Uechi-Ryu.com

IJ

Don't know that I could consider "passionless" as also being "loving and wonderful."

Something about those 2 distinctions seems contridictory at a fundamental/basic level.

Presuming that to actually be the case I would agree.

In terms of "opinion."

"read the book"

Seems like an interesting thesis. But I know for a fact that one can make anything seem rational. And their are often multiple ways to spin data.

The fact remains that pair bonding is the general rule. "Other" forms tend not to be widespread or embraced by many.......as I mentioned even in nations that allow multiple spouses....people that actually have multiple spouses are often in the great minority.

"You can love multiple kids"

Perhaps because one often raises children from infancy.........it would seem resonable that if you suddenly found out that you had a child you didn't know about for say 20 years, that you would feel less of a bond as to that of child you raised from a newborn.

"Breastfeeding non-biological shared kids"

Again, infants for which humans seem hardwired (in general) to bond with. How those children feel about those folks when they grow up is an open question. As if the breast feeders feelings about all the childern they nursed.
A "wet nurse" was (and is, as as far as I know) a common enough person. Hard to think that a wet nurse feels that all the kids she nursed are just like her own children.

There are always "what if's" and they can be delt with on a case by case.

"There is definitely something to be said about the obvious thing that happens when a couple permits each other to outside relationships."

A-Not sure there is enough hard data on how many people "permit" such things.

B-My guess is that what qualifies as "permission" might be very different depending on just whom you ask.

"Honest multiple fidelity"

I'd say that is false choice in that I don't agree that such a thing is really possible.
Even when the sun is shining and things are looking good there are only so many hours in the day and only so much time.
Consider, between work, possible children, friends, martial arts training, family obligations, etc.......exactly how much time do you think you have for more than one person?
I don't think that many people would have the time or the energy to provide "fidelity" to more than one person.........someone is going to be left out.

And that is when things are going well........a crisis with a single significant other can be draining.......what happens if there is crisis with 2 or 3 people at once?

Just not convienced that a person can provide true "honest" commitment to multiple people. I think someone is always going to lose out.

A buddy of mine, back in his younger days, often used to "juggle" 2-3 girls at once. Never lied to anyone, was always very open that he was seeing other people.
3 things are worth mentioning.

1-None of the girls would tolerated it for long. None of them.

2-He was "exhausted" much of the time because of the various demands on his time, energy---physical, emotional, mental etc.
He'd go over and help one paint a room, then help another shop, then meet another for drinks. Have dinner with one. Get called over at 2 am to fix aleaky faucet and stay for the night. Then rush back to his place to get ready for work. Have lunch with one. Sit with another when her dog died. etc.
Since he had little time he negalected his buddies. And his work suffered as well. Only so much time to go around.

3-He was unprepared for his feelings of anger and betrayal when he saw a girl he was dating out with someone else.
My guess is that "double standard" is deeper in the psyche than one might think. he of all people was not in positon to be offended....yet he was. Deeply so. He dumped her the next day.

There are only so many hours in the day. There are only so many projects you can actually be responsible for at work. There are only so many jobs you can do in a day.

So why should a persons personal life be any different?

_________________
Forget #6, you are now serving nonsense.

HH

"In other words, you have to admit the possibility that your culture has evolved for the better in some respects when you consider how it might be changed."

Agreed. The authors make their case that humans have probably been a lot sicker and less happy since agriculture, but I certainly don't want to go back. It's also interesting to look at this from an evolution perspective--not that things evolve to improve, but that they evolve toward a better fit for their environment. It's not "steady progress" toward some "betternesss." And we have to acknowledge there must be a reason things went the way they went. On the other hand, I think diet is a decent analogy. Our current practice is harmful to us. And our current pairing behavior certainly seems to be troubled by lots of infidelity, divorce and discontent. I wouldn't do anything butput options on the table for people to talk about, but I do think it would be nice if people COULD talk about this. In the present environment, the presumption would be a person wtih two mates is a cheat (though s/he may have been completely honest with both) and that if you tell your wife you miss passion or are attracted to someone else, you don't love her. That hardly follows... and hardly leads to honest discussion.

