Personality Cafe banner
21 - 40 of 82 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
729 Posts
Discussion Starter · #21 ·
Its not naturally better, its dependent on what you desire from other people. People have emotional needs now, more naturally so that sexual needs. If you think people tend to go after their short term sexual needs then monogomy works better. But I think people are rational and choose their emotional fulfillment over everything else.
I don't see why emotional fulfillment can only happen with one person at a time.
 

·
King of Seduction
ENTJ
Joined
·
7,567 Posts
That's beautiful, what your grandparents have. I agree, that is love. And commitment. It takes a lot of work to make a relationship last that long.

But what I think is that, in the meantime, you have to make choices - choices of repressing emotions, of ignoring desires, in order to keep that relationship a monogamous one. And if love is really there, why should we repress anything? Shouldn't we understand and trust that the commitment is enough, despite whoever else is in the picture? Because in the long run, even when there is love, even when you don't act on your emotions for other people, they will be there at some point. Thinking about others could be considered cheating, too; at least, some see it that way.

Being in love and love are not the same to me. Love is a low-key, steady feeling, one you can have in a non-romantic way. Being in love is like passion, being completely drawn into someone in every way - but it burns out after a while, usually before a couple of years. And lust isn't a feeling, but an emotion.

The Differences of Emotions and Feelings in a Nutshell:

Feelings:
Emotions:
Feelings tell us “how to live.”Emotions tell us what we “like” and “dislike.”
Feelings state:”There is a right and wrongway to be.Emotions state:”There are good and badactions.”
Feelings state:“your emotions matter.”Emotions state:”The external worldmatters.”
Feelings establish our long term attitudetoward reality.Emotions establish our initial attitudetoward reality.
Feelings alert us to anticipated dangersand prepares us for action.Emotion alert us to immediate dangersand prepares us for action
Feelings ensure long-term survival of self. (body and mind.)Emotions ensure immediate survival of self. (body and mind.)
Feelings are Low-key but Sustainable.Emotions are Intense but Temporary.
Happiness: is a feeling.Joy: is an emotion.
Worry: is a feeling.Fear: is an emotion.
Contentment: is a feeling.Enthusiasm: is an emotion.
Bitterness: is a feeling.Anger: is an emotion.
Love: is a feeling.Lust: is an emotion.
Depression: is a feeling.Sadness: is an emotion.

Difference Between Emotions and Feelings - success motivation - Authentic Systems
I don't think it's necessarily unhealthy to repress emotion or feelings.
The limbic system has a lot of impulses and urges and the neocortex has evolved to suppress a lot of primal instinct via cognitive function.
I get pissed sometimes and want to smash people in the face but I don't view that as an unhealthy thing to repress.
What if I find myself needing to repress it regularly? Then I think that's unhealthy.
The real question should be why do I want to smash people in the face so often? Where is that coming from?
The suppression of the emotion is a band-aide and if I want to actually stop the bleeding I'd better figure out the source of the emotion.

People who want a monogamous relationship yet continually get urges to sleep with someone else have more then biology going on in my opinion. Whether those issues are generated from within or their partner or something else like family/work/etc is for them to figure out.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
729 Posts
Discussion Starter · #23 ·
I don't think it's necessarily unhealthy to repress emotion or feelings.
The limbic system has a lot of impulses and urges and the neocortex has evolved to suppress a lot of primal instinct via cognitive function.
I get pissed sometimes and want to smash people in the face but I don't view that as an unhealthy thing to repress.
What if I find myself needing to repress it regularly? Then I think that's unhealthy.
The real question should be why do I want to smash people in the face so often? Where is that coming from?
The suppression of the emotion is a band-aide and if I want to actually stop the bleeding I'd better figure out the source of the emotion.

People who want a monogamous relationship yet continually get urges to sleep with someone else have more then biology going on in my opinion. Whether those issues are generated from within or their partner or something else like family/work/etc is for them to figure out.
I think the source of certain emotions is simply human nature. We are not naturally monogamous, it's a social convention. Just like there are countries where poligamy or polyandry is accepted legally. What makes those relationships less valid?

