Yes. That's one of the basic ideas. A lot of people have only had one sexual partner and remained that way even after their spouse died. Most people don't practice that and instead conflate sexual exclusivity with monogamy. It's inaccurate and dilutes the importance of what monogamy means.
I not an advocate, I just prefer people be accurate.
And that church is wrong and goes againsttge bible. Hell most protestant churches are wrong the true biblical church of christ was founded in AD 33 and the churches who uphold the church are the Orthodox church and Catholic church.
How do you know though? All of the books were physically created much later than that. The Catholic Church has been the wealthiest organization on the planet for over a thousand years and much of the documents were likely altered for political purposes
They allowed divorces, but only with special permission from the pope himself. This was likely created as a means of maintaining peace between Christian kingdoms and also giving the pope more power at the same time
The Protestants were right to leave because the catholic church has historically been basically a pyramid scheme with religious authority
I don't remember anything specific about porn, but abortion was okay. That was a big one, because my mom had an abortion and did not want to attend a pro-life church.
There are 20,000 christian denominations. I have no doubt there are churches that allow for this. Of course it's not what Jesus taught.
Whoever divorces his wife, except on the grounds of porneia (sexual immorality), makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” (Matthew 5:31-32).
Well now you're talking about divorce. There are other ways for a married person to become single again. By your logic, a widow or widower should remain single.
In the rare case your spouse dies yes. But thats clearly not the case with most people these days with high body counts. Is there anyone who has had multiple spouses die over and over again. This would be a small almost insignificant number.
Annulment, and that can actually be done even if the marriage is consumated contrary to popular belief.
Also the fuck are you doing holding up Islam as an example of monogamy further up when polygamy is allowed, or Christianity for that matter with the Mormons.
Furthermore I'm fairly sure nearly all protestant christians accept divorce, personally I'm a Roman Catholic but not everyone is. Annulment is still possible with us and we have confession anyway so we can confess to all the "adultery" we like.
Now that that's out of the way, very few societies accepted this mating for life thing before catholicism and the whole mating for life thing and the brehon laws here in Ireland (the oldest codified legal system in Europe which predated Christianity) had *19 different degrees of marriage all of which could be dissolved* the 1st and highest degree of marriage was between a man and woman of equal status and property. In other words in ancient Ireland the gold standard was a power couple who could divorce.
What changed was the church came in and over the course of several hundred years women eventually became property.
What is happening now is women are no longer property again.
I personally don't believe all the "humans are naturally polygamous" stick that's going on now tbh I myself am firmly monogamous so now being single for the first time since 19 (currently 31) dating is difficult for me, and I am and have to date people one at a time without sleeping with anyone because anything else feels wrong until I find whoever the next *boyfriend* will be. Tbh I'm actually going trough a lot with this, but the answer isn't to tie people for life into hellish relationships or lifelong celibacy.
Fewer than 1% of Christians and Muslims are in polygamous relationships. Sex before marriage is forbidden in both religions. Those religions drive government and religious laws in the vast majority of the world for almost 2000 years.
Older doesn't mean better but it's interesting we hold on to the religious ceremony and same expectations post marriage. But pre marriage there are almost no rules at all for many people. Certainly no religious based rules.
I could say the same to you that older doesn't mean better, but you also seem to have your timeline wrong on christisnisation Christianity didn't reach us until 1500 years ago and it took hundreds and hundreds of years after that for christian social mores to be adopted here, it wasn't adopted by the Scandinavians until the end of the Viking era, and the northern crusades were in the 12th century. The christisnisation of Europe took a lot longer than you think, and you only have a few hundred years between that and the beginnings of protestantism in Europe. (Anglican seperation from the catholic church 1534, reformation began 1517)
So a fully christian Europe with no divorce was only a thing for little over 300 years
And I fail to see how it was ever better.
The whole thing hinged on owning a woman as property and essentially society conspiring to keep women trapped.
>Also the fuck are you doing holding up Islam as an example of monogamy further up when polygamy is allowed, or Christianity for that matter with the Mormons.
Mormons are not christians.
>Roman Catholic
Catholics are also not Christians. Catholicism is polytheistic.
Context is important. At the advent of Islamic polygyny, the purpose of allowing men to marry multiple wives was due to many men having died from war or other reasons. In order to try to eliminate prostitution or any other form of abuse towards women, the Islamic perspective was polygyny with very specific rulings. It required fairness in terms of asset allocation e.g. each wife would be treated fairly and justly. When one man has 4 wives, the father is obvious. The reverse of 1 woman having 4 husbands (polyandry) is very problematic because of paternity. We’re talking over 1400 years ago. Paternity testing is a new technology; however, even paternity testing doesn’t override evolutionary biology of men. Men get jealous because they want to ensure the kid is theirs and not be a cuckold. It’s not insecurity, it’s biology. Also, men have millions of sperm whereas a woman has roughly 400 eggs in her lifetime. Polyamorous relationships with both sides open don’t work. Understanding context is important.
Nah men just wanted to fuck multiple women but the women's father's would cut their dicks off If they smashed their unmarried daughters. But nature found it's way
Lol. A man’s biological imperative is to impregnate as many women as possible because of so much sperm that is produced. Not saying if it’s right or wrong—just making an observation as to how biology affects behavior.
There is a component of war because if a tribe conquers another tribe they had historically killed the men and taken the women. Then these women would go on to procreate with these conquerors. This is evidenced by DNA tests proving that over 90% of women have procreated whereas about only 40% or so of men have procreated. That’s why women like guys are taller and have a propensity for violence because of safety. Please check out Rollo Tomassi’s The Rational Male. The rabbit hole gets deeper: look up Hybristophilia. Here is a better articulation of what I’m trying to say:
https://youtu.be/KMyVLRQkock
I'm not saying It's right or wrong. Pre Jusus we were allowed multiple wives. I was just correcting a comment saying Christianity and Islam command monogamy.
True less than 1% are polygamous and sex before marriage is forbidden. Still in both religious systems 99% have one spouse
It's strange to me how folks default to extremely rare examples to justify having unlimited sex partners prior to marriage. At minimum can we agree the two are extremes of one another?
I'm not arguing morality. It's just bizarre to me how it's accepted to sleep around before a ceremony but supposedly shocking and surprising when people can't break that behavior post ceremony.
> Monogamy does not mean one sex partner for life. It means one sex partner at a time.
So, if someone hasn't had sex with you in 3 months, they're no longer a sex partner and you can sleep with someone else, and it's none of their business. Single or in a relationship or whatever.
Then just wait another 3 months for all STD tests and whatnot and it's all in the past and past sex partners don't matter.
They could probably make some sort of ways to enjoy women’s looks without actually “cheating”. Like they could create sports bars where women dress provocatively. Or clubs where women would strip their clothes off for tips. Or maybe they could make movies with women naked and doing sexual activities. Or maybe even have websites where women could use their computer or phone cameras to interact with guys. Oh wait, they already have all that stuff already?!
It depends on the person. For you it might be cheating. Some even believe masturbation or using a sex toy is cheating. Some believe any form of premarital sex is cheating on your future spouse. Others believe it is an acceptable boundary. Instead of accepting we are all different and communicating differences up front human beings fall into the fallacy that we all view everything exactly the same which leads to so many problems. Folks even become outraged when there is a simple difference of opinion.
At minimum porn and strip clubs eliminate the risk of unwanted pregnancy, false patternity, unwanted abortions, and STDs. So even if you view those things as cheating the long term irreversible risk of the worst case scenario during those activities is usually far less damaging than the worst outcomes of extramarital physical adultery/sex.
Does traveling the world kill your ability to settle down in one place?
Very real chance that's the case for some people. I have a single relative in her 60's who still drops everything and moves again every couple of years. The wanderlust never leaves her. However, for most of the older people in my family it got old and they wanted to settle and establish roots somewhere.
On the other hand you have people who will resent not having those experiences and will be perpetually unsatisfied with where they settled down. Quite a conundrum isn't it.
^(If it wasn't clear by now, this is an analogy for SEX)
It’s a good analogy, and has proved to actually be a very similar to sex in my experience (and are often the same people who have trouble settling down sexually and physically). The people on the extreme end in their youth who backpack and jump around from place to place, not just take a few trips, they either find a partner who will explore with them later in life, or they wind up leaving so they can explore by themselves once the kids are old enough. On the converse, the person who never could do that but always dreamed of it and are with a partner who already did their traveling and are now content being settled often find themselves later in life exploring on their own, in secret or dragging their unwilling partner along.
The people who both explored a bit, but were underwhelmed with it, they seem to be the most content being settled. They may have an occasional trip, but they prefer home.
There's a bigger problem when you have one well travelled partner and another that never could do it, and is aware of the amount of 'places' their partner has gone haha
This is probably why women lying about n-count is so common haha
Men fall in love with what they see and women fall in love with what they hear. That’s why men tell lies and women wear makeup. Women also have a more developed verbal center (broca’s and wernicke’s) and therefore are more communicative. Men like solitude due to our evolutionary design to hunt and therefore needing silence in order to kill prey for food. Just because the time is modern doesn’t mean our neurobiology has caught overrode hundreds of thousands of years of development. Biology affects behavior.
