32 ms·

While this is unpopular to say, I think the advanced age of marriage and promiscuity earlier in life plays a role here. My parents were together from 19, and k

• tscopp 3y ago
  The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. The second best time is now.
  • sdfghswe 3y ago
    Wouldn't the second best time be an instant after 20 years ago?
    • diarrhea 3y ago
      Peak HN comment.
    • idiotsecant 3y ago
      The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago, the least worst time place in our future light cone is here now.
      • chrisdave 3y ago
        Crap, I missed it.
        • joelfried 3y ago
          That instantiation of 'now' is gone, but you have more to come. If missing that one is the proximate cause for future beneficial actions, isn't that better than having it be the source of more guilt and angst?
      • sdfghswe 3y ago
        If you care about our light cone why are you thinking about 20 years ago? Seems irrelevant.
    • SanderNL 3y ago
      I think this deserves attention. Well done.
  • rainworld 3y ago
    At 38, some 25% of women are sterile and almost all have reduced fertility. These days “now” is often too late. See also: exploding IVF rates. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_and_female_fertility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_and_female_fertility
    • kaba0 3y ago
      Not everyone wants children though. Happily living with a lifetime partner is not age limited. Though if people do want children, they should absolutely know the risks.
      • rainworld 3y ago
        But most do in fact want children and do not really know the risk. Modern Western societies are structured to encourage people to use their most fertile years to further their careers and to keep “searching” and “experiencing”. We’re running a global, uncontrolled open air study on whether affluent societies with birth control, divorce, feminism etc. can exist long term. Given resulting reproduction rates, it’s not looking good.
        • kaba0 3y ago
          I agree that declining birth rates and later child bearing is a problem, but I heavily disagree with the alternative you seem to promote: depending on what you mean by birth control, we definitely don’t want everyone having 10 children, which was not uncommon without it; divorce is an essential freedom we absolutely should have; and feminism is a very important movement and attacking it is just vile.
        • johnnyanmac 3y ago
          >But most do in fact want children and do not really know the risk. Given so many here complaining abuot meeting a person to begin with: Beggars can't be choosers. Figure out who you'd want to have a family with first and then get around to the whole child part. There's also adoption, but it'd admittedly be hard to be approved as a single parent.
    • 3y ago
• giraffe_lady 3y ago
  It's tiring how frequently people write off their own views or even flaws as "human nature". When the universal defining characteristic of humans is our refusal to be constrained by our natures. Accept this view as your own or change it for yourself. Don't lay it at the feet of the rest of us.
  • heattemp99 3y ago
    I have a feeling not wanting the love of your life to have had sex with many others is pretty engrained in most people. Everyone? No. But I consider what is most common to be close to human nature.
    • noman-land 3y ago
      No, it's not. Many people couldn't care less.
      • KSteffensen 3y ago
        Terry Pratchett quote: "If you're building a house you want someone who's driven a few nails in their time"
    • toomuchtodo 3y ago
      Sometimes human nature is the flaw.
    • 9dev 3y ago
      I don’t understand why someone would even think about that. They are here with you now, so what if they’ve screwed around before? How does that even affect you (other than some added experience you may even profit from)
      • david38 3y ago
        You should read some evolutionary psychology. Taking some ideology you hold, which is very modern, and then claiming to not understand why anyone would think otherwise shows a pretty severe lack of ability to understand how others might think.
• lamontcg 3y ago
  Yeah, there was no promiscuity in the 1970s, we should go back to the good old days.
  • heattemp99 3y ago
    Are we going to deny there was less promiscuity in the past? Just a few years ago the lifetime average partners was 7. Even that was screwed high due to recent trends. Now most women I know have 7 by the time they leave college.
    • strix_varius 3y ago
      It sounds like you may be projecting your personal experience onto society at large. > Are we going to deny there was less promiscuity in the past? The data indeed shows that there was not less, but more promiscuity in the recent past that the previous poster mentioned: https://ifstudies.org/blog/nine-decades-of-promiscuity https://ifstudies.org/blog/nine-decades-of-promiscuity Men's promiscuity peaked in the generation born around 1930 and has been declining since. Women's promiscuity peaked in the generation born in the 1950s and hasn't changed much since then (at 5-6 lifetime partners, a fair degree shy of your "7 by the time they leave college").
      • heattemp99 3y ago
        If you doubt that girls are sleeping around in college a lot, idk what to tell you. I guess when the stats come out in a decade or two you'll believe me.
        • skyyler 3y ago
          You are bringing your anecdotes up in the face of fact, just FYI. I've dated people with hundreds of past partners and I've dated kissless virgins. People are people. Not everyone is promiscuous; not everyone is a prude.
          • 3y ago
• air7 3y ago
  > "divorce stats by number of previous sexual partners" Perhaps the number of previous sexual partners before marriage is a proxy to how difficult a person is to be with...
  • dancenow 3y ago
    a person being difficult is only one of the several reasons why relationships fail
  • heattemp99 3y ago
    Partially yes, but it's also a sign of their standards. I've personally known many girls that aren't that hard to be with, but are being foolish constantly going after guys that clearly won't commit.
• aschearer 3y ago
  > How lucky I am to be her 23rd partner? Please explain: why are you "not that lucky" to be her 23rd partner? > I've heard many long time married old men say that when they look at their partner, they still see the beauty glimmering through that they saw at 19. If I meet a partner at 40, when we start really getting old and annoyed, what am I going to hold on to? Please explain: why does "19-year old beauty" need to "glimmer through" to sustain a relationship when one is "old and annoyed?" I hope you'll stand by your words and explain them. These are assumptions you're holding. In my opinion, they are _not_ conducive to a healthy relationship.
  • heattemp99 3y ago
    Because I don't want to feel like a fool for sticking with and supporting this woman from 40-70, when she was giving it up easily at 18-30. Luckily I'm tall and decent looking and do fine for myself, but I still have a gut feeling for reality. Regarding the beauty.. idk what to tell you. Same reason why some people hold onto their first car, or a car they bought new and love it. Or restore old cars. But if you buy an old beat up car, you use it while you can and move on when you feel like it. Nostalgia and memories are important to many people.
    • idiotsecant 3y ago
      But you say you're having trouble finding a meaningful relationship? I just can't understand why?!
      • heattemp99 3y ago
        I didn't say I had trouble finding a meaningful relationship. I said I'm having trouble finding meaning in dating 38 year old women.
        • idiotsecant 3y ago
          It's startling how much self awareness it's possible to have.