The point of an open relationship/polyamory isn't wanting to go to bed with other people. There are polyamorous individuals who are assexual. They are romantically involved with more than one person, but have no sexual desire for them.

There isn't just one way to deal with feelings an emotions; each person should find their own, I think. It isn't something mandatory or uncontrollable, in my opinion. It's a choice. I just don't see a reason to choose what everyone else does.

That's why I made this thread - I wanted to know the extent of rationalization INTPs put into romantic relationships. Given that romance and love are abstract concepts, and that most people have different views of the exact terms, I don't see why we shouldn't find our own way to experience them instead of jumping into a monogamous relationship just because it's what we usually find.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Trinidad

·
Banned
Joined
·
729 Posts
Discussion Starter · #25 ·
In theory it can if you've conquered jealously, but most people haven't. Hence anything other than a monogamous relationship is unlikely to work long term.
I used to be very jealous when I was a teenager. It was just insecurity, because deep down I knew that it was impossible to be continuously interested in a single person for too long. After all, we can't control what someone else feels or does; we don't own people.
But then I realized that if the other person was honest and open about those interests, my insecurity was replaced by trust - as much as I can trust someone, that is. So that worked for me.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,798 Posts
I used to be very jealous when I was a teenager. It was just insecurity, because deep down I knew that it was impossible to be continuously interested in a single person for too long. After all, we can't control what someone else feels or does; we don't own people.
But then I realized that if the other person was honest and open about those interests, my insecurity was replaced by trust - as much as I can trust someone, that is. So that worked for me.
But its so hard to meet someone else thats:

1. aware of their own insecurities and weaknesses
2. strong enough to share it
3. be aware of other's insecurities and be able to empathize
4. able to develop mutual trust based on all the above

I have yet to personally meet anyone like this. And if I did then yes, the possibility of experimenting with something other than a monogamous might enter my mind. There is just so many mental levels that need to be climbed to make a non-monogamous relationship work. It would require two very very well developed people.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
127 Posts
I think Poly-whatever makes sense like communism makes sense. Good on paper, but given the nature of humanity, fraught with complications in its actual implementation.

Seriously, there would have to be so many "rules," (what acts are permissible? how often? how many different partners? how open is our openness? condoms for everyone?). It sounds exhausting. Personally, I find myself struggling to maintain the relationships I have (with family/friends/kids) much less trying to juggle multiple romantic partners and ensure that their needs get me.

Also, aside from the jealousies, I could see an inherent flaw in the foundation of the relationship in that, despite assurances, deep down the couple knows there is the potential for being demoted or fired. So from the start, I would imagine each person would keep a little in reserve. Do you knwo what I mean? It would seem riskier to go all out.

Having said that, I hear you on the point that all relationships end and that we often end up practicing serial monogamy anyway. And that not one person can possibly meet all your needs.

But for me personally, if I can have an open relationship with someone, it probably means I don't really care all that much about him.

The open/poly lifestyle is probably easier and more appealing for men, who in general like variety and can compartmentalize a lot more easily than many women. I could also buy the argument that those with a T might be able to handle it better than those with an F, again, because it would seem easier for them to compartmentalize and rationalize themselves out of negative feelings.

And I say all this without placing any value judgements on how people conduct their business. Whatever
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
729 Posts
Discussion Starter · #28 ·
I think Poly-whatever makes sense like communism makes sense. Good on paper, but given the nature of humanity, fraught with complications in its actual implementation.

Seriously, there would have to be so many "rules," (what acts are permissible? how often? how many different partners? how open is our openness? condoms for everyone?). It sounds exhausting. Personally, I find myself struggling to maintain the relationships I have (with family/friends/kids) much less trying to juggle multiple romantic partners and ensure that their needs get me.
It doesn't have to be so full of rules. Not more than any relationship. Basically, just being honest with the person/people you're with about your feelings and intentions. No need to complicate it. And I've seen it work in real life, so it's not impossible.

But yeah, it does need a good measure of rationalization at first.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Conclusion

·
Registered
Joined
·
128 Posts
Not much too add... poly could probably work but I'd imagine it would be difficult for most people as it would require serious self awareness on all participants involved on what they want out of it, and it would need to be clearly communicated and agreed upon by them as well. Basically all the main issues a normal relationship would have with more people.

