Modern/Progressive relationships

actually I find your pov narrow minded everything you say boring, repetitive and you to have no intelligent opinion. Basically it is going around in circles and you have very bad social skills, childish as displayed by your last message, unable to consider alternative points of view, trying to turn everything into an argument and competition in which you wish to hammer your narrow pov in an endless circle of posts which are basically the same thing back and forth. It is one of the least desirable things for me to do with my time right now to continue or get sucked into an endless internet argument with someone, when I really only wished to make one point which is that the definition of monogamy currently used does not live up to traditional monogamy (as the OP mentioned). Everything else here (the back and forth between us) I consider a mess which shouldnt even be here.

They are getting more and more popular, they are by no means a tiny minority. That link you posted if you took time to read the comments you would have seen most people commenting how they're in non monogamous relationships but you just overlooked that. Just accept it, monogamy is dead.

It says perhaps 5% of people are actually in non-monogamous relationships with up to 30% of men and half that of women willing to try them. I will take the stats over the comments.

The agreement itself is based on sex, which implies that they find the idea of their partner having sex with someone else upsetting to have come up with such an agreement in the first place. Otherwise why would they not be bothered about their partner having sex with someone else, but then for some reason come up with an agreement that their partner wont have sex with someone else, and then be upset not that their partner had sex with someone else but that this pointless agreement was broken. Obviously the agreement, the breech of trust etc.. only exists because of the idea of their partner not being with someone else. Otherwise why dont they have an agreement their partner wont eat cheese instead? Or anything else. No the agreement and trust you are talking about revolves around the idea that they should not sleep with other people. Yet you expect your partner to have slept with other people and say its fine everyone has a past.. at the same time. I find it stupid.

All the arguments people could use to justify your partner having a sexual past could be used to justify your partner sleeping with people whilst being with you and vice versa e.g. you can say

"oh youre only bothered about your partners past because youre insecure about their exes".. and "youre only bothered about your partner sleeping with other people whilst being in a committed relationship with you because youre insecure about their other lovers".

"you dont want your partner to have a past because you are controlling want to feel like you own them".. and "you dont want your partner to be with other people whilst with you because you are controlling and want to feel like you own them".

"You think your partner owed you loyalty before they even met you, how could they know they wanted you before they had met you whilst they were sleeping with all the other people, but they met you now and now they're happy with you"... and "How can your partner truly know you are the one she wants to be with if she is not allowed to meet and have sex with other people whilst being with you, they are with you now, they can also be with other people now too and if you are truly meant to be then they will like you the most out of everyone theyre with and you'll stay together"

etc.

The idea that people should be hugely upset for their partner to sleep with someone whilst theyre together, but fine with their partner to have a past, ironically probably stems from insecurity the most, ironic becuase these same people may claim that people who have a problem with someones sexual past are insecure. So the two ideals are actually fairly similar I think, the current cultural version is just the most regular and easy comprimise, it's not a perfect format which makes a lot of logical sense or can be argued, like you are arguing for this interpretation and arguing against all others. In reality, it isnt like this. and yes to me either monogamy (only ever having one partner) or polyamory, where you arent bothered what order your partner has sex with people in, make the most sense.

The agreement comes from the cultural idea that when you are in a relationship with someone you exclusively have sex with that person. Yes that is ultimately arbitrary, as you pointed out with your cheese example, but the point is that an agreement is still being made. Having sex before a relationship is by definition not a betrayal as no agreement is broken, whereas sex with another person during the relationship does break an agreement and so is a betrayal. While the act is the same it is the breach of trust that makes the latter worse in most peoples eyes. In instances where that agreement is not made (for example open relationships) the same action is not a betrayal, because once more no agreement is being broken. So it is not the action but the context of it being a breach of trust that makes it wrong, which is hardly an irrational concept.



Well yes, obviously. I admit that monogamy is ultimately arbitrary, and there is nothing wrong with open relationships. However if you have entered a monogamous relationship and then sleep with somebody else you have broken an agreement. It doesn't matter that the agreement was arbitrary, you were trusted to keep it and you broke that trust.


I do still disagree with the "owing your partner something before you met them" thing though. You can disapprove of what they have done in the past, but if they weren't with you it can't be a personal attack on you.




I do understand what you are saying, that it is irrational to claim monogamy while actually seeing multiple people in your lifetime, but I think you are missing the point of why people have multiple monogamous partners. People have partners for more or less the same reasons as in your "truly" monogamous relationships, but it comes with the understanding that those relationships don't always work out. A previous relationship is just a failed version of what you are trying to get right in your current one. So a committed relationship with somebody who has previous sexual partners is not the same as them sleeping with others during the relationship, because in the former their objective is to only ever have to sleep with you in the future.

I don't know about you but i'd rather have one everlasting open relationship rather than countless failed monogamous relationships. Monogamy doesn't work, humans are not monogamous they never have been. Stop going against your nature and pretend you're monogamous when you're not.