• m463 3y ago
  how do people successfully get together when they're old? Do they just become bf/gf? until they get bored or some crisis exceeds a threshold? are people who are single later in life broken? or just in a bad situation? do they have decent maturity, with the ability to have a much more decent relationship than young people do? Do they marry? is that success?
• wiseowise 3y ago
  > I know this is a judgemental view It’s not. Life is not rose colored. Some people get lucky and find their life partners, while others die alone.
  • heattemp99 3y ago
    Dying alone after a happy life is one thing, dying after decades of hell with a bad partner is another, and yet another to pay someone you hate until you die, like many men in California do.
    • uoaei 3y ago
      Wondering why you single out California specifically for this?
      • fakedang 3y ago
        I think he meant a large number of divorced males in California although relatively speaking, California has one of the lower rates of divorce among all states, with the highest in the South. https://www.bgsu.edu/ncfmr/resources/data/family-profiles/allred-divorce-rate-geo-var-2018-fp-19-23.html https://www.bgsu.edu/ncfmr/resources/data/family-profiles/al...
        • hef19898 3y ago
          Percentages and absolute numbers are difficult conepts to grasp for some.
      • tomatocracy 3y ago
        Presumably it's a reference to California not having a statutory limitation on the time horizon for alimony payments (and also allowing for courts to reopen alimony decisions years later) after a marriage of more than 10 years is dissolved.
    • Cthulhu_ 3y ago
      It's a choice in the end, hence, divorces. But many men - and based on your comments, yourself included - seem to not want to actually be alone.
• jstarfish 3y ago
  > If I meet a partner at 40, when we start really getting old and annoyed, what am I going to hold on to? How lucky I am to be her 23rd partner? Why would you jump straight to that conclusion? At 40, it is entirely possible for a prospective wife to have had at most ~3-5 partners in her lifetime. She would have been in long-term relationships for most of her adult life. Anyone with a history of long-term relationships is a pretty good bet that when trouble hits, they'll be there for it. 23 partners behind anybody is a red flag, but these days a bigger red flag would be any kind of vague abuse story surfacing early on (same goes for prospective friends or employees). Anyone who starts new relationships with strangers by defaming the previous one is going to be trouble (never hire a whistleblower). You will also forever be kept in check through fear of inadvertent "triggering" of vague traumas from past vague abuses you'll never fully understand, and when they leave they'll shake you down while telling the next partner how abusive you were to them. I'd say this is a gen-z thing but the worst two cases I've seen were perpetrated by the 38-50 age group, and /r/divorce has no shortage of these sorts of histrionic scam artists. For the same reason, I would also recommend coming to terms early on vis-a-vis porn. This was by far the single most cringeworthy post I've ever seen on Reddit (the OP deleted it, but the comments retain context): https://www.reddit.com/r/Divorce/comments/15b79d6/recording_a_woman_without_her_consent_from/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Divorce/comments/15b79d6/recording_... The OP comes in claiming she caught her husband taking upskirt videos of strangers at a music festival 8 years ago. Except what she describes isn't an upskirt video by any interpretation, yet she continues to use all sorts of lurid language to frame him as a liar, a criminal, a porn-addicted sex addict, a sexual predator, and a voyeur-- and she was quick to change the story (then it became "he secretly filmed me during sex") and insult anyone who challenged her narrative. If it applies to you, settle the porn question early on so you don't have someone later trying to publicly humiliate you by litigating what you do on the toilet. (And for fuck's sake never claim to be a sex addict to explain away porn use, much less document that by agreeing to go to counseling for it. Just own it then and there-- divorcing over porn makes her look petty, but divorcing because you're a documented sex addict who bailed on therapy makes you look like a monster.)
  • nextaccountic 3y ago
    So, what should abuse survivors do, never date again?
• ragestorm 3y ago
  I wish you the best of luck. You sound like you are too hung up on your partners last or own insecurities for finding a meaningful relationship.
• DANmode 3y ago
  Just playing Devil's Advocate: you can't miss out on what you don't know exists. Meaning: the sex and relationship you have with your first partner is necessarily the best and relationship you've ever had.
  • meheleventyone 3y ago
    > Just playing Devil's Advocate: you can't miss out on what you don't know exists. You don’t need to experience something to know it exists. And even if this were true that ends up being a shitty justification for abusive relationships.
    • DANmode 3y ago
      > You don’t need to experience something to know it exists. Some do. Knowing it exists doesn't make it "real", for some, for lack of better phrasing.
  • hutzlibu 3y ago
    But by that logic it is also the worst. And with the rise of video and amateur porn, you can in fact have a easy look what other people are doing and if you are maybe missing something.
    • DANmode 3y ago
      People don't use logic, though, they use emotion: look how long folks stay in less-than-ideal jobs, even if there's little keeping them there besides routine.
      • johnnyanmac 3y ago
        >look how long folks stay in less-than-ideal jobs, even if there's little keeping them there besides routine. Logically, if it was as easy to get promoted or move to a new job as shaking a hand and talking over the bar, people would move around more often. But because current job ads above minimum wage ones are looking for degrees and multiple calls spread over a few weeks and certain skills/portfolio/hisory, it's a big barrier even before talking about studying the interview specific skills
• cush 3y ago
  They’re just movies… All morbid Disney fantasies of what relationships and sex are supposed to be - “luck” being the most toxic part of on-screen love. Relationships are built, not found. And as we age, and see older partners, if the right amount of work is put in, that maturity and experience translates to a better life together and better sex regardless if we’ve been together as teenagers or not.
• marricks 3y ago
  Divorce rates were lower "back in the day" because women had far less options. Maybe we just aren’t all meant to find that one person and stay with them until we die. Maybe, just maybe, we were meant to have a community to find meaning in beyond to the communities of family and work. Blasphemous thoughts for the formerly puritanical US, but worth considering nonetheless.
  • asynchronous 3y ago
    Heaven forbid we value contentment in society, can’t have that now can we.
    • pjc50 3y ago
      People need to distinguish better between commitment and coercion.
      • wruza 3y ago
        This coin has two playable sides.
      • hypertele-Xii 3y ago
        Voluntary commitment is self-coercion. All discipline is. The trick is, it's worth it. But some people are so allergic to external and internal control that they enter a never-ending self-destructive spiral of "personal freedom at any cost".
        • asynchronous 3y ago
          I actually really love this quote, I’m saving it. Thank you random citizen.
        • kibwen 3y ago
          > some people are so allergic to external and internal control that they enter a never-ending self-destructive spiral of "personal freedom at any cost" The sort of people you describe have no effect on the number of divorces, because they're not getting married in the first place.