For me?

Monogamous relationship only please. I haven't been looking for a relationship though. (nor am I currently) I wouldn't bother trying to categorize anything that wasn't an actual committed relationship until it got to that point.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,623 Posts
We are not naturally monogamous, it's a social convention.
I think such statements are not wholly true and are used more for justification purposes. The very fact that so many people marry because they want an exclusive relationship speaks volumes. It's sad that it doesn't always work out long term, but the desire in a large portion of the population is very much and very naturally there.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
197 Posts
In theory poly and open relationships make sense. What confounds me though, is the rarity of finding and loving even one person... so where do those poly people find all these people to love? What is the depth of relationships we are talking about?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
729 Posts
Discussion Starter · #32 ·
I think such statements are not wholly true and are used more for justification purposes. The very fact that so many people marry because they want an exclusive relationship speaks volumes. It's sad that it doesn't always work out long term, but the desire in a large portion of the population is very much and very naturally there.

One thing is saying that monogamist relationships are the best option for you. Another entirely different is saying that marriage is evidence that we naturally desire to be monogamist. You are talking about western civilization, and of a somewhat recent event in human history. Don't generalize.


"Whenever people talk about traditional marriage or traditional families, historians throw up their hands," said Steven Mintz, a history professor at Columbia University. "We say, 'When and where?'" The ancient Hebrews, for instance, engaged in polygamy — according to the Bible, King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines — and men have taken multiple wives in cultures throughout the world, including China, Africa, and among American Mormons in the 19th century. Polygamy is still common across much of the Muslim world. The idea of marriage as a sexually exclusive, romantic union between one man and one woman is a relatively recent development. Until two centuries ago, said Harvard historian Nancy Cott, "monogamous households were a tiny, tiny portion" of the world population, found in "just Western Europe and little settlements in North America."
How marriage has changed over centuries - The Week

Through most of Western civilization, marriage has been more a matter of money, power and survival than of delicate sentiments. In medieval Europe, everyone from the lord of the manor to the village locals had a say in deciding who should wed. Love was considered an absurdly flimsy reason for a match. Even during the Enlightenment and Victorian eras, adultery and friendship were often more passionate than marriage. These days, we marry for love—and are rewarded with a blistering divorce rate.
Marriage, a History | Psychology Today

Although, scientists discuss the evolution of monogamy in humans as if it is the prevailing mating strategy among **** sapiens, only approximately 17.8% (100) of 563 societies sampled in Murdock’s Atlas of World Cultures has any form of monogamy (although these account for much larger than 17.8% of the World population).[SUP][50][/SUP] Therefore, “genetic monogamy appears to be extremely rare in humans,” and “social monogamy is not common, … often reduc[ing] to serial polygyny in a biological sense”.[SUP][41][/SUP] This means that monogamy is not now and probably never was the predominant mating system among the hominid lineage.
Despite the human ability to avoid sexual and genetic monogamy, social monogamy still forms under many different conditions, but most of those conditions are consequences of cultural processes.[SUP][41][/SUP] For example, during times of major economic / demographic transitions, investing more in a fewer offspring (social monogamy not polygyny) increases reproductive success by ensuring the offspring themselves have enough initial wealth to be successful.[SUP][41][/SUP] This is seen in both England and Sweden during the industrial revolution[SUP][41][/SUP] and is currently being seen in the modernization of rural Ethiopia.[SUP][55][/SUP] Similarly, in modern industrialized societies, fewer yet better-invested offspring, i.e. social monogamy, can provide a reproductive advantage over social polygyny, but this still allows for serial monogamy and extra-pair copulations.
Monogamy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
729 Posts
Discussion Starter · #33 ·
In theory poly and open relationships make sense. What confounds me though, is the rarity of finding and loving even one person... so where do those poly people find all these people to love? What is the depth of relationships we are talking about?
The depth varies within people, not nature of the relationship.
 

·
黐線 ~Chiseen~
Joined
·
5,241 Posts
tangent, sorry... pertaining to mmo's vs real life, i've often come across jealous partners who are married in real life having issues with their SO's marrying their alter ego's avatar off to a stranger online. Some in ridiculous jealousy that lead to divorce amongst other relationship issues.

