Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[wierd]

Nope, the trysts of such birds do not involve nest building, chick rearing, or feather preening.  It is strictly "On the side" cheating.  They form monogamous pair bonds, with rampant cheating.

[martinuzz]

You see then, casual sex does not lead to mental repatterning problems with bonding

[dragdeler]

-

[wierd]

You see then, casual sex does not lead to mental repatterning problems with bonding

In birds.


It DOES in prairie voles (straight up tested), and it shows signs of doing so in humans, based on behavioral questionnaires and meta analyses. (which is why the prairie voles are used as an animal model for experiments.)

[Il Palazzo]

You see then, casual sex does not lead to mental repatterning problems with bonding

In birds.

But it does in blokes?

[Eschar]

Many people are justifiably/understandably leery of claims of impaired pair bonding because those were the cause of one kind of those purity culture analogies, the sticky tape kind (the other kind is the ones teaching you that if you have premarital sex you are a piece of chewed gum and no one will want you - not because they want to avoid possible STDs, they just won't want you)

[wierd]

You see then, casual sex does not lead to mental repatterning problems with bonding

In birds.

But it does in blokes?

Despite a long history of study, consensus on a human-typical mating system remains elusive. While a simple classification would be useful for cross-species comparisons, monogamous, polyandrous, and polygynous marriage systems exist across contemporary human societies. Moreover, sexual relationships occur outside of or in tandem with marriage, resulting in most societies exhibiting multiple kinds of marriage and mating relationships. Further complicating a straightforward classification of mating system are the multiple possible interpretations of biological traits typical of humans used to indicate ancestral mating patterns. While challenging to characterize, our review of the literature offers several key insights. 1) Although polygyny is socially sanctioned in most societies, monogamy is the dominant marriage-type within any one group cross-culturally. [b]2) Sex outside of marriage occurs across societies, yet human extra pair paternity rates are relatively low when compared to those of socially monogamous birds and mammals.[/b] 3) Though the timing of the evolution of certain anatomical characteristics is open to debate, human levels of sexual dimorphism and relative testis size point to a diverging history of sexual selection from our great ape relatives. Thus, we conclude that while there are many ethnographic examples of variation across human societies in terms of marriage patterns, extramarital affairs, the stability of relationships, and the ways in which fathers invest, the pair-bond is a ubiquitous feature of human mating relationships. This may be expressed through polygyny and/or polyandry but is most commonly observed in the form of serial monogamy.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fevo.2019.00230/full

It would seem so.

Further reading with primate model

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5107580/

[Il Palazzo]

Birds and blokes. You missed the joke.

[wierd]

Apparently...  I do have a rather stilted sense of humor, especially about sexual matters.

[The Ensorceler]

Weird, that large text block says serial monogamy "repeatedly broken pair bonds" is incredibly common, with a side of polygamy.

I'm gonna counterpropose that childrearing should explocitly acknowledge nonmonogamy, and that you are obsessed with keeping people monogamous because society's pretense that monogamy is feasible has removed non-monogamous family arrangements from the window of public acceptability.

Sure, stepkids happen, but they are seen as difficult, people stay married or *get* married 'for the sake of the kids', and just... it all feels wrong to me I guess. Extended non-nuclear family should be more involved, the success of monogamy shouldnt be what makes or breaks a kid's ability to have more than one caregiver, and with x > 2 caregivers assumed from either/both partner webs and extended family, it would be much easier to cut out a toxic caregiver or otherwise have a single link break without putting all the pressure on the final remaining caregiver.

All of what I've mentioned exists. But it isnt seen as the norm, despite low-partner-count superior-pair-bonded monogamous couples that last decades being *rare*. Trying to build a society out of an idealized relationship that's mostly fiction doesnt work at all, and trying to force people to me True Monogamous won't work very well or help the kids born to average folks.


(Also just... it feels like you're trying to preserve virgin brain states and fetishizing the 'one partner, ever, til death do us part' thing that has repeatedly been pushed in different parts of the US mostly by different churches and carries a lot of unpleasant examples of people being publically shamed and bullied, or when it works drastically underprepared for a serious relationship up to and including abuse being assumed as normal.)

