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: 4, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Friday June 30 2017, @04:59AM (7 children)
You have the right to try, but there is the possibility that you will fail.
Too bad for them, then. People are just engaging in consensual relationships and rejecting others they don't want to get into relationships with.
See now, this is why I mentioned entitlement. What is this nonsense? No one is infringing upon your rights, because people are acting completely of their own volition by engaging in 100% consensual relationships. You do not have a "right" to be in a relationship. At most, you have a right to try to convince someone to be in a relationship with you, and you would still have that right (the right to try, not the succeed) even if there were a large number of non-monogamous relationships.
The only time anyone's rights are infringed upon is if the relationships are not consensual, but that is another matter entirely.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 30 2017, @02:41PM (6 children)
The fact that this bullshit was modded up makes me weep for humanity.
You're completely full of shit if you can't acknowledge the fact that there's a huge difference between having a population where there's roughly equal numbers of men and women available for dating and one where there's half as many of one as the other because there was multi-dating and multi-marrying going on.
We all have the right to try and find that special somebody, but having a small number of men with all the women is definitely a huge problem which is the main reason why you don't tend to see that in developed countries. You mostly see it in places like the early Mormons when there weren't enough men to go around and they needed to keep the population up.
And yes, they are infringing on people's right to look for somebody. Imagine being a man in a village where 99% of the other people are men. What do you think the likelihood is of finding a woman? Pretty damn low. How it is that you got an entitlement to find that someone special from that is beyond me, but you're completely full of shit to suggest that situations where you're losing significant numbers of women to men that already have them wouldn't make it harder to find women that are single, let alone actually interested.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Grishnakh on Friday June 30 2017, @04:14PM (2 children)
Wow, you're dumb.
First, in non-religious polyamory, there's nothing preventing one women from "marrying" multiple men. So if you're not cool enough to get multiple women for yourself, you can always try to convince a partnered woman to accept you as an additional partner.
Secondly, in modern polyamory, it's frequent for every person involved to have multiple sex partners. That means no one is "hoarding" anyone of the opposite sex; with both men and women having multiple partners, there's no hoarding going on at all, just a lot more sex and a lot more relationships. The main danger to this scheme is that extremely undesirable men, such as yourself, are much more likely to get left out in the cold, because everyone else has more options. A lonely woman doesn't have to settle for your sorry ass because she can't find someone better; instead, she can hook up with some other guy (who already has one or two other female partners) at least as a part-time partner, or even move in with a group of mixed-sex people. Why would that other guy want to spend time with her? Because his other (primary) partner has another boyfriend she likes to spend some time with. So basically, everyone has more friends and more sex partners, except the really miserable and unlikable people like you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 30 2017, @04:31PM (1 child)
Wow, you're dumb.
First off, that's not what we actually see in real life. Women go after the top 10% or so of the men regardless of how many of them are already taken by other women or aren't interested. You're deluding yourself if you think that would change in a system where those men would be able to have more than one. The only reason that most men that get married are able to find somebody at all is because women are forced to accept less than the top tier men or wind up alone.
Same goes for men to some extent. Yes, most men would prefer to have 10s that are also good in bed and willing to do the cooking and cleaning all of that. But, there's not many women like that around, so men are willing to settle for a bit less if need be.
Secondly, that's a complete load of crap. That works out fine because there's a relatively small number of people engaged in it. So, there's a viable option to say no. If that number were higher, it would become a huge problem for people who don't want to engage in that as there'd be more and more fighting for fewer and fewer choices.
If this was such a great thing, then why is it that there's nowhere in the world that this is the norm? Even polygamy is virtually extinct because it's such a problem. There has been some liberalizing of marriage laws, but interestingly, that's not led to polygamy, polyamory or similar being legalized.
(Score: 2) by etherscythe on Friday June 30 2017, @08:05PM
I find this argument fallacious via non sequitor; sure, everybody pursues the best they think they can get, by and large, but this does not mean that having equal access to available partners is some kind of right. "Tragedy of the commons" and similar effects are certainly something to keep in mind, but that is a social cause, not an explicitly constitutional concern.
