6 ms·
> 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
by 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 agoOh dear...
- themaninthedark 3y agoIs there something wrong with someone decided to marry a person based on their wealth rather than on physical or emotional attraction?
- hef19898 3y agoThat is an interesting way to read the, now luckily dead, comment I replied to.
- wruza 3y agoThe suggested dynamics implies that the other parties selection pool stays constant, which is not true at all ages.
- worthless-trash 3y agoJust because its old, doens't mean its wrong.
- CuriouslyC 3y agoMaybe it was right for a different world. That world doesn't exist anymore though, and it's never coming back no matter how much conservatives try to knee jerk us into the 19th century.
- theandrewbailey 3y agoThe world might have changed, but human nature and sexuality have not. We're still the same damn species, so the same rules apply.
- CuriouslyC 3y agoHuman sexuality is 100% culture dependent though. There are tribes where people are promiscuous, and tribes where men have multiple wives, and both of those traditions definitely predate rigid monogamy. Human nature is people want to have sex, and will form lasting relationships for mutual benefit.
- pixl97 3y agoIdeas of human sexuality are ones shaped and formed by the culture they are within, which can change even in short timelines. Unless you like the idea that the warlord gets all the women and you get nothing?
- meinmissoula 3y agoIt seems like several different things are getting intertwined here and people are arguing past each other based on perceived "sides" and largely imagined positions being projected onto one another. You can have gender equality and feminism without casual sex. Many young people today, both male and female, feel like the current system they're embedded in is frustrating and unfulfilling. Everyone's personal preferences are equally valid. We should accept that people who express unease or unhappiness with the current dominant cultural norms pressed upon them have legitimate feelings, rather than attack and insult them by suggesting their desires belong in "the 19th century".
- bt4u 3y ago[dead]
- trentearl 3y agoIs it antiquated if most humans living today still think that way?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- k__ 3y agoDo "most" humans think that way?
- mcpackieh 3y agoYes, unless you're a racist who restricts your definition of humans to white westerners... Most of the global human population still has values which are 'traditional' relative to the average white westerner, but white westerners often have a blind spot for that and reveal this blindspot when they say things like "the whole world" to mean western nations specifically, and "the rest of the world" to mean Europe but not America.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- pixl97 3y agoIf for some reason most humans thought the Earth was flat, the idea would still be antiquated.
- trentearl 3y agoYes that is true, but that is a scientific fact and is not an appropriate comparison when talking about human populations and their approach to pair bonding, which is driven mostly by culture. So no, it’s not antiquated and your response requires looking at humanity through a very narrow and biased lens. Westerners can still appreciate our values while being in the minority. I do.
- stuckinhell 3y agoIn age where an incredible amount of scientific research is fraudulent, even ivy league university presidents are resigning... I think I'll take ideals that have survived for thousands of years over dodgy conclusions from likely fraudulent and unrepeatable data.
- phailhaus 3y agoAppeal to Tradition, classic fallacy. [1] Which ideals? Slavery has survived for thousands of years, does that make it better? Took thousands of years to develop the concept of capitalism, should we have skipped it? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition
- stuckinhell 3y agoThe ones about marriage and the relationships between men and women than exist in nearly every civilization in the world for thousands of years. I think the jury is out on the modern world, as many slaves in middle ages lived far better than the capitalist "slave" workers in the America, India, Philippines, today.
- phailhaus 3y agoThe reason why they had such similar ideals is because none of them had effective birth control. That was just developed in the 20th century. Pre-marital sex is no longer an issue, you no longer have to marry someone just because of your raging hormones.
- mensetmanusman 3y agoHowever, the jury is still out because many existing cultures are disappearing by choice.
- willcipriano 3y agoInstead simply trust the experts... oh wait. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
- vGPU 3y agoYes, the 10th owner of the Honda civic. You get to take her to her 400,000th mile!
- Dudester230602 3y agoN-th partner when she was 19 or last partner when she is 38... Tough choice.
- johnnyanmac 3y agoAlternatively, you can simply be the next rock to be turned over and moved away from. Nothing guarantees you are the one, nor the last partner.