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: -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.