Do you find 'relationships' a contrivance?

No, not if two people genuinely want that. Its only contrived if one of the parties is only involved in the relationship for other reasons, or half heartedly.

I don't really understand what it is with these sorts of debates and the word "natural", which seems to get thrown around a lot, seemingly with no basis. Monogamous relationships happen all the time in the animal kingdom, especially between birds, and it's a fairly effective strategy. Besides, the very design of the human female (i.e. a hidden menstrual cycle, so it's not apparent to the male where she is in her cycle) would suggest that long-term bonding and commitment between pairs is favourable, rather than sex just when she's "in season". Sex has evolved to have an ancillary function in humans (and a very few other species), so that rather than just being about copulation, it reinforces social bonds. I don't understand what's so "unnatural" about that. >_>

I find it rather presumptuous that you think everyone agrees with you "secretly", or subconsciously. I don't want to have tons of casual sex, otherwise I would just do that and not have a relationship.

And as for this ...

"I know that even the most casual interactions with women can make them think you want to marry them or something and they have to get defensive and reject you to claim the upper hand."

... er, what? How often does that actually happen? I have "casual interactions" with men every day and they are just fine and dandy. It sounds like your social circles are a bit messed up ...

Not so much inregards to monogamy, maybe that was a bad point by me. But nevertheless, the pressure on relationships does make people collectively insecure, I know that even the most casual interactions with women can make them think you want to marry them or something and they have to get defensive and reject you to claim the upper hand. That is a product of repression and overemphasis of the concept of a relationship. Everyione has to take it so heavy, like men and women are subdivided. It's all so repressive and jealous.

Ah, I think I may have partially misunderstood your point then, or at least misplaced its centre of gravity on the wrong issue. I don't know, I think I still disagree though. Bonding and commitment are two very important functions in relationships, and one could even argue that it's "natural" (although, like I said before, I hate using that word in debates) for humans to seek out a mate. Our attitudes towards relationships have been becoming increasing liberal though; it's perfectly acceptable for men and women to date and enjoy each other's company without the assumption of marriage, and it's far more socially acceptable for men and women to be friends now (if you'll excuse my Occidental bias). However, there's still that core in which men and women at least seem to be driven to form a pair, so I don't really find it surprising that even casual acquaintance between males and females gravitates towards that goal. I see no problem with it really, aside from the people you mentioned who tend to be overly clingy, but I would be more inclined to put them in a fringe group. I see nothing wrong with societal attitudes towards monogamous relationships - I still think they're very important, and the emphasis placed on them not really unjust.

It's too much pressure. And as for how natural 'serious relationship' style monogamy is, I think that we see that in our westernised way, the Americans especially are hung up on it, having kids young, no sex before marriage etc. If you went to African societies, you would find absentee father or fathers to children from multiple women, with the women looking after those kids, is perfectly normal, as is men who are straight but just freinds being close enough to hold hands. I am morally relativist about such things. We have a myopic view based on our condtioning of what is normal..

I find it rather presumptuous that you think everyone agrees with you "secretly", or subconsciously. I don't want to have tons of casual sex, otherwise I would just do that and not have a relationship.

...

Perhaps it's useless to argue what's "natural" and what's "normal" then, since we could make that case from multiple points of view. Just because said tribes in Africa are less technologically advanced and live a more simple existence, doesn't mean that countless generations of strong cultural refinement has established their polygamous system.

Do you think that monogamy and polygamy should both be equally respected in Western society then? Or just that we should stop focusing so much on relationships in general? If it's the latter point, I'm still inclined to disagree (in fact, I'd disagree on the former too, but with a far weaker argument), because I see those sort of relationships as fundamental to our society. Maybe that's just a belief that's been interpellated into me via representations of those relationships and their importance too. How exactly do you think there's too much pressure to have a relationship though? As in, what forces drive that exactly?

It's more presumptuous for anybody in a relationship to just assume they are better and that you need to be told you can have it too.

Jelkin didn't actually say anything about being better.
Different view =/= Feeling of superiority.

Personally I don't have a problem with casual sex, but don't go picking on the monogamous just because you probably have your own hang-ups about it.
If you don't want them yourself, fine, but most people (myself included) would prefer emotional attachment over casual sex.

(I've tried it and it did nothing for me.)

I think the point is that there needn't be a sharp divide between monogamy and casual sex, and possibly that men and women are too socially divided and tend to interact mostly on a sex basis. The emphasis on sex as a part of an exclusive conventionally romantic relationship *or* as casual is the problem.

Is that it?