
Why Happy People Cheat - pmcpinto
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/10/why-happy-people-cheat/537882/?single_page=true
======
dalbasal
_Priya’s affair is neither a symptom nor a pathology; it’s a crisis of
identity, an internal rearrangement of her personality. In our sessions, we
talk about duty and desire, about age and youth._

and...

 _" “You think you had a relationship with Truck Man,” I tell her. “Actually,
you had an intimate encounter with yourself, mediated by him."_

This article (and others like it) make me kind of think that (A) much of
psychology should not be treated as an objective science (2) Objective science
is not the only useful contribution. Therapists don't have to be scientific.

People get a lot of relief from being able to narrate their life and their
feelings. They find beauty or comfort in exploring motivations (from a
subjective POV). It can be liberating (and effective) to act within a
narrative, to have names for things. A lot of our best art is dedicated to
this sort of thing, especially romantic literature.

For abstract truth, I don't think most of this article describes it. In the
abstract, I think the answer to the question is simple: (1) People (on
average) are semi-monogomous, like a lot of animals. (2) It's hard to use
cultural conventions to restrict people's sexuality. see exhibit I "The Gays."

That doesn't mean that a therapist should just tell this lady "you were just
horny."

------
jaimex2
It's simple.

Some people value an exciting encounter over their current relationship,
people can have an addiction to the rush or have felt numb for too long.

Over simplifying - there's nothing wrong with their current phone but some
people will rush and buy the latest to get the buzz of a new gadget.

They weigh the chance of getting caught and damage it will cause as lower than
the excitement and fulfilment of a new fling.

We've all been there, seeing someone attractive from the opposite sex and
having thoughts of an encounter. Whether you chose to act on it or not depends
on your integrity and empathy. Some people have more than others.

~~~
testestx
I just want to give a name to this for whoever want to Google more: novelty
seeking.

~~~
nojvek
I think it's part of how we're wired. Some people more than others. To seek
that dopamine hit again.

------
samirillian
Yeah, it might be able self discovery, but it might be about enacting a
narcissistic fantasy. The author is right, you reconstruct yourself in the
other's gaze, you slake your thirst with the other's mouth. But what kind of
self are you constructing here? And what power will your own fantasies have
over the person with whom you conduct the affair?

~~~
jrs95
Yeah, I don't think the normalization of this obviously selfish and
destructive behavior is a positive thing at all.

~~~
dalbasal
The selfishness and destructiveness of the behaviour is very closely related
to the norms it violates. Homosexuality was (and is) destructive to families
in communities where it considered abhorent. Premarital sex too. In fact, the
ban on premarital sex and the ban aon adultery are closely related.

People have a hard time suppressing their sexual urges. But, many sexual urges
we once considered immoral & destructive are now seen differently.

------
virgil_disgr4ce
The reason it's ostensibly confusing is that the standard narrative of human
sexuality—one sexual partner for life after getting married—is, forgive me,
completely batshit insane. That's not to say that people haven't done it.
People do, of course. And that's not to say that that's wrong or something,
either. But the _expectation_ of total 'fidelity' for life is unreasonable.

For more on this subject I recommend the book "Sex at Dawn."

~~~
nkrisc
I think it's a waste of breath to promote or condemn one mode of relationship
over another. All that matters is what you and your partner(s) agree on for
the terms of your relationship.

~~~
virgil_disgr4ce
Of course. But the problem is the _expectation_ at large in the macroculture
(I'm speaking largely of American macroculture, where I live) of monosexuality
by participants of all sexes. In other words, it's a sociocultural problem.
Are there people who have figured out how to escape it? Yes, but still a
minute fraction. Furthermore, the judgement those people (myself included)
face by family and sometimes friends is another part of the problem.

~~~
nkrisc
Agreed about the real problem being societal. My point was that claiming that
humans are "meant" to be monogamous or polygamous or whatever is an empty
debate when we have free will and can decide for ourselves what sort of
relationship we want.

------
emodendroket
> there is always a suspicion … that one is living a lie or a mistake; that
> something crucially important has been overlooked, missed, neglected, left
> untried and unexplored; that a vital obligation to one’s own authentic self
> has not been met, or that some chances of unknown happiness completely
> different from any happiness experienced before have not been taken up in
> time and are bound to be lost forever.

In my opinion this quote sums up not only the thesis of the article but also
one of the primary diseases afflicting our society.

