Being possessive and being protective are not the same thing, however. The former implies restraining someone despite their wishes, while the latter involves preventing harm in whatever form it may come. Of course, where an action falls between these two depends on the relationship, and can vary greatly between relationships.

As for feeling inadequate, there's nothing wrong with that. I'm just trying to be honest and admit that such feelings are usually the reason why we don't like our partners being sexually involved with others. If it weren't for such feelings, it shouldn't be any problem for us to have healthy relationships that are sexually open.

As for establishing boundaries beforehand, that applies to any aspect of a relationship involving trust. However, does society place too much emphasis on sexual trust instead of financial, social, domestic, or otherwise? For example, society tends to think it's a bigger breach of trust to sexually cheat on your partner than it is to socially "cheat" by lying to get out of visiting in-laws so you can go drinking with the guys or shopping with the girls. I'm interested to hear everyone's views on how important sexual trust is and why.

Anyway, to be fair to the teacher I cited earlier, I'm sure his wife is well-aware of his outlook if he's comfortable with broadcasting it before an audience.

vileru wrote:

As for feeling inadequate, there's nothing wrong with that. I'm just trying to be honest and admit that such feelings are usually the reason why we don't like our partners being sexually involved with others. If it weren't for such feelings, it shouldn't be any problem for us to have healthy relationships that are sexually open.

You're kind of ignoring the fact that humans are animals.  Although humans have big brains and can therefore vary a lot from their instincts, the fact remains that women instinctively want men to be committed because they want to be sure that the man will devote resources to their child, and men want women to be committed so they can be sure that the child they devote resources to is their own. 

And, what's more, your body assumes you will be having children with your partner because your body doesn't know shit about birth control.

Last edited by Tzadeck (2012 May 22, 8:58 am)

I think the most successful strategy is just to be friendly and talk to people like human beings. Tryhard nanpa is creepy and intimidating to most people, so at least don't do it indiscriminately.

@Tzadeck
My issue with many evolutionary explanations for sexual psychology is that they are often post-hoc and either unfalsifiable or untested, i.e. they are made after-the-fact based on sparse evidence, if any, and cannot be easily verified.

It's easy to construct an evolutionary explanation for any behavior, regardless of it's evolutionary significance. For example, we can claim that using a table is an evolutionary advantage because more energy is conserved when reaching for food/drinks, thereby saving energy for hunting, gathering, or escaping. But how do we know that this is the reason why we use tables? How do we even test to verify this reason? The explanation is supported by a mere intuition and its accompanying reasons. Nevertheless, I'm aware that the analogy is a poor one since there are other factors that support the evolutionary advantage of monogamy more than the evolutionary advantage of table usage, such as the fact that humans take over a decade to sexually mature and over two to physically and neurologically mature. Nonetheless, such factors are not strong evidence, and the various arguments from design are proof of that.

I'm not claiming that such explanations are worthless, but they require more rigor than you've given them, especially given the contradictory thoughts and emotions that are easy to overlook to support one's position. For example, if we are wired to be monogamous, then how do we explain promiscuous people or desires to have outside sexual relations? Obviously, the picture is overwhelmingly complex, and involves contradictory thoughts and emotions that fight amongst themselves. At any rate, the first step to determining whether monogamy is instinctual and more psychologically healthy is for a large and random sample of non-monoganous couples to be tested for their responses and relatonship satisfaction compared to a large and random sample of monogamous couples. Without such hard data, the explanation is just speculation.

Last edited by vileru (2012 May 25, 8:18 pm)

Juniperpansy - it appears you didn't read my post - "nonconsenting" is what I wrote. Some lad tried to  kiss my friend's girlfriend without her consent and he battered her. The person  who tried to  do  it was a liberal, effeminate appearing type person  who thought he could take advantage... The girl  verbally said "no"  and he continued with his advances and my friend battered him, which he should have done. I think too many people, fluffy appearing rapists for one, take advantage of today's "liberal" ethos...


Why do you call me a judging  resentful SOB? I just merely stated that some people (male and female) prefer monogamy to polygamy and that should be respected. I don't judge swingers, I know several people who have sex in groups, are into swinging etc, I just have always wanted monogamous relationships and think my and my partner's views should be respected.

I know women enjoy consenting sex but don't think they would enjoy sucking a random cock?

Did I say anything about changing women?

yeah, I saw that... I  was more fussed with the SOB though...I am from the UK and associate it with, and only with the pro wrestler Stone Cold Steve Austin - is it a common phrase state-side?

level of misogyny over 9000 o.O...


Seriously guys (I'm looking at you, juniperpansy), keep it civil.

why should I drop somebody insulting me for no good reason?

Also don't expect apologies from strangers on the internet.  It's not gonna happen.

Having multiple partners means for me personally, I'm searching a substitute to compensate attributes with another partner my other partner lacks. Like this, you could say either both partners are equally special - or random. I guess subconsciously you will always have a preference to one partner, really, although you might say you treat both equally, you love both equally. It's something very difficult being fair about. You will always prioritise in some way. The worst thing to happen really is that you regret having lost a person you really loved and realise afterwards, it was not worth losing him/her, because of someone else. Some people have to lose to realise how precious someone was to them.
I personally do not see an exclusivity as a factor leading necessarily to 'boredom'. It depends on the couple/persons involved in a relationship, though, I think. I think rather that exclusivity as an indication of a deep committment noone else deserves, saying, hey, you're very special to me. We are talking about "love" here, but let's think about more difficult problems in life! What's about accidents that damage our dears? For me only a true and dedicated lover would stay.