• ookblah 3y ago
  "How lucky I am to be her 23rd partner?" No offense, but think this honestly says a lot more about your own views and what your project on others than some kind of generalized statement. I personally would view going through the wringer of life relationships as a good thing, and if I was 40+ and met someone who hadn't experienced that in this day and page it's probably more likely they had also had some social hang up that you just haven't learned about. This also isn't to endorse the opposite of dating a person on their 5th divorce who's out hooking up every week or something. Anecdotally among those I know, whether someone had one vs. multiple partners had little bearing on the quality of their relationships. Those that had more, while they had their own issues related to that also had a more "realistic" view of sex and relationships IMO. Some of them felt glad to "get it out of their system" so to speak. If anything, those with just one partner maybe you could argue experienced something different (you don't know what you don't know), but they are still not immune to relationship issues.
  • pcthrowaway 3y ago
    > No offense, but think this honestly says a lot more about your own views and what your project on others than some kind of generalized statement. Yeah, it's a bit of an antiquated attitude at this point. If you're monogamous, you should be over the moon to be her last partner. The one she chose after doing extensive field research.
    • anotherhue 3y ago
      'Chose' implies that _she_ chose to end all other relationships. Field research works both ways.
    • Gud 3y ago
      [flagged]
      • hef19898 3y ago
        Oh dear...
• bawolff 3y ago
  > I've heard many long time married old men say that when they look at their partner, they still see the beauty glimmering through that they saw at 19. Presumably people who think their partner is now ugly either have enough sense to stfu or dont have a partner anymore. This just seems an instance of survivorship bias. Like who would stay with a partner that tells random strangers they are ugly.
  • bunga-bunga 3y ago
    I don’t think many 80-year-olds are objectively good looking. It's not fair to judge the people who stay together for love and not for physical attraction past a certain age. > that tells random strangers they are ugly I don't go around telling people my lover's weaknesses, but that's how statistics are made.
    • master-lincoln 3y ago
      There is no such thing as "objectively good looking", beauty is a subjective thing based on past experiences.
      • snapcaster 3y ago
        Come on man, why do people say this? Do you actually think this? I understand there might be some disagreements or edge cases but it's really pretty close to objective
        • kibwen 3y ago
          Nah. The most beautiful women I've ever had the pleasure of meeting were unremarkable in photos, but in-person radiated an ineffable energy that made it impossible to keep my eyes off of them. When a couple of octogenarians look at each other and describe each other as attractive, that energy is what they're talking about. Framing attractiveness as mostly objective belies inexperience.
          • 3y ago
• smcl 3y ago
  > If I meet a partner at 40, when we start really getting old and annoyed, what am I going to hold on to? > How lucky I am to be her 23rd partner? You're raising a few different things here and it's hard to see what you're really concerned about, because I don't think it's the matter of divorce rates vs number of sexual partners. If you're worried you can't find a long-term partner in your late-30s, then don't be - it's possible and tbh from personal experience dating in my 30s has been much more relaxed and chilled out than in my 20s. When you find someone will you have memories of being together stretching way back 'til your teens? Nope, but that's not necessary for happiness at all, it's one aspect of some people's relationships and not all relationships need to look alike. You'll have a different story that's unique and interesting in its own way. If you're upset about the idea of being with someone who has been with 20+ men or women before you, then you need to work on your insecurities. How promiscuous either of you were at any time before you met will have no bearing on that whatsoever, if you are committed to each other. It sounds a bit like you regret or resent not already being married or in a long-term relationship already if I'm honest, and are reflecting and looking around for some answers or some justifications. If that's the case then I'd suggest trying not to do that, you'll not help your own situation and you could end up going down a dark path, making yourself feel worse or being less likely to find someone.
  • brokenkebaby 3y ago
    >How promiscuous either of you were at any time before you met will have no bearing on that whatsoever, if you are committed to each other. The problem is in the fact that commitment doesn't naturally happen from sympathy, or sexual attraction. As fitting two lives is hard, it's a choice which for most people stems from cultural alignments, or hard necessity. If someone's learned behavior is to fly as a butterfly over multiple flowers you can bet with a high probability that culture won't be helpful here. And necessity to stick together for survival is unlikely to exist for modern middle class.
    • smcl 3y ago
      > The problem is in the fact that commitment doesn't naturally happen from sympathy, or sexual attraction Wait why is that the problem? I don't think anyone believes that being sympathetic or hot is sufficient to sustain a relationship. > And necessity to stick together for survival is unlikely to exist for a modern middle class. One of the points (a worryingly small number of) people are making here is that this is good. You don't need to just stay married just for survival - so if you're unloved, unfulfilled, abused or simply unhappy you can part ways without sacrificing your health, livelihood, social status or wellbeing.
• trabant00 3y ago
  Good old times nostalgia is human nature. But less acceptable when it is for times you yourself haven't lived in. That's just "I was born too late" which is quite pathetic imho. But what does this have to do with the article? You're just talking about your love life anxieties, which I guess we all have, but it's out of place here.
• uwagar 3y ago
  i sympathise with your tradcon views
• RoyalHenOil 3y ago
  >How lucky I am to be her 23rd partner? Would you be luckier to be her 1st, knowing that it would be short-lived and 22 others would follow after you? All experienced people start off inexperienced. At least with experienced people, they are more likely to know what they want. I am a woman the same age as you. I am only interested in long-term monogamy. As such, I have a lot of sexual and relationship experience due to my age, but all if it is with just 3 people. Not only that, but all of my experience is with who, themselves, had never previously had casual sex experience. The first 2 were young and inexperienced like me, and they initially thought they wanted the same thing that I want. But as time went on, they realized that they felt confined by long-term monogamy and actually wanted more experiences with more people. After we broke up, they proceeded to have a series of flings and casual sex. They did have some attempts at long-term polyamorous relationships, but nothing that lasted more than a year or two. By the time I met my 3rd partner (who I have been with a long time now), I was pretty gun shy about dating men. My experience was that men talk a big game about wanting a stable partner for the long haul, but get bored and break your heart. What helped me give my new partner a chance was that we were both older by this point and more settled into our lives. He had plenty of relationship experience by that point, and his history demonstrated that he stayed dedicated in long-term monogamous relationships and that he was not interested in casual sex, despite plenty of opportunities for it. If I were advising someone whose goal was to only ever have one partner in their life, my advice would be to only date people with a lot of life experience. Inexperienced people are a wild card. You can't manipulate them into only ever wanting you. Maybe back in the day, you could lock them into marriage, but modern DNA evidence suggests that a huge percentage of children back then (some estimates as high as 25%) were not genetically related to their fathers, so I'm not so sure that marriage was actually what you imagine it was. If you want to date women who are fully dedicated to long-term monogamy, then date people with a demonstrated history of exactly that. (However, be aware that this only works if you yourself have such a history. You can't expect to date women with high standards if you don't actually live up to those standards.)