[wierd]

The issue here, is that there is still exclusivity in such a poly amorous arrangement. (Which is distinctly NOT the same thing as "Mom has a new fling every week")

This means long-term social association with those persons, and long term potentiation of those relationship webs.  This is definitively NOT "I just want the sex, not the relationship" levels of casual sex, which is what I am against.


You are interjecting your own bias here.  Please be aware of that.  I am not at all interested in some church pusher's agenda.  I am not some crypto-apologist for poisonous worldviews that come from religion (which do not descend from reason or data, but come from "GOD SAID SO!! OBEY!" instead, and any time you try to dictate reality like that, bad things happen.)


The metastudy stated that while polyamorous relationships are very common in human social groups, even among those populations there is a major pairbond in that grouping, between 2 people, statistically. 

You are attempting to get "Orange" from "Fiji apple, and Macintosh apple."

You can't get there.  Casual sex is an orange.  Polyamorous relationship is a fiji apple. Monogomy is a macintosh apple.  While both the orange and the fiji are sharper tasting, the orange is not equivalent to the fiji. 

Since this forum tends to be analogy challenged--

Casual sex is explicitly defined as "Not permanent relationship".  The practitioners are AFTER this "NOT A RELATIONSHIP, JUST SEX" nature.  The biology of humans is to form long lasting social relationships, and sex is a very profound biochemical mechanism to form those relationships. The relationship hierarchy is simply larger in the polyamorous group, not chaotic.  It is always the same individuals, and there is long-term retention of individual relations. This is why both monogamy and polyamory are "apples", and the casual sex is an "orange."  They are fundamentally not the same thing.  The neural repatterning happens, when the brain stops forming those relationships, because it has to keep pruning relationships from its associations networks (because the indivuals are never seen again.)  Once that repatterning happens, it becomes much harder for the person to have a DESIRED patterning.  In the cases of "repeat booty calls", that association is retained, and a "relationship happens ANYWAY." which is why such arrangements "Get weird", basically always, and why the notion is a lie.

That is the argument.

Not "MONOGMY! OBEY JESUS! ONLY ONE PARTNER EVER! OMG! SECHS IS BAD!"

Please dispose of those notions. They are not what I am peddling here.

[Eschar]

"Casual sex is explicitly defined as "Not permanent relationship".  The practitioners are AFTER this "NOT A RELATIONSHIP, JUST SEX" nature."

The latter statement does not follow from the former. Impermanence doesn't dictate what precisely the people want out of the relationship. They could simply want a non-permanent relationship... like the definition says. That doesn't imply they're in it for "NOT A RELATIONSHIP, JUST SEX" - only that they're in it for a non-permanent relationship. Even when sex is involved, which in the type of relationship we're discussing (casual sex/one night stand), it by definition is.

[wierd]

The dictionary definition of "casual sex", is explicitly stated, and I have given it at least 3 times now.  It is EXPLICIT in its attestation that it is "JUST SEX."

The practitioners (Of casual sex), are explicitly after this.


The notion that you can have that (Just sex-- no relationship) is the lie.  Your brain starts throwing down all kinds of sensory information about your sex partner the moment you start getting aroused, and burning it into your synapes that very moment. Going all the way to orgasm, prints that person on you pretty damned indelibly.  Your brain has to LEARN to stop doing that, in order to have that "Just sex" you want.  Once it does that, unlearning it is very fucking hard.

[The Ensorceler]

I didnt say you were making arguments from religion, weird. I said it felt similarly fetishistic of other people's sex lives.

And while I'm poly, I was mostly talking about serial monogamy and ways for communities to raise children without relying so hard on the parents to do everything in isolation. That could be grandparents, siblings, the same relations from a partner's family, etc. The perfect pair of self-sufficient and eternally pair bonded parents is a fiction.

[wierd]

The notion of them being "Perfect" was never asserted.

Where did you get that from? Quotations please, and when you cant find one, I want an apology. I am getting angry.  I am tired of repeating this over and over again, and arguing against perceptions of what was stated, rather than discussing what was stated.