how to avoid being used?

Post Reply New Topic

Agreed!

The only mammal I can think of that live in pairs are the polar foxes, but they're not sexually monogamous. None of the great apes are monogamous, though—and neither were the stone age people. Actually, monogamous relationships weren't even the norm here in Norway, at the onset of the viking age roughly 1500 years ago.

Very few mammals practice pair-bonding. Some have sex partners they favour over others for personal reasons, but that's about it.

Last edited by Kurgan on 29 May 2012, 5:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Yeah I get it ... it's chemical ... it's the same with men who get friend-zoned I think. But conscious realization overrides all this, because these are feelings and if you're honest with yourself and the other person about how you feel and what you can deal with, then you don't get into a situation where you're expecting precisely what they've said you can't expect. You're either handling it, or you're not and making the decision to avoid contact.

More facepalm. Obviously you have no idea what pair-bonding means - it is not a synonym for monogamy, by any means. Pair bonding exists in every single mammalian species without exception, most avians, and a few others besides.

If we're talking about pair-bonding in most other primates, it involves friends with benefits without any commitment or obligations.

For the record, I'm horrible when it comes to calling, so it's not going to be my first method of choice for contact. Let's say I was getting into a relationship with someone knowing they disliked phone calls as much as me. In that case, I don't see why BOTH of us should make one another awkward over the phone simply to say we want to be serious when there are some cases it comfortably goes unsaid.



I agree with this except in the cases of meltdown/shutdown. These are where the person in question can't function at a specific time, so penalizing them for it isn't the best idea.



See my response for #1.



Okay, first off, I'm sorry to hear that happened to you I can somewhat understand the anger behind it, having been in a similar position myself. However, if that's the only example you're going by for this point, don't forget that there ARE people out there whose reasons are sincere and legitimate, so don't miscount them for the bad experience you had.



The bold part is jarring me here, maybe because I interpreted it literally. While there's no excuse for the partner to be making you out to be the butt of all jokes for friends, the other part of it is that there should be some level of trust between you two that this shouldn't happen at all. If you dig and find out you're right, that's good - leave that person and find someone else. But if you happen to be wrong, you're gonna be doing much more explaining (and perhaps quarrelling) than is necessary.



Don't have any issues with this last point!

Wrong.

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~phyl/anthro/mating.html

And again, you're not understanding what pair-bonding is. Pair-bonding occurs in FWB.

You're still missing my point that relationships the way they are today are unnatural. Furthermore, your article states that only 20% of all human societies have traditionally been monoamous.

There are many forms of pair-bonding. Long term pair-bonding isn't natural in humans and all the obligations and expectations that go with sex in humans are the most unnatural parts.

It seems to me that you are a little young to be making declarations such as these. How many long term relationships have you been in?

One, plus a couple of short-term ones.

Just because a mongomaus relationship is the designated standard, doesn't mean that it's natural. Hence, most relationships come to an end and even when they don't, there's more than enough minefields to step in.

Our hominid ancestors have been demi-monogamous (not completely) since about 1.5 million years ago, before the rise of homo sapiens. The last time we weren't, we were Australopithecus.

That's bull.

Most native American trives for instance practiced polygamy well into the 18th century and the Bible speaks warmly of it.

Monogamy became widespread in Europe after the expansion of the Roman empire (notice how the new testament avoids mentioning polygamy, whereas a lot of important persons in the old testament were indeed polygamous). This was because of economical reasons. There are really no reliable records stating that monogamy existed at all before until 3500 B.C. in Egypt.

If things have been set out plainly and the pair are both aware of the other's status, then I don't think there is an issue of anyone being used. It can be sad if one person wants more than the other, but you'd have to decide if you want to deceive yourself or to accept what the other is offering. An honest friendship is a valuable thing.

We are neither Native American tribes nor ancient Hebrews.. what we are, in the west, are the inheritors of Roman culture.. so it stands to reason that Roman marriage customs would also be something which we inherited.

Oddly enough, there have been studies undertaken to explain the link between Polygamy and Suicide bombers in the middle east. The young men know there is no hope of them ever starting familys, due to the older more established men having multiple wives, so they are more open to the idea of blowing themselves up in the hopes of getting plenty of wives in paradise.

Just because SOME cultures practiced polygamy, at SOME point in time.. doesn't mean those of us living in the modern world should follow suit.

Yes ... mutual (and self-) honesty really is invaluable. There are all sorts of bad situations dishonesty will cause. Two honest people really can't go wrong, they might not both get what they want but at least they'll avoid poisonous, soul-destroying situations. And sometimes it is precisely the way for both of them to get what they want, where they could not otherwise do so.

The polygamy in Islamic culture would have worked just fine if men and women had equal rights.