couples fighting are fun and all, but but have you seen Albert Einstein between his legs???
Girl is like 75% legs and 20% cheeks goddamn
We need a sub for pictures of couples who have fights in public.
Crazy videos community is too empty. Need more Dennys and Waffle House fights
It was my favorite scroll back on reddit. Car crash, fight or crackhead it had such a nice variety.
Fuck her. She wont pay the insurance premiums or taxes.
Alternatively could be done over the phone while pacing nervously just outside of the door
you just know its somehow related to suspicions of infidelity. amatonormativity is a curse.
I mean, if you’ve consented to a monogamous relationship and your partner violates that consent it’s a big deal.
If they find that certain aspects of the relationship aren’t compatible with what they want and they can’t work it out, they should leave the relationship. Notbl saying it’s easy, but that’s part of the responsibility that comes with being in a committed relationship.
or you could just… not force yourselves to be exclusive. we already cant get all our needs met by a single person, why force yourself to get all your romantic and sexual needs met by one person? the relationship might not need to end if you both had others to lean on.
That’s fine, but you need to be open about it with your partner. If they’ve consented to an open relationship, great. Otherwise its not ok.
Cheating is unnecessary. Find someone who shares your values instead of lying to yourself or your partner. Then this wouldn’t be an issue in the first place.
Also, in another comment chain you made a statement about monogamy being unnatural. So, what if it is? There are plenty of societal expectations we have that go against human nature that most people would agree are beneficial. For example, fighting is a basic human instinct. It’s done to assert dominance, protect or vent frustration amongst other reasons. This can be even noticed in animals. But, in our society the expectation is that you restrain yourself instead of becoming violent. Unnatural =/= bad.
Just some food for thought.
i agree cheating is unnecessary. the point is that its evidence that people want more partners, but the prevailing societal pressures push people into monogamous relationships against their own desires, so they cheat because its more in line with what they really want.
yes natural doesnt equal good, that would be an appeal to nature. but people want to be nonmonogamous, and pressuring them not to isnt really a good thing at all. i mean can you even see the ridiculousness of comparing violence to wanting to love more than one person? pressuring people into monogamous relationships at a societal level is bad. you might not think thats happening but it is.
I think you need to preface this by saying “You have no desire for monogamous relations” but you absolutely can not say “All people want to be polyamorous”. Only some people do, and it certainly would be nice if they were not pressured into something that doesn’t work for them.
I acknowledge that societal dating pressures exist. That being said, claiming that individual preferences are illusionary trivializes individual preferences altogether. Whether or not the preferences comes from a societal pressure, doesn’t mean its invalid. If anything, believing otherwise can be dangerous. For instance, if a woman doesn’t wants kids, that’s not necessarily a bad thing. Claiming that they’re wrong because there’s a biological desire for humans to reproduce would be obnoxious.
That’s all to highlight that others individual preferences should be respected. This includes both monogamous and non-monogamous preferences.
As for the comparison between fighting and romance I made, it wasn’t to claim that these two things are similar in substance, rather I was saying they’re similar in origin.
Natural doesn’t supercede consent. Again, if everyone is OK with an open relationship its fine, but condoms aren’t natural and its clear that removing a condom without consent just because that is more natural isn’t ok.
amatonormativity: the normalization of amatos?
its basically the set of ideas and assumptions related to traditional romantic relationships. you can read more about it here. it includes the idea that sexual relationships must be exclusive and restricted to a single romantic partner to be valuable and fulfilling. humans, contrary to popular belief, are not monogamous. hence the constant failing battle to force us into monogamous relationships and all the interpersonal drama that results from our failure to maintain a standard so against our nature. the prevailing notions of romantic relationships, amatonormativity, are thus a curse that only serve to hurt us. as usual all of this really only benefits rich people, who forced the standard on the rest of us, much like keeping lawns. weird how all our problems somehow wrap back around to rich people huh…
humans, contrary to popular belief, are not monogamous
Contrart to popular beliefs, humans don’t have only a single way of doing things, I want to have only one gf and wouldn’t feel comfortable or happy with two or more, my best friend? She has currently 1 boyfriend and 1 girlfriend
It’s like saying "humans, contrary to popular belief, are all hetero’
Also, you forget that you can cheat even in a relationship with more people
i dont see how what you said contradicts my statement. i said humans are not monogamous, meaning in general. nonmonogamy can take many forms. the impulse to cheat is evidence of a desire for more partners. it sounds like you misread what i said.
Not everyone has an impulse to cheat or a desire to cheat. Some are happier in monogamous relationships, others are happier in something polyamorous or open. There is no wrong way to build your close relationships as long as all involved want the same thing.
the problem is society pushes people to have monogamous relationships and bars them from having legally protected nonmonogamous ones.
If you don’t mind, could you please elaborate on how this really only benifits rich people. I can not quite follow how this conclusion can be drawn.
humans, contrary to popular belief, are not monogamous
Please support this statement with proof.
As far as I’m informed this isn’t true. Or let’s say, such preferences and “imprinted behaviours” are all over the place. Some are monogamous, some are not.
are thus a curse that only serve to hurt us
I don’t see how I should be hurt by being with my wonderful spouse for over 10 years. I don’t even want anyone else. I wouldn’t even be able to build such a strong and deep bond with anyone else. It takes a lot of time and effort to cater it. Even if I wanted to (which I don’t), there wouldn’t be enough time for anyone else to get to a similar level. So in this case, this is not hurting in any way. To the contrary, it is the optimal constellation for a relationship in my case.