Well personally I'd rather have a childhood sweetheart where we'd just be best friends and do really innocent stuff like make valentines cards for each other in like year 1 of primary school or something, not even kiss or anything because that's gross! Then maybe drift apart a little as I'll be playing football and messing around with my guy friends, but still have a soft spot for each other, then maybe get a little closer by like year 6 or something, then we'd go to highschool and I'd do my own thing like play fight/wrestle, football at times, but we'd maybe walk home together? and look after each other in school sometimes like if she was having a bad day.. then maybe by like year 9 we'd be like officially bf and gf and have our first kiss either of us has together, and maybe we'd start going out in a group of friends together, having fun.. then by year 10 and 11 it would be going out getting a little drunk at the weekend sometimes, going to parties with awesome trance music. Then say by first year of sixthform/college I'd get my driving licence and we can drive around to places, I think this is the time we'd lose our virginity to each other as well. And then by now we're really in love.. we'd look after each other in college, show an interest in each others work etc.. then maybe we'd end up going to the same uni.. or different ones but it wouldnt matter we'd see each other lots.. then after uni we'd get a house and live together. Then this is a person I've known my whole life, I know everything about her, we know everything about each other and love each other so much! Were each others crush since we were really young, each others sweethearts, and weve experienced everything together, our sexual history and stuff is not a mishmash of other people.

That is what I would want the most! It's not possible though because I am already way too old now and thats not going to happen ha. the love of my life wasnt in the same school as me and always around me.. and I even went to an all boys highschool lol.

If I could choose though I'd choose that for myself.

Your point still isnt relevant though and is just making it go around in circles, I've already explained that it's nonsensical to say that it's not the sex which is upsetting but the broken agreement, when the agreement is that you wont have sex with other people, it's nonsensical for the agreement not to have sex with others to exist to be an issue in the first place if your partner having sex with other people wasnt an issue. You cant address this point but go back to saying "its not the sex thats the problem its the broken agreement" which is why I say it would just go on and on in circles endlessly. It is an incredibly irrational concept that a pointless agreement should be in place in the first place in your version that what the agreement is based upon doesnt matter. The only thing that makes sense is that the agreement not to have sex with other people is made because your partner not having sex with other people is actually important. Which is why only true monogamy or polyamory where you have sex with whoever at any time make sense.

yeah thats one of the reasons why I need to get out of this country

yeah and I want to travel a lot anyway, I want to go from the middle east across to South East Asia. See Gaza and Jerusalem, Iran, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Burma, Thailand, Vietnam.. and whatever in between :P I think It'd be awesome.

Nearly everyone who's in a relationship today is in a modern relationship, modern usually meaning having a partner but having an agreement to have sex outside the primary relationship or even having multiple lovers. Very few people have a traditional monogamous relationship where both partners are exclusive to eachother, I don't know a single couple like this. Do we see monogamy as being all but dead and will all relationships in the future be open? Discuss.

thanks and lol no ladyboys arent really my thing. I dont think I really have a thing tbh, in the past before I was ever in a relationship for the longest time I was just really loyal to the idea that one day I'd find my "soul mate" and we'd share everything together. Now idk. Who knows, never say never, what happens in Thailand stays in Thailand right.

What people do you know?!

I've only met people who are exclusive to one another.

I'd rather have one completely monogamous relationship than anything else. Plenty of people make it work and live long, happy lives together. I see nothing unnatural against it, many wild animals are monogynous by nature.

Lol plenty of people? Your grandparents perhaps yes, that was a very long time ago. It's time you adapted to the modern climate and stop believing in this fairytale romance nonsense it doesn't exist, neither does the tooth fairy, father christmas or any other fictional being or tale you were led to believe as a child. Time to grow up and get out in the real world young man.

Normal everyday people like me and you, although I tend to socialize with highly intelligent individuals with degrees and work in highly important jobs, not sure if that has any correlation to non monogamy but i'm just answering your question.

Sounds great in theory, impossible in practice. Fairytale romances simply don't exist, especially in the social media era where your options to have many partners is endless and cheating is so common. This is why I myself have gone MGTOW, I have no intention of ever being in a relationship with any women, I feel this way i'll save any future heartache and agony I would have inevitably faced had I chosen old fashioned monogamy. This is why I favour non monogamy/open relationships, although I wouldn't personally be able to keep up with that lifestyle I feel people who are not monogamous are generally happier, healthier and a lot better off than those pretending they're monogamous. True love and commitment died a long time ago, it's time people got on board with that and adapted to modern day soceity.

I know plenty of people my age and older who have been making monogamy work for a long time. If it works for them who are you to criticise it? I really don't see why you think everyone should be in open relationships. If you're not enough to satisfy your girlfriend and she needs to go see other people then that's fine, I won't think any less of you for it, but don't assume everyone else has the same problem.

I certainly don't think any less of people who choose to be monogamous, i'm just putting my views across that monogamy doesn't work and in the digital era it's impossible to expect any individual to remain monogamous or faithful in this day and age. I'd love to discuss this further with you but i'm very tired and my bed is calling me, I bid you goodnight.

The solution which you said isnt monogamy though, it's polyamory, but just sleeping with all of these multiple people one after the other instead of at the same time as each other. What is irrational is to on the one hand place huge value in your partner not sleeping with other people whilst being with you, and on the other hand place zero value on your partner not sleeping with other people during any other time of their life. That is quite a ridiculous contrast. Far more ridiculous to me than, if you are going to place value in monogamy, making a large effort to end up with the right person first time (e.g. concerning with marriage rather than dating, not dating young but waiting to meet someone when older, having family involved to help etc.. like in many countries such as India, Pakistan etc).. or if you are secure enough, happy etc for your partner to have sex with other people in the past then why not in the present also? ("Because it's breaking the agreement/commitment!" but why have the agreement/commitment to not sleep with other people as well as your partner whilst you are with them in the first place if them having sex with others does not bother you...) The reason you find the bolded part ridiculous is because you have just adopted the cultural norm of your own culture, not because this version actually makes any sense. I already told you that I think the modern western version is a poor and irrational compromise which doesnt make a whole lot of sense when you think about it.