_________________
--Ian

"Don't know that I could consider "passionless" as also being "loving and wonderful."

Simple. Many long term couples have little sexual excitement or frequency anymore, but love each other dearly (think of "lesbian bed death"). Almost everyone understands that passion fades with time (unless something new happens, as with the Coolidge effect) but love actually grows. They're related, they go together, but they're not directly linked.

"Seems like an interesting thesis . But I know for a fact that one can make anything seem rational."

I don't think you want to totally blow off a thesis or book without knowing enough about it. You CANNOT fairly judge the conclusions unless you bother to avail youself of the data on which the conclusions are based. As for your following ideas:

1) pair bonding is the "general rule," and the book explains why. Their feeling is that this model developed alongside agriculture, not for bad reasons, but for real ones. This nevertheless puts us in conflict with our nature. And they point out over and over that there are so many exceptions to the "general rule" that it becomes a weird rule. Serial monogamy. Dating multiple people. Affairs. Discomfort with monogamy. And so on. If pair bonding is the rule, so is adultery, as we find it even where they stone you to death for it.

2) I don't see how the ability to love multiple kids (that you raise from infancy) means that you can't love multiple people or have a primary partner and one or more other partners you really do care about as well.

3) Breastfeeding--I'm not trying to say that because some cultures will breastfeed multiple kids from the village that we all need extra spouses. I'm saying that there are a variety of really fascinating exceptions to the "rules" about parental investment and the importance of paternity that we THINK we know and THINK are evolutionary in origin. These rules aren't from biology, they're not "natural" but instead are just our culture talking. I am merely saying it doesn't have to be that way. There are lots of examples of variations on pair bonding. In the book.

4) "I'd say that is false choice in that I don't agree that [honest multiple fidelity] is really possible." Ok. Opinion noted. I don't know what to tell you other than there are lots of people living this way in our culture right now, living this way in very different cultures right now, and lots of people who lived like this in the past. You might feel it's tough to maintain, or not advisable in modern culture, or something you don't want--but to claim it's not really possible? You are factually incorrect on that point.

5) As for your story about your friend, it didn't work for him. I know this other guy who was unhappy being married to one person his whole life and wasn't allowed to date other people and they got miserable then divorced and now everyone hates everyone else, so monogamy failed. Neither story alone is proof of anything. They're just anecdotes. Open relationships are at a disadvantage these days because of how they're viewed by our culture, which doesn't mean that you should rush into them (or rule them out). It means they may be tougher in some ways. 100 years ago, spending your life with your same sex partner was waaaay too hard but now it's not, so these things change. This is and will remain a choice, so there's no real issue to argue about other than whether it's a good idea or not, and that is really up to the participants.

Fact remains though, the book does a good job of establishing it did and can work and that the "marriage ideal" is not natural nor anything but a recent addition to our cultures.

_________________
--Ian

Well, I don't feel the need to tell her about it when it happens, since for me is too frequent to mention, but we have discussed and both accept the simple fact that being attracted to beautiful people is natural and harmless. Sometimes she even likes to play a game trying to predict who I might like, although I'm afraid that even after 26 years together I am something of a mystery to her. She cannot quite understand, for example, why Ashley Greene doesn't interest me. I cannot explain it to her. I just know it when I see it. Fortunately for me, my wife's got it in spades.

_________________
Mike

You're not alone, Ashley Greene doesn't do anything for me either (and I had to google her).

_________________
--Ian

You guys are nuts...don't like Ashley Greene?

Just send her over my way will you

_________________
Van

Thanks Van-Sensei!
Finally back to the stuff I can't get outta my head now!

"What handkerchief?"