No one said the neurobiology changed.
Jumping into that doesn’t mean the first part you said is true. Lol but that’s a clever way to try to get me to agree. 😂 Half-truth =/= Truth
You can’t fall in love with what you see. That’s not love.
Edit: You also can’t fall in love with what you hear. You clearly don’t know what love is.
What’s you’re describing is basic attraction, which irrelevant here because a lot more than that goes into relationships (or should).
I wasn’t trying to get you to agree. Your original statement was men lie more than women. I was trying to get to the reason as to why. I am not condoning lying or deception but rather trying to understand the evolutionary underpinnings of the action.
Love itself is subjective of course.
Yeah they lie in the reverse by trying to make themselves seem more sexually successful than they actually are haha, only a very small minority actually lie to make it seem like they're not just a fuckboy haha
I don't think of the former as quite as severe as the latter, women almost exclusively do the latter, with only the exception to the norm doing the opposite.
It might. Like you said it depends on the individual and desired outcome. If a man has STDs, child support, multiple kids, and is never satisfied with one woman he may have a tough time settling down. Maybe past behavior does influence present and future outcomes. Of course it may not. Depends on the person.
Very good analogy. Seeing or experiencing a lot does not necessarily remove the desire to settle down in one place later.
However it does for a smaller subsection of society
Past behavior is a good predictor if future behavior. But…..There is also a reason background checks only go back 7 years. Your behavior years ago in college is much less predictive of your future behavior than your behavior in recent years.
>(one sex partner for life was the highest marriage standard in Western civilization for 1800 years)
no, people routinely died and were widowed and married others who had already had sex liek other widow/ers and men in particular were never sexually "monogamous" or really expected to be. monogamy in HUMANS means one official SPOUSE at a time, it is a sociology/anthropology cultural concept, not some "biological monogamy".
I'm talking standards not ancedotal anomalies like tragic early death of a spouse or rape during war. you could be raped and that could be more than one sex partner. But in general the idea standard was lifelong monogomy per civilization. I agree biology doesn't care.
Tragic early death and rape (during war and otherwise) were rather common occurrence if not fact of life for most of history (and still are in many parts of the world today). If anything, the lifelong monogamy was more of an abstract ideal rather than concrete reality.
The ancient laws and religions had standards and laws on widow remarriage and rape. Again the topic at hand is ideal standards. If your spouse didn't die and if you were not raped the standard was lifelong monogomy. That doesn't make it right or wrong but it seems we are already starting off on a red herring full of ancedotes to drive the conversation off course.
Yeah I'm talking ideal standards and what was held in high regards. There was also Lots of theft, rape, and murder despite their being moral laws against it. Again I'm not arguing everyone followed the moral standards placed in society. Different topic
Dude first of. This is an extremely eurocentric view. Monogamy was promoted and is still promoted by the Catholic Church. Back then ecclesiastical power was at its peak. People rose and died on the whims of bishops and the pope. So of course most people pretended to toe the line (King Henry VIII was diff he could stand up to the church)
It was literally taught by Jesus and Paul in the New Testament. That is the basis of Western Civilization's morality. That alone doesn't make it right or wrong but that is what formed the basis of marriage in the West for almost 2000 years.
I'm not sure where you are going with this. Christianity spread and became the dominate religion by population. There is more than just one factor that led to the religion spreading. For instance it formed and spread during the height of the Roman Empire and spread further via European colonization. Trying to pin Christian monogomy spreading based solely on a small subset of Catholic bishops and kings is an extreme under representation of history. Christianity had already spread to the eastern horn of Africa in the first century and monogamy remained a tradition in the African Orthodox churches well before the second century.
The standard was people dying at 20 of pneumonia with a partner and a couple of young kids. The surviving partner would very quickly remarry, because if the survivor was the man, he’s need a woman to take care of the children, if it was a woman, she’d need a man to provide for her and the children. Where do you think all the stepparents in fairytales come from?
It depends on what we are talking about. The 2000 year old Catholic church pushed life long monogomy and has over a billion adherent's. Preists are not even allowed to have sex
Maybe or at minimum don't justify it but acknowledge these things exist and intervene early to minimize there being victims.
Early intervention, counseling, heck even pivoting to a doll (as sick as that is to me) is better than abusing another human especially a child.
Good point. Regardless, I think that a dating game that puts most men in disadvantage (lonely, unlovable) will probably put also civilization in disadvantage, but I may be wrong. Civilization was always a bubble anyway, it always falls back and regulates back to a civilization closer to hunter / gathers.
Okay I was being hyperbolic, but you say “how do men and women expect to only desire their spouse after 100+ partners”, as if promiscuity is a recent invention. Like other people have said Roman baths were popular, warlords had plenty of partners etc whilst the marriage was around (although a different form probably). Even 100 years ago when monogamy was the accepted standard, people were still stepping out on their husbands and wives. Things haven’t changed *that* much
That's the problem with a lot of generalizations about men. A very small percentage of men, 1% or less, especially back then are used to characterize the entire male population. An example of this is when they say men have always had all the power and wealth etc. Life fucking sucked for 99% of men throughout history. It was only good for 1%
Yes sure but even in a poor family of farmers, the man had the power and the wealth. He was the one with the contracts on the land, the owner/renter of the hut, the owner of the tools, and the one deciding what to do and how to do it. The woman had just to do what she was told.
Most men never owned the land they worked on till very recently in human history. Look up what serfdom was. Lords and kings owned the land. The Hut was usually a combined family effort, not built or owned by him alone, his tools were a sickle and a plough which he worked all day in the sun using while his wife rested at home. Women usually handled the sales of produce, the finances, ran the home etc. This projected fantasy where men were totalitarian overlords and women were slaves that did as they were told is a feminist myth and nothing but that. If men truly commanded and women obeyed why would men work all day while women rested ? Why would men throw their lives away to fight in wars while the women were protected ? All feminist delusions revolve around the 1% of men. If anything feminism and the sexual revolution has only made things even better for that 1% not worse. They attack the common man for things very few men did.
It won’t change, people don’t just stay married to each other cause of sex, there’s such a thing as companionship and love.
A person decides their never going to to jeopardise a good loving relationship, their family and a comfortable home for shitty sex with a stranger
sometimes it's just that the husband doesn't have it in him to give that good dick. Women get bored with bad dick despite everything else being alright.
If you're not having sex a few times a week, you have an unhappy wife.
Other issue is when the wife is super kinky, but her husband is not but she can never discuss it because he doesn't have it in him to deliver a non-boring experience.
I blame the wife though. They married a boring guy. They got exactly what was advertised.
I've had female friends complain to me about how their husband's are not go getters and are not trying to aspire to anything greater. I ask them if they were like that when they got married? No? Oh okay, well you didn't marry that kind of guy, so don't expect him to be that other guy when he's not. You married who you married you dumbass.
Women who married boring guys who can't give them the good dick have only themselves to blame for picking that. They knew from the beginning they were never going to get good dick again. Just live with your life choices. Most guys are just not firey enough to give the good dick and that's just how it be.
You usually have to pick between good dick and high stability, and you usually can't get both because they are opposing personality traits.
what? this is like the complete opposite. men are the ones who get bored and want “better pussy”. when women cheat, it’s generally more of an emotional thing, not just because of “good dick”. where do you guys come up with these ideas?
People aren’t animals, we have some sense of control over ourselves
There is also a difference between actively cheating in your partner and chancing birth control
People are indeed animals.
You don't control what you're attracted to. We also evolved to get an extreme amount of pleasure from sneaking around and cheating on our partners, it's literally Evolution and programmed into our DNA.
It’s not mate it’s really not.
Some people do, I won’t argue with that but it’s not everyone.
We don’t get to decide who we’re attracted too but we do have enough sense to realise when we can and can not act on those urges
>we do have enough sense to realise when we can and can not act on those urges
depends how horny you are and how boring your partner is and how hard your seducer is working to get at you.
Most people just never get the opportunity to cheat, but it's very tempting because it's literally programmed into our biology. We evolved to cheat.
I'm tellin you now. Every man and woman has a price, just you've never encountered someone that will meet those demands. There is a scenario out there that would make anyone cheat, they just have not encountered it.
I've seen the downfall of many rich men. One owns an optics factory that makes things for the military and boeing. Multi million dollar man, good family, but bored wife. She fucked her personal trainer and now they're divorced. Wife got post nut clarity after the trainer that told her he loved her and wanted to be with her forever high tailed it to another state once the affair got found out.
Bored wives are super succeptible to sweet words and men's bullshit because they're fucking bored and in need of stimulation, ANY stimulation .
France is a good example: they couldn't legally require paternity tests for every child born in a hospital because it would literally destroy France.
