physical fidelity?

[dreaming neon darkspot]

so in relationships - marriages, monogomous dating, mainly - it seems like the most valued facet of the bond between two people is sexual fidelity. if one partner has intercourse or does or is suspected of doing anything remotely sexual with someone else, it tends to lead to fights, separations, divorces, etc.

the same importance isn't placed on other links that people can have - common interests, activities, etc. and if it is, it just boils down to the suspicion that two people are sleeping together. in my opinion, sex is one of the weakest things to bond two people together and if sexual interest is the only thing that sparks jealousy and it's the only thing two people fight over then what does that really say for their relationship or the "virtue" on monogamy in the first place? is it only a hang-up left from the teachings of the church?
also, in the instance of long-distance relationships especially, is faithfulness just an expectation that two people deny their biological urges by committing sexually to only one other person?

*i'm also supposing in any situation that the two or three or however many people are involved are all of age, consenting, etc and std-free and practicing safe sex so it can't all be chalked up to not wanting to spread diseases or anything.

 

[Blowtus]

"in my opinion, sex is one of the weakest things to bond two people together"

What makes you think that? My experience and vague biological understanding suggests otherwise.

 

[BlackMetalWhiteGuy]

I have to agree with Blowtus. Suggesting that sex is the weakest form of bonding sounds like something that either a virgin would say, or a woman who's never had an orgasm. To continue Blowtus' point though, I have a strong biological understanding of sex, as my primary academic interests are evolution and reproduction.

Sex is a very strong bonding agent between people, especially women, and everything that I know about evolution suggests that this is how it should be. Historically, it would be advantageous for a woman to forge a strong bond with her sexual partner as she's the one who has the most to lose. Raising children is hard work, and it's even harder if you're single. This applies even more so in an ancestral environment, when you can't just stop by the grocery store on your way to the baby sitter.

As for your comment about safe sex, this has only been an option for the past few decades. Even if you consider ancient birth control practices (most of which were unreliable), this still applies to only a small fraction of our evolutionary history, and simply being able to put on a latex or polyurethane condom today doesn't counter-balance the type of behavior that has been biologically adaptive for the past 200,000 or so years of hominid evolution.

Other activities, such as shared intellectual interests, etc. don't require such a gamble of energy resources from the female, and therefore shouldn't have anywhere near the bonding impact that sex would. To put matters even further into perspective, there is a strong, statistically significant correlation between depression and sexuality in humans. In women specifically, there's a very strong correlation between depression and condom use, where women who have unprotected sex become more depressed after ending a commited relationship and are more likely to enter another relationship more quickly than are those women who always use condoms. This is do in part to the chemical composition of semen, and its hormonal impact within the female body, as well as (probably) the psychological impact of the women trying to satisfy their male partners, at the potential expense of their own future physical well being.

As for men, it's a bit simpler. Sex is a strong bonding experience because it's the only activity that he can share with a woman that will ensure (to a degree) the success of his own genetic lineage.

Also, the average "serious" relationship in the United States at this point lasts a maximum of four years, which is roughly the amount of time that it takes for a couple in an ancestral environment to reproduce and raise the child to an autonomous state.

 

[The Poona of Peshwa]

Also, the average "serious" relationship in the United States at this point lasts a maximum of four years, which is roughly the amount of time that it takes for a couple in an ancestral environment to reproduce and raise the child to an autonomous state.

I hadn't ever thought of it that way. Although do you think that a child in the ancestral environment would have any autonomy at age 4?

 

[BlackMetalWhiteGuy]

Sorry, I don't mean intellectual, or emotional autonomy, I mean they're old enough that they're no longer breast feeding and thus no longer draining the mother's energy resources directly.

 

[Norsemaiden]

BlackMetalWhiteGuy - good answer.

dreaming neon darkspot, I would like to ask you whether you think that fidelity should be unimportant in a sexual relationship? What do you think of "swingers"? Are they more sensible in your view than people who demand monogamy?