On one hand, I find that humorous.... but on the other hand, it feels wrong to say "it's just a game..."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
679 Posts
I'm a bit surprised that everyone is treating this as being all about sex. Maybe from a distance that's what leaps out at you, but I'd say it's about intimacy, and the openness to seeking that outside of the standard categories of relationship.

And FWIW, I don't think it helps to argue which is more "natural." Social creativity is not and does not have to be "natural" in any sense, so long as its based on an authentic commitment from all involved and not something oppressive. Now, posting like a freight train:

I can't say I want children for sure but if I do I would want to be exclusive with the mother.
Funny you should mention, 'cuz I'm the other way around. Maybe I'm overgeneralizing from my own experiences, but raising kids in a two parent household (as opposed to a twelve parent household) sounds kinda grim to me. Maybe this is the sort of thing I'd reconsider at thirty, but I really can't see myself having kids in any other situation.

Emotions needs must be met with stability and polyamogy cannot fulfill that.
How do you know that "polyamogy" can't fulfill that? If stability is what you're after, relationship styles don't guarantee that and can't themselves follow through on that. Only people in relationships do or can.

It would require two very very well developed people.
It takes two very very well developed people to make any relationship work, does it not? Of the people in this thread, I'll wager that most of our monogamous relationships are now over -- does that mean that monogamous relationships are inherently problematic and we should reconsider? Or is it just that we aren't perfect, we try anyway, and relationships end? Why should we expect anything different of open relationships in this respect?

I don't think it's necessarily unhealthy to repress emotion or feelings.
You'll be repressing something either way -- either it's your desire for intimacy with folks other than your partner, or whatever jealousy you haven't yet driven before you. Which would you rather repress? If you love your partner, which would you rather ask them to repress?

Seriously, there would have to be so many "rules,"
You have to communicate like a mofo, but rules? Not really. :p

(And honestly I'd imagine it'd be easier for Fs, for this reason. I maybe wasn't great at that.)

but on the other hand, it feels wrong to say "it's just a game..."
Yeah. If you ask me (or rather Coke Talk) cheating is "willfully participating or conspiring to participate in an act of intimacy with the foreknowledge that your partner would reasonably consider that act to be a breach of the mutually understood and agreed upon terms of the relationship." Honestly I can kinda understand if "marrying off the character you play for 8 hours a day" would fall into that category.
 

·
King of Seduction
ENTJ
Joined
·
7,567 Posts
I think the source of certain emotions is simply human nature. We are not naturally monogamous, it's a social convention. Just like there are countries where poligamy or polyandry is accepted legally. What makes those relationships less valid?

The point of an open relationship/polyamory isn't wanting to go to bed with other people. There are polyamorous individuals who are assexual. They are romantically involved with more than one person, but have no sexual desire for them.

There isn't just one way to deal with feelings an emotions; each person should find their own, I think. It isn't something mandatory or uncontrollable, in my opinion. It's a choice. I just don't see a reason to choose what everyone else does.

That's why I made this thread - I wanted to know the extent of rationalization INTPs put into romantic relationships. Given that romance and love are abstract concepts, and that most people have different views of the exact terms, I don't see why we shouldn't find our own way to experience them instead of jumping into a monogamous relationship just because it's what we usually find.
Eh I don't really buy into the biology perspective that it's human nature and I got my degree in biology haha.
In fact you kind of counter-argued yourself because things that are supposed to "human nature" are independent of the influence of culture yet ideas of monogamy seem very individual and culturally influenced. I look at it like the thing that is best to raise a happy, healthy, well adjusted child. I think a relationship where both parents are present regularly for the child is the healthiest and that the most likely relationship to do that is monogamy. That's why I choose monogamy. I never said this was about placing my values onto someone else though, I thought this was a discussion of what I preferred?

People can have whatever relationship they want, but if they wish to get into a relationship with me then they'd have to monogamous. That's what I give and expect in return.

At the end of the day these are my ideals but my ideals are always subject to change.
 