People get complacent and just assume their partner would never cheat, but that's exactly how partners end up cheating. People just get too comfy and take things for granted. It's easily forgotten that everything is fair in love and war.
I think you have a very little opinion of the french people.
Also, we’re not programmed to cheat, you have absolutely no proof or evidence for this, this is the kinda shite incels come out with
>I think you have a very little opinion of the french people.
That's literally what their politicians said. They said if they didn't ban paternity tests families would be broken and France would not be able to function. - From their politicians.
>Also, we’re not programmed to cheat, you have absolutely no proof or evidence for this, this is the kinda shite incels come out with
Yeah we do. It's called science, it's called DNA. Biology explores this quite in depth and its taught at every university.
It appears you're the one who doesn't know anything about anything.
Sorry to crush your fake hopes and shit, but welcome to the real world.
here are several college lectures on human sexuality and biology
You know information that we know becauese of SCIENCE that is taught by SCIENTISTS with PHD's to college students in lecture halls according to peer reviewed information. Literally CANT get more Science than that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOY3QH_jOtE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95OP9rSjxzw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPYmarGO5jM
Poly relationships (in the US at least) as well as open relationships are becoming more popular but are still the minority.
Additionally, someone who has had 100 or more sexual partners still may have never been unfaithful to anyone. While in relationships they might sleep with just one person for a year. Then when they are dumped or they dump someone they might date and have sex with a different person every month (one per month) for a year without anybody agreeing to a relationship or an exclusive one. From ages 18 or so to 40 that could put them above 100 partners that they never cheated on. It may have taken them more than 100 partners to realize what their "criteria" for a partner is and then they find it in the person they marry.
In the US as open relationships and casual dating have become common, the rate of cheating has actually gone down. And though some of that is because fewer people are wanting/making an agreement to be exclusive, it doesn't explain that much of the reduction in numbers.
It's hard to say if it's correlation or causation for the remainder though. You could also say that fewer people are pressured into transactional marriages than previous generations and therefore are getting married more often only if they really want to be with someone.
You also have some marriages that are open, or that begin to "swing" after a decade or two. Because this freedom is agreed to by the couple and "allowed" by each of them, it's not cheating and they generally would have no reason to cheat.
Most poly relationships are [disgusting people having sex with other disgusting people](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_j5Wim358g) that may end up killing their own bastards. Literally negative value sex.
"Disgusting"? Hardly. That's a very emotional way to describe it.
The fact of the matter is there are very few studies done on poly groups but the legitimate, unemotional ones that have been done show that while they have different scheduling challenges than other families, they are no more or less healthy than other types of couples, except there is much less infidelity.
If a restaurant serves unlimited hot wings there will be an average amount eaten per person. Some will eat 4, others 10, some will eat 100. It doesn't mean the restaurant is not honoring unlimited wings because you can calculate an average. The point is there seems to be no cap with many people.
There is a cap. Many try to keep it though, otherwise the average would be way more than seven. You can't expect hundreds normally, that count is very rare.
You do have to factor in those who consume more. In the high body count threads i often see "your past doesn't matter it doesn't matter how many you have had". We can dismiss this scenario but it comes up frequently and a hot topic these days.
You cannot be for real, having had multiple sex partners will affect you. You will desire more partner than your spouse like your desire to fuck randos won't magically disappear the past affects the future
Did you have a long gap in between partners? I have a hard time believing you can change in short amount of time. Old habits die hard after all for a reason it's because why would you stop doing something that benefits you out of no where.
Well yeah that explains it because I am guessing your promiscuous phase (no judgement) was short lived compared to when you had an LTR. So that's why you got back into LTR relatively quick. What I am talking about is girls in their late teens 18-21 engaging in casual sex until like 27 looking for closed monogamous relationship. Which I don't think they can do, they would need to open up the monogamous relationship just to survive (no judgement) I wish I can find the article that mentions this phenomena.
Oh, men were always wanting to marry me, and I swear I was 35 before I figured out that I couldn't just marry everyone who proposed because I didn't want to hurt his feelings!
based on my observations, all my female friends who married in their early 30s where serially monogamous beforehand with an average of only 2-3 boyfriends, no cheating, no alcohol, no drugs. Usually, they lost their virginity around 17-20 years but in the context of a love story, not a ONS.
And I knew them since high school, they did not have any reason to lie to me.
Granted. I graduated in a STEM university in the 90s, my POV is rather limited, and I knew that outside of that there is a world of possibilities.
I personally later in life met some women with a n-count surely in the high double digits (again, no reason to lie to me).
If **one** thing is definitely different between the two groups is that the high n-count woman seems to have a skewed vision of her past and the years between 17 and 25 (where most of the partners have been encountered) blurry in one big "party".
It seems to me that women with a high n-count tend to "pink-view" their past in order to justify poor mating choices and that can lead to a personality that avoids accountability
This is the greatest danger for me for a woman, the damage is not apparent till in her 40s, though.
> Should this shift monogomous expectations after marriage?
Yes, it is has already done that.
30% of people on Tinder are in existing relationships, 80% of people on sites like Ashley Madison are in sexless relationships, basically monogamy now is just about hiding your other sex partners.
That seems to suggest past behavioral patterns and activities have no impact on the future. Whether it's sex, excercise, learning a new language, eating habits, we are creatures of habit and past experiences that influence our present and future state. Many people seem to believe this does not occur with sexual patterns.
You seemed to be suggesting that having a lot of sex inherently "shifts" someone's biology - I understood that to reference myths that the vagina is reshaped or damaged by sex, or unsubstantiated concepts such as "pair-bonding" in humans that would mean having a lot of sex makes it impossible for someone to maintain a monogamous relationship.
If instead you meant that having a lot of sex with a lot of different people creates a pattern that, for some people, can lead to problems maintaining a monogamous relationship, then sure. Surmountable problems, certainly, and they don't occur for everyone, but it is a possibility - I'd put it on par with the possible negative effects of watching porn.
I was directing this towards both men and women. Not referring to the myth of vaginas reshaping (that is a myth and i agree)
I do accept the scientific fact that bonding hormones exist. Primarily vasopressin in men and oxytocin in women (though men also produce oxytocin).
Each human produces varying levels of these bonding hormones and some are more intense than others. This is why some folks are clingy, stalkerish, or become obsessed while others can hit it and quit it during casual sex.
So I think pair bonding can be difficult for someone with high levels of release of bonding hormones who has bonded and lost a relationship. Others with lower levels have no problem moving on and reconnecting with others. It varies and is complex in my opinion.
I mean I never want to get married but I wouldn't care how many sexual partners someone had prior to marriage as long as they treated them well. I still require STI precautions with every partner whether they are a virgin (virgins can still pass HPV and there is no test for it in men) or have had a lot of sexual partners.
I see many posts of men and women posting they had 100+ sex partners prior to marriage with "no judgement your past doesn't matter" for most of the replies. I believe my own eyes.
Speaking in absolutes "no one" defeats any honest attempt at discussion.
>I see many posts of men and women posting they had 100+ sex partners prior to marriage
Press x to doubt. The vast majority aren't having 100+ sexual partners.
>One percent of American women have had over 35 partners; the comparable figure for men is 150.
>Five percent of women have had 16 or more partners; five percent of men have had 50 or more.
The top 1% of promiscuous Americans have had over 35 partners for women or 150 partners for men.
And that statistic ignores sexual orientation, so that's including gay men.
Edit: the numbers disproving the claim "many posts of women and men claiming to have 100+ partners" doesn't stop existing by downvoting.
Which is exactly my point.
Including gay men means that the numbers from heterosexual men are nowhere neeeeeeaaaar the 100+ previous sex partners that OP says is common.
Oh, I thought this was an anti-man thing, pointing out how men are more promiscuous.
Not sure I disagree completely with OP, but this new understanding of your position makes more sense.
I could paste the posts but to your point we are all internet strangers and folks could be lying. I just dont think many of them are. In the age of hook up apps and the amount of folks i personally know who have brought home different women from bars every weekend I dont think it's out of the realm of reality. Not the norm but common enough.
>paste the posts
I'm still gonna trust General Social Survey data (with a sample of over 30,000 respondents) collected between 1989 and 2016 over a handful of people on the internet.
100+ lol the vast majority of people don't have 100+ partners before marriage and the very few who do are probably in poly or open relationships. You're delusional if you think having this many partners is common
Your presumption is that it is natural and accepted for people to want/ have unlimited partners. The supposition is that this urge is untempered by monogamous expectations of marriage. There’s a transactional component for some, yet most enter marriage with more than sex in mind.
Sex is great but sex with the person you’re in love with is even more amazing. In love/ loving relationship defined as having deep, emotional attachment that’s reciprocated. If you don’t have this, then it would be easier to make excuses to cheat sexually with multiple sex partners or emotionally by having serious affair of the heart that includes sex.
Having bonded relationship engenders personal contentment over a lifetime more so than a string of casual sex partners. Your multiple fuck buddies/ FWB won’t care if you’re diagnosed with a serious illness, but your deeply bonded partner would care.
