6 ms·

The article looks at a study that found that that men and women who had had exactly one sexual partner in the past year were happiest. The article concludes tha

The article looks at a study that found that that men and women who had had exactly one sexual partner in the past year were happiest. The article concludes that therefore, having sex with more partners will make us unhappy. However, this conclusion is hasty. Another explanation can be made, based on two correlations that I think are likely: having multiple sexual partners is negatively correlated with having at least one stable romantic partner, and having at least one stable romantic partner is positively correlated with happiness. Given those two correlations, it is easy to see why having multiple sexual partners might be negatively correlated with happiness. The people who sleep around a lot are doing it because they have not found a girlfriend/boyfriend, so they are lonely. Thus, they are unhappy. If this explanation for the study's results is true, then sex with more partners will not make you unhappy, per se. It just means that you should make sure you have a romantic companion first (hopefully one who is agreeable to your seeking multiple partners). After you have a partner, it is possible that indulging your instincts by seeking even more partners would indeed make you happier.

XorNot 12y ago
Or alternatively, that statistics tell us what is likely to be the case were we to pick an individual out of the population at random. They do not tell us about ourselves individually. It should also be taken with a grain of salt that the conclusion they draw just so happens to fit into several powerful institutions decreed standards of morality.
- judk 12y ago
  Like ancient dietary laws, our moral code may be rooted in ancient common wisdom about healthy choices.
  - logicchains 12y ago
    Eh, ancient wisdom doesn't seem to have done a great job in terms of moral codes. Slavery, institutionalised racism and sexism, foot-binding, debtor's prisons, despotism, pedophilia; all examples of practices deriving from ancient wisdom that today are considered unacceptable.
    - marvy 12y ago
      Hey, you win some, you lose some. They still got a few things right.
    - rdtsc 12y ago
      > all examples of practices deriving from ancient wisdom that today are considered unacceptable. However only survivors after tens or hundreds of thousands of years are able to log in and comment on HN about it. Some of the abhorrent ancient "wisdoms" are well, ...abhorrent. Others maybe the reason we are still here (as opposed some other people being here, or, no human species at all). Also, it is probably reasonable to assume the same "morals" the kept a group of hunter gatherers together are today responsible to racism and hate between groups. To really even begin to look at cause you'd at least want a situation where two very similar groups differed only in one aspect you are trying to measure and then observe how both groups evolved.
      - logicchains 12y ago
        >Also, it is probably reasonable to assume the same "morals" the kept a group of hunter gatherers together are today responsible to racism and hate between groups. Good point. It's important to remember that evolution (including of the cultural variety) ultimately selects for survival. If group A is super happy and peaceful, and group B is unhappy and violent, if group B uses its capacity for violence to conquer group A then ultimately it will be group B's genetic/cultural traits that survive into the future.
        XorNot 12y ago
        Moreover it only selects for immediate term survival - it does not choose long-term optimum solutions (see: Peacock feathers, where creating impressive plumage is pretty much orthogonal to actual fitness) nor does it brook short term deficits for long term gains. It is an abhorrent moral compass.
Exenith 12y ago
I also have doubts that the benefit is due to monogamy. Hell, I have doubts that the benefit is due to a relationship. It could merely be because the people have a close companion. How many friends do you sleep in the same room with, wake up to, go to work with, and have fun with? None, right? The thing is, that situation was the norm for most of humanity. It's not a surprise that so many people are neurotic. It's not a surprise that it makes us a bit happier to have that situation partially fulfilled. I'd like to see a study comparing the happiness of close-knit, tribal, polygamous communities with close-knit, tribal, monogamous communities.
- enraged_camel 12y ago
  >>I also have doubts that the benefit is due to monogamy. Hell, I have doubts that the benefit is due to a relationship. It could merely be because the people have a close companion. It could also be that those who are happy are more likely to end up in a relationship.
- sliverstorm 12y ago
  Or it could even be that only happy people can hold down a relationship.
- potatojerky 12y ago
  > I'd like to see a study comparing the happiness of close-knit, tribal, polygamous communities with close-knit, tribal, monogamous communities. Not a study, but National Geographic did an in-depth piece on the Hadza people in 2009 that you may find interesting. It's available on their web site in full. If I remember correctly, the journalist described them as 'serial monogamists', having many monogamous relationships throughout their lifetime.