  • veave 3y ago
    >Would you be luckier to be her 1st, knowing that it would be short-lived and 22 others would follow after you? Yes? What do I care what happens to her after we break up?
• godelski 3y ago
  > How lucky I am to be her 23rd partner? Statistically better than your parents. You seem to be basing "luck" on sexual partners. Consider a different framing: she has had 23 or more attempts at finding a partner (and presumably you have as well). But none of those worked out. You succeeding means you're better than those 22 men before (likely also including in bed). On the other hand, your parents have no realistic partners to compare to, and their success required more luck and meant that they are less independent. You on the other hand have had the time to find yourself, your passions, and been able to find someone who independently found themselves and passions. You didn't fall for that person because you happened to go to the same high school and had a childhood crush. You fell for that person because you love who they are and what they made of themselves. In this context, I think you are lucky. You definitely had an opportunity that your parents didn't. It's impossible to say which is better. And if we're being honest, 40 years with a person is still a significant amount of time. If you meet your partner at 40, you have another 35 to 50 years with that person. Either way that's more time than your working memory (unless you really remember a lot of your early childhood). I know the grass always seems greener on the other side, but that just shows us how we are able to frame things however we want. Choice is yours.
  • BlargMcLarg 3y ago
    >But none of those worked out. You succeeding means you're better than those 22 men before (likely also including in bed). That's a premature conclusion. You have no idea why they have 22 partners or whether the person in question will be the last, but you're basing the entirety of your argument/context off of assumptions that the 23th is 'the chosen one'.
    • godelski 3y ago
      > you're basing the entirety of your argument/context off of assumptions that the 23th is 'the chosen one'. Of course I am. That's the premise that the OP set up. The number is very clearly arbitrary.
• spacebanana7 3y ago
  People have less sex than ever before. I think this is largely because of a decline in marriage and committed relationships because it's hard to have high frequency sex outside of those relationships. [1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/people-have-been-having-less-sex-whether-theyre-teenagers-or-40-somethings/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/people-have-been-... [2] https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/americans-are-having-less-sex-than-they-used-to_n_58bef197e4b0e6e6ccb53624 https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/americans-are-having-...
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
• AlexandrB 3y ago
  > Edit: for those that think this is just some personal issue, you should look up divorce stats by number of previous sexual partners. There is a clear rise in divorce rate per increase in partners, and at about 7 it's 50%+. You should look up divorce stats by age of marriage. This article calls marriages between 20 year olds "starter marriages" because they rarely last[1]. Your parents are an outlier. [1] https://time.com/4358792/woman-age-married-how-long/ https://time.com/4358792/woman-age-married-how-long/
  • mellosouls 3y ago
    That's quite a difficult chart to read and I think you need a bit more context in your quote. The "starter marriage" is for women between 15 and 20. The image appears to show the best age for women to marry to be early to late twenties and both article and image say late marriages are more likely to end in divorce. So I think the general point of the comment you are replying to stands and is supported by the article.
    • AlexandrB 3y ago
      Data is a bit older, but stats here show divorce rates bottoming out if you marry around 30: https://ifstudies.org/blog/want-to-avoid-divorce-wait-to-get-married-but-not-too-long/ https://ifstudies.org/blog/want-to-avoid-divorce-wait-to-get...
      • mellosouls 3y ago
        Yeah I googled earlier and there seem to be a few studies that pretty much all reckon young (early/mid 20s to 30ish) as the marriage-success-predictor optimum. Unfortunately those studies seem to be being misrepresented in much of the press which seems to want to accentuate the wait-a-little but are rather more quiet on the but-not-too-long message, presumably for reasons of being more appealing to the demographics they are "summarising" for.
        • Nursie 3y ago
• mustafa_pasi 3y ago
  Do no let society tell you that you are being judgemental because you apply basic wisdom to the situation. Of course your bond won't be as strong if she already experienced the same exact bond and maybe a stronger bond with 20 other men in the past, and then chose to break it and move on. Your only problem is that you are just as promiscuous so you stand on thin ice when you try to demand better from her.
  • phailhaus 3y ago
    > if she already experienced the same exact bond and maybe a stronger bond with 20 other men in the past Says who? I don't know what's so hard to understand about this. How many friends have you had over the years? Should your current friends be wary of the fact that your "friend count" is so high? Seems like your bond with them is pretty weak if you had the same exact bond with hundreds of people in the past, and they should steer clear of you. The idea that you should commit to the first friends you make is just as absurd for partners.
    • kibwen 3y ago
      Hear hear. If someone happens to find a spouse on their first try, then good for them. Otherwise, keep looking. Clinging to your first relationship merely because they're your first is an indicator of personal insecurity and/or desperation, and you'll be a better partner once you learn to work past that.
    • mensetmanusman 3y ago
      There is different evolutionary biology behind sec than there is friendship. Analogy breaks quickly.
      • phailhaus 3y ago
        Uh, marriage is not just about sex. Most of marriage is not about sex, actually.
  • timacles 3y ago
    This basic wisdom sounds like a child's view of human relationships and emotions. Like someone approximating what things should be like rather than what they actually are. It honestly just reads like misogyny, like women who have many partners are emotionally incapable of love. Let me tell you a secret, any semi-attractive & social woman will have easily had 20 partners by age 25-30. Theres no such thing as the "same exact" pair bond 20 times. Each one is different. And if something is of a certain strength, then how can it be weaker because it happened before? The only way what you're saying is true is if the person was jaded by the previous relationships and can no longer form deep connections. Emotions are infinite.
• ldehaan 3y ago
  [dead]
• Lutger 3y ago
  Don't automatically assume the couples who divorce in this age would have been in a happy marriage in the past. I've been in both ages. As a kid, in a small village, nobody got divorced. Really, it was just not done, the concept was alien to them. We came from the city, my parents were divorced, and I had to explain it as other kids would literally not grok the idea. There was a lot of pain, abuse and unhappiness in those marriages. Years later something happened in that village and a lot of women claimed their rights: it rained divorces, often very long marriages that fell apart. A lot of these former wives banded together in self-help groups to encourage each other and process their sometimes traumatic marriages. A divorce itself is never fun I guess, but it isn't automatically a negative and the outcome can be vastly superior to staying together. You may say: but what about all those divorces? I tend to assume those would have been unhappy marriages in the past, at least they have a new chance at life. So yes, what about them? Good they have ended their misery.