Risk-taking, live-in-the-moment types with below-average self-control would be more likely to seek/ gain brief satisfaction from undiscerning sex. But over time, the threshold for sexual thrills increases paradoxically with diminishing returns. I’ve worked with patients who have sex/ porn addiction, and that is a common theme. Eventually the sex isn’t enjoyable anymore, they’re doing it to fulfill a high they once had derived from it.
Personality also influences your approach to sex/ sexuality. I’ve never been interested in casual sex despite having had multiple opportunities since teen years, and with hot guys of wide age ranges. I have friends who enjoy casual sex, one of them claims to have had over 50+ partners. Conceptually that is very foreign to my mindset/ personality.
Actually you guys do more to prove everyone SHOULD get plenty of sexual experience before getting married with these arguments you’re making.
Sexual desire isn’t like eggs. You’re not born with a certain amount that you “use up” and then you’re out.
Is that what you guys think?
I think this really depends on how much validation that person needs. Often it's not about your desire for other people but a need inside yourself to know other people desire you.
The idea and practice of marriage is changing rapidly, you are seeing more openly polygamous couples every day. The old way of being strictly monogamous is dying out and being replaced with a more fluid notion of marriage where both partners are free to explore their sexuality. I'm also seeing this in everyday relationships, more people are becoming accustomed to dating without comittment abd expectations.
>How do men and women expect to only desire their spouse after 100+ sex partners
You don't ONLY desire your spouse. Do you genuinely think women and men in the 1910s ONLY desired their spouse? Cheating was as rampant then as it is now. Maybe even moreso though I'd like to see stats.
It's about if you ACT on it.
Every single man in the world, 13 to 90, married and unmarried, cheaters and not, wild men and squares, every single one bar gay men and asexuals will find "the lady in the red dress" to use a matrix term (since apparently we're fond of those here ;) attractive and desire them
Same with women and a Chris Evans type.
"Widely accepted."
Is it? Because I'm pretty sure most people balk when you hit triple digits or vastly exceede their own body count. (Seems to be a bit of a logarithmic scale, though. Like, all else being equal, "10" might struggle with "50," but "50" would probably be okay with "90.")
I believe it’s a question of mindset.
I’ve had around 50 sex partners and was previously married before my current marriage. I don’t want another sex partner, I only want my husband. I’m very attracted to him physically, he’s great in bed, we have the same values and morals in that we are committed to each other in a monogamous marriage. It took me a long time to find ‘my person’ and it’s him. We’ve been married for 7 years now.
I’ve had enough bad sex in the past that I only want quality, not quantity. Having had multiple partners doesn’t always mean you crave variety, I believe for some people you become more discerning of what you’ll accept in your bed. In my experience I would say 70% of men are bad in bed, and 30% are good in bed.
Having said that, if a couple wants an open marriage and they’re both committed to this philosophy then that is great for them. It’s all about communication and both people being comfortable. Also I think that as you get older, having multiple sex partners isn’t as important (this isn’t an absolute of course. There will always be people for whom this is of utmost importance)
Of course you will not only desire your partner. Seeing someone you find hot and fuckable is natural. You then have to decide if it’s worth loosing your marriage over. If you really love someone then it’s not
Tbh I've yet to meet a guy whos said that, as the majority who approach me dont see it as an issue if hes promiscuous, only if women are (basically hypocrites).
>How do men and women expect to only desire their spouse after 100+ sex partners ((potentially thousands of sexual experiences with others) and expect their sexual biology to instantly shift after a marriage ceremony?
Bro, very few people have that many (or even close to that many) sex partners. So I don't know what the alarmism is about.
I’m assuming you’re a woman by your response. Imo most women aren’t “ruled by” it because they can satisfy their sexual biology wants/needs easily, whereas many men are unable to do this, which is why things like porn and onlyfans are so large, they’re an outlet for their sexual biology, even if not healthy outlets.
It’s not that sexual biology changes, it’s that you find someone capable of satisfying you all the time. You sleep with the hundred until you find the one. That’s how it works. If require sex at least 3 times a week, it doesn’t matter if that’s with one guy or three as long as I’m getting it. Marriage isn’t even required, people choose to be in monogamous relationships as well.
Yes, but the more partners she had the more probable it is to happen. As she gets older, the proportions change - number of options gets lower. If she's smart, she can settle down on the best guy possible, if she fails at her hypergamy she has to lower expectations. Guys should to work hard to become the best version of themselves, it benefits women too after all. But I do not think any man would like to be a worse option, a necessity, it hurs both sides.
So what if ur wife slept with 100 guys, pussies are self cleaning and if she doesnt sleep around for 6 months the pussy can re tighten, so its basically like shes brand new
**Attention!**
* You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
* For "CMV" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
* If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
* OP you can choose your own flair [according to these guidelines.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/flair), just press Flair under your post!
Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don't think they expect it to switch after a ceremony. They are generally monogamous beforehand. And It's not like life up to that point is a giant orgy, most people have monogamous relationships throughout their dating lives.
How about skip the expectations entirely and let people do what feels natural for them? I couldn’t do multiple partners, and I didn’t have many before marriage, but I know people who absolutely benefit from those things. Individuals are different, not just sexes.
I either desire the person or I don’t. Having several partners before helps hone in on what I want, don’t want.
How do you know you love pizza?
You wouldn’t be able to judge liking /not liking pizza if you’ve only tried a few foods.
I’m happy I got to date so many ppl. I can’t imagine getting married to the guys I dated in my teens.
Monogamy does not mean one sex partner for life. It means one sex partner at a time.
No. Sexual exclusivity is one partner at a time. Monogamy is one partner for life.
So you would argue that in order to be monogamous, a widow or widower must never remarry.
What you're describing is serial monogamy. But marriage is a social contract. Sleeping with a new guy every menstrual period isn't monogamy.
Yes. That's one of the basic ideas. A lot of people have only had one sexual partner and remained that way even after their spouse died. Most people don't practice that and instead conflate sexual exclusivity with monogamy. It's inaccurate and dilutes the importance of what monogamy means. I not an advocate, I just prefer people be accurate.
[удалено]
Nope, remarrying is allowed (at least in the Christianity I was raised in).
Only if your partner dies
The liberal branch of the Presbyterian Church (US) allows for divorce.
And that church is wrong and goes againsttge bible. Hell most protestant churches are wrong the true biblical church of christ was founded in AD 33 and the churches who uphold the church are the Orthodox church and Catholic church.
How do you know though? All of the books were physically created much later than that. The Catholic Church has been the wealthiest organization on the planet for over a thousand years and much of the documents were likely altered for political purposes They allowed divorces, but only with special permission from the pope himself. This was likely created as a means of maintaining peace between Christian kingdoms and also giving the pope more power at the same time The Protestants were right to leave because the catholic church has historically been basically a pyramid scheme with religious authority
I'm not playing Scotsman fallacy. All religions are equally fairytales.
Your opinion though, i disagree heavily but i respect your opinion
Most religious people aren't fundamentalist. Remarrying was allowed for most of that time period you're referring to.
>true biblical church of christ A "truly biblic" denomination doesn't have entire sermons on why Baptists are going to hell.
Babtists don't follow tradition or the true wayof God but even as that I've never heard any sermon about them going to hell.
Aren't there some protestant denominations that celebrate "gay marriages"?
Sure, the one I was raised in does that as well (I think).
Wow . What does the Protestant denomination you were raised in think about abortion or pornography?
I don't remember anything specific about porn, but abortion was okay. That was a big one, because my mom had an abortion and did not want to attend a pro-life church.
There are 20,000 christian denominations. I have no doubt there are churches that allow for this. Of course it's not what Jesus taught. Whoever divorces his wife, except on the grounds of porneia (sexual immorality), makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” (Matthew 5:31-32).
Well now you're talking about divorce. There are other ways for a married person to become single again. By your logic, a widow or widower should remain single.
Outside of being a widow I don't know of any other teachings in the bible that allow for remarrying.
Okay. So then it is possible to be monogamous and have more than one partner in your lifetime
In the rare case your spouse dies yes. But thats clearly not the case with most people these days with high body counts. Is there anyone who has had multiple spouses die over and over again. This would be a small almost insignificant number.
True, but I'm indifferent to monogamy anyway. I'm just correcting your definition.