- eli_gottlieb 12y ago
  Last I heard, most close-knit tribal communities are actually more-or-less monogamous. The main binding structure is the extended family, not extended sexual networks.
  - deleted 12y ago
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
alexthomas 12y ago
Since I started with my online business I earn $58 every 15 minutes. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don't check it out. ▂ ▄ ▅ ▇ LIFETIME OPPORTUNITY ▇ ▅ ▄ ▂ ▁ >>>>>>>>>➜➜➜➜➜➜➜ ➜➜➜➜➜➜➜➜➜➜➜➜➜➜ WWW.PAYRAP.cℴm
cheez 12y ago
> it is possible that indulging your instincts by seeking even more partners would indeed make you happier. Your hypothesis is very interesting but from what I've seen of others, this doesn't work well in the long run. There are spikes of more-than-normal happiness but eventually, someone is jealous, someone gets cuckolded (as hard as it is in such an arrangement!) and you crash hard. Not everyone is so far evolved to avoid these problems. As a guy, I know I am at my happiest when I have one primary woman and side women that the primary does not know about explicitly. Oddly enough, the vagueness of her not really knowing makes her more attracted. But I still have to treat my primary as if she is the only one. This is the only stable configuration I've found.
- kareemm 12y ago
  > But I still have to treat my primary as if she is the only one. This is the only stable configuration I've found. Doesn't sound very stable if your "primary" finds out about your secondary.
  - cheez 12y ago
    Denial (on their end) is a beneficial tool in this regard. The only time I've had it cause an issue is when friends or family get involved. Then they have to save face, and I don't blame them.
- nybblet 12y ago
  And you wouldn't mind if your so-called "primary" or "side" (how interesting to apply such terms for significant others) did the same to you? Because most people would, whether they realize it or not, and that is why they agree to commit to a relationship in the first place---because they expect the same from their partner. Also, your "primary" will know at some point. Is a configuration really stable if it sets the stage for collapse?
  - cheez 12y ago
    Humans are more complex than if a then b. Many women are OK with it without being explicitly OK with it. Being faced with it can be humiliating for anyone which is what sets the stage for collapse, not the act itself. So keep it discreet because otherwise a friend of hers will definitely try to cause a problem. For what it's worth, I have a way to make it clear from the outset that I am like that without being explicit. I know it works because she has to confirm it with her words, not mine. If a woman is happy to just be with you and you give her what she needs, it's not remotely the biggest issue in a relationship. No, I wouldn't be OK with it if it was flipped.
JRobertson 12y ago
It is also possible that indulging your instincts by seeking more partners could have a detrimental on the psychological/emotional well being of yourself or your partner. The number of arguments for 'sexual liberation' in western society has increased over the years, but my limited life experience has shown me that this only encourages a mindset that leads to behaviors that lead to emotional anguish because people begin chasing their next sexual dopamine rush instead of spending time establishing means to care for their longer term needs. A monogamous long term partner offers benefits that cannot be achieved any other way, and a lot of it revolves around the physiological validation of value that comes with intercourse. Sex, in a manner of speaking, is the acceptance of a person by another that they are viewed as successful enough to contribute in passing on DNA. You could say it is the pinnacle of biological success. This is where most arguments stop with the conclusion that: Sex = Good so More Sex = Better. By doing so they are failing to see the whole picture. The above conclusion works for many animals; humans are psychologically far more complex than animals. Humanity has to balance many other concerns including: - The well being of other people (primarily their mate) - their desires to progress a career - social standing among peers - emotional distress caused by 'loneliness' - the rearing of children and fulfillment of personal instinct to see them succeed - etc All of these are areas that benefit from a monogamous relationship because the physiological and psychological needs for co-validation can be met which then frees up mental energy to focus on other things that bring more lasting value to life than the intense yet fleeting moments of an orgasm.
cjg 12y ago
Good luck with that.
richardbrevig 12y ago
Under the functional perspective of sociology, you could say that marriage or a relationship provides safety and continuity. You don't have to go out looking for sex, and the diseases that multiple sex partners could bring. Sex is a basic need, as noted in Maslow's Hierarchy of needs right after air, food, and water. The next need is sex. Having a relationship "guarantees" that this basic need is being met, without stress and having to hunt. At least you'd hope that it guarantees that. I feel very sorry for sexless marriages.

