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: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 30 2017, @03:12PM (1 child)
Arbitrary genetic diversity is not a good thing.
The whole process through which evolution has brought us from nonsentient blobs to what we are today is natural selection. It's not fair and it's not meant to be. Nature and randomness result in a variety of different traits and characteristics. Those that make individuals more well suited to their environment get passed on, traits that make individuals less well suited disappear. This is the reason that women have always been attracted to strength, power, and intelligence. Men by contrast have been attracted to physical characteristics which tend to be indicative of somebody capable of birthing and raising a child healthfully.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 30 2017, @04:22PM
Hindsight makes it relatively easy to explain which traits would be favorable, but genetic diversity is evolutionarily favorable because it hedges against unpredicted environmental changes. You are correct that certain traits are instinctually considered as favorable, but there are always fitness costs (metabolic cost for bigger muscles and a larger brain).