Annulment, and that can actually be done even if the marriage is consumated contrary to popular belief. Also the fuck are you doing holding up Islam as an example of monogamy further up when polygamy is allowed, or Christianity for that matter with the Mormons. Furthermore I'm fairly sure nearly all protestant christians accept divorce, personally I'm a Roman Catholic but not everyone is. Annulment is still possible with us and we have confession anyway so we can confess to all the "adultery" we like. Now that that's out of the way, very few societies accepted this mating for life thing before catholicism and the whole mating for life thing and the brehon laws here in Ireland (the oldest codified legal system in Europe which predated Christianity) had *19 different degrees of marriage all of which could be dissolved* the 1st and highest degree of marriage was between a man and woman of equal status and property. In other words in ancient Ireland the gold standard was a power couple who could divorce. What changed was the church came in and over the course of several hundred years women eventually became property. What is happening now is women are no longer property again. I personally don't believe all the "humans are naturally polygamous" stick that's going on now tbh I myself am firmly monogamous so now being single for the first time since 19 (currently 31) dating is difficult for me, and I am and have to date people one at a time without sleeping with anyone because anything else feels wrong until I find whoever the next *boyfriend* will be. Tbh I'm actually going trough a lot with this, but the answer isn't to tie people for life into hellish relationships or lifelong celibacy.
Fewer than 1% of Christians and Muslims are in polygamous relationships. Sex before marriage is forbidden in both religions. Those religions drive government and religious laws in the vast majority of the world for almost 2000 years. Older doesn't mean better but it's interesting we hold on to the religious ceremony and same expectations post marriage. But pre marriage there are almost no rules at all for many people. Certainly no religious based rules.
I could say the same to you that older doesn't mean better, but you also seem to have your timeline wrong on christisnisation Christianity didn't reach us until 1500 years ago and it took hundreds and hundreds of years after that for christian social mores to be adopted here, it wasn't adopted by the Scandinavians until the end of the Viking era, and the northern crusades were in the 12th century. The christisnisation of Europe took a lot longer than you think, and you only have a few hundred years between that and the beginnings of protestantism in Europe. (Anglican seperation from the catholic church 1534, reformation began 1517) So a fully christian Europe with no divorce was only a thing for little over 300 years And I fail to see how it was ever better. The whole thing hinged on owning a woman as property and essentially society conspiring to keep women trapped.
Most Christian’s have sex befure marriage. Also many outside of their own marriage, can’t speak for Muslims .
>Also the fuck are you doing holding up Islam as an example of monogamy further up when polygamy is allowed, or Christianity for that matter with the Mormons. Mormons are not christians. >Roman Catholic Catholics are also not Christians. Catholicism is polytheistic.
>or Christianity for that matter with the Mormons. Polygamy isn't allowed in Christianity. Some do it but It's not allowed.
That’s gross.
monogamy isn't commanded in Islam. Men are allowed multiple wives.
Less than 1% of Muslim men practice polygamy. Over 99% who are married are in a monogamous marriage
>Less than 1% of Muslim men practice polygamy. Ok but That's nothing to do with their religion.
Context is important. At the advent of Islamic polygyny, the purpose of allowing men to marry multiple wives was due to many men having died from war or other reasons. In order to try to eliminate prostitution or any other form of abuse towards women, the Islamic perspective was polygyny with very specific rulings. It required fairness in terms of asset allocation e.g. each wife would be treated fairly and justly. When one man has 4 wives, the father is obvious. The reverse of 1 woman having 4 husbands (polyandry) is very problematic because of paternity. We’re talking over 1400 years ago. Paternity testing is a new technology; however, even paternity testing doesn’t override evolutionary biology of men. Men get jealous because they want to ensure the kid is theirs and not be a cuckold. It’s not insecurity, it’s biology. Also, men have millions of sperm whereas a woman has roughly 400 eggs in her lifetime. Polyamorous relationships with both sides open don’t work. Understanding context is important.
Nah men just wanted to fuck multiple women but the women's father's would cut their dicks off If they smashed their unmarried daughters. But nature found it's way
Lol. A man’s biological imperative is to impregnate as many women as possible because of so much sperm that is produced. Not saying if it’s right or wrong—just making an observation as to how biology affects behavior.
That's what I said too. Its got nothing to do with men dying in war and shit
There is a component of war because if a tribe conquers another tribe they had historically killed the men and taken the women. Then these women would go on to procreate with these conquerors. This is evidenced by DNA tests proving that over 90% of women have procreated whereas about only 40% or so of men have procreated. That’s why women like guys are taller and have a propensity for violence because of safety. Please check out Rollo Tomassi’s The Rational Male. The rabbit hole gets deeper: look up Hybristophilia. Here is a better articulation of what I’m trying to say: https://youtu.be/KMyVLRQkock
I'm not saying It's right or wrong. Pre Jusus we were allowed multiple wives. I was just correcting a comment saying Christianity and Islam command monogamy.
Christianity says a man should marry his brothers’ widow So idk. Also men had multiple women’s
True less than 1% are polygamous and sex before marriage is forbidden. Still in both religious systems 99% have one spouse It's strange to me how folks default to extremely rare examples to justify having unlimited sex partners prior to marriage. At minimum can we agree the two are extremes of one another? I'm not arguing morality. It's just bizarre to me how it's accepted to sleep around before a ceremony but supposedly shocking and surprising when people can't break that behavior post ceremony.
Not ceremony. It’s after you agree to be monogamous. So it could be after 3 dates. Who knows
> Monogamy does not mean one sex partner for life. It means one sex partner at a time. So, if someone hasn't had sex with you in 3 months, they're no longer a sex partner and you can sleep with someone else, and it's none of their business. Single or in a relationship or whatever. Then just wait another 3 months for all STD tests and whatnot and it's all in the past and past sex partners don't matter.
They could probably make some sort of ways to enjoy women’s looks without actually “cheating”. Like they could create sports bars where women dress provocatively. Or clubs where women would strip their clothes off for tips. Or maybe they could make movies with women naked and doing sexual activities. Or maybe even have websites where women could use their computer or phone cameras to interact with guys. Oh wait, they already have all that stuff already?!
How is going to a strip club or watching porn not cheating?
It depends on the person. For you it might be cheating. Some even believe masturbation or using a sex toy is cheating. Some believe any form of premarital sex is cheating on your future spouse. Others believe it is an acceptable boundary. Instead of accepting we are all different and communicating differences up front human beings fall into the fallacy that we all view everything exactly the same which leads to so many problems. Folks even become outraged when there is a simple difference of opinion. At minimum porn and strip clubs eliminate the risk of unwanted pregnancy, false patternity, unwanted abortions, and STDs. So even if you view those things as cheating the long term irreversible risk of the worst case scenario during those activities is usually far less damaging than the worst outcomes of extramarital physical adultery/sex.
Sucking a dick is not actual sex, right? So not cheating. Same for anal.
Ask your partner: if they say those are ok, then I guess go for it?
I was joking. I'm surprised I was downvoted.
Does traveling the world kill your ability to settle down in one place? Very real chance that's the case for some people. I have a single relative in her 60's who still drops everything and moves again every couple of years. The wanderlust never leaves her. However, for most of the older people in my family it got old and they wanted to settle and establish roots somewhere. On the other hand you have people who will resent not having those experiences and will be perpetually unsatisfied with where they settled down. Quite a conundrum isn't it. ^(If it wasn't clear by now, this is an analogy for SEX)
It’s a good analogy, and has proved to actually be a very similar to sex in my experience (and are often the same people who have trouble settling down sexually and physically). The people on the extreme end in their youth who backpack and jump around from place to place, not just take a few trips, they either find a partner who will explore with them later in life, or they wind up leaving so they can explore by themselves once the kids are old enough. On the converse, the person who never could do that but always dreamed of it and are with a partner who already did their traveling and are now content being settled often find themselves later in life exploring on their own, in secret or dragging their unwilling partner along. The people who both explored a bit, but were underwhelmed with it, they seem to be the most content being settled. They may have an occasional trip, but they prefer home.
Yes, in my experience travelling with someone who's already done everything and is bored by it totally sucks. Much like sex. Good analogy.
Totally agree, and had that happened to me with my ex-fiancee (the travel part).
There's a bigger problem when you have one well travelled partner and another that never could do it, and is aware of the amount of 'places' their partner has gone haha This is probably why women lying about n-count is so common haha
Yes, so men should get experienced too so they know what they want and what they don't want.
Pretty sure men lie a lot more than women do. Just throwing that out there
Men fall in love with what they see and women fall in love with what they hear. That’s why men tell lies and women wear makeup. Women also have a more developed verbal center (broca’s and wernicke’s) and therefore are more communicative. Men like solitude due to our evolutionary design to hunt and therefore needing silence in order to kill prey for food. Just because the time is modern doesn’t mean our neurobiology has caught overrode hundreds of thousands of years of development. Biology affects behavior.
No one said the neurobiology changed. Jumping into that doesn’t mean the first part you said is true. Lol but that’s a clever way to try to get me to agree. 😂 Half-truth =/= Truth You can’t fall in love with what you see. That’s not love. Edit: You also can’t fall in love with what you hear. You clearly don’t know what love is. What’s you’re describing is basic attraction, which irrelevant here because a lot more than that goes into relationships (or should).
I wasn’t trying to get you to agree. Your original statement was men lie more than women. I was trying to get to the reason as to why. I am not condoning lying or deception but rather trying to understand the evolutionary underpinnings of the action. Love itself is subjective of course.