XorNot 12y ago

Or alternatively, that statistics tell us what is likely to be the case were we to pick an individual out of the population at random. They do not tell us about ourselves individually. It should also be taken with a grain of salt that the conclusion they draw just so happens to fit into several powerful institutions decreed standards of morality.

judk 12y ago
Like ancient dietary laws, our moral code may be rooted in ancient common wisdom about healthy choices.
- logicchains 12y ago
  Eh, ancient wisdom doesn't seem to have done a great job in terms of moral codes. Slavery, institutionalised racism and sexism, foot-binding, debtor's prisons, despotism, pedophilia; all examples of practices deriving from ancient wisdom that today are considered unacceptable.
  - marvy 12y ago
    Hey, you win some, you lose some. They still got a few things right.
  - rdtsc 12y ago
    > all examples of practices deriving from ancient wisdom that today are considered unacceptable. However only survivors after tens or hundreds of thousands of years are able to log in and comment on HN about it. Some of the abhorrent ancient "wisdoms" are well, ...abhorrent. Others maybe the reason we are still here (as opposed some other people being here, or, no human species at all). Also, it is probably reasonable to assume the same "morals" the kept a group of hunter gatherers together are today responsible to racism and hate between groups. To really even begin to look at cause you'd at least want a situation where two very similar groups differed only in one aspect you are trying to measure and then observe how both groups evolved.
    - logicchains 12y ago
      >Also, it is probably reasonable to assume the same "morals" the kept a group of hunter gatherers together are today responsible to racism and hate between groups. Good point. It's important to remember that evolution (including of the cultural variety) ultimately selects for survival. If group A is super happy and peaceful, and group B is unhappy and violent, if group B uses its capacity for violence to conquer group A then ultimately it will be group B's genetic/cultural traits that survive into the future.
      - XorNot 12y ago
        Moreover it only selects for immediate term survival - it does not choose long-term optimum solutions (see: Peacock feathers, where creating impressive plumage is pretty much orthogonal to actual fitness) nor does it brook short term deficits for long term gains. It is an abhorrent moral compass.

Exenith 12y ago

I also have doubts that the benefit is due to monogamy. Hell, I have doubts that the benefit is due to a relationship. It could merely be because the people have a close companion. How many friends do you sleep in the same room with, wake up to, go to work with, and have fun with? None, right? The thing is, that situation was the norm for most of humanity. It's not a surprise that so many people are neurotic. It's not a surprise that it makes us a bit happier to have that situation partially fulfilled. I'd like to see a study comparing the happiness of close-knit, tribal, polygamous communities with close-knit, tribal, monogamous communities.

enraged_camel 12y ago
>>I also have doubts that the benefit is due to monogamy. Hell, I have doubts that the benefit is due to a relationship. It could merely be because the people have a close companion. It could also be that those who are happy are more likely to end up in a relationship.
sliverstorm 12y ago
Or it could even be that only happy people can hold down a relationship.
potatojerky 12y ago
> I'd like to see a study comparing the happiness of close-knit, tribal, polygamous communities with close-knit, tribal, monogamous communities. Not a study, but National Geographic did an in-depth piece on the Hadza people in 2009 that you may find interesting. It's available on their web site in full. If I remember correctly, the journalist described them as 'serial monogamists', having many monogamous relationships throughout their lifetime.
eli_gottlieb 12y ago
Last I heard, most close-knit tribal communities are actually more-or-less monogamous. The main binding structure is the extended family, not extended sexual networks.
- deleted 12y ago