There are plenty of people who are like this and are happy with it. And of course, there are also people who are not. But I don’t think either alone is “our nature”. We, as humans, are both and have a whole spectrum behind it.
as usual all of this really only benefits rich people
Please elaborate, because I do not see how happy monogamous couples benefit the rich and are therefore a standard that was “forced upon us”.
No one forced me. And I began being open for any kind of sexual and romantic preferences, including types of relationships, early on. Never really felt pressured into one or the other. I chose this, voluntarily.
Also, fuck lawns. :)
you can find the proof for yourself. do a little research on anthropology. also see the high prevalence of cheating across romantic relationships… or maybe you prefer to ignore that because its inconvenient to your position. just because you personally are fine with your personal monogamous situation doesnt mean that humans are naturally monogamous. hell your partner might not really be ok with it. for all you know they might just be keeping up appearances. theres plenty of evidence to support that we arent monogamous, but to be honest youre not worth trying to convince.
maybe you could read up on the history of marriage to see what i mean. monogamous marriage exists primarily to handle the inheritance of wealth, which is something that really only matters to rich people who have something worth inheriting. the one form of marriage has been codified into law for hundreds of years. didnt you notice how hard we had to fight for gay marriage? you still cant have a marriage between more than 2 people, or marry more than one person, let alone more complex arrangements. in most places thats explicitly illegal. so yeah none of us really have a say. the only socially endorsed form of romantic involvement is two people monogamously, and if you want something outside that you can get fucked.
You got asked for a citation for your claim. Saying “look it up” is a tactic used by children. Congratulations on undermining your own (already flimsy) argument that humans are not monogamous.
As you said, get fucked.
asking for “sources please” is the far more childish stance lol. i will get fucked, by multiple people at the same time, and none of us will be insecure little babies who need to be exclusive to protect our sad wittle baby feefees.
this reply suuuurreee makes you look secure right ;)
Your tantrum changes nothing. Arguing against commonplace monogamy among Homo sapiens is nonscientific, ahistorical, and hilarious.
I’m glad you’re polygamous. Now shut the fuck up with your bullshit. Your crash out ends precisely when you want it to.
you can find the proof for yourself. do a little research on anthropology
You have made a bold claim. Therefore, it would be beneficial to support it. Otherwise it’s just hot air.
also see the high prevalence of cheating across romantic relationships
I suppose there is also a high prevalence of loyal behaviour across romantic relationships. But even if not, you are making to mistakes here imo:
- Prevalence of something does not necessarily constitute “natural” behaviour. Depending on the specific numbers of this prevalence and how specifically it is defined. Especially, given that many things in biology are of rather statistical nature.
- You are using that as an argument to justify moral behaviour. Even if it were true (which you refused to provide proof for so far), just because something is natural, it is not necessarily “good”. See also: Appeal to nature.
(Edit: to avoid misconceptions: I am referring to your previous comment where you basically said “duh, ofc they are cheating, it is natural. Also: monogamy is a curse by evil rich people”. I am not saying that anyone implies moral superiority of monogamy over polygamy or the other way around.)
or maybe you prefer to ignore that because its inconvenient to your position
No, to the contrary. I am always open for good and factually based arguments. It’s never wrong to correct one’s stance given better information. So, feel invited to share your knowledge.
just because you personally are fine with your personal monogamous situation doesnt mean that humans are naturally monogamous
Correct. And my argument was based on rather anectodal evidence. However, given that I find that not only in my relationship, but also in others, suggests that humans are possibly not as easy to shove into a single drawer with regard to monogamy. But I didn’t do the deep dive and do not have the numbers. However, since I do not experience this as a rarity, this provides ground for contradicting your claim.
hell your partner might not really be ok with it. for all you know they might just be keeping up appearances
Given that I literally talked with my partner about the possibility of opening up our relationship in case they feel the need to, this would be a really unnecessary and odd thing to do. ;)
theres plenty of evidence to support that we arent monogamous
Feel free to share this evidence, I am interested. :)
but to be honest youre not worth trying to convince
I wonder whether this is your default reaction to people who challenge your opinions and claims. If you allow, I suggest thinking about that in case you’re looking for civil and constructive discussions.
maybe you could read up on the history of marriage to see what i mean. monogamous marriage exists primarily to handle the inheritance of wealth, which is something that really only matters to rich people who have something worth inheriting
Marriage did have that as primary use a long time ago, yes. But times have changed, as have the meanings around marriage. Given how marriage has been more of a rather formal institution back then, this is, imo, only a weak indicator for true monogamy or true polygamy. One could be married and be either of those. As it is the case today as well. Furthermore, nowadays, you also do not need to be married to manage inheritance. So while it has often been the case back then, it isn’t today.
you still cant have a marriage between more than 2 people, or marry more than one person, let alone more complex arrangements
According to a brief read of Wikipedia, there are 58 countries where you can have polygamous marriages. Link
I think it is important to make a distinction here, because it seems you are partly mixing up forms of marriage with the innate individual preference for monogamous or polygamous relationships. But the form of marriage does not necessarily tell about this preference. So just because someone has a monogamous relationship, e.g., in form of a marriage, doesn’t mean they really monogamous. Same thing with polygamy: people can be unhappy in polygamous constellations because they are actually monogamous.
in most places thats explicitly illegal. so yeah none of us really have a say
That is true and unfortunate and hopefully we, as humans worldwide, will advance to become more open to the legal status of polygamous relationships. In many places, we’re making progress on that front. Moreover, although you can not legally marry more than one person in most countries, a lot of countries still tolerate polygamous relationships and do not prosecute them.
But again, we are mixing things here.And we haven’t even put a distinction between sexual and romantic preferences into the equation yet.
deleted by creator
