SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Individuals in polyamorous relationships report more commitment and investment with their primary partners and report more time spent on sex with their secondary partners, a new study authored by Western researchers has found.
While previous research suggests that consensually non-monogamous relationships do not significantly differ from monogamous relationships on a number of relationship-quality indicators, this is one of the first studies to examine potential differences in the relationship dynamics between an individual's multiple partners, said lead author Rhonda Balzarini, a PhD candidate in the Psychology.
The authors asked 1,308 people in online questionnaires (drawn from polyamorous affinity groups on social media) about the dynamics of their polyamorous relationships.
"The study suggests people who are 'primary' partners – those who share a household and finances, for example – experience greater commitment and investment in the relationship. However, the secondary partnership experiences greater proportion of time spent on sex, and this remains a factor even when we account for relationship length and living arrangements," she said.
Does this explain why kings and sultans had harems?
(Score: 2) by Lagg on Friday June 30 2017, @04:37AM (9 children)
Heh. That is such a crazy statement to make about someone's family that I'll assume you meant that it's because I inherited the genes of people who cared about monogamy. Which I don't think is how it works either if there's an element of societal enforcement. But have no knowledge to argue the subject with because to be honest I haven't given monogamy/polygamy much thought at all. Never married. Doubtful I'd ever want to now. Never even been asked/thought to ask about open relationships. Which I guess is the non-marriage equivalent. Guess it'll have to happen to know my shits given level. But most people just call such things cheating.
Given that I hope it's understood why I care even less than that about a fetish I have no interest in whatsoever like cuckolding. Or why it's worried about. Unless this is like the thing where people were scared of bondage because they associated it with torture.
My god people are weird about sex.
http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿
(Score: 2) by unauthorized on Friday June 30 2017, @04:54AM (8 children)
The human genetic history, moreso than your personal family. Evolution works on the scales of hundreds of generations and on the scope of entire inter-breeding populations. And not strictly speaking monogamy, but mate protection [wikipedia.org]. Males who were not driven to engage in such behavior were more likely to be cucked, and thus their genes were less likely to be passed on. Likewise for females because having a male partner assist with the raising of children is advantageous to the well-being and thus success of the offspring. This is how evolution works - a gene which increases your likelyhood to produce offspring that successfully reproduces are selected for, thus behaviors which facilitate such success become more prominent in the population.
(Score: 2) by Lagg on Friday June 30 2017, @06:42AM (7 children)
To be completely clear, cuckolding is a fetish. This isn't an evolutionary theory any more than someone with rape fantasies actually wants to be raped. I'm not really sure why this can't go without saying. Someone having such fantasies and sometimes living them out safely is their business. It's not an outlook on life or freedom any more than BDSM roleplay is. This shit reads to me at best like the aforementioned fear mongering of bondage and at worst in the same vein as phrenology. It makes so little damn sense to judge people based on a fetish. Let alone extrapolating it into evolutionary theory. The idea people are actively doing this and turning it political breaks my brain. What it's supposed to connotate breaks my brain even more because it's been made quite clear by this thread that it is now one hell of a loaded term.
In other words: A guy being into cuckolding does not mean anything about his instinct, genes or evolutionary drive any more than a guy being into bondage. That's just their fetish. You think they'd be okay with you trying to have sex with their wife in real life/uncontrolled environments in front of them? Try it with someone.
Of course, I doubt any of the people who use this term seriously in its current connotation actually have the balls to try that because they'd get their asses kicked. It's becoming more clear to me that people are conflating cuckolding the same way they did gayness when it comes to the nature of someone's character. And that's pretty shitty. Just because they don't have the balls to say fag anymore.
http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 30 2017, @08:11AM (6 children)
Look, being the bull is about as gross and nasty as being the cuck, so I'm not going there, but...
Being a cuck already, he'd get over it. Anybody else would slay both the bull and the wife. They'd be lucky to have deaths that weren't purposely long and painful torture.
Also, it's not just a generic insult. It's not a substitute for fag, except that there is a bit of overlap regarding unmanliness. Cuck very often is used as part of a pretty solid metaphor having to do with immigration: the valuable modern nation is being handed over to people who do not descend from the people who built it. It's like having your wife's boyfriend's child inherit your stuff.
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Friday June 30 2017, @08:59AM (5 children)
So if a guy adopts children and raises them as his own - perhaps their wife's kids from an ex, or maybe some kids whose own genetic parents abandoned or failed them, is that guy a "cuck"?
There's a lot more to parenthood than genetics, but based on your obsessive desire to make excuses for your bitter and divisive opinions by appealing to the most base instincts of humanity that we have spent the last however many thousand years struggling to rise above, I wouldn't expect you to understand. And since you bring it up, I think your metaphor holds up well - we can think of immigrants as adopted children. They might not look like their parents, they might have some issues from their past traumas, they might have some habits and behaviours that don't quite fit in at first, but it doesn't fucking matter. We accept them, we love them, we do the best we can for them and they learn from us and we learn from them. The dynamics of our families grow and change because of what they bring and everyone is the richer because of it.
Or at least, that's how it's supposed to happen. You do get some families where the parents treat the adopted kids differently: Make them sleep in the cupboard under the stairs and feed them table scraps while the genetic kids get treated like princes. In those cases you can expect them to become resentful and grow apart from the family, and maybe even to rebel, ultimately causing misery for everyone. In those cases the parents have only their own narrow-minded, miserly bigotry to blame.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 30 2017, @07:03PM (4 children)
Adopting kids causes your resources to be diverted away from your offspring.
There may be factors that justify it. For example, your niece is closely related to you, so you might be inclined to adopt her if your brother dies. Your example (wife's kids from an ex) can be justified if this will likely lead to producing new children with her; supporting the unrelated kids is a cost you pay in order to get kids of your own.
You may also be infertile and lacking any relatives (closely related by DNA) to help provide for. In that case, do whatever -- it doesn't matter because you are genetically dead anyway.
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Friday June 30 2017, @10:17PM (3 children)
Again, you seem intent on boiling everything down to genetics and resource expenditure. Are you a robot? A spreadsheet? I'm pretty damned sure you aren't a parent. Has it ever occurred to you that while many or even most human behaviours can be explained by our primeval instincts, most intelligent people aspire to overcome those base drives and be more than senseless, rutting animals?
(Score: 2) by Justin Case on Saturday July 01 2017, @12:16AM
If by "those drives" you mean the desire to have sex for pleasure, that is a distinctly higher-primate trait. In other words, it is one of the things that defines humans -- that differentiates us from most of the "senseless, rutting animals".
Anyway, what sane person would aspire to overcome the enjoyment of pleasure?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 01 2017, @12:42AM (1 child)
I have 11 kids, all with the same wife. (counting the kid to be born any day now)
I totally accept evolution, selection, fitness, and so on. The meaning of life is reproduction. I'm OK with that. I play to win.
The wife has other motives, sadly. She's hard-core Catholic and thinks birth control is a sin. Oh well. Fitness is whatever gets the job done, eh? I'm still winning, and she is too.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 01 2017, @02:06AM
Your religion seems to be pretending that nature actually has a will. You realize that since nature is not living, thinking being, it cannot decide the meaning of your life, right? That is subjective. It is true that the vast majority of humans have a desire to procreate, but that has nothing to do with "meaning". Your thinking is logically fallacious.