But it brings up an interesting parallel I've been chewing on for awhile. There are only so many high-paying (e.g. CEO) jobs. Yet we continue to insist that "anyone has the opportunity to be rich" in capitalist societies when, clearly, this cannot actually be true for everyone simultaneously; and thus the ridiculous income inequality is defended.
"Fake News: anything reported outside of my own personally chosen echo chamber"
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Friday June 30 2017, @06:17PM (2 children)
What do you mean? I don't deny that there's a difference; I just deny that you somehow have the right to guaranteed success in finding someone, or the right to limit other people's relationship choices to increase the chances of finding a partner.
People engaging in 100% consensual relationships with one another are infringing upon your rights? This is complete and utter nonsense, and you really do have a huge entitlement mentality. There is no right to guaranteed success in dating, since that necessarily would involve infringing upon someone else's right to choose their own relationships.
I don't care, since it's not relevant to your rights.
Because you're claiming that other people engaging in certain types of voluntary relationships are somehow infringing upon your rights by doing so.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 30 2017, @08:09PM (1 child)
In other words you're an idiot. Got that.
I never said people had the right to find somebody that wanted them. But, your argument is basically the same thing as saying that you have the right to fish in a lake with no fish. That entirely misses the point. If there are fish in that lake you may or may not actually succeed in catching one, but it's at least a theoretical possibility. Fishing in a lake with no fish because some other assholes were catching multiple fish is more or less what you're arguing for here. It makes no sense, to argue that you don't have the right to catch a fish, so if other people over-fish the lake that's too bad for you.
People engaging in their own practices regularly infringe upon other people's rights. If that weren't the case, then we wouldn't need all those laws that regulate things like how and where people drive. In this case, there is a huge societal problem that happens when this kind of behavior gets to be more than a few random people engaging in it. It very quickly gets to the point where it has real impacts on other people. The fact that you don't get that is rather astonishing. Even a shift of a couple percentage points can have huge implications for how men and women approach, sex, relationships, love and possibly marriage.
On a side note, that name is rather fitting considering that your head is rather far up your ass. Might as well keep the bread there.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Friday June 30 2017, @10:20PM
Then what are you saying, moron? You mentioned multiple times that other people's rights are being violated when many people engage in consensual poly relationships. Are you saying that people have the right to try to find a relationship? I agree. The right to have a relationship? I don't agree, since that involves violating people's rights. The right to have a chance at a relationship? What does that mean? It sure seems like that involves limiting people's relationship options to give you that chance (at least if the situation became dire enough), so that is unacceptable since it violates individual liberties. You simply do not have the latter two rights; they don't exist. That is, fundamentally, a type of entitlement mentality.
Fish are in no way related to people engaging in consensual relationships, and rights are a different topic than abilities.
It's at least theoretically possible that you could convince a person in a relationship to go to you instead. But I don't care even if your chances are zero, since it's 100% irrelevant to your rights.
Don't try to change the topic with false analogies. Let's say many men engage in poly relationships. What rights of yours are being infringed upon in that scenario? Specifically name the right and explain it in detail, then tell me why you believe you have that right. Don't bring up societal issues, since that has nothing to do with individual liberties.
The fact that you actually believe we should limit people's relationship options because otherwise the situation may become unfavorable to many men is what is truly astonishing. You don't own other people. You don't own the "possibility" of finding a relationship. These rights do not exist. The only thing you have a right to do is to try to find a relationship, even if that is futile. That's how it is.
I think the main problem is that you're borderline mentally retarded and don't understand what rights you actually have and have absolutely no comprehension of what I'm saying or even what you have said thus far. Then you keep bringing up nonsense about how society would be in trouble if many people engaged in poly relationships, but that is completely irrelevant to the topic of what your rights are even if it is true.
You keep bringing up a nonexistent right; it's a total waste of time.