·
King of Seduction
ENTJ
Joined
·
7,567 Posts
Funny you should mention, 'cuz I'm the other way around. Maybe I'm overgeneralizing from my own experiences, but raising kids in a two parent household (as opposed to a twelve parent household) sounds kinda grim to me. Maybe this is the sort of thing I'd reconsider at thirty, but I really can't see myself having kids in any other situation.
Just because you're in a monogamous relationship doesn't mean people can't help you raise your child. I have a big family and of course they'd have a role. As the saying goes "it takes a village to raise a child" that doesn't mean the village needs to be people you're romantically involved with.

You'll be repressing something either way -- either it's your desire for intimacy with folks other than your partner, or whatever jealousy you haven't yet driven before you. Which would you rather repress? If you love your partner, which would you rather ask them to repress?
Obviously I'd rather repress the desire for intimacy with someone else. I'd rather ask them to repress the same thing I repress.

I think that's fair enough. Also I don't really buy into thinking that you'd always need to repress something. I have spoken to people who said they didn't get urges to sleep with other people and I have no choice but the believe they're being honest with me. I also don't think the idea of sleeping with someone else is a big deal to repress, I don't get cold sweats or something. Really just comes in my brain like: woah wonder what she looks like naked... kind of like saying: I'd really like to t-bone this asshole driver to prove a point. It comes and it goes, not a biggie to me.

For me I have enough people I love in my life. I don't need to seek out romantic partners to be fulfilled. Most of my life I've been single and most of my life I've been quite happy and fulfilled.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
729 Posts
Discussion Starter · #39 ·
Eh I don't really buy into the biology perspective that it's human nature and I got my degree in biology haha.
In fact you kind of counter-argued yourself because things that are supposed to "human nature" are independent of the influence of culture yet ideas of monogamy seem very individual and culturally influenced. I look at it like the thing that is best to raise a happy, healthy, well adjusted child. I think a relationship where both parents are present regularly for the child is the healthiest and that the most likely relationship to do that is monogamy. That's why I choose monogamy. I never said this was about placing my values onto someone else though, I thought this was a discussion of what I preferred?

People can have whatever relationship they want, but if they wish to get into a relationship with me then they'd have to monogamous. That's what I give and expect in return.

At the end of the day these are my ideals but my ideals are always subject to change.
Yes, I asked what you people preferred. :) I was just questioning the reasons why you prefer it.

I don't think I counter-argued myself. I think it's natural for us to have feelings/desire more than one person throughout our lives, but what is culturally influenced is how we express it. We learn that it's healthier, better to do something in a certain way, and at some point we can't even consider different options.

Like saying it's better for a child - nothing guarantees that a monogamous couple has a healthier relationship. I know about an open relationshp where the daughter grew up just fine, and is even more mature than other girls her age. And there are innumerous couples with unhealhy relationships that stay together for the kids sake, but do more harm than good.

Anyway, I understand that you like monogamy better. Most people I know do too. I was curious to know if being an INTP would make much of a difference, but apparenty not in this subject. :)
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
729 Posts
Discussion Starter · #40 ·
Just because you're in a monogamous relationship doesn't mean people can't help you raise your child. I have a big family and of course they'd have a role. As the saying goes "it takes a village to raise a child" that doesn't mean the village needs to be people you're romantically involved with.



Obviously I'd rather repress the desire for intimacy with someone else. I'd rather ask them to repress the same thing I repress.
I think that's fair enough. Also I don't really buy into to thinking that you'd always need to repress something. I have spoken to people who said they didn't get urges to sleep with other people and I have no choice but the believe they're being honest with me. I also don't think the idea of sleeping with someone else is a big deal to repress, I don't get cold sweats or something. Really just comes in my brain like: woah wonder what she looks like naked... kind of like saying: I'd really like to t-bone this asshole driver to prove a point. It comes and it goes, not a biggie to me.

For me I have enough people I love in my life, I don't need to seek out romantic partners to be fulfilled in fact I don't need a single partner to feel like I have love in my life.


And again, intimacy is not necessarily sex. Desire for intimacy does not equal desire to jump in bed with someone. Just thought I'd try to make that clear... After all, I didn't have sex with everyone I've been in a relationship with.
 
  • Like
Reactions: donquixote
21 - 40 of 82 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top