  • x86_64Ubuntu 3y ago
    It seems like you are stating that women of the past were secretly unhappy, so the modern divorce rate is the system hitting it's relaxed state. That's a confusing way to support the way things are.
    • kouru225 3y ago
      Both men and women were unhappy tbh
    • dragonwriter 3y ago
      > It seems like you are stating that women of the past were secretly unhappy, There's nothing secret or exclusive to women about it, much of our culture still reflects that it was widely recognized, including things like the wide variety of derogatory names for spouses (“ball and chain”, for instance.)
    • Lutger 3y ago
      I'm not sure I'm supporting the way things are, so I don't know exactly what is confusing. The comment I responded to has a fairly big assumption: that divorce is always a bad thing. I don't think that is a given. People used to be quite stuck in the family or marriage system. Even when faced with violence and sexual abuse, there was often no way out. I've seen heartbreaking examples of this. Though the tightness of past bonds may feel attractive in this era of fleeting connections, it was often not quite as cosy as what we long for. The freedom to move out of these traps was and is liberating for many. And yes, there is a cost to that freedom as well of course. I don't want to support anything, I just put a nuance here against a naive kind of nostalgia.
• awesomegoat_com 3y ago
  > I date in my age group. Sometimes changing the proposition can drastically change the outcomes.
• scl67 3y ago
  It's also probable that women who have no previous history don't know what their options are and will put up with abuse instead of opting for divorce. If you've already been able to escape abuse once, then it makes sense that you know you can separate successfully and won't tolerate partners who hurt you.
  • hypertele-Xii 3y ago
    And as there is no test for non-physical abuse, it also becomes a great excuse to avoid all responsibility and commitment. Women end most marriages, especially if educated. Most men cannot possibly be abusive, so there's something else at play here.
• goodpoint 3y ago
  > How lucky I am to be her 23rd partner? > I know this is a judgemental view, but I think it's human nature. No, it's your attitude. Statistics clearly show that most people do not have 23 partners by the age of 40.
• the_gipsy 3y ago
  > divorce stats by number of previous sexual partners. There is a clear rise in divorce rate per increase in partners, and at about 7 it's 50%+ I guarantee that it's women who initiate the divorce here, and that's what matters.
• kypro 3y ago
  I really agree with what you said here, and I think this is an important message – so thank you for putting it so well. This is something I had no appreciation for when I was younger. I thought romantic love was just that – you find someone you like looking at and like being around, and if that changes then you move on. But now I've been with my partner for more than a decade I've realised how shallow this view was. Realistically the connection I have with her I'll likely never be able to replace. When things get tough she understands me almost as well as I understand myself and I know she isn't just going to walk out of a 10+ relationship because I'm going through a few rough months. And obviously I feel the same about her... I want to be there for her for more than just thinking she looks nice and is fun to hang out with. The love we have is so much deeper at this point I don't know where I'd be without her, and I think she feels the same about me. The only thing I'd disagree with you about is how relevant the number of partners is. Both me and my partner had quite a few relationships before we found each other, and I actually think that helped us since we knew we worked well. The difference is that the relationships we had before each other we really just 6-12 months things and when we met we were still quite young. I think where you are correct is if you've been dating around for years and have some baggage (failed marriage, kids, etc) then when you try to settle down with someone else I'd imagine it would be difficult to develop the same depth of commitment to that person. One, because it just takes time, but two because it's now more complicated sine you have kids with another partner and therefore have other commitments outside your relationship that need to be managed and perhaps even prioritised. I do believe the way we sell love and relationships today is wrong. I think the sexual aspect is obviously important, but it shouldn't be as much the focus. The thing that provides the most value long-term really is the depth of the emotional connection two people can develop over very long periods of time together. I'm not saying people should stick with their partners no matter what, but I think valuing commitment even when things are not perfect is something we don't do enough of anymore. If anything young people (including myself some years ago) seem to actually have a negative view of long-term commitment. I think that's sad and I feel very grateful I somehow stumbled on the path I'm on today.
• dougmwne 3y ago
  I think this is a silly Disney view. I don’t think it’s about the history and the sunk cost specifically, but taking the difficult path to learning compromise, communication, patience and forgiveness. That takes a lot of time, decades at least, and it requires having enough incentive to stay together that you work through the rough patches to the other side where you grow instead of breaking up at the first sign of trouble. If there’s a correlation between number of partners and divorce rates, it’s because someone is consistently failing to learn how to be a better partner.
  • tcmb 3y ago
    It sounds like you're supporting OP's view. If someone hasn't put it the time and effort to learn these compromises, communication, patience, and forgiveness previously, why would they do it now with you after they meet you at age 40?
    • scns 3y ago
      You are right, they won't. Those who worked on themselves, instead of blaming others, will.
      • wolverine876 3y ago
        Yes, yes, yes!
  • wolverine876 3y ago
    > forgiveness There's an excellent film by Miranda July, The Future, where an older person is discussing relationships with a 30-something having a difficult time in marriage. The older person says that they haven't experienced a real relationship yet because, 'neither of you has done something unforgivable'. (All based on uncertain memory from years ago.)
• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
• IG_Semmelweiss 3y ago
  >>> How lucky I am to be her 23rd partner? I actually think OP has a very valid point and the opposition/criticisms have it too. However, I think both sides may be saying the same thing, but express it differently: Question: "How many partners have you had?" A- The OP side asks the "question" -> doesn't like the answer -> breakup. B- The counterOP never bothers to ask the "question" -> doesn't like the relationship -> breakup Meaningfully, both parties are doing the same thing. The only meaningful difference is that (A) is making Type I errors, while (B) is making Type II errors.
• bettercallsalad 3y ago
  My advice to myself and many of my friends have exactly based on that type of reasoning. Avoid women in Western Hemisphere like plague (and perhaps if you are a woman the other way around is also true). There are many parts in the world where monogamy is not only a tradition, it’s a requirement. Only in the Western Hemisphere, monogamy is looked down upon with “lack of experience”.
  • hef19898 3y ago
    Ah, so women socialized in a way that requires them to stay and serve their "man". Got it.