(and kind of, sort of "on subject") Fortunately for me that my wife also "has it in spades" to quote a phrase...

_________________
Van

Like a wildcat ready to pounce

_________________
Van

IJ

I don't know what tell you IJ---I think its a reach that you equally love multiple people---the idea that you can love multiple kids is predicated on being around them from childhood.
My feelings for the friends I have had since I was a kid are stonger than the feelings I have for friends I have made recently.......its just how people work.

"You cannot fairly judge the conclusions unless you bother to avail yourself of the data."

A-Open question as to if you have seen all the data either. Or if you know how it was gathered, questions asked etc.
You seem willing to accept the conclusions without having all as well.

B-Sure I can, its up the person that makes the claim to defend it......that it is so easy to find logical "problem areas" and counter arguments with what little has been presented should be a red flag for the overall conclusions.

C-That the conclusions are largely speculative, in that nobody has a time machine to go back and check how things "really" were done back in the day.

C A-The oldest codified laws from as far back as we can check had rules/laws pertaining to adultry and even "primitive" hunter gatherers in the recent past had pretty serious penelties for women sleeping around.
So I'd guess that whatever examples the author can produce there are more counter examples.

D-Even out closest animal relatives (bobono's aside) become hyper violent when somebody else tries t co-op "their" mate. Males and females both.........and sure both sets sometimes fool around.....but the anger over it seems hardwired into them.......so I doubt its wholly cultural.

"many long term couples have little sexual excitment or frequency anymore"

And how do you know this?

What counts as "many?"

And how trustworthy is the source for that?

And maybe the solution is spending more time working on their relations instead of seeking new partners.
Maybe if they spent as much time working on their current relationship instead of the time and energy in getting and maintaining a new relationship, they would not be having problems.
Hey if were going to speculate might as well be thorough.

(Plus according to the logic expressed above will no doubt become a situation in which "many long term couples have little sexual excitment or frequency" which would require another new partner and then another and then another.......)

"if pair bonding is the rule then so is adultry"

Ok, fair enough..........but I would posit that there are probably as many people that don't commit adultry as that do.

Some people simply can't be trusted.

In terms "lots of people" (your term) that live that way now........I'd again check the actual numbrs of people that currently live in places that allow multiple wives ......and the number of people that actually do it.
A friend of mine is from Afganistain---he is from a social class that could afford multiple wives and the State (att the time) encourges it-----yet few people he knows did it....for a range of reasons.

Besides, why bother to go thu all the stuggle to be able to "marry" at all if your just going to skip all that "fidelity" stuff and move right to an "open" arrangement?
Multiple relationships would seem to create more confusion about whom had "rights" to what than the present situation.

Actually this seems to heading into another arguement so if it is all right with you I'll drop it here.
If that is not "OK" with you I'll be happy to respond......seriously.

_________________
Forget #6, you are now serving nonsense.

HH

Ummmm... to connect this with the topic these others seem to be discussing...

Van-Sensei, Do you think we could get consent from the other ladies in our lives if we wanted to spend some "blue time" with Ms Greene? Are our chances with Ms Greene about the same as they are with Uma Thurman... slim & none? Could we get ALL of our desired ladies to join us at once? Could we HANDLE it if they did? Would we die happy TRYING to handle it?

Curious minds want to know!

(Then again, I'm sure that my lovely bride would tell me that if I thought there was someone better to go ahead... And I wouldn't because I don't! )

Panther,

You ask some interesting questions....

In the end...it is all about 'who has the most toys wins'

And we know as kids...it was difficult playing with all our toys at once...but lots of fun in trying...

_________________
Van

You send me Salma Hayek, and I'll send you Ashely Greene. Deal?

_________________
Mike

Unfortunately, I am reminded of a Toby Keith song with a lyric that went like "I'm not as good as I once was, but I'm as good once as I ever was."

_________________
Mike

Deal...

_________________
Van