Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Friday June 30 2017, @02:26AM   Printer-friendly
from the Search-the-personals? dept.

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?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by Grishnakh on Friday June 30 2017, @04:14PM (2 children)

    by Grishnakh (2831) on Friday June 30 2017, @04:14PM (#533526)

    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.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Informative=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 30 2017, @04:31PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 30 2017, @04:31PM (#533539)

    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

      by etherscythe (937) on Friday June 30 2017, @08:05PM (#533660) Journal

      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"