement? I know plenty of couples that let each other to have other partner(s), and that's totally normal. Playing with another human being feelings, on the other hand, is not imho.

howeyc 9y ago

Maybe because the idea you can romantically love only one person is idiotic? You can love more than one sibling, more than one parent, more than one sports team, more than one... you get the idea. Yet, when it comes to romantic love, nope, just the one.

emodendroket 9y ago

> there is always a suspicion … that one is living a lie or a mistake; that something crucially important has been overlooked, missed, neglected, left untried and unexplored; that a vital obligation to one’s own authentic self has not been met, or that some chances of unknown happiness completely different from any happiness experienced before have not been taken up in time and are bound to be lost forever. In my opinion this quote sums up not only the thesis of the article but also one of the primary diseases afflicting our society.

kbart 9y ago
This quote sounds childish imho. I know this feeling, I believe every teen feels this way, but I don't lose sleep over my decisions or "what if.." scenarios anymore. The most important truth and lesson learned during my life was "always be in truth with oneself and others": if you are not happy about something - change it or find the root cause and fix it, take responsibilities seriously and avoid lies whenever possible (it is a burden that keeps growing as a snowball and finally crushes you); if you are not happy with your current partner and you see no way to fix it -- have "balls" to say so and move in separate ways.
- emodendroket 9y ago
  Well, yes, I agree, but it's thinking that is a festering sore in our Zeitgeist.
zzalpha 9y ago
I tend to agree, but I think it's pretty deeply rooted, and it's not a new thing by any stretch. I reject the idea that this is somehow a particularly modern dysfunction. As children and young adults people are taught to "pursue their dreams" and "find their passion" and many other aspirational platitudes. Then, adult life comes along and most of us become decidedly average because, well, that's statistics for you. But many are then left with this feeling that they've somehow failed. That if they'd taken that other road that diverged in that wood a ways back, maybe they'd be living that fantasy life that they were sold. What we're not taught is how to be happy in the present. Aspiring to change is vital to improve ourselves and the world around us. But equally valuing and appreciating what we already have is every bit as important.

creatrixcordis 9y ago

This is interesting, a old friend once said: "If a woman wants to cheat on you. She will cheat on you while holding your hand" Now that the chauvinist statement is out of the way. Men cheat too. :) I don't think anyone can say that monogamy has anything to do with raising children. I do not see why the barbarous requirement for having sex with one person needs to even be there in the first place. I don't have the same car for the rest of my life, don't drink the same thing or eat the same thing every day for the rest of my life either. Why not be able to taste other flowers in the garden as well. That does not mean i don't love or care about the mother of my child. As long as i take care of my responsibilities regarding my children. I see no reason why this requirement is imposed by society. Other than pure culturalism and brainwashing, which one could argue is indirectly the same thing. Maybe it has something to do with possession. Maybe insecurity that my wife will like John's dick more than mine or love his Porsche more than my Buick. Don't you want to find that stuff out early about your partner vs later... Isn't your partners ability and her/his care for your children more important than who he/she wants to screw every once in a while. I definitely agree that if your partner is a nympho, well maybe you should not have stuck your dick in crazy to begin with or pretend to embody the white knight syndrome to it's full extent. I think this "monogamy" business matters way more when the people in the relationship are unequal to begin with. If they are equal , financially for example, which i feel matters a lot when you are co-raising your children. You do not feel as betrayed because, as far as your hard earned resources are concerned, she/he is not taking any, only the children are. So who cares who your partners wants to screw in their off time. Which leads me to think of the next possibility, possession. My oh my, this person is mine and mine only. Lol It's 2017, we do not hit women over the head with cave man bats and drag them to our layers. But in some countries i guess we still do and we expect them to shut up when we tell them to and bring our beers over to the couch or else they won't get the credit card the next time they go to the mall. Wait, i just realized i just described some people i know. :) There are only a few feedback loops you can take advantage of. Lol Parents can parent without marriage or monogamy. Why can't they? This is leftover idealism imposed by the church and land-rights interest groups from ages ago. It just so happens it was enforced and people attempt to adhere to it. But obviously the statistics are against their success. The more women become equal and educated. The more divorce there is and the less babies get born. If those things are happening, i don't see any reason why changes in the family structure should not happen as well. Usually a systems homeostasis usually communicates something about the nature of it's processes. The divorce rates should tell us something. Now that the gloves are off regarding divorce being taboo or being shunned by your social circle, this is if you are living in a country which does not look down on you if you don't want to put up with your partners bs anymore and leave. If you do, well clearly you are living someone else's life.

creatrixcordis 9y ago

This is an interesting documentary regarding different relationship structures from the independents themselves. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4716560/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4716560/

fictionfuture 9y ago

Feminism. Feminism causes this. Let me explain... simply, Evolutionary biology suggests women are hard wired to seek certain behaviors And characteristics in a man. Behaviors that suggest the man has many high quality female options; and characteristics that are Fundamentally manly, (like dominating in bed) feminists have changed culture to suggest that these characteristics are a bad thing. And most men are blindly following the feminist narrative. Hence you get women choosing the "safe" option but dreaming about the guy that will tell them "no". Read "The Rational Male" . Great book.

sctb 9y ago
This does not meet the bar for substantiveness on a controversial topic on Hacker News. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

xxxdarrenxxx 9y ago

I sought professional help to deal with life influencing jealousy and doubts. What helped me deal with this, is to find out that I undervalued myself and overtly dedicated myself to my partner. Once you don't view your life as the relationship, but you and your relationship, u will be on a good track. Most people will notice that if they meet a cute someone and don't see them for a few days, they don't occupy themselves with all these doubt too much. It's when you sacrifice or throw a big part of yourself onto pleasing the other within an ensuing relationship, is when you lose yourself and become insecure and doubtfull.