 

[epihasi]

I can somehow see dreamingneon's point, why is it, that for example intellectual discussions and heated debates about random interesting subjects are not what fuse people together as much as sexual activity with one another?
Of course our biological functions and processes in our bodies are the main cause for this, since I have never heard of a hormone that triggers discussion =)
Like most of the others here, I of course also do not agree with Dreamingneon when he says sex does not induce a connection between people.
This is obviously (biologically) false, but is all a matter of attitude.
One can of course become completely oblivious to the effects sex can have on you.
One answer to dreamingneon is that infidelity is not accepted because it is an intimate experience, revealing your naked body, a thing others don't see.
Usually you are the only one to have the priviledge of seeing the person naked, sex with most couples is a thing of trust, the intimacy is a beautiful thing for them, so having intercourse with another person is like ignoring and negating the intimate connection and joy of the experience with your partner.
It's like the one person isn't enough (anymore).
Fuck me sideways, I've rambled on again. =)
But nevertheless, I see your point dreamingneon, it is kind of sad that our bonds, more often than not, are reduced to biological desires.
Pretty "body-over-mind"-ish.
And no, I'm not a romantic sex partner, I like it hard n' ruff, just in case you were wondering about the post (the whole beautiful intimacy) :Smug:

 

[Norsemaiden]

Plenty of couples are soulmates and their relationship would break up if they stopped having a bond based on intellectual compatibility. And then there are couples where one partner might get so ill that they are a vegetable who can neither converse nor have sex, yet the other partner looks afer them. Strangely, had the "vegetable" partner not suffered their debilitating condition and instead simply decided not to have deep conversations any more or to become celibate, the other partner would have wanted to divorce - but when this happens by accident it is different!
Feeling a duty to take care of the other partner must be the explanation.

 

[epihasi]

I see your point, norsemaiden, but first of all I don't believe in soulmates, the whole concept is bullshit in my opinion, some people might be especially fitted for others, and most of the time, atleast I think so, those who believe in soulmates want to believe they have found theirs so bad, that even if they are not that similar or what have you, they talk themselves into believing they have found the perfect partner...
Now secondly, it is true that some couples, maybe even a lot base their relationship on intelligent discussions etc., but I think that this is honestly not the reason for a commitment to one another in the long run.
Couples get children, the individuals get good jobs (maybe, in some/lots of cases), the whole foundation on which the relationship used to rest is now substituted by exterior influences, such as children or careers.
This is not always the case, but often, just look around you.
As for staying together with a person after they suffered a disease or accident, pretty much leaving them incapable of speech and sexual activity (taking your example now), in my opinion is the result of having a feeling of responsibility for a person.
You are their husband/wife, boyfriend/girlfriend, whatever, you experience a strong feeling of responsibility.
But, blindly saying this is also not correct, because there are enough couples, well individuals who leave the other person for stupid, unfair reasons, and this happens fucking often.
You're right to some extent, of course, but I think the whole "talking-in-our-relationship-is-important" fades after some time and other reasons for relationships are created.
Fuck, I mean there are a shitload of couples who stay together only for the children's sake.

 

[BlackMetalWhiteGuy]

Of course our biological functions and processes in our bodies are the main cause for this, since I have never heard of a hormone that triggers discussion =)

YOU MEAN YOU'VE NEVER HEARD OF ESTROGEN???

But seriously though, Oxytocin (the "cuddle" hormone) generally triggers women to feel like bonding after sex, because its release is triggered by orgasm. Consequently, they talk men to death at the time when they have the least patience for it, as a male orgasm triggers sedatives, making them feel anything but talkative.

 

[waif]

why is it, that for example intellectual discussions and heated debates about random interesting subjects are not what fuse people together as much as sexual activity with one another?

They do. It's called being friends. That would be a platonic relationship. Those bonds can be as strong as a sexual relationship.

YOU MEAN YOU'VE NEVER HEARD OF ESTROGEN???

 

[Einherjar86]

I posted this in the "Having lots of friends is slutty" thread, but it seems like it belongs here:

On the contrary, sex is the most basic and animalistic of instincts. We as humans have completely polluted the notion of sex by linking it with "true love" and "marriage." Consider this; what most defines a marriage? I would answer the sharing and divulging of secrets between two lovers. The deep and intellectual conversation that you have over a private dinner or while lying in bed.

That to me defines a loving marriage.

And yet what is considered cheating? Not when you speak intellectually or confidentially with a member of the opposite sex, but when you engage in the act of intercourse with him or her.

The sanctity of sex is overrated. Sex, in its most basic form, is the union of a man and woman in order to procreate. There is no form of deeper or higher love there; only an instinctual sense of attraction. The human race has attributed too much romantic sensibility to the act of sex.

 

[Silver Incubus]

Couldn't one aspect of fidelity be saying, "I am choose your genes and only your genes for my children." whereas Infidelity is literally saying that you don't want just their genes, that maybe there is someone elses genes that will produce more desirable offspring. This then would be attacking the victims self image and worth, which is obviously the most important part of a psyche.