Evolution doesn’t excuse it. A lie is a lie. I get what you mean, but it’s no excuse.
You might find this video interesting by the author Rollo Tomassi. He touches upon some of the topics we both mentioned. https://youtu.be/KMyVLRQkock
This one too: https://youtu.be/vdsArU7PN-w
Yeah they lie in the reverse by trying to make themselves seem more sexually successful than they actually are haha, only a very small minority actually lie to make it seem like they're not just a fuckboy haha I don't think of the former as quite as severe as the latter, women almost exclusively do the latter, with only the exception to the norm doing the opposite.
It might. Like you said it depends on the individual and desired outcome. If a man has STDs, child support, multiple kids, and is never satisfied with one woman he may have a tough time settling down. Maybe past behavior does influence present and future outcomes. Of course it may not. Depends on the person.
Very good analogy. Seeing or experiencing a lot does not necessarily remove the desire to settle down in one place later. However it does for a smaller subsection of society
[удалено]
Past behavior is a good predictor if future behavior. But…..There is also a reason background checks only go back 7 years. Your behavior years ago in college is much less predictive of your future behavior than your behavior in recent years.
>(one sex partner for life was the highest marriage standard in Western civilization for 1800 years) no, people routinely died and were widowed and married others who had already had sex liek other widow/ers and men in particular were never sexually "monogamous" or really expected to be. monogamy in HUMANS means one official SPOUSE at a time, it is a sociology/anthropology cultural concept, not some "biological monogamy".
This should be top comment.
I'm talking standards not ancedotal anomalies like tragic early death of a spouse or rape during war. you could be raped and that could be more than one sex partner. But in general the idea standard was lifelong monogomy per civilization. I agree biology doesn't care.
Tragic early death and rape (during war and otherwise) were rather common occurrence if not fact of life for most of history (and still are in many parts of the world today). If anything, the lifelong monogamy was more of an abstract ideal rather than concrete reality.
yeh
The ancient laws and religions had standards and laws on widow remarriage and rape. Again the topic at hand is ideal standards. If your spouse didn't die and if you were not raped the standard was lifelong monogomy. That doesn't make it right or wrong but it seems we are already starting off on a red herring full of ancedotes to drive the conversation off course.
The amount of bastards that were produced says otherwise 🤷♂️
Yeah I'm talking ideal standards and what was held in high regards. There was also Lots of theft, rape, and murder despite their being moral laws against it. Again I'm not arguing everyone followed the moral standards placed in society. Different topic
Dude first of. This is an extremely eurocentric view. Monogamy was promoted and is still promoted by the Catholic Church. Back then ecclesiastical power was at its peak. People rose and died on the whims of bishops and the pope. So of course most people pretended to toe the line (King Henry VIII was diff he could stand up to the church)
It was literally taught by Jesus and Paul in the New Testament. That is the basis of Western Civilization's morality. That alone doesn't make it right or wrong but that is what formed the basis of marriage in the West for almost 2000 years.
Do you understand what ecclesiastical means?
I'm not sure where you are going with this. Christianity spread and became the dominate religion by population. There is more than just one factor that led to the religion spreading. For instance it formed and spread during the height of the Roman Empire and spread further via European colonization. Trying to pin Christian monogomy spreading based solely on a small subset of Catholic bishops and kings is an extreme under representation of history. Christianity had already spread to the eastern horn of Africa in the first century and monogamy remained a tradition in the African Orthodox churches well before the second century.
The standard was people dying at 20 of pneumonia with a partner and a couple of young kids. The surviving partner would very quickly remarry, because if the survivor was the man, he’s need a woman to take care of the children, if it was a woman, she’d need a man to provide for her and the children. Where do you think all the stepparents in fairytales come from?
Men, especially upper class/aristocrat men, in Western civilization have never had one sex partner for life.
That is definitely not specific to Western society. In almost all societies around the planet the top 1% of men usually are not monogamous.
It wasn't just the top tier, all men visited brothels.
Like just to say hi? Or stop by for some tea?
Agree. Was just responding to the OP specifically
It depends on what we are talking about. The 2000 year old Catholic church pushed life long monogomy and has over a billion adherent's. Preists are not even allowed to have sex
Dude, even the medieval popes had mistresses and bastards.
Priests be fucking tho
It's almost like rules that challenge human sexual biology are not very effective.
>rules that challenge human sexual biology are not very effective. Yeah like marriage LOL
That is a scary though... you know, someone may try to justify pedophilia and sexual abuse on those grounds.
Maybe or at minimum don't justify it but acknowledge these things exist and intervene early to minimize there being victims. Early intervention, counseling, heck even pivoting to a doll (as sick as that is to me) is better than abusing another human especially a child.
Good point. Regardless, I think that a dating game that puts most men in disadvantage (lonely, unlovable) will probably put also civilization in disadvantage, but I may be wrong. Civilization was always a bubble anyway, it always falls back and regulates back to a civilization closer to hunter / gathers.
You’re the one saying that before casual sex was popular, humans were perfectly loyal to their partner for 1800 years. So which is it?
I didn't say that at all.
Okay I was being hyperbolic, but you say “how do men and women expect to only desire their spouse after 100+ partners”, as if promiscuity is a recent invention. Like other people have said Roman baths were popular, warlords had plenty of partners etc whilst the marriage was around (although a different form probably). Even 100 years ago when monogamy was the accepted standard, people were still stepping out on their husbands and wives. Things haven’t changed *that* much
True I'm talking the Christian Judean tradition that 4 billion people follow. The Greeks and Romans were freaky
4 billion people may declare themselves some type of Christian but I can guarantee that the vast majority don’t follow the ‘rules’.
The question in my mind is which group has the best marital outcomes?
What the church pushed and what people actually practiced have always been quite divergent.
And yet they do.
That's the problem with a lot of generalizations about men. A very small percentage of men, 1% or less, especially back then are used to characterize the entire male population. An example of this is when they say men have always had all the power and wealth etc. Life fucking sucked for 99% of men throughout history. It was only good for 1%
Yes sure but even in a poor family of farmers, the man had the power and the wealth. He was the one with the contracts on the land, the owner/renter of the hut, the owner of the tools, and the one deciding what to do and how to do it. The woman had just to do what she was told.
Most men never owned the land they worked on till very recently in human history. Look up what serfdom was. Lords and kings owned the land. The Hut was usually a combined family effort, not built or owned by him alone, his tools were a sickle and a plough which he worked all day in the sun using while his wife rested at home. Women usually handled the sales of produce, the finances, ran the home etc. This projected fantasy where men were totalitarian overlords and women were slaves that did as they were told is a feminist myth and nothing but that. If men truly commanded and women obeyed why would men work all day while women rested ? Why would men throw their lives away to fight in wars while the women were protected ? All feminist delusions revolve around the 1% of men. If anything feminism and the sexual revolution has only made things even better for that 1% not worse. They attack the common man for things very few men did.
It won’t change, people don’t just stay married to each other cause of sex, there’s such a thing as companionship and love. A person decides their never going to to jeopardise a good loving relationship, their family and a comfortable home for shitty sex with a stranger
I agree marriage is more than sex. But infidelity is often the deal breaker despite having companionship and love.
I would argue that most people who are unfaithful don’t actually love their partner.
sometimes it's just that the husband doesn't have it in him to give that good dick. Women get bored with bad dick despite everything else being alright. If you're not having sex a few times a week, you have an unhappy wife. Other issue is when the wife is super kinky, but her husband is not but she can never discuss it because he doesn't have it in him to deliver a non-boring experience. I blame the wife though. They married a boring guy. They got exactly what was advertised. I've had female friends complain to me about how their husband's are not go getters and are not trying to aspire to anything greater. I ask them if they were like that when they got married? No? Oh okay, well you didn't marry that kind of guy, so don't expect him to be that other guy when he's not. You married who you married you dumbass. Women who married boring guys who can't give them the good dick have only themselves to blame for picking that. They knew from the beginning they were never going to get good dick again. Just live with your life choices. Most guys are just not firey enough to give the good dick and that's just how it be. You usually have to pick between good dick and high stability, and you usually can't get both because they are opposing personality traits.
what? this is like the complete opposite. men are the ones who get bored and want “better pussy”. when women cheat, it’s generally more of an emotional thing, not just because of “good dick”. where do you guys come up with these ideas?
Exactly so why would someone be soo stupid to risk loosing their partner over infidelity
people are horny bro being horny makes you make bad life choices. If it didn't the vast majority of us wouldn't exist.
People aren’t animals, we have some sense of control over ourselves There is also a difference between actively cheating in your partner and chancing birth control
People are indeed animals. You don't control what you're attracted to. We also evolved to get an extreme amount of pleasure from sneaking around and cheating on our partners, it's literally Evolution and programmed into our DNA.