    • bettercallsalad 3y ago
      Not sure what part of my original comment implies that. In fact, I explicitly said it applied to both genders. In many parts of the world (China, Thailand, Vietnam etc just to name a few), chastity, monogamy etc are considered desired attribute in a partner. Only in Western Hemisphere (influenced by American Pie type of subculture) you see monogamy and chastity equalized with “lack of experience” or even “loser” characterization. The campus frat party culture obviously make it necessary to tie every kid of age 18-23 how “desired” they are with how many partners they had sex with.
      • ricardobeat 3y ago
        > chastity, monogamy etc are considered desired attribute in a partner You mean “female partner”.
        • bettercallsalad 3y ago
          Not sure how you drew the conclusion. In western culture, a guy being chaste/virgin is considered a serious sin. Remember “40 year old virgin”?
          • hef19898 3y ago
• lordnacho 3y ago
  "Fucked out" That's the phrase I use to describe it. If you're not done with your share of sex when you get married, you are at risk of giving in to temptation when you're married. Mostly from a guy's point of view because a guy tends to have more opportunities when he gets older, but the same logic works for women to a degree. One of my friends would get laid constantly in our 20s. Not just bragging about it, he provably had the gift for it when we were out. He was banging chicks constantly, to the point where he had to phone me from work to stop his various chicks from finding out about each other. I thought for sure this guy would not be able to hold out in a marriage. 15 years on and he hasn't cheated on his wife, that last of this parade of women. My boss married his high school sweetheart. He started going to a lot of meetings with a broker. I was joking that he was having an affair. Turned out to be exactly what happened. My other boss also got married early. Religious guy, 5 kids. I go to see him a decade after we last worked together, what does he do? He wants me to wingman him. Also shows me all his messages from various women. (He's also in politics, so maybe it's par for the course.) Sex is pretty powerful by nature, but like many things evolution has left us, there's a point where our curiosity is satisfied. We can move on with forming relationships when the urge is not quite so strong.
  • ap99 3y ago
    Changes in testosterone levels and the effect o sex drive probably also play a role as men get older.
  • scns 3y ago
    Our genes don't care bout our beliefs, only that we procreate with a partner whose immune system is different from ours, which is signaled via pheromones. It does not matter to them if we are able to form a stable bond. My ex is still a pain five years after breakup, even though she has a new partner and child with him. Our son is doing fine.
    • mikeyjk 3y ago
      Not that this is really the core of your point at all - but I believe the state of the science currently suggests that pheromones in humans are a myth at worst, at best unproven. We only have a vestigial vomeronasal organ, which no longer functions - as I've understood it: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20160509-the-tantalising-truth-about-sex-pheromones https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20160509-the-tantalising-...
• wilde 3y ago
  Of course there’s a correlation between number of divorces and number of partners. If you stay married you are less likely to have more partners lol. It’s the reverse of the cause you’re implying.
  • etothepii 3y ago
    It was number of partners before marriage.
    • wilde 3y ago
      Before the first marriage only? Since people can remarry the objection stands.
• BiteCode_dev 3y ago
  This assumes having a long couple relationship is necessary for humans. Maybe the next generations will evolved in ways that means they are very happy without the structure of the couple. Other structures exist.
  • DiggyJohnson 3y ago
    This strikes me as incredibly unlikely from an evolutionary psychology perspective. Or even from a perspective that acknowledges the relative complexity between whatever system you are envisioning and the simple (mostly) monogamous couple.
    • BiteCode_dev 3y ago
      Graeber's dawn of humanity have taught me humans have tried a lot of different social setups in the past for power and cooperation structures. Many animals have evolved in different direction for educational, emotional and sexual structures. I don't see any impossibility here. Only the believe the future will like the present, which is obviously not true.
• jiggawatts 3y ago
  A while back I noticed the "redpill" community on Reddit. Of course... ugh... some of those people have issues. Nonetheless, the fact is that there are people out there with issues. There are people desperate to find love, desperate to get out of their miserable lonely lives. Many in their thirties or even forties. If you strip away the superficial surface misogyny, at least some of the community has a valid point to make, and often scientifically backed: the way we live, how we're set up as a society, and how we find partners is not how the human species evolved. Modern lifestyles are ridiculously distorted compared to how our hunter-gatherer ancestors... no wait... that gives the wrong impression. Our lifestyles are ridiculously distorted compared to how the species did things for millions of years right up until a mere hundred years ago. A handful of generations! Just go read a Jane Austen book, for crying out loud! People used to get married in their teens, and being single in your early twenties was considered shameful. What's especially bizarre to me is that the science that the redpill community managed to scrape together is not a lot and of low quality. There just isn't much research on "how to find a good partner" or "how to make yourself more attractive to the opposite sex". I can go to arXiv right now and find a stack of papers on how to optimise a neural net, but I doubt I would find even one paper on how to optimise one's chances of finding a spouse and starting a family. More importantly, it's not only not researched, it's also not taught, not talked about, and even outright taboo. I studied algebra, but not marriage. That's just not a "subject" that exists in the education system. If you can ignore the minority of crazies, the redpill people have some good, actionable advice. It's the singular source of information on the topic that the mainstream scientific and educational systems have refused to even acknowledge as worthy of discourse, let alone study. It's still hard for me to wrap my head around the fact that we teach people to multiply matrices with pencil and paper[1], but not how to find a life partner and start a family. We just assume that they magically know how to do that well. You know, based on their experience... from their past lives... or something? Meanwhile we've turned on "hard mode", but you'll be fine son! [1] What percentage of the human race has ever needed to multiply together two matrices? What percentage needed to find a partner? Yeah...
  • hef19898 3y ago
    Finding a partner isn't actually that hard: 1. Don't be an ass, be kind and respect people 2. Be polite, accept a no as an answer 3. Accept the universe is not owing you anything, let alone an initimate relationship 4. Be open minded 5. Accept yourself as you are and others as they are It really comes down to number one, don't be an ass.
• mathteddybear 3y ago
  Yeah, what is it with 40 years old people "getting annoyed"? Too many "angry old man yells at cloud" memes, I suppose?
• RickJWagner 3y ago
  As I get older (nearing 60 now) I think more and more along those lines. Simpler really is better. The hamster wheel includes career and money, but it also includes family-- sacrificing upward mobility for simplicity and longevity may often be the right choice.
• voidhorse 3y ago
  Eh, I wouldn't overemphasize the role of multiple partners in this sort of behavior. I think rather the determining factor is that the West and the USA in particular has gradually adopted a more and more radically atomistic individualism over the past few decades, which, no surprise, has the ultimate effect of making the average citizen a selfish person that isn't very into the idea of commitment in the face of challenges.