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

alexthomas 12y ago

Since I started with my online business I earn $58 every 15 minutes. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don't check it out. ▂ ▄ ▅ ▇ LIFETIME OPPORTUNITY ▇ ▅ ▄ ▂ ▁ >>>>>>>>>➜➜➜➜➜➜➜ ➜➜➜➜➜➜➜➜➜➜➜➜➜➜ WWW.PAYRAP.cℴm

cheez 12y ago

> it is possible that indulging your instincts by seeking even more partners would indeed make you happier. Your hypothesis is very interesting but from what I've seen of others, this doesn't work well in the long run. There are spikes of more-than-normal happiness but eventually, someone is jealous, someone gets cuckolded (as hard as it is in such an arrangement!) and you crash hard. Not everyone is so far evolved to avoid these problems. As a guy, I know I am at my happiest when I have one primary woman and side women that the primary does not know about explicitly. Oddly enough, the vagueness of her not really knowing makes her more attracted. But I still have to treat my primary as if she is the only one. This is the only stable configuration I've found.

kareemm 12y ago
> But I still have to treat my primary as if she is the only one. This is the only stable configuration I've found. Doesn't sound very stable if your "primary" finds out about your secondary.
- cheez 12y ago
  Denial (on their end) is a beneficial tool in this regard. The only time I've had it cause an issue is when friends or family get involved. Then they have to save face, and I don't blame them.
nybblet 12y ago
And you wouldn't mind if your so-called "primary" or "side" (how interesting to apply such terms for significant others) did the same to you? Because most people would, whether they realize it or not, and that is why they agree to commit to a relationship in the first place---because they expect the same from their partner. Also, your "primary" will know at some point. Is a configuration really stable if it sets the stage for collapse?
- cheez 12y ago
  Humans are more complex than if a then b. Many women are OK with it without being explicitly OK with it. Being faced with it can be humiliating for anyone which is what sets the stage for collapse, not the act itself. So keep it discreet because otherwise a friend of hers will definitely try to cause a problem. For what it's worth, I have a way to make it clear from the outset that I am like that without being explicit. I know it works because she has to confirm it with her words, not mine. If a woman is happy to just be with you and you give her what she needs, it's not remotely the biggest issue in a relationship. No, I wouldn't be OK with it if it was flipped.

JRobertson 12y ago

It is also possible that indulging your instincts by seeking more partners could have a detrimental on the psychological/emotional well being of yourself or your partner. The number of arguments for 'sexual liberation' in western society has increased over the years, but my limited life experience has shown me that this only encourages a mindset that leads to behaviors that lead to emotional anguish because people begin chasing their next sexual dopamine rush instead of spending time establishing means to care for their longer term needs. A monogamous long term partner offers benefits that cannot be achieved any other way, and a lot of it revolves around the physiological validation of value that comes with intercourse. Sex, in a manner of speaking, is the acceptance of a person by another that they are viewed as successful enough to contribute in passing on DNA. You could say it is the pinnacle of biological success. This is where most arguments stop with the conclusion that: Sex = Good so More Sex = Better. By doing so they are failing to see the whole picture. The above conclusion works for many animals; humans are psychologically far more complex than animals. Humanity has to balance many other concerns including: - The well being of other people (primarily their mate) - their desires to progress a career - social standing among peers - emotional distress caused by 'loneliness' - the rearing of children and fulfillment of personal instinct to see them succeed - etc All of these are areas that benefit from a monogamous relationship because the physiological and psychological needs for co-validation can be met which then frees up mental energy to focus on other things that bring more lasting value to life than the intense yet fleeting moments of an orgasm.

cjg 12y ago

Good luck with that.

richardbrevig 12y ago

Under the functional perspective of sociology, you could say that marriage or a relationship provides safety and continuity. You don't have to go out looking for sex, and the diseases that multiple sex partners could bring. Sex is a basic need, as noted in Maslow's Hierarchy of needs right after air, food, and water. The next need is sex. Having a relationship "guarantees" that this basic need is being met, without stress and having to hunt. At least you'd hope that it guarantees that. I feel very sorry for sexless marriages.