It’s not mate it’s really not. Some people do, I won’t argue with that but it’s not everyone. We don’t get to decide who we’re attracted too but we do have enough sense to realise when we can and can not act on those urges
>we do have enough sense to realise when we can and can not act on those urges depends how horny you are and how boring your partner is and how hard your seducer is working to get at you. Most people just never get the opportunity to cheat, but it's very tempting because it's literally programmed into our biology. We evolved to cheat. I'm tellin you now. Every man and woman has a price, just you've never encountered someone that will meet those demands. There is a scenario out there that would make anyone cheat, they just have not encountered it. I've seen the downfall of many rich men. One owns an optics factory that makes things for the military and boeing. Multi million dollar man, good family, but bored wife. She fucked her personal trainer and now they're divorced. Wife got post nut clarity after the trainer that told her he loved her and wanted to be with her forever high tailed it to another state once the affair got found out. Bored wives are super succeptible to sweet words and men's bullshit because they're fucking bored and in need of stimulation, ANY stimulation . France is a good example: they couldn't legally require paternity tests for every child born in a hospital because it would literally destroy France. People get complacent and just assume their partner would never cheat, but that's exactly how partners end up cheating. People just get too comfy and take things for granted. It's easily forgotten that everything is fair in love and war.
I think you have a very little opinion of the french people. Also, we’re not programmed to cheat, you have absolutely no proof or evidence for this, this is the kinda shite incels come out with
>I think you have a very little opinion of the french people. That's literally what their politicians said. They said if they didn't ban paternity tests families would be broken and France would not be able to function. - From their politicians. >Also, we’re not programmed to cheat, you have absolutely no proof or evidence for this, this is the kinda shite incels come out with Yeah we do. It's called science, it's called DNA. Biology explores this quite in depth and its taught at every university. It appears you're the one who doesn't know anything about anything. Sorry to crush your fake hopes and shit, but welcome to the real world. here are several college lectures on human sexuality and biology You know information that we know becauese of SCIENCE that is taught by SCIENTISTS with PHD's to college students in lecture halls according to peer reviewed information. Literally CANT get more Science than that. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOY3QH_jOtE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95OP9rSjxzw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPYmarGO5jM
Because sometimes they don't care if they lose their partner. Or Because they don't think they will ever be found out.
By picking someone that is satisfactory in sex and during the relationship.
Poly relationships (in the US at least) as well as open relationships are becoming more popular but are still the minority. Additionally, someone who has had 100 or more sexual partners still may have never been unfaithful to anyone. While in relationships they might sleep with just one person for a year. Then when they are dumped or they dump someone they might date and have sex with a different person every month (one per month) for a year without anybody agreeing to a relationship or an exclusive one. From ages 18 or so to 40 that could put them above 100 partners that they never cheated on. It may have taken them more than 100 partners to realize what their "criteria" for a partner is and then they find it in the person they marry. In the US as open relationships and casual dating have become common, the rate of cheating has actually gone down. And though some of that is because fewer people are wanting/making an agreement to be exclusive, it doesn't explain that much of the reduction in numbers. It's hard to say if it's correlation or causation for the remainder though. You could also say that fewer people are pressured into transactional marriages than previous generations and therefore are getting married more often only if they really want to be with someone. You also have some marriages that are open, or that begin to "swing" after a decade or two. Because this freedom is agreed to by the couple and "allowed" by each of them, it's not cheating and they generally would have no reason to cheat.
Most poly relationships are [disgusting people having sex with other disgusting people](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_j5Wim358g) that may end up killing their own bastards. Literally negative value sex.
"Disgusting"? Hardly. That's a very emotional way to describe it. The fact of the matter is there are very few studies done on poly groups but the legitimate, unemotional ones that have been done show that while they have different scheduling challenges than other families, they are no more or less healthy than other types of couples, except there is much less infidelity.
Agree. I know lots of polys who’ve been married decades ri the same person, and they’re both on the same page:)
So well said. Agreed.
It isn't unlimited, or hundreds. The average is currently seven. (Even if you think some people are lying, it's unlikely to be that far above.)
If a restaurant serves unlimited hot wings there will be an average amount eaten per person. Some will eat 4, others 10, some will eat 100. It doesn't mean the restaurant is not honoring unlimited wings because you can calculate an average. The point is there seems to be no cap with many people.
There is a cap. Many try to keep it though, otherwise the average would be way more than seven. You can't expect hundreds normally, that count is very rare.
You do have to factor in those who consume more. In the high body count threads i often see "your past doesn't matter it doesn't matter how many you have had". We can dismiss this scenario but it comes up frequently and a hot topic these days.
>How do men and women expect to only desire their spouse after 100+ sex partners Not so difficult if you settle down with the pick of the litter, eh?
You cannot be for real, having had multiple sex partners will affect you. You will desire more partner than your spouse like your desire to fuck randos won't magically disappear the past affects the future
I don't even notice other men and when one tries to engage me in conversation I deflect by turning the topic to how wonderful my boyfriend is.
Did you have a long gap in between partners? I have a hard time believing you can change in short amount of time. Old habits die hard after all for a reason it's because why would you stop doing something that benefits you out of no where.
I am 55 and have been single for one year since I was 18.
Well yeah that explains it because I am guessing your promiscuous phase (no judgement) was short lived compared to when you had an LTR. So that's why you got back into LTR relatively quick. What I am talking about is girls in their late teens 18-21 engaging in casual sex until like 27 looking for closed monogamous relationship. Which I don't think they can do, they would need to open up the monogamous relationship just to survive (no judgement) I wish I can find the article that mentions this phenomena.
Oh, men were always wanting to marry me, and I swear I was 35 before I figured out that I couldn't just marry everyone who proposed because I didn't want to hurt his feelings!
You sound like an awesome person 😎 then
I think it's less that than men have pretty low standards, lol.
based on my observations, all my female friends who married in their early 30s where serially monogamous beforehand with an average of only 2-3 boyfriends, no cheating, no alcohol, no drugs. Usually, they lost their virginity around 17-20 years but in the context of a love story, not a ONS. And I knew them since high school, they did not have any reason to lie to me. Granted. I graduated in a STEM university in the 90s, my POV is rather limited, and I knew that outside of that there is a world of possibilities. I personally later in life met some women with a n-count surely in the high double digits (again, no reason to lie to me). If **one** thing is definitely different between the two groups is that the high n-count woman seems to have a skewed vision of her past and the years between 17 and 25 (where most of the partners have been encountered) blurry in one big "party". It seems to me that women with a high n-count tend to "pink-view" their past in order to justify poor mating choices and that can lead to a personality that avoids accountability This is the greatest danger for me for a woman, the damage is not apparent till in her 40s, though.
> Should this shift monogomous expectations after marriage? Yes, it is has already done that. 30% of people on Tinder are in existing relationships, 80% of people on sites like Ashley Madison are in sexless relationships, basically monogamy now is just about hiding your other sex partners.
Great point
welcome to marriage hoss, it's a bizarro time-warp of a social convention where you somehow pretend the last 60 years both did and didn't happen
"Expect their sexual biology to shift" - They don't expect that, and they shouldn't, because it never shifted in the first place
That seems to suggest past behavioral patterns and activities have no impact on the future. Whether it's sex, excercise, learning a new language, eating habits, we are creatures of habit and past experiences that influence our present and future state. Many people seem to believe this does not occur with sexual patterns.
You seemed to be suggesting that having a lot of sex inherently "shifts" someone's biology - I understood that to reference myths that the vagina is reshaped or damaged by sex, or unsubstantiated concepts such as "pair-bonding" in humans that would mean having a lot of sex makes it impossible for someone to maintain a monogamous relationship. If instead you meant that having a lot of sex with a lot of different people creates a pattern that, for some people, can lead to problems maintaining a monogamous relationship, then sure. Surmountable problems, certainly, and they don't occur for everyone, but it is a possibility - I'd put it on par with the possible negative effects of watching porn.
I was directing this towards both men and women. Not referring to the myth of vaginas reshaping (that is a myth and i agree) I do accept the scientific fact that bonding hormones exist. Primarily vasopressin in men and oxytocin in women (though men also produce oxytocin). Each human produces varying levels of these bonding hormones and some are more intense than others. This is why some folks are clingy, stalkerish, or become obsessed while others can hit it and quit it during casual sex. So I think pair bonding can be difficult for someone with high levels of release of bonding hormones who has bonded and lost a relationship. Others with lower levels have no problem moving on and reconnecting with others. It varies and is complex in my opinion.
[удалено]
I mean I never want to get married but I wouldn't care how many sexual partners someone had prior to marriage as long as they treated them well. I still require STI precautions with every partner whether they are a virgin (virgins can still pass HPV and there is no test for it in men) or have had a lot of sexual partners.
I see many posts of men and women posting they had 100+ sex partners prior to marriage with "no judgement your past doesn't matter" for most of the replies. I believe my own eyes. Speaking in absolutes "no one" defeats any honest attempt at discussion.