• suction 3y ago
  [dead]
• subpixel 3y ago
  I’m older and long married. I married at about your age, by which time I had many, many sexual relationships/interactions. Of course I miss being in my 20s and 30s and the women I spent time with naked. Sometimes that nostalgia is very strong, believe me. But I also remember that none of those experiences were fulfilling. It blows my mind to recall periods of my life when I had numerous numbers I could dial that would land me in bed - but at the time I was nonplussed and unsatisfied by it all. By the time I was 38 I was looking for a partner, and when I met my wife all of my dating criteria went out the window. The whole game had changed. I have thoughts on whether monogamistic fundamentalism is good for marriage, but that’s a whole other discussion. In a society where you have to choose between promiscuity and commitment, the latter holds much more promise even though there are no guarantees.
  • fallingfrog 3y ago
    You had a very different experience in your 20’s and 30’s than I did! Maybe you could tell me your secret. Right now I’m single again- and, look, I’m thin and athletic, no crows feet, no grey hair, no hair thinning, and I can still get it up like when I was 18, Im not ugly or funny looking, conventionally fairly good looking, I’m a software developer so I make good money- and nobody’s interested. I don’t honestly know why. Probably, it’s because I’m neurodivergent and I’m sending signals that I’m not aware of. But, it was the same in my 20’s. I got laid a couple times but nothing remotely like what you describe. I’m not sad or upset about it. It’s a fact of life. It’s always been like this for me. I have plenty of other stuff going on in my life and I have friends and I’m ok. I just have always wondered what it was about some guys that was so magically attractive? From the outside, it looks like it’s the guys who tick the boxes of being very, should I say, normal. The ones who hew closely to whatever popular culture says a real man should act like and dress like.
    • CuriouslyC 3y ago
      Don't bother with advice from here, get a coach to review video of you interacting with women, or go on group dates with someone who knows what they're doing and observe you and give you pointers.
    • 3y ago
• j7ake 3y ago
  I think this is unpopular because there are so many heartbreaking stories of couples that are unhappy but stay because of social pressure. One possibility that is in line with your thoughts is that the advanced age of marriage has improved average marriage happiness, while reducing the tails of the distribution (both good and bad).
• naasking 3y ago
  > Edit: for those that think this is just some personal issue, you should look up divorce stats by number of previous sexual partners. There is a clear rise in divorce rate per increase in partners, and at about 7 it's 50%+. You say this like it's obviously a bad thing. People who stay married might just do so because they're afraid of being alone, and so suffer in silence for the rest of their lives. People who have been through many relationships maybe know they'll be ok if they split, it's not the end of the world, and there's no point prolonging the suffering. You can spin it many different, perfectly valid ways. Most people will probably post-rationalize their choice as "good" anyway, because that's what people do. Those who say married for a long time will say it was the best decision they could have made despite the challenges, and those who split will do the same.
  • splintercell 3y ago
    > People who stay married might just do so because they're afraid of being alone, and so suffer in silence for the rest of their lives. People who have been through many relationships maybe know they'll be ok if they split I used to think that, esp after seeing the unhappy but still together couples in my parent's generation. But the main issue is that now as I'm older and have a bunch of friends the second category now, and the unhappy couples in my parent's generation are (relatively) happily co-grandparenting together. Whereas this late-30s divorced/never-settled couples are equally (if not more) miserable as some of those unhappy couples were in my parent's generation. I don't know what will happen to my divorced/never-settled friends when they reach the grandpa generations without grandkids, but most likely they will find similar people like each other to give each other company. I do trust them that they will do something to be happy.
    • naasking 3y ago
      > Whereas this late-30s divorced/never-settled couples are equally (if not more) miserable as some of those unhappy couples were in my parent's generation. People make their own misery though. The cultural pressures to pair up are strong, so if you focus on things you don't have and think you want because of cultural pressures, of course you'll be miserable. Studies have shown that single people in midlife become significantly happier, I'd argue because a lot of the pressure is then off, and you're free to pursue your real happiness.
• anonzzzies 3y ago
  My wife and myself have slept around and had previous longer relations as well; I see it as a positive. How do I know what I like from a relation or sex if I didn't shop around? I had extremely bad and incompatible partners/sex and now I know that would never work. When I see people on reddit/twitter talk about their relations, I sometimes wonder if people married or living together actually ever talk; it's so incredibly dysfunctional and broken. And then they wonder why people take off, cheat etc etc as they have 0 bond after being 'highschool sweathearts' for way too long and growing apart for all that time. Few kids 'to save the relationship' of course.
• alecst 3y ago
  > Edit: for those that think this is just some personal issue, you should look up divorce stats by number of previous sexual partners. There is a clear rise in divorce rate per increase in partners, and at about 7 it's 50%+. I looked up this one: https://ifstudies.org/blog/counterintuitive-trends-in-the-link-between-premarital-sex-and-marital-stability https://ifstudies.org/blog/counterintuitive-trends-in-the-li... It shows an increase up to 25% after two partners, after which it levels off, until another increase at 10 partners.
  • NilMostChill 3y ago
    That's a small essay from a place of questionable bias making some assumptions based on partial statistics and partial statements with no stated backing. I might have missed it but i also can't see any kind of review (peer or otherwise).
• cm2012 3y ago
  I met my wife at 15, got married at 22, and are very happily married at 32. We both never had other partners. It's worked out well for us.
  • Dudester230602 3y ago
    Time-proven formula, yet sounds like counter-culture in 2023.
• micromacrofoot 3y ago
  I still don't understand why anyone cares "what number partner" they are... this reeks of old world "unclean woman" stigma. Unless someone is being dangerous and not using protection this is a non-issue, it doesn't physically matter how many partners someone has. Personally I find it more of an indication of how insecure many men are.
• ap99 3y ago
  There is no rule you have to date people your age, or even people that share your exact past. If you've changed how you view the world, change who you date.
• sheepybloke 3y ago
  My wife and I were high school sweethearts and got married out of college. When people ask us how we made it work, I always say that during college we grew and changed together. We had hard times and we worked through it, as we learned and grew we worked together and compromised. We grew up together through college. When you have a long term partner, they soften your edges. I don't think people want to have their edges softened anymore, which makes compromise and sacrifice less and less common. Note that this is not to say you should just settle for anyone, but I don't believe we as humans are puzzle pieces.
  • grvdrm 3y ago
    I can't related to the timeline of your relationship but I love your phrasing "soften your edges" - that is so great. Completely agree with you. Strong relationships survive on compromise and very strong communication about the ebb and flow of one partner's compromise vs. the other. But everyone has things they want. One way (IMO) to be a great partner is to learn when to proactively soften your own edges vs. being told to do so.