~~~
zzalpha
I tend to agree, but I think it's pretty deeply rooted, and it's _not_ a new
thing by any stretch. I reject the idea that this is somehow a particularly
modern dysfunction.

As children and young adults people are taught to "pursue their dreams" and
"find their passion" and many other aspirational platitudes.

Then, adult life comes along and most of us become decidedly average because,
well, that's statistics for you.

But many are then left with this feeling that they've somehow failed. That if
they'd taken that other road that diverged in that wood a ways back, maybe
they'd be living that fantasy life that they were sold.

What we're not taught is how to be happy in the present. Aspiring to change is
vital to improve ourselves and the world around us. But equally valuing and
appreciating what we already have is every bit as important.

~~~
emodendroket
Hm, well, I think it is fair to say the cult of the individual has a pedigree
a few centuries long, but it seems to me like the collapse of groups and
institutions (everything from religion to social activities like bowling
leagues, really) and generally more atomized relationships have removed the
fetters preventing it from reaching its most extreme expression. I guess this
claim risks veering into "things were better in the good old days" which isn't
really what I mean.

~~~
zzalpha
Yeah, I dunno about that.

Groups and institutions are great for creating additional social pressures
that discourage people from violating morays. But unless you couple that with
a fundamentally different set of values, I don't see how they are a solution.
If anything, they create additional strictures that encourage the kind of
rule-breaking behaviour the article talks about.

~~~
emodendroket
What I'd say is that such institutions help temper the view that the self and
short-term utility for the self are the ultimate good.

~~~
zzalpha
Again, that presupposes a different set of values.

Consider common American Evangelical beliefs that focus on praying for
specific material or personal gain (such as good health). This is nothing more
than religion blended with "the cult of the individual". As such, I have
little reason to believe those institutions would create better outcomes.

~~~
emodendroket
I think in all but the most extreme cases, even then, there will be an
interest in the health and well-being of the whole community, prayer lists for
parishioners who are ailing, and so on. Perhaps not for the TV guys who preach
out of converted sports arenas but I think it's a little questionable if that
really represents a community.

------
creatrixcordis
This is an interesting documentary regarding different relationship structures
from the independents themselves.
[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4716560/](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4716560/)

------
howeyc
Maybe because the idea you can romantically love only one person is idiotic?

You can love more than one sibling, more than one parent, more than one sports
team, more than one... you get the idea. Yet, when it comes to romantic love,
nope, just the one.

------
jrs95
Because shitty people can still be happy people.

------
creatrixcordis
This is interesting, a old friend once said: "If a woman wants to cheat on
you. She will cheat on you while holding your hand"

Now that the chauvinist statement is out of the way. Men cheat too. :)

I don't think anyone can say that monogamy has anything to do with raising
children. I do not see why the barbarous requirement for having sex with one
person needs to even be there in the first place. I don't have the same car
for the rest of my life, don't drink the same thing or eat the same thing
every day for the rest of my life either. Why not be able to taste other
flowers in the garden as well. That does not mean i don't love or care about
the mother of my child. As long as i take care of my responsibilities
regarding my children. I see no reason why this requirement is imposed by
society. Other than pure culturalism and brainwashing, which one could argue
is indirectly the same thing.

Maybe it has something to do with possession. Maybe insecurity that my wife
will like John's dick more than mine or love his Porsche more than my Buick.
Don't you want to find that stuff out early about your partner vs later...
Isn't your partners ability and her/his care for your children more important
than who he/she wants to screw every once in a while. I definitely agree that
if your partner is a nympho, well maybe you should not have stuck your dick in
crazy to begin with or pretend to embody the white knight syndrome to it's
full extent.

I think this "monogamy" business matters way more when the people in the
relationship are unequal to begin with. If they are equal , financially for
example, which i feel matters a lot when you are co-raising your children. You
do not feel as betrayed because, as far as your hard earned resources are
concerned, she/he is not taking any, only the children are. So who cares who
your partners wants to screw in their off time. Which leads me to think of the
next possibility, possession. My oh my, this person is mine and mine only. Lol
It's 2017, we do not hit women over the head with cave man bats and drag them
to our layers. But in some countries i guess we still do and we expect them to
shut up when we tell them to and bring our beers over to the couch or else
they won't get the credit card the next time they go to the mall. Wait, i just
realized i just described some people i know. :) There are only a few feedback
loops you can take advantage of. Lol

Parents can parent without marriage or monogamy. Why can't they?

This is leftover idealism imposed by the church and land-rights interest
groups from ages ago. It just so happens it was enforced and people attempt to
adhere to it. But obviously the statistics are against their success. The more
women become equal and educated. The more divorce there is and the less babies
get born. If those things are happening, i don't see any reason why changes in
the family structure should not happen as well.

Usually a systems homeostasis usually communicates something about the nature
of it's processes. The divorce rates should tell us something. Now that the
gloves are off regarding divorce being taboo or being shunned by your social
circle, this is if you are living in a country which does not look down on you
if you don't want to put up with your partners bs anymore and leave. If you
do, well clearly you are living someone else's life.

------
xxxdarrenxxx
I sought professional help to deal with life influencing jealousy and doubts.

What helped me deal with this, is to find out that I undervalued myself and
overtly dedicated myself to my partner.

Once you don't view your life as the relationship, but you and your
relationship, u will be on a good track.

Most people will notice that if they meet a cute someone and don't see them
for a few days, they don't occupy themselves with all these doubt too much.

It's when you sacrifice or throw a big part of yourself onto pleasing the
other within an ensuing relationship, is when you lose yourself and become
insecure and doubtfull.

------
ohdrat
One is enough for gods sake

------
Giorgi
Oh so people get bored with just one partner for their entire lives? Shocker.