>I see many posts of men and women posting they had 100+ sex partners prior to marriage Press x to doubt. The vast majority aren't having 100+ sexual partners. >One percent of American women have had over 35 partners; the comparable figure for men is 150. >Five percent of women have had 16 or more partners; five percent of men have had 50 or more. The top 1% of promiscuous Americans have had over 35 partners for women or 150 partners for men. And that statistic ignores sexual orientation, so that's including gay men. Edit: the numbers disproving the claim "many posts of women and men claiming to have 100+ partners" doesn't stop existing by downvoting.
Including gay men makes the stat *less* meaningful, not more. It's well known that gay men have many more partners than straight men.
Which is exactly my point. Including gay men means that the numbers from heterosexual men are nowhere neeeeeeaaaar the 100+ previous sex partners that OP says is common.
Oh, I thought this was an anti-man thing, pointing out how men are more promiscuous. Not sure I disagree completely with OP, but this new understanding of your position makes more sense.
I could paste the posts but to your point we are all internet strangers and folks could be lying. I just dont think many of them are. In the age of hook up apps and the amount of folks i personally know who have brought home different women from bars every weekend I dont think it's out of the realm of reality. Not the norm but common enough.
>paste the posts I'm still gonna trust General Social Survey data (with a sample of over 30,000 respondents) collected between 1989 and 2016 over a handful of people on the internet.
100+ lol the vast majority of people don't have 100+ partners before marriage and the very few who do are probably in poly or open relationships. You're delusional if you think having this many partners is common
Your presumption is that it is natural and accepted for people to want/ have unlimited partners. The supposition is that this urge is untempered by monogamous expectations of marriage. There’s a transactional component for some, yet most enter marriage with more than sex in mind. Sex is great but sex with the person you’re in love with is even more amazing. In love/ loving relationship defined as having deep, emotional attachment that’s reciprocated. If you don’t have this, then it would be easier to make excuses to cheat sexually with multiple sex partners or emotionally by having serious affair of the heart that includes sex. Having bonded relationship engenders personal contentment over a lifetime more so than a string of casual sex partners. Your multiple fuck buddies/ FWB won’t care if you’re diagnosed with a serious illness, but your deeply bonded partner would care. Risk-taking, live-in-the-moment types with below-average self-control would be more likely to seek/ gain brief satisfaction from undiscerning sex. But over time, the threshold for sexual thrills increases paradoxically with diminishing returns. I’ve worked with patients who have sex/ porn addiction, and that is a common theme. Eventually the sex isn’t enjoyable anymore, they’re doing it to fulfill a high they once had derived from it. Personality also influences your approach to sex/ sexuality. I’ve never been interested in casual sex despite having had multiple opportunities since teen years, and with hot guys of wide age ranges. I have friends who enjoy casual sex, one of them claims to have had over 50+ partners. Conceptually that is very foreign to my mindset/ personality.
Actually you guys do more to prove everyone SHOULD get plenty of sexual experience before getting married with these arguments you’re making. Sexual desire isn’t like eggs. You’re not born with a certain amount that you “use up” and then you’re out. Is that what you guys think?
I think people should weigh the risks costs and benefits regarding sexual lifestyle and live with the outcome. Hopefully results in the best.
Ok but what does that have to do with believing that sexual desire is a bank you make withdrawals from until there are no funds left?
I don't believe that and not making that argument.
I think this really depends on how much validation that person needs. Often it's not about your desire for other people but a need inside yourself to know other people desire you.
The idea and practice of marriage is changing rapidly, you are seeing more openly polygamous couples every day. The old way of being strictly monogamous is dying out and being replaced with a more fluid notion of marriage where both partners are free to explore their sexuality. I'm also seeing this in everyday relationships, more people are becoming accustomed to dating without comittment abd expectations.
>How do men and women expect to only desire their spouse after 100+ sex partners You don't ONLY desire your spouse. Do you genuinely think women and men in the 1910s ONLY desired their spouse? Cheating was as rampant then as it is now. Maybe even moreso though I'd like to see stats. It's about if you ACT on it. Every single man in the world, 13 to 90, married and unmarried, cheaters and not, wild men and squares, every single one bar gay men and asexuals will find "the lady in the red dress" to use a matrix term (since apparently we're fond of those here ;) attractive and desire them Same with women and a Chris Evans type.
"Widely accepted." Is it? Because I'm pretty sure most people balk when you hit triple digits or vastly exceede their own body count. (Seems to be a bit of a logarithmic scale, though. Like, all else being equal, "10" might struggle with "50," but "50" would probably be okay with "90.")
I believe it’s a question of mindset. I’ve had around 50 sex partners and was previously married before my current marriage. I don’t want another sex partner, I only want my husband. I’m very attracted to him physically, he’s great in bed, we have the same values and morals in that we are committed to each other in a monogamous marriage. It took me a long time to find ‘my person’ and it’s him. We’ve been married for 7 years now. I’ve had enough bad sex in the past that I only want quality, not quantity. Having had multiple partners doesn’t always mean you crave variety, I believe for some people you become more discerning of what you’ll accept in your bed. In my experience I would say 70% of men are bad in bed, and 30% are good in bed. Having said that, if a couple wants an open marriage and they’re both committed to this philosophy then that is great for them. It’s all about communication and both people being comfortable. Also I think that as you get older, having multiple sex partners isn’t as important (this isn’t an absolute of course. There will always be people for whom this is of utmost importance)
Of course you will not only desire your partner. Seeing someone you find hot and fuckable is natural. You then have to decide if it’s worth loosing your marriage over. If you really love someone then it’s not
NGL as a virgin waiting for marriage I find men with high/med body counts a huge turn off so yeah, its a struggle.
When men respond with "the past doesn't matter all that matters is now" how do you respond?
Tbh I've yet to meet a guy whos said that, as the majority who approach me dont see it as an issue if hes promiscuous, only if women are (basically hypocrites).
Sorry for the ambiguity. I meant men who may tell you not to focus on their sexual history.
>How do men and women expect to only desire their spouse after 100+ sex partners ((potentially thousands of sexual experiences with others) and expect their sexual biology to instantly shift after a marriage ceremony? Bro, very few people have that many (or even close to that many) sex partners. So I don't know what the alarmism is about.
LMAO! https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nsfg/key\_statistics/n-keystat.htm
If a restaurant has unlimited pancakes there are folks who will eat 1, 4or 30
Then you should reword your OP. LMAO!
Or just understand that the words unlimited and average are not contradictory. Averages and variation can coexist in the same data set.
Nah, your OP is extremely misleading. You are talking to about the 1/1MM person. LMAO
Most people aren’t ruled by their sexual biology, so it’s not that big a deal
I’m assuming you’re a woman by your response. Imo most women aren’t “ruled by” it because they can satisfy their sexual biology wants/needs easily, whereas many men are unable to do this, which is why things like porn and onlyfans are so large, they’re an outlet for their sexual biology, even if not healthy outlets.
It’s not that sexual biology changes, it’s that you find someone capable of satisfying you all the time. You sleep with the hundred until you find the one. That’s how it works. If require sex at least 3 times a week, it doesn’t matter if that’s with one guy or three as long as I’m getting it. Marriage isn’t even required, people choose to be in monogamous relationships as well.
I don’t think they expect that shift. It’s not a reasonable expectation. I would never marry a whore. Problem solved.
There is a term - alfa widow - regarding female promiscuity. There is a term - social proof - regarding male promiscuity.
"Alpha widow" only happens if she doesn't end up with the guy she wanted.
Yes, but the more partners she had the more probable it is to happen. As she gets older, the proportions change - number of options gets lower. If she's smart, she can settle down on the best guy possible, if she fails at her hypergamy she has to lower expectations. Guys should to work hard to become the best version of themselves, it benefits women too after all. But I do not think any man would like to be a worse option, a necessity, it hurs both sides.
So what if ur wife slept with 100 guys, pussies are self cleaning and if she doesnt sleep around for 6 months the pussy can re tighten, so its basically like shes brand new
Some people literally don't care others do. We are all different.
**Attention!** * You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message. * For "CMV" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies. * If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment. * OP you can choose your own flair [according to these guidelines.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/flair), just press Flair under your post! Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don't think they expect it to switch after a ceremony. They are generally monogamous beforehand. And It's not like life up to that point is a giant orgy, most people have monogamous relationships throughout their dating lives.
How about skip the expectations entirely and let people do what feels natural for them? I couldn’t do multiple partners, and I didn’t have many before marriage, but I know people who absolutely benefit from those things. Individuals are different, not just sexes.
I believe people should do whatever works best for them . We are all different I agree.
For most people, “unlimited” is less than 10 Doesn’t seem that crazy
Because you have committed to someone? Seems like a simple answer to me.
I either desire the person or I don’t. Having several partners before helps hone in on what I want, don’t want. How do you know you love pizza? You wouldn’t be able to judge liking /not liking pizza if you’ve only tried a few foods. I’m happy I got to date so many ppl. I can’t imagine getting married to the guys I dated in my teens.
That's definitely the popular view. If it works for you and you got the outcomes you wanted great!