 

[WeAreTheLastMen]

so in relationships - marriages, monogomous dating, mainly - it seems like the most valued facet of the bond between two people is sexual fidelity.

Sexual fidelity is definitely very important, but not the MOST important thing. If I were in a relationship with a very hot girl with whom I could never discuss anything, whom I didn't love, whom I didn't really enjoy spending time with in situations not specifically of a romantic nature, I'd probably be sexually faithful (hotness). But our relationship wouldn't be very strong.

[is fidelity] unimportant in a sexual relationship? What do you think of "swingers"? Are they more sensible in your view than people who demand monogamy?

No, much less so. Swingers violate the concept of being in a relationship.

there are couples where one partner might get so ill that they are a vegetable who can neither converse nor have sex, yet the other partner looks afer them. Strangely, had the "vegetable" partner not suffered their debilitating condition and instead simply decided not to have deep conversations any more or to become celibate, the other partner would have wanted to divorce - but when this happens by accident it is different!
Feeling a duty to take care of the other partner must be the explanation.

Gee, how ridiculously cynical. Ever strike you that this would be the easiest time to leave a relationship? Maybe they love each other?
And horrible analogy: if one had just inexplicably decided to stop having sex, this would indicate that he had stopped loving her. So of course they'd brake up.

I see your point, norsemaiden, but first of all I don't believe in soulmates.

Does anyone? Doesn't belief in soulmates require that one acknowledge predestination, and surrender free will?

Now secondly, it is true that some couples, maybe even a lot base their relationship on intelligent discussions etc., but I think that this is honestly not the reason for a commitment to one another in the long run.

Ok, so according to all you people, people either stay together because of intellectual compatibility or sexual compatibility. There are plenty of people I would enjoy talking to, and plenty of people I'd enjoy having sex with, but I wouldn't want to be with any of them for the rest of my life, because don't love them.

 

[epihasi]

Ok, so according to all you people, people either stay together because of intellectual compatibility or sexual compatibility. There are plenty of people I would enjoy talking to, and plenty of people I'd enjoy having sex with, but I wouldn't want to be with any of them for the rest of my life, because don't love them.

Very good reply!
Well, I've thought about the meaning of relationships very often and what actually fuses us together.
Like another poster said, the whole point of sex has been made ridiculously serious and somehow now serves as proof of fidelity, pretty much the only proof, sadly.
We have been taught that sex is something so sacred and that it HAS to be connected to love to be "good".
If a girl sleeps with 4 guys on a weekend, she's considered a slut.
Why is this?
Why can't sex, nowadays, be reduced to its origin, if you will.
It's instinct, it's fun, it's pleasure, it doesn't need to have anything to do with fidelity and love towards another person.
Love, a very flexible word, can be shown through so many other things!

Just my two cents (again )

 

[WeAreTheLastMen]

I see your point.

 

[waif]

Very good reply!
Well, I've thought about the meaning of relationships very often and what actually fuses us together.
Like another poster said, the whole point of sex has been made ridiculously serious and somehow now serves as proof of fidelity, pretty much the only proof, sadly.
We have been taught that sex is something so sacred and that it HAS to be connected to love to be "good".
If a girl sleeps with 4 guys on a weekend, she's considered a slut.
Why is this?
Why can't sex, nowadays, be reduced to its origin, if you will.
It's instinct, it's fun, it's pleasure, it doesn't need to have anything to do with fidelity and love towards another person.
Love, a very flexible word, can be shown through so many other things!

Just my two cents (again )

I think this has changed. Casual sex and sex inside of a relationship are two very distinct things.
BTW, if a guy nails 4 girls in a weekend, he's a player. So...double standard, I guess...
Anyhow, plenty of people engage in casual sex for fun. But this discussion is on physical fidelity within a relationship. Once you're in a relationship, sex with anyone else sorta violates the EULA of a romantic relationship, so to speak.

 

[WeAreTheLastMen]

Anyhow, plenty of people engage in casual sex for fun.

I think you overestimate the amount of casual sex. Sex wherein noth participants acknowledge that they are not, and do not want to be in a relationship is pretty rare.

 

[waif]

I'm using the term incorrectly. I mean sex with relatively low attachment. Either in a relationship that is not based around romance, or one night stands, or that sort of stuff.

 

[BlackMetalWhiteGuy]

I think you overestimate the amount of casual sex. Sex wherein noth participants acknowledge that they are not, and do not want to be in a relationship is pretty rare.

You're going to be in for a surprise when you go to college.