~~~
dmuch
This was a long essay that could have just been summarized as "Priya's bored".

------
yodsanklai
I'm surprised by the moralistic comments and downvotes...

EDIT: I removed the rest of the comment as it apparently offended many people.

~~~
kbart
_" And I would be fine if my partner saw someone else too."_

So why _cheat_ then and not talk to your partner openly and come to an
agreement? I know plenty of couples that let each other to have other
partner(s), and that's totally normal. Playing with another human being
feelings, on the other hand, is not imho.

------
crsm345
I wish social experimentation and progress happened at even 5% of the speed of
technological progress.. why don't we just get rid of the idea that you 'own'
your partner's body? It seems arcane and based in insecurity. If you can't
handle even the slightest of erotic competition, how solid can the basis of
your relationship be?

(Sorry for the overly controvesial wording if my post, I realize that filing
more open relationships under 'social progress' is not obviously right, and
would love to hear alternative perspectives, especially from people in stable
happy long-term relationships)

~~~
simonsarris
When I look at polygamous/polygynous societies today and in history, I'm not
sure I see "social progress."

In fact, for whatever its pitfalls may be, it appears that monogamy solves a
large number of social ills that are perhaps larger than polygyny's own. Like
large bands of males cast out with no prospects, so they resort to not-so-
progressive behavior.

Like the vikings: 'Polygyny created a pool of unmarried men motivated to
engage in risky behavior to increase wealth/status/prob of entering marriage
market'

[http://www.ehbonline.org/article/S1090-5138(16)30307-5/pdf](http://www.ehbonline.org/article/S1090-5138\(16\)30307-5/pdf)

Or the Lost Boys:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_boys_(Mormon_fundamentali...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_boys_\(Mormon_fundamentalism\))

Or certain other religions and tribal areas that may promote such behavior
today as a side ffect, which may promote other lost boys to, I don't know,
join ISIS in hope of getting some of those dear wives of their own too, one
way or the other.

Perhaps you file this under "not my problem." Maybe its not your problem, but
it definitely presents a social problem, and you're suggesting that poly-* may
be social progress. I don't think that plays out in history.

~~~
colanderman
> it appears that monogamy solves a large number of social ills that are
> perhaps larger. Like large bands of males cast out with no prospects, so
> they resort to not-so-progressive behavior.

So the acceptable "solution" to this imbalance is to socially force (through
normalization of monogamy and marriage) women into relationships with less-
desirable men? Why shouldn't men be expected to be more attractive mates? Why
not blame the patriarchy for creating a power imbalance that favors polygyny
over polyandry?

EDIT: For those doubting that patriarchy plays a role, consider that both the
Mormon [1] and Arabic [2] worlds have historically been strongly patriarchal.
I don't know about the Vikings.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormonism_and_women](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormonism_and_women)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Arab_societies](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Arab_societies)

~~~
Nursie
>> So the acceptable "solution" to this imbalance is to socially force
(through normalization of monogamy and marriage) women into relationships

If you read into polygamous societies, it's often that (particularly very
young) women are forced into relationships with socially powerful men. Not
much to do with attraction.

~~~
colanderman
To me, that sounds like a problem caused by patriarchy or other power
imbalances: in many societies, men have great power (earning potential), women
have little, and hence are forced to marry (preferably the richest man) to
gain power.

Of course you can address the symptom (women choosing the wealthier/more
powerful men, leaving the men who are less-so without a mate), but the
underlying disease remains: womens' choice whom to marry is hampered by lack
of societal standing.

Better to address the disease (patriarchy). Women are no longer forced to
marry "up" (addressing the power issues polygyny belies); men no longer are
forced to focus on being earners, so those who would be low-status under
patriarchy (due to lack of earning potential) can instead focus on developing
other traits (e.g. homemaking) which would make them attractive to female
earners.

~~~
Nursie
I don't think you've quite understood my last comment.

It's not really about men being high earners or having some sort indefinable
social capital that makes women "marry up" in most examples of polygynous
cultures AFAICT, it's literal force. It's not women choosing to marry the man
with the most power or wealth, it's cultural and religious forced marriage, on
threat of ostracism, familial disgrace or much worse.

Yes, it is a problem caused by patriarchy, they tend to be highly patriarchal
societies, the ones where men routinely have more than one wife.

~~~
colanderman
> It's not women choosing to marry the man with the most power or wealth, it's
> cultural and religious forced marriage, on threat of ostracism, familial
> disgrace or much worse.

No, I get that – my point is, there's not much difference between social
pressure to marry someone wealthy because you were not raised to be a
breadwinner and thus would starve if you didn't marry up, and social pressure
to marry someone in high social standing because you'd be ostracized
otherwise. Social pressures that prevent women from _gaining_ power and thus
being forced to marry to get it, are not that different from social pressures
that explicitly force women to marry powerful men.

> Yes, it is a problem caused by patriarchy, they tend to be highly
> patriarchal societies, the ones where men routinely have more than one wife.

Which is exactly my thesis: patriarchy is the _cause_ , polygyny is the
_symptom_. Applying a band-aid of normalized monogamous marriages to ensure
mates for low-status men (as the GP insinuated) addresses the symptom, and
ignores the cause.

(You see the same thing with prostitution BTW – prostitution is "bad" because
it places desperate women in a position where they are taken advantage of by
clients. But banning prostitution doesn't fix anything – you still have women
who see no other earning potential than selling sex. The real problem is
patriarchy that creates such a large class of women with no independent
earning potential in the first place. Fix that, and the problem of
prostitution-from-desperation diminishes greatly.)

~~~
Nursie
>> No, I get that – my point is, there's not much difference between social
pressure to marry someone wealthy because you were not raised to be a
breadwinner and thus would starve if you didn't marry up, and social pressure
to marry someone in high social standing because you'd be ostracized
otherwise.

Sorry there's a f*ck of a lot of difference between choosing a partner that's
a breadwinner, and being put through a forced marriage.

>> Social pressures that prevent women from gaining power and thus being
forced to marry to get it, are not that different from social pressures that
explicitly force women to marry powerful men.

They are significantly different in consequence, IMHO, even if the cause is
different only in matter of degree.

>> Applying a band-aid of normalized monogamous marriages to ensure mates for
low-status men (as the GP insinuated) addresses the symptom, and ignores the
cause.

I don't consider that a band-aid particularly, it seems something a lot of
people want out of life, and the question of "status" somewhat orthogonal. I
also don't think the parent post advocates any sort of enforcement of this,
but just looks at outcomes.

~~~
colanderman
So you really believe that physical coercion to marry high-status males is
_caused by_ (i.e., is an "outcome" of) the practice of polygamy? Forced
polygyny does not just _happen_ , someone has to have the power to force it.
That someone exactly he who benefits from the practice: _high-status men_ – by
definition, the patriarchy.

Is being physically coerced to marry someone worse than being economically
incentivized to? Of course, I'm not arguing that. Is being formally ostracized
for refusing to marry someone of high status worse than being informally
ostracized for refusing to marry someone of low status? Yes, but by degrees.
Yes, you can replace formal ostracism with informal ostracism by normalizing
monogamy, but it's still going to happen so long as a patriarchal power
imbalance remains in place.

(Doubt that informal ostracism happens? Women who choose not to marry have
historically been excluded from mainstream society in western society. Hence
the trope of the isolated spinster/widow, and the prevalence of prostitution
as a means of earning for women who choose to stay single.)

~~~
Nursie
>> So you really believe that physical coercion to marry high-status males is
caused by (i.e., is an "outcome" of) the practice of polygamy?

No, I believe that when we look at historical or contemporary examples of
societies or sub-cultures in which polygamy is practised, we tend to see
forced marriages. I'm not saying either is the cause of the other, but that
they are associated, and I agree very much that they both take place in highly
patriarchal societies.

I'm also not sure why you keep talking about status and what your issue is
with people choosing monogamy. You don't have to if you don't want to, and
it's no longer the case that a woman can't support herself adequately.

~~~
colanderman
> I agree very much that they both take place in highly patriarchal societies.

Then why are we arguing?

> what your issue is with people choosing monogamy

I have no such issue? You are putting words in my mouth. Perhaps this is why
we are arguing.

All I take issue with is the GP's assertion that polygamy is the cause of the
"lost boys" problem. I claim it's not, patriarchy promulgated by high-status
males is. Remove polygamy and all you've done is democratize power among
males, without addressing the problem of patriarchy. Remove patriarchy and
polygamy is no longer problematic.

> it's no longer the case that a woman can't support herself adequately.

Western society has made strides in that direction, yes. And beside the
decrease in social ostracism of single females, it is argued that the rise of
feminism has driven the rise in consensual polyamory [1], supporting my above
point.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyamory#Philosophical_aspect...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyamory#Philosophical_aspects)

~~~
Nursie
>> Then why are we arguing?

I'm not really sure.

>> All I take issue with is the GP's assertion that polygamy is the cause of
the "lost boys" problem. I claim it's not, patriarchy promulgated by high-
status males is.

I'd say it's an intermediate cause, or even an immediate cause and the
patriarchy is at the root of it in all examples that we have to look at. If,
somehow, consensual polygyny became the norm then we could end up with some of
the same societal problems re: pools of unmarried/unattached men.

>> Remove patriarchy and polygamy is no longer problematic.

Well sure, no longer problematic in as much as no longer forcing people to
marry others, but it may still cause societal problems. I'm not advocating it
be outlawed for those reasons, FYI, just looking at possibilities. I do think
it's fairly unlikely that widespread polygamy would happen outside of the
patriarchal constraints, and certainly I'm not sure I know of any examples of
polygamous societies having existed without such.

Polyamory is a different beast entirely of course.

------
lsd5you
So affairs are 'wrong', but who would want to live in a world where there are
no affairs?

We excessively police and punish our partners, our friends' partners and our
parents, but often hypocritically, when it comes to ourselves and our friends
cheating will generally be forgiven.

I am not even advocating abolishing the hypocricy. Without it affairs probably
wouldn't be exciting and equally, faithful relationships wouldn't be as
meaningful.

What is more, having broken up a long term relationship with children (with
objectively plenty of cause), and having not had an affair what I can say is
that for a woman this can be even worse, as it leaves them without something
to be mad and and just feeling unvalued. (It probably goes both ways for both
genders, but in my view it is something that is clearly not symmetrical in
Male-Female relationships).

However what I do think is wrong are ill feelings to the point of death
threats and hatred (which I experienced) even if there is infidelity. In this
situation can someone really claim to have loved someone in the first place if
they value their life outside of the relationship so little. When this is the
basis of someones feelings then the relationship/marriage is a kind of tyranny
in my opinion.

~~~
jwalgenbach
Yeah, that's crap.

Let's translate that philosophy to other "wrong" activities, shall we?

"Spending money is more exciting when it's stolen. Saving is much more
meaningful if there is the possibility that someone can steal it."

"Life is more meaningful when someone is actively trying to kill you. Murder
is much less exciting because it's wrong."

You see the problem? The notion that actively doing something awful to someone
else makes what they have meaningful, and what you are doing exciting is just
selfishness and justification.

You don't like monogamy? No one is forcing you into it. Unhappy with your
[life | partner | marriage | whatever] and you think the answer is outside
your agreed upon monogamous relationship? End it. Divorce is legal. Breaking
up without marriage is even easier. There is no tyranny is a relationship you
enter into of your own volition.

You have children? Don't be an asshole and hurt their other parent because you
have issues. End the relationship before starting another one. Be the person
your children can respect.

The other person in the relationship? Don't be that. Because you are being a
party to deceit. No, you aren't the one cheating, and that justification only
goes so far, but it still shows a base selfishness that informs your
character. You ought to expect to be hated, because that weakness and
selfishness that makes up your character is the instrument that harms someone
else. In the pain that is being caused, you are the weapon that is being used
by the person cheating to hurt their partner.

~~~
lsd5you
Yes, but I am speaking as someone who did just break up with someone. Amazing
how noone can actually read that part and just jumps to long ranty insults.
Confirmation bias is going to be especially common if you delete words when as
you read. (I assume you are addressing me when you say 'you' this and 'you'
that).

The reality of my case is (well it's a complicated story) that it may well
have gone better for them psychologically if there was a clear betrayal on my
part. Maybe mine is an extreme case, and in anycase knowing what I know
wouldn't have made me cheat - I would rather be in the right - but then again
it's easy to say that ...

Everyone seems to be taking such an absolute position. Which is ridiculous
really since it really is culturally relative e.g. in france they are much
more permissive of affairs - with certain thrown in social conditions about
being discreet - and again it is not to say they are saying it is right -
neither am I, just that it is not such a huge bad to deserve all the vitriol -
like I'm getting for even discussing the matter.

What is clear is I would never make promises to people with such puritanical
attitudes like yours. Clearly it would be a one sided contract since I would
be much more forgiving and less entitled and on top of that given the way of
hypocricy quite possibly less likely to cheat. Again, if I may argue by
analogy, like the anti-gay politicians who are gay, I wonder wether the people
who are so anti-affair are infact liable to do so or have done so themselves.

Of course there can be tyranny in a voluntary relationship, because you cannot
predict the future and you can be bound (by e.g. caring more about the
children, or social pressure) to suffer.

Some people are fools when it comes to relationships. They may know there
partner cheated in the past, they may know they have generally sexually
permissive attitude and are unreliable with their promises. Yet the outrage is
still there nonetheless. You cannot make something into something it is not. I
may as well get outraged if my partner doesn't become a millionairre or
doesn't look like a supermodel after a certain age.

And just because you can make analogies, doesn't make it right. Somethings are
better (for some people) with some danger of a bad outcome. e.g. Extreme
sports. Yes, I just don't think you can equate murder or theft to having an
affair. Both are actions against a stranger. Now if one partner misspends a
large sum of shared money then that is an ambiguous situation which is worth
comparing.

------
stared
Just be polyamorous (see e.g.
[https://polyfidelity.org.au/about/polyamory/education/121-th...](https://polyfidelity.org.au/about/polyamory/education/121-the-
diversity-of-love-relationship-concepts),
[http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/04/06/polyamory-is-
boring/](http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/04/06/polyamory-is-boring/)).

If there is a need to have multiple partners instead of going the "traditional
way" (one official partner + cheating or some shady don't ask don't tell
arrangement) it seems much healthier to openly discuss needs and boundaries.
We shouldn't just accept "system defaults" if they are not optimal for us.

In my local poly community (Warsaw) there is a lot of nerds. I tend to view it
as a hacker's approach to relationship.

~~~
jaimex2
What do you do when someone gets pregnant?

~~~
Nursie
From the poly relationships I have observed - you talk about it with all
involved, have a discussion about how the kid's going to get raised etc etc.
It can get complicated depending on who is living where and such stuff. But
then AFAICT everything in poly relationships takes quite a lot of thought and
planning.

I think contraception and planning when you're going to have a kid and who
with becomes even more critical.

Too much effort for me!

------
TheSpiceIsLife
Infidelity is as natural as taking a shit. I think we're culturally
indoctrinated to get worked up over infidelity, less so for defecating.

------
staticelf
TLDR; It is possible to like more than one individual.

I for one doesn't understand why anyone would marry except for economical
benefits/security.

Personally, I would much rather have 2 or more girlfriends/partners who enjoy
me and eachother than a marriage with one. Since I believe that the male sex
drive is bigger than that of women, I don't understand why I should be limited
to just enjoy one other woman. However, this is hard to do because many women
like the idea of marriage and have this impossible romantic view of the world.
Love is not static, sometimes you love someone more and sometimes less. This
changes over time just like everything else. But in our upbringing we learn
from movies and our culture that love should be this static, non-changing
thing and of course it will not work in a world that changes all the time.

A lot of marriages fail, probably because people change over time and we don't
always like that. Let's just be more open and enjoy ourselves when we have
such a short time alive.

EDIT: I understand that my opinions can be controversial, but you don't really
have do downvote just because you do not agree with them.

~~~
tonyedgecombe
_I would much rather have 2 girlfriends /partners_

There always seems to be at least one partner in these relationships singing
their praise through gritted teeth.

~~~
staticelf
I have no experience of such relationships so I cannot really say anything
about it except that I want one :)