  • newt_slowly 3y ago
    I completely agree; the same thing happened to me with me and my wife. The risk of marrying/pairing off early is that you can grow apart in your 20's, but the reward is that you can grow together in a way that I think is harder to do later in life. I feel that my wife and I grew from two individuals into one partnership in a way that we couldn't have replicated if we met later in life.
• lo_zamoyski 3y ago
  You, like many others, never learned to love. This sort of lifestyle is one that is selfish, self-indulgent, and exploitative. Consent does not change that, and people can also be mutually exploitative, even by consent. Consent alone does not bless an act. To love another person is to will the objective good of the other. It is sacrificial. When two people marry, they promise to love each other until death. It seems many do not take this vow seriously, as if it were just a nice, but empty thing to say, nothing more than a sentiment. Liars and frauds. Marriage teaches people not to be selfish, it teaches people what it means to love, because if you actually do keep your vows unconditionally, as you promised, you will be forced to learn, you will need to learn, you will have no other option than to grow if you want to live a full life. In the vast majority of cases, divorce is a failure to love, it is selfish, it is childish, it is weak sauce and pathetic (divorce motivated by abuse or whatever are the statistical exception). Lost people looking for excitement or thrill or some promise of happiness they can never find like the Samaritan women at the well. There's a reason divorcees are more likely to divorce again. They do not understand or honor commitment. They don't even care about their own objective good, only some selfish, subjective imperative or impulse. Love is sacrificial. It is a cross to bear. For most of human history, marriage was arranged or contracted out of convenience. Romance was not a precondition. If it was there, fine. If not, fine, too. (Romance can also develop, on more solid grounds, as you come to know the person, instead of being fed by wishful thinking and fantasy.) Romance is not the purpose of marriage, only typically a nudge toward it. In some cultures, the non-romantic view is still the case. I do not suggest we return to arranged marriages. However, our ancestors can provide lessons for us regardless. If we remove the relentless, selfish demand for romance, the burdening of another with the demand to make us happy, if we de-center the emotional dimension that we seem to greatly overemphasize in our culture, and come to understand the objective good that marriage is, and the objective reality of married life, we will be better positioned to receive it for what it is. It will mean something, and we will become greater because of it.
• dragonwriter 3y ago
  > for those that think this is just some personal issue, you should look up divorce stats by number of previous sexual partners. There is a clear rise in divorce rate per increase in partners, and at about 7 it's 50%+. Having read a lot of the attempts to gather stats on this, this is untrue. The results are mixed, with some showing an up-down relationship with a first peak high divorce rate at 1-2 prior sexual partners, then a drop, then another rise that passes the first peak at somewhere between 8-10 partners. Also, most of the stats on that are weak because they are uncontrolled for other known correlates of divorce rates, including number of prior marriages.
• tennisflyi 3y ago
  Lifetime “body count” is like 6 or 7…
• codpiece 3y ago
  I am no beauty, and my wife is adding pounds. We have lots of aches and pains. But let me tell you, even 30 years later, she is beautiful, and more than anything, we make each other laugh all the time. I don't care about her body, I care about HER.
• jncfhnb 3y ago
  Plays a role in what? What is your actual thesis here besides a general decline in exciting romance as you get older?
• giardini 3y ago
  If you date only within your "age group" there is little likelihood of having children. Why should you marry unless you're marrying to have children? That is, give up on marriage and focus on making your partner happy.
• giardini 3y ago
  heattemp99 says >"I'm 38. I date in my age group. Which means both of us are dating people that have been sleeping with others for two decades. Each of us has been overseas with countless friends and exs. Many women have been engaged, some married, and we've all had our hearts broken. We've all gained a few lbs. My hair is starting to grey."< You've omitted an important fact: most of you have suffered with (and possibly still do) many social diseases, a burden that will likely shorten your life and possibly do the same to all your future sex partners.
  • defrost 3y ago
    Social diseases like interbreeding and illiteracy?? How on earth do you get that from their comment? Unless you're merely being prudish about sexually transmitted diseases and are unfamilar with safe sex and | or antibiotics.
    • giardini 3y ago
      Got any "safe sex" tools for mpox yet? How about herpes, HPV or HIV? Have you even got something that can relieve the pain of an initial heavy herpes outbreak, not to mention the burning, oozing blisters in your crotch that will be there for 3 weeks? Oh sure, you can take a vaccine for HPV, you can take antibiotics for most forms of syphilis and gonorrhea and you can take variants of acyclovir for the rest of your life for herpes, and for HIV you can take a pill for the rest of your life and hope it continues to work. But you'll always have HPV and herpes and you'll always be able to spread it to others including any children. And herpes is always there and is associated with Alzheimer's so you can be even stupider earlier. There's nothing prudish about accepting that there are good reasons to minimize the number of sexual partners one has - one will likely live longer. All the safe sex in the world goes out the window when the rubber breaks.
      • defrost 3y ago
        It seems unlikely that a 38 year old discussing their past sexual circles would have encountered a disease that has only recently emerged. That said; Anyone can get mpox. It spreads from contact with infected persons, through touch, kissing, and from infected animals, when hunting, skinning, or cooking them. So ... yeah, look out, you might get mpox any day now. Be safe.
• wolverine876 3y ago
  IMHO: The difficulty - as with most things - is in the questions and in the perspective which forms them. A healthy relationship is not about 19 year old beauty or being lucky to fuck them. It's not about objectifying them as bonuses in my life. It is about seeing them for who they are - completely independently of me - and caring for that person, whether or not they suit me at that particular time - richer or poorer, sickness and health, etc. We need to have that compassion for others; we need others to care for us in that way; we love other people. Lovemaking is, to varying degrees at different times, an outgrowth of that - IMHO lovemaking won't last otherwise. > Can I find someone that doesn't just say "wtf am I doing here" if times get tough for health or financial or just plain old age? I'm not sure. IME, the answer depends on me more than on them. When Sinead O'Connor died, I listened to some songs and (while the singing is impressive) I thought the perspective is immature: The narrator makes it all about what the other person is doing; someone with experience in healty relationships realizes it's about what they themself does and perceives and feels. We get what we give. > I think it's human nature I wish I could ban these stylishly defeatist comments. Human nature is to hunt and gather food, be illiterate and ignorant, and die at (30?) - if you survive past childhood. Human nature really is to learn and chose your own behavior and fate.
• galfarragem 3y ago
  This was the hardest comment I had to swallow in a long time. So lucid but so raw.
• ironcurtain 